US 61 in Minnesota
US 89/89A in Arizona
Getting rid of the 1933 VA 44 probably seemed like a good idea at the time in the 50s, but now it's pretty developed.
US 6 in CA (even though its still partially there). Especially through the Antelope Valley and lower Kern county...
KS-96 from Wichita eastward. But, then, oh, wait, no need for a concurrency with unnecessary US-400!
Not sure you'd actually count that as a decomissioning, since it just went from KS route to US route, and the corridor is major enough to warrant a US designation.
Quote from: bugo on May 02, 2012, 12:34:35 PM
US 61 in Minnesota
US 89/89A in Arizona
Before I opened this, 61 was the first one I thought of, too.
How about US 371 & 210 in Minnesota?
Immediately thought of US-89 and US-89A south of Flagstaff. No reason why AzDOT wanted them to go. US-61 is right up there, too; no need for it to suddenly become MN-61 north of Wyoming, MN.
US 66 & 99, just to get them out of the way.
US 666
US 91
US-101 could've been returned to a surface alignment in southern California. the only real need for a multiplex would be through Camp Pendleton.
PA 9 - why did the Northeast Extension have to be an Interstate, and worse an incorrect one. If is is one, it should be an odd number as it would be a spur from the interstates connects with (or could connect with including the blue route. Yes, it makes it one route number. But, how many people actually take both the Turnpike and free sections of I-476?
PA 60 - The I-376 extension is completely ridiculous being started by a poorly reasoned political argument.
US 15 north of Painted Post, NY. US 11 parallels I-81 and US 20 parallels I-90, why couldn't US 15 parallel I-86 and I-390?
OH 8 south of the central interchange in Akron. The portion from Akron to Canton lost OH 8 altogether and from Canton south to the Ohio River it is now OH 800.
This one I'm posing as a question. US 21 from Wytheville, VA to Cleveland, OH.
EDIT:
Two more.
US 611 - Scranton to Philly. It still serves as a through route especially from Easton to Philly.
US 309 - ditto here (not worried about the part north of Wilkes-Barre, but from there south it is still a major through route.
US 10 west of Fargo
US 40 west of Heber City (yes, I know it starts north of there at I-80).
US 50 west of Sacramento
US 60 west of Arizona
US 70 west of Globe
US 80...
US 90...
Hey, there's a trend there!
US 70 west of Globe was pointless.
Quote from: Bickendan on May 02, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
US 90...
where has US-90 been significantly decommissioned?
agreed on US-60 - that can be rerouted through some desert roads easily, as has been discovered by many on the Fictional Highways area.
Yeah, when they decommission there are certainly lots of options for good reroutes. They did 191 then just stopped.
US-27 in Michigan
US-16 in Michigan (and WI, and MN)
US-12 in Michigan (well...112)
US-10 in Michigan south of Saginaw
US-2 in Michigan north of St. Ignace
All of these could have been avoided if they had been moved back to the completely intact old roads once the interstates were designated
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 02, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
US-61 is right up there, too; no need for it to suddenly become MN-61 north of Wyoming, MN.
Well, it doesn't. MN-61 begins in Duluth. US-61 ends in Wyoming. A gap of 120-ish miles is hardly "suddenly".
This doesn't impact the validity of the point that it should still be US-61 all the way to Canada.
Quote from: mightyace on May 02, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
US 15 north of Painted Post, NY. US 11 parallels I-81 and US 20 parallels I-90, why couldn't US 15 parallel I-86 and I-390?
When was this decommissioned?
Quote from: mightyace on May 02, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
PA 9 - why did the Northeast Extension have to be an Interstate, and worse an incorrect one. If is is one, it should be an odd number as it would be a spur from the interstates connects with (or could connect with including the blue route. Yes, it makes it one route number. But, how many people actually take both the Turnpike and free sections of I-476?
I do, when I drive to either Harleysville or the Lehigh Valley from Delaware County. It's the only continuous limited-access highway linking the Poconos and Lehigh Valley to the Greater Philadelphia area.
I have to disagree with you regarding designating the NE Extension with an odd 3di because it's not really a spur route to any city; it either goes through or bypasses cities along the way.
Quote from: mightyace on May 02, 2012, 02:43:12 PMPA 60 - The I-376 extension is completely ridiculous being started by a poorly reasoned political argument.
I wasn't aware about the reasoning but am not surprised by it either. Not to mention that it turns an odd 3di (376) into a beltway.
Quote from: mightyace on May 02, 2012, 02:43:12 PMUS 611 - Scranton to Philly. It still serves as a through route especially from Easton to Philly.
US 309 - ditto here (not worried about the part north of Wilkes-Barre, but from there south it is still a major through route.
Not to get picky here, but in terms of decommissionings, are we referring to when a route number is gone for good or when a number gets downgraded but remains (US to a State Route or SR)? Those two fall in the latter.
I agree with virtually all those suggested here, plus these others:
US 126
US 299
US 466, at least the part west of Barstow
I especially find it pointless when a US Route is decommissioned and replaced with a state route with the same number. What is the point of that? It still functions as essentially one route. I'm talking about you, MN 61 and AZ 89!
