Dumbest decommissionings

[silverback1065]

why not just have both? (us 27 and 127)

[silverback1065]

Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD.  US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area.  If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16. 

If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55.  Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.

I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing.  I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.

I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore.  I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route

Sure, I agree in concept, but is it worth thousands of dollars in signage to give the four people that drive from Dubuque to Minot every year via US 52 a single route number, or is it easier to say "take US 52 to I-94, then get on I-94 until central North Dakota, then get back on US-52."

I was driving from Phoenix to Vegas a number of years ago with some non-roadgeeks. We were discussing how to get there, and I said "just take US 93 the whole way" and then they felt like I was full of shit and didn't know what I was doing when we had to get on I-40 for a few miles, even though that road is part of and signed as US 93. In their minds, the route was US 93 to I-40 to US 93, and I don't think that thought process is that uncommon outside of roadgeek circles.

I'd hazard that if you directed somebody going from Great Falls MT to San Angelo TX to take US 87 the whole way, they'd get confused, and not because the route is unsigned in Colorado (or leaves I-25/90 in a couple places in Wyoming), but because in their mind the portion of US 87 that is concurrent with I-25 is I-25, not US 87. US 87 to I-90 to I-25 to US 87 is more steps, but is arguably more intuitive because it reflects the major route movements.

I see your point and completely agree, non road geeks don't really notice a cosigned route, they perceive it as just 1, especially when any non interstate highway is cosigned with an interstate.  with that in mind it makes sense to not cosign routes in some situations. 

[pianocello]

why not just have both? (us 27 and 127)

Michigan has always decommissioned US Routes that parallel Interstates for a significant distance (exceptions: US-23 and US-31, and that's only because there are significant portions on either side of their respective Interstate concurrencies). For US-27, it seems like MDOT's goal was to eliminate the 100-mile "useless" concurrency with I-69, so they found a way to preserve the US highway status of the section north of Lansing. As a result, the logical endpoint of US-27 became Fort Wayne.

Personally, I don't agree with this practice (although I can understand now MDOT doesn't have as much roadway to maintain), and I think the decommissioning of (at least parts of) US highways 10, 112, 16, 25, and 27 in Michigan were among the dumbest.

[Bickendan]

Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD.  US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area.  If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16. 

If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55.  Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.

I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing.  I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.

I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore.  I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route

Sure, I agree in concept, but is it worth thousands of dollars in signage to give the four people that drive from Dubuque to Minot every year via US 52 a single route number, or is it easier to say "take US 52 to I-94, then get on I-94 until central North Dakota, then get back on US-52."

MNDOT takes the best approach for these situations: "US 12 Follow I-94 then I-394"; "US 52 Follow I-94"

[silverback1065]

Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD.  US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area.  If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16. 

If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55.  Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.

I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing.  I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.

I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore.  I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route

Sure, I agree in concept, but is it worth thousands of dollars in signage to give the four people that drive from Dubuque to Minot every year via US 52 a single route number, or is it easier to say "take US 52 to I-94, then get on I-94 until central North Dakota, then get back on US-52."

MNDOT takes the best approach for these situations: "US 12 Follow I-94 then I-394"; "US 52 Follow I-94"

INDOT uses the same policy in Indy

[Molandfreak]

Pretty much all of them post-Interstate. AASHTO should be the protector of the system, i.e. always be against stupid ideas like decommissioning routes that are still important and serve multi-state traffic, rather than being the guys nobody likes because they enforce shitty rules like the one-state-300-mile-nazi-rule. They should have offered viable alternatives to the unfair truncations that have happened the past few decades.

[dgolub]

How about NY 27A from Oakdale to Southampton?  The current situation leaves Montauk Highway cycling through either four or five different designations, depending on how you count them, which is totally confusing.  The majority of it could have still been maintained by Suffolk County, but having a consistent designation would have been nice.

[Stephane Dumas]

In Canada, the downloading of Ontario provincial highways of 1997-98, Hwy-2 completely vanished and only exist in our memories while others are truncated like Hwys 7, 11, 17, etc...

[codyg1985]

Other than the ones listed, I would say US 65's southern terminus that was once at Natchez, MS was truncated back to Clayton, LA in favor of US 425. Of course, you could argue that US 65 (or US 425) should end at Ferriday, LA at US 84 to eliminate the concurrency, but Natchez makes more sense than Clayton or Ferriday.

[TEG24601]

I would nominate INDOT for all of the asinine decommissionings in the larger cities, especially Lafayette/West Lafayette, where there is no signed alternate.  Sure the routings they used were illogical, but at least there were signs telling you how to get somewhere.  Today, there is no indication how to cross those cities if you are on SR 25 or 26 and meet up with the appropriate roadway on the other side.

