Dumbest decommissionings

[hbelkins]

Are the Old 666 New 491 signs still up? My brother was in the region shortly after the renumbering and shot some photos.

And yeah, I said 191, because I'd seen the 491 signs.

[discochris]

I grew up a few miles from where US 61 ends now in Wyoming, MN. I remember taking it up the north shore as a kid and I was definitely sad when it was decommissioned.  Anyone know why they've left it commissioned to Wyoming rather than end it at 94 in St. Paul?

[DandyDan]

I grew up a few miles from where US 61 ends now in Wyoming, MN. I remember taking it up the north shore as a kid and I was definitely sad when it was decommissioned.  Anyone know why they've left it commissioned to Wyoming rather than end it at 94 in St. Paul?

Probably a matter of making a deal with the relevant counties/cities.  Of course, it's also possible they may want to keep the road in the highway system north of St. Paul, which would probably inspire a number change.

[froggie]

It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years.  Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level).  It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.

[bugo]

It's still US 666 to me.

[discochris]

It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years.  Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level).  It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.

So that's Ramsey, Washington and Chisago counties. I can see where that would be an issue.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years.  Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level).  It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.

So that's Ramsey, Washington and Chisago counties. I can see where that would be an issue.

If they're going to turn it back further I don't see why they can't just end it in Hastings, because it just duplexes with US 10 from there to I-94.

[texaskdog]

It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years.  Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level).  It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.

So that's Ramsey, Washington and Chisago counties. I can see where that would be an issue.

If they're going to turn it back further I don't see why they can't just end it in Hastings, because it just duplexes with US 10 from there to I-94.

So true...unless they adopt my plan of sending US 10 through River Falls

[Molandfreak]

It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years.  Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level).  It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.

So that's Ramsey, Washington and Chisago counties. I can see where that would be an issue.

If they're going to turn it back further I don't see why they can't just end it in Hastings, because it just duplexes with US 10 from there to I-94.

61 is the through route on the expressway. Good enough reason for it to remain there for me.


iPhone

[froggie]

Indeed.  Normal local nomenclature for that concurrency is to put 61 ahead of 10.  I.e. US 61/10.

[DandyDan]

Indeed.  Normal local nomenclature for that concurrency is to put 61 ahead of 10.  I.e. US 61/10.

I can vouch for that having spent my childhood up to high school in Cottage Grove.  On a certain level, US 10 only existed east of US 61 on the road to Prescott, WI.

[texaskdog]

but I remember the signs and maps always being 10/61

[froggie]

Yes, signs and maps show 10 first, but in local nomenclature (and even some MnDOT press releases), 61 comes first.  Most locals consider 61 the primary route, not 10.

[TheOneKEA]

The only notable decommissioning in Maryland that really bugs me is the removal of Guilford Road from the state highway system between MD 108 in Clarksville and Cedar Lane west of MD 32. This segment of Guilford Road is very well traveled and links to several county roads that cut off the corners between the former and MD 108/MD 216. It also serves several county schools and one of the main arterials into Clarksville and far western Columbia.

This segment of Guilford Road was marked as MD 32 for nearly 50 years, and now it's an anonymous county highway, just like Jarretsville Road in Harford County east of MD 165. I'd really like to know why Howard County didn't ditch lane miles elsewhere (like the useless MD 985 near US 29) so that portions of Guilford Road could remain state-maintained.

[c172]

My parents live in Del Mar, immediately north of San Diego. They still refer to Camino Del Mar as "101". I'm aware that nowadays, US 101 starts up in DTLA (I think). But down here, there are these "Historic 101" signs that are mounted as though they are current highway numerical markers. So to the non-road buff (like 95% of society), it looks like U.S. 101 was never decommissioned here. Things like that kind of irk me. In my dream world, I'd replace the "Historic 101" highway signs, and the Camino Del Mar surface street labels, with "Old Hwy. 101" surface street labels (or whatever those are called). This is because I've been on "Old 395" and "Old Hwy. 80" before, and it made sense to me.

[roadman65]

VDOT in decommissioning VA 31 north of VA 5 through Williamsburg, VA?  I know it eliminated that useless overlap, but why not just of kept VA 31 and truncated VA 5 instead?

Better yet truncate VA 199 instead and have VA 5 take over 199 to I-64 near Busch Gardens. Problem fixed.

[froggie]

I believe (but cannot confirm) that it stems from a desire to have VA 5 connect to US 60.  I disagree with your "solution", though.  Instead, reroute VA 5 onto Monticello Ave (which it should've to begin with when Monticello Ave was extended west to VA 5), meeting US 60 at Richmond Rd/Bypass Rd.  This would replace most of VA 321.  VA 31 could then return to its 1956-1974 ending at today's VA 5/VA 143 junction.

[texaskdog]

Yes, signs and maps show 10 first, but in local nomenclature (and even some MnDOT press releases), 61 comes first.  Most locals consider 61 the primary route, not 10.

Because once it leaves 61, 10 is an insignificant route.  Put it through River Falls & Ellsworth where more traffic is.

[Avalanchez71]

Decommissioning US 27 ALT in Florida was dumb.  Now the hidden state route number, SR 17 can cause confussion to the masses that cannot distinguish US 27 with SR 17.

[Avalanchez71]

I-70 in MD for that road diet project that the greens wanted.  Oh and how about US 17-1.

[Mapmikey]

I believe (but cannot confirm) that it stems from a desire to have VA 5 connect to US 60.  I disagree with your "solution", though.  Instead, reroute VA 5 onto Monticello Ave (which it should've to begin with when Monticello Ave was extended west to VA 5), meeting US 60 at Richmond Rd/Bypass Rd.  This would replace most of VA 321.  VA 31 could then return to its 1956-1974 ending at today's VA 5/VA 143 junction.

pdf pg 64 of http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1958-01.pdf

States the reason VA 5 was added to VA 31 through Williamsburg was it "was desirable to improve the service to travelers interchanging between route 5 and routes 60 and 168..."

It seems to me that these days VA 5 is more intended to be a route for tourists who want to do a bunch of colonial-related stuff and should thus still be routed into the city.  VA 199 can then be used to head for either I-64/US 60 east or west depending on which way you wanted to go...

Mike

[NE2]

I-70 in MD for that road diet project that the greens wanted.

I've run out of original ideas to post.

[Bickendan]

I-70 in MD for that road diet project that the greens wanted.

I've run out of original ideas to post.

Not really needed, yo.

[texaskdog]

He's from Florida he's still upset about hanging chads

[froggie]

I-70 in MD for that road diet project that the greens wanted.

Given that I-70 will never be extended into Baltimore, it does make some sense to truncate it to I-695.