AARoads Forum

Which state do you think has the worst system of state highways?

I'm nominating Nebraska, for

1) Having multiple routes with the same number, yet not filling in those gaps.  NE 103 (two separate sections) and NE 66 (three separate sections) are the worse examples of this.  Either connect the sections, or renumber the different parts.

2) Having a mileage cap, yet not having a decent system of county roads like Iowa.  In Iowa, it's pretty easy to determine if a county road will be paved or not.  Not that way in Nebraska.

3) Poor choice of routes to keep in the system.  Kearney loses the main north-south route in town for a bypass (see http://www.nebraskatransportation.org/projects/kearney-east/docs-3-2008/relinquishments.pdf (http://www.nebraskatransportation.org/projects/kearney-east/docs-3-2008/relinquishments.pdf), yet Omaha can keep US 6 through downtown when it could easily be relocated four blocks north (three for westbound) onto I-480?

The mileage caps drive me crazy. Look at Indiana with all of those useless overlaps on the Indianapolis Beltway. Alabama does similar things (look at Montgomery). When Alabama 181 was extended southward to close to U.S. 98 (it still does not reach it), Baldwin County had to gain 30 miles of Alabama 112. Mileage swaps...hate 'em.

Quote from: aaroads on January 23, 2009, 11:28:41 PM
The mileage caps drive me crazy. Look at Indiana with all of those useless overlaps on the Indianapolis Beltway. Alabama does similar things (look at Montgomery). When Alabama 181 was extended southward to close to U.S. 98 (it still does not reach it), Baldwin County had to gain 30 miles of Alabama 112. Mileage swaps...hate 'em.

wait, how does that work?  If one highway gained some miles, wouldn't another have to lose it?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2009, 01:07:51 PM

Quote from: aaroads on January 23, 2009, 11:28:41 PM
The mileage caps drive me crazy. Look at Indiana with all of those useless overlaps on the Indianapolis Beltway. Alabama does similar things (look at Montgomery). When Alabama 181 was extended southward to close to U.S. 98 (it still does not reach it), Baldwin County had to gain 30 miles of Alabama 112. Mileage swaps...hate 'em.

wait, how does that work?  If one highway gained some miles, wouldn't another have to lose it?

*shrug*, Alabama 181 gained like 18 miles, while Alabama 112 was 31 miles. I guess the other 13 miles fell into Mobile Bay.

Arkansas!

Again, I have to put my home state of Michigan on this subject and also Ohio. The biggest problem in Mi. is roads like M-22 and M-123 that really should have separate branches. For instance, M-22 from Manistee to Northport should have a different number from the Northport to Traverse City route (maybe call it M-201). M-123 should be from I-75 to Paradise and M-117 should take over the Newberry to Paradise route.
The big problem I have with Ohio is US 68 and useless multiplexes like US 250/ SR 60 and US 23/ SR 199.

Wyoming, without a doubt. I've never seen a state with more useless roads. Of the 200 or so state highways (not US or interstate), approximately 20 serve any sort of visible functional purpose. The other 180 would be county roads or unsigned state maintained routes in at least 49 other states- some might be FMs in Texas, but that's about it

I think Nebraska has a good system; there's a couple gaps but the thing is streamlined, efficient, and while mileage caps are annoying, the system is useful. I like the Link/Spur system, and logical routes have state highways with a fairly minimal amount of fat

Georgia.  They blatantly reuse numbers between US, interstate, and state routes. 

Add to that that these it is are among the worst at confusing US and state routes; someday I swear Georgia will have US-27 junctioning with US-27. 

here's a 41 error.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fx7043.jpg&hash=11e908760fc37535733d1682f47c3d6e6994a899)

also, note excessive multiplexing, ill-maintained gantry, and just plain ugly shields.