[texaskdog]

Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD.  US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area.  If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16. 

If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55.  Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.

I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing.  I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.

I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore.  I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route

Sure, I agree in concept, but is it worth thousands of dollars in signage to give the four people that drive from Dubuque to Minot every year via US 52 a single route number, or is it easier to say "take US 52 to I-94, then get on I-94 until central North Dakota, then get back on US-52."

I was driving from Phoenix to Vegas a number of years ago with some non-roadgeeks. We were discussing how to get there, and I said "just take US 93 the whole way" and then they felt like I was full of shit and didn't know what I was doing when we had to get on I-40 for a few miles, even though that road is part of and signed as US 93. In their minds, the route was US 93 to I-40 to US 93, and I don't think that thought process is that uncommon outside of roadgeek circles.

I'd hazard that if you directed somebody going from Great Falls MT to San Angelo TX to take US 87 the whole way, they'd get confused, and not because the route is unsigned in Colorado (or leaves I-25/90 in a couple places in Wyoming), but because in their mind the portion of US 87 that is concurrent with I-25 is I-25, not US 87. US 87 to I-90 to I-25 to US 87 is more steps, but is arguably more intuitive because it reflects the major route movements.

Yet the thought is if an interstate has the same number in a STATE as a US highway people will be too confused to get where they are going.

[mapman1071]

US 66 was a pretty stupid decommissioning. Yes, the 66 designation was redundant to 55-44-40, but when you get something with as much cultural mindshare as 66, things like that should really be looked at in a different light. I'd really like to see 66 recommissioned in some form. Hell, while they're resigning it, crank out a few hundred spare 66 shields and sell 'em off to the public to defray the costs...

I recall that it was the decommissioning itself that brought MORE attention to 66 than previously.  Honestly, considering the tourist industry built upon the route, why not resurrect it as a navigable, continuous highway from Santa Monica to Chicago?

We were just discussing that on another list today.

I think resurrecting 66 would detract from the Historic Route/Scenic Byway that has grown up around it.  Efforts have been made to preserve the flavor & feeling of old 66 and  IMHO, bringing the route back would have an adverse effect on those efforts. You would risk losgin the historical aspects of 66 that make it unique. Better by far to leave it as is for future generations and to impress upon them its significance.

Besides, which alignment would you choose? Each state has at least 2 or 3 different alignments 

New Mexico Via Santa Fe
Arizona Kingman to Topock via Oatman

[KG909]

All of the US x0s and x1s. Like US 10 and US 91. Oh and US 6 in California, and CA 30 because it used to run in my city.

[texaskdog]

Yes on 66, keep the historic parts that can be driven and duplex it when it's non-driveable.

[english si]

The ridiculous French system of only nationally maintained roads being 'N' roads has led to a ton of these.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

^^ But they also had a ridiculous number of N roads. Today it is still possible to identify most of them, as they live in the D numbering.

[english si]

^^ But they also had a ridiculous number of N roads.

But at the same time, replacing iconic routes that had existed for coming onto 200 years with D9xx or D60xx or whatever was rather unnecessary.

Of course, not all the N roads (and there weren't that many. Sure, it was a lot of roads to be maintained nationally, but...) needed to be preserved, but some did. The equivalents of US66 and US99, but not the equivalent of a US route that no one cares got decommissioned.

[Bickendan]

US 666.

[hbelkins]

US 666.

It wasn't decommissioned. It just had its number changed -- twice. (Southern portion to 191, northern portion to 491.)

Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?

[Bickendan]

US 666.

It wasn't decommissioned. It just had its number changed -- twice. (Southern portion to 191, northern portion to 491.)

Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?

Doesn't really refute my point, lol

[Rover_0]

US 666.

It wasn't decommissioned. It just had its number changed -- twice. (Southern portion to 191, northern portion to 491.)

Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?

Doesn't really refute my point, lol

I know that going from 666 to 491 fits the system as well as it can (being treated as a branch of US-191), but when the renumbering happened, I really wanted 666 to at least keep its link to US-66 and be renumbered to US-566 or US-766...orphaned route, north-south alignment, and Utah's direction change be damned.

[national highway 1]

Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?

From US Ends:

[Molandfreak]

Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?

From US Ends:

Old 666 New 191.

[texaskdog]

Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?

From US Ends:

Old 666 New 191.

Type slower so he can understand

[thenetwork]

With the amount of time that the "conversion" signs have been up (still standing, BTW), one has to wonder if both Utah and Colorado are maintaining an "incognito" Historical US-666 Highway???