US 70's insane extension to California

[usends]

Most of the changes that were made to the US highway system during the mid-1930s were beneficial... basically that's when the modern framework of the US routes took shape.  But there was one change that I'm really surprised took place, and that's the extension of US 70 west to Los Angeles.  Let's look at its routing:

- Prior to the change, US 70 followed today's US 54 south from Alamogordo, ending in El Paso.
- After the 1934 change, US 70 went southwest from Alamogordo to Las Cruces, along what had been designated NM 3.
- There US 70 picked up US 80 and ran concurrently with it to Lordsburg (a distance of 120 miles).
- US 70 diverged from US 80 at Lordsburg and went northwest to Globe, along what had previously been designated US 180 (the original 180, not the current one).
- From Globe westward, US 70 had no independent alignment all the way to L.A.  That's nearly 500 miles!

It could've been so much simpler:
- Reroute US 70 to Las Cruces, and let it end there.
- Just leave US 180 alone; the stretch from Lordsburg to Globe remains a US route.

Instead, they killed US 180, and extended US 70 almost 800 miles west.  Out of that distance, only 30 miles were new to the US route system!  And only 180 miles were on an independent alignment; the remaining 600 miles were overlapped with other US routes.  Seems like an awful lot of overkill just to get another route to L.A.  Any insights on the rationale behind that decision?

[sparker]

Most of the changes that were made to the US highway system during the mid-1930s were beneficial... basically that's when the modern framework of the US routes took shape.  But there was one change that I'm really surprised took place, and that's the extension of US 70 west to Los Angeles.  Let's look at its routing:

- Prior to the change, US 70 followed today's US 54 south from Alamogordo, ending in El Paso.
- After the 1934 change, US 70 went southwest from Alamogordo to Las Cruces, along what had been designated NM 3.
- There US 70 picked up US 80 and ran concurrently with it to Lordsburg (a distance of 120 miles).
- US 70 diverged from US 80 at Lordsburg and went northwest to Globe, along what had previously been designated US 180 (the original 180, not the current one).
- From Globe westward, US 70 had no independent alignment all the way to L.A.  That's nearly 500 miles!

It could've been so much simpler:
- Reroute US 70 to Las Cruces, and let it end there.
- Just leave US 180 alone; the stretch from Lordsburg to Globe remains a US route.

Instead, they killed US 180, and extended US 70 almost 800 miles west.  Out of that distance, only 30 miles were new to the US route system!  And only 180 miles were on an independent alignment; the remaining 600 miles were overlapped with other US routes.  Seems like an awful lot of overkill just to get another route to L.A.  Any insights on the rationale behind that decision?

All I can think of re a rationale for that extension was to satisfy the concept that x0 US highways should be if at all possible coast-to-coast.  The latitudinal shift -- and Southern Ontario -- made US 10 and US 90 problematic in that regard, so one was truncated at its east end and the other at its west.  But the idea of everything from 20 through 80 effectively getting to both coasts probably seemed, in the earlier days of the system, to be a desirable characteristic of the network.  And since there were few traversable corridors across western NM and pretty much all of AZ, multiplexes were the order of the day.  When three of them, 60/70/80, end up going through one metro area (Phoenix), topography, politics, and/or publicity are invariably involved in that situation.  At least CA had the good sense to split 60 and 70 through Riverside and Colton, respectively.   Also remember that most of the western states were trying to entice folks to move out west; having continuous routes to follow (despite the various Plains convolutions of both US 60 and US 70) would likely have been considered more beneficial even with long multiplexes (which bother us rear-view analysts more than it likely bothered the "dust bowl" migrants of the '30's!).     

[Konza]

I always wondered why they truncated 70 and not 60.

Once 60 gets to Springfield, Missouri, it's pretty much redundant; it really doesn't pass through a large city from Springfield to Amarillo, and then from Amarillo to Phoenix.  Originally it was to end at Springfield but the controversy that resulted in the Chicago to LA route being numbered 66 eventually led to its extension.

