We need to talk about Indian Routes.

[Scott5114]

Okay, so, over on the wiki @Jhoan Seb started pulling on the thread that is Indian Routes. You might know of these if you've driven I-40 across Eastern Arizona, because there's one signed on a BGS at exit 357. They use an arrowhead symbol (similar to, but not the same as the Montana secondary route shield). And as it turns out, there is a huge enough mess here that I am kind of shocked that it's never come up on the forum before.

It seems like there are at least four incompatible systems all using some semblance of an arrowhead shield:
- The BIA issues one set of route numbers. These appear to use a separate number pool for each reservation, or perhaps BIA region. There seems to be an internal letter prefix used to identify BIA regions, which does not appear on signs. Northeastern Arizona just so happens to be in region N.
- The Navajo Nation (and, presumably, other tribal authorities) issues another set of route numbers. These start with N but are distinct from the BIA numbers—Navajo Nation DOT N64 is a different route from BIA (N)64 (which is of course a different route from US 64 or AZ 64).
- ADOT is apparently also numbering and posting "Indian Routes", which use a different (square blank) shield than the BIA or NNDOT (which use oblong, portrait-orientation blanks). IR 12, which is the one on the at I-40 exit 357, is apparently one of these. Why do these exist? Are these just state routes that exist on tribal land so they get an arrowhead shield?
- New Mexico appears to have something similar to the ADOT Indian Routes, called "Indian Service Routes".

Can anyone with more knowledge on this confirm all that is correct? And how does this work on reservations outside of the Navajo Nation? And why are there so many overlapping systems in the same area using the same shield?

[Jhoan Seb]

Some maps I found in Arizona that have some information regarding routes within the Navajo Nation:
https://www.azftf.gov/regionmaps/FY15NavajoNation.pdf
https://apps.azdot.gov/files/maps/functional-classification/Native-Nations-Indian-Tribes/navajohopizuni-fc-map.pdf
https://mesa-2024.s3.amazonaws.com/images/files/AOT_ACERT_Map.pdf?v=1731258177
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mGtci91lB8mOmDyGgnWedihYhZAvq1L3/view

[Max Rockatansky]

I never could figure out completely what was going on with the BIA Routes and other tribal routes when I lived in Arizona.  The Navajo Nation was the only tribal land that more or less attempted to replicate fully what was going on with other Sign Route systems.  Some others like the San Carlos Reservation also had a couple sign routes (I believe BIA off the top of my head).

[CoreySamson]

Probably not connected, but I've noticed in my travels that the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma has an Indian Highway 144:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/mwpdVhXsUehs9hUv9

[Scott5114]

Probably not connected, but I've noticed in my travels that the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma has an Indian Highway 144:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/mwpdVhXsUehs9hUv9

What the fuck?

[Rothman]

 

[Scott5114]

Oh, no, you don't. You're just the person I hoped to see in this thread, actually—is there some sort of federal funding chicanery going on behind this?

[Rothman]

Oh, no, you don't. You're just the person I hoped to see in this thread, actually—is there some sort of federal funding chicanery going on behind this?

I've never been involved with any project that dealt with a designated Indian Route, whether BIA or otherwise, although I have experience with transportation projects on Nation land (Onondaga and Seneca).  They've all been funded with just run-of-the-mill, unexciting State funding (actually and deliberately avoiding federal funding due to the complex relationship with the Nations).

So, unlike others who may choose to pontificate on here without a solid foundation, I shall continue to abstain with my popcorn.

[Scott5114]

So, unlike others who may choose to pontificate on here without a solid foundation, I shall continue to abstain with my popcorn.

Enjoy! And let me know when I can get you a refill.

[NE2]

Probably not connected, but I've noticed in my travels that the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma has an Indian Highway 144:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/mwpdVhXsUehs9hUv9

Which crosses SH 144. Never change, Oklahoma.

[kphoger]

Never change, Oklahoma.

Said nobody, ever, in the history of highways.

[ClassicHasClass]

On the reverse side, are there any BIA routes in California? Even in counties with large numbers of reservations I've yet to find one, but if one's out there, I'm sure Max has a photo.

[NE2]

On the reverse side, are there any BIA routes in California? Even in counties with large numbers of reservations I've yet to find one, but if one's out there, I'm sure Max has a photo.

There is a log, which is fairly useless for locating the routes, but shows that there are some (J52621 Cedarville Rancheria in the Pacific Region, for example). Doesn't mean any are signed though.

But here's a "signed" one, which appears on page 55 on the PDF.

Another as a street name, on page 133.

A wicked old CR J42 sign on what's actually BIA 70 (p. 46).

