Why and how US 96 should be renumbered

(most recently updated 1/26/2024)
US 96 is one of the worst numbering violations in the US route system, because it is wrong on several levels:

• Its even number implies an east-west route, but US 96 actually runs north-south.
• Its two-digit number suggests a longer route, but US 96 is only 165 miles in length.
• It is an intra-state US route, meaning US 96 does not cross a state boundary (it exists only in Texas).
• In 1937, AASHO (now AASHTO) adopted a policy stating that "No new U. S. route located wholly in one State shall be established."  Yet just two years later, the US 96 designation was applied to a route located wholly in Texas.

​How did all of this happen?  When the US 59 designation was first commissioned in 1934, it did not turn west from Tenaha (through Timpson and Nacogdoches, as it does today).  Instead, it continued south from Tenaha, through Center and San Augustine:

c. 1939, TXDoT

At the time, the south terminus of US 59 was in Port Arthur, and the diagonal highway between Houston and Laredo was designated US 96:

c. 1939, TXDoT

In June 1939, the Texas State Highway Dept. sent a letter to AASHO; the relevant portion is reproduced below:

(Note there was a typo in the last sentence: instead of "...between Timpson and Beaumont", it should have read "...between Tenaha and Port Arthur".)  This proposed extension of US 59 would completely subsume the original US 96... and, since that would cause the US 96 designation to become available, Texas wanted to apply it to what had been the southernmost segment of US 59 (between Tenaha and Port Arthur).  Presumably that was requested for the sake of cost-effectiveness, because it would allow Texas to simply swap route signs (rather than manufacture new ones with a new number).  Although US 96 was not an appropriate designation for the north-south Tenaha-Port Arthur corridor, I have not come across any objection to that effect from AASHO.  Instead, that very same month, they approved the request; below are those items from their meeting minutes:

Those changes were to become effective the first day of 1940, and the next issue of Texas' official state highway map reflected the route swap:

c. 1940, TXDoT

c. 1940, TXDoT

Instead of designating the abandoned portion of US 59 as "US 96", the most logical choice would have been US x59.  Specifically, it probably would not have been US 159, since today's US 159 was already being planned in 1939.  If so, then US 259 would have been chosen, because the current US 259 was not commissioned until 1963.

Obviously that did not happen, and today US 96 stands out as a blatant violator of route numbering guidelines.  As a part of the aforementioned 1937 policy, AASHO also stated, "U. S. routes, less than three hundred miles in length, heretofore established and located wholly in one State, shall be eliminated either by consolidation with other U. S. routes or by reverting to State routes, as rapidly as the State Highway Department and the executive committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials can reach agreement with reference thereto."  Clearly that has not been done either.  It should be noted that there are several other routes in addition to US 96 that meet these criteria, and in some cases there is not really an acceptable way to eliminate them.  However -- by involving a couple other US routes -- there is a relatively graceful way to eliminate the US 96 designation.   This preview map provides all the details, or you can click the icon in the upper right to bring up the full version in Google Maps:

Benefits:

• TXDoT complies with AASHTO policies and guidelines.
• The Tenaha-Port Arthur corridor is given a US route number that is appropriate for a north-south highway.
• US 96 is re-numbered as a branch of US 59, as it should have been from the outset.
• As a collateral benefit, US 271 is also improved.  South from Paris, US 271 has a slight southeasterly angle.  But currently, at Gladewater, it then makes a sharp turn southwest to its terminus in Tyler.  This does not make much sense, because US 271 is not the shortest or quickest route between Paris and Tyler.  So, under this proposal, US 271 would no longer serve Tyler at all; instead it would retain a consistent southeasterly bearing, all the way to Nacogdoches.
• With regard to the previous point about US 271, TXDoT actually requested those exact changes, way back in 1936: remove US 271 from the Gladewater-Tyler segment and instead extend it to Nacogdoches.  That was long before US 259 existed, and I believe AASHO would have approved that portion of their suggestion.  The dealbreaker, though, was that TXDoT wanted US 271 to go way beyond Nacogdoches, through Houston and Corpus, ending in Falfurrias.