How and Why US Route 60 got its number

Contributed by: Joel L. Carter

The eastern section of the National Roosevelt Midland Trail figured in the
most heated controversy facing the AASHO Executive Committee in 1926. The Joint
Board on Interstate Highways had split the trail at Shoals, Indiana, instead of
giving it a single multiple-of-ten designation, and had added insult to injury
by not even giving the eastern portion a single number. Through West Virginia to
Ashland, Kentucky, the trail was U.S. 52; from Ashland to Louisville - U.S. 62;
and Louisville to Shoals, Indiana - U.S. 150.

Governor William J. Fields of Kentucky, a long-time good roads booster, was
convinced that his State had been discriminated against, and he had no doubt
why. On December 8, he announced that Kentucky would ignore the U.S.
numbers:

I invite the scrutiny of every governor and
every member of Congress to the U.S. Highway map drawn up by the federal
bureau of highways working under the Federal Department of Agriculture.
Chicago influence is written all over the map. All east and west traffic is
routed north of the Ohio. I particularly object to the obliteration of my
idol, my dream, the Midland Trail, running from Ashland to Lexington and to
Louisville. I have worked hard for this great road. The north and south roads
too are guaged [sic] for Chicago benefit and that of the northwest alone. The
east, I am sure, will join in with me in my protest, likewise the
south.

I will use every means in my power to fight
this proposition of isolation.

As his reference to Chicago suggests, he had noticed U.S. 60 running from
that city to Los Angeles. Scanning the map of the East Coast, he saw the
"naught" routes numbered in sequence approaching Kentucky--20, 30,40, 50 from
the north, 90, 80, and 70 from the south--but "60," which he could see should
have gone through Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky, was in Chicago.

The fate of the Dixie Highway did not help his mood. Two branches of the road
from Michigan to Florida intersected the National Roosevelt Midland Trail in
Kentucky. Under the Joint Board's plan, the western branch of the Dixie Highway
in Kentucky was part of U.S. 31 (Mackinac, Michigan, to Mobile, Alabama), which
at least had the distinction of ending in "1," indicating it was a principal
north-south route. The eastern branch was part of U.S. 25 (Toledo, Ohio, to
Augusta, Georgia), the "5" indicating secondary importance.

In short, Kentucky's view was that it had been cut off not only from
transcontinental traffic but also from the north-south traffic to Florida.

The man on the hot seat was State Highway Engineer E. N. Todd. He had
attended the group meeting in Chicago during which Kentucky's through routes
were identified. He also had consented to the numbering plan during AASHO's
annual meeting in Detroit and had not objected to the dismemberment of the
National Roosevelt Midland Trail, which he considered "a thing of the past." In
any event, he had little say in the matter. Because Kentucky had not paid its
dues of $200 to AASHO, he could not have cast a vote if the matter had been
decided in Detroit.

Backers of the National Roosevelt Midland Trail were aroused to protest. C.
F. Underhill of the Southern West Virginia Automobile Club was outraged by the
dismemberment of the trail:

This will be a big surprise to the people of West
Virginia who have always understood that the Roosevelt Midland Trail was a
great transcontinental route from either Washington, D.C., or Old Point
Comfort to San Francisco.

A statement from the Eastern Division of the Midland Trail Association,
noting the problem with the dues, complained:

As a pacifier, a secondary U.S. numbered road
starting at Ashland and ending in the swamps of Arkansas, is offered
Louisville. Comparing this meager offering of U.S. marked roads with our more
fortunate sister cities is to blush with shame and humiliation. The policy of
silence, concealment and secretiveness of this joint board is un-American and
should be universally condemned. A fair and impartial hearing on all questions
affecting the welfare of the citizens of the United States is their
inalienable birthright and their bulwark is the National
Government.

Taking direct action, Governor Fields arranged to meet with AASHO's Executive
Committee in Chicago. In anticipation, the State prepared a five-page summary of
its case and sent it to the State highway agencies that would be affected by the
controversy. The Executive Committee would reject the proposed change in the
numbers assigned to the Dixie Highway. The National Roosevelt Midland Trail was
another matter.

