Connecting the cities

[sparker]

US 84

Waco TX. to Beatrice NB

Wait, what? Nothing connects Texas and New Brunswick.

I think he meant Nebraska.

Oh.  So we're playing this game again.  OK, US 77.  Now -- Beatrice, NE to Macomb, IL (giving the next poster some options).  Have fun!

[US 89]

What happens if no one knows the correct answer? I didn't see this question addressed in the beginning of the thread.

[sparker]

What happens if no one knows the correct answer? I didn't see this question addressed in the beginning of the thread.

So far, it hasn't happened yet.  I guess we'll cross that bridge when & if we ever get to it!

[bassoon1986]

I'm going to take a stab at this and guess to hopefully keep this going. I have little knowledge of midwestern routes.

US 6?


iPhone

[ilpt4u]

I'm going to take a stab at this and guess to hopefully keep this going. I have little knowledge of midwestern routes.

US 6?


iPhone

Without looking it up on the map, pretty sure US 6 is too far North for Macomb...I would stab US 34, but not sure. I'll check Google Maps after I post...

*EDIT Post-Map look* nope, I didn't get it. So keep on trying, people

[amroad17]

US 136.

Macomb, IL to Dallas, TX...

[US 89]

US 136.

Macomb, IL to Dallas, TX...

US 67.

Dallas TX to Tulsa OK.

[sparker]

US 136.

Macomb, IL to Dallas, TX...

US 67.

Dallas TX to Tulsa OK.

OK, fine; US 75.  Tulsa, OK to Plymouth, MN.

[US 89]

US 169.

Now, Plymouth MN to Lewiston ID.

[freebrickproductions]

Slightly off topic, but it'd be fun to map the routing that we get from this thread...

[TheHighwayMan3561]

US 169.

Now, Plymouth MN to Lewiston ID.

US 12.

Lewiston to Las Vegas.

[Bickendan]

US 12.

Lewiston to Las Vegas.

US 95
Las Vegas to Long Beach.

[US 89]

Old US 91?

Long Beach to San Luis Obispo.

[noelbotevera]

CA 1

San Luis Obispo to Arroyo Grande

[sparker]

Old US 91?

Long Beach to San Luis Obispo.

CA 1

San Luis Obispo to Arroyo Grande

Even though it has the same number, and is the de facto coastal route, CA 1 is in fact discontinuous from US 101 near Oxnard, CA (that junction has its own controversies!) to north of Ventura, where a short later-designated section of old US 101 now carries (though barely!) the CA 1 designation; that section ends just short of the Ventura/Santa Barbara county line.  CA 1 doesn't pick up again until just north of the Gaviota Tunnel, but is signed and/or designated , multiplexed with other routes or not, all they way to Leggett in Mendocino County, where it terminates at US 101.  It's clear that CA 1 is the coastal route by default if not legislated definition; but the interim segments along US 101 in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties are not regularly co-signed as CA 1 alongside US 101.  Whether that counts as a continuous route under the OP of this thread is questionable; it's pretty certain Caltrans doesn't think so. 

[Roadgeekteen]

Old US 91?

Long Beach to San Luis Obispo.

CA 1

San Luis Obispo to Arroyo Grande

Even though it has the same number, and is the de facto coastal route, CA 1 is in fact discontinuous from US 101 near Oxnard, CA (that junction has its own controversies!) to north of Ventura, where a short later-designated section of old US 101 now carries (though barely!) the CA 1 designation; that section ends just short of the Ventura/Santa Barbara county line.  CA 1 doesn't pick up again until just north of the Gaviota Tunnel, but is signed and/or designated , multiplexed with other routes or not, all they way to Leggett in Mendocino County, where it terminates at US 101.  It's clear that CA 1 is the coastal route by default if not legislated definition; but the interim segments along US 101 in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties are not regularly co-signed as CA 1 alongside US 101.  Whether that counts as a continuous route under the OP of this thread is questionable; it's pretty certain Caltrans doesn't think so.

