I have a proposal for a new thread game, to test our knowledge of where the routes go and where the go between. It's not too complicated, and here's an example:
I might say
QuoteWillimantic, Connecticut and Lincoln, Nebraska
and an appropriate answer would be:
QuoteU.S. Route 6
So in short, the game is to answer the above post with the (correct) route that connects those two places and then introduce for the next person to answer. The next set of cities must use the last city in the above post. A follow-up might look like this:
QuoteLincoln, Nebraska and Galesburg, Illinois
The correct answer would be U.S. Route 34.
Four rules:
-no using Google Maps/Wikipedia/etc. to cheat on figuring out the correct route. (They
can be used to find the next set of cities)
-the succeeding set of cities must use the last city in the above post.
-if a post (let's say post 'X') does not answer the correct route(s) for the post before, that set of cities will be the only one in play until post X is answered correctly
-Sets of routes are discouraged but not banned. (e.g. from Danbury, CT, to Holyoke, MA, U.S. 202 alone is highly preferred to [I-84 > I-91 > I-391])
I'll start.
QuoteLebanon, Missouri and West Des Moines, Iowa
QuoteLebanon, Missouri and West Des Moines, Iowa
I feel like you just lobbed me a softball with this one. Iowa and Missouri SR 5
QuoteLebanon, MO to Warwick, OK
Questions about the game:
1. Does it have to be a numbered route, or do things like "Ohio Turnpike", "Lincoln Highway", "Former US 80", "Appalachian Trail", "Missouri River", "Northeast Corridor (Amtrak)", "40th parallel north", or "Continental Divide" count?
2. How do you look for a new one to post without accidentally cheating at the current answer?
3. If the new city only has one major route (for example, only US 20 and state routes that go fewer than 50 miles), how do we handle that?
4. MNHighwayMan posted new cities as if the order of the cities in TravelingBethelite's post was reversed. Are we continuing as normal?
Quote from: 1 on April 30, 2017, 09:52:33 AM
Questions about the game:
1. Does it have to be a numbered route, or do things like "Ohio Turnpike", "Lincoln Highway", "Former US 80", "Appalachian Trail", "Missouri River", "Northeast Corridor (Amtrak)", "40th parallel north", or "Continental Divide" count?
2. How do you look for a new one to post without accidentally cheating at the current answer?
3. If the new city only has one major route (for example, only US 20 and state routes that go fewer than 50 miles), how do we handle that?
4. MNHighwayMan posted new cities as if the order of the cities in TravelingBethelite's post was reversed. Are we continuing as normal?
Answers:
1. Only numbered or named road routes, so things like "Ohio Turnpike", "Lincoln Highway", and "Former U.S. 80" are ok.
2. At the very least,
don't intend on cheating. To a certain extent, accidental cheating is unavoidable.
3. Continue using that route, or if so inclined, use a set of routes to 'connect' to another city.
4. No. If you look at my first post, I intend for there to be a chain of muncipalities (like in the road sign city name game) E.G. (Lebanon, MO > [West Des Moines) > ???]
QuoteLebanon, MO to Warwick, OK
I-44? (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong)
Next:
QuoteWeston, WV to Easton, PA
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 30, 2017, 11:17:01 AM
QuoteLebanon, MO to Warwick, OK
I-44? (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong)
Next:
QuoteWeston, WV to Easton, PA
The whole point was that the next play is supposed to be from West Des Moines to somewhere. Plus yours is completely wrong because you're supposed to use the last city in the previous post. In other words, suppose, just as a hypothetical, we had the following:
Lebanon, MO, to West Des Moines, IA
West Des Moines, IA, to Chicago, IL (I have no idea whether that's a reasonable play)
The next person is then supposed to come up with Chicago to somewhere. You don't just pick two cities you want to use. See the post above yours where the OP explains the idea of it being a chain of municipalities.
Just to properly continue the chain and give the next person a lot of options (this one shouldn't be too hard):
West Des Moines, IA → Kansas City, MO
Quote from: 1 on April 30, 2017, 11:58:04 AM
West Des Moines, IA → Kansas City, MO
I-35.
Kansas City MO => Indianapolis IN.
Quote
Kansas City, MO => Indianapolis, IN
I-70.
QuoteIndianapolis, IN --> Michigan City, IN
Quote from: jflick99 on April 30, 2017, 12:17:33 PM
QuoteIndianapolis, IN --> Michigan City, IN
U.S. 421
Michigan City, IN to Detroit, MI
I-94
Detroit, MI ---->Muskegon, MI
Quote from: slorydn1 on April 30, 2017, 12:38:20 PM
Detroit, MI ---->Muskegon, MI
I-96,
Muskegon MI to Traverse City MI.
Quote from: oscar on April 30, 2017, 12:41:02 PM
Muskegon MI to Traverse City MI.
US 31
Traverse City, MI to Grayling, MI
Quote from: 7/8 on April 30, 2017, 12:46:38 PM
Traverse City, MI to Grayling, MI
M-72.
And now we're at a trivial next step. So I'll give it a twist.
Grayling, MI to Cheboygan, MI.
Quote from: GaryV on April 30, 2017, 01:29:14 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on April 30, 2017, 12:46:38 PM
Traverse City, MI to Grayling, MI
M-72.
And now we're at a trivial next step. So I'll give it a twist.
Grayling, MI to Cheboygan, MI.
Historically, US 27 (today as Old US 27 and M-27)
Let's get us out of the corner:
Cheboygan, MI to Portsmouth, OH
US 23.
Now, Portsmouth, OH to Hillsville, VA.
Whoops, I feel dumb for having chosen the wrong city to continue. Oh well. ;-) Looks like it's been sorted.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2017, 04:30:34 PM
US 23.
Now, Portsmouth, OH to Hillsville, VA.
US-52 which roughly parallels US-23 through much of Appalachia
Hillsville, VA to Lynchburg VA
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 30, 2017, 08:39:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2017, 04:30:34 PM
US 23.
Now, Portsmouth, OH to Hillsville, VA.
US-52 which roughly parallels US-23 through much of Appalachia
Hillsville, VA to Lynchburg VA
US 221.
Now, Thayer, Missouri to Southaven, Mississippi.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on May 01, 2017, 01:41:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 30, 2017, 08:39:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2017, 04:30:34 PM
US 23.
Now, Portsmouth, OH to Hillsville, VA.
US-52 which roughly parallels US-23 through much of Appalachia
Hillsville, VA to Lynchburg VA
US 221.
Now, Thayer, Missouri to Southaven, Mississippi.
You have to continue using the last city, in this case, Lynchburg, VA.
Lynchburg VA to Georgetown KY
Quote from: SD Mapman on May 01, 2017, 02:23:21 PM
Lynchburg VA to Georgetown KY
US 460.
Georgetown, KY to Youngstown, OH
Quote from: Eth on May 01, 2017, 02:46:46 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on May 01, 2017, 02:23:21 PM
Lynchburg VA to Georgetown KY
US 460.
Georgetown, KY to Youngstown, OH
OK, I'll play along: US 62.
Up next: Youngstown, OH to Coolville, OH.
I've driven most of that route. It's OH 7.
Now, Coolville, OH to Washington, IN
US 50, of course. Now: Washington, IN to Galesburg, IL. Have fun!
US 150
Galesburg, IL to Grand Island, NE
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 02, 2017, 05:22:38 PM
Galesburg, IL to Grand Island, NE
US-34
Next: Grand Island, NE to Aberdeen, SD
US 281
Aberdeen, SD to Roundup, MT
Quote from: Bickendan on May 03, 2017, 04:52:01 PM
US 281
Aberdeen, SD to Roundup, MT
US 12.
Now, Roundup, MT to Casper, WY.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on May 04, 2017, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 03, 2017, 04:52:01 PM
US 281
Aberdeen, SD to Roundup, MT
US 12.
Now, Roundup, MT to Casper, WY.
US 87
Next: Casper, WY to Hamburg, NY
US 20
Hamburg, NY to Washington Court House, OH
We need more variety than ⅘ of the answers being US routes.
Does it count if I use a duplicated route within a state to "connect" two cities?
Quote from: Henry on May 04, 2017, 02:35:45 PM
Hamburg, NY to Washington Court House, OH
US 62
Washington CH to Weirton, WV
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2017, 09:37:19 PM
Washington CH to Weirton, WV
US 22
Next: Weirton, WV to Huntington, WV.
Side question: We started with a multi-state route, but would it be fair game to have a state route that changes numbers at state lines (For example, Indiana SR-39 and M-239 in Michigan)?
Quote from: pianocello on May 04, 2017, 09:43:13 PM
Next: Weirton, WV to Huntington, WV.
WV 2.
Huntington, WV to Owensboro, KY
Quote from: Eth on May 04, 2017, 09:53:41 PM
Quote from: pianocello on May 04, 2017, 09:43:13 PM
Next: Weirton, WV to Huntington, WV.
WV 2.
Huntington, WV to Owensboro, KY
US 60.
Needham Mass to Northbourogh Mass.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2017, 10:00:34 PM
Quote from: Eth on May 04, 2017, 09:53:41 PM
Quote from: pianocello on May 04, 2017, 09:43:13 PM
Next: Weirton, WV to Huntington, WV.
WV 2.
Huntington, WV to Owensboro, KY
US 60.
Needham Mass to Northbourogh Mass.
Supposed to use the previous city for the next city (yours is MA 135)
Huntington to Owensboro: US 60
Owensboro, KY to West Lafayette, IN
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 04, 2017, 10:09:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2017, 10:00:34 PM
Quote from: Eth on May 04, 2017, 09:53:41 PM
Quote from: pianocello on May 04, 2017, 09:43:13 PM
Next: Weirton, WV to Huntington, WV.
WV 2.
Huntington, WV to Owensboro, KY
US 60.
Needham Mass to Northbourogh Mass.
Supposed to use the previous city for the next city (yours is MA 135)
Huntington to Owensboro: US 60
Owensboro, KY to West Lafayette, IN
Aw, I thought mine would be harder!
US 231.
Quote from: 1 on May 04, 2017, 02:40:39 PM
We need more variety than ⅘ of the answers being US routes.
Agreed. So here's a bit of a "monkey wrench": West Lafayette, IN to Centerville, IA.
Quote from: sparker on May 05, 2017, 03:03:09 AM
So here's a bit of a "monkey wrench": West Lafayette, IN to Centerville, IA.
IN 26-IL 9-IA 2* (same route, changes numbers at state lines. I guess that answers my previous question.), although I'm not sure INDOT recognizes IN 26 all the way to the West Lafayette limits anymore, and IA 2 no longer goes into Fort Madison towards the Mississippi River. These changes are both new within the past couple years.
Next: Centerville, IA to Mountain Home, AR
MSR (IA, MO, AR) 5. Now that we're in Mountain Home, I think we've screwed around with US 62 too much; so here's an alternative: Mountain Home, AR to Woodward, OK. (pick your poison!)
P.S. Now, why did IA DOT have to go and mess up a perfectly good multi-designation MSR? :confused:
Quote from: sparker on May 07, 2017, 12:23:02 AMMountain Home, AR to Woodward, OK. (pick your poison!)
US 412
Woodward, OK to Stratford, TX
MSR (OK/TX) 15. Next up: Stratford, TX to Santa Rosa, NM.
Reviving my old thread. Santa Rosa and Stratford are connected by U.S. 54.
Santa Rosa, NM to Waco, TX
US 84
Waco TX. to Beatrice NB
Quote from: oldparoadgeek on August 01, 2017, 10:06:04 PM
US 84
Waco TX. to Beatrice NB
Wait, what? Nothing connects Texas and New Brunswick.
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2017, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: oldparoadgeek on August 01, 2017, 10:06:04 PM
US 84
Waco TX. to Beatrice NB
Wait, what? Nothing connects Texas and New Brunswick.
I think he meant Nebraska (NE), though now I can't answer the challenge since I checked it on a map.
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2017, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: oldparoadgeek on August 01, 2017, 10:06:04 PM
US 84
Waco TX. to Beatrice NB
Wait, what? Nothing connects Texas and New Brunswick.
I think he meant Nebraska.
Opps Yes I meant Nebraska. Thats what I get for making assumptions :P
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 01, 2017, 10:19:49 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2017, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: oldparoadgeek on August 01, 2017, 10:06:04 PM
US 84
Waco TX. to Beatrice NB
Wait, what? Nothing connects Texas and New Brunswick.
I think he meant Nebraska.
Oh. So we're playing this game again. OK, US 77. Now -- Beatrice, NE to Macomb, IL (giving the next poster some options). Have fun!
What happens if no one knows the correct answer? I didn't see this question addressed in the beginning of the thread.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 02, 2017, 05:57:03 PM
What happens if no one knows the correct answer? I didn't see this question addressed in the beginning of the thread.
So far, it hasn't happened yet. I guess we'll cross that bridge when & if we ever get to it!
I'm going to take a stab at this and guess to hopefully keep this going. I have little knowledge of midwestern routes.
US 6?
iPhone
Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 02, 2017, 08:57:41 PM
I'm going to take a stab at this and guess to hopefully keep this going. I have little knowledge of midwestern routes.
US 6?
iPhone
Without looking it up on the map, pretty sure US 6 is too far North for Macomb...I would stab US 34, but not sure. I'll check Google Maps after I post...
*EDIT Post-Map look* nope, I didn't get it. So keep on trying, people
US 136.
Macomb, IL to Dallas, TX...
Quote from: amroad17 on August 03, 2017, 12:39:20 AM
US 136.
Macomb, IL to Dallas, TX...
US 67.
Dallas TX to Tulsa OK.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 03, 2017, 12:59:14 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 03, 2017, 12:39:20 AM
US 136.
Macomb, IL to Dallas, TX...
US 67.
Dallas TX to Tulsa OK.
OK, fine; US 75. Tulsa, OK to Plymouth, MN.
US 169.
Now, Plymouth MN to Lewiston ID.
Slightly off topic, but it'd be fun to map the routing that we get from this thread...
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 04, 2017, 12:15:17 AM
US 169.
Now, Plymouth MN to Lewiston ID.
US 12.
Lewiston to Las Vegas.
Old US 91?
Long Beach to San Luis Obispo.
CA 1
San Luis Obispo to Arroyo Grande
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 04, 2017, 11:16:47 AM
Old US 91?
Long Beach to San Luis Obispo.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 04, 2017, 12:29:39 PM
CA 1
San Luis Obispo to Arroyo Grande
Even though it has the same number, and is the
de facto coastal route, CA 1 is in fact discontinuous from US 101 near Oxnard, CA (that junction has its own controversies!) to north of Ventura, where a short later-designated section of old US 101 now carries (though barely!) the CA 1 designation; that section ends just short of the Ventura/Santa Barbara county line. CA 1 doesn't pick up again until just north of the Gaviota Tunnel, but
is signed and/or
designated , multiplexed with other routes or not, all they way to Leggett in Mendocino County, where it terminates at US 101. It's clear that CA 1 is the coastal route by default if not legislated definition; but the interim segments along US 101 in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties are not regularly co-signed as CA 1 alongside US 101. Whether that counts as a continuous route under the OP of this thread is questionable; it's pretty certain Caltrans doesn't think so.
Quote from: sparker on August 04, 2017, 12:47:00 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 04, 2017, 11:16:47 AM
Old US 91?
Long Beach to San Luis Obispo.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 04, 2017, 12:29:39 PM
CA 1
San Luis Obispo to Arroyo Grande
Even though it has the same number, and is the de facto coastal route, CA 1 is in fact discontinuous from US 101 near Oxnard, CA (that junction has its own controversies!) to north of Ventura, where a short later-designated section of old US 101 now carries (though barely!) the CA 1 designation; that section ends just short of the Ventura/Santa Barbara county line. CA 1 doesn't pick up again until just north of the Gaviota Tunnel, but is signed and/or designated , multiplexed with other routes or not, all they way to Leggett in Mendocino County, where it terminates at US 101. It's clear that CA 1 is the coastal route by default if not legislated definition; but the interim segments along US 101 in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties are not regularly co-signed as CA 1 alongside US 101. Whether that counts as a continuous route under the OP of this thread is questionable; it's pretty certain Caltrans doesn't think so.
Why does California hate multiplexes?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 04, 2017, 09:07:07 PM
Why does California hate multiplexes?
A lot of the CA disdain for multiplexes stems from the fact that there were quite a few of them prior to the 1964 renumbering. Many of them were simply due to the terrain; many of the SoCal mountain passes hosted multiple routes. From 1947 to 1964, for instance, Cajon Pass featured US 66, US 91, and US 395 all sharing the route over the summit; it was also the route used by the then-future I-15, signage for which over the pass itself wasn't installed until the full freeway was opened in 1969; at that time US 91 had been truncated back to, first, Barstow ('65) and then Baker ('69) and finally the state line two years later. US 66 hung on over the pass after the renumbering until '73, when the Foothill (I-210) freeway subsumed the remaining signed route east of Pasadena (at which point the segment east of San Dimas became the sporadically signed CA 66). That same year saw US 395 also truncated back to Hesperia, replaced first by I-15E and later I-215. But before the renumbering there was a section of that freeway through San Bernardino that featured I-15
plus all 3 US highways in a series of memorable "sign salads" (for a mile or two in central San Bernardino, that combination was also joined by CA 18 until that route's truncation in 1961). And, just east of there, the first desert mileage of I-10, west of Indio, featured, besides the Interstate marker, US 60, 70, and 99. Some Division "wonks" were of the opinion that this was confusing to at least some of the driving public; their opinion became agency policy after 1964.
The state had always had multiplexes, some quite long (US 91/466 out in the Mojave Desert, US 60/70 across the Sonoran desert south of there, and others not quite as lengthy (US 40/99W and 40/99E heading out of Sacramento, plus US 50/99 from Sacramento south to Stockton). But it was the advent of the Interstate system -- plus a newly-initiated credo of "one road, one number" (published in the first issue of California Highways & Public Works: 1/64 -- to illustrate the new green CA state highway "spade") -- that prompted the elimination and future avoidance of multiplexes. Unlike many states in the Midwest and farther east, California freeways generally were constructed atop the original highway alignments in rural areas (again, topology played a large role in this), so there was no place to put a parallel original route, now considered superfluous. A more cynical observer might opine that the Division of Highways (now Caltrans) just didn't want to maintain more signs than absolutely necessary to delineate a continuous route. Regardless of the reasons or rationale, the state idiom since '64 has remained that multiplexes, where possible, should be avoided like the plague!
Another factor was the consolidation of the state numbering system concurrent with the '64 renumbering; previously consisting of legislative routes (signed only on structures and small reference signage not intended for public consumption) and "sign" routes, which were the familiar mix of U.S. shields and CA state spades prior to the Interstate era. Now each road had its specific number, reflected in both the route logs and public signage on the roads themselves. As is well known, CA was late to the party regarding posting aggregate route mileage (or exit numbers) on state-maintained facilities; when multiplexes couldn't be avoided, the mileage on such reflected an arbitrary choice of "main" route (Interstate/U.S. routes automatically qualified as such), while the mileage of the "subordinate" route didn't include that of the multiplex; it was noted at the west/south junction and resumed at the north/east junction of each multiplex instance. So while they were & are signed as such for the purpose of continuity (although recently this is not always the case), multiplexes do not exist legislatively within California.
The above should rightfully be in Southwest -- but it answered a legitimate question. I'll leave it to someone else to continue the game (and, BTW, the answer could also have been CA 227; CA 1
does skirt Arroyo Grande -- but barely!).
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2017, 12:54:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 04, 2017, 09:07:07 PM
Why does California hate multiplexes?
A lot of the CA disdain for multiplexes stems from the fact that there were quite a few of them prior to the 1964 renumbering. Many of them were simply due to the terrain; many of the SoCal mountain passes hosted multiple routes. From 1947 to 1964, for instance, Cajon Pass featured US 66, US 91, and US 395 all sharing the route over the summit; it was also the route used by the then-future I-15, signage for which over the pass itself wasn't installed until the full freeway was opened in 1969; at that time US 91 had been truncated back to, first, Barstow ('65) and then Baker ('69) and finally the state line two years later. US 66 hung on over the pass after the renumbering until '73, when the Foothill (I-210) freeway subsumed the remaining signed route east of Pasadena (at which point the segment east of San Dimas became the sporadically signed CA 66). That same year saw US 395 also truncated back to Hesperia, replaced first by I-15E and later I-215. But before the renumbering there was a section of that freeway through San Bernardino that featured I-15 plus all 3 US highways in a series of memorable "sign salads" (for a mile or two in central San Bernardino, that combination was also joined by CA 18 until that route's truncation in 1961). And, just east of there, the first desert mileage of I-10, west of Indio, featured, besides the Interstate marker, US 60, 70, and 99. Some Division "wonks" were of the opinion that this was confusing to at least some of the driving public; their opinion became agency policy after 1964.
The state had always had multiplexes, some quite long (US 91/466 out in the Mojave Desert, US 60/70 across the Sonoran desert south of there, and others not quite as lengthy (US 40/99W and 40/99E heading out of Sacramento, plus US 50/99 from Sacramento south to Stockton). But it was the advent of the Interstate system -- plus a newly-initiated credo of "one road, one number" (published in the first issue of California Highways & Public Works: 1/64 -- to illustrate the new green CA state highway "spade") -- that prompted the elimination and future avoidance of multiplexes. Unlike many states in the Midwest and farther east, California freeways generally were constructed atop the original highway alignments in rural areas (again, topology played a large role in this), so there was no place to put a parallel original route, now considered superfluous. A more cynical observer might opine that the Division of Highways (now Caltrans) just didn't want to maintain more signs than absolutely necessary to delineate a continuous route. Regardless of the reasons or rationale, the state idiom since '64 has remained that multiplexes, where possible, should be avoided like the plague!
Another factor was the consolidation of the state numbering system concurrent with the '64 renumbering; previously consisting of legislative routes (signed only on structures and small reference signage not intended for public consumption) and "sign" routes, which were the familiar mix of U.S. shields and CA state spades prior to the Interstate era. Now each road had its specific number, reflected in both the route logs and public signage on the roads themselves. As is well known, CA was late to the party regarding posting aggregate route mileage (or exit numbers) on state-maintained facilities; when multiplexes couldn't be avoided, the mileage on such reflected an arbitrary choice of "main" route (Interstate/U.S. routes automatically qualified as such), while the mileage of the "subordinate" route didn't include that of the multiplex; it was noted at the west/south junction and resumed at the north/east junction of each multiplex instance. So while they were & are signed as such for the purpose of continuity (although recently this is not always the case), multiplexes do not exist legislatively within California.
The above should rightfully be in Southwest -- but it answered a legitimate question. I'll leave it to someone else to continue the game (and, BTW, the answer could also have been CA 227; CA 1 does skirt Arroyo Grande -- but barely!).
Will they ever change this?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 05, 2017, 10:31:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2017, 12:54:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 04, 2017, 09:07:07 PM
Why does California hate multiplexes?
A lot of the CA disdain for multiplexes stems from the fact that there were quite a few of them prior to the 1964 renumbering. Many of them were simply due to the terrain; many of the SoCal mountain passes hosted multiple routes. From 1947 to 1964, for instance, Cajon Pass featured US 66, US 91, and US 395 all sharing the route over the summit; it was also the route used by the then-future I-15, signage for which over the pass itself wasn't installed until the full freeway was opened in 1969; at that time US 91 had been truncated back to, first, Barstow ('65) and then Baker ('69) and finally the state line two years later. US 66 hung on over the pass after the renumbering until '73, when the Foothill (I-210) freeway subsumed the remaining signed route east of Pasadena (at which point the segment east of San Dimas became the sporadically signed CA 66). That same year saw US 395 also truncated back to Hesperia, replaced first by I-15E and later I-215. But before the renumbering there was a section of that freeway through San Bernardino that featured I-15 plus all 3 US highways in a series of memorable "sign salads" (for a mile or two in central San Bernardino, that combination was also joined by CA 18 until that route's truncation in 1961). And, just east of there, the first desert mileage of I-10, west of Indio, featured, besides the Interstate marker, US 60, 70, and 99. Some Division "wonks" were of the opinion that this was confusing to at least some of the driving public; their opinion became agency policy after 1964.
The state had always had multiplexes, some quite long (US 91/466 out in the Mojave Desert, US 60/70 across the Sonoran desert south of there, and others not quite as lengthy (US 40/99W and 40/99E heading out of Sacramento, plus US 50/99 from Sacramento south to Stockton). But it was the advent of the Interstate system -- plus a newly-initiated credo of "one road, one number" (published in the first issue of California Highways & Public Works: 1/64 -- to illustrate the new green CA state highway "spade") -- that prompted the elimination and future avoidance of multiplexes. Unlike many states in the Midwest and farther east, California freeways generally were constructed atop the original highway alignments in rural areas (again, topology played a large role in this), so there was no place to put a parallel original route, now considered superfluous. A more cynical observer might opine that the Division of Highways (now Caltrans) just didn't want to maintain more signs than absolutely necessary to delineate a continuous route. Regardless of the reasons or rationale, the state idiom since '64 has remained that multiplexes, where possible, should be avoided like the plague!
Another factor was the consolidation of the state numbering system concurrent with the '64 renumbering; previously consisting of legislative routes (signed only on structures and small reference signage not intended for public consumption) and "sign" routes, which were the familiar mix of U.S. shields and CA state spades prior to the Interstate era. Now each road had its specific number, reflected in both the route logs and public signage on the roads themselves. As is well known, CA was late to the party regarding posting aggregate route mileage (or exit numbers) on state-maintained facilities; when multiplexes couldn't be avoided, the mileage on such reflected an arbitrary choice of "main" route (Interstate/U.S. routes automatically qualified as such), while the mileage of the "subordinate" route didn't include that of the multiplex; it was noted at the west/south junction and resumed at the north/east junction of each multiplex instance. So while they were & are signed as such for the purpose of continuity (although recently this is not always the case), multiplexes do not exist legislatively within California.
The above should rightfully be in Southwest -- but it answered a legitimate question. I'll leave it to someone else to continue the game (and, BTW, the answer could also have been CA 227; CA 1 does skirt Arroyo Grande -- but barely!).
Will they ever change this?
Not anytime soon. In terms of signage, Caltrans likely ranks at or near the bottom of the list of state transportation agencies (it wasn't always that way, folks!) -- they can't even get their fecal material together regarding route continuity, much less the prospect of signing multiple numbers on a single route. Slight backtrack -- this issue
does vary from district to district; but of the 12 current districts, I'd be hard pressed to identify
one that had a stellar record regarding signage (D-11, San Diego, seems to at least try harder than others!). It seems to be increasingly difficult for them to sign
one route adequately; reintroducing the multiplex concept would likely cause severe heart palpitations within their ranks! And, after 53+ years, the "one road, one number" overarching policy still stands as an agency touchstone.
Okay, since nobody has literally played a city in 48 hours, I'll create the next set.
CA 227 was the answer for SLO to Arroyo Grande.
Arroyo Grande to McKittrick
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 06, 2017, 10:12:22 AM
Okay, since nobody has literally played a city in 48 hours, I'll create the next set.
CA 227 was the answer for SLO to Arroyo Grande.
Arroyo Grande to McKittrick
I thought the OP was to identify a
single designated route between two points; that isn't the case here; one needs to either (a) use US 101 north to Santa Margarita and then east on CA 58, or (the long way around) US 101 south to CA 33 at Ventura and then CA 33 north to McKittrick (scenic drive, but, frankly, McKittrick's a bit of a letdown after the mountains!).
Try again using some point on US 101 with a relatively long intersecting route so we can all get out of this part of CA!