Why did US-101 terminate in Olympia at US-99?

[Quillz]

I know it's kind of a dumb question, but I've always wondered. The 1926 plans for the U.S. numbered highways denoted that x1 highways were the primary north-south highways, and thus US-101 served as the West Coast counterpart to US-1. So, shouldn't that be the highway that reaches the Canadian border, instead of US-99?

The only thing I can think of is that other than San Francisco, US-99 really served the major West Coast cities (L.A. was not a very large city in 1926, most of its population came after WWII), and thus it worked out better to reach the border.

[corco]

US-101 also would have had to take a ridiculously circuitous route through Washington if it followed 99 north from Olympia. Just looking at a map, it's much more logical to have US-99 be the route that goes from Olympia to BC. 99 is also a round-sounding number, so it sounds "major" whereas 101 doesn't so much, despite what the hard and fast rules may have been.

From a navigation standpoint, well, goodness. 101 is confusing enough as it is in Washington. If it were the major route, it would have had to take another 180 degree turn, which would be really confusing (e.g. I'm giving you directions to "take 101 north out of Olympia"- which way?) or if you were driving from SF to Seattle, you'd get to Olympia and get to junction 101 North, with two 101 Norths available. That wouldn't get people lost for no reason.

The x1 system really never was that important, either- especially as you move west. I can't even imagine that the public was really aware of it (like they are likely to be with the x0 and x5 interstates, or even the x0 US routes, which tend to be the only ones that span the country)- I can't imagine people looked at US-83 as less important than US-81 or US-99 as less important than US-101. Several x3, x5, x7, and x9 have or had been just as important as x1 routes. Having become interested in highways while living in Idaho, I assumed the x5s were the "primary" routes- certainly US-95 is now an important route (it wasn't in 26, in fairness), as is/was 85, 75, and 65. Once I started reading roadgeek sites I learned they were the x1s, and in retrospect that makes sense, but it isn't really intuitive by looking at a map as it is with the east-west US routes or interstates.

[Quillz]

I suppose that makes sense, too. And I do agree that "99" sounds better. I guess the issue just came down to AASHTO running out of route numbers in the West... They didn't want to waste a bunch of usable numbers by putting 91 along the coast, so they went with the slightly non-standard 101 (which I imagine was originally intended to be a US-1 spur).

[Michael in Philly]

I'm not clear where the population of Los Angeles enters into it, but I believe as early as the 1920 census it was already the biggest city west of Saint Louis....

EDIT:  yep, here we are.  Nowhere near as big as it is now, of course....
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab15.txt

[Quillz]

Up until WWII, San Francisco was often considered the most important city in California. But that's not really important, I was only pointing out that it's the one major city that US-99 avoided.

[Michael in Philly]

Up until WWII, San Francisco was often considered the most important city in California. But that's not really important, I was only pointing out that it's the one major city that US-99 avoided.

Understood.

[sandiaman]

Whether  San Francisco  was  the   "most important city"  in California  during the 1920's  is an interesting question.  It probably  was,  and probably  self apoointed  that way.  The folks  up north  have always  looked down their noses at the "uncultured"  city  of LA, even if it was  larger in population.  I  like the way it  was pronounced in movies from the 30's and 40's  :  LOS  ANLGEEZE.    I'm glad  that's not around.it obnoxious.

[NE2]

I  like the way it  was pronounced in movies from the 30's and 40's  :  LOS  ANLGEEZE.    I'm glad  that's not around.it obnoxious.

How do you pronounce that? Anal geese?

[Duke87]

No, it's more like "Anja Lees"

[Henry]

US-101 also would have had to take a ridiculously circuitous route through Washington if it followed 99 north from Olympia. Just looking at a map, it's much more logical to have US-99 be the route that goes from Olympia to BC. 99 is also a round-sounding number, so it sounds "major" whereas 101 doesn't so much, despite what the hard and fast rules may have been.

From a navigation standpoint, well, goodness. 101 is confusing enough as it is in Washington. If it were the major route, it would have had to take another 180 degree turn, which would be really confusing (e.g. I'm giving you directions to "take 101 north out of Olympia"- which way?) or if you were driving from SF to Seattle, you'd get to Olympia and get to junction 101 North, with two 101 Norths available. That wouldn't get people lost for no reason.

The x1 system really never was that important, either- especially as you move west. I can't even imagine that the public was really aware of it (like they are likely to be with the x0 and x5 interstates, or even the x0 US routes, which tend to be the only ones that span the country)- I can't imagine people looked at US-83 as less important than US-81 or US-99 as less important than US-101. Several x3, x5, x7, and x9 have or had been just as important as x1 routes. Having become interested in highways while living in Idaho, I assumed the x5s were the "primary" routes- certainly US-95 is now an important route (it wasn't in 26, in fairness), as is/was 85, 75, and 65. Once I started reading roadgeek sites I learned they were the x1s, and in retrospect that makes sense, but it isn't really intuitive by looking at a map as it is with the east-west US routes or interstates.

