Talk:Utah State Route 173

Assessment
The route description here is a single sentence, and does not contain anything that could not also be in the lead. -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Still needs a better route description, but the history and other sections have been improved. I think this now merits start-class status. DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Now it has all the "big four", so it's at C-class. CL — 04:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Old SR-173 ('30s and '40s)
I think Utah State Route 173 (1935-1947) should redirect here. See, that SR-173 was routed on Vine Street, which 5300 South connects to east of US-89. They're definitely related, and I doubt that it's a coincidence that they were given the same number (Vine Street is also just several blocks north of SR-173 on US-89). Also, I'm aware that the map ref is from 1963, but it still displays a route going from US-89/91 southeast on Vine Street to SR-152, which is probably the routing of old SR-173 - CL — 04:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'ts almost certainly coincidence. The best solution may be a list of minor former routes. --NE2 19:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you agree with me but you would still rather have old 173 not redirect here? CL — 01:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think it is a coincidence. There were 18 years between the two routes. --NE2 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, my meaning of coincidence was reversed at that moment :) The western terminus of the old route (Vine Street and State Street) and the eastern terminus of the current route (5300 South and State Street) are only a few of blocks apart. I just think it would be too much of a coincidence that they gave it the exact same number. That's just my thinking however. CL — 04:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a coincidence that they're that close, though not necessarily that they're in the same area. 171-174 were assigned in the SLC area in 1935; when 173 was reassigned in 1965, the other three were still there (in fact 174 was deleted the same day that 173 was reassigned). I've noticed in other places that UDOT likes to "cluster" similar numbers: 105/106, 116/117, 201/202. --NE2 05:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)