The first *100 year milestone* in US route history

[pderocco]

Yellowstone National Park isn't part of the route description for US 20.  The segment west of the park even in 1940 was described as beginning at West Yellowstone (see photo 8):

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/11/us-route-20-over-targhee-pass-to-west.html?m=1

Yes, but does anyone doubt that if National Parks allowed US route numbering through it, that US-20 would have been routed and signed through it? Same for US-89 and US-191? It's undeniable that people think of the two parts of each of these roads as the same roads. They don't think that for US-2, though, or the various split Interstates.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yellowstone National Park isn't part of the route description for US 20.  The segment west of the park even in 1940 was described as beginning at West Yellowstone (see photo 8):

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/11/us-route-20-over-targhee-pass-to-west.html?m=1

Yes, but does anyone doubt that if National Parks allowed US route numbering through it, that US-20 would have been routed and signed through it? Same for US-89 and US-191? It's undeniable that people think of the two parts of each of these roads as the same roads. They don't think that for US-2, though, or the various split Interstates.

Amusingly US 191 is actually signed along the Gallatin River in the western extent of Yellowstone. 

[kkt]

Well, it's not 100 yet—what happened 100 years ago was they got together a committee to start making the US Route system.

Imagine if people threw you a 40th birthday party forty years after your parents first started "trying".

That would be too early, it should be almost 41 years later. 

No, it's equivalent.  The US Route system wasn't "born" 100 years ago.  Its "parents" started "trying" 100 years ago.  Yet |Henry| shouted, "Happy 100th Anniversary to the US Route System!"

Parents starting "trying" usually coincides with their "marriage", which is celebrated every year just like birthdays.

Some couples wait a few years to have the chance to have fun with each other before the baby takes over their lives.

[Rothman]

Yellowstone National Park isn't part of the route description for US 20.  The segment west of the park even in 1940 was described as beginning at West Yellowstone (see photo 8):

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/11/us-route-20-over-targhee-pass-to-west.html?m=1

Yes, but does anyone doubt that if National Parks allowed US route numbering through it, that US-20 would have been routed and signed through it? Same for US-89 and US-191? It's undeniable that people think of the two parts of each of these roads as the same roads. They don't think that for US-2, though, or the various split Interstates.

Not relevant.

[kphoger]

Yes, but does anyone doubt that if National Parks allowed US route numbering through it, that US-20 would have been routed and signed through it?

And yet we could still fight about which route US-20 would follow through the park if that were the case.

[formulanone]

US 66 was coast to coast according to mid—80s amateur geographer Sade.

To be fair, she included a Spur to Key Largo. Presumably, the auto trail of Dixie Highway or modern U.S. 41 nearly covers that.

[bugo]

Salt and TIDE water.  The Salt Lake City area in Utah is salt water, but has no tides.  Yes, the Lake Michigan shoreline in Illinois and Wisconsin does look to many like a coastline, but it is fresh water.

You can't see Michigan from Chicago, and if you didn't know any better, you would think that Lake Michigan was an ocean.

[mgk920]

Salt and TIDE water.  The Salt Lake City area in Utah is salt water, but has no tides.  Yes, the Lake Michigan shoreline in Illinois and Wisconsin does look to many like a coastline, but it is fresh water.

You can't see Michigan from Chicago, and if you didn't know any better, you would think that Lake Michigan was an ocean.

You can't even see the tops of tall buildings in DT Chicago from Milwaukee and vice-versa, even though they are both on the shore of the same fresh water lake.

Mike

[kkt]

Salt and TIDE water.  The Salt Lake City area in Utah is salt water, but has no tides.  Yes, the Lake Michigan shoreline in Illinois and Wisconsin does look to many like a coastline, but it is fresh water.

You can't see Michigan from Chicago, and if you didn't know any better, you would think that Lake Michigan was an ocean.

If you didn't know any better, like expecting big waves like on an ocean, or big tides like on an ocean, or salt water like on an ocean.

[bandit957]

I think you can see Michigan from the observation floor of the Sears Tower.