With 66 being the main route west, having the main east west route between 66 and 80 be 70 makes more sense than having it be 60.

[sparker]

I always wondered why they truncated 70 and not 60.

Once 60 gets to Springfield, Missouri, it's pretty much redundant; it really doesn't pass through a large city from Springfield to Amarillo, and then from Amarillo to Phoenix.  Originally it was to end there but the controversy that resulted in the Chicago to LA route being numbered 66 eventually led to its extension.

With 66 being the main route west, having the main east west route between 66 and 80 be 70 makes more sense than having it be 60.

US 60 in CA lasted a lot longer than US 70 because of its independent section from Pomona to Beaumont via Riverside, whereas US 70, itself multiplexed pre-'64 with US 99, was functionally subsumed by I-10.  I-10 was still being built across the Sonoran Desert between Indio and Blythe after the state's renumbering effort, so US 60 alone was retained as the working highway number until the freeway was completed except for the Indio bypass.  US 60 signage was removed in the spring of 1968 and replaced with CA 60 signage west of Beaumont; by that time the freeway was complete except for the Indio bypass, which left about 12 miles of conventional highway; it was signed as "Temporary I-10" until the bypass was complete.   But US 60 signage was posted along the AZ portion of I-10 coincident with the old 60/70 alignment; it was removed when the I-10 cutoff to Buckeye was completed and US 60 was truncated to the junction.   The decommissioning of US 70 in CA in '64 and the delay for doing likewise with US 60 was likely the deciding factor to retain US 60 on the original L.A.-Phoenix alignment via Wickenburg rather than US 70.  AZ didn't mind multiplexes, but it certainly didn't care much for useless duplications to an arbitrary terminus (which is why US 93 was never extended into metro Phoenix), so instead of dragging US 70 into Phoenix to terminate, it simply did so at Globe.  Globe thus joins Bishop, CA (US 6) in the ranks of current ignominious end locations to previously cross-country routes.     

[CNGL-Leudimin]

I feel the correct routing of US 60 from Springfield Westwards should have been on US 66 all the way to Barstow, then the route that in 1934 became US 466. That way, US 70 would have made sense as far as Pomona (as it would have taken US 60's route through Riverside instead). But alas, they wanted the Chicago-Los Angeles route to be a single number. Why they didn't do the same with the Chicago to New York route? Even worse, New York City has never been served by a US x0, and I think it should have deserved one.

[sparker]

I feel the correct routing of US 60 from Springfield Westwards should have been on US 66 all the way to Barstow, then the route that in 1934 became US 466. That way, US 70 would have made sense as far as Pomona (as it would have taken US 60's route through Riverside instead). But alas, they wanted the Chicago-Los Angeles route to be a single number. Why they didn't do the same with the Chicago to New York route? Even worse, New York City has never been served by a US x0, and I think it should have deserved one.

The problem with New York as regards highways heading west from that city was simple topology; the ridge patterns in the northern Appalachians tended to go southwest-northeast, providing a serious obstacle to any efficient route directly west.  The most useful route, US 22, headed west before zig-zagging its way by ridgehopping followed by valley following all the way across PA.   At the risk of a bit of fictional speculation, it's conceivable that a NY-Cleveland rerouting of US 20 could have utilized present US 322 and US 22 to get to metro NY (with current US 20 east of Cleveland renumbered as US 6 and present US 6 becoming US 8 -- keeping all the single-digit US routes except for US 1 and the western US 2 in New England and/or the northeastern states).  But it would have been no more an efficient corridor than it is today; it took Interstate-level 90% funding, unthinkable in the 1920's and 30's, to carve out an efficient western road egress (I-80, of course) from NY metro.  Even the main rail lines detoured south (Pennsylvania Railroad) or north (New York Central, which went up the Hudson to Albany before turning west); only a few railroads attacked the terrain west of NYC -- but most of those were there to move anthracite coal from mine to market. 

But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal.  And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress. 

