Unnecessarily-numbered roads

[silverback1065]

i-180 in illinois and wyoming

[bing101]

I-305 Sacramento,CA its all under Caltrans control and its signed as the western terminus of US-50. I-305 or CA-305 should move to Southern California for the eastern half of CA-118 or the CA-134.

[sparker]

I-305 Sacramento,CA its all under Caltrans control and its signed as the western terminus of US-50. I-305 or CA-305 should move to Southern California for the eastern half of CA-118 or the CA-134.

I-305 is an odd beast; not even recognized by Caltrans in their logs, but still necessary as a Federal numerical reference in order to receive any residual maintenance funding as a portion of the original chargeable network.  And, since much of its length is on high-maintenance bridges or viaducts, Caltrans is more than willing to let the present situation continue as long as some federal funds are at stake; so it's unlikely that I-305 will get moved as long as this remains the stasis.  The sole chance, as I see it, that the I-305 designation will be freed up is if CA 99 does gain full Interstate status in the future and extends all the way to Sacramento rather than being truncated in Stockton.  Whatever the number ends up being (I-7 or I-9) would simply turn west onto the I-305 alignment and subsume it all the way to I-80 in West Sacramento; it's already a federally recognized Interstate and would only require paperwork to obtain approval.  The I-305 "stub" north on unsigned CA 51 (aka Biz 80) north to the UP underpass near C Street could then be, at least on the federal books, renumbered -- either with a new but still unsigned designation (I-307/309, anyone?), or even as a "spur" of the new trunk.   But all that's purely speculative -- for the time being, I-305 -- at least to FHWA, will stay put. 

[hotdogPi]

MA 127A.

MA 129A, as mentioned in another thread.

MA 203 should either be extended, turned back into MA 3 (or even US 3), or removed. In its current state, it's not that useful.

MA 240. It's just a connector from I-195 to US 6. Other similar connectors are either unnumbered or part of a longer route.

I considered MA 22 and MA 35, but they're useful enough.

Many of the NH xxA, xxB, etc. routes can go, like 11C, 16A, 25B, 110A, 110B, and more.

[bing101]

Wasn't I-595 a part of eastern US-50 in Maryland for some reason and its completely in the route of US-50 though.

[formulanone]

Wasn't I-595 a part of eastern US-50 in Maryland for some reason and its completely in the route of US-50 though.

Fort Lauderdale is the one true owner of I-595, and Annapolis is just faking it.

[sparker]

Wasn't I-595 a part of eastern US-50 in Maryland for some reason and its completely in the route of US-50 though.

Fort Lauderdale is the one true owner of I-595, and Annapolis is just faking it.

Maybe they're just waiting for the hidden I-595 to morph back into the "return leg" of I-97 that was originally planned way back when! 

[kkt]

I would like to say Vermont Route 119 at first. It's no more than 1/3 mile long. I think it only exists so that the much-longer New Hampshire Route 119 can make its connection with US Route 5 in Brattleboro, VT.

The road with the traffic lights is US Route 5. The old green bridge in the background carries VT/NH Route 119 into Hinsdale, NH.

I would keep VT 119. It's better for a route to continue at a state border with the same number than just ending at the border for no other reason than the border being there.

Yes, somebody has to be responsible for the bridge.

[JasonOfORoads]

I-305 Sacramento,CA its all under Caltrans control and its signed as the western terminus of US-50. I-305 or CA-305 should move to Southern California for the eastern half of CA-118 or the CA-134.

I-305 is an odd beast; not even recognized by Caltrans in their logs, but still necessary as a Federal numerical reference in order to receive any residual maintenance funding as a portion of the original chargeable network.  And, since much of its length is on high-maintenance bridges or viaducts, Caltrans is more than willing to let the present situation continue as long as some federal funds are at stake; so it's unlikely that I-305 will get moved as long as this remains the stasis.  The sole chance, as I see it, that the I-305 designation will be freed up is if CA 99 does gain full Interstate status in the future and extends all the way to Sacramento rather than being truncated in Stockton.  Whatever the number ends up being (I-7 or I-9) would simply turn west onto the I-305 alignment and subsume it all the way to I-80 in West Sacramento; it's already a federally recognized Interstate and would only require paperwork to obtain approval.  The I-305 "stub" north on unsigned CA 51 (aka Biz 80) north to the UP underpass near C Street could then be, at least on the federal books, renumbered -- either with a new but still unsigned designation (I-307/309, anyone?), or even as a "spur" of the new trunk.   But all that's purely speculative -- for the time being, I-305 -- at least to FHWA, will stay put. 

Here's my roadgeek pipe dream for CA-99:

If by some miracle CA-99 gets fully upgraded from the I-5 Wheeler Ridge Interchange to the current US-50/Biz 80/CA-51/I-305 interchange, and if Biz 80 from that interchange northward back to I-80 gets grandfathered back into the Interstate system as a northward extension of I-7/9*, then technically we would need to make the CA-51 section an even number since it's Interstate-to-Interstate. This presents us with an opportunity to not only free up I-305 but to give us another I-x80-esque number: Interstate 807. That gives us a numerically-correct loop designation connecting to its parent route that is treated like an x80. 

*Though I use 807 as the number, I prefer that CA-99 be numbered I-9 to maintain that connection to US-99 numerically. Plus, I reserve I-7 for the US-97 corridor through to Spokane. 807 just sounds better to me, though.

[sbeaver44]

Some of northern PA's signed roads could easily be PennDOT quadrant routes...PA 184 and PA 284 are the first two that come to mind.  PA 284 didn't even have pavement lines.

Nexus 6P

[kkt]

I-305 Sacramento,CA its all under Caltrans control and its signed as the western terminus of US-50. I-305 or CA-305 should move to Southern California for the eastern half of CA-118 or the CA-134.

I-305 is an odd beast; not even recognized by Caltrans in their logs, but still necessary as a Federal numerical reference in order to receive any residual maintenance funding as a portion of the original chargeable network.  And, since much of its length is on high-maintenance bridges or viaducts, Caltrans is more than willing to let the present situation continue as long as some federal funds are at stake; so it's unlikely that I-305 will get moved as long as this remains the stasis.  The sole chance, as I see it, that the I-305 designation will be freed up is if CA 99 does gain full Interstate status in the future and extends all the way to Sacramento rather than being truncated in Stockton.  Whatever the number ends up being (I-7 or I-9) would simply turn west onto the I-305 alignment and subsume it all the way to I-80 in West Sacramento; it's already a federally recognized Interstate and would only require paperwork to obtain approval.  The I-305 "stub" north on unsigned CA 51 (aka Biz 80) north to the UP underpass near C Street could then be, at least on the federal books, renumbered -- either with a new but still unsigned designation (I-307/309, anyone?), or even as a "spur" of the new trunk.   But all that's purely speculative -- for the time being, I-305 -- at least to FHWA, will stay put. 

Here's my roadgeek pipe dream for CA-99:

If by some miracle CA-99 gets fully upgraded from the I-5 Wheeler Ridge Interchange to the current US-50/Biz 80/CA-51/I-305 interchange, and if Biz 80 from that interchange northward back to I-80 gets grandfathered back into the Interstate system as a northward extension of I-7/9*, then technically we would need to make the CA-51 section an even number since it's Interstate-to-Interstate. This presents us with an opportunity to not only free up I-305 but to give us another I-x80-esque number: Interstate 807. That gives us a numerically-correct loop designation connecting to its parent route that is treated like an x80. 

*Though I use 807 as the number, I prefer that CA-99 be numbered I-9 to maintain that connection to US-99 numerically. Plus, I reserve I-7 for the US-97 corridor through to Spokane. 807 just sounds better to me, though.

If CA 99 and CA 51 from Wheeler Ridge to I-80 were fixed up enough to be interstates, I'd make them just one number, preferably I-9 as you suggest.  There's no need to loop it west along US 50 that I can see.

California gave up on attaching meanings to the odd and even first digits of 3dis a long time ago.

[roadman65]

 US 15 north of Williamsport as being NYSDOT eliminated it north of Corning, its time for truncation and let Buddy's interstate take over.

US 220 north of Bedford could be dropped and a PA 220 would exist north of I-80.

[silverback1065]

most state roads in ohio's large cities. 

[Bitmapped]

most state roads in ohio's large cities. 

I'd like to see the state routes stay in the cities, but I'd get rid of the useless multiplexes. There's no reason all of the state routes need to end at Public Square in downtown Cleveland, for example. Cut SR 3 back to Parma and so on.

[ColossalBlocks]

MO 74. It could've been designated as a Supp-route or even a 3di route.

[jp the roadgeek]

MA 15 (all 0.23 mi. of it).  MA wastes a 2 digit state route that isn't even signed.  No references to it on MA 152 at its eastern terminus, the only shield eastbound is a TO MA 152 sign, and the first reassurance shield westbound is an RI 15 shield.  MA 15 used to be significant when it was co-signed with what is now I-84, and would be better assigned to the Old Route 15 along Mashapaug Rd in Sturbridge..

[hotdogPi]

MA 15 (all 0.23 mi. of it).  MA wastes a 2 digit state route that isn't even signed.  No references to it on MA 152 at its eastern terminus, the only shield eastbound is a TO MA 152 sign, and the first reassurance shield westbound is an RI 15 shield.  MA 15 used to be significant when it was co-signed with what is now I-84, and would be better assigned to the Old Route 15 along Mashapaug Rd in Sturbridge..

It's better to continue a route across a state line, especially if the number is unused, than for it to end at the state line for no reason.

[jp the roadgeek]

MA 15 (all 0.23 mi. of it).  MA wastes a 2 digit state route that isn't even signed.  No references to it on MA 152 at its eastern terminus, the only shield eastbound is a TO MA 152 sign, and the first reassurance shield westbound is an RI 15 shield.  MA 15 used to be significant when it was co-signed with what is now I-84, and would be better assigned to the Old Route 15 along Mashapaug Rd in Sturbridge..

It's better to continue a route across a state line, especially if the number is unused, than for it to end at the state line for no reason.

CT 272 says "Hi".  MA 272 should be created to connect to MA 57/183 in New Marlborough. 

[SD Mapman]

MA 15 (all 0.23 mi. of it).  MA wastes a 2 digit state route that isn't even signed.  No references to it on MA 152 at its eastern terminus, the only shield eastbound is a TO MA 152 sign, and the first reassurance shield westbound is an RI 15 shield.  MA 15 used to be significant when it was co-signed with what is now I-84, and would be better assigned to the Old Route 15 along Mashapaug Rd in Sturbridge..

It's better to continue a route across a state line, especially if the number is unused, than for it to end at the state line for no reason.

MO 273 says hi... although about 80% of that route is in pointless concurrencies anyway.

[MNHighwayMan]

MN 308, which is just a glorified leg of a Y-intersection between MN 11 and MN 89 in Roseau County. Keep it on the state highway system but take the number away and just sign it as "TO MN 89" and "TO MN 11".

Reminds me of the old MN-322, the two-block-long connector between then-MN-371 and MN-18 before the Brainerd bypass was completed. I understand that it was supposedly signed with both 322 markers and TO signage but I've not seen pictures of this.

I think one could also add all of the upper 200s/300s routes that serve state facilities to the list of roads that don't need numbers. My favorite one (besides my avatar) is MN-330, the four-mile-long route that forms a rectangle with US-14 as the southern edge.

[Aerobird]

The hidden roads in fl and ga.

These are quite necessary. Since US highways occasionally shift routes, the 'underlying' routes are designated for maintenance purposes, and so that if a US route is shifted the previous route already has a number to revert to.

[Max Rockatansky]

The hidden roads in fl and ga.

These are quite necessary. Since US highways occasionally shift routes, the 'underlying' routes are designated for maintenance purposes, and so that if a US route is shifted the previous route already has a number to revert to.

Not only that, there is actually a numbering convention in Florida that actually makes sense and will alert travelers to roughly where they are in the state if they are paying attention.  Granted there are only a couple instances where the State Road is co-signed alongside the a US Route.  Martin County comes to mind with US 441/FL 15 and US 98/FL 700.

[NWI_Irish96]

Most KY state highways with numbers > 2000

[mrpablue]

How about Washington State Route 117? It could be numbered US-101 Truck or Business...why waste a state number?

Also, California State Route 222. 

[Roadgeekteen]

Most KY state highways with numbers > 2000

But we need them for our game!