Highways you're surprised it hasn't gotten truncated/decommissioned

[sparker]

It still has an Eastern Terminus close to correct grid position.  US 6 did take over some corridors like Loveland Pass that didn't have a US Route previously and was part of the solution for the nonsensical US 40S. 

IIRC the solution for the nonsensical US 40S was extending US 24 to Grand Junction. US 6 came soon after that, but wasn't part of the solution. Anyway Colorado has truncated US 24 to Minturn since, so it no longer qualifies for this thread.

US 24 was extended to Grand Junction circa 1936 whereas US 6 was extended circa 1937 to Long Beach.  Initially US 6 multiplexed US 24 from Leadville all the way to Grand Junction when it was aligned over Fremont Pass.  US 6 was realigned over Vail Pass and CO 91 was restored over Fremont Pass.  For some reason US 24 persisted all the way to Grand Junction until 1975.  Effectively both US 6 and US 24 were a solution for US 40S. 

One could say that US 6 having a terminus at US 24 would have been logical.  A cleaner US Route grid might have included something like a new US 48 (which was available in 1937) west of US 91 in Utah to Bishop or Long Beach.  In retrospect the corridor of the first CA 7 (current CA 14) over Sierra Highway was always fated to get a US Route of some kind given it was a major transportation corridor.  Personally I would have US 6 stay on CA 7 all the way down Sepulveda Boulevard (the CA 7 segment that became I-405) and end at US 101A (current CA 1) in Torrance over the Long Beach multiplex with CA 11. 

The city of Los Angeles had a standing request with the Division of Highways (D7 specifically) that if a US highway were to be extended into Southern California, it should converge on downtown L.A. in some fashion.  Pre-parkway/freeway, in the late '30's, when these extensions were happening regularly (US 6, US 70), this request was regularly granted; once US 101 was relocated to Macy/Sunset north of the Civic Center, it was relatively easy to simply direct the new designations to it on intersecting streets:  US 66, first on Broadway, then moved west to Figueroa post-tunnel construction; US 60, first on North Main, then over to the Ramona Parkway (shunted up to Macy on Mission; with US 70 simply overlaying 60 when it was extended); and US 6, which "piggybacked" on US 99 down to US 66; the tunnels were completed prior to US6's extension, so it was never on the Broadway alignment.  SSR 11/LRN 165 was simply a convenient way to get US 6 down to the harbor area; Alternate US 101 had superseded SSR 3 by that point, so it became a very convenient "ending point" for, eventually, US 6 and US 66.  Curiously, no plans were forwarded to extend US 60/70 to the coast (although the ever-extending Olympic Blvd., SSR 26, would have been a logical extension choice, as its western terminus was the same as with US 66 in Santa Monica).  US 91's extension south of Barstow was postwar ('47); by that time, the urge to concentrate US routes in central L.A. had passed, and it bypassed most of L.A. via Corona and Orange County by overlaying SSR 18 to Long Beach.  Its common terminus with US 6 at the corner of PCH and Atlantic Ave. (SSR 15) in Long Beach was a bit weird -- but it persisted (with the terminus moved west to the Long Beach Freeway) until the '64 renumbering.   

[bing101]

CA-77 in Oakland is not decommissioned even though its a tiny segment of a city street

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185

CA-185 is not decommissioned too, CA-123, CA-238, CA-262, CA-61, CA-112, CA-260 and CA-114 should be handed over to the Cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114

CA-2 Santa Monica BLVD should truncated due to the fact that its unlikely that the Beverly Hills Freeway would be constructed and one of the most gentrified areas of Los Angeles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard

[Max Rockatansky]

CA-77 in Oakland is not decommissioned even though its a tiny segment of a city street

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185

CA-185 is not decommissioned too, CA-123, CA-238, CA-262, CA-61, CA-112, CA-260 and CA-114 should be handed over to the Cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114

CA-2 Santa Monica BLVD should truncated due to the fact that its unlikely that the Beverly Hills Freeway would be constructed and one of the most gentrified areas of Los Angeles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard

CA 77 for what is built is actually a freeway.  The Posey Tubes aren't getting relinquished to Alamdea and Oakland.  CA 262 is a major connector route between I-880 and I-680 that keeps getting state upgrades.  CA 185, CA 2, and CA 238 have been gradually relinquished just not completely.  Considering how much traffic used CA 114 and CA 119 to get to the Dumbarton Bridge there is no way the State will be able to get rid of those two.  CA 123, CA 61, and CA 112 can probably be handled locally. 

[sparker]

CA-77 in Oakland is not decommissioned even though its a tiny segment of a city street

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185

CA-185 is not decommissioned too, CA-123, CA-238, CA-262, CA-61, CA-112, CA-260 and CA-114 should be handed over to the Cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114

CA-2 Santa Monica BLVD should truncated due to the fact that its unlikely that the Beverly Hills Freeway would be constructed and one of the most gentrified areas of Los Angeles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard

CA 77 for what is built is actually a freeway.  The Posey Tubes aren't getting relinquished to Alamdea and Oakland.  CA 262 is a major connector route between I-880 and I-680 that keeps getting state upgrades.  CA 185, CA 2, and CA 238 have been gradually relinquished just not completely.  Considering how much traffic used CA 114 and CA 119 to get to the Dumbarton Bridge there is no way the State will be able to get rid of those two.  CA 123, CA 61, and CA 112 can probably be handled locally. 