[Eth]

But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal.  And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress. 

It does seem odd, though, that both US 30 and US 40 end up in Atlantic City. US 30 could have still gone to Philadelphia, then continued to New York (probably riding along with US 1) and ended on Long Island.

[sparker]

But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal.  And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress. 

It does seem odd, though, that both US 30 and US 40 end up in Atlantic City. US 30 could have still gone to Philadelphia, then continued to New York (probably riding along with US 1) and ended on Long Island.

Something tells me NYC interests and politicos don't give a rat's ass that they have never sat atop a x0 US highway; they got to 8M+ population and their status as the corporate capital of the nation without that particular "amenity".  It might have been belated, but they finally got their x0 (at least metro-wise) in the Interstate era.  Personally, I'd like to see I-80 extended east across the bridge and the Bronx, down I-295, and out I-495 to its L.I. east end -- but NYC folks would probably treat that concept with a collective shrug of the shoulders.   

Even as a kid growing up in neighboring Glendale, the least-noticed US highways coming into L.A. metro were always US 60 and US 70 (the fact that one or both was multiplexed with US 99 in the region likely affected that perception or lack thereof).  US 66, 99, and 101 got all the glory (6, being late to that dance, didn't figure prominently either) as far as local recognition was concerned.  So even in the ever-vehicle-centric region L.A. was from the get-go, the presence of two US x0's didn't get noticed much if at all.     

[Konza]

This probably wanders into fictional territory but it involves a lot of the same geography so I'll post it here and take whatever lumps I have to take.

For the longest time I thought that a Phoenix to Albuquerque direct link would be a useful addition to the Interstate system.  Take US 60 from I-10 east and extend it to Albuquerque.  Make it Interstate 28 or 32.

Now that I live out here I see how infeasible something like that would be; the terrain US 60 crosses east of Phoenix is brutal; the costs would be astronomical and the environmentalists would throw up roadblock after roadblock.  It would most likely cross a couple of tribal reservations as well.

Not sure how much time it would save over the I-17 and I-40 routing but suspect it would save some, but not enough to justify the cost.  I do think it would be an "if you build it, they will come" kind of thing, though; I suspect the reasons travelers take the I-17 and I-40 route is because the roads through eastern Arizona are slow and if a faster route were to be made available, they would use it.

Phoenix is kind of an odd bird as far as the Interstate system goes; it's now the fifth largest city in the country but is only served by two Interstate highways, with no 3di's.  That being said, the loops around Phoenix, with the exception of the newly opened South Mountain Freeway, don't really serve as bypasses as much as they move traffic around the metropolitan area.

If the Phoenix area is underserved by the Interstate Highway System, it's probably because when the Interstate Highway system was planned, the Phoenix area had about one tenth of the population it now has.  Why weren't Phoenix and Las Vegas connected by an Interstate highway?  Because, in 1955, they didn't need to be.  In retrospect, Arizona did well to get I-17 and I-19.  Why did US 80 drop down to Bisbee and Douglas but I-10 stay north?  Because, in 1926, the copper mines around Bisbee were a major economic engine.  By 1955, they were much less so, and Bisbee and Douglas weren't on the most direct route between Las Cruces and Tucson.

It's probably worth revisiting the Interstate System in Arizona from time to time, but I'm not sure you'd come up with something significantly different.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.

[Max Rockatansky]

I feel the correct routing of US 60 from Springfield Westwards should have been on US 66 all the way to Barstow, then the route that in 1934 became US 466. That way, US 70 would have made sense as far as Pomona (as it would have taken US 60's route through Riverside instead). But alas, they wanted the Chicago-Los Angeles route to be a single number. Why they didn't do the same with the Chicago to New York route? Even worse, New York City has never been served by a US x0, and I think it should have deserved one.

