- 16 -
STATE |
ROUTE |
DESCRIPTION |
| TEXAS- NEW MEXICO- ARIZONA (Re-Submission) cont'd. |
U. S. 180 Extension of a U. S. Route |
(Arizona Section) Beginning on the Arizona-New Mexico State line east of Alpine, thence west over U. S. 260 (to be eliminated if U. S. 180 extension is approved) to Alpine, thence northerly, over U. S. 666 via Springerville to St. Johns, thence northwesterly via Concho and Holbrook to U. S. 65, thence westerly over (I-40) U. S. 66 via Winslow to State Route 164 in Flagstaff, thence northwesterly over S. R. 164 to State Rte. 64 north of Williams thence northerly to Grand Canyon over S. R. 64, a total distance of 296 miles. |
| (See page 15 for action on this application) | ||
| MINNESOTA- NORTH DAKOTA- MONTANA |
Establistment of a U. S. Route (New) |
(Minnesota Section) This routing would begin on U. S. Route 2 at the junction with State Route 34 northwest of Floodwood, thence westerly over S. R. 34 to U. S. 371 south of Walker, thence westerly over U. S. 371 through Walker to junction with State Route 92 south of Leech Lake, thence westerly over S. R. 92 to junction with State Route 31, northwest of Lake Itasca, thence westerly with S. R. 31 via Mahnomen and Ada. to U. S. 75, thence run north with U. S. 75 and S. R. 31 to Halstad, thence west on S. R. 31 to the Minnesota-North Dakota State line. |
| DENIED The establishment of a new U. S. route was denied in all three states for the following reasons: (1) Consideration must be given the total length of the proposed route and standard vere inadequate on some sections and do not meet the requirements set out under Item 16 of the "Purpose and Policy in the Establishment and Development of the U. S. Numbered Highways," adopted January 1, 1959; 2) There was no evidence of sufficient through traffic on the proposed route to warrant its inclusion in the U. S. Numbered System; (3) The proposed route is through the same traffic corridor served by existing U. S. routes and does not qualify in accordance with Item 5 of the above policy; (4) There is no evidence that the existing U. S. routes earning the terminal points are overcrowded and are not adequate to handle the traffic to the point where an additional or alternate route is justified; (5) The purpose of establishing the U. S. Route System was to provide the shortest and best route between major control points, and this proposal is in conflict with the policy as expressed in Item 10. | ||