Former CT 25 (now CT 111) south of CT 15
CT17/80 west/south of I-91
US 5 between its current southern terminus and US1
CT 4 east of its current random end
I understand that Connecticut hates posting state routes on pavement that isn't state maintained. And I understand that the cities of Bridgeport, New Haven, West Hartford, and Hartford are perhaps better suited to maintaining those streets. But the decomissionings leave odd gaps in the state highway network.
I might be in the minority here, but I say good riddance to all those 'follower' US highways that got the ax. In fact, I'd like to see more of that. I would even like to see some US highways broken into discontinuous chunks where they ride interstates for a state and a half. US 40, US 85, US 87...
Then there are those US highways that meander aimlessly between two worthless termini.
Like US 62. It may have made sense 70 years ago, but today it's the least useful route between Buffalo and El Paso, it's multiplexed for hundreds and hundreds of miles and is just another follower route for hundreds more.
Or US 52. Good thing we still have the slowest route between Portal and Charleston signed as the same highway.
And then the density of US highways in the southeast is so thick that it raises my eyebrows. Something's up when you're number 3dUS highways in the 700's.
So I would welcome a LOT more US highway decomissionings; like thousands of miles worth.
I've got your back on this one. For what it's worth.
First, I think the current - dating back to the late 1930s, from what I understand - AASHTO guidelines on U.S. route numberings should be followed. Their own guidelines, or policies (I dare not say "rules") say that short single-state routes and routes with directional suffixes should be eliminated or renumbered to conform with the guidelines.
Second, I would say that AASHTO and its predecessor organization hasn't followed its own guidelines. As an example: it approved a very short U.S. 156 in Kansas in the 1950s, and all the 4xx routes that don't follow any numbering pattern. (Did I forget 163?).
Third, look at the definition of a U.S. route. Nothing in their definition would support having a U.S. route act only as a city route or emergency detour for an interstate route. If a route is not the "shortest and best [route] between major control points on the system", it is probably not consistent with AASHTO policies to maintain a U.S. numbering when another route meets that definition better.
Finally, I think a given route should have as few identities as possible. As an example: when I drive from Pueblo to El Paso, I take I-25 and I-10 because those best identify the highways constructed within the interstate highway system. Having this route also designated as U.S. 85 does nothing to enhance navigation. Its former routing has no independent identity (serves no major population centers) anywhere within that 600 mile length.
There is a philosophical divide of sorts between routes constructed in the east and the west as far as whether the interstate was built on top of or supplemental to the previous U.S. route. I-25 is a prime example of a route built on top of the previous route, and former U.S. 85 only exists as short, disconnected routes through major cities along the interstate. The former routing in southern New Mexico (current NM-185 and 187) only serves as a local arterial connecting small farming communities. Lots of places along I-25 have no significant alternate at all.
In the east, the interstates were in large part constructed adjacent to the former U.S. route, but those roads continue to serve mainly local traffic. It's a totally different thread to argue whether, for instance, a U.S. 11 should continue to be identified from Louisiana to New York when nearly all that length has a nearby interstate.
So, of the decommissioned routes lamented in this thread, I only think U.S. 89 and, if you want to include its twisty alternate 89A, was an unnecessary decommissioning, at least as far south as Wickenburg. I think Minnesota ultimately intends to turn back to county jurisdiction U.S. 61 from St. Paul to Wyoming (closely paralleling I-35E and I-35, and mainly carrying local traffic), so that leaves a concurrency of I-35 and U.S. 61 for about 150 miles. If you look at the routing, U.S. 61 approaches St. Paul from the southeast while MN-61 approaches Duluth from the northwest. There are shorter routes between Duluth and, to name a significant route along 61, La Crosse than going through St. Paul. Thus, route continuity is probably not important.
Oh, and 210 and 371 were single-state U.S. routes.
Gasoline, meet match...
I had started a thread that had similar themes to the previous posting a couple of years ago. I would have to agree with most of what is written above.
BTW, one change in US Highway commissioning I would allow is for official discontinuities to exisit on US highways where they are broken up by large stretches of Interstates. That would allow US 87 to officially exist south of Raton NM, while letting it start again at Billings, MT, while eliminating it completely in the middle. Many states appear to follow that policy on a de-facto basis anyway (e.g. - Colorado). US 40 would be another good candidate............officially decommision it between St. Louis and western Kansas, while keeping it intact in other areas where it still has an independent alignment.
To me, a US route should signify the best route between two distant destinations. Yes, US 460 goes from Pikeville to Frankfort. But it's certainly not the best route to take in doing so. It's not even the best route to take from Salyersville to Prestonsburg because it jaunts to the north and then south.
Therefore I'd either put US 460 on KY 114 and the Mountain Parkway and end it at Winchester, or decommission it west of Pikeville.
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 02, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
Immediately thought of US-89 and US-89A south of Flagstaff. No reason why AzDOT wanted them to go. US-61 is right up there, too; no need for it to suddenly become MN-61 north of Wyoming, MN.
And no need for US 33 to become VA 33 in downtown Richmond....
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2012, 09:55:53 PM
To me, a US route should signify the best route between two distant destinations.