The problem with New York as regards highways heading west from that city was simple topology; the ridge patterns in the northern Appalachians tended to go southwest-northeast, providing a serious obstacle to any efficient route directly west.  The most useful route, US 22, headed west before zig-zagging its way by ridgehopping followed by valley following all the way across PA.   At the risk of a bit of fictional speculation, it's conceivable that a NY-Cleveland rerouting of US 20 could have utilized present US 322 and US 22 to get to metro NY (with current US 20 east of Cleveland renumbered as US 6 and present US 6 becoming US 8 -- keeping all the single-digit US routes except for US 1 and the western US 2 in New England and/or the northeastern states).  But it would have been no more an efficient corridor than it is today; it took Interstate-level 90% funding, unthinkable in the 1920's and 30's, to carve out an efficient western road egress (I-80, of course) from NY metro.  Even the main rail lines detoured south (Pennsylvania Railroad) or north (New York Central, which went up the Hudson to Albany before turning west); only a few railroads attacked the terrain west of NYC -- but most of those were there to move anthracite coal from mine to market. 

But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal.  And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress.

Everyone forgets that US 466 was the first highway over the Hoover Dam, it had to loop back to US 66 somehow...who knew at the time US 93 would have become what it did? 

Anyways I have my own theory on US 70 being extended to California and it involves CA 74.  CA 74 between US 60 in Riverside and CA 111 in Coachella Valley was briefly signed as CA 740.  The three digit sign state routes in California seemed to have been place holders for US Routes.  My thought is that California initially wanted US 70 to end at US 101 via what is now CA 74 on the Ortega Highway and Pines-to-Palms Highway.  It would have out US 60, US 70, and US 80 in correct geographic orientation.  US 70 ended up being almost a total multiplex of US 60 in California (and briefly was for a time).

[sparker]

Anyways I have my own theory on US 70 being extended to California and it involves CA 74.  CA 74 between US 60 in Riverside and CA 111 in Coachella Valley was briefly signed as CA 740.  The three digit sign state routes in California seemed to have been place holders for US Routes.  My thought is that California initially wanted US 70 to end at US 101 via what is now CA 74 on the Ortega Highway and Pines-to-Palms Highway.  It would have out US 60, US 70, and US 80 in correct geographic orientation.  US 70 ended up being almost a total multiplex of US 60 in California (and briefly was for a time).

That's pretty good insight regarding 740 as a placeholder for US 70, particularly since it was the western section of LRN 64, which (eventually) encompassed US 60/70 east of Indio plus SSR 74 west of there all the way to US 101; it probably looked to early CA system planners like the most likely route for whatever US highway came west from Phoenix.  However, one trip over both the San Jacinto range, with its tight horseshoe curves and switchbacks at both ends of the mountain crossing, and the Santa Ana mountains between Lake Elsinore and San Juan Capistrano would probably disabuse any planner of the appropriateness of that corridor as a through US highway, much less a x0.  When US 70 came calling in CA just before WWII, it's likely that the Division of Highways, lacking another viable alignment, simply said "fuck it, just slap it down on top of US 99!"  And so it finally got to L.A. -- but entirely multiplexed with at least one other route west of Globe! 

But in keeping with the SSR 74/740 speculation -- one would wonder, if the present CA 78 alignment through the Glamis sand dunes had been in operation in 1938, whether US 70 might well have detoured down 78 all the way to US 101 at Oceanside/Carlsbad -- or even shunted down to the San Diego area via SSR 67!  A bit awkward, yes -- but, really, no more than the historic alignment of US 80 across AZ, with the trajectory shift north to access Phoenix and the equally strange arc south to Douglas.  A combination of topography and the need to address regional needs can be a real PITA, as such alignment oddities indicate.

[Eth]

Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.

Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together would be a bit of a mouthful.

[Max Rockatansky]

Anyways I have my own theory on US 70 being extended to California and it involves CA 74.  CA 74 between US 60 in Riverside and CA 111 in Coachella Valley was briefly signed as CA 740.  The three digit sign state routes in California seemed to have been place holders for US Routes.  My thought is that California initially wanted US 70 to end at US 101 via what is now CA 74 on the Ortega Highway and Pines-to-Palms Highway.  It would have out US 60, US 70, and US 80 in correct geographic orientation.  US 70 ended up being almost a total multiplex of US 60 in California (and briefly was for a time).