QuoteWyoming, without a doubt. I've never seen a state with more useless roads. Of the 200 or so state highways (not US or interstate), approximately 20 serve any sort of visible functional purpose. The other 180 would be county roads or unsigned state maintained routes in at least 49 other states- some might be FMs in Texas, but that's about it

Wyoming is not the only one who does this.  Mississippi also does this, and a few of the Virginia primary routes could be considered the same...

QuoteGeorgia.  They blatantly reuse numbers between US, interstate, and state routes.

Agreed, though Georgia is not alone in that regard.

QuoteAdd to that that these it is are among the worst at confusing US and state routes; someday I swear Georgia will have US-27 junctioning with US-27.

They already do.  In Lumpkin (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=32.049989,-84.803724&spn=0.026444,0.05476&z=15)...a junction I've happened to go through...

you mean there's already an error US-27 shield there to mark the state route?  that's terrible!

Are we talking about numbering or road conditions? Because a state with a disastrous road numbering system, but roads as smooth as a golf course doesn't make a bad state highway system  :cool:

I gotta say I never understood why some states use letter prefixes for county roads like in Missouri, California or Iowa. Not every back road needs a number.   :pan:

I'm not sure if there are any error shields.  But there is an actual US 27/GA 27 junction in Lumpkin at the location I linked to.

^^ Wow! That's really confusing, maybe more so than I-85 and S.R. 85 to some drivers.


Be well,

Bryant

QUOTE: The big problem I have with Ohio is US 68 and useless multiplexes like US 250/ SR 60 and US 23/ SR 199.

As far as the US-250/SR-60 multiplex:  SR 60 is one of, if not the only, north-south state highways that stretches from Lake Erie/Michigan State Line to the Ohio River. So both 250 and 60 are major routes in Ohio.

As far as the US-23/SR-199 fiasco, I don't understand why they swapped alignments in the first place decades ago, other than giving US 23 more direct connections to Toledo's major freeways (SR-420/I-280, The Ohio Turnpike, and I-75).  South of Fostoria, SR-199 could be re-numbered since it's not a major state highway.

I did not see any error shields when I was there in 2006.  But the possibility does exist - especially if the truck drives up with half a load of US-27s and half a load of state route 27s in the back and gets a few of the installs wrong...

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 08, 2009, 11:26:43 AM
Again, I have to put my home state of Michigan on this subject and also Ohio. The biggest problem in Mi. is roads like M-22 and M-123 that really should have separate branches. For instance, M-22 from Manistee to Northport should have a different number from the Northport to Traverse City route (maybe call it M-201). M-123 should be from I-75 to Paradise and M-117 should take over the Newberry to Paradise route.
The big problem I have with Ohio is US 68 and useless multiplexes like US 250/ SR 60 and US 23/ SR 199.

How are these routes signed directionally?  It would appear that if you were leaving Northport or Paradise the routes would be signed South either way you go (I'm assuming that isn't the case though).  M-22 actually makes sense to me because it's a scenic route around the peninsula.  It's not much different from how M-25 follows the outline of the thumb.  I've never understood M-123 though-it should definitely have 2 route numbers.  I wonder how many people have traveled down M-28 and think they're going in circles when they approach M-123 for the 2nd time.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 08, 2009, 12:29:32 PM
Georgia.  They blatantly reuse numbers between US, interstate, and state routes. 

Yes, the road to Atlanta Motor Speedway is GA 20 but so is the road from Cartersville to Rome and the AL line.  And, BOTH have exits off of I-75! (albeit 70 miles apart)  :pan:

QuoteYes, the road to Atlanta Motor Speedway is GA 20 but so is the road from Cartersville to Rome and the AL line.  And, BOTH have exits off of I-75! (albeit 70 miles apart) 

The incredible part is that that's one continuous state highway

^^ Yeah, and it crosses I-20. At that point, it's merged with S.R. 138.


Georgia State Route 20 - Pt. 1 [HD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVYaLoE6Eic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVYaLoE6Eic)

Georgia State Route 20 - Pt. 2 [HD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RrPkIKT_TM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RrPkIKT_TM)


Be well,

Bryant

Quote from: corco on September 09, 2009, 04:17:34 PM

QuoteYes, the road to Atlanta Motor Speedway is GA 20 but so is the road from Cartersville to Rome and the AL line.  And, BOTH have exits off of I-75! (albeit 70 miles apart) 

The incredible part is that that's one continuous state highway

Wow, I just looked it up on Google maps.  :wow:

When I looked at my Rand McNally 2010 atlas, somehow it looked like 2 separate highways to me.  :confused:

^^ Yep, it's one continuous one. It cuts a sideways "J" through southeast and northeast/northwest Metro Atlanta.


Be well,

Bryant

Just look at the condition of Michigan's Roads! Enough said!

two surviving embossed Michigan cutouts make up for a lot of flaws...

Chris: Missouri agrees, not all back roads need a number. That's why they assigned all their secondary routes letters only!  :pan:

Oklahoma's system probably isn't the worst but it is a bit messy and I'd like to change some things about it. Oklahoma has kinda' a north-south = even and east-west = odd thing going on, but it's not consistent. I'd like to see that standardized just so we can be different from everyone else.  :spin: But probably more practically, there are a few state routes with 2 or 3 digit designations that serve a very minor purpose. Oklahoma's numbering system allows for suffixed routes...so use them! OK 42 is probably the worst offender... make it OK 152A. OK 89 is near-useless; decommission that, or if not make it OK 32A. OK 153 in Thackerville is so short, you can see one end of it from the other; it should either be OK 35A, or, if numbering a state highway after an Interstate is bad form, make it OK 77E (or A, or whatever...I don't really get how the OK 77x series is suffixed).

Oklahoma's big problem is that there are both primary trunk routes and secondary routes contained within the state highway system, and both are signified by the same sort of signage. The biggest improvement they could make would be to sign the two types of route differently, so someone doesn't think these two highways are equivalent:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.796572,-97.12635&spn=0,359.972405&z=15&layer=c&cbll=34.796559,-97.126113&panoid=MEYw5opoweVcqHU0yPTqVA&cbp=12,92.53,,0,8.9 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.796572,-97.12635&spn=0,359.972405&z=15&layer=c&cbll=34.796559,-97.126113&panoid=MEYw5opoweVcqHU0yPTqVA&cbp=12,92.53,,0,8.9)

what is wrong with OK 133?  Looks to me to be just as good a road as OK 19.

Honestly, I cannot throw NJ's state route system into this discussion.  It's not that bad, I'd just nit pick through it ;-)

Another big problem in Michigan are the M roads in the northern half of the lower peninsula such as 32,72, and 88 which have way too many sharp turns and curves. These roads also go through communties such as Elmira, Fairview and Johannesburg.

OK 133 is indeed a short connecting route (partially in my former home county), but is definitely state-highway grade by Oklahoma standards. (Whether it deserves to be is another discussion entirely, of course.) That said it probably should also carry a lettered spur designation, a 19x or a 59x. I think the letter designation is enough to flag a route as "hey, this road doesn't really go anywhere of importance".

Texas's big problem is that they have 46 different highway classes  :pan:

Quote from: ChrisI gotta say I never understood why some states use letter prefixes for county roads like in Missouri, California or Iowa. Not every back road needs a number.

West Virginia begs to differ. In fact, they think it's so important to give their back roads numbers that they give them two.

Louisiana also has their hyphenated routes for branches off the mainline.

Tennessee has some dog awful secondary state roads that have no shoulders that often wind unnecessarily whilst another route may be adjacent that does not.  The routes are not signed well and the concurrencies are so hit and miss.

2009?  I think we've covered this way more recently elsewhere?

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2021, 08:07:06 AM
2009?  I think we've covered this way more recently elsewhere?

That's at least two super-ancient threads said poster resurrected early this morning. My query is, what was he searching for to prompt him to find this old material?

Look at my first 50 or so posts. While it was only 2013 then, it seemed to be fine by most people (see this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10156)). I think it's pretty firmly established that reviving a thread is preferable to starting a duplicate thread on the same topic.

Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 08:17:30 AM
Look at my first 50 or so posts. While it was only 2013 then, it seemed to be fine by most people (see this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10156)). I think it's pretty firmly established that reviving a thread is preferable to starting a duplicate thread on the same topic.

The Michigan posts alone outdate this thread.  Pure Pothole isn't even a thing now like it was been back then, MDOT and Michigan has been far surpassed since 2009.  I recall a similar thread from last year where this exact topic was discussed and think the general consensus had anew Mexico as the present worst state system. 

While New Mexico is pretty bad, the state is also underrepresented on this forum (even compared to its low population), so there was probably nobody to defend it.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2021, 08:27:05 AM
anew Mexico

Is this part of the "a before proper names" autocorrect glitch?

Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 08:17:30 AM
Look at my first 50 or so posts. While it was only 2013 then, it seemed to be fine by most people (see this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10156)). I think it's pretty firmly established that reviving a thread is preferable to starting a duplicate thread on the same topic.

If you read my comment, you'll see I didn't criticize; rather, I merely wondered what he was searching for that led him to these old threads.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 10, 2021, 08:43:51 AM

Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 08:17:30 AM
Look at my first 50 or so posts. While it was only 2013 then, it seemed to be fine by most people (see this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10156)). I think it's pretty firmly established that reviving a thread is preferable to starting a duplicate thread on the same topic.

If you read my comment, you'll see I didn't criticize; rather, I merely wondered what he was searching for that led him to these old threads.

I think it was an indirect answer to your question. He has previously stated (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24280.msg2385425#msg2385425) that, when he was a new user, he found old threads and posted to them via this page (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=who), rather than through the search function.

Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 08:35:43 AM
While New Mexico is pretty bad, the state is also underrepresented on this forum (even compared to its low population), so there was probably nobody to defend it.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2021, 08:27:05 AM
anew Mexico

Is this part of the "a before proper names" autocorrect glitch?

I believe so, I'm having some funky autocorrections that I've been seeing with the recent iOS updates. 

Regarding New Mexico in my case I worked there for three years and usually spent around fifty nights annually.  The state inventory is surprisingly large and has real nice scenery (top ten state IMO).  That said the surface conditions and state repair is often extremely wanting.  Some rural state highways in particular matched up with some really poor county roads that would be typical in other states. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2021, 09:40:39 AM

Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 08:35:43 AM
While New Mexico is pretty bad, the state is also underrepresented on this forum (even compared to its low population), so there was probably nobody to defend it.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2021, 08:27:05 AM
anew Mexico

Is this part of the "a before proper names" autocorrect glitch?

I believe so, I'm having some funky autocorrections that I've been seeing with the recent iOS updates. 

Regarding New Mexico in my case I worked there for three years and usually spent around fifty nights annually.  The state inventory is surprisingly large and has real nice scenery (top ten state IMO).  That said the surface conditions and state repair is often extremely wanting.  Some rural state highways in particular matched up with some really poor county roads that would be typical in other states. 

My work takes me into Northern New Mexico several times a month.   Here is my take based on the area I travel (Bloomfield, Aztec, Farmington, Shiprock).

Seems like the only time they "fix" a road long term, they tie it into a widening and/or rebuild project. Then the road gets a full rebuild with fancy aesthetics and full paving of all lanes and shoulders.  After that, little to no preventive maintenance is done.  The once-nice two-tone median islands are never swept nor weeded, and the pavement starts to crumble before they apply a cold patch fix or a thin overlay that is put on the road like butter is put on a slice of bread. 

