40th Anniversary of US-66 Decommission

[SEWIGuy]

I get it that people hate US-400's number.  But it's a major long-distance route that carries more traffic than either of the east-west US routes near it (especially east of Wichita), especially truck traffic.  Suggestions that US-400 should be decommissioned just totally baffle me.  I guess it's because its eastern endpoint is just barely outside the state of Kansas, but really, come on.  It's the corridor of a once-potential Interstate, and now it shouldn't even be a US Route?

I agree. People just don't like the number. If it had a number that "fit the grid," no one would care.

[Rothman]

I get it that people hate US-400's number.  But it's a major long-distance route that carries more traffic than either of the east-west US routes near it (especially east of Wichita), especially truck traffic.  Suggestions that US-400 should be decommissioned just totally baffle me.  I guess it's because its eastern endpoint is just barely outside the state of Kansas, but really, come on.  It's the corridor of a once-potential Interstate, and now it shouldn't even be a US Route?

there is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166.

Sure there is.  It still exists as a US Route.  That's the biggest reason I can think of to sign it as such.

US 400 is mostly concurrent with other routes.

[Max Rockatansky]

I get it that people hate US-400's number.  But it's a major long-distance route that carries more traffic than either of the east-west US routes near it (especially east of Wichita), especially truck traffic.  Suggestions that US-400 should be decommissioned just totally baffle me.  I guess it's because its eastern endpoint is just barely outside the state of Kansas, but really, come on.  It's the corridor of a once-potential Interstate, and now it shouldn't even be a US Route?

there is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166.

Sure there is.  It still exists as a US Route.  That's the biggest reason I can think of to sign it as such.

US 400 is mostly concurrent with other routes.

Which I think speaks to a bigger issue of the hardened sub-300 mile intrastate US Route prohibition shouldn't be a thing.

[kphoger]

US 400 is mostly concurrent with other routes.

Which I think speaks to a bigger issue of the hardened sub-300 mile intrastate US Route prohibition shouldn't be a thing.

The portion east of Wichita is mostly NOT concurrent with other routes, and it sees heavier traffic than even US-54, let alone the 3dus south of it.  If anything, I'd rather US-400 continue east from Pittsburg along K-171 → MO-171 → I-49-BL → MO-96 and connect to I-44 at Halltown instead, as a single-number Wichita–Springfield corridor.

But, from the US-54/400 split near Leon to Halltown, it's only about 200 miles.  Even extending it all the way from I-135 to US-65 would only make it about 250 miles.

[kphoger]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VAEZDe794AaJt2Lw6

Something like this, I think, might deserve to be a single US Route.  Maybe not the westernmost bit, because it's a tag-end duplicate with US-54, but at least the rest of it.

Heck, this even brings us back on topic, because most of the MO-96 portion used to be US-66.

[Rothman]

US 400 is mostly concurrent with other routes.

Which I think speaks to a bigger issue of the hardened sub-300 mile intrastate US Route prohibition shouldn't be a thing.

The portion east of Wichita is mostly NOT concurrent with other routes, and it sees heavier traffic than even US-54, let alone the 3dus south of it.  If anything, I'd rather US-400 continue east from Pittsburg along K-171 → MO-171 → I-49-BL → MO-96 and connect to I-44 at Halltown instead, as a single-number Wichita–Springfield corridor.

But, from the US-54/400 split near Leon to Halltown, it's only about 200 miles.  Even extending it all the way from I-135 to US-65 would only make it about 250 miles.

So...what I said is still true.

[kphoger]

So...what I said is still true.

West of Wichita, it is mostly concurrent with other routes.  I understand wanting to get rid of it west of Wichita.

East of Wichita, it is mostly an independent route.  Not only do I not understand wanting to get rid of it east of Wichita, but I'd rather see it expanded even further.

[Rothman]

So...what I said is still true.

West of Wichita, it is mostly concurrent with other routes.  I understand wanting to get rid of it west of Wichita.

East of Wichita, it is mostly an independent route.  Not only do I not understand wanting to get rid of it east of Wichita, but I'd rather see it expanded even further.

Just call it US 54S. :>

[Molandfreak]

Now that US400 is the thru route in Cherokee County (KS) after construction was finished, there is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166. It is slightly ridiculous to have two W-E US routes end less than 1 mile into Missouri at I-44.

No. US 400 should be the one that is decommissioned.