Piepmeier of Missouri, one of the States that would be affected by Kentucky's
protest, expressed his view of the matter to James early in January:

The fellows from Kentucky think we should change
some of our main roads through Missouri. I will not agree with this as they
have had their opportunity to be heard and are now trying to upset the plan
that has been worked out by the Joint Board.

James was equally unimpressed by Kentucky's arguments:

[It] looks to me as if the trails organizations in
that State are controlling the whole situation so far as the present complaint
is concerned.

Piepmeier could not attend the conference in Chicago, but Avery, who did
attend, indicated he was less concerned with whether his route would be "60" or
"62," as long as it had a single number from Chicago to Los Angeles. The
Executive Committee decided to retain "60" for the route from Chicago to Los
Angeles, but assign a single number, "62," to the route from Newport News,
Virginia, to Springfield, Missouri. The fallback position was to shift "60" to
the route through Kentucky and assign "62" to the Chicago-to-Los Angeles route
if Kentucky still objected.

Kentucky did. Governor Fields went to Washington where he joined with the
State's congressional delegation to present his case in stronger terms to Chief
MacDonald and James on January 25. As MacDonald later recalled, Governor Fields
presented "the one logical argument to support their appeal." He simply
displayed the Joint Board's map, noting that Kentucky was the only Mississippi
Valley State without a number ending in zero.

They called attention to this condition with much
emphasis, and it was an argument that could not be fairly
met.

All participants agreed to shift "60" to the Newport News-to-Springfield
highway. The Chicago to Los Angeles route, formerly U.S. 60, would be assigned
"62." These changes, while satisfactory to Kentucky, were contingent on the
expected agreement from the other States involved and approval by the Executive
Committee.

When Executive Secretary Markham sought agreement in early February, he was
met with outraged opposition from Missouri and Oklahoma. Piepmeier sent a
telegram to "bitterly protest" the change. It was impossible, he said, because
Missouri had already printed and distributed 600,000 maps showing the original
numbers.

Oklahoma's Cyrus Avery was equally incensed, particularly because the change
had been made after the Executive Committee's meeting in Chicago without notice
to the committee's members. His telegram to Markham said:

If routes are to be changed this way without any
notice to States or to Executive Committee, you are making a joke of the
interstate highway.
I can think of nothing more unfair to the original
marking committee or to the members of the Executive
Committee.

Avery noted that Oklahoma had also prepared literature showing U.S. 60 and
had prepared U.S. 60 signs for the route. He concluded:

We shall insist on Route Sixty from Chicago to Los
Angeles.

Markham was offended. He replied to Avery that, "I have been in this work too
long and have been too careful in my management of affairs to deserve the
telegram which you sent." As Avery knew, the work of the Executive Committee
"has been handled by Mr. James... although the letters of recent date have been
handled over my signature." The decision on "60" had been made by Chief
MacDonald and James during the meeting with Kentucky based on Avery's assurance
in Chicago that he was not so much concerned with the number "60" or "62," but
with securing a single number for the entire route from Chicago to Los Angeles.
Markham also was surprised that Missouri and Oklahoma had gone ahead with the
maps, signs, and publicity before the Executive Committee had given the word. In
closing, Markham expressed his overall frustration with the many cases "under
contention":

The selection of the interstate system of highways,
while it was more or less contentious, was nothing in comparison to the
contention that is going on between the States in reference to this numbering
system.

On February 10, in a telegram to Chief MacDonald, Avery "strenuously
objected" to the change. MacDonald replied that same day. The change, he said by
telegram, had been made consistent with Avery's statements in Chicago, but the
change was a "more logical use of numbers than reverse." Kentucky was, he said,
"entitled to consideration." If "62" was not satisfactory, Kentucky would agree
to U.S. 60 North for the route from Chicago to Los Angeles. Although the
decision was "immaterial to me," MacDonald made clear how he felt:

We have been endeavoring to compose situations all
over country in order to prevent attempt to upset whole plan. Stop. Expect
your cooperation.

Neither idea, "62" or "60 North," was acceptable to Piepmeier. He told
Avery:

We should use one of the zero numbers, this is one
of the biggest roads.

As for U.S. 60 North:

I would rather accept anything than
this.

Faced with this opposition, MacDonald, James, Markham and other members of
the Executive Committee suggested an alternative. The route from Newport News to
Springfield would become U.S. 60 East; from Chicago to Springfield would become
U.S. 60 North; and Springfield to Los Angeles would be U.S. 60. James conveyed
the proposal to Avery, Piepmeier, and Sheets of Illinois.

This proposal, too, was unacceptable to Piepmeier. During the Joint Board's
meetings, he had objected to adding such designations as "north" to the routes.
Since then, he had observed that the use of such additions in Kansas was "not
making a big hit." He repeated that he would prefer any exclusive number rather
than a split number.

Kentucky also rejected the plan. Todd wrote that Governor Fields and the
State Highway Commission consider it would be an injustice to Kentucky not to
have one route ending in '0' without its being marked 'E.' MacDonald tried one
more appeal to Avery.

Personally I think that more time has been spent on
this matter than it deserves.

He thought the "East/North" option was more favorable to Oklahoma than the
other options:

I understand your desire to hold for Oklahoma all
the advantage possible, but it seems to me that Route 60 with an outlet to
Chicago and to the east coast is a greater advantage to Oklahoma than either
one alone.

By April, the Route 60 issue was the last major matter to be decided before
the BPR could respond to the public demand for a map of the U.S. numbered
highways. Complicating the matter was a resolution proposed by Senator Park
Trammell of Florida assailing the BPR to make no change in the marking and
designation of interstate highways that would end the marking of highways by
names. Chief MacDonald advised Avery that the resolution had been made as a
result of a "determined effort" by commercial organizations to defeat the U.S.
numbering plan. Upon discussing the matter with Chief MacDonald, Senator
Trammell had withheld the resolution, but MacDonald was still concerned that the
numbering plan might be defeated by what he described as "a great deal of false
and mischievous propaganda."

The solution to the confusing puzzle came on April 30 when Avery met with
Piepmeier in Springfield. Oklahoma's Chief Highway Engineer, John M. Page,
noticed that the number "66" had not been assigned to any route. Avery and
Piepmeier immediately sent a telegram to Chief MacDonald:

We prefer sixty-six to
sixty-two.

In July, Kentucky agreed to this arrangement -- U.S. 60 from Newport News to
Springfield, U.S. 66 from Chicago to Los Angeles. When James informed Avery of
this news, Avery wrote to thank James for his interest in finding a
solution.

As for the Chicago to Los Angeles highway, we assure
you that it will be a road through Oklahoma that the U.S. Government will be
proud of. As for the U.S. 60 shields, we will have to junk them.
*

Although Route 66 would, indeed, become a road America could be proud of;
neither Avery nor Piepmeier would be around to make it happen. Piepmeier
submitted his resignation in December 1926 and left the following month to
accept a private business opportunity. In Oklahoma, a newly elected Governor
dismissed Avery in January 1927. John Page also was dismissed. As for Fields,
his term as Governor of Kentucky ended in 1927.

Reprinted from an Article in the Spring 1997 AASHTO Quarterly -
"From Names to Numbers: The Origins of the U.S. Numbered Highway System" by
Richard F. Weingroff, Information Specialist, FHWA. Minor revisions by R.V.
Droz.

Back to "Route
66 - In the Beginning"

* US 60 did reach Oklahoma in 1930, a scant four years later.
Those shields would have been useful.- RVD

This page first posted January 20, 2000.

This page last updated Friday, February 23, 2001 03:49:09
PM Eastern Standard Time.