They could've built a bridge across the Puget Sound, but even by 1920s standards, that probably would've been too expensive, so it was never considered, except in fantasy plans. Still, it would've been nice to have, and help avoid the circle around the northwestern tip of the state.

BTW, I used to think that US x5s were the primary north-south corridors, as is the case with the Interstates, but since US 5 in New England couldn't possibly extend all the way to Florida, maybe that's why they had the major routes end in 1 instead. Thus, US 1 goes from Maine to Florida, along with I-95.

Whether  San Francisco  was  the   "most important city"  in California  during the 1920's  is an interesting question.  It probably  was,  and probably  self apoointed  that way.  The folks  up north  have always  looked down their noses at the "uncultured"  city  of LA, even if it was  larger in population.  I  like the way it  was pronounced in movies from the 30's and 40's  :  LOS  ANLGEEZE.    I'm glad  that's not around.it obnoxious.

Pretty much in the same way that everyone in Boston looks down their noses at "uncultured" New Yorkers?

[Kacie Jane]

I think maybe better questions than why does it terminate in Olympia would be either...

• Why doesn't it terminate in Port Angeles? ... or ...
• Does (Did) Port Angeles really need a U.S. Route?

I've never really liked the loop around the peninsula.  It's just silly, and I'm sure there are better ways they could have numbered the highways without having 101 double back on itself.

For instance, they could have had 101 run east from Aberdeen along then-410 to Olympia, and have it run up to Blaine that way.  Then if they really wanted a US Route on the peninsula, they could have sent 99 up the eastern half to Port Angeles, and left the Aberdeen-PA segment a state route.  Or...

They could've built a bridge across the Puget Sound, but even by 1920s standards, that probably would've been too expensive, so it was never considered, except in fantasy plans. Still, it would've been nice to have, and help avoid the circle around the northwestern tip of the state.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a bridge.  US 9 and US 10 both have ferry segments in their routes.  They could have used one of the many ferries to get US 2, US 10 -- or in my fantasy world, a western US 4 that would take over SR 20 -- and use that to take care of the rest of peninsula loop.

(Or they could have just kept 101 on its current route to Discovery Bay, and sent it over the Sound on the Port Townsend ferry and up to Canada... Note that I'm not confident the ferry system existed as it does today in 1926...)

I realize I'm kind of getting off on a fantasy tangent, so let me apologize and end it there.  I'm just saying that US 101 wouldn't necessarily had to have followed a circuitous route to get to Canada, and if they wanted it to be a true major border-to-border x1 route, they had the option to make it so.

[xonhulu]

I actually like the US 101 Olympic Peninsula loop.  It's unique in the US Highway System, although they could have done a similar thing with US 25 in Michigan (but didn't).

If the loop didn't exist, I'd just terminate 101 in Port Angeles at the ferry terminal to Victoria.  The rest could've been US 499 or some state route.

[Quillz]

I was going to suggest, as an amend to Kacie Jane's post, that if US-101 was routed east from Aberdeen, then the segment that is currently a loop could have been numbered as a spur of US-101 rather than having US-99 go that route.

But then I remembered that US-101 would require a 4dus, like 1101 or something, which would have never happened.

[Kacie Jane]

I was going to suggest, as an amend to Kacie Jane's post, that if US-101 was routed east from Aberdeen, then the segment that is currently a loop could have been numbered as a spur of US-101 rather than having US-99 go that route.

But then I remembered that US-101 would require a 4dus, like 1101 or something, which would have never happened.

I don't see why it couldn't be 801 or 901.

[Quillz]

I was going to suggest, as an amend to Kacie Jane's post, that if US-101 was routed east from Aberdeen, then the segment that is currently a loop could have been numbered as a spur of US-101 rather than having US-99 go that route.

But then I remembered that US-101 would require a 4dus, like 1101 or something, which would have never happened.

I don't see why it couldn't be 801 or 901.

Because those would have been reserved for US-1, I presume. Maine has a US-201, for example.

US-101 was intended to be read as "10"-1, so therefore I'd imagine any spur would have be four digits long.

[Kacie Jane]

Yeah, but 1 can share, can't it?    I grant you that counting 801 as a spur of 101 may be no less awkward than using 1101 instead, but these are the things they should have thought of before they decided 101 counted as a 2-digit number.

(Or maybe they did think of this issue, and they just said, "Screw it, 101 doesn't get any spurs!")

[Quillz]

Yeah, but 1 can share, can't it?    I grant you that counting 801 as a spur of 101 may be no less awkward than using 1101 instead, but these are the things they should have thought of before they decided 101 counted as a 2-digit number.

(Or maybe they did think of this issue, and they just said, "Screw it, 101 doesn't get any spurs!")

There probably was a decision made not to give US-101 any numbered auxiliaries. The original plan never intended for 101, I don't think. It simply came about as a result of either not wanting to waste some 2-digit numbers by putting US-91 at the West Coast, or break the "x1 are major routes" system by putting US-99 where 101 is now.

It seems that where auxiliaries along the West Coast were needed were numbered as x99 spurs.