Why didn't US 66 go all the way to New York?

[bugo]

US 66 was an important road in its day that connected the 2nd and 3rd largest towns in the country. It was considered the backbone of the country, and the premier east-west US route. But it only went about 2/3 of the way across the country. Why didn't they route it east to end somewhere near or in NYC? Possibly along US 20. It just seems that a road that was considered so crucial and the jewel of the US route system ended so far west and only connected 2/3 of the largest cities in the country.

[NE2]

Because it wasn't "the jewel of the US route system".

[US71]

66 didn't become important until later. 60 was likely considered more significant at the time given it was a route ending in Zero, which is likely one reason why Kentucky put up such a stink.

[cl94]

66 didn't become important until later. 60 was likely considered more significant at the time given it was a route ending in Zero, which is likely one reason why Kentucky put up such a stink.

Agree. 60 and 66 basically swapped routes after Kentucky got pissed that a major route that should have gone all the way to the east coast (and was going to pass through the state) was ending in Illinois. US 66 was originally planned to go to Virginia, IIRC.

As stated above, it didn't really become important until the Dust Bowl, as the migrant workers used it to go to California.

[NE2]

Agree. 60 and 66 basically swapped routes after Kentucky got pissed that a major route that should have gone all the way to the east coast (and was going to pass through the state) was ending in Illinois. US 66 was originally planned to go to Virginia, IIRC.

No no no. 66 replaced 60, but 60 replaced 62 (west of Huntington) and 52 (east of Huntington).

[US71]

Agree. 60 and 66 basically swapped routes after Kentucky got pissed that a major route that should have gone all the way to the east coast (and was going to pass through the state) was ending in Illinois. US 66 was originally planned to go to Virginia, IIRC.

No no no. 66 replaced 60, but 60 replaced 62 (west of Huntington) and 52 (east of Huntington).

66 was a compromise.  The "powers that be" tried to make it 62 or 60N after Kentucky got what they wanted, but Cyrus Avery was able to convince them to go with 66.

[DandyDan]

The thing I find illogical about US 66 is that if a Chicago-LA connecting route was considered important, why didn't they build it through Kansas City instead of St. Louis?  The route it followed seems like the long way between the two places.  A route between Chicago and KC and a route between KC and Albuquerque (which would more or less be the current US 56) would be more direct than the route they got. 

One other thing, I personally think Steinbeck is the one who decided US 66 was important.

[NE2]

The thing I find illogical about US 66 is that if a Chicago-LA connecting route was considered important, why didn't they build it through Kansas City instead of St. Louis?  The route it followed seems like the long way between the two places.  A route between Chicago and KC and a route between KC and Albuquerque (which would more or less be the current US 56) would be more direct than the route they got. 

These were the early days of motoring, when it was important to be near populated areas in case you broke down. US 56 goes through a whole lot of nothing (except for the now-elimitanted truck trarffic at Boise City).

Roads also depended on the states to build them (as they still do). Although US 54 did exist in the 1926 plan, it was probably a low priority for the states, especially Oklahoma. US 66 served a fair amount of local, regional, and transcontinental traffic.

Probably the most reasonable alternate route would be to follow the old Santa Fe Trail (US 350) through Colorado, but this doesn't seem to save any mileage over US 66. Anything farther north and you'd have to deal with the Rockies and long desert highways.

[CtrlAltDel]

Keep in mind that Los Angeles was only the 5th largest city in the country in 1930 (10th in 1920). You might as well ask why Route 66 passed by Philadelphia and Detroit in addition to New York.

Also, remember that Route 66, while important, wasn't so much "crucial" as "famous."

[andy3175]

One other thing, I personally think Steinbeck is the one who decided US 66 was important.

When I read the Grapes of Wrath in high school, I learned two things: (1) US 66 was important and (2) when I read to the point in the book where 66 got to California, Steinbeck mentioned a route called 466 and another called 99, neither of which I'd ever heard of! And that kicked off many years of research to learn about those historic US highways along with others eliminated in California in the 1960s.

[dfwmapper]

US 66 was more important as a route in the west than it was in the midwest, or what it could have been in the east. In terms of terrain and temperature, it was the best route into southern and central California. 66's path across the continental divide was much lower in elevation than 6/40/50 (and there were no Sierras with random late/early snowfall to deal with), and there was a lot less of the really hot parts of the desert to cross than there was on 60/70/80.

[mrsman]

A true national route that would serve as a diagonal to Los Angeles would never serve Chicago proper.  This is because there would be a lot of backtracking to head north into the city and then go south to get around Lake Michigan.  The old routes that hit Chicago are all NW-SE routes like 12, 20, and 41.

This is the same reason why I-90 and I-94 go thru Chicago, but I-80 only hits the southern suburbs.

The best ways to get a 66 type route from LA to NY are:

1) LA - US 66 - St Louis - US 40 Columbus,OH - US 22 - Pittsburgh - Lincoln Highway (US 30 & US 1) - NYC

2) LA - US 66 - Joliet, IL (almost Chicago) - Lincoln Highway - NYC

[vdeane]

US 66 was originally planned to go to Virginia, IIRC.