That's pretty good insight regarding 740 as a placeholder for US 70, particularly since it was the western section of LRN 64, which (eventually) encompassed US 60/70 east of Indio plus SSR 74 west of there all the way to US 101; it probably looked to early CA system planners like the most likely route for whatever US highway came west from Phoenix.  However, one trip over both the San Jacinto range, with its tight horseshoe curves and switchbacks at both ends of the mountain crossing, and the Santa Ana mountains between Lake Elsinore and San Juan Capistrano would probably disabuse any planner of the appropriateness of that corridor as a through US highway, much less a x0.  When US 70 came calling in CA just before WWII, it's likely that the Division of Highways, lacking another viable alignment, simply said "fuck it, just slap it down on top of US 99!"  And so it finally got to L.A. -- but entirely multiplexed with at least one other route west of Globe! 

But in keeping with the SSR 74/740 speculation -- one would wonder, if the present CA 78 alignment through the Glamis sand dunes had been in operation in 1938, whether US 70 might well have detoured down 78 all the way to US 101 at Oceanside/Carlsbad -- or even shunted down to the San Diego area via SSR 67!  A bit awkward, yes -- but, really, no more than the historic alignment of US 80 across AZ, with the trajectory shift north to access Phoenix and the equally strange arc south to Douglas.  A combination of topography and the need to address regional needs can be a real PITA, as such alignment oddities indicate.

The real thing that gets me is that 740 went to Riverside instead of ending in Perris.  That Perris-Riverside segment became part of US 395.  As rugged as the Pines to Palms Highway is by our standards today in the 1930s that would have been a world class mountain crossing and way better than things like the Old Ridge Route or Jack Rabbit Trail. 

Either way there seemed to be an obsession with getting X0 routes across the country no matter what back in the 1930s.  Personally I think Globe is a fine terminus for US 70 today would have made for one back then as well.  US 60 by almost complete fluke ended up being a very important route somehow after US 66 stole it's original planned routing. 

[kurumi]

Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.

Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together would be a bit of a mouthful.

Well, look at all that traffic! That's what happens when route concurrency is allowed to run rampant :-)

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.

Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together would be a bit of a mouthful.

Well, look at all that traffic! That's what happens when route concurrency is allowed to run rampant :-)

Yeah... though 1/9 is already used a lot, so...

Heck, if 46 and 80 were extended into NY, there could be a multiplex of 1/9/30/46/80/95, which... 

[sparker]

Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.

Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together would be a bit of a mouthful.

Back in the '50's and early '60's -- from downtown Phoenix to Florence Junction, AZ -- US 60/70/80/89 would have said a biiiiiiiig hello!!!

[Max Rockatansky]

Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.

Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together would be a bit of a mouthful.

Back in the '50's and early '60's -- from downtown Phoenix to Florence Junction, AZ -- US 60/70/80/89 would have said a biiiiiiiig hello!!!

And AZ 93 which somehow didn't become an extension of US 93.

[SSR_317]

This probably wanders into fictional territory but it involves a lot of the same geography so I'll post it here and take whatever lumps I have to take.

For the longest time I thought that a Phoenix to Albuquerque direct link would be a useful addition to the Interstate system.  Take US 60 from I-10 east and extend it to Albuquerque.  Make it Interstate 28 or 32.

Now that I live out here I see how infeasible something like that would be; the terrain US 60 crosses east of Phoenix is brutal; the costs would be astronomical and the environmentalists would throw up roadblock after roadblock.  It would most likely cross a couple of tribal reservations as well.

Not sure how much time it would save over the I-17 and I-40 routing but suspect it would save some, but not enough to justify the cost.  I do think it would be an "if you build it, they will come" kind of thing, though; I suspect the reasons travelers take the I-17 and I-40 route is because the roads through eastern Arizona are slow and if a faster route were to be made available, they would use it.