There's a high-maintenance drawbridge on 61 in Alameda between the main island and Bay Farms; that city isn't terribly keen on assuming the upkeep.   And San Mateo County would rather not deal with the state-owned portion of 109 or 114; the former is built on fill land and tends to occasionally settle, requiring sporadic rebuilding, while the latter is actually overused now that Facebook's HQ is adjacent to it.  But former through routes like 185, 77, and 112 east of I-880 are no longer vital connectors -- it's just that cities are generally in worse fiscal shape than the state in general, so assuming any more road maintenance that they currently have isn't in the cards -- they just don't sign the relinquishment agreements.  But Caltrans is persistent -- eventually they'll prevail -- or, in the case of the surface CA 238 -- simply let signage go to hell.  Kind of a sad and ignominious end for what in days of yore was US 101E! 

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

I do wonder why 99 isn't signed down to 180, and 15 pretty much decommissioned up to Williamsport.

[silverback1065]

US 150 and 136 serve 0 purpose in Indiana

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

I-80 is nothing in Indiana; it could easily be split up into pre-Chicago and post-Cleveland segments.

[Konza]

US 150 and 136 serve 0 purpose in Indiana

Actually, US 150 serves absolutely no purpose in Illinois.  Truncate it west of its junction with US 50 in Indiana.  Agree on US 136, especially since it no longer runs on 16th Street past the Speedway.  End it in Rantoul?  Danville?

[sparker]

I do wonder why 99 isn't signed down to 180, and 15 pretty much decommissioned up to Williamsport.

The authorizing language of I-99, citing ARC corridor "O", specifically places the corridor on US 220 south of Williamsport, and I-180 has been signed as such for over 50 years;  that won't change but overall US 220 from I-80 to US 15 will likely remain an unfinished gap in I-99 for some time to come for any number of reasons.  If and when I-99 receives signage north of Williamsport, Penn DOT's previous history suggests that US 15 will be cut back to that city. 

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

I do wonder why 99 isn't signed down to 180, and 15 pretty much decommissioned up to Williamsport.

The authorizing language of I-99, citing ARC corridor "O", specifically places the corridor on US 220 south of Williamsport, and I-180 has been signed as such for over 50 years;  that won't change but overall US 220 from I-80 to US 15 will likely remain an unfinished gap in I-99 for some time to come for any number of reasons.  If and when I-99 receives signage north of Williamsport, Penn DOT's previous history suggests that US 15 will be cut back to that city.

Basically what I was trying to say.

[sparker]

I do wonder why 99 isn't signed down to 180, and 15 pretty much decommissioned up to Williamsport.

The authorizing language of I-99, citing ARC corridor "O", specifically places the corridor on US 220 south of Williamsport, and I-180 has been signed as such for over 50 years;  that won't change but overall US 220 from I-80 to US 15 will likely remain an unfinished gap in I-99 for some time to come for any number of reasons.  If and when I-99 receives signage north of Williamsport, Penn DOT's previous history suggests that US 15 will be cut back to that city.

Basically what I was trying to say.

Sorry, misread your previous statement as suggesting I-99 be rerouted over I-180 in the interim.  Reading things a bit weird these days; my cataract surgery having been postponed until after the COVID situation is more settled, so I'm basically blind in my right eye for close-up purposes.  But to address your actual premise, AFAIK there's some technical issues with one or more private-access roads on US 15 between Williamsport and the NY state line that have prevented it from being eligible for actual I-99 signage -- and thus potential truncation of US 15.  But I'm also unaware of any current activities to remedy the problems -- so a change in designation may not be happening in the very near term. 

[Flint1979]

Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)

M-247 to the Bay City State Park. Former northern end of M-47 so it got the 247 number. I clinched that last night in fact and I think they exist just so that MDOT can maintain them to the state park entrances. M-116 in Ludington is another one I'm surprised you didn mention it since it's in an area that you mention a lot. But that's my take on it.

[Flint1979]

...
US 10, especially in Michigan.  Just run M-10 to "The Beaver" and call it good.

You realize that M-10 and US-10 are over 80 miles apart, right?

I have the opposite take that US 10 still should end in Detroit.  If anything US 24 ending at the Lodge Freeway would be just as an appropriate terminus.

Well obviously the reason it doesn't is because I-75 serves the route. I think MDOT has some thing against running a state or US highway pretty much next to an Interstate except in some cases. I don't understand why M-35 south of Escanaba isn't US-41 and why M-13 north of its connector isn't US-23. The connector near Standish could became Connector US-23. I feel US-10 should still go on it's old course through Saginaw, Flint and Pontiac and straight down Woodward. The US-10 freeway between Midland and Bay City should be an extension of M-20 while US-10 would take M-47's route (Old US-10) to Saginaw and onto Detroit.

