NV 28

[Max Rockatansky]

While researching NV 28 I had a couple interesting observations that contradict a lot of publications:

-  NV 28 first appears on the 1933 State Highway Map and not in the 1940s.
-  CA 28 first appears on LRN 39 at Lake Tahoe in 1954 and not 1952.  By extension CA 128 was also not assigned until 1954 as well.

I put applicable links for all the above on Surewhynotnow:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/09/nevada-state-route-28.html

[sparker]

Ok: here's my 2.1 cents' opinion on CA 28; hope no one gets too pissed off re the fictional aspects:

Since both the CA and NV renumberings, the "28" designation has outlived its usefulness; it's a short little CA highway numbered the way it is because NV whined about tourist confusion around the north side of Tahoe in the '50's unless the route bore the same number on both side of the state line (like US 50 on the south side); they wanted to make sure the casinos on that north side were convenient to potential customers.  My suggestion:  renumber the route as either MSR 209 or MSR 212, neither of which are being utilized currently in either state, but which fit into the NV regional plan (close to NV 206, 207, & 208).  CA can get rid of the multiplex of CA 29 & 128 in the Napa Valley; keep CA 128 on the segment from CA 29 to I-505, but redesignate the portion from CA 29 NW to CA 1 back to the original CA 28.  IMO, the switch never should have occurred; the Division of Highways should have stood their ground and insisted NDOT choose a number that wasn't a duplicate of an existing SSR.  However, as the late great John Belushi would say "........but NOOOOOOO!" 

[Max Rockatansky]

Ok: here's my 2.1 cents' opinion on CA 28; hope no one gets too pissed off re the fictional aspects:

Since both the CA and NV renumberings, the "28" designation has outlived its usefulness; it's a short little CA highway numbered the way it is because NV whined about tourist confusion around the north side of Tahoe in the '50's unless the route bore the same number on both side of the state line (like US 50 on the south side); they wanted to make sure the casinos on that north side were convenient to potential customers.  My suggestion:  renumber the route as either MSR 209 or MSR 212, neither of which are being utilized currently in either state, but which fit into the NV regional plan (close to NV 206, 207, & 208).  CA can get rid of the multiplex of CA 29 & 128 in the Napa Valley; keep CA 128 on the segment from CA 29 to I-505, but redesignate the portion from CA 29 NW to CA 1 back to the original CA 28.  IMO, the switch never should have occurred; the Division of Highways should have stood their ground and insisted NDOT choose a number that wasn't a duplicate of an existing SSR.  However, as the late great John Belushi would say "........but NOOOOOOO!" 

I wouldn't have an issue with trimming any of those Napa Area multiplexes personally.  On the flip side didn't Nevada remember NV 37 to 88 to line it up with CA 88?  Was that ever request by the Division of Highways or did NDOT just do that on their own?  Really 88 on both sides along with CA 4 west of Stockton ought to be up for short consideration for a 2D US Route or an X95 Route. 

[sparker]

I'd have my doubts about commissioning a U.S. highway along CA 4 through the delta -- too many abrupt right-angle turns atop levees (splash!).  Perhaps a better option would be to route it west on CA 12 via Lodi and Rio Vista, terminating at I-80 at Cordelia Junction.  The section of CA 12 east of CA 88 could be renumbered; with all those relinquishments, Caltrans has a lot from which to choose.  Don't know what U.S. number would be used except for an x50, multiplexed over US 395 north to the US 50 junction at Carson City.  Maybe fill in the currently unused US 450 here.     

[Max Rockatansky]

I'd have my doubts about commissioning a U.S. highway along CA 4 through the delta -- too many abrupt right-angle turns atop levees (splash!).  Perhaps a better option would be to route it west on CA 12 via Lodi and Rio Vista, terminating at I-80 at Cordelia Junction.  The section of CA 12 east of CA 88 could be renumbered; with all those relinquishments, Caltrans has a lot from which to choose.  Don't know what U.S. number would be used except for an x50, multiplexed over US 395 north to the US 50 junction at Carson City.  Maybe fill in the currently unused US 450 here.     

Why not just use US 95A north of US 50 in Nevada to loop it back to I-80?  That way the entire route would serve as a full I-80 alternate over the Sierras.  Personally I'm not a particular fan of US 95A but it could stay as a multiplex or be given a state route designation.  You could take the US 450/US 495 concept even further and push it as far west to US 101 on CA 37.

[roadfro]

Ok: here's my 2.1 cents' opinion on CA 28; hope no one gets too pissed off re the fictional aspects:

Since both the CA and NV renumberings, the "28" designation has outlived its usefulness; it's a short little CA highway numbered the way it is because NV whined about tourist confusion around the north side of Tahoe in the '50's unless the route bore the same number on both side of the state line (like US 50 on the south side); they wanted to make sure the casinos on that north side were convenient to potential customers.  My suggestion:  renumber the route as either MSR 209 or MSR 212, neither of which are being utilized currently in either state, but which fit into the NV regional plan (close to NV 206, 207, & 208).  CA can get rid of the multiplex of CA 29 & 128 in the Napa Valley; keep CA 128 on the segment from CA 29 to I-505, but redesignate the portion from CA 29 NW to CA 1 back to the original CA 28.  IMO, the switch never should have occurred; the Division of Highways should have stood their ground and insisted NDOT choose a number that wasn't a duplicate of an existing SSR.  However, as the late great John Belushi would say "........but NOOOOOOO!" 

209 or 212 would not fit in the Nevada numbering scheme. SR 28 is in Douglas County (~1.2 miles), Carson City (~3.9 miles) and Washoe County (~11 miles). Had SR 28 not retained its pre-1976 number, since over 2/3 of it's length is in Washoe County, it would likely have taken a number in the 420-450 range based on the numbers clustered in Washoe County (SR 432, if I had to guess). 209 & 212 fall in to what would be the Douglas County cluster–no way 28 would take a number in this range with the least amount of the highway length being in Douglas County.

[sparker]

209 or 212 would not fit in the Nevada numbering scheme. SR 28 is in Douglas County (~1.2 miles), Carson City (~3.9 miles) and Washoe County (~11 miles). Had SR 28 not retained its pre-1976 number, since over 2/3 of it's length is in Washoe County, it would likely have taken a number in the 420-450 range based on the numbers clustered in Washoe County (SR 432, if I had to guess). 209 & 212 fall in to what would be the Douglas County cluster–no way 28 would take a number in this range with the least amount of the highway length being in Douglas County.

You're closer to the seat of decision than I -- and whether the numbers I suggested could conceivably be utilized would depend upon, essentially, how anal retentive NDOT is about their numbering scheme.  Since at least one end of current NV 28 does lie within Douglas County, home of the 200-series numbers -- although not a majority of the route's length -- it would be a strictly internal NDOT choice as to what could be used.  And since Caltrans does have "oddball" numbers (albeit derivative); e.g. 330 and 371, maybe CA 432 might not be too much of a stretch if NDOT decided not to remove their butt plug!

In any case, such a renumbering scenario is in all likelihood not going to happen; more trouble than it's worth on either side of the state line.  CA/NV 28 is safely ensconsed in Sacramento and Carson City logbooks.