A little bit of logic has returned to Kentucky state route numbers

Started by bandit957, April 08, 2016, 12:17:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bandit957

Lately, I've noticed that a tiny bit of rhyme and reason has returned to the Kentucky highway numbering system - but not much.

I noticed they renumbered part of KY 8 as KY 3608, and part of KY 16 as KY 3716. This seems logical in some regards, but it does waste numbers. In fact, these are among the highest Kentucky state route numbers outside the 6000 series. I'm not sure why KY 3608 can't be part of KY 338.
Might as well face it, pooing is cool


tidecat

If it were KY 338, it does not imply that it's related to KY 8, although given the system as a whole, no one expects any order.  It will take a generation or two to clean up all the numbering.

One way to cut down on route numbers is to use designations like Bypass, Business, and Connector (like KY 913C near where I live).


iPhone
Clinched: I-264 (KY), I-265 (KY), I-359 (AL), I-459 (AL), I-865 (IN)

hbelkins

They've been doing this more often with realignments, such as KY 2227 for old US 27 near Somerset, KY 3630 for old KY 30 in Laurel and Jackson counties, and KY 2750 for old US 150 in Rockcastle and Lincoln counties.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

dvferyance


billtm

Quote from: dvferyance on June 10, 2016, 10:35:21 PM
If only Indiana would do the same thing.
Are you seriously advocating for 4-digit state roads in Indiana? :banghead:
Indiana's state road system has a logical numbering system, which is a grid. Kentucky's state road numbering system is total chaos except for the two-digit ones that end in 0, which have some semblance of a pattern. Indiana's numbering system is actually really nice compared to most states, and even though most states wouldn't be able to do this, Indiana's grid mostly lines up with the US highway system for the even numbered roads. Also, the three-digit routes in Indiana have clear, logical parent routes.

Or, I might be dumb, and instead you want Indiana to keep former 2-digit state roads, and sign them as 3-digit state roads. That would be totally logical. :nod:

bandit957

Since Indiana has not many state routes for a state of its size, it might be moot anyway.
Might as well face it, pooing is cool

tidecat

The only changes I would make to Indiana is to renumber SR 64, and connect a lot of the discontinuous state routes. SR 464 or SR 564 would still imply some relation to the Interstate (164, 264, and 364 are already in use), but SR 72 would be the next 2-digit even number available.
Clinched: I-264 (KY), I-265 (KY), I-359 (AL), I-459 (AL), I-865 (IN)

billtm

Quote from: tidecat on June 11, 2016, 10:14:13 PM
The only changes I would make to Indiana is to renumber SR 64, and connect a lot of the discontinuous state routes. SR 464 or SR 564 would still imply some relation to the Interstate (164, 264, and 364 are already in use), but SR 72 would be the next 2-digit even number available.

The reason I think SR 64's numbering is fine is because if someone finds themselves on a two-lane road, they most likely would notice the fact that they are not on an Interstate. I definitely agree that Indiana should connect alot of their state route gaps, especially when you consider that Indiana has relatively few state roads.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.