News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Patterns in the original 1934 Sign State Route Scheme

Started by Max Rockatansky, April 02, 2022, 04:00:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

I don't think we have talked about patterns in the original Sign State Route grid convention announced in the August 1934 CHPW but there was certainly many.  Two example patterns which leap to mind are as follows:

-  Around the Los Angeles area the major north/south Sign Routes ascend eastward via; 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19. 
-  North of Stockton the major east/west Sign Routes ascend through Sacramento Valley and Cascade Range via; 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36 and slightly breaking at 44 due to US 40 along with US 48 being already used.

What other patterns are out there that you see?  There is an obvious one in the Bay Area that is an easy catch:

https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa193436calirich/page/n275/mode/1up?view=theater


DTComposer

My understanding was the groups of low numbers, counting by fours, alternated between the L.A. area and the Bay Area. So:

- The Bay Area/central California had:
1 (still 1)
5 (now 35)
9 (some still 9, other parts decommissioned, CA-237, CA-238)
13 (quickly renumbered 17)
21 (now I-680)
25 (a little to the south)
29, 33, 37, and 41 don't quite fit in the grid, but could be counted as a stretch.

- For evens, the L.A. area had:
2 (still 2, largely decomissioned in L.A. metro)
6 (became 26, then I-10)
10 (became 42, now functionally replaced by I-105)
14 (largely replaced by CA-91)
18 (Carson Street/Lincoln Avenue, decommissioned)
22 (still 22)
26 (Bolsa Avenue, decomissioned)

Max Rockatansky

Another that popped into my head for Stockton southward:

-  104
-  108
-  120
-  132
-  140
-  152
-  168
-  180
-  190

I kind of wonder what the story was with 178 being out of place?  In theory it could line up with 138, 126 and 118.

Another mini pattern around Los Angeles would be; 23, 27, 35 and 39 ascending eastward.

41, 45 and 49 all seem to fit a miniature north/south pattern in the middle of the state. 

DTComposer

#3
Also, there was the grouping of 7x routes in the Inland Empire/San Diego County: 71, 74, 75, 78, 79. 76 was added later.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 02, 2022, 05:07:44 PM
Another that popped into my head for Stockton southward:

-  104
-  108
-  120
-  132
-  140
-  152
-  168
-  180
-  190

I kind of wonder what the story was with 178 being out of place?  In theory it could line up with 138, 126 and 118.

I noticed the numbers increased as you go south from 104 to 198 (as you mentioned), then descended as you continue to go south:
190
178
166
150
138
126
118

This feels like it could have been intentional: the groups of nearby parallel routes separated by 12:
108-120-132
126-138-150
140-152
168-180
166-178-190

Max Rockatansky

Given that only the really major Legislative Route Numbers received Sign State Routes (that weren't signed as US Routes) I don't see how it these conventions could be a coincidence.  What is really interesting to me is that the numbers are spaced out enough to allow future additions.  Some early additions even kind of fell line with the 1934 like when 21 was added. 

RZF

According to Wikipedia (and this makes sense considering the original routing), routes were assigned in a modulo of 4, meaning that the patterns occur starting with 0-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-15, and so on. The first two numbers of the pattern are assigned to Central and Northern CA, the final two numbers are assigned to Southern CA. So, according to the original routing, we have:

0 - non-existent
1 - coast route in Cen/NorCal
2 - same route as today
3 - coast route in Greater LA (since became part of CA-1)
4 - same route as today
5 - Redwood Estates to San Francisco (now the number of an interstate)
6 - always US highway but ended in Long Beach
7 - former designation for I-710
8 - exception (never assigned as a state route)
9 - same route as today
10 - same route as today
11 - former designation for I-110/CA-110

And so on.

Max Rockatansky

#6
CA 8 was one of the original State Routes.  It was aligned from Stockton over Carson Pass via Jackson and Mokelumne Hill.  CA 6 was Santa Monica-Fullerton but became CA 6 when US 6 was extended to California.  CA 10 was on the Firestone/Manchester corridor but became CA 42 decades on towards the start of the Interstate System.  The full list is in the CHPW volume I linked in the original post.

Also another pattern would be 94, 96 and 98 all be located near part of the northern/southern California State Line.  I can't quite figure out 95 and 195 other than they may have been place holders for the US 95 family (which they both became by way of US 395 and US 95).  111 and 89 also seem to just float there with out a rational reason for those numbers. 

SkyPesos

My first impression looking at CA state routes on maps is that it's clustered in some way, like what I'm familiar with in Ohio. Noticed a bunch of 8x routes (82, 84, 85, 87, also I-80) in the Bay Area and the 7x routes in San Diego/Inland Empire mentioned above.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 04, 2022, 01:10:43 AM
My first impression looking at CA state routes on maps is that it's clustered in some way, like what I'm familiar with in Ohio. Noticed a bunch of 8x routes (82, 84, 85, 87, also I-80) in the Bay Area and the 7x routes in San Diego/Inland Empire mentioned above.

Thing is, none of the 80s you mentioned were part of the original 1934 numbering convention.  89 is as the only 81-89 range State Highway designated in 1934.  71, 74, 78 and 79 were all the original 70-79 range state highways.  71 did reach San Diego originally but much of its southern length was consumed by US Route 395. 

RZF

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 04, 2022, 07:56:32 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 04, 2022, 01:10:43 AM
My first impression looking at CA state routes on maps is that it's clustered in some way, like what I'm familiar with in Ohio. Noticed a bunch of 8x routes (82, 84, 85, 87, also I-80) in the Bay Area and the 7x routes in San Diego/Inland Empire mentioned above.

Thing is, none of the 80s you mentioned were part of the original 1934 numbering convention.  89 is as the only 81-89 range State Highway designated in 1934.  71, 74, 78 and 79 were all the original 70-79 range state highways.  71 did reach San Diego originally but much of its southern length was consumed by US Route 395.
That makes sense considering the pattern. It also explains the 118, 126, 134, 166, and 170 "phenomenon" that exists.

DTComposer

One thing I'm trying to wrap my head around is route numbers that have no relationship with nearby numbers, but should have.

For example, 55 should have been 43, or perhaps 47 (assuming the Brea Canyon route would eventually be signed 43).

Another is 89 - given its position in the north-central part of the state, I would have thought maybe 53 or 57.

Also, 24 was definitely a north-south route and should have been an odd number.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: DTComposer on April 06, 2022, 02:50:24 AM
One thing I'm trying to wrap my head around is route numbers that have no relationship with nearby numbers, but should have.

For example, 55 should have been 43, or perhaps 47 (assuming the Brea Canyon route would eventually be signed 43).

Another is 89 - given its position in the north-central part of the state, I would have thought maybe 53 or 57.

Also, 24 was definitely a north-south route and should have been an odd number.

The weird thing is it got even more north/south once the segment to Oakland was added.  The pre-Feather River Highway alignment would have been on Oroville-Quincy Highway via the original Bidwell's Bar Bridge. 

I thought on 111 is that it might have been an intent to play of US 99 on the other side of the Salton Sea.  I seem to recall Sparker said something that once about being 33 being a similar reverse number on the opposite side of San Joaquin Valley.

Max Rockatansky


TheStranger

Quote from: RZF on April 04, 2022, 11:52:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 04, 2022, 07:56:32 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 04, 2022, 01:10:43 AM
My first impression looking at CA state routes on maps is that it's clustered in some way, like what I'm familiar with in Ohio. Noticed a bunch of 8x routes (82, 84, 85, 87, also I-80) in the Bay Area and the 7x routes in San Diego/Inland Empire mentioned above.

Thing is, none of the 80s you mentioned were part of the original 1934 numbering convention.  89 is as the only 81-89 range State Highway designated in 1934.  71, 74, 78 and 79 were all the original 70-79 range state highways.  71 did reach San Diego originally but much of its southern length was consumed by US Route 395.
That makes sense considering the pattern. It also explains the 118, 126, 134, 166, and 170 "phenomenon" that exists.

170 is a post-1964 number if I'm not mistaken (along a freeway that was originally planned to be a US 6 realignment, today's north segment of the Hollywood Freeway). 
Chris Sampang



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