Phoenix is kind of an odd bird as far as the Interstate system goes; it's now the fifth largest city in the country but is only served by two Interstate highways, with no 3di's.  That being said, the loops around Phoenix, with the exception of the newly opened South Mountain Freeway, don't really serve as bypasses as much as they move traffic around the metropolitan area.

If the Phoenix area is underserved by the Interstate Highway System, it's probably because when the Interstate Highway system was planned, the Phoenix area had about one tenth of the population it now has.  Why weren't Phoenix and Las Vegas connected by an Interstate highway?  Because, in 1955, they didn't need to be.  In retrospect, Arizona did well to get I-17 and I-19.  Why did US 80 drop down to Bisbee and Douglas but I-10 stay north?  Because, in 1926, the copper mines around Bisbee were a major economic engine.  By 1955, they were much less so, and Bisbee and Douglas weren't on the most direct route between Las Cruces and Tucson.

It's probably worth revisiting the Interstate System in Arizona from time to time, but I'm not sure you'd come up with something significantly different.

I've thought the same thing and have been working on a proposal to reimagine Interstate 30, which I will soon post to the Fictional Highways forum. But here's the Cliff's Notes version: Deviate from existing I-30 west of Texarkana, near New Boston, TX (re-designating and re-siigning the rest of the current route as I-28), and head west thru/near Paris, Wichita Falls, and Lubbock in TX, then via Roswell in NM to I-25, where after a brief multiplex the route would pick up existing US 60 and parallel it southwest to Globe in AZ. From Globe it would skirt the small towns of the Superstition Mountains along US 60 to near Florence Junction, after which it would pick up future AZ 24 (Gateway Freeway), then AZ Loop 202 SanTan Freeway to I-10 where it would terminate at the border between Phoenix and Chandler. The only major obstacles along this routing would be Salt River Canyon and the Queen Creek Tunnel, both along US 60 in Arizona.

Now this would not provide a direct, one-route link between Phoenix and Albuquerque, but it would make I-30 more worthy of its "x0" number. It would also provide an alternative route for PHX-ABQ traffic as well as provide a northern TX Interstate alternative that would bypass the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, as well as relieve cross-country pressure on I-40, and link several mid-size urban areas in both Texas and New Mexico.

[Konza]

In 1955,  Phoenix was a "pass-through" city.  In 2020, it's a "destination" city.  The Interstate Highway System should, and largely does, treat such cities differently.

[sparker]

Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.

Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together would be a bit of a mouthful.

Back in the '50's and early '60's -- from downtown Phoenix to Florence Junction, AZ -- US 60/70/80/89 would have said a biiiiiiiig hello!!!

And AZ 93 which somehow didn't become an extension of US 93.

While hosting a large number of multiplexes in the state prior to the advent of the Interstate system -- largely due to topography and the presence of only a few major cities back then -- AZ never cared much for useless multiplexes where a number is posted alongside another just to reach a specific (usually a city center) destination at which to terminate.  And US 93 wasn't extended south past Kingman along AZ 93 until the '60's during the initial years of Interstate deployment (and subsequent US truncations), so ADOT may have just been hedging its bets regarding the southern extension of that route (since it had previously truncated AZ 93 back from its farthest extent at Nogales).  The I-10 routing between Phoenix and Tucson, more or less along the old AZ 93 route, probably had a lot to do with the decision to truncate US 93 in the Wickenburg area -- first at US 89 before its decommissioning, then a few miles south at US 60.  Ideally (pardon the fictional devation) US 60 would simply terminate at I-10 in Tempe; the western extension of US 60 on Grand Avenue and out to Wickenburg would become the southern end of US 93, terminating at I-17, and US 60 west of Wickenburg would be an extension of AZ 74.  That would be a more appropriate end for US 60 rather than the awkward northern "loop" and an end out in the middle of nowhere. 