Why does California hate multiplexes?

[sparker]

Why does California hate multiplexes?

A lot of the CA disdain for multiplexes stems from the fact that there were quite a few of them prior to the 1964 renumbering.  Many of them were simply due to the terrain; many of the SoCal mountain passes hosted multiple routes.  From 1947 to 1964, for instance, Cajon Pass featured US 66, US 91, and US 395 all sharing the route over the summit; it was also the route used by the then-future I-15, signage for which over the pass itself wasn't installed until the full freeway was opened in 1969; at that time US 91 had been truncated back to, first, Barstow ('65) and then Baker ('69) and finally the state line two years later.  US 66 hung on over the pass after the renumbering until '73, when the Foothill (I-210) freeway subsumed the remaining signed route east of Pasadena (at which point the segment east of San Dimas became the sporadically signed CA 66).  That same year saw US 395 also truncated back to Hesperia, replaced first by I-15E and later I-215.  But before the renumbering there was a section of that freeway through San Bernardino that featured I-15 plus all 3 US highways in a series of memorable "sign salads" (for a mile or two in central San Bernardino, that combination was also joined by CA 18 until that route's truncation in 1961).  And, just east of there, the first desert mileage of I-10, west of Indio, featured, besides the Interstate marker, US 60, 70, and 99.   Some Division "wonks" were of the opinion that this was confusing to at least some of the driving public; their opinion became agency policy after 1964.

The state had always had multiplexes, some quite long (US 91/466 out in the Mojave Desert, US 60/70 across the Sonoran desert south of there, and others not quite as lengthy (US 40/99W and 40/99E heading out of Sacramento, plus US 50/99 from Sacramento south to Stockton).  But it was the advent of the Interstate system -- plus a newly-initiated credo of "one road, one number" (published in the first issue of California Highways & Public Works: 1/64 -- to illustrate the new green CA state highway "spade") -- that prompted the elimination and future avoidance of multiplexes.  Unlike many states in the Midwest and farther east, California freeways generally were constructed atop the original highway alignments in rural areas (again, topology played a large role in this), so there was no place to put a parallel original route, now considered superfluous.  A more cynical observer might opine that the Division of Highways (now Caltrans) just didn't want to maintain more signs than absolutely necessary to delineate a continuous route.  Regardless of the reasons or rationale, the state idiom since '64 has remained that multiplexes, where possible, should be avoided like the plague!     

Another factor was the consolidation of the state numbering system concurrent with the '64 renumbering; previously consisting of legislative routes (signed only on structures and small reference signage not intended for public consumption) and "sign" routes, which were the familiar mix of U.S. shields and CA state spades prior to the Interstate era.  Now each road had its specific number, reflected in both the route logs and public signage on the roads themselves.  As is well known, CA was late to the party regarding posting aggregate route mileage (or exit numbers) on state-maintained facilities; when multiplexes couldn't be avoided, the mileage on such reflected an arbitrary choice of "main" route (Interstate/U.S. routes automatically qualified as such), while the mileage of the "subordinate" route didn't include that of the multiplex; it was noted at the west/south junction and resumed at the north/east junction of each multiplex instance.  So while they were & are signed as such for the purpose of continuity (although recently this is not always the case), multiplexes do not exist legislatively within California.

The above should rightfully be in Southwest -- but it answered a legitimate question.  I'll leave it to someone else to continue the game (and, BTW, the answer could also have been CA 227; CA 1 does skirt Arroyo Grande -- but barely!).

[Roadgeekteen]

Why does California hate multiplexes?

A lot of the CA disdain for multiplexes stems from the fact that there were quite a few of them prior to the 1964 renumbering.  Many of them were simply due to the terrain; many of the SoCal mountain passes hosted multiple routes.  From 1947 to 1964, for instance, Cajon Pass featured US 66, US 91, and US 395 all sharing the route over the summit; it was also the route used by the then-future I-15, signage for which over the pass itself wasn't installed until the full freeway was opened in 1969; at that time US 91 had been truncated back to, first, Barstow ('65) and then Baker ('69) and finally the state line two years later.  US 66 hung on over the pass after the renumbering until '73, when the Foothill (I-210) freeway subsumed the remaining signed route east of Pasadena (at which point the segment east of San Dimas became the sporadically signed CA 66).  That same year saw US 395 also truncated back to Hesperia, replaced first by I-15E and later I-215.  But before the renumbering there was a section of that freeway through San Bernardino that featured I-15 plus all 3 US highways in a series of memorable "sign salads" (for a mile or two in central San Bernardino, that combination was also joined by CA 18 until that route's truncation in 1961).  And, just east of there, the first desert mileage of I-10, west of Indio, featured, besides the Interstate marker, US 60, 70, and 99.   Some Division "wonks" were of the opinion that this was confusing to at least some of the driving public; their opinion became agency policy after 1964.

The state had always had multiplexes, some quite long (US 91/466 out in the Mojave Desert, US 60/70 across the Sonoran desert south of there, and others not quite as lengthy (US 40/99W and 40/99E heading out of Sacramento, plus US 50/99 from Sacramento south to Stockton).  But it was the advent of the Interstate system -- plus a newly-initiated credo of "one road, one number" (published in the first issue of California Highways & Public Works: 1/64 -- to illustrate the new green CA state highway "spade") -- that prompted the elimination and future avoidance of multiplexes.  Unlike many states in the Midwest and farther east, California freeways generally were constructed atop the original highway alignments in rural areas (again, topology played a large role in this), so there was no place to put a parallel original route, now considered superfluous.  A more cynical observer might opine that the Division of Highways (now Caltrans) just didn't want to maintain more signs than absolutely necessary to delineate a continuous route.  Regardless of the reasons or rationale, the state idiom since '64 has remained that multiplexes, where possible, should be avoided like the plague!     

Another factor was the consolidation of the state numbering system concurrent with the '64 renumbering; previously consisting of legislative routes (signed only on structures and small reference signage not intended for public consumption) and "sign" routes, which were the familiar mix of U.S. shields and CA state spades prior to the Interstate era.  Now each road had its specific number, reflected in both the route logs and public signage on the roads themselves.  As is well known, CA was late to the party regarding posting aggregate route mileage (or exit numbers) on state-maintained facilities; when multiplexes couldn't be avoided, the mileage on such reflected an arbitrary choice of "main" route (Interstate/U.S. routes automatically qualified as such), while the mileage of the "subordinate" route didn't include that of the multiplex; it was noted at the west/south junction and resumed at the north/east junction of each multiplex instance.  So while they were & are signed as such for the purpose of continuity (although recently this is not always the case), multiplexes do not exist legislatively within California.

The above should rightfully be in Southwest -- but it answered a legitimate question.  I'll leave it to someone else to continue the game (and, BTW, the answer could also have been CA 227; CA 1 does skirt Arroyo Grande -- but barely!).

Will they ever change this?

[sparker]

Why does California hate multiplexes?

A lot of the CA disdain for multiplexes stems from the fact that there were quite a few of them prior to the 1964 renumbering.  Many of them were simply due to the terrain; many of the SoCal mountain passes hosted multiple routes.  From 1947 to 1964, for instance, Cajon Pass featured US 66, US 91, and US 395 all sharing the route over the summit; it was also the route used by the then-future I-15, signage for which over the pass itself wasn't installed until the full freeway was opened in 1969; at that time US 91 had been truncated back to, first, Barstow ('65) and then Baker ('69) and finally the state line two years later.  US 66 hung on over the pass after the renumbering until '73, when the Foothill (I-210) freeway subsumed the remaining signed route east of Pasadena (at which point the segment east of San Dimas became the sporadically signed CA 66).  That same year saw US 395 also truncated back to Hesperia, replaced first by I-15E and later I-215.  But before the renumbering there was a section of that freeway through San Bernardino that featured I-15 plus all 3 US highways in a series of memorable "sign salads" (for a mile or two in central San Bernardino, that combination was also joined by CA 18 until that route's truncation in 1961).  And, just east of there, the first desert mileage of I-10, west of Indio, featured, besides the Interstate marker, US 60, 70, and 99.   Some Division "wonks" were of the opinion that this was confusing to at least some of the driving public; their opinion became agency policy after 1964.

