Both of those statements are wrong.
It’s destination for European travelers. They rent Harleys and ride the route.
US-6 is 3,200 miles long, from Provincetown MA to Bishop CA. Just outside of Bishop is this sign saying Provincetown is 3,205 miles away. I’ve taken my picture there. (Interestingly, Wikipedia’s page says US-6 is 3,199 miles long.)
US-6 used to be the longest highway in the USA when it went out to Long Beach CA, until 1964 when many highways were renumbered.
Really? Do you really know what sections of 66 that asahi has seen? :dubious:
Curious — what made US 666 dangerous, and where are (or were) its dangerous spots?I drove the southern part of it last year, from Shiprock NM to Gallup NM. There’s a whole lotta nothing out there, lots of empty spaces and the highway is pretty straight.
You can see for miles and miles and miles — quite literally. I was cruising at 90-100 and still felt like I was getting nowhere. Kind of like walking the southern Las Vegas Strip — you keep walking but the huge casinos don’t seem to be getting any closer.
It’s still pretty popular around here in the St. Louis area. There are signs everywhere Route 66 used to be, and outside of the suburbs, it’s the main claim to fame for some of these small towns. “Back in the day, everybody had to drive through this town to go out west. Come see how it used to be, and visit Historic Downtown Litchfield, where nothing is up to date!”
The Chain of Rocks Bridge of St. Louis is famous in part because it was part of Route 66, and also because of its unique bend in the middle of the bridge.
US Route 666 had a southern section running through a mountainous part of eastern Arizona that was notoriously narrow and twisted. It’s now part of US Route 191.
I think I see it — running between Alpine and Morenci AZ, I believe. That looks very windy. I’ve been on the northern stretch of it, between Chambers AZ and Bluff UT. That’s a tame part of the road. Nice country out there. Especially Canyon de Chelly.
What, you playing grammar games? He wasn’t saying that he’d only seen 66 in AZ (and maybe NM), but that it only exists in AZ and NM.
Route 66 exists in more places than Asahi may or may not have seen. And people most assuredly care.
It’s not a game, is it? I read his post as saying that’s the only place he’s seen 66, and not saying that’s the only place it exists. And with that in mind I replied to your post. But now I guess I can see how it could possibly mean existence. Maybe I was being overly anal, I do that sometimes.
And certainly, people outside the southwest care about 66.
I’m pretty sure the lengthiest preserved parts of original 66 centerline would be in Oklahoma, where turnpikes built in the 1960s paralleled rather than replacing the old road—at least east of Oklahoma City. Excepting Tulsa’s 11th St. Bridge, I’m pretty sure you can still drive almost every foot of Old 66 from Miami to Hydro.
New Mexico has bits and pieces as frontage roads to I-40, but they’re discontinuous and have different numbers.
There is actually a certain amount of interest in bringing back U.S. Route 66. First of all, please let me dispel a common myth that such would be “impossible”. No, it is NOT impossible. But in order to do it you would first have to find the support for doing it.
Nearly 85% of the original Route is still very drivable and open for traffic. East of the Texas/Oklahoma state line, Route 66 could be brought back by running the designation along mostly historic alignments much as what has been done back East with U.S. 11.
West of the Texas state line a combination of historic and Interstate highway alignments would have to be used. But, like I said, there’s that “support” problem. The state DOT’s do not support doing this because, as another poster pointed out, it no longer fits AASHTO’s official definition for a U.S. Highway. I believe that to be mostly an excuse. The real reason is probably money. They don’t want to spend the money on such a project.
Congress could bypass the state DOTs and legislate such a thing but in order to do that, you’d need all the support you could get from the state Route 66 associations. Well, they don’t want to support it either 'cause they fear it would put too much traffic on Old Route 66 leading to public demands to improve the road thus destroying its historic appeal.
So, what is the answer? In three words: I don’t know. Maybe this will have to wait for some future time.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain,
U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative
I think this would be a better use of tax money than the wall.
Hookers and blow would be a better use of tax money than the wall.
I hope they bring back U.S. 66 just so we’ll have an excuse to also bring back U.S. 666.
The road to hell is paved with…asphalt?
First of all, I’d like to say that U.S. Route 666 was NOT redesignated as U.S. 191 because its “parent” route (U.S. 66) no longer existed. It was because some religious people in New Mexico objected to the number. Some people believe that the number 666 is “the mark of the beast” or something. As a deeply religious person myself I think this is absurd. It was a highway number for cryin’ out loud and the reason they came up with that number in the first place was entirely logical at the time.
But, this gets worse. You see, one of the reasons the states don’t want to look at the recommissioning the “66” U.S. Route designation is because it no longer fits AASHTO’s unenforceable “guidelines” for U.S. Routes. In no way do those same guidelines make a justification for the redesignation of U.S. 666. So, there’s just a bit of a double standard here.
Only a precious few people got any benefit out of the redesignation of U.S. 666 as U.S. 191 but millions of travelers would likely benefit big time by the the bringing back of the U.S. 66 designation along a combination of historic and modern alignments.
So, how 'bout it state DOTs?
Regards
Fred M. Cain
U.S. Route Recommissioning Initiative
While it was a factor for some, is mostly was, as was stated, the because the old US 66 it was a spur of was no longer there.
Cite:
…So religious aversion was at best, indirect. In any event, bringing back US 666 or not is moot if because whether it is there or not makes no difference to US 66 itself. With the romance of the route, people seem to be have an interest in it whether the pavement is still numbered US 66 or not, especially between Kingman and Seligman (helped by the fact it is now AZ 66).
Desert Dog,
I dunno. I’m curious as to WHERE Wiki got that information from. Is it for sure accurate? Both U.S. 166 and U.S. 266 are still commissioned in spite of the fact that U.S. 66 has been gone for decades.
Another route that comes to mind is U.S. 199 in southwestern Oregon and northwestern Calif. Again, this was a branch to U.S. 99 which has been gone for decades.
In the east, U.S. 220 never connected directly to U.S. 20 nor has U.S. 311 in North Carolina ever connected to U.S. 11. There are many other examples, as well. It’s also interesting to note that NEITHER U.S. 191 nor U.S. 491 connect directly to U.S. 91 which is now a mere shadow of its former self.
So, I guess what I’m wondering is where was the justification and logic in spending all that money to change out all those signs (not to mention a couple of years of driver confusion) simply because U.S. 666 no longer connected to it’s “parent” route? I don’t get it.
But my REAL point was, for them to go to that expense (for whatever reason) it seems to me like they could resign U.S. 66.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative
So millions of people would benefit if US 66 if it were recommissioned? I think not. The historic route signs serve the function for those that follow it as a road trip. Everyone else uses the interstate. Having what is now a minor frontage road carry the brand of a US highway dilutes the branding of the entire system (and we should get rid of all the other US highways that have and their purpose supplanted by interstates too.)