Interstates don't even do that. See I-55 vs. I-57 and I-10 vs. I-12, as well as I-95 not being the best route from NYC to Boston.
Quote from: broadhurst04 on May 02, 2012, 10:27:11 PM
And no need for US 33 to become VA 33 in downtown Richmond....
Unlike 89 and 61, VA 33 was never US 33 (they were both VA 4 prior to 1938), though it should be at least to US 17.
Also, VA 167 should still be around. It's still on maps.
I kind of wish they had left US 61, 210, and 371 also. They could have given US 61 the silent treatment, like US 52 between Jamestown and St. Paul. Although it does make sense for the mileposts to start in Duluth rather than La Crescent.
At least 3 of the US 61 markers survived at least a decaded after decomissioning, and US 61 shields went up for a detour on the old highway in Pine City that hadn't been part of US 61 in decades.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2012, 06:40:47 PM
I have to disagree with you regarding designating the NE Extension with an odd 3di because it's not really a spur route to any city; it either goes through or bypasses cities along the way.
You guys need to get out of the odd/even dichotomy and realize that the odd/even spur/loop requirement is actually more of a guideline that is not intended to be completely followed all the time than a rigid rule that must be followed all the time. Just as the interstate grid is a general layout of the nation's roads, and not intended to be followed to the letter of the law. Roads are going to cross other roads and the system is going to get out of whack. Big deal. It's the same way with odd/even spur/loops. Not all the highways match up with what they should "really" be, for whatever reasons.
And if what I say isn't true, then why does US 57 remain? According to the rules, it can't be there It runs the wrong way and it's in the wrong part of the country. I can list dozens of examples of US routes that shouldn't exist according to the rules. It's the same with odd/even spurs/loops. The rules aren't rules as much as they are suggestions.
Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 02, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 02, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
US 90...
where has US-90 been significantly decommissioned?
I've seen maps showing TX 54 as US 90. Whether it was signed or not, who knows, but I've seen it on more than one map.
Post Merge: May 03, 2012, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 02, 2012, 07:49:27 PM
Then there are those US highways that meander aimlessly between two worthless termini.
Like US 62. It may have made sense 70 years ago, but today it's the least useful route between Buffalo and El Paso, it's multiplexed for hundreds and hundreds of miles and is just another follower route for hundreds more.
62 wasn't intended to be followed end to end. It's more of a collection of regional highways, with varying amounts of traffic and varying quality of roadway. And for long stretches, it is a major corridor.
US 62 northeast of central Ohio seems much like US 202: a not-so-straight alternate to the main route along the shore (US 1/20). In northeastern Kentucky it's a chickenshit alternate to US 68, finally becoming its own corridor of sorts as it parallels the parkways. Across Arkansas it's been supplanted by 412, and it then stairsteps its way through Oklahoma and Texas. Very little of it seems useful for more than semi-local travel.
QuoteI kind of wish they had left US 61, 210
to start in Duluth rather than La Crescent.
Wooo i was having a time reading that haha All I saw was "210" and I chose to read La Cresent as La CresentA and I was like "wait CA/I 210 was a US route? Nooo that couldn't be" :pan:
Wouldn't it just be fun to redraw the whole grid, loosely based on what is already there.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 02, 2012, 01:24:09 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 02, 2012, 12:34:35 PM
US 61 in Minnesota
US 89/89A in Arizona
Before I opened this, 61 was the first one I thought of, too.
How about US 371 & 210 in Minnesota?
Minnesota can have US 371 back, they took my LA 7! :/
Quote from: mightyace on May 02, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
US 15 north of Painted Post, NY. US 11 parallels I-81 and US 20 parallels I-90, why couldn't US 15 parallel I-86 and I-390?
NY has never seemed to like US highways. US 20 survived because the Thruway is toll and because it's in PA and MA. US 11 survives only because it veers off of I-81 north of Watertown and treks through the north country. I would expect US 11 to be truncated to Binghamton if I-98 is ever built.
Except that US 9 still makes it almost to the border. US 15 might be gone because of the long overlap with I-390.
Quote from: bugo on May 03, 2012, 03:02:20 AM
I've seen maps showing TX 54 as US 90. Whether it was signed or not, who knows, but I've seen it on more than one map.
Dale Sanderson's US Ends shows it as existing only 1939. if you have other info, you may want to contact him.
Also, it's only about 60 miles... I don't think I'd put that in the same category as even US-60.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0090.htm is pretty much the final word on US 90 replacing SH 54. US 90 was extended in the 1939 renumbering and cut back in 1940, returning to its pre-1939 number. It's plausible that it was never signed.
In Michigan:
US-10 south of Bay City
Original US-12
US-16
US-25
US-27
M-21 east of Flint
M-76
M-78 northeast of Olivet
The old alignments are still useful alternatives if the parallel interstate has issues.
Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0090.htm is pretty much the final word on US 90 replacing SH 54. US 90 was extended in the 1939 renumbering and cut back in 1940, returning to its pre-1939 number. It's plausible that it was never signed.
Yeah, that was my mess up. For some reason, I was thinking it ran west of Van Horn to El Paso; that was US 80.
Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0090.htm is pretty much the final word on US 90 replacing SH 54. US 90 was extended in the 1939 renumbering and cut back in 1940, returning to its pre-1939 number. It's plausible that it was never signed.
I drove that stretch of wasteland in 2002. Saw 6 cars on the entire stretch, 3 of which were at the far south end near civilization. Looks good on a map but its not a US highway.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 04, 2012, 08:21:41 AM
I drove that stretch of wasteland in 2002. Saw 6 cars on the entire stretch, 3 of which were at the far south end near civilization. Looks good on a map but its not a US highway.
so you're saying it should end in Uvalde or something?
I have no problem with it being a US route. it is a logical directional continuation all the way out west.
by that reasoning, we should decommission US-6 all the way to I-15 or something, because hardly anyone uses it past that.
Presumably the empty road he's talking about was SH 54 north of Van Horn.
Quote from: NE2 on May 04, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
Presumably the empty road he's talking about was SH 54 north of Van Horn.
good point.
but US-90 has similar traffic levels - especially between Del Rio and Sanderson.
Yeah, but it at least makes a connection to points west and east, connection places people might want to go.
I think another weird one is US 190 west of Menard. I'd run it down to Sonora.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 04, 2012, 10:03:46 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 04, 2012, 08:21:41 AM
I drove that stretch of wasteland in 2002. Saw 6 cars on the entire stretch, 3 of which were at the far south end near civilization. Looks good on a map but its not a US highway.
so you're saying it should end in Uvalde or something?
I have no problem with it being a US route. it is a logical directional continuation all the way out west.
by that reasoning, we should decommission US-6 all the way to I-15 or something, because hardly anyone uses it past that.
No, I'm not saying decommission. I'm saying I wouldn't run it further north from Van Horn.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/traffic_counts/flowband/2010_traffic.pdf
SH 54 has 110 per day (4-5 per hour), while US 90's lowest is 380.
Quote from: NE2 on May 04, 2012, 10:32:36 AM
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/traffic_counts/flowband/2010_traffic.pdf
SH 54 has 110 per day (4-5 per hour), while US 90's lowest is 380.
I believe it. I was on vacation going from Carlsbad to Big Bend. Little reason for much of anyone to drive it.
Quote from: ftballfan on May 03, 2012, 11:12:33 AM
...
The old alignments are still useful alternatives if the parallel interstate has issues.
I don't think that's the role of a U.S. route designation. It's supposed to represent the "shortest and best [route] between major control points on the system", not serve as a local road that occasionally might get additional through traffic when an interstate-designated freeway is blocked by an accident. Michigan posts the old U.S. routes in areas as "EMERGENCY" I-route (94 is where I've seen it). State and county roads can easily serve as interstate alternates, and just having a U.S. designation wouldn't necessarily tell a stranger to the area that this is the route to take as a detour.
I've always found the disclaimer on the official Indiana maps interesting: "US Routes are indicated in red but they are not always the best or shortest routes between points." I guess it depends which points one is talking about.
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 04, 2012, 08:08:08 PM
I've always found the disclaimer on the official Indiana maps interesting: "US Routes are indicated in red but they are not always the best or shortest routes between points." I guess it depends which points one is talking about.
Interesting admission. I've always felt it was lazy cartography to mark roads by classification, rather than function.
Quote from: flowmotion on May 04, 2012, 10:32:01 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 04, 2012, 08:08:08 PM
I've always found the disclaimer on the official Indiana maps interesting: "US Routes are indicated in red but they are not always the best or shortest routes between points." I guess it depends which points one is talking about.
Interesting admission. I've always felt it was lazy cartography to mark roads by classification, rather than function.
Rand McNally virtually always shows U.S. routes with a heavy red line, even when they are virtually interstate frontage roads. I'd like to see the ADT for these routes, compared to other state routes shown as lower priority routes.
One stupid decommissioning that I don't think has been mentioned - US 260 between Holbrook AZ and Deming NM which was decommissioned in 1961. US 180 doesn't need to turn NW from El Paso just to have one route number from El Paso to the Grand Canyon... Also I think the I-40/US 180 multiplex between Holbrook and Flagstaff is pointless, the section of US 180 between the Grand Canyon and Flagstaff can revert to AZ 164.
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 04, 2012, 08:08:08 PM
I've always found the disclaimer on the official Indiana maps interesting: "US Routes are indicated in red but they are not always the best or shortest routes between points." I guess it depends which points one is talking about.
Interesting, since there aren't exactly "points" on the map, maybe the stars that are used for distance with the bold black mileage numbers.
Quote from: tdindy88 on May 04, 2012, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 04, 2012, 08:08:08 PM
I've always found the disclaimer on the official Indiana maps interesting: "US Routes are indicated in red but they are not always the best or shortest routes between points." I guess it depends which points one is talking about.
Interesting, since there aren't exactly "points" on the map, maybe the stars that are used for distance with the bold black mileage numbers.