If it had, would VA 28 have been numbered US 366?

[1995hoo]

US 66 was originally planned to go to Virginia, IIRC.

If it had, would VA 28 have been numbered US 366?

If so, it couldn't have an 85-mph speed limit. Virginia has only posted anything as high as 70 on one segment of non-Interstate, the super-duper part of Route 29 that bypasses Lynchburg and Madison Heights.

[Scott5114]

The thing I find illogical about US 66 is that if a Chicago-LA connecting route was considered important, why didn't they build it through Kansas City instead of St. Louis?  The route it followed seems like the long way between the two places.  A route between Chicago and KC and a route between KC and Albuquerque (which would more or less be the current US 56) would be more direct than the route they got. 

Cyrus Avery was from Tulsa.

[Pete from Boston]

Clearly a west-of-Hudson question.  Then, as now, the existence of all these places remained trivial to New York.

[sipes23]

Clearly a west-of-Hudson question.  Then, as now, the existence of all these places remained trivial to New York.

Or from the other side, why does everything have to do with New York?

But on a more serious note, It's because is isn't a X0 or X1 route.

[NE2]

But on a more serious note, It's because is isn't a X0 or X1 route.

Not really. US 60's original west end was Springfield, MO.

[ixnay]

The thing I find illogical about US 66 is that if a Chicago-LA connecting route was considered important, why didn't they build it through Kansas City instead of St. Louis?  The route it followed seems like the long way between the two places.  A route between Chicago and KC and a route between KC and Albuquerque (which would more or less be the current US 56) would be more direct than the route they got. 

Cyrus Avery was from Tulsa.

And thus had an ego to be stroked.

ixnay

[SP Cook]

US 66 was an important road in its day that connected the 2nd and 3rd largest towns in the country. It was considered the backbone of the country, and the premier east-west US route. But it only went about 2/3 of the way across the country. Why didn't they route it east to end somewhere near or in NYC? Possibly along US 20. It just seems that a road that was considered so crucial and the jewel of the US route system ended so far west and only connected 2/3 of the largest cities in the country.

If any of those statements were true, then OK.  None of them are.  US 66 is famous because it rhymed in a song.  It was of no more significance than three dozen other routes.

[NE2]

I bet Sippy Kook can't name three dozen U.S. Routes that were more important than 66.

[bugo]

66 was to be US 60 until somebody whined and 66 was used as a compromise. It functioned as an x0 route and was an x0 route in everything but name.

[Henry]

A true national route that would serve as a diagonal to Los Angeles would never serve Chicago proper.  This is because there would be a lot of backtracking to head north into the city and then go south to get around Lake Michigan.  The old routes that hit Chicago are all NW-SE routes like 12, 20, and 41.

This is the same reason why I-90 and I-94 go thru Chicago, but I-80 only hits the southern suburbs.

The best ways to get a 66 type route from LA to NY are:

1) LA - US 66 - St Louis - US 40 Columbus,OH - US 22 - Pittsburgh - Lincoln Highway (US 30 & US 1) - NYC

2) LA - US 66 - Joliet, IL (almost Chicago) - Lincoln Highway - NYC

I'll throw in a third possibility:
L.A. - US 66 - US 70 - US 11 - US 30 - US 1 - NYC

If they wanted a more southern route, this would be the best way to go. Although I think first two routes you put out there are also good, of course they could always create a spur into Chicago so that the entire Route 66 network would serve the Big Three cities on the spot.

Of course, there's no single Interstate route that serves L.A. and NYC either.

[Tom958]

US 66 was more important as a route in the west than it was in the midwest, or what it could have been in the east. In terms of terrain and temperature, it was the best route into southern and central California. 66's path across the continental divide was much lower in elevation than 6/40/50 (and there were no Sierras with random late/early snowfall to deal with), and there was a lot less of the really hot parts of the desert to cross than there was on 60/70/80.

^^^Good post! 

Since we're kind of on the subject, why did US 66 go to Chicago at all? To me, it would've made more sense to assign an odd number to the unambiguously north-south St Louis-Chicago section. US 55, for instance, which instead was used for a weirdly short and arbitrary route from Dubuque to Minneapolis, then de-designated in 1934.

[TXtoNJ]

US 66 was more important as a route in the west than it was in the midwest, or what it could have been in the east. In terms of terrain and temperature, it was the best route into southern and central California. 66's path across the continental divide was much lower in elevation than 6/40/50 (and there were no Sierras with random late/early snowfall to deal with), and there was a lot less of the really hot parts of the desert to cross than there was on 60/70/80.

^^^Good post! 

Since we're kind of on the subject, why did US 66 go to Chicago at all? To me, it would've made more sense to assign an odd number to the unambiguously north-south St Louis-Chicago section. US 55, for instance, which instead was used for a weirdly short and arbitrary route from Dubuque to Minneapolis, then de-designated in 1934.

Since most rail lines originated or terminated in Chicago in those days, it would have made sense at the time to originate a major diagonal route there.