[GaryV]

expecting big waves like on an ocean,

Storm waves often top 25 feet.

or big tides like on an ocean

The lakes actually do have tides, but they are smaller than average waves so they aren't noticeable.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gltides.html

[kkt]

expecting big waves like on an ocean,

Storm waves often top 25 feet.

or big tides like on an ocean

The lakes actually do have tides, but they are smaller than average waves so they aren't noticeable.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gltides.html

"Like on an ocean" being the key phrase.  Big waves all the time.  Tides that are measured in feet instead of inches.

[vdeane]

expecting big waves like on an ocean,

Storm waves often top 25 feet.

or big tides like on an ocean

The lakes actually do have tides, but they are smaller than average waves so they aren't noticeable.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gltides.html

"Like on an ocean" being the key phrase.  Big waves all the time.  Tides that are measured in feet instead of inches.

And big waves that are quite different from each other.  Lake waves tend to be closer together and compact in depth relative to their height.  My Dad had a story about taking people out sailing who thought they were hot shit because they went out on the ocean and were fine with 6' waves, only to have issues with 3' waves on Lake Ontario.

[mgk920]

I think you can see Michigan from the observation floor of the Sears Tower.

Yea, you an see far SW Michigan (New Buffalo, MI) from it.  One can also see the top of the DT Chicago skyline from the shoreline dunes in the extreme SW Michigan area.

Mike

[kphoger]

This thread is becoming way too much like Facebook flerfer arguments...

[Dirt Roads]

This thread is becoming way too much like Facebook flerfer arguments...

Kinda like the one about Illinois?

[Max Rockatansky]

This thread is becoming way too much like Facebook flerfer arguments...

Kinda like the one about Illinois?

Flatness does aid in visibility from places of height.  The Sears Tower and the downtown Chicago skyline are among the few "non-flat" places in the state.

[kphoger]

Should be able to to see the Chicago skyline from Urbana.

[pderocco]

So after all this, does US-30 go to the Pacific Ocean?

[Quillz]

So after all this, does US-30 go to the Pacific Ocean?

No. Ends in Astoria, which is inland. 

[Rothman]

So after all this, does US-30 go to the Pacific Ocean?

No. Ends in Astoria, which is inland.

*facepalm*

[Quillz]

So after all this, does US-30 go to the Pacific Ocean?

No. Ends in Astoria, which is inland.

*facepalm*

Does it not? Looks like it to me. 

[kphoger]

So after all this, does US-30 go to the Pacific Ocean?

No. Ends in Astoria, which is inland.

*facepalm*

Does it not? Looks like it to me.

I think it's more a case of meeting the definition in spirit, kind of like what someone said earlier in the thread.

I'd say it should be within sight of an ocean, if we are taking "coast to coast" as literally as possible. But on the other hand, it if just reaches a major coastal city, it could count, I think that's more a case of meeting the definition in spirit.

The Boston terminus of US 20[e] is roughly as far from the Atlantic as US 30's Astoria terminus is from the Pacific.

To me, a highway is truly coast-to-coast if it reaches at least to the last US Route or Interstate on both ends.

US-30 ends at US-101 right by the coast.

Salt should be the deciding factor. As I posted earlier, the water off Astoria is probably salty enough to be considered part of the Pacific.

[Quillz]

Yes, I could see the "in spirit" argument for sure. The mouth of the Columbia River isn't too far from the ocean at that point, although it's still quite a few miles inland. 101 is itself many miles from the coast by this point. But I guess it's "close enough."

But yes, does come down to how one would really define "coastal." US-20 ends in sight of the Pacific Ocean, but I don't think US-30 does (as Astoria is mostly at sea level).

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, I could see the "in spirit" argument for sure. The mouth of the Columbia River isn't too far from the ocean at that point, although it's still quite a few miles inland. 101 is itself many miles from the coast by this point. But I guess it's "close enough."

But yes, does come down to how one would really define "coastal." US-20 ends in sight of the Pacific Ocean, but I don't think US-30 does (as Astoria is mostly at sea level).

What will really get you is that US 26 used to multiplex US 101 north from Cannon Beach to US 30 in Astoria.  To me that makes less sense than dragging US 30 to Cannon Beach just to have that true "coast to coast" title.