Only Farmington proper is where I have seen any regular resurfacing-only projects -- the recent Downtown Main St. project the exception.  Otherwise, travel US-64 from Bloomfield west to Shiprock and compare the rebuilt section near Sunray Casino with the older sections that were once "state of the art".  Good luck finding any preventive maintenance or cyclic resurfacing schedules.  Its just putting band aids on top of band-aids.

I'm responding to this only because the thread was previously bumped.

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 09, 2009, 09:31:08 AM

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 08, 2009, 11:26:43 AM
Again, I have to put my home state of Michigan on this subject and also Ohio. The biggest problem in Mi. is roads like M-22 and M-123 that really should have separate branches. For instance, M-22 from Manistee to Northport should have a different number from the Northport to Traverse City route (maybe call it M-201). M-123 should be from I-75 to Paradise and M-117 should take over the Newberry to Paradise route.
The big problem I have with Ohio is US 68 and useless multiplexes like US 250/ SR 60 and US 23/ SR 199.

How are these routes signed directionally?  It would appear that if you were leaving Northport or Paradise the routes would be signed South either way you go (I'm assuming that isn't the case though).  M-22 actually makes sense to me because it's a scenic route around the peninsula.  It's not much different from how M-25 follows the outline of the thumb.  I've never understood M-123 though-it should definitely have 2 route numbers.  I wonder how many people have traveled down M-28 and think they're going in circles when they approach M-123 for the 2nd time.

(https://i.imgur.com/nubVFWS.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/TmtFyxq.jpg)

M-123 in Paradise has minimal signing with no cardinal directions at the top of its half loop.

All things considered, WI is probably somewhere in the middle. The thing that I like the most is that there are no stupid 4-digit routes or unsigned, "is this a state route or not?" type of highways (except for WI-134). On the flip side, some of them are in bad condition, particularly ones in the area east of the Mississippi, north of US-18, west of I-90/94, and south of I-90.

Arkansas, for much of the same reasons as Nebraska, not to mention the inadequate maintenance.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2021, 09:40:39 AM

Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 08:35:43 AM
Is this part of the "a before proper names" autocorrect glitch?

I believe so, I'm having some funky autocorrections that I've been seeing with the recent iOS updates. 

Oregon's are in pretty rough shape, especially compared to Washington's really great system.

Signage for state highways is fairly awful.

I drive enough in Indiana to say that most state routes are absolutely beautiful in maintenance. When Indiana fixes a state route they dig down to the subgrade. The state route signage could be improved a little in places but they even have small green signs on the state routes for small places that are reached by county roads. They do follow a loose grid and you can get most anywhere on a state route in Indiana. Unfortunately, Indiana totally aggravates me with the not having the state routes go into or through a lot of cities because they don't want to maintain them. It's a major flaw in an otherwise stellar state highway system.

Jim

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 10, 2021, 07:35:42 AM
Tennessee has some dog awful secondary state roads that have no shoulders that often wind unnecessarily whilst another route may be adjacent that does not.  The routes are not signed well and the concurrencies are so hit and miss.

What Tennessee lacks in signage and cohesion, they more than make up for in pavement quality.  They have traditionally kept a firm schedule of resurfacing interstates every 8 years and other state roads every 12 years.  I just wish SC would think about resurfacing some of their roads every 15 years!

Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 08:17:30 AM
Look at my first 50 or so posts. While it was only 2013 then, it seemed to be fine by most people (see this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10156)). I think it's pretty firmly established that reviving a thread is preferable to starting a duplicate thread on the same topic.

I think that depends on the topic. If the answers are likely to have changed, then the discussion from a decade ago is not as useful to include.

Quote from: wriddle082 on February 10, 2021, 06:05:35 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 10, 2021, 07:35:42 AM
Tennessee has some dog awful secondary state roads that have no shoulders that often wind unnecessarily whilst another route may be adjacent that does not.  The routes are not signed well and the concurrencies are so hit and miss.

What Tennessee lacks in signage and cohesion, they more than make up for in pavement quality.  They have traditionally kept a firm schedule of resurfacing interstates every 8 years and other state roads every 12 years.  I just wish SC would think about resurfacing some of their roads every 15 years!

That is so true.  Tennessee does an excellent job with paving projects.  They just don't know how to mark roads well.  Heck they even mark secondary state highways as US highways.  Such as SSR 417 is marked as US 417.  SSR 373 is marked as US 373.

California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. Also, routes should never be signed into law, as that makes them harder to change, and in California's case, disallows overlaps that are found in every other state. The other problem with putting highways into state law is that whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 08:14:42 AM
California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. Also, routes should never be signed into law, as that makes them harder to change, and in California's case, disallows overlaps that are found in every other state. The other problem with putting highways into state law is that whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

Wasn't that way with the Sign State Routes largely before the 1964 Renumbering.  The State had Legislative Route Numbers but the Sign State Routes weren't really tied to whether the state maintained a segment or not.  Prior to 1940 there was a ton of local roads that received Sign State Route shields but that began to wane in the decades approaching the 1964 Renumbering.  One highway I'm presently writing about (the Shoreline Highway) had CA 1 signed on two local segments (Valley Ford-Jenner and Westport-Leggett) before they were officially adopted as part of Legislative Route Number 56 in the 1950s. 

Some other problems in California lies with Caltrans maintenance and signage standards falling way behind much of the country.  SB1 has done a ton to remedy this but not every Caltrans district has seemed interested in using funds.  Caltrans District 4 as an example has done relatively little to replace old button copy and reflective paint signage whereas others like District 6 largely eliminated all but the newest variants.  There is a lot of reasons the maintenance levels dipped so much from the 1970s but this isn't really the thread to get into something lengthy like that. 

I'm going to second everyone on here who has said New Mexico. Pavement quality and signage are both consistently awful to a level rarely seen in other states.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 11, 2021, 08:08:03 AM

Quote from: wriddle082 on February 10, 2021, 06:05:35 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 10, 2021, 07:35:42 AM
Tennessee has some dog awful secondary state roads that have no shoulders that often wind unnecessarily whilst another route may be adjacent that does not.  The routes are not signed well and the concurrencies are so hit and miss.

What Tennessee lacks in signage and cohesion, they more than make up for in pavement quality.  They have traditionally kept a firm schedule of resurfacing interstates every 8 years and other state roads every 12 years.  I just wish SC would think about resurfacing some of their roads every 15 years!

That is so true.  Tennessee does an excellent job with paving projects.  They just don't know how to mark roads well.  Heck they even mark secondary state highways as US highways.  Such as SSR 417 is marked as US 417.  SSR 373 is marked as US 373.

I noticed this the other day when I clinched US-25E. I was doing fine until I reached Tazewell I turned onto SR-33 for some reason and thought I was still on US-25E until I realized that I was going SW not SE. That reason is because SR-33 continues on the same path that US-25E north of there was on and US-25E turns with SR-32.

Quote from: Flint1979 on February 11, 2021, 09:06:14 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 11, 2021, 08:08:03 AM

Quote from: wriddle082 on February 10, 2021, 06:05:35 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 10, 2021, 07:35:42 AM
Tennessee has some dog awful secondary state roads that have no shoulders that often wind unnecessarily whilst another route may be adjacent that does not.  The routes are not signed well and the concurrencies are so hit and miss.

What Tennessee lacks in signage and cohesion, they more than make up for in pavement quality.  They have traditionally kept a firm schedule of resurfacing interstates every 8 years and other state roads every 12 years.  I just wish SC would think about resurfacing some of their roads every 15 years!

That is so true.  Tennessee does an excellent job with paving projects.  They just don't know how to mark roads well.  Heck they even mark secondary state highways as US highways.  Such as SSR 417 is marked as US 417.  SSR 373 is marked as US 373.

I noticed this the other day when I clinched US-25E. I was doing fine until I reached Tazewell I turned onto SR-33 for some reason and thought I was still on US-25E until I realized that I was going SW not SE. That reason is because SR-33 continues on the same path that US-25E north of there was on and US-25E turns with SR-32.

I don't remember 32 being signed there. If you were driving south, 25E makes a left turn. There used to be a McDonald's at the intersection, but when the new alignment of 25E was built, the intersection was relocated and now you make the turn before you get to the Golden Arches.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 08, 2009, 12:29:32 PM
Georgia.  They blatantly reuse numbers between US, interstate, and state routes. 

Add to that that these it is are among the worst at confusing US and state routes; someday I swear Georgia will have US-27 junctioning with US-27. 

here's a 41 error.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fx7043.jpg&hash=11e908760fc37535733d1682f47c3d6e6994a899)

also, note excessive multiplexing, ill-maintained gantry, and just plain ugly shields.

In this same regard, I'd nominate VA and their excessively repetitive secondary route numbers (even with numbers above 600, they tend to reuse the same numbers in many different places). While I do applaud them for not using the standard pentagon shield, there's nothing special about the circle shield either. Maybe an outline of the state would be a better design...

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 08:14:42 AM
California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. [...] whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

I don't know that any of that is necessarily a problem. If state routes are always state-maintained, it shouldn't matter whether a city is on board with it because the state is the only one responsible for maintaining signage. Also, I don't think major suburban roads (that aren't freeways) necessarily need to carry numbers. In my experience, people will always refer to suburban surface roads with their name anyway (nobody in Norman knows or cares where US-77 is, it's always referred to as "12th" or "Tecumseh") and do not use the numbers for navigation purposes.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 11, 2021, 02:46:42 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 08:14:42 AM
California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. [...] whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

I don't know that any of that is necessarily a problem. If state routes are always state-maintained, it shouldn't matter whether a city is on board with it because the state is the only one responsible for maintaining signage. Also, I don't think major suburban roads (that aren't freeways) necessarily need to carry numbers. In my experience, people will always refer to suburban surface roads with their name anyway (nobody in Norman knows or cares where US-77 is, it's always referred to as "12th" or "Tecumseh") and do not use the numbers for navigation purposes.

Some of California's state routes are locally maintained, though. I believe Caltrans will often relinquish segments of routes to local jurisdictions while keeping the legal definitions of those routes unchanged. These local jurisdictions are then theoretically responsible for maintaining signage on these relinquished route segments...though they often don't.

Which is what I'm saying; I think having locally-maintained segments of numbered state routes causes more problems than not allowing state routes to run on non-state-maintained roadways. 1's post is a little ambiguous because they seem to be arguing both for and against state routes on non-state roadways.

Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 11, 2021, 02:46:42 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 08:14:42 AM
California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. [...] whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

I don't know that any of that is necessarily a problem. If state routes are always state-maintained, it shouldn't matter whether a city is on board with it because the state is the only one responsible for maintaining signage. Also, I don't think major suburban roads (that aren't freeways) necessarily need to carry numbers. In my experience, people will always refer to suburban surface roads with their name anyway (nobody in Norman knows or cares where US-77 is, it's always referred to as "12th" or "Tecumseh") and do not use the numbers for navigation purposes.

Some of California's state routes are locally maintained, though. I believe Caltrans will often relinquish segments of routes to local jurisdictions while keeping the legal definitions of those routes unchanged. These local jurisdictions are then theoretically responsible for maintaining signage on these relinquished route segments...though they often don't.

That's exactly what the problem is, a lot of local authorities outright ignore the terms of the reliquishment which require continuation signage remain place.  A great example of that is CA 130 on Alum Rock Avenue in San Jose.  The City wanted Alum Rock back to convert to their pedestrian standards, agreed to sign CA 130 and instead yanked all the signage down. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 08, 2009, 12:29:32 PM
Georgia.  They blatantly reuse numbers between US, interstate, and state routes. 