I have a feeling they were referring to more idiomatic points; like in "point A to point B." i.e. Any given segment of U.S. route might not serve as the best route to take between that segment's termini.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2012, 11:59:26 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on May 04, 2012, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 04, 2012, 08:08:08 PM
I've always found the disclaimer on the official Indiana maps interesting: "US Routes are indicated in red but they are not always the best or shortest routes between points." I guess it depends which points one is talking about.
Interesting, since there aren't exactly "points" on the map, maybe the stars that are used for distance with the bold black mileage numbers.
I have a feeling they were referring to more idiomatic points; like in "point A to point B." i.e. Any given segment of U.S. route might not serve as the best route to take between that segment's termini.
That's what I thought too--that the best route from here to there might not be on the US route that happens to pass through here and there. It may be on an Interstate, or it might be on a state route! (case in point--IN 63 vs. US 41.) What I find odd is that they specifically color-code the US routes, which makes them appear to be special somehow, and then go to the trouble of the disclaimer. Why not just color-code by type of physical road (undivided, divided, limited access, etc.) vs. based on what shields are posted?
I gotcha. Interestingly, and I know this is getting a bit off topic, I was just thinking of the DeLorme atlas for Indiana (and other states) that marks its US highways with a symbology that is similar to divided highways on other maps, making you think that it is divided, when it is merely marking that it is a US highway. As for paper maps, one that I've liked is the Warren Map for Indiana, which has all non-interstate or divided highways marked with a light red color. Major U.S. and state highways (National Highway System) are indicated by a red, thicker line. Divided highways too are marked between yellow divided highway symbology (similar to Rand McNally atlas maps) and the more important divided highways (again NHS) have a thicker yellow divided highway symbology. As with your IN 63 vs US 41 example, Indiana 63 is marked as a major divided highway while US 41 is marked as a minor highway (the same color as say SR 47 or US 36.)
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 04, 2012, 10:59:05 PM
One stupid decommissioning that I don't think has been mentioned - US 260 between Holbrook AZ and Deming NM which was decommissioned in 1961. US 180 doesn't need to turn NW from El Paso just to have one route number from El Paso to the Grand Canyon... Also I think the I-40/US 180 multiplex between Holbrook and Flagstaff is pointless, the section of US 180 between the Grand Canyon and Flagstaff can revert to AZ 164.
I won't disagree that having 180 run concurrent with other routes for hundreds of miles to make that connection (consolidating with 260) ended up connecting two routes that had no need for continuity. I will opine that of the 62-180 pair east of El Paso across west Texas and southeast New Mexico, 180 is the more logical number for that road even though 62 predated it by a few years. It's too bad Arizona has made use of the 260 designation for a major state route, otherwise one could just "undo" the consolidation. Holbrook to Deming represent good termini for a short U.S. route without trying to connect it to other roads. Make it an x70.
AZ 95 between Arizona Village and I-40, that road is perfectly servicable. Having AZ 95 to cross into California just to maintain a continuous routing doesn't make sense and the fact that US 95 is across the Colorado River from AZ 95 adds to the confusion. And also the juction of AZ 95 and US 95 in Quartzsite is just as confusing.
US 6 and US 60 should still be connected to SoCal IMO.
Rick
us 40 through terre haute
As for Utah, this one takes the cake:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2F80-89%2F189_gap%2Fend189n_heber.jpg&hash=504bdd5626fb45a2d3fe6f30a2653839e6f26758)
I still don't understand why UDOT thought this was a good idea. If they wanted to avoid having one US Route (US-40) end while another continues (US-189), then they should have kept US-189 on its old alignment (UT-32). That, or they should do that.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2058%2F1583821378_de7e9bd36b.jpg&hash=0a02a42fdc9ae14db9db78071f2f2a9f61f580d5)
Even though the UT-11/US-89A issue has been taken care of.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3193%2F2518892303_abd559e102.jpg&hash=88401b825a8b1e389b066be3d687af422194207d)
I still feel that UDOT, AzDOT, and NMDot should have renumbered US-666, if they really "had" to, to something like US-566 or US-766 in order to preserve the route's ties to US-66. Who cares if it's primarily north-south?
As for other states, US-60 should have been moved along AZ-72 and CA-62 when I-10 was built; it could've still been used along the CA-60 freeway.
when did that End 666 sign get replaced? near the renumbering, or did it survive for a while?
I like how they realized it was more of a x91 than a x66. Though 191 should really be 91 to begin with
Quote from: texaskdog on May 08, 2012, 03:07:50 PM
I like how they realized it was more of a x91 than a x66. Though 191 should really be 91 to begin with
I'm not sure if they've ever done such a wholesale relocation of a US route number of that many miles, as renumbering current 191 to 91 would be, relative to the old 91.
sure, there have been very disparate segments of US-48, but none were particularly long ... the only comparable example I have is US-54 taking over US-70's route to El Paso and US-70 being rerouted to Los Angeles: about 700 miles of rerouting, with the remaining 1700 or so miles of US-70 being effectively unchanged.
even the original 191 extension took a very short route and lengthened it.
is there an example of a number getting changed from one long (1500+ mile) routing to another like this hypothetical? I cannot think of one.