I think you're both right: US 400 should become K-400 (KDOT can sign it all the way to the Colo. stateline if they want).  And US 166 should become K-166, ending at K-400 in Baxter Spgs.
US 400: its number is not the only error

I think you're all wrong. Creating a corridor to adequately serve the east-west connectivity needs of a metro with more than half a million people is not "just serving Kansas interests." Why is the spur of US 66 created to serve the middle of nowhere more worthy of the US highway shield than the US 400 corridor?

[Molandfreak]

It seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.  Move it onto the interstates or keep it on the actual former US 66 roads, as appropriate.  That said, the existing situation with so much interest in and signage of old segments as a historic route is probably a perfectly good way to handle it, and has brought more tourist interest than would a consistently-signed US 66 that hops on and off the nearby interstates.

It's been 40 years. No reason to resurrect something for the sake of a single number from LA to Chicago. That's just not that important.

I'm not suggesting it should be restored now, just that having kept it all along would have made sense.  My wording wasn't clear in the second sentence.  I meant over the past 40 years, parts of the route could have been moved onto interstates or kept where they were, much like has happened in other places where US designations hop on and off of interstates.

It wouldn't have really been kept as a single number between Chicago and Los Angeles, though, since it had already been axed from California, Illinois, and most of Missouri.

Are you arguing that it simply should have been signed along the accompanying interstates as a legacy designation, or that it should have kept its routing as it existed in 1985? There is some independent utility along the portions that are now OK-66, K-66, and MO-66, but realistically that's about it.

Unless there was an exception for US 66 or NMDOT's current policy of ghosting US highways where they are concurrent with interstates was scrapped, there would not be a single sign for it in New Mexico today, either.

[Max Rockatansky]

AZ 66 has a lot of utility also.  65 MPH through some nice quiet canyons is a preferrable alternative to ADOT's patented beat to shit asphalt on I-40.

[SEWIGuy]

Changing US highways to state highways doesn't make a lot of sense unless the U.S. corridor has been replaced with an interstate.

[Max Rockatansky]

Unless you got a fancy new green state highway shield which tested well in snow and foggy conditions.

[kphoger]

It seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.

I don't think it's all that useful to have a single number from Chicago to LA.  How many people in a given year, do you suppose, actually drive from one to the other?  (And, of those, how many are retirees from Quebec taking a leisurely Route 66 vacation in a camper van?)  How many people who are confident enough to embark on a three-day, 2000-mile cross-country trip, are not skilled enough to handle four different route numbers along the way?

I mean, honestly, how useful is it, really, that US-41 exists all the way from Chicago to Miami?  It isn't.  Would it be beneficial if the whole Interstate route between the two cities carried a single number?  No, not really.

[Molandfreak]

It seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.

I don't think it's all that useful to have a single number from Chicago to LA.  How many people in a given year, do you suppose, actually drive from one to the other?  (And, of those, how many are retirees from Quebec taking a leisurely Route 66 vacation in a camper van?)  How many people who are confident enough to embark on a three-day, 2000-mile cross-country trip, are not skilled enough to handle four different route numbers along the way?

I mean, honestly, how useful is it, really, that US-41 exists all the way from Chicago to Miami?  It isn't.  Would it be beneficial if the whole Interstate route between the two cities carried a single number?  No, not really.

Also, if we're going down the road of arguing the benefits of having a single designation between two major cities, the fact that a single designation between New York and Los Angeles has never existed (even as an auto trail) should be enough evidence that it's a pretty silly argument.

[Max Rockatansky]

It seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.

I don't think it's all that useful to have a single number from Chicago to LA.  How many people in a given year, do you suppose, actually drive from one to the other?  (And, of those, how many are retirees from Quebec taking a leisurely Route 66 vacation in a camper van?)  How many people who are confident enough to embark on a three-day, 2000-mile cross-country trip, are not skilled enough to handle four different route numbers along the way?

I mean, honestly, how useful is it, really, that US-41 exists all the way from Chicago to Miami?  It isn't.  Would it be beneficial if the whole Interstate route between the two cities carried a single number?  No, not really.

Also, if we're going down the road of arguing the benefits of having a single designation between two major cities, the fact that a single designation between New York and Los Angeles has never existed (even as an auto trail) should be enough evidence that it's a pretty silly argument.

The National Old Trails Road did have branches to NYC and San Francisco.