If you looked at Google Maps the intersection of M-58 and M-47 are just a continuous route, M-47 has to make a turn to go to its southern terminus while through traffic would go onto M-58 and M-58 traffic merging onto M-47. To stay on State Street you have to make a turn like M-47 takes like I mentioned earlier. That's all because it use to be US-10 curving there and M-47 being a former longer highway turned there and ran on a multiplex with US-10. After US-10 went to the freeway north of town M-47 was rerouted to its current routing and part of M-84, part of M-13 and all of M-247 were switched to their current routes. On the M-13 part it was a multiplex and was just removed be coming only M-13.

[Flint1979]

US 10, especially in Michigan.  Just run M-10 to "The Beaver" and call it good.

It wouldn't be M-10 that got extended it'd most likely be M-25 if that happened.

[Flint1979]

Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)

M-185?

There is no connection to that highway. So it doesnt serve a state park like he is talking about. He's talking about short state highways that connect between a longer state highway and a state park.

[Flint1979]

Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)

M-185?

M-185 is also the main highway on the island.  Most of the start Park stuff is on adjoining roadways. 

If cars can't drive on it, should it really have a state route number?  Demote it to a state bike route.

Just make it an unsigned highway. I can't believe that MDOT maintains M-185.

[Flint1979]

The fact of the matter is, its very existence makes it very difficult for roadgeeks to clinch the Michigan state highway system.

That... might not be the most convincing sentence in a letter to the DOT.

Hey I've taken a bicycle around the island, only 9 miles

8.2 to be exact.  I've even run it a couple times, definitely gives the bike shop sticker I have more prestige.

I walked it one time I think it took about 3 or 4 hours to do but that includes stopping for some breaks and stuff too.

[JCinSummerfield]

The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68.  What is its' purpose?

[kphoger]

The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68.  What is its' purpose?

To facilitate traffic between Toledo, Springfield, Lexington, Bowling Green, Hopkinsville, and Paducah.

[Konza]

The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68.  What is its' purpose?

It makes at least some sense in Kentucky.  But in Ohio it runs due north/south.  WTF?

[thspfc]

There are so many in WI, but perhaps none more so than WI-127. 14 miles long, both ends are at WI-16, is the third most direct route between the two cities it connects (after WI-16 and CTH-X to WI-23), and it does not pass through a community, incorporated or otherwise. Just makes you wonder what WISDOT is thinking. I'll bet it gets decommissioned the next time it needs an overhaul, which will be quite a while from now considering how little traffic is on it.

[zzcarp]

The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68.  What is its' purpose?

It makes at least some sense in Kentucky.  But in Ohio it runs due north/south.  WTF?

It makes some sense as a north-south route (and is signed as such) in Ohio and really maintains a general N-S orientation at least until Lexington, KY (and one could argue until where it begins its multiplex with KY 80 in Edmonton). US 42 is also signed N-S in Ohio and E-W in Kentucky so it's not unique there.

And, US 68 in Ohio connects small and medium sized cities (many of which are college towns) away from an interstate corridor and certainly meets that definition of a US route. And, including the Kentucky portion, it forms kind of an elongated j-route.

I've not traveled on it west of Bowling Green, KY and can't speak to its utility there. I'd be hard-pressed to truncate any of the Ohio/Northern Kentucky portions of the route though.

[Flint1979]

The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68.  What is its' purpose?

It makes at least some sense in Kentucky.  But in Ohio it runs due north/south.  WTF?

US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?

[sparker]

The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68.  What is its' purpose?

It makes at least some sense in Kentucky.  But in Ohio it runs due north/south.  WTF?

US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?

Better yet -- swap out US 24 and US 224 east of Huntington, IN.  Keeps 24 on its basic east-of-Peoria trajectory, and a 3dus can pretty much assume any configuration its planners want.  Seems like when US 24 was commissioned 80-odd years ago, the concept was to take it to Detroit -- but not exactly!  With I-75 taking over the major Toledo-Detroit task, the western bypass of Detroit that is the east/north end of US 24 can simply revert to M-24 without serious issue, with US 224 ending in Toledo. 

[DandyDan]

One US Route I question the existence of is US 275 and I mean more than just its multiplex with US 20 eastward out of O'Neill NE. It is essentially two different highways with a long chain of multiplexes in the middle. The Missouri section going north out of Rock Port to the Iowa border was entirely replaced by I-29 and could be replaced with either MO 111 or a Missouri secondary route. The Iowa section south of US 34 is a minor state highway also generally replaced by I-29, but at least connects the cities on its route. It then becomes a series of multiplexes (US 34, I-29, IA 92) until it enters Nebraska with NE 92 in Omaha. It finally gets its own route again west of Omaha, and eventually makes its way northwest to O'Neill, but it bears no relationship with the Iowa/Missouri section of the route. The Iowa section can be IA 275 and the NE section NE 275.