in conclusion, 191 is fine. it should really be US-89, with US-89 being renumbered to US-91, if we want to keep the grid.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2012, 03:17:17 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 08, 2012, 03:07:50 PM
I like how they realized it was more of a x91 than a x66. Though 191 should really be 91 to begin with
I'm not sure if they've ever done such a wholesale relocation of a US route number of that many miles, as renumbering current 191 to 91 would be, relative to the old 91.
sure, there have been very disparate segments of US-48, but none were particularly long ... the only comparable example I have is US-54 taking over US-70's route to El Paso and US-70 being rerouted to Los Angeles: about 700 miles of rerouting, with the remaining 1700 or so miles of US-70 being effectively unchanged.
even the original 191 extension took a very short route and lengthened it.
is there an example of a number getting changed from one long (1500+ mile) routing to another like this hypothetical? I cannot think of one.
in conclusion, 191 is fine. it should really be US-89, with US-89 being renumbered to US-91, if we want to keep the grid.
True dat, line them all up right :)
Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village? With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one. I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.
I don't think it was necessary to chance CT 20 to CT 190 east of the CT River. Just sign CT 20 on I-91 to Exit 47-EW and call it a day.
I would have left CT 159 as US 5A.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 16, 2020, 11:55:40 AM
Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village? With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one. I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.
It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway. US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.
https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/
Holy 8-year necrobump.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 16, 2020, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 16, 2020, 11:55:40 AM
Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village? With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one. I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.
It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway. US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.
https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/
Looks like the 1971 map does show US 180 going all the way up to the Grand Canyon.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 16, 2020, 11:55:40 AM
Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village? With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one. I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 16, 2020, 11:45:36 PM
It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway. US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.
https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 17, 2020, 07:09:31 AM
Looks like the 1971 map does show US 180 going all the way up to the Grand Canyon.
I worked for the National Park Service on a proposed rail transit system from Tusayan to the Rim about 22 years ago. The primary issue is how to discourage folks from taking their personal vehicles beyond Tusayan. The road system cannot easily be redesigned to accommodate a huge flow of traffic (say about 25,000 VPD, many of which are trying to come and go about the same times as the park hours).
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 17, 2020, 01:45:05 PM
I worked for the National Park Service on a proposed rail transit system from Tusayan to the Rim about 22 years ago. The primary issue is how to discourage folks from taking their personal vehicles beyond Tusayan. The road system cannot easily be redesigned to accommodate a huge flow of traffic (say about 25,000 VPD, many of which are trying to come and go about the same times as the park hours).
Question: was this service intended to utilize the existing ex-Santa Fe line from Williams to GC Village or a new LR-type facility? And if running over the extant trackage, was it to be configured as independent self-propelled rail cars (
a la the old Budd RDC's or the modern equivalent) or standard locomotive-powered passenger coaches?
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 17, 2020, 01:45:05 PM
I worked for the National Park Service on a proposed rail transit system from Tusayan to the Rim about 22 years ago. The primary issue is how to discourage folks from taking their personal vehicles beyond Tusayan. The road system cannot easily be redesigned to accommodate a huge flow of traffic (say about 25,000 VPD, many of which are trying to come and go about the same times as the park hours).
Quote from: sparker on November 17, 2020, 04:25:12 PM
Question: was this service intended to utilize the existing ex-Santa Fe line from Williams to GC Village or a new LR-type facility? And if running over the extant trackage, was it to be configured as independent self-propelled rail cars (a la the old Budd RDC's or the modern equivalent) or standard locomotive-powered passenger coaches?
This was planned as an automated light rail transit (ALRT) service over new trackage constructed parallel to AZ-64 from a huge parking facility to be constructed outside the park in Kaibab National Forest. They were hoping that diesel LRVs would be commercially available and we were coordinating the designs with several transit agencies that were also hoping for this technology. Since DLRVs did not become ready for sale in the United States, the additional cost to electrify the system certainly doomed it.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 17, 2020, 07:09:31 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 16, 2020, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 16, 2020, 11:55:40 AM
Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village? With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one. I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.
It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway. US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.
https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/
Looks like the 1971 map does show US 180 going all the way up to the Grand Canyon.
US 180 ends at the Tusayan entrance to Grand Canyon NP
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 17, 2020, 09:01:37 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 17, 2020, 01:45:05 PM
I worked for the National Park Service on a proposed rail transit system from Tusayan to the Rim about 22 years ago. The primary issue is how to discourage folks from taking their personal vehicles beyond Tusayan. The road system cannot easily be redesigned to accommodate a huge flow of traffic (say about 25,000 VPD, many of which are trying to come and go about the same times as the park hours).
Quote from: sparker on November 17, 2020, 04:25:12 PM
Question: was this service intended to utilize the existing ex-Santa Fe line from Williams to GC Village or a new LR-type facility? And if running over the extant trackage, was it to be configured as independent self-propelled rail cars (a la the old Budd RDC's or the modern equivalent) or standard locomotive-powered passenger coaches?
This was planned as an automated light rail transit (ALRT) service over new trackage constructed parallel to AZ-64 from a huge parking facility to be constructed outside the park in Kaibab National Forest. They were hoping that diesel LRVs would be commercially available and we were coordinating the designs with several transit agencies that were also hoping for this technology. Since DLRVs did not become ready for sale in the United States, the additional cost to electrify the system certainly doomed it.
