Route 66

What would have been the effect of including Route 66 in the new Interstate Highway System and simply upgrading it and improving it to go along with the newer interstate highways?
 
Basically, the same path as Route 66 is on the interstate system: I-15 north from LA, transfer to I-40 east at Barstow, then take that to Oklahoma City, where you switch to I-44 north to St. Louis, then finally I-55 to Chicago. That's roughly the same path as Route 66.
 
Last edited:
I did what was left of Route 66 in 1966 and I enjoyed it more than the Interstate, but I wasn't in a rush. The purpose of a highway and an interstate are not necessarily the same, so their routes differ. Simple.
 
Basically, the same path as Route 66 is on the interstate system: I-15 north from LA, transfer to I-40 east at Barstow, then take that to Oklahoma City, where you switch to I-44 north to St. Louis, then finally I-55 to Chicago. That's roughly the same path as Route 66.

But that's what I'm getting at. Why didn't they just take Route 66 and make it into I-66 instead of building Interstates that mirrored it?
 
But that's what I'm getting at. Why didn't they just take Route 66 and make it into I-66 instead of building Interstates that mirrored it?
Well, for one thing, they couldn't have followed it exactly. Running a 65+ mph highway down the path of a road which in some cases passes down the main streets of towns with speed limits in the 30s--heck, I've heard there's part of the remaining road that are right next to schools, so they're 25 mph school zones during daylight hours. You can't run a 6-lane modern highway down a right-of-way like that, so you're going to end up bypassing a lot of the same towns even with this "I-66." It's necesary to make it an interstate, but you'll lose a lot of the feel as soon as you make that inevitable compromise. At that point, the difference between having a unified "I-66" name applied to the sections of the four otherwise identical roadways is kind of trivial. "I-66" wouldn't be the same as Route 66.
 
Well, for one thing, they couldn't have followed it exactly. Running a 65+ mph highway down the path of a road which in some cases passes down the main streets of towns with speed limits in the 30s--heck, I've heard there's part of the remaining road that are right next to schools, so they're 25 mph school zones during daylight hours. You can't run a 6-lane modern highway down a right-of-way like that, so you're going to end up bypassing a lot of the same towns even with this "I-66." It's necesary to make it an interstate, but you'll lose a lot of the feel as soon as you make that inevitable compromise. At that point, the difference between having a unified "I-66" name applied to the sections of the four otherwise identical roadways is kind of trivial. "I-66" wouldn't be the same as Route 66.

I grew up on a part of Historical Route 66 (it was then and is now known as IL Route 53). That road killed my family's cat and two of our dogs. I can only imagine the carnage there'd be if they added 30 miles to the speed limit (not to mention, my 180-year-old family home would've been torn down).

Of course, it was decided in some room somewhere to 'keep' Route 66 as a highway alongside the interstate system, and not convert it. Presumably for financial reasons, as most of the road would've been made out of towns and alot would be made to trying to transfer and expand old roads.

Route 66 died naturally as a continental highway, killed by the interstate system and other new roads connecting to the Interstate. Outside of the Historical Route 66 in my neck of the woods, there are tons of "Old Route 66" roads across the nation which are still working streets, and people *still* follow the trail as close as they can.

I-66 in 1960 would be an odd term, because Route 66 was still well-known and well-travelled. I don't think they'd accept two competing Routes 66.
 
It would have had little effect on the functioning of the Interstate because as e of pi states, the Interstate essentially followed the Route 66 route.

However the effect on the character and historical integrity of Route 66 as an American cultural icon would be disastrous. Upgrading Route 66 to Interstate Standards would have replaced what was, in many areas, a picturesque and winding (but unsafe) two-lane highway with a wide four lane superhighway. Not only would the road itself no longer exist in its historical form, the wider highway would destroy virtually all of the small towns and roadside businesses along them. No more Burma Shave signs, quaint motels, gas stations, and restaurants. As noted by Tim Thomason "Route 66", still survives in many areas as local roads, city streets, and state highways - and can still be traveled from Chicago to LA if one so desires.
 
Zoomar, I think you have a point--a lot of the cultural legacy of Route 66 lives on specifically because it was bypassed, left as a living reminder of the era because what it was and exactly how it interacted with the towns and landscapes was incompatible with the interstates. Try to make it a part of that, and I think you'd do more damage to Route 66 than it's taken in its "preserved by omission" state.
 
Zoomar, I think you have a point--a lot of the cultural legacy of Route 66 lives on specifically because it was bypassed, left as a living reminder of the era because what it was and exactly how it interacted with the towns and landscapes was incompatible with the interstates. Try to make it a part of that, and I think you'd do more damage to Route 66 than it's taken in its "preserved by omission" state.

Rt 66 is no different than US 40 (The National Road), US 30 (The Lincoln Highwy), US 1, US 101 or any of the other main highways of the previous era. They were all replaced by Interstates. The way Interstates were numbered was designed so that the US Highway and its Interstate replacement would not have the same number. The Interstate system complimented, not replaced the US highways
 
Top