Stupid decommissionings

[national highway 1]

One stupid decommissioning that I don't think has been mentioned - US 260 between Holbrook AZ and Deming NM which was decommissioned in 1961. US 180 doesn't need to turn NW from El Paso just to have one route number from El Paso to the Grand Canyon... Also I think the I-40/US 180 multiplex between Holbrook and Flagstaff is pointless, the section of US 180 between the Grand Canyon and Flagstaff can revert to AZ 164.

[tdindy88]

I've always found the disclaimer on the official Indiana maps interesting: "US Routes are indicated in red but they are not always the best or shortest routes between points."  I guess it depends which points one is talking about.

Interesting, since there aren't exactly "points" on the map, maybe the stars that are used for distance with the bold black mileage numbers.

[Scott5114]

I've always found the disclaimer on the official Indiana maps interesting: "US Routes are indicated in red but they are not always the best or shortest routes between points."  I guess it depends which points one is talking about.

Interesting, since there aren't exactly "points" on the map, maybe the stars that are used for distance with the bold black mileage numbers.

I have a feeling they were referring to more idiomatic points; like in "point A to point B." i.e. Any given segment of U.S. route might not serve as the best route to take between that segment's termini.

[PurdueBill]

I've always found the disclaimer on the official Indiana maps interesting: "US Routes are indicated in red but they are not always the best or shortest routes between points."  I guess it depends which points one is talking about.

Interesting, since there aren't exactly "points" on the map, maybe the stars that are used for distance with the bold black mileage numbers.

I have a feeling they were referring to more idiomatic points; like in "point A to point B." i.e. Any given segment of U.S. route might not serve as the best route to take between that segment's termini.

That's what I thought too--that the best route from here to there might not be on the US route that happens to pass through here and there.  It may be on an Interstate, or it might be on a state route!  (case in point--IN 63 vs. US 41.)  What I find odd is that they specifically color-code the US routes, which makes them appear to be special somehow, and then go to the trouble of the disclaimer.  Why not just color-code by type of physical road (undivided, divided, limited access, etc.) vs. based on what shields are posted?

[tdindy88]

I gotcha. Interestingly, and I know this is getting a bit off topic, I was just thinking of the DeLorme atlas for Indiana (and other states) that marks its US highways with a symbology that is similar to divided highways on other maps, making you think that it is divided, when it is merely marking that it is a US highway. As for paper maps, one that I've liked is the Warren Map for Indiana, which has all non-interstate or divided highways marked with a light red color. Major U.S. and state highways (National Highway System) are indicated by a red, thicker line. Divided highways too are marked between yellow divided highway symbology (similar to Rand McNally atlas maps) and the more important divided highways (again NHS) have a thicker yellow divided highway symbology. As with your IN 63 vs US 41 example, Indiana 63 is marked as a major divided highway while US 41 is marked as a minor highway (the same color as say SR 47 or US 36.)

[The High Plains Traveler]

One stupid decommissioning that I don't think has been mentioned - US 260 between Holbrook AZ and Deming NM which was decommissioned in 1961. US 180 doesn't need to turn NW from El Paso just to have one route number from El Paso to the Grand Canyon... Also I think the I-40/US 180 multiplex between Holbrook and Flagstaff is pointless, the section of US 180 between the Grand Canyon and Flagstaff can revert to AZ 164.

I won't disagree that having 180 run concurrent with other routes for hundreds of miles to make that connection (consolidating with 260) ended up connecting two routes that had no need for continuity. I will opine that of the 62-180 pair east of El Paso across west Texas and southeast New Mexico, 180 is the more logical number for that road even though 62 predated it by a few years. It's too bad Arizona has made use of the 260 designation for a major state route, otherwise one could just "undo" the consolidation. Holbrook to Deming represent good termini for a short U.S. route without trying to connect it to other roads. Make it an x70.

[national highway 1]

AZ 95 between Arizona Village and I-40, that road is perfectly servicable. Having AZ 95 to cross into California just to maintain a continuous routing doesn't make sense and the fact that US 95 is across the Colorado River from AZ 95 adds to the confusion. And also the juction of AZ 95 and US 95 in Quartzsite is just as confusing.

[nexus73]

US 6 and US 60 should still be connected to SoCal IMO.

Rick

[sr641]

us 40 through terre haute

[Rover_0]

As for Utah, this one takes the cake:



I still don't understand why UDOT thought this was a good idea. If they wanted to avoid having one US Route (US-40) end while another continues (US-189), then they should have kept US-189 on its old alignment (UT-32). That, or they should do that.



Even though the UT-11/US-89A issue has been taken care of.



I still feel that UDOT, AzDOT, and NMDot should have renumbered US-666, if they really "had" to, to something like US-566 or US-766 in order to preserve the route's ties to US-66. Who cares if it's primarily north-south?

As for other states, US-60 should have been moved along AZ-72 and CA-62 when I-10 was built; it could've still been used along the CA-60 freeway.

[agentsteel53]

when did that End 666 sign get replaced?  near the renumbering, or did it survive for a while?

[texaskdog]

I like how they realized it was more of a x91 than a x66. Though 191 should really be 91 to begin with

[agentsteel53]

I like how they realized it was more of a x91 than a x66. Though 191 should really be 91 to begin with

I'm not sure if they've ever done such a wholesale relocation of a US route number of that many miles, as renumbering current 191 to 91 would be, relative to the old 91.

sure, there have been very disparate segments of US-48, but none were particularly long ... the only comparable example I have is US-54 taking over US-70's route to El Paso and US-70 being rerouted to Los Angeles: about 700 miles of rerouting, with the remaining 1700 or so miles of US-70 being effectively unchanged. 

even the original 191 extension took a very short route and lengthened it.

is there an example of a number getting changed from one long (1500+ mile) routing to another like this hypothetical?  I cannot think of one. 

in conclusion, 191 is fine.  it should really be US-89, with US-89 being renumbered to US-91, if we want to keep the grid.

[texaskdog]

I like how they realized it was more of a x91 than a x66. Though 191 should really be 91 to begin with

I'm not sure if they've ever done such a wholesale relocation of a US route number of that many miles, as renumbering current 191 to 91 would be, relative to the old 91.

sure, there have been very disparate segments of US-48, but none were particularly long ... the only comparable example I have is US-54 taking over US-70's route to El Paso and US-70 being rerouted to Los Angeles: about 700 miles of rerouting, with the remaining 1700 or so miles of US-70 being effectively unchanged. 

even the original 191 extension took a very short route and lengthened it.

is there an example of a number getting changed from one long (1500+ mile) routing to another like this hypothetical?  I cannot think of one. 

in conclusion, 191 is fine.  it should really be US-89, with US-89 being renumbered to US-91, if we want to keep the grid.

True dat, line them all up right  

[Avalanchez71]

Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village?  With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one.  I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.

[RobbieL2415]

I don't think it was necessary to chance CT 20 to CT 190 east of the CT River. Just sign CT 20 on I-91 to Exit 47-EW and call it a day.

I would have left CT 159 as US 5A.

[Occidental Tourist]

Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village?  With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one.  I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.

It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway.  US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.

https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/

[US 89]

Holy 8-year necrobump.

[Avalanchez71]

Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village?  With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one.  I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.

It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway.  US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.

https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/

Looks like the 1971 map does show US 180 going all the way up to the Grand Canyon.

[Dirt Roads]

Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village?  With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one.  I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.

It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway.  US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.

https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/

Looks like the 1971 map does show US 180 going all the way up to the Grand Canyon.

I worked for the National Park Service on a proposed rail transit system from Tusayan to the Rim about 22 years ago.  The primary issue is how to discourage folks from taking their personal vehicles beyond Tusayan.  The road system cannot easily be redesigned to accommodate a huge flow of traffic (say about 25,000 VPD, many of which are trying to come and go about the same times as the park hours).