[Jim]

I'm definitely not trying to argue that there should be a single number between every pair of major U.S. cities.  If it ever was specifically useful it's much less so now with everyone carrying an device around capable of getting you from anywhere to anywhere, turn by turn.  Was a desire to have single number on a Chicago-LA route the reason the route was given a single number when the US system was created?  I assumed so but maybe that just happened to be where 60, which became 66, was proposed.

[Scott5114]

Wikipedia's article on Cyrus Avery (who is more or less universally acknowledged as the person who "invented" US 66 as a concept) says that Congress requested the system create a route from Virginia Beach to Los Angeles by way of Springfield MO and Las Vegas. (Presumably this would have looked a lot like US 400 when it got to Kansas.) Avery made two changes to this route—one, shifting it south to New Mexico and Arizona rather than Colorado and Utah, ostensibly to avoid the Rocky Mountains (but which also meant the route passed through Tulsa, where Avery lived). And two, he argued that the terminus should be Chicago, rather than Virginia Beach, because that is where most commercial traffic from Springfield (and, presumably, Tulsa) was heading.

So really, US 66 was intended to connect Tulsa to Chicago and Los Angeles more than anything else, thanks to Avery's looking out for his home city's interest. Of course, he had the good sense to not mention that to anyone else.

And given that what is now US 400 was a rough draft of what became US 66, maybe the right number for US 400 is actually US 766.

[Molandfreak]

I'm definitely not trying to argue that there should be a single number between every pair of major U.S. cities.  If it ever was specifically useful it's much less so now with everyone carrying an device around capable of getting you from anywhere to anywhere, turn by turn.  Was a desire to have single number on a Chicago-LA route the reason the route was given a single number when the US system was created?  I assumed so but maybe that just happened to be where 60, which became 66, was proposed.

So, what exactly are you saying? Given that 66 was already dead in California and Illinois, how would you go about forcing IDOT and Caltrans to accept extensions of a redundant route that had just been eliminated? If you are saying it should have just been kept as it was in 1985, how are you going to get around the policy changes with NMDOT that eliminated US 80 and ghosted US 85–or would it effectively be ghosted within New Mexico's borders anyway?

[Jim]

So, what exactly are you saying? Given that 66 was already dead in California and Illinois, how would you go about forcing IDOT and Caltrans to accept extensions of a redundant route that had just been eliminated? If you are saying it should have just been kept as it was in 1985, how are you going to get around the policy changes with NMDOT that eliminated US 80 and ghosted US 85–or would it effectively be ghosted within New Mexico's borders anyway?

Definitely none of that.  My earlier words were obviously unclear or perhaps you have me confused with others who actively campaign to restore the route.  I am not advocating for the route to be reinstated now.  My intent was to speculate that the designation could have been kept around just like so many others that have been functionally replaced by nearby interstates with its routing evolving over time.  If California still wanted to truncate it or New Mexico wanted to make it a hidden concurrency with I-40, that would disappoint me (as it does with other routes to which that has happened) but I have no power or desire to influence them not to do so.  In fact, in my initial post in this topic, I said the current situation "is probably a perfectly good way to handle it" with so many well-marked and relatively popular historic segments. 

[SEWIGuy]

I'm definitely not trying to argue that there should be a single number between every pair of major U.S. cities.  If it ever was specifically useful it's much less so now with everyone carrying an device around capable of getting you from anywhere to anywhere, turn by turn.  Was a desire to have single number on a Chicago-LA route the reason the route was given a single number when the US system was created?  I assumed so but maybe that just happened to be where 60, which became 66, was proposed.

I think this issue is you said this (emphasis added):

It seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.

I think it was likely useful when it was established, but would wouldn't be much use now.

[kphoger]

I think this issue is you said this (emphasis added):

It seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.

I think it was likely useful when it was established, but would wouldn't be much use now.

Well said.

[SEWIGuy]

I think this issue is you said this (emphasis added):

It seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.

I think it was likely useful when it was established, but would wouldn't be much use now.

Well said.

LOL...oops! "Wouldn't" is what I meant.

[kphoger]

LOL...oops!

Ha!  I didn't even notice the goof.

[Jim]

"Would remain useful" better stated as "would have remained useful" if it never went away in the first place.  Obviously others disagree and that's fine, especially since it's been a done deal, as the thread title reminds us, for 4 decades.