If and when I-11 is built, it's more than likely that the truncation above will occur -- but with US 93 cut back all the way to its junction with I-15 northeast of Las Vegas.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.

Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together would be a bit of a mouthful.

Back in the '50's and early '60's -- from downtown Phoenix to Florence Junction, AZ -- US 60/70/80/89 would have said a biiiiiiiig hello!!!

And AZ 93 which somehow didn't become an extension of US 93.

While hosting a large number of multiplexes in the state prior to the advent of the Interstate system -- largely due to topography and the presence of only a few major cities back then -- AZ never cared much for useless multiplexes where a number is posted alongside another just to reach a specific (usually a city center) destination at which to terminate.  And US 93 wasn't extended south past Kingman along AZ 93 until the '60's during the initial years of Interstate deployment (and subsequent US truncations), so ADOT may have just been hedging its bets regarding the southern extension of that route (since it had previously truncated AZ 93 back from its farthest extent at Nogales).  The I-10 routing between Phoenix and Tucson, more or less along the old AZ 93 route, probably had a lot to do with the decision to truncate US 93 in the Wickenburg area -- first at US 89 before its decommissioning, then a few miles south at US 60.  Ideally (pardon the fictional devation) US 60 would simply terminate at I-10 in Tempe; the western extension of US 60 on Grand Avenue and out to Wickenburg would become the southern end of US 93, terminating at I-17, and US 60 west of Wickenburg would be an extension of AZ 74.  That would be a more appropriate end for US 60 rather than the awkward northern "loop" and an end out in the middle of nowhere. 

If and when I-11 is built, it's more than likely that the truncation above will occur -- but with US 93 cut back all the way to its junction with I-15 northeast of Las Vegas.

Irony is that US 60 west of Wickenburg was for a time briefly AZ 74 when the state picked up the existing roadway.  AZ 74 can be seen going all the way to the state line on the 1931 Clason Map:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DArizona%20Highway%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=2053%2C1805%2C891%2C1578

[usends]

AZ didn't mind multiplexes, but it certainly didn't care much for useless duplications to an arbitrary terminus (which is why US 93 was never extended into metro Phoenix)

I don't know if you're aware, but in 1979 AZDOT actually requested an extension of US 93 to Phoenix.  AASHTO denied it, and for some reason AZ never tried again.

[Konza]

The suggestion that US 93 replace US 60 northwest of downtown Phoenix has significant merit, especially when junctions with US 60 sport signs saying "US 60 to US 93- Kingman, Las Vegas" .

My understanding is that the route of I-11 as it nears the Phoenix area has yet to be finalized but the chances that I-11 will follow US 93/US 60 all the way into downtown Phoenix are not good.  If US 93 is truncated at Las Vegas when I-11 is completed and designated north of I-10, the former US 93 spur into Phoenix could be redesignated as AZ 93 and nothing would miss a beat.

It makes way too much sense for the Phoenix to Las Vegas route to have a single route number, and US 60 west of Tempe serves no productive purpose.  These changes should be made sooner, not later.

[Max Rockatansky]

The suggestion that US 93 replace US 60 northwest of downtown Phoenix has significant merit, especially when junctions with US 60 sport signs saying "US 60 to US 93- Kingman, Las Vegas" .

My understanding is that the route of I-11 as it nears the Phoenix area has yet to be finalized but the chances that I-11 will follow US 93/US 60 all the way into downtown Phoenix are not good.  If US 93 is truncated at Las Vegas when I-11 is completed and designated north of I-10, the former US 93 spur into Phoenix could be redesignated as AZ 93 and nothing would miss a beat.

It makes way too much sense for the Phoenix to Las Vegas route to have a single route number, and US 60 west of Tempe serves no productive purpose.  These changes should be made sooner, not later.

I'd argue US 60 does have a purpose west of Phoenix and it ought to be rerouted on CA 62.  That corridor is unbelievably valuable when I-10 suddenly had a problem between Vicksburg Road and AZ 303.