[sparker]

I worked for the National Park Service on a proposed rail transit system from Tusayan to the Rim about 22 years ago.  The primary issue is how to discourage folks from taking their personal vehicles beyond Tusayan.  The road system cannot easily be redesigned to accommodate a huge flow of traffic (say about 25,000 VPD, many of which are trying to come and go about the same times as the park hours).

Question: was this service intended to utilize the existing ex-Santa Fe line from Williams to GC Village or a new LR-type facility?  And if running over the extant trackage, was it to be configured as independent self-propelled rail cars (a la the old Budd RDC's or the modern equivalent) or standard locomotive-powered passenger coaches? 

[Dirt Roads]

I worked for the National Park Service on a proposed rail transit system from Tusayan to the Rim about 22 years ago.  The primary issue is how to discourage folks from taking their personal vehicles beyond Tusayan.  The road system cannot easily be redesigned to accommodate a huge flow of traffic (say about 25,000 VPD, many of which are trying to come and go about the same times as the park hours).

Question: was this service intended to utilize the existing ex-Santa Fe line from Williams to GC Village or a new LR-type facility?  And if running over the extant trackage, was it to be configured as independent self-propelled rail cars (a la the old Budd RDC's or the modern equivalent) or standard locomotive-powered passenger coaches?

This was planned as an automated light rail transit (ALRT) service over new trackage constructed parallel to AZ-64 from a huge parking facility to be constructed outside the park in Kaibab National Forest.  They were hoping that diesel LRVs would be commercially available and we were coordinating the designs with several transit agencies that were also hoping for this technology.  Since DLRVs did not become ready for sale in the United States, the additional cost to electrify the system certainly doomed it. 

[Mapmikey]

Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village?  With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one.  I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.

It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway.  US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.

https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/

Looks like the 1971 map does show US 180 going all the way up to the Grand Canyon.

US 180 ends at the Tusayan entrance to Grand Canyon NP

[sparker]

I worked for the National Park Service on a proposed rail transit system from Tusayan to the Rim about 22 years ago.  The primary issue is how to discourage folks from taking their personal vehicles beyond Tusayan.  The road system cannot easily be redesigned to accommodate a huge flow of traffic (say about 25,000 VPD, many of which are trying to come and go about the same times as the park hours).

Question: was this service intended to utilize the existing ex-Santa Fe line from Williams to GC Village or a new LR-type facility?  And if running over the extant trackage, was it to be configured as independent self-propelled rail cars (a la the old Budd RDC's or the modern equivalent) or standard locomotive-powered passenger coaches?

This was planned as an automated light rail transit (ALRT) service over new trackage constructed parallel to AZ-64 from a huge parking facility to be constructed outside the park in Kaibab National Forest.  They were hoping that diesel LRVs would be commercially available and we were coordinating the designs with several transit agencies that were also hoping for this technology.  Since DLRVs did not become ready for sale in the United States, the additional cost to electrify the system certainly doomed it. 

That's too bad.  Locally (general Bay Area) DLRV's are being used on the Marin/Sonoma County commute service over the former Northwestern Pacific line between San Rafael and Santa Rosa; so since the previous failed AZ project, the situation regarding motive power has certainly changed.  Nevertheless, with the present and unavoidable downturn in park visitation, it may be quite a while -- if ever -- before any similar service is reconsidered. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Wanst' there a US Highway posted up to Grand Canyon Village?  With such a major destination is seems dumb to decommission that one.  I know that TN tried to get US 76 posted up to Lookout Mountain Village but that was denied.

It doesn't appear that AZ 64 was ever signed as a US Highway.  US 180 between Flagstaff and AZ 64 was a relatively recent numbering.

https://www.aaroads.com/arizona/historical-maps-arizona/

Looks like the 1971 map does show US 180 going all the way up to the Grand Canyon.

US 180 ends at the Tusayan entrance to Grand Canyon NP

It's very well signed too:

https://flic.kr/p/SVxSkb

https://flic.kr/p/RVshDn