I’d just like to point out that the replacement numbering for 666 was not 191 but 491. And as I said earlier, it’s a better road in New Mexico than it used to be since it was widened and updated.
It’s both. The stretch of former US 666 north of I-40 is US 491. The stretch of former US 666 south of I-40 is US 191.
But unfortunately, they don’t. We feel like we have uncovered ample evidence to demonstrate that the “Historic” markers are insufficient as traffic guides. In a few areas they are O.K. but their application is inconsistent. You can read about that here: Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative - More Route 66 Signs Needed!
The goal of recommissioning is to make the Route more visible again so that people who want to drive it can find it more easily and stay on it. Sadly, at least for me, I fear that this may never happen. Once I thought it’d be such a simple thing. Just put the signs back up for cryin’ out loud. No need to “build a better road” just put the signs back up.
But a traffic engineer from the State of Missouri told me that would be far, far more expensive than I had thought. So, where is this money supposed to come from?
Congress could legislate it perhaps as an “ear tag” to some kind of a stimulus package. D.T. has proposed just such a package. Unfortunately, the details of D.T.’s infrastructure legislation always seem to be “just around the corner”. That’s been the case for over a year now so I sometimes wonder if even THAT will ever come to pass.
Time will tell.
Regard,
Fred M. Cain
Oh, I dunno about this. What do some of the other people on this list think about that? I agree that the U.S. Numbered Highway System is not nearly as important as it once was, say in the 1950s or early '60s.
But there are a few U.S. Routes that STILL carry significant state-to-state traffic. Others fill a roll that is an alternative to Interstate Highways. In much of northeastern Indiana and northwestern Ohio, U.S. 20 fills a roll as a toll-free alternative to the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike.
I’m sure there are other instances where keeping the U.S. Routes would appear to be desirable as well. I’d hate to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater here.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
You can say that again. Every year I travel some 900 miles to Burning Man. At the start there’s about 30 miles west on I-10, in the middle there’s about 20 miles on I-40 and 15 on various bits and spurs of I-15 in Las Vegas, and at the end, 30 miles each way to Reno back on I-80, which I could eliminate if I wanted to stock up in Fernley before heading north to Gerlach. The rest is US (mostly) and state highways. There just aren’t any useful north-south interstate routes between I-5 in California and I-25 in New Mexico.
Oh, and regarding your comment about some spurs still retaining their numbers after the demise of the original route: You’re truly expecting consistency in government policy? 
^What does the government have to do with US route numbering?
I dunno. I just figured the members of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials all work for one government or another. Close enough for me.
If there aren’t enough Historic US 66 markers up for people to follow it seems the solution is to put up more markers, rather than dilute the meaning of the U.S. Highway system as major through routes rather than minor local freeway frontage roads.
You seem really invested in this. But WHICH of these routes is the Route 66 that should be signed? (Note that this map doesn’t even show the Chain of Rocks Bridge, the various shifts on the Illinois side, or the routing that bypassed the city of St. Louis entirely.)
The one from 1954 that Ricky and Lucy drove on the way to California. Or maybe the one from 1962 that Tod and Buz would have driven.
There will always be roadgeeks who want to track down the temporary routing used only for eight months in 1932. They’re not the point. The point is accommodating the hundreds of thousands of American and international tourists who want to say they “drove Route 66.”
That might be a bit vague. I remember an episode where we were agog because they ate in a coffee shop my family frequented. The coffee shop was in Phoenix, where we lived, and – no – it wasn’t subbing for one in Flagstaff or something, it was mentioned it was in Phoenix. It didn’t make sense to my twelve-year old self. “But we’re not anywhere near route 66!” Dad told me to not think about it too much.
You mean the Route 66 that would have taken them on their dream tour of Niagara Falls, the Ozark Mountains, New Orleans, Cincinnati, the Rockies, Salt Lake City and the Grand Canyon?
Dear “Mr. Downtown”,
That is a most astute and absolutely EXCELLENT point ! I couldn’t agree more! That’s kind of what we tried to suggest on the web page The Plan.
If you scroll down to the “bullets” paragraphs, there are suggestions as to how deal with multiple alignments. The fact that the “66” U.S. Route designation followed several different paths over the years in some areas, shouldn’t be allowed to hold up any resigning effort. How important is it that the “66” U.S. Route designation ran on a particular street in East L.A. for 11 months in the late 1920s? In cases like that a few historic markers could still be posted but the “mainline” should be thoroughly posted to guide the kind of travelers that you suggested.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Yeah, I once saw a list of all the episodes that were shot and was surprised to see that in the real world, very, very few if any were actually set on the real Route 66. One was set in Louisiana - much farther from Route 66 than Phoenix. I guess most Americans at the time were not all that knowledgeable about U.S. geography or they didn’t care.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
MdCastle,
Uh, well, yeah, sure. I could kinda agree with the first part of your statement. It is my most honest, humble and sincere opinion that re-establishing an official “66” U.S. Route designation along a combination of historic and modern alignments would be the most satisfactory “fix” to signage issues.
However, if that could be done using “Historic” markers, why not? The problem is that most of the intent or function of the historic markers is commemorative in nature and not traffic control oriented. If you scroll down on the signage page you can see how route signs are supposed to function around junctions and intersections. We also hinted on that page that historic markers COULD be used.
However, on your last point, I’m not sure that recommissioning U.S. 66 would diminish or “dilute the meaning” of the rest of the U.S. Numbered Highways System. Indeed, if Route 66 were signed at the same level as other state highways but with Historic markers that show a “U.S.” shield, how many Plain Jane and Joe Blow motorists would really understand the difference? All they need is to be able to follow the Route and not end up wandering of it.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain