State routes above the highest arbitrary number in that state

[wxfree]

I thought I read that the University of Texas El Paso has an SH Spur 1966 to denote the year of their NCAA Basketball Championship. They typically get up into the high-500s.

There is.  The minute order doesn't give the reason, but it tells another story.  Six years after Spur 73 was designated in Midlothian, it was designated again in El Paso.  A month later the number was changed to 1966.

[roadman65]

FL 997 is the highest number given to general state roads.  There is a part of old SR 27 going to Flamingo that is a four digit highway, but I do not think its signed.  Plus both Volusia and Alachua have 4 digit county routes which I do not know the highest number used in either, but for signed its SR 997 (Krome Avenue) from Florida City to US 27 at a point just south of the Broward County Line.

[Max Rockatansky]

FL 997 is the highest number given to general state roads.  There is a part of old SR 27 going to Flamingo that is a four digit highway, but I do not think its signed.  Plus both Volusia and Alachua have 4 digit county routes which I do not know the highest number used in either, but for signed its SR 997 (Krome Avenue) from Florida City to US 27 at a point just south of the Broward County Line.

9336 is Signed, I linked one of my pics on the previous page. 

[roadman65]

Cannot believe I missed the photo as I did try to look at all the other posts before I posted.  Its been too long since I traveled that way so I did not remember if it were or not signed.

That would be the winner at FL's only four digit state route.  Wonder, though if Volusia or Alachua have a number higher?

[Max Rockatansky]

Cannot believe I missed the photo as I did try to look at all the other posts before I posted.  Its been too long since I traveled that way so I did not remember if it were or not signed.

That would be the winner at FL's only four digit state route.  Wonder, though if Volusia or Alachua have a number higher?

I used to frequent Everglades National Park quite a bit when I was living down in the Keys.  9336 and some of the 100 series highways around Miami are maddening once you understand the FDOT numbering grid.  Okaloosa County has some oddly numbered County Routes as well.  My understanding is that at least in the panhandle random numbers were chosen due to nothing being available in the 100, 200, or 300 series:

IMG_7312 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[Bruce]

WA is very good at keeping its highway numbering strictly within the established scheme. The closest I can think of is SR 339, assigned to a passenger ferry route that is a bit removed from its parent (SR 3), but that's borderline at best.

[DTComposer]

- I do get why 17 was retained when 880 was created, but the I-210/Route 210 situation is an alternative approach.  (980/24 was a function of 980 being built years later than the rest of that corridor, though I do feel that should be all one number too)

I figured that, unlike I-210/CA-210, in which the CA-210 segment was built to Interstate standards and with the idea that Interstate signing would happen at some point (so the CA designation was just a placeholder (like I-15/CA-15)), by 1984 CA-17 between San Jose and Santa Cruz was never going to be built out to Interstate standards, so it was functionally a different route from what became I-880.

(that said, I-110/CA-110 contradicts this idea)

[vdeane]

New York: 840 seems to be arbitrary, leaving only 878, 890, and 895, which look like Interstate numbers. Unfortunately, 747 (numbered that because it goes to an airport) is too low.

Most of NY's higher numbers have a reason, usually interstate extensions (which is what NY 878 technically is, even though the interstate is not signed, not acknowledged by NYSDOT, and only exists eastbound at that; NY 890 is also an "extension" (though I-890 technically ends at I-90), and NY 895 is a replacement for I-895).  NY 840 is actually numbered such because it connects NY 8 to Oneida CR 40 (which is signed as CR 840 for continuity).  No idea why NY 825 is numbered what it is; NY 812 is probably related to NY 12, NY 790 is reserved for an "extension" of I-790 along NY 49 and NY 365, NY 787 is an "extension" (although I-787 actually ends in Troy), NY 695 connects I-690 to NY 5, and NY 690 is an extension.  No idea about NY 635, but NY 631 and NY 531 are both related to NY 31.  NY 598, if I had to guess, would probably be related to NY 298.  NY 590 is an extension.  No idea about NY 532, but it's reserved for something that's not built and isn't currently existing.  NY 495 is former I-495 (or a part of what's signed as I-495, if you believe the touring route book).  NY 488 is former NY 88.  NY 481 is an extension, and NY 478 would be if one wanted to renumber NY 9A.  No idea about NY 470 or NY 474.  NY 465 is reserved if they ever want to renumber NY 365A.  Everything below that is part of NY's main numbering block.
http://newyorkroutes.net/ind/450_499.htm

[sparker]

Pretty much all the 200 Range numbers in California are artibrary.  The 1934 State route numbers had some logic to them like east/west numbers being odd and 1XX being more rural.  The 200 Range numbers were essentially just slapped on mostly during the 1964 renumbering and don't have much logic, aside from stuff like 299 which used to be a US Route.  Interestingly both 330 and 371 make more sense given they were once part of a route and a child route of another. 

There was some semblance of order applied to CA state highways from the beginning, but by the '64 renumbering the system, while still hardly random, was rather compromised.  2d SSR's were divided into those divisible by 4 and those not; the former were nominally arrayed from an arbitrary point -- ostensibly San Francisco Bay -- and increasing northward: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.  24 was always an odd duck; it didn't fit into the pattern but crossed most of the lower numbers in its field on its path from the Bay Area to the Feather River Canyon and the northern Sierra Nevada.  28 was originally shoved off to the coastal region, serving the Napa Valley and the Sonoma/Mendocino area (now part of CA 128 -- at least they kept the final two integers!); it ended up by Lake Tahoe as a tip of the hat to NV's original highway 28.  The northern trek continued with 32, 36, and 44 (of course, 40, as a US highway, was skipped).  That took it to the northern reaches of the Sacramento Valley at Redding, where the continuum petered out.  The interim even numbers started at the base of the Santa Monica Mountains and headed south: 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 26, which took the batch to the southern end of Orange County's populated area circa 1935 or so.  When US 6 was extended to L.A. by 1938-39, SSR 26 was moved north to replace it; the original 26 (LRN 183) along Bolsa Ave. in the Westminster area was considered superfluous (it would have required a lot of landfill in the Huntington Harbor area) and was deleted.  By renumbering time, 10 had become 42 due to the incursion of I-10 into the area and 18 had been cut back to San Bernardino County.  The even numbers above that were alternately applied to the L.A. metro outskirts:  30, which skirted the San Gabriel foothills before shooting up the hill to Big Bear Lake; 34, placed as a connector in Ventura County, and the latecomer 38, signed in 1961-62 as the "back road" from Redlands to Big Bear Lake.  Pre-'64, there was a gap in the even/non-4-divisible numbers between 42 and 74 (of course, 50, 66 and 70 were U.S. highways within the state).  All the 70's, with the exception of 72, were applied (regardless of divisibility) to the area between metro L.A. and San Diego: 74, 76, and 78.  Other even pre-'64 numbers were spread out around the state:  48 became part of the original Marin-Vallejo route once LRN 208 was built along the north shore of San Pablo Bay, 68 inexplicably was deployed between Salinas and Monterey in the early '60's, 84 was commissioned at about the same time essentially where it is today between the coast and Livermore, and 88 replaced part of 8 as a more direct Stockton-Carson Pass corridor.  Finally, 94 and 98 were the "border" routes; the former in and east of San Diego, and the latter in the Imperial Valley. 

The E-W 100-series was actually somewhat more consistent.  The SoCal series, not divisible by 4, was supposed to start near downtown L.A. and move ever farther north.  By that criteria, SSR 134 should have been SSR 114 -- but, again inexplicably, the latter number was selected quite early in the process.  118 was (and is) the E-W corridor immediately to the north.  122 was skipped, so 126 occupied the next space.  No original 130, so 138 was the next to the north.  All the 140's were missing; chances are one of them (142, 146) was slated to eventually be applied to, in all likelihood, where 202 (LRN 144) is today.  150 and 154 were "batched" to the west in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties; if the renumbering hadn't taken place, 158 would have been the current western end of 154 (west of 246) and 162 would have been where 176 was for a while post-renumbering.  166 was a fixture where it was; while the next number posted was SSR 178, LRN 140 east of US 99 might have become SSR 170 at some point (this is current CA 223).  One can only guess as to where SSR 174 would have gone; my guess is LRN 141, the west Bakersfield "loop".  Marching up the Valley, LRN 142 (partially current CA 155) would have been the location of SSR 182 in time, while LRN 136 (post-'64 CA 211 for a while, but deleted in '66 in favor of the western reaches of CA 155) might have become SSR 186 if field-posted.  190 remained constant pre-and-post renumbering; LRN 134/present CA 137 was a shoo-in for a SSR 194 posting.  The numbering series stopped at 198 -- pre-renumbering, intended to be the highest SSR number assigned.  North from there was the 4-divisible "set"; while the highest posted of those was SSR 180 through Fresno, 2 SSR's in the bunch could conceivably have been applied to current CA 216 (LRN 133/131, likely SSR 196) and CA 201 (LRN 131, likely 184, 188, or 192).  North from there, the actually-signed progression included SSR 168, SSR 156 (shunted to the coastal area), SSR 152, SSR 140, SSR 132, SSR 120, SSR 108, and SSR 104 completing the series.  SSR 128 was an anomaly, replacing original SSR 28 in the North Bay.  There were obvious places for some interim SSR designations:  SSR 148 might have been where CA 233 is today, SSR 136 where CA 130 is (or was!), and possibly a SSR 112 over present CA 219.  Some numbers may have been reserved for other coastal unsigned routes or even originally unsigned highways east of the Sierras (it would be interesting to check old Division of Highways records to ascertain if SSR numbers had been tentatively assigned but never signed in the field).  But pre-'64 there was some semblance of order to the grid pattern -- even if disrupted over time.  Post-'64:  chaos conquers; designations seemed to be selected by either a random number generator or by Division staff after a 4-martini lunch at Frank Fat's (an old downtown Sacramento "watering hole" favored by state officials). 

Odd numbers -- fuggedaboutit!  The Division tried the "regional batching" method, but the very shape of the state and its topography mitigated against any consistent sense of order.  Again, one batch (1,5,9,13,17,21,25,29) was assigned to the Bay Area and another (3,7,11,15,19,23,27,35,39) to metro L.A. -- and that worked for a while (one can only guess that 31 would have been either old LRN 169 in the eastern Long Beach area or LRN 159 up Lankershim Blvd. in the San Fernando Valley).  The rest of the 2-digit odd designations ended up scattered around the state: 41, 43, and 45 in the Central Valley along with 63 and 65, and the odd-70's (71,75,79) down southeast of L.A. or in metro San Diego.  No odd 80's, and most of the 90's were U.S. routes.  49 was given its number as an obvious reference to the 1849 Gold Rush, while 53, 55, and 59, and 67 got scattered around the state (a precursor of later randomness?).  Odd 3-digit old designations?  Only a handful (7 in total pre-'64); of those, 107 was carved out of the old southern reaches of SSR 7 in the Torrance area, 111 and 115 lived in the southeast desert, 127 out in the northeast Mojave as a corridor to Death Valley,  & 139 added in the 1950's to serve a previously underserved area.  145 was the sole odd 3d/SSR in the Valley, and 195, originally hugging the Colorado River, was replaced by US 95 and eventually moved to the Coachella area when US 60 was relocated north of its original alignment. 

So, 198 was the original arbitrary SSR limit under the old system (of course, there were US routes numbered above that).   There were plenty of unsigned LRN's, pre-1964 -- but more than enough unassigned SSR numbers in the arbitrary "envelope" to accommodate full signage of every inch of the system.  Post-'64 -- well, let's put it this way -- the first numbering system lasted a bit under 50 years; the second is now approaching 55.  If not for the political blowback, IMO it's time for another go at giving CA a coordinated and rational designation system -- if the current group of Caltrans officials actually gave a damn! -- and that assessment is redoubled in regards to the state legislature.  Not much anyone can do but go out and drive on what you find out there!             

[wanderer2575]

Michigan's M-553 (nowhere near any other state route number) was assigned because the road used to be Marquette County route 553 before the state assumed jurisdiction.

[Kulerage]

Hard to say for North Carolina, because of how many numbered highways it has, but if I had to guess the highest arbitrary number would be NC 801, making 902-906 all higher. In addition, it has several four digit designations for various local roads that are always unsigned, except for State Route 1010, which is named Ten-Ten Road.

[Bickendan]

AZ 51, 24, 143, 238 and 347 all come mind as route numbers that fail to follow any previous numbering conventions. 

IIRC, AZ 51 was originally meant to be I-510. When 510 was removed, it looks like AZDOT hacked off the 0 and called it a day.

[TheStranger]

  If not for the political blowback, IMO it's time for another go at giving CA a coordinated and rational designation system -- if the current group of Caltrans officials actually gave a damn! -- and that assessment is redoubled in regards to the state legislature.  Not much anyone can do but go out and drive on what you find out there!             

Several things come to mind as to how California's ended up in a permanent state of piecemeal routings:

1. Relinquishments are the name of the game now, post-2000.  (I mentioned in an earlier post that 210 is the most recent new state route in CA!  And if I'm not mistaken, 330 might be the newest non-recycled number NOT derived from an interstate corridor).

2. The 1964 renumbering, while comprehensive in some places to usually accommodate Interstate numberings, still sought to keep as many of the 1934 designations as possible - which led to some unforeseen problems (i.e. Route 180 being retained to the present day, which resulted in I-180 being unavailable and ultimately the somewhat awkward decision to put I-580 on former Route 17 in Richmond/San Rafael).  Ironically, the move to replace I-5W with 2 three-digit interstates also didn't help in the long term with using up all possible I-80 3di designations.

3. Even though 1964 seemed to be about having only signed-in-the-field numbers rather than a system of legislative numbers combined with the signed-in-the-field numbers...almost immediately this was not the case (164/19, 242/24, 260/61, 77/185, 112/61, 114/84, even the proposed Interstate designations of the original 105 and 110 in downtown Los Angeles).  Could argue that the silliness of 258/213 and 115/7 along the same corridor is the result of the de facto retention of some legislative-only numbering.

3A. When route numbers originally were taken out of use (i.e. 21 and 31 in the 1980s), they weren't reused anywhere for decades, but then in the 90s there was a small rash of former numbers coming back (7, 11, 261).  Given the willingness to do major renumberings that affected hundreds of miles of road in 1964 (i.e. 466 becoming 46 and 58), hard to understand why this wasn't done to rationalize certain corridors, i.e. 18/138 along Palmdale Road.

3B. Route numbering really should be about navigation and not "state maintenance".  Seeing the relinquishments marked on the maps at cahighways.org really highlights the absurdity of the latter (best exemplified in the lack of signage along Rice Avenue in Oxnard for route 1!)

[sparker]

Even though 1964 seemed to be about having only signed-in-the-field numbers rather than a system of legislative numbers combined with the signed-in-the-field numbers...almost immediately this was not the case (164/19, 242/24, 260/61, 77/185, 112/61, 114/84, even the proposed Interstate designations of the original 105 and 110 in downtown Los Angeles).  Could argue that the silliness of 258/213 and 115/7 along the same corridor is the result of the de facto retention of some legislative-only numbering.

The "pairs" cited above were actually separate routings with the original number (or simply one of the pair) signed for navigational convenience.  In the case of 164 and 19, a planned freeway from I-605 at Whittier Narrows, slicing NW to Rosemead Blvd., and following or paralleling Rosemead Blvd. up to I-210 was designated as CA 164, intended to be a "cutoff" from I-605 into eastern Pasadena.  The fact that much of it followed the longstanding CA 19 was somewhat coincidental.  If and when that freeway was built, CA 19 would still exist south of its northern terminus at the CA 164 freeway near El Monte, but as the surface facility it always was (and would be).  242 and 24 were much the same thing, but 24 was intended (on paper) to continue east from its Walnut Creek junction with I-680; it was supposed to veer NE and terminate at CA 4 near the Pittsburg/Antioch city line.  Again, for navigational purposes it temporarily multiplexed north on I-680 to Concord, where it was signed as CA 24 over the CA 242 freeway until 1987, when 24 signage was truncated back to Walnut Creek and CA 242 was signed as itself.  Presently there are no plans to build the 24 extension, although it's still on the state maps as a proposed route.  260 and 61 are just plain weird.  Until about 2004 CA 61 was signed over CA 260 through the twin tubes between Oakland and Alameda.  FYI, there's still "END 61" signage at the north end of the Posey tube.  However, the signage on NB CA 61 indicates an end at the corner of Central Ave. and Webster St. in downtown Alameda (I drive by there at least once every couple of weeks).  260 exists only on mileposts and the entrances to the tubes.  Originally, CA 61 was going to skirt the naval air station (now defunct) in west Alameda and parallel I-80 on a berm all the way up to I-580 in south Richmond (obviously that'll never happen!); the plans for such are still intact if not active.  So right now CA 61 has a signed end at an intersection in Alameda without any trailblazers back to Oakland!  That was one of the situations where signing a route over a short connector actually made sense.  CA 61 was (originally) unique in that it did it twice; once at the north end of extant 61 in Alameda as mentioned above, and the other signed over CA 112 east to CA 185 in San Leandro.  Speaking of CA 185 -- it mimicked the 61/260 situation by being signed as CA 185 over the High Street "freeway" (actually a series of RR underpasses) from I-880 east to the actual CA 185 alignment on East 14th Street in Oakland.  I haven't had the opportunity to check it out, but apparently the CA 185 signage on High Street is now gone; whether there is CA 77 signage to replace it is something TBD.  The reality is that there will never be any continuation of CA 77, which was to cross the Oakland Hills into Orinda and Lafayette; the NIMBY factor along the planned alignment is of the highest level and profile.  We've covered the 112/61 situation; the 114/84 routings in Redwood City and Menlo Park have already worked themselves out with the CA 84 extension north from the (unsigned) 114 junction.  The only reason why 258 and 213 are separate numbers is that 213 was always meant to be a surface facility, while 258 was planned as a freeway (!?).  Once again, it will never be built; the notion of a freeway up L.A.'s Western Ave. is laughable at best (what were they smoking back in '59?).  And while they share a trajectory, CA 115 and CA 7 don't even touch; CA 115 turns east on old US 80 to terminate at I-8 east of Holtville; there's about 2 miles of gap between 115 and the junction of I-8 and CA 7.  CA 7 is simply an expressway serving as a truck route down to the east Calexico border crossing, which was constructed specifically to accommodate large levels of commercial activity.   

[TheStranger]

The "pairs" cited above were actually separate routings with the original number (or simply one of the pair) signed for navigational convenience.  In the case of 164 and 19, a planned freeway from I-605 at Whittier Narrows, slicing NW to Rosemead Blvd., and following or paralleling Rosemead Blvd. up to I-210 was designated as CA 164, intended to be a "cutoff" from I-605 into eastern Pasadena.  The fact that much of it followed the longstanding CA 19 was somewhat coincidental.  If and when that freeway was built, CA 19 would still exist south of its northern terminus at the CA 164 freeway near El Monte, but as the surface facility it always was (and would be).

the 164 freeway project is one I know little about - was there ever an organized NIMBY movement against it the way the 710 gap has received?  In any case, once that project became a non-starter, not sure why that wasn't transferred back to Route 19, the way that Lombard Street/Richardson Avenue in SF used to be part of Route 480 but was transferred back to US 101 (which it has always been signed as!) in 1991.

  242 and 24 were much the same thing, but 24 was intended (on paper) to continue east from its Walnut Creek junction with I-680; it was supposed to veer NE and terminate at CA 4 near the Pittsburg/Antioch city line.  Again, for navigational purposes it temporarily multiplexed north on I-680 to Concord, where it was signed as CA 24 over the CA 242 freeway until 1987, when 24 signage was truncated back to Walnut Creek and CA 242 was signed as itself.  Presently there are no plans to build the 24 extension, although it's still on the state maps as a proposed route.

242 was signed as part of Route 24 from the time it was built in the 1950s until (as you mentioned) the late 1980s.  I think there's still some evidence of the concurrency signage along 24 east as one approaches 680.  Kinda interesting that the hidden designation replaced the long-standing signed designation right as the new-terrain 24 route was pretty much shelved permanently.

260 and 61 are just plain weird.  Until about 2004 CA 61 was signed over CA 260 through the twin tubes between Oakland and Alameda.  FYI, there's still "END 61" signage at the north end of the Posey tube.  However, the signage on NB CA 61 indicates an end at the corner of Central Ave. and Webster St. in downtown Alameda (I drive by there at least once every couple of weeks).

The end in downtown Alameda seems to be related to relinquishments (as noted on the Cahighways.org map) along several city blocks.  I don't think 61 was ever signed off of 880 on the exits for the Posey/Webster tubes, IIRC.

The only reason why 258 and 213 are separate numbers is that 213 was always meant to be a surface facility, while 258 was planned as a freeway (!?).  Once again, it will never be built; the notion of a freeway up L.A.'s Western Ave. is laughable at best (what were they smoking back in '59?).

Where that's weird: there are many examples of legislatively defined state routes where part exists as a signed state route and part exists only as an unbuilt extension.  LA has several: Route 14, Route 47, Route 90.  Difference being none of those examples had a different number for the unconstructed part!

And while they share a trajectory, CA 115 and CA 7 don't even touch; CA 115 turns east on old US 80 to terminate at I-8 east of Holtville; there's about 2 miles of gap between 115 and the junction of I-8 and CA 7.  CA 7 is simply an expressway serving as a truck route down to the east Calexico border crossing, which was constructed specifically to accommodate large levels of commercial activity.   

I do realize totally 7 was new-build in the 90s...just weird to have two routes on the same longitude but not joined together despite such a small distance between them.  Granted, 115's existence is surprising given how willing the state is to relinquish a lot of road in that area (i.e. 86 south of Brawley now that the 111 bypass has been built, and further north, the old surface routings of 111 and 195 parallel to the Route 86 expressway in the Coachella region).

[sparker]

The "pairs" cited above were actually separate routings with the original number (or simply one of the pair) signed for navigational convenience.  In the case of 164 and 19, a planned freeway from I-605 at Whittier Narrows, slicing NW to Rosemead Blvd., and following or paralleling Rosemead Blvd. up to I-210 was designated as CA 164, intended to be a "cutoff" from I-605 into eastern Pasadena.  The fact that much of it followed the longstanding CA 19 was somewhat coincidental.  If and when that freeway was built, CA 19 would still exist south of its northern terminus at the CA 164 freeway near El Monte, but as the surface facility it always was (and would be).

the 164 freeway project is one I know little about - was there ever an organized NIMBY movement against it the way the 710 gap has received?  In any case, once that project became a non-starter, not sure why that wasn't transferred back to Route 19, the way that Lombard Street/Richardson Avenue in SF used to be part of Route 480 but was transferred back to US 101 (which it has always been signed as!) in 1991.

  242 and 24 were much the same thing, but 24 was intended (on paper) to continue east from its Walnut Creek junction with I-680; it was supposed to veer NE and terminate at CA 4 near the Pittsburg/Antioch city line.  Again, for navigational purposes it temporarily multiplexed north on I-680 to Concord, where it was signed as CA 24 over the CA 242 freeway until 1987, when 24 signage was truncated back to Walnut Creek and CA 242 was signed as itself.  Presently there are no plans to build the 24 extension, although it's still on the state maps as a proposed route.

242 was signed as part of Route 24 from the time it was built in the 1950s until (as you mentioned) the late 1980s.  I think there's still some evidence of the concurrency signage along 24 east as one approaches 680.  Kinda interesting that the hidden designation replaced the long-standing signed designation right as the new-terrain 24 route was pretty much shelved permanently.

260 and 61 are just plain weird.  Until about 2004 CA 61 was signed over CA 260 through the twin tubes between Oakland and Alameda.  FYI, there's still "END 61" signage at the north end of the Posey tube.  However, the signage on NB CA 61 indicates an end at the corner of Central Ave. and Webster St. in downtown Alameda (I drive by there at least once every couple of weeks).

The end in downtown Alameda seems to be related to relinquishments (as noted on the Cahighways.org map) along several city blocks.  I don't think 61 was ever signed off of 880 on the exits for the Posey/Webster tubes, IIRC.

The only reason why 258 and 213 are separate numbers is that 213 was always meant to be a surface facility, while 258 was planned as a freeway (!?).  Once again, it will never be built; the notion of a freeway up L.A.'s Western Ave. is laughable at best (what were they smoking back in '59?).

Where that's weird: there are many examples of legislatively defined state routes where part exists as a signed state route and part exists only as an unbuilt extension.  LA has several: Route 14, Route 47, Route 90.  Difference being none of those examples had a different number for the unconstructed part!

And while they share a trajectory, CA 115 and CA 7 don't even touch; CA 115 turns east on old US 80 to terminate at I-8 east of Holtville; there's about 2 miles of gap between 115 and the junction of I-8 and CA 7.  CA 7 is simply an expressway serving as a truck route down to the east Calexico border crossing, which was constructed specifically to accommodate large levels of commercial activity.   

I do realize totally 7 was new-build in the 90s...just weird to have two routes on the same longitude but not joined together despite such a small distance between them.  Granted, 115's existence is surprising given how willing the state is to relinquish a lot of road in that area (i.e. 86 south of Brawley now that the 111 bypass has been built, and further north, the old surface routings of 111 and 195 parallel to the Route 86 expressway in the Coachella region).

The unbuilt section of CA 164 between I-605 and CA 19 is still on the books -- legally existing but practically dormant.  As long as it's there, it'll exist on paper north to I-210.  As far as the surface-route CA 19 goes, it's likely the existing route will be relinquished in full within the next decade.  That'll make for one unusual situation north of the point where 19 ceases to legally exist but 164 takes over:  the surface street won't be a state highway, but an unbuilt freeway -- albeit one without an adopted alignment -- will still be a line on a paper on or near the relinquished Rosemead Blvd.  And Temple City, through which much of 19/164 travels, is "San Marino Adjacent", with a NIMBY factor approaching that of nearby South Pasadena (the three cities line up in a lateral row, rendering N-S freeway development in that area highly problematic).  And so the absurdity of Pasadena not having much in the way of a southern freeway access point will continue. 

In Alameda, the present CA 61 alignment's northern terminus is legally where it should be; north from there is unadopted future facility.  Making an immediate right onto Webster St. used to take one directly onto CA 260, which for navigational purposes used to be signed as a CA 61 extension.  But the portion of Webster from Wilver "Willie" Stargell Drive (right at the south end of the twin tubes) south to Central Street was relinquished to the city of Alameda so they could engage in a "road diet" through the downtown district.  The tubes themselves and the direct approaches are still state property; the connection down to extant CA 61 is not.  And you're correct; there was never any CA 61 trailblazer signage along either I-880 or I-980 -- just secondary signs indicating exits to Alameda. 

Local lore has it that CA 213's main purpose was to ensure state maintenance of Western Ave. south of I-405 to ensure a minimum level of quality for truck access to the adjacent Mobil refinery; and the good (and filthy rich) folks in Palos Verdes wanted a similarly-maintained facility extending south to 25th Street in west San Pedro, which turns into Palos Verdes Drive South; they didn't trust the City of Los Angeles to properly maintain that street (for good reason; most streets in that neck of the woods under L.A. jurisdiction are literally crumbling beneath one's tires!).  So 213 exists for a purpose; 258 is and was a fucking pipedream!

CA 7 is the southernmost part of the CA version of a "NAFTA" corridor, which includes I-8 west from CA 7 to CA 111, CA 111 north to CA 78, CA 78 west to CA 86, and CA 86 north to I-10.  The purpose is to convey Mexican/"maquiladora" goods, as well as Imperial Valley agricultural products, to L.A. metro distribution centers without having to go through San Diego traffic.  Even incomplete (a Westmorland bypass is in the planning stages, which will functionally complete the package), it's a pretty high-capacity corridor, mostly built to Interstate geometry -- it sort of reminds me of the Avenue of the Saints, inasmuch as it has freeway sections around Brawley and Coachella and expressway sections in between.  CA 115, on the other hand, is a 2-lane rural road intended as an agricultural arterial.  The differential here is purpose -- CA 7 is considered part of a major regional corridor, while CA 115 is and has been a local server; keeping them separate is likely a deliberate decision on the part of Caltrans.  Meanwhile -- if it ain't part of the corridor and is a surface route, it's a likely candidate for relinquishment.     

[TheStranger]

The unbuilt section of CA 164 between I-605 and CA 19 is still on the books -- legally existing but practically dormant.  As long as it's there, it'll exist on paper north to I-210.  As far as the surface-route CA 19 goes, it's likely the existing route will be relinquished in full within the next decade.  That'll make for one unusual situation north of the point where 19 ceases to legally exist but 164 takes over:  the surface street won't be a state highway, but an unbuilt freeway -- albeit one without an adopted alignment -- will still be a line on a paper on or near the relinquished Rosemead Blvd.  And Temple City, through which much of 19/164 travels, is "San Marino Adjacent", with a NIMBY factor approaching that of nearby South Pasadena (the three cities line up in a lateral row, rendering N-S freeway development in that area highly problematic).  And so the absurdity of Pasadena not having much in the way of a southern freeway access point will continue. 

This entire paragraph highlights nicely some of the sheer oddness of the California state highway system:
- retaining a route that will never be built, on the books (this goes for 64, 258, 77 east of 185, and many other proposals), thus keeping that number from being free for future usage.
- the "164 signed as 19" situation given the above 0% chance of 164 existing on its own
- IIRC, Cahighways noted that 225 was relinquished entirely to the City of Santa Barbara, but NOT deleted: imagine if that is what happens with 19 at some point once only "164" exists!

In Alameda, the present CA 61 alignment's northern terminus is legally where it should be; north from there is unadopted future facility.  Making an immediate right onto Webster St. used to take one directly onto CA 260, which for navigational purposes used to be signed as a CA 61 extension.  But the portion of Webster from Wilver "Willie" Stargell Drive (right at the south end of the twin tubes) south to Central Street was relinquished to the city of Alameda so they could engage in a "road diet" through the downtown district.  The tubes themselves and the direct approaches are still state property; the connection down to extant CA 61 is not.  And you're correct; there was never any CA 61 trailblazer signage along either I-880 or I-980 -- just secondary signs indicating exits to Alameda. 

Does this mean that 61 basically only connects to 112 now and no other state route?

Local lore has it that CA 213's main purpose was to ensure state maintenance of Western Ave. south of I-405 to ensure a minimum level of quality for truck access to the adjacent Mobil refinery; and the good (and filthy rich) folks in Palos Verdes wanted a similarly-maintained facility extending south to 25th Street in west San Pedro, which turns into Palos Verdes Drive South; they didn't trust the City of Los Angeles to properly maintain that street (for good reason; most streets in that neck of the woods under L.A. jurisdiction are literally crumbling beneath one's tires!).

This seems like one of the few times that a city did the opposite of requesting relinquishment!  In that area, it amuses me how neither the currently active 213 or 47 get signed off of 405, yet 91 is still signed off of 405 and has some trailblazers left west of 110 (despite being relinquished).


As for 7/115, I can see how that separation makes sense in that context - like how at one point today's Route 11 in San Ysidro was part of a logical continuation of the east-west 905 trajectory, but eventually 905 usurped the southernmost part of 125 to reach Otay Mesa (as the border crossing 11 connects to is a much newer, still-in-progress project).

Going back to the context of this thread: California's arbitary limit in 1964 was 255 I think, with a new batch of semi-sequential routes up to 285 being used in the following years to 1970, and then mostly number recycling from that point on.  Any number higher than 285 seems to have been derived from existing routes (i.e. 330/371, 480 and 905 having roots in Interstate designations, 299 being a former US route), with plenty of available, unused numbers remaining between 255 and 285 to this day...not to mention numbers like 21 that have never been recycled!

[bzakharin]

In NJ, most anything 300 and over appears to be arbitrary. 

NJ 347 is the only one that makes sense, yet if you applied Interstate Highway Numbering rules to it, it doesn't.  It should be a even number 3di; not an odd number 2di.  147 from 47 spurring into North Wildwood makes sense.  247 isn't used, which would've worked perfectly.

NJ 324 is former US 322, which formerly served the Bridgeport-Chester Ferry into PA.

NJ 413 continues PA's Rt. 413; NJ 495 is former I-495.

NJ 439 & 440 are the only other 4xx series roads under NJDOT jurisdiction. 

Any other 4xx and higher roadways are under other state or multi-state jurisdictions.

Technically, the highest number allocated according to the geographical system was 50. Subsequently routes as high as 185 were assigned with not much in the way of organization, so anything above that has a good reason for existing (beyond being a former alignment or spur of a parent route, which are both pretty common).

Some of these 185+ numbers are meant to match a number in another state.
NJ 208 was supposed to connect to NY 208, though this may or may not ever happen
NJ 284 connects to NY 284
NJ 324 was already mentioned, but doesn't sound like a good candidate for an old alignment of 322. Couldn't they use 522 or something?
NJ 439 connected to NY 439, which no longer exists
NJ 440 connects to NY 440

The hghest sequentially assigned two-digit route was NJ 93, and routs between 93 and 156 were not to be used
NJ 94 connects with NY 94

[sparker]

Does this mean that 61 basically only connects to 112 now and no other state route?

Simple answer: yes.





Going back to the context of this thread: California's arbitary limit in 1964 was 255 I think, with a new batch of semi-sequential routes up to 285 being used in the following years to 1970, and then mostly number recycling from that point on.  Any number higher than 285 seems to have been derived from existing routes (i.e. 330/371, 480 and 905 having roots in Interstate designations, 299 being a former US route), with plenty of available, unused numbers remaining between 255 and 285 to this day...not to mention numbers like 21 that have never been recycled!

Actually -- post '64 there was no actual upper limit as to CA state highway numbering; 255 was the highest assigned in 1964.  Over the next few years others were added: 256 as a west Roseville bypass (since deleted), 257 in Ventura County (another "line on a map"), the notorious and almost comical 258, etc.  Some were the result of new freeway bypasses (271 in Mendocino County as an example); others by local request (273 in the Anderson/Redding area, 274 as a San Diego server), and some to keep certain facilities under state maintenance (275, 283).  259 was broken out during that period as a transfer from CA 18 mileage (it had been previously treated as a "spur").  Some numbers seemed to be arbitrarily passed over (264, 272, 277-79).  Right now, except for former U.S. highways that retained their number (299) and adjunct routes to former alignments (330,371), 285 remains the highest fully independent number that has ever been assigned.  But there are a lot of unused lower numbers due to deletions and relinquishments; it's likely Caltrans will keep reassigning those until the end of time!

[Mapmikey]

Hard to say for North Carolina, because of how many numbered highways it has, but if I had to guess the highest arbitrary number would be NC 801, making 902-906 all higher. In addition, it has several four digit designations for various local roads that are always unsigned, except for State Route 1010, which is named Ten-Ten Road.

NC 801 is not arbitrary...it is a spur off the original NC 80 (now US 601) which also had NC 800, NC 802, and NC 803 at one time.  The highest arbitrary number in the primary system is either 690 or 906.

The SR system is signed in North Carolina unless you mean signed only including easily seen rectangles used for the 10xx series of routes in each county.  The highest one of those I believe is SR 1091 in Greene/Lenoir Counties (https://goo.gl/maps/RjuwfvUDT3B2).  At one time NC posted all their secondary routes with these visible rectangles...

[WillWeaverRVA]

I probably should've mentioned that VA 420 is the highest arbitrary number in Virginia. There is also VA 457, but its numbering is not arbitrary as it was previously an old alignment of VA 57 (although you could say that VA 57 is itself an arbitrary number).

[TheStranger]

Right now, except for former U.S. highways that retained their number (299) and adjunct routes to former alignments (330,371), 285 remains the highest fully independent number that has ever been assigned.  But there are a lot of unused lower numbers due to deletions and relinquishments; it's likely Caltrans will keep reassigning those until the end of time!

That's actually a pretty good question:

Will California ever break out of the relinquishment spree and actually assign a route number - whether new or recycled - in the next 20-30 years?  As funny as that might be to ask, it's been 20 years since the last newly designated state route of 210, and about 22-23 since the newest new-build number (261) was signed.

Some of those unbuilt trans-sierra routes and things like Route 39 (where the middle section will never be signed again) are good examples of where one portion should retain the older, existing number, while the disconnected other portion should be signed as another number entirely.

[txstateends]

I don't think there's any official arbitrary limit to numbering in Texas, but I can't think of any state highways numbered higher than the 300's (other than spurs) or FM roads higher than the 3000's.

TM has only a couple 400+.

http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?units=miles&sys=usatx

As far as I know, 550 is the highest one.  It's the new Brownsville toll road.  The part off I-69E is I-169 until the end of the freeway section.  There are two FMs in higher thousands.  I don't know why, and the minute orders don't say.

I thought I read that the University of Texas El Paso has an SH Spur 1966 to denote the year of their NCAA Basketball Championship. They typically get up into the high-500s.

The only other beyond-a-certain-numbering-point example I can think of in TX is Loop 1604 in San Antonio.  Most state Loops are 3-digit-numbered.

[sparker]

Right now, except for former U.S. highways that retained their number (299) and adjunct routes to former alignments (330,371), 285 remains the highest fully independent number that has ever been assigned.  But there are a lot of unused lower numbers due to deletions and relinquishments; it's likely Caltrans will keep reassigning those until the end of time!

That's actually a pretty good question:

Will California ever break out of the relinquishment spree and actually assign a route number - whether new or recycled - in the next 20-30 years?  As funny as that might be to ask, it's been 20 years since the last newly designated state route of 210, and about 22-23 since the newest new-build number (261) was signed.

Some of those unbuilt trans-sierra routes and things like Route 39 (where the middle section will never be signed again) are good examples of where one portion should retain the older, existing number, while the disconnected other portion should be signed as another number entirely.

The prerequisite for doing anything like this is actually caring about such things.  At present, that doesn't describe Caltrans, either as an omnibus agency or even divided into its twelve regions.  Also, since the routes are legislated entities, the state legislature would have to become involved (even if it meant tacking a couple of phrases onto a funding bill); it's not like the "good old days" , when the Division of Highways would call the Speaker of the Assembly (or the director or an assistant would just meet him for drinks) and slip him the legislative language required for route alterations, and lo and behold, it would be done within a couple of months.  With term limits and interest groups haranguing them at all turns, today's legislators barely have time to tend to their own constituents' needs, much less act as "errand boys or girls" for state agencies. 

In short, set the bar real low in regards to the prospects for this type of activity. 

[TheStranger]

Right now, except for former U.S. highways that retained their number (299) and adjunct routes to former alignments (330,371), 285 remains the highest fully independent number that has ever been assigned.  But there are a lot of unused lower numbers due to deletions and relinquishments; it's likely Caltrans will keep reassigning those until the end of time!

That's actually a pretty good question:

Will California ever break out of the relinquishment spree and actually assign a route number - whether new or recycled - in the next 20-30 years?  As funny as that might be to ask, it's been 20 years since the last newly designated state route of 210, and about 22-23 since the newest new-build number (261) was signed.

Some of those unbuilt trans-sierra routes and things like Route 39 (where the middle section will never be signed again) are good examples of where one portion should retain the older, existing number, while the disconnected other portion should be signed as another number entirely.

The prerequisite for doing anything like this is actually caring about such things.  At present, that doesn't describe Caltrans, either as an omnibus agency or even divided into its twelve regions.  Also, since the routes are legislated entities, the state legislature would have to become involved (even if it meant tacking a couple of phrases onto a funding bill); it's not like the "good old days" , when the Division of Highways would call the Speaker of the Assembly (or the director or an assistant would just meet him for drinks) and slip him the legislative language required for route alterations, and lo and behold, it would be done within a couple of months.  With term limits and interest groups haranguing them at all turns, today's legislators barely have time to tend to their own constituents' needs, much less act as "errand boys or girls" for state agencies. 

In short, set the bar real low in regards to the prospects for this type of activity. 

This actually leads to a followup thought I've always wanted to ask about the 1934 numbering project:

How were the signed routings decided?  Obviously they correlated to LRNs, but usually a signed route would comprise of several LRNs (i.e. US 101 upon LRN 2, but also on a different LRN for the segment north of SF).  If the automobile clubs (CSAA/ACSC) were responsible for signage, did they also factor in to the selection of numbered routings at the time?