CA-28 -> CA-128 renumbering

[Quillz]

The only evidence I've found of the reasoning for this renumbering was that California wanted the (at the time, unsigned) highway along the north shore of Tahoe to match the number used in Nevada. While this falls in line with some of the other questionable renumberings done (such as CA-150 being broken up into three routes, rather pointlessly, I think), this renumbering seems particularly odd to me. Granted, it was 1952 and I don't know how well-traveled the route was, but CA-28 was a fairly length route. Its one thing to retire a route number, but to then assign that same number to a tiny route in another portion of the state, all for the sake of satisfying another state.

I suspect nothing like this would ever happen today. And while other old California highways were renumbered, it was generally due to necessity to work in interstates (CA-5 becoming CA-35, CA-8 becoming part of CA-88, etc.)

[coatimundi]

If you think about it, it would be a much worse state of affairs had CA not renumbered the highway. You would then have a NV 28 that randomly ended at the state line, but a CA 28 that appeared just 100 or so miles west of it and at about the same latitude, that was totally unrelated. Since Nevada had precedence, it was up to California to match the highway number when this segment was finally added to the system.
Also, there would have been very little non-local traffic along 128 up to the 1950's. The area didn't see much tourism until it became much more fashionable to visit wineries (at least 20 years after that). So renumbering the roadway, in an era where route numbers were only beginning to be used by drivers, would not have caused many problems beyond a few signs. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the earliest signs along the route after this renumbering had the "1" painted on at the left, and something like that drove the 128 to be used.

[sparker]

Aside from what has been said above, considering the Division of Highways' numbering scheme in those days (which, like the English language, was defined by its exceptions rather than its observance), 128 would have been somewhere in the northern reaches of the San Joaquin Valley sandwiched between 120 and 132  -- perhaps either 108 between Modesto and Oakdale, which didn't receive the designation as SSR 108 until about 1960 or so, or even present-day CA 219 (in those days, likely considered too short or insignificant to warrant signage).  But the number was available, and for the reasons elucidated in the above posts, was applied to the route that exists today.  Actually, the original 28 was a bit out of place as well; by the Division idiom of the day it should have been posted on present-day CA 162.  So it was probably thought of as a "no harm, no foul" type of revision.  Besides, Lake Tahoe was much more of a tourist attraction in its day than was "wine country", so it was probably considered more important to provide some semblance of round-the-lake continuity than worry about renumbering a north coastal county connector. 

All that being said, I remember seeing a picture somewhere (possibly an old issue of CH & PW) of a co-signed "28" and "29" bear-shield assembly, obviously from a location between Rutherford and Calistoga.  Might be worth locating and posting such a picture for both historical and nostalgic value!   

[NE2]

8 became 26 in 1964. 88 had been created in 1938-140, replacing part of 8 and creating a new sign route out of Stockton. Later Nevada renumbered their side 88 (from 37) to match.

139 was numbered in 1942-44 to match Oregon 39, but in this case 39 was not renumbered.

[Quillz]

8 became 26 in 1964. 88 had been created in 1938-140, replacing part of 8 and creating a new sign route out of Stockton. Later Nevada renumbered their side 88 (from 37) to match.

139 was numbered in 1942-44 to match Oregon 39, but in this case 39 was not renumbered.

Which to me seems odd... If you're going to renumber 28 -> 128 for border continuity, why not do the same with 39 -> 139? Although I guess CA-39 was seen as more significant being in the LA area, and thus was too well established to be changed.

Since Nevada had precedence, it was up to California to match the highway number when this segment was finally added to the system.

Can you elaborate on this? Did California and Nevada have some agreement to share route numbers across borders? I know there is also CA-88 and NV-88, as well as CA-266 and NV-266.

[sparker]

Can you elaborate on this? Did California and Nevada have some agreement to share route numbers across borders? I know there is also CA-88 and NV-88, as well as CA-266 and NV-266.

AFAIK, there's no legal requirement that states cooperate regarding numbering for state routes crossing state lines; it's likely any numerical matching is due to ad hoc cooperation between the state highway agencies on a "gentlemen's agreement" basis.  28 and 88 are likely recipients of such agreements; 266 is an unusual case in that the CA route is the only one that crosses the state line twice, becoming NV 266 to the north and NV 264 to the southeast while intersecting CA 168 between the crossings; the SE leg was renumbered from its original CA 168 designation some time ago (likely instigated by NV DOT and acceded to by Caltrans in order to maintain a level of continuity between the NV highways). 

However, that cooperation has not extended to the other CA-NV crossings:  CA 127/NV 373 (before the NV renumbering it was NV 29), CA 167/NV 359, and CA 182/NV 338.  However, except for 127/373, the others feature such sparse traffic that it was probably deemed unnecessary to match numbers.

[Quillz]

That last segment of CA-168 was renumbered in 1988, IIRC, considerably later than any other renumbering.

[coatimundi]

I don't think there's any formal arrangement anywhere in the country to coincide highway numbering across borders, and its practice seems to be really inconsistent. When it's done, it seems to mostly be done just for the convenience of the driver.
The example that comes to my mind right away is Highway 12 in Texas and Louisiana, just because I'm more familiar with it. Ironically, Louisiana renumbered their segment to match Texas' just a couple of years after CA 28 was renumbered, in that state's own massive renumbering project.

And here's another spin on 28 in that regards:
Smaller scale maps, such as the regional, multi-state fold-out maps that seemed to be pretty common in the mid-20th century, could have possibly been too small to mark a shorter road like California's 28 segment, meaning that a driver coming from the California side and looking for what is NV 28 but not CA 28, would likely miss the turn because the numbers didn't match what he (not including "she" because we're talking about the 1940's) saw on his map.

There are a lot of state highways on the Plains that end just after crossing the state line, and are numbered consistently across the line, and that got me thinking about this concept. Sure, it's the mapmakers' fault for not including the number on both sides of the state line, but why leave it to them to even chance the mistake?

[hotdogPi]

I don't think there's any formal arrangement anywhere in the country to coincide highway numbering across borders, and its practice seems to be really inconsistent. When it's done, it seems to mostly be done just for the convenience of the driver.
The example that comes to my mind right away is Highway 12 in Texas and Louisiana, just because I'm more familiar with it. Ironically, Louisiana renumbered their segment to match Texas' just a couple of years after CA 28 was renumbered, in that state's own massive renumbering project.

And here's another spin on 28 in that regards:
Smaller scale maps, such as the regional, multi-state fold-out maps that seemed to be pretty common in the mid-20th century, could have possibly been too small to mark a shorter road like California's 28 segment, meaning that a driver coming from the California side and looking for what is NV 28 but not CA 28, would likely miss the turn because the numbers didn't match what he (not including "she" because we're talking about the 1940's) saw on his map.

There are a lot of state highways on the Plains that end just after crossing the state line, and are numbered consistently across the line, and that got me thinking about this concept. Sure, it's the mapmakers' fault for not including the number on both sides of the state line, but why leave it to them to even chance the mistake?

New England is consistent except for NY 7/VT 9 and NY 185/VT 17. There are also a few routes that end at a state border inside New England (NH 121, 122, 123, 124, 128, CT 272, RI 100), but no number changes at a state border inside New England.

[roadfro]

Can you elaborate on this? Did California and Nevada have some agreement to share route numbers across borders? I know there is also CA-88 and NV-88, as well as CA-266 and NV-266.

AFAIK, there's no legal requirement that states cooperate regarding numbering for state routes crossing state lines; it's likely any numerical matching is due to ad hoc cooperation between the state highway agencies on a "gentlemen's agreement" basis.  28 and 88 are likely recipients of such agreements; 266 is an unusual case in that the CA route is the only one that crosses the state line twice, becoming NV 266 to the north and NV 264 to the southeast while intersecting CA 168 between the crossings; the SE leg was renumbered from its original CA 168 designation some time ago (likely instigated by NV DOT and acceded to by Caltrans in order to maintain a level of continuity between the NV highways). 

However, that cooperation has not extended to the other CA-NV crossings:  CA 127/NV 373 (before the NV renumbering it was NV 29), CA 167/NV 359, and CA 182/NV 338.  However, except for 127/373, the others feature such sparse traffic that it was probably deemed unnecessary to match numbers.

Looking at 88, the Nevada Legislature had to change prior state highway law to renumber NV 37 to NV 88 to match with California. In the old Nevada numbering, this sort of thing happened a couple times–another notable example would be the change former NV 11 and NV 43 to NV 51 to match Idaho's 51 (this route is now SR 225), which required another existing 51 to be renumbered. The legislature would do some renumberings to seemingly maintain consistency across state lines, but others seemed random...

In the 1976 renumbering, Nevada had developed a county-based clustered numbering scheme (a result of reorganizing and renumbering it's Federal Aid Highway system inventory), so many of these state line matches went by the wayside. 28, 88 and 140 are the only exceptions, and were likely retained for regional connectivity purposes.

[Quillz]

I know that 140 stuck around because both Nevada and Oregon were promoting it as the so-called "Winnemuca-to-the-Sea Highway." At one point, I actually made a fictional US highway that could have served this corridor.