Unnecessarily-numbered roads

[txstateends]

Any roads out there where a number wasn't really needed or necessary?

One I could add to this would be TX Spur 97.  It's the part of International Pkwy. at DFW Airport but (I think) outside the toll plazas.  There's no real reason for the numbering, and it's not shown on BGSes, just on brief short posts in between TX 183 and Airfield Dr.  Totally unnecessary IMO.

[oscar]

Could you narrow the topic a bit, such as by focusing on Texas and moving it to the Mid-South board? There are probably hundreds or thousands of them just in the U.S. (never mind other countries), and a more focused topic would help keep the discussion manageable.

Also, for the jurisdictions that feel compelled to slap a number on every road they maintain, the less important routes have numbers but no route signage. You might limit the topic to roads that are unnecessarily numbered and signed.

[Max Rockatansky]

The "Spur" routes in Georgia always seemed pretty silly when they could just have X0X of the mainline number.  Signing state routes along US Routes is pretty weird as well, Florida does it to in some places but for most part the state route is hidden.

[US 89]

Could some states with massive state route systems be included here? I'm thinking KY and MO.

[txstateends]

Could you narrow the topic a bit, such as by focusing on Texas and moving it to the Mid-South board? There are probably hundreds or thousands of them just in the U.S. (never mind other countries), and a more focused topic would help keep the discussion manageable.

Also, for the jurisdictions that feel compelled to slap a number on every road they maintain, the less important routes have numbers but no route signage. You might limit the topic to roads that are unnecessarily numbered and signed.

Well, so much for thinking I had a good topic idea....

[Eth]

The "Spur" routes in Georgia always seemed pretty silly when they could just have X0X of the mainline number.

No thanks. Most new state route markers posted today are ugly enough already without trying to cram a number like 2470247 into them.

[dgolub]

Hmmm.  There are a couple of interstates in New York that are completely multiplexed with a state route and probably confuse more people than they help by being signed.  I-587 is a section of NY 28, and I-790 is a section of NY 5.

[Rob Adams]

Could you narrow the topic a bit, such as by focusing on Texas and moving it to the Mid-South board? There are probably hundreds or thousands of them just in the U.S. (never mind other countries), and a more focused topic would help keep the discussion manageable.

Also, for the jurisdictions that feel compelled to slap a number on every road they maintain, the less important routes have numbers but no route signage. You might limit the topic to roads that are unnecessarily numbered and signed.

Well, so much for thinking I had a good topic idea....

I think it's a good topic. Just my $.02


iPad

[Max Rockatansky]

The "Spur" routes in Georgia always seemed pretty silly when they could just have X0X of the mainline number.

No thanks. Most new state route markers posted today are ugly enough already without trying to cram a number like 2470247 into them.

Really the whole state could use a Florida style renumbering to simplify things.  I-575 and the whole GA 515 was confusing as all hell to figure out what was going on.

[roadman65]

I-180 in WY is not necessary.

[bzakharin]

I think most of NJ's county routes are unnecessarily numbered, even the 500 series. Exceptions are where the routes have no other name, such as CR 510. Very few of those numbers get used in real life. A few of NJ's state routes could go too, NJ 154 comes to mind. It's just Brace Road.

Now, routes that should be unnumbered for other reasons than disuse of namme include NJ 32, which is just too short. NJ 133 is borderline as it *is* a full freeway with no obvious alternative designation to choose.

[PHLBOS]

VA, at least near Fredericksburg, has even dead-one roads marked w/CR numbers (600-700 series).

CR 694

One has to ask, why?

[SP Cook]

I think it is a good topic. 

Many states, including mine, use route numbers and miles as the accounting formula.  In the old days, the cronies would pave pols driveways or sell the materials on the black market.  The solution was that every supply and every man hour has to be charged of to a certain MP of a certain route, and an auditor can easily go see if the pavement, guardrail, ditch, cut brush, whatever is actually there.  Of course, this can be acomplished by so-called "secret" numbers just as well.

[Mapmikey]

VA, at least near Fredericksburg, has even dead-one roads marked w/CR numbers (600-700 series).

CR 694



One has to ask, why?

Virginia marks nearly all SR routes from its primary highways with advance warning circle shields and has for 50+ years.  Some districts only mark the intersections themselves with the smaller rectangles.  Prior to the 1950s I believe only tiny rectangles at the intersections were used.

SR intersections with other SR intersections almost always use just the rectangles (guessing 98% of the time).

North Carolina and South Carolina also nearly universally post all secondary routes, even the unpaved, dead-end ones, though not with specific shields or with advance markers.  An obscure fact about NC is that when they started marking their secondary roads about 1959, they posted ALL routes like they do with the 10xx numbers today - a larger rectangle sign with the number and an arrow.  By the mid-1970s they went to the tiny numerals on posts as is everywhere now.

West Virginia also posts all their maintained roads regardless of how primitive they are, including advance signs.

[doorknob60]

This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.

[vdeane]

This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.

I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was.  Problem solved.

[doorknob60]

This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.

I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was.  Problem solved.

US-395 was already routed on all the existing freeway segments before I-580 was created. No point in downgrading it.

[vdeane]

Removing the unnecessary overlap would be the point in downgrading it, though I wonder why they didn't just make it I-580 to begin with (or a state route, which wouldn't have these problems).  Of course, being from NY, I'm probably biased - around here the US route system is mainly for continuity with other states.

[US 89]

I-180 in WY is not necessary.

Well, it would make a good state route, just not an Interstate. If it were WY 180 it would be fine.

[plain]

VA 73 is designated on about a mile's worth of the very lengthy Parham Rd in Henrico County, VA

[Max Rockatansky]

This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.

I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was.  Problem solved.

US-395 was already routed on all the existing freeway segments before I-580 was created. No point in downgrading it.

If anything the I-580 ought to be silent and just have US 395/US 50 signed.  I've never understood what makes a 3d designation so much better than a US of State Route?

[Thing 342]

VA-306 and VA-312, routes which pretty much only exist to fulfill Newport News's weird need for all of the roads that connect US-17 and US-60 on the Peninsula to have primary numbers. It feels like VA-306 should be extended along Harpersville Rd / Hampton Rds Center Pkwy to the Langley AFB area, and VA-312 seems like it should be a facility route for CNU. (Facility routes with a "normal" portion do exist, see VA-321 in Williamsburg)

[US 89]

This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.

I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was.  Problem solved.

US-395 was already routed on all the existing freeway segments before I-580 was created. No point in downgrading it.

If anything the I-580 ought to be silent and just have US 395/US 50 signed.  I've never understood what makes a 3d designation so much better than a US of State Route?

My guess is that it's probably for recognition purposes. Many people perceive Interstates as a higher tier of route (which they are, as a whole), so maybe the fact that it's an interstate tells people that it's built to higher standards.

[JJBers]

CT 97 north of US 44, all it does is curve back to US 44, and don't tell me it's because of CT 244, that can just go to US 44 directly.

[kurumi]

CT 97 north of US 44, all it does is curve back to US 44, and don't tell me it's because of CT 244, that can just go to US 44 directly.

That's a consequence of the long shadow of history and the state's reluctance to change things.

The "stairstep" part of CT 97 north of US 44 was originally not part of 97; it was called CT 201. In 1934, CT 97 absorbed CT 201, leading to the alignment you have today.

CT 244 was a local road until 1963, and an unsignposted "secret route" until 1988.