That's too bad. Locally (general Bay Area) DLRV's are being used on the Marin/Sonoma County commute service over the former Northwestern Pacific line between San Rafael and Santa Rosa; so since the previous failed AZ project, the situation regarding motive power has certainly changed. Nevertheless, with the present and unavoidable downturn in park visitation, it may be quite a while -- if ever -- before any similar service is reconsidered.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 18, 2020, 07:01:50 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 17, 2020, 07:09:31 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 16, 2020, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 16, 2020, 11:55:40 AM
Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village? With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one. I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.
It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway. US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.
https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/
Looks like the 1971 map does show US 180 going all the way up to the Grand Canyon.
US 180 ends at the Tusayan entrance to Grand Canyon NP
It's very well signed too:
https://flic.kr/p/SVxSkb
https://flic.kr/p/RVshDn
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 16, 2020, 02:40:21 PM
I don't think it was necessary to chance CT 20 to CT 190 east of the CT River. Just sign CT 20 on I-91 to Exit 47-EW and call it a day.
I would have left CT 159 as US 5A.
I would've put CT 20 on SSR 401 and a brief duplex with CT 75 and have it take over CT 140 while promoting the Bradley Connector to I-191 (wouldn't use I-391 since it is too close to the one in Chicopee). As a result, CT 192 would be extended across CT 190 to take over CT 191.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 18, 2020, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 16, 2020, 02:40:21 PM
I don't think it was necessary to chance CT 20 to CT 190 east of the CT River. Just sign CT 20 on I-91 to Exit 47-EW and call it a day.
I would have left CT 159 as US 5A.
I would've put CT 20 on SSR 401 and a brief duplex with CT 75 and have it take over CT 140 while promoting the Bradley Connector to I-191 (wouldn't use I-391 since it is too close to the one in Chicopee). As a result, CT 192 would be extended across CT 190 to take over CT 191.
CT 191 is an extension of MA 191, so unless you also change MA 191 to MA 192 then that could be a bit confusing.
US 27 in Michigan just to swap it with US 127 so that they didn't have to overlap with I-69 for a short segment. Bid deal.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 20, 2020, 02:53:55 PM
US 27 in Michigan just to swap it with US 127 so that they didn't have to overlap with I-69 for a short segment. Bid deal.
That was a joint request by INDOT and MDOT, since the I-69 overlap began near Fort Wayne and extended all the way north through Lansing, MI. That's over 40% of the pre-southern-extension "original" I-69 (even counting the northeastern extension to Canada). And seeing as how the 127-for-27 transfer simply continued the trajectory of US 127, the decision was pretty rational.
OR 99W and OR 10 through Portland.
US-30 in Portland (should be returned to Burnside/Sandy, et al.)
SR 99 (WA) - From Vancouver to Blaine, it would be nice to have a signed and maintained alternate to I-5. Not having one capable of even a fraction of the traffic or alternate river crossings has screwed this state several times in just the last decade.
M-21 East of Flint
Every, single, metro decommissioning undertaken by INDOT, this includes Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, and Lafayette. Lafayette is unforgivable, as there isn't even a beltway to properly suggest people use to move around the city, and the route that does exist isn't designed for that much traffic, let alone the pre-2010 or pre-2000 traffic levels that they were using it for anyway.
US 30 hasn't been decommed through Portland; it's just not as well signed along I-405 and I-5 as it should be. Bus 30, yes, and I agree that that one was short-sighted, though I expect that was PBOT wanting control of Burnside and inner Sandy and ODOT relinquishing them. I suspect the same of Barbur, Naito (then Front), and Interstate with OR 99W. Certainly, I don't think ODOT would have been thrilled with the Yellow Line being built on Interstate, or the Burnside/Couch Couplet on the eastside.
VA 162 in Virginia. It is now a spur of VA 143 as it ends short of US 60 and is not even a quarter mile. It once ran concurrent with VA 5 and was a de facto business route for US 60. I can see Williamsburg dropping the route through the city, but it's point of truncation should have been the US 60/ VA 5 an$ VA 162 intersection and not the city limit.
The decommissioning of the US business routes in Indiana. The US 41 Business route through Princeton was handy. Now the center of town is dead. Vincennes is the one that losses out the most with a fully controlled access highway which was to be I-24 around the city. I can see the need for the one in Terre Haute to maybe meet a demise but really they got rid of the one in Kentland.
I don't know why they don't use the designation of Business US 31 for Kokomo in lieu of SR 931. SR 931 does hit the business core of town.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 21, 2020, 02:54:03 PM
The decommissioning of the US business routes in Indiana. The US 41 Business route through Princeton was handy. Now the center of town is dead. Vincennes is the one that losses out the most with a fully controlled access highway which was to be I-24 around the city. I can see the need for the one in Terre Haute to maybe meet a demise but really they got rid of the one in Kentland.
I don't know why they don't use the designation of Business US 31 for Kokomo in lieu of SR 931. SR 931 does hit the business core of town.
