FreightWaves Classics: Transcontinental trip leads to the numbered highway system (Part 3)

In Part 1 of this article, a trip by two officials of the American Automobile Association (AAA) led to problems due to the practice of naming major roads during the first 25 years of the 20th century.

In Part 2, FreightWaves Classics detailed actions that were taken to move the country toward numbering its highways in a uniform manner.

In Part 3, actions by state and federal highway officials are highlighted.

The Joint Board’s report

The decision to clear the tentative U.S. numbered highway map with the state highway agencies did not work well. By the time the Joint Board’s drafting committee completed its report to the Secretary of Agriculture, the system had been expanded to 75,800 miles, over 50% more than the Joint Board had approved on August 4!

Meanwhile, the numbering committee had developed a plan. On August 27, BPR’s E.W. James wrote to the committee members. He enclosed a small U.S. map on which he illustrated “the possibility of a systematic plan for numbering interstate routes.”

Years later, he discussed how he approached the task: “As you know, the U.S. is about twice as wide as it is from North to South, and with this I saw a complete pattern of just what I wished. It stares one in the face, it is so simple and so adjustable. With north-south roads numbered odd from east to west, and east-west roads numbered even from north to south, you at once start a simple, systematic, complete, expansible pattern for a long-time development.”

On James’ map, all of the “continuous routes” laid out by the committee during the Joint Board’s meeting had been numbered. James assigned two-digit numbers ending in zero for the main east-west routes. For the main north-south routes, he assigned numbers ending in 1 or 5. With the key routes numbered, the remaining routes could be numbered with three-digit numbers.

On September 25, 1925, the committee met in St. Louis to finish the numbering proposal, and they followed the concept developed by James. “Transcontinental and principal east-west routes were assigned multiples of 10, with the lowest number along the Canadian border (U.S. 2, chosen to avoid a U.S. 0). The principal north-south routes were given numbers ending in 1, with U.S. 1 along the East Coast. The north-south routes of considerable length but secondary importance were given numbers ending in 5.”

The road grid was “filled in with two-digit numbers for alternates, cut-offs, and connecting routes. Three-digit numbers were assigned to branches, with the figures 1, 2, 3, etc., added as a prefix in sequence along the line of the through route (thus, the first branch of U.S. 20 was U.S. 120, the second U.S. 220, etc.).

For the most part, the plan resulted in a consistent numbering sequence, with room for expansion because some one- and two-digit numbers had not been used. The Joint Board’s final report noted, however, that absolute consistency was neither possible nor desirable.”

The Joint Board submitted its report to the Secretary of Agriculture on October 26, 1925. As well as describing the Joint Board’s decisions (and how they were reached), the report “contained the first log of the U.S. numbered interstate routes, beginning with Route No. 1 (Fort Kent, Maine, to Miami) and ending with Route No. 630 (Echo to Ogden, Utah). The report also transmitted the signs approved by the Joint Board, including the U.S. shield.” In addition, the Joint Board urged the Secretary to send the report to AASHO, which represented the state highway agencies that would be responsible for operation of the U.S. routes.

On November 18, Secretary of Agriculture William Jardine wrote to BPR’s MacDonald. He stated that he had been “impressed with the broad lines, orderliness, and conspicuous fairness” of the work done by the Joint Board. Further, he asked MacDonald to transmit the report to AASHO and “express his concurrence with the system of routes proposed and with the plan to mark them uniformly.”

Further, he wrote, “The directness of the through routes will doubtless serve a very large number of our population that travel from one general section of our country to another and will facilitate that freedom of communication which more than anything else binds our States and our country in one united nation.”

After receiving the report, AASHO adopted it. 

The “infernal regions” start popping

Reaction to the Joint Board’s work was mixed. It was certainly widely applauded. For example, travel writer William Ullman began an article, “Seventy-five thousand miles of highways and not one cent for promotion!” He added that the plan would “untangle the jumbled network of roads left by the haphazard, incoherent, disjointed activities” of the named trail associations.

In its newsletter, the North Dakota Highway Department praised the trail associations for their “splendid spirit and work done” but stated that they had “outlived their usefulness.”

Praise or condemnation of the new system was often based on how it would affect a state or city. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat stated “St. Louis, the logical ‘hub’ of this great highway system, will, more and more, become the important center of motor travel. The newspaper article listed the four major routes that would pass through the city – U.S. 40, 50, 60 and 61. 

Others criticized the plan roundly. Western Highways Builder stated, “Of all the idealistic proposals yet advanced for the administration of highways, none can equal this for pure imbecility.”

The Portland Journal objected to the decision to replace “The Old Oregon Trail, which conjures up images of the great 19th century way west, with a couple of meaningless numerals.” 

Whether reactions were positive or negative in regard to numbering the nation’s interstate highways, one thing was clear – the plan was a major change “that would have profound effects not just on motorists but on states, counties, and cities, as well as the named trail associations.”

The named trail associations were against the numbered highway plan. The Joint Board, which wanted to eliminate the trail associations, had no authority to eliminate them. However, it had specifically not “given a single number to any of the multi-state named trails, instead breaking them up among several numbers.”

Among the named trail associations, the Lincoln Highway Association was one of the few that seemed to accept the proposal. In a February 1926 editorial in the Lincoln Highway Forum, the association noted that it would have preferred a single number for the Lincoln Highway, but “this was only a sentimental consideration.” It also stated, “This is unimportant as the routes selected to be U.S. Highways gain no advantage whatsoever from such selection.” It went on, stating that the Lincoln Highway “is too firmly established upon the map of the United States and in the minds and hearts of the people” for its red, white and blue markers to ever “lose their significance or their place on America’s first transcontinental road.”

On April 10, 1926, Gael S. Hoag, the association’s secretary, wrote to MacDonald at the BPR: “We have long appreciated the necessity of this law or at least some sort of a rule which would allow the states to forbid the indiscriminate erection of markers but we have also felt that such associations as the National Old Trails, the Dixie Highway, the Lincoln Highway, the Yellowstone Trail, etc., would be allowed to retain their established names provided the marking was done in a dignified manner.”

MacDonald confirmed that the individual states would decide whether the markers of highway and trail associations would be allowed. 

When AASHO Executive Committee members met in Chicago on January 14-15, 1926, they were faced with many complaints that were generated by the named trail associations, towns and cities, and individuals who were dissatisfied with the number their route received, or the fact that their route or city was left off.

Many of the complaints were minor; the Executive Committee resolved 79 during its meeting. But many others were major and would be resolved through a letter ballot of the states during the remainder of the year. The Executive Committee acted on over 60 additional cases through early November 1926. Among them was the long-standing dispute between the Old and New Santa Fe Trails. The old trail was part of the new U.S. 50, while U.S. 250 was assigned to the new trail. 

Similarly, there was a controversy over designation of the Kansas segments of the Victory Highway and the National Roosevelt Midland Trail. The Joint Board had assigned U.S. 40 to the Victory Highway only as far west as Manhattan, Kansas. At the request of Kansas, AASHO’s Executive Committee approved splits of U.S. 40 (North and South) and U.S. 50 (North and South). 

There were many other disagreements with one highway designation or another. However, by the time AASHO opened its annual meeting, only a few cases remained to be settled by the Executive Committee. In all, it had acted on 132 requests from state highway agencies seeking changes in routing or numbering. 

FreightWaves Classics thanks the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, the American Automobile Association, the Federal Highway Administration, americanroads.us, the Iowa Department of Transportation, routemarkers.com and other sources for information and photos that contributed to this article.

Source: freightwaves - FreightWaves Classics: Transcontinental trip leads to the numbered highway system (Part 3)
Editor: Scott Mall