The state had always had multiplexes, some quite long (US 91/466 out in the Mojave Desert, US 60/70 across the Sonoran desert south of there, and others not quite as lengthy (US 40/99W and 40/99E heading out of Sacramento, plus US 50/99 from Sacramento south to Stockton).  But it was the advent of the Interstate system -- plus a newly-initiated credo of "one road, one number" (published in the first issue of California Highways & Public Works: 1/64 -- to illustrate the new green CA state highway "spade") -- that prompted the elimination and future avoidance of multiplexes.  Unlike many states in the Midwest and farther east, California freeways generally were constructed atop the original highway alignments in rural areas (again, topology played a large role in this), so there was no place to put a parallel original route, now considered superfluous.  A more cynical observer might opine that the Division of Highways (now Caltrans) just didn't want to maintain more signs than absolutely necessary to delineate a continuous route.  Regardless of the reasons or rationale, the state idiom since '64 has remained that multiplexes, where possible, should be avoided like the plague!     

Another factor was the consolidation of the state numbering system concurrent with the '64 renumbering; previously consisting of legislative routes (signed only on structures and small reference signage not intended for public consumption) and "sign" routes, which were the familiar mix of U.S. shields and CA state spades prior to the Interstate era.  Now each road had its specific number, reflected in both the route logs and public signage on the roads themselves.  As is well known, CA was late to the party regarding posting aggregate route mileage (or exit numbers) on state-maintained facilities; when multiplexes couldn't be avoided, the mileage on such reflected an arbitrary choice of "main" route (Interstate/U.S. routes automatically qualified as such), while the mileage of the "subordinate" route didn't include that of the multiplex; it was noted at the west/south junction and resumed at the north/east junction of each multiplex instance.  So while they were & are signed as such for the purpose of continuity (although recently this is not always the case), multiplexes do not exist legislatively within California.

The above should rightfully be in Southwest -- but it answered a legitimate question.  I'll leave it to someone else to continue the game (and, BTW, the answer could also have been CA 227; CA 1 does skirt Arroyo Grande -- but barely!).

Will they ever change this?

Not anytime soon.  In terms of signage, Caltrans likely ranks at or near the bottom of the list of state transportation agencies (it wasn't always that way, folks!) -- they can't even get their fecal material together regarding route continuity, much less the prospect of signing multiple numbers on a single route.  Slight backtrack -- this issue does vary from district to district; but of the 12 current districts, I'd be hard pressed to identify one that had a stellar record regarding signage (D-11, San Diego, seems to at least try harder than others!).  It seems to be increasingly difficult for them to sign one route adequately; reintroducing the multiplex concept would likely cause severe heart palpitations within their ranks!  And, after 53+ years, the "one road, one number" overarching policy still stands as an agency touchstone. 

[noelbotevera]

Okay, since nobody has literally played a city in 48 hours, I'll create the next set.

CA 227 was the answer for SLO to Arroyo Grande.

Arroyo Grande to McKittrick

[sparker]

Okay, since nobody has literally played a city in 48 hours, I'll create the next set.

CA 227 was the answer for SLO to Arroyo Grande.

Arroyo Grande to McKittrick

I thought the OP was to identify a single designated route between two points; that isn't the case here; one needs to either (a) use US 101 north to Santa Margarita and then east on CA 58, or (the long way around) US 101 south to CA 33 at Ventura and then CA 33 north to McKittrick (scenic drive, but, frankly, McKittrick's a bit of a letdown after the mountains!). 

Try again using some point on US 101 with a relatively long intersecting route so we can all get out of this part of CA!