[Max Rockatansky]

There is actually a couple J42 shields.  They are all weathered just like the one in the GSV link.  I have never seen a BIA Route shield in California.

[TBKS1]

Probably not connected, but I've noticed in my travels that the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma has an Indian Highway 144:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/mwpdVhXsUehs9hUv9

Which crosses SH 144. Never change, Oklahoma.

Yeah I saw that when I clinched US 271/259 last year and didn't really think much about it. Honestly, I would have thought it was an old section of OK 144 without context.

But here's a "signed" one, which appears on page 55 on the PDF.

That's giving the same energy as this.

[NE2]

- The BIA issues one set of route numbers. These appear to use a separate number pool for each reservation, or perhaps BIA region. There seems to be an internal letter prefix used to identify BIA regions, which does not appear on signs. Northeastern Arizona just so happens to be in region N.

It happens to be in region N because it's the Navajo Region

- The Navajo Nation (and, presumably, other tribal authorities) issues another set of route numbers. These start with N but are distinct from the BIA numbers—Navajo Nation DOT N64 is a different route from BIA (N)64 (which is of course a different route from US 64 or AZ 64).

Are we sure these are actually numbered differently? N64 is also referred to as BIA Route 64 in what appears to be a Navajo DOT press release. N64 is 24.5 miles long, which matches the BIA Route 0064 on page 123 of the PDF. Even the one bridge along the route is 280 feet per the Goog, and the route on page 123 has a 280 foot bridge (0064/820).

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The only reservation in MN that I know actively has these signed is the Red Lake Reservation. Most MN reservations (or "communities" for some of the smaller Dakota land holdings in the southern half of the state) have signed standard county roads, which I imagine means they have an agreement with a county to maintain those roads on tribal land.

Politically, compared to the other six recognized Ojibwe tribes in Minnesota, Red Lake's tribal government has often displayed a much frostier tone not only toward the state of Minnesota and the feds, but also to those other Ojibwe tribes (they never became a member of the greater Minnesota Chippewa Tribe like the other six bands, and also clash with the other Ojibwe tribes on initiatives those bands may partner with the state on). While there are two signed state highways on the reservation, they probably were less keen on making agreements with other entities on their land.

[ClassicHasClass]

But here's a "signed" one, which appears on page 55 on the PDF.

That's giving the same energy as this.

I've actually driven by that very location several times on US 395 and never seen it. The dates on GSV indicate it may have been posted relatively recently. I'll have to check my tapes from the last time I was up there (~2017). Obviously not official issue, but still interesting.

[Jhoan Seb]

https://www.google.com.co/books/edition/The_Navajo/bpqODBVBmAgC?hl=es-419&gbpv=1&dq=Navajo+Route+12+before:1960&pg=PA47&printsec=frontcover

After a lot of digging if you a proper route log for the Navajo Nation that dates back to 1948!

[Jhoan Seb]

https://www.google.com.co/books/edition/National_Economic_Development_Program_Pa/PLLSutdDD1oC?hl=es-419&gbpv=1&dq=%22Chinle%22+%22Route%22+%2264%22&pg=PA1501&printsec=frontcover <- 1971 Route Log

https://www.google.com.co/books/edition/The_Navajo_Yearbook/W51GAQAAIAAJ?hl=es-419&gbpv=1&dq=Navajo+Route+12+before:1970&pg=PA143&printsec=frontcover <- 1961 Maintenance Log

[Jhoan Seb]

https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Draft:Roads_in_the_Navajo_Nation Well behold what some days of research come to fruition. It's not perfect but I'm trying to the best I can do.

[NE2]

I started a partial list at https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/User:NE2/Navajo to attempt to show that the N routes are the same as the routes in the BIA log.

[pderocco]

In southern San Diego County, there are BIA routes on street blades:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/zFgnXc7mqLwjfioR9

I have no idea who assigns these numbers.

[NE2]

I started a partial list at https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/User:NE2/Navajo to attempt to show that the N routes are the same as the routes in the BIA log.

So numbering-wise, 1-72 have been assigned to some of the more prominent routes, with most minor routes being branches with additional digits added on the end. But there are also some very minor 3x routes that duplicate numbers used elsewhere and branch off US 491. Letter suffixes seem to have been used in the past; N222 (a branch of N22, now SR 98) still has a sign marking it as N22B.

The most confusing area is around the Hopi Res, where routes like N4 and N60 are assigned to multiple noncontinuous roads.

Shield designs and the use of the N seem completely arbitrary.

[NE2]

https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/User:NE2/Navajo now has a rough map that can be expanded. The most errors are probably near the Hopi Reservation and Lukachukai.