I'm not sure that the loss of the official business routes caused the rot of these cities, it was going to happen anyway. Princeton, Indiana's demise started in the late 70s and early 80s when everything started moving to the west side of town (where US 41 had been located since at least the early 60s. ( I have a 1959 Indiana map that shows US41 still going through downtown Princeton). Vincennes' downtown would have suffered the same whether or not the US50 and US41 business routes were there or not. Once the main route is changed, practically every traveler will stay on the new route unless they are specifically going to a certain destination (landmark, store, residence, etc).
Quote from: Life in Paradise on November 21, 2020, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 21, 2020, 02:54:03 PM
The decommissioning of the US business routes in Indiana. The US 41 Business route through Princeton was handy. Now the center of town is dead. Vincennes is the one that losses out the most with a fully controlled access highway which was to be I-24 around the city. I can see the need for the one in Terre Haute to maybe meet a demise but really they got rid of the one in Kentland.
I don't know why they don't use the designation of Business US 31 for Kokomo in lieu of SR 931. SR 931 does hit the business core of town.
I'm not sure that the loss of the official business routes caused the rot of these cities, it was going to happen anyway. Princeton, Indiana's demise started in the late 70s and early 80s when everything started moving to the west side of town (where US 41 had been located since at least the early 60s. ( I have a 1959 Indiana map that shows US41 still going through downtown Princeton). Vincennes' downtown would have suffered the same whether or not the US50 and US41 business routes were there or not. Once the main route is changed, practically every traveler will stay on the new route unless they are specifically going to a certain destination (landmark, store, residence, etc).
Did US 41 every actually go through the historic downtown area of Evansville? I know that the former Business US 41 did not. It was close to the current US 41.
Quote from: sparker on November 20, 2020, 04:43:26 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 20, 2020, 02:53:55 PM
US 27 in Michigan just to swap it with US 127 so that they didn't have to overlap with I-69 for a short segment. Bid deal.
That was a joint request by INDOT and MDOT, since the I-69 overlap began near Fort Wayne and extended all the way north through Lansing, MI. That's over 40% of the pre-southern-extension "original" I-69 (even counting the northeastern extension to Canada). And seeing as how the 127-for-27 transfer simply continued the trajectory of US 127, the decision was pretty rational.
MI ended up keeping a portion of the old road as state highway, M227. Why not just keep it signed as US 27 and just not but up a bunch of signs on I-69? IN never really put up any US 27 signs on I69 if I can recall. The same thing with IN. They have SR 127 that can still be US 27.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 21, 2020, 04:25:03 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 20, 2020, 04:43:26 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 20, 2020, 02:53:55 PM
US 27 in Michigan just to swap it with US 127 so that they didn't have to overlap with I-69 for a short segment. Bid deal.
That was a joint request by INDOT and MDOT, since the I-69 overlap began near Fort Wayne and extended all the way north through Lansing, MI. That's over 40% of the pre-southern-extension "original" I-69 (even counting the northeastern extension to Canada). And seeing as how the 127-for-27 transfer simply continued the trajectory of US 127, the decision was pretty rational.
MI ended up keeping a portion of the old road as state highway, M227. Why not just keep it signed as US 27 and just not but up a bunch of signs on I-69? IN never really put up any US 27 signs on I69 if I can recall. The same thing with IN. They have SR 127 that can still be US 27.
M-227 has nothing to do with US-27 being truncated at Fort Wayne. It is a small portion of what used to be, long ago, US-27. Back before the freeway was built.
Incidentally, it was not a state highway for many years. It was taken back into the system as part of the "Rationalization" program in 1998. Some of the highways that were part of Rationalization have since been decommissioned again, and some were never signed. M-227 is signed.
Quote from: GaryV on November 21, 2020, 08:09:16 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 20, 2020, 06:34:13 PM
M-21 East of Flint
Why? I-69 isn't close enough?
Because, just because you built a new shiny freeway, does not mean that another close by designation isn't needed. There are plenty of times with alternative routes from Port Huron to Flint is needed, and M-21 would be nice to be signed.
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 21, 2020, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: GaryV on November 21, 2020, 08:09:16 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 20, 2020, 06:34:13 PM
M-21 East of Flint
Why? I-69 isn't close enough?
I haven't been on it lately, but it probably is signed - as Emergency I-69.
Because, just because you built a new shiny freeway, does not mean that another close by designation isn't needed. There are plenty of times with alternative routes from Port Huron to Flint is needed, and M-21 would be nice to be signed.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 21, 2020, 02:54:03 PM
The decommissioning of the US business routes in Indiana. The US 41 Business route through Princeton was handy. Now the center of town is dead. Vincennes is the one that losses out the most with a fully controlled access highway which was to be I-24 around the city. I can see the need for the one in Terre Haute to maybe meet a demise but really they got rid of the one in Kentland.
I don't know why they don't use the designation of Business US 31 for Kokomo in lieu of SR 931. SR 931 does hit the business core of town.
INDOT does not designate business routes on interstates or US highways. The designations that exist are informal and sporadically signed.
NY-17 west of Harriman is going to end up here :eyebrow: