CA 65 as CA 69, and then being renumbered as CA 245, how crazy is that?

[ACSCmapcollector]

There is one thing that I have noticed about old California state route 65, it was renumbered as CA 69, then CA 245 because of the CA state route 69 shields were being stolen.  But why CA 69, shoot I don't know if Caltrans can use that number again?

[Max Rockatansky]

Because it's 69....all you need is here, a lot of us already hit this topic:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17893.0

I bumped the old thread up for you...has a lot of the answers you're looking for and some good lore about the CA 69 number.

[Quillz]

The portion of CA-65 from CA-198 to CA-180 was renumbered due to the planned extension of CA-65 that was intended to make it the eastern equivalent of CA-33. This extension is still on the books and there is the northern CA-65, but realistically, it's never going to happen. CA-69 was used likely because it was an available number and made some sense in an ordered system. CA-245 was merely a renumbered CA-69, probably due to sign theft.

Caltrans could have course use CA-69 again in the future, but it's unlikely simple because there really is no more need for any completely new state highways (and most of the ones proposed already have assigned numbers).

[sparker]

One thing I've always wondered, in the light of my experience with the U of Redlands CA 69 shield purloiner -- has that particular number (like the more recent targeting of 420) been the target of shield thieves elsewhere?  Has anyone noted any higher incidents of theft on I-69, for instance -- particularly those route segments near major universities (MSU/Lansing, Ball State/Muncie, IU @ Bloomington)?  Obviously, at this stage of the game no one would, even with ongoing thefts, consider changing the number.  It might make for interesting inquiry!   

[Mapmikey]

Don't know if it was for the same reason, but the most recent SC 69 (created 1977) was renumbered to SC 65 in 1981.