Add to that that these it is are among the worst at confusing US and state routes; someday I swear Georgia will have US-27 junctioning with US-27. 

here's a 41 error.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fx7043.jpg&hash=11e908760fc37535733d1682f47c3d6e6994a899)

also, note excessive multiplexing, ill-maintained gantry, and just plain ugly shields.

Virginia has US 60 instersecting (then multiplexing with) US 60 in Newport News...

Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2021, 11:24:10 AMIn this same regard, I'd nominate VA and their excessively repetitive secondary route numbers (even with numbers above 600, they tend to reuse the same numbers in many different places). While I do applaud them for not using the standard pentagon shield, there's nothing special about the circle shield either. Maybe an outline of the state would be a better design...

These numbers stay the same over county lines in all but a handful of cases.  If they didn't reuse numbers they would need 6-digit route numbers to not repeat statewide.  Even if they only repeated them in each VDOT district (9 of those) you'd still need a lot of 5 digit numbers.

I can report however that VDOT can accommodate 9 characters on their standard rectangle they use at most secondary road intersections:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fsix-six-six%2520sign.jpg&hash=0b949bf697161189280ff9a77760181e9e919e0f)
About 10 years ago...near Winchester and still up as of Oct 2019 GMSV at every SR 666 junction here.  Oddly, every county has an SR 666 and this is the only place I recall ever seeing this.

Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 11, 2021, 02:46:42 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 08:14:42 AM
California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. [...] whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

I don't know that any of that is necessarily a problem. If state routes are always state-maintained, it shouldn't matter whether a city is on board with it because the state is the only one responsible for maintaining signage. Also, I don't think major suburban roads (that aren't freeways) necessarily need to carry numbers. In my experience, people will always refer to suburban surface roads with their name anyway (nobody in Norman knows or cares where US-77 is, it's always referred to as "12th" or "Tecumseh") and do not use the numbers for navigation purposes.

Some of California's state routes are locally maintained, though. I believe Caltrans will often relinquish segments of routes to local jurisdictions while keeping the legal definitions of those routes unchanged. These local jurisdictions are then theoretically responsible for maintaining signage on these relinquished route segments...though they often don't.

That may explain a faded CA 82 shield I observed in Millbrae on the El Camino Real.

Jim

Quote from: tq-07fan on February 11, 2021, 10:23:44 PM

Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 11, 2021, 02:46:42 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 08:14:42 AM
California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. [...] whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

I don't know that any of that is necessarily a problem. If state routes are always state-maintained, it shouldn't matter whether a city is on board with it because the state is the only one responsible for maintaining signage. Also, I don't think major suburban roads (that aren't freeways) necessarily need to carry numbers. In my experience, people will always refer to suburban surface roads with their name anyway (nobody in Norman knows or cares where US-77 is, it's always referred to as "12th" or "Tecumseh") and do not use the numbers for navigation purposes.

Some of California's state routes are locally maintained, though. I believe Caltrans will often relinquish segments of routes to local jurisdictions while keeping the legal definitions of those routes unchanged. These local jurisdictions are then theoretically responsible for maintaining signage on these relinquished route segments...though they often don't.

That may explain a faded CA 82 shield I observed in Millbrae on the El Camino Real.

Jim

Pretty much that is run of the mill on CA 82, the only segment that has been relinquished Post-1964 is in San Jose:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE082.html

Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 08:58:30 AM
I'm going to second everyone on here who has said New Mexico. Pavement quality and signage are both consistently awful to a level rarely seen in other states.

yea i drove through NM once and was consistently appalled by the awful pavement and signage quality. I-25 between Gallup and Albuquerque was adequate, but US 491 and the few state routes I used were dreadful. On top of that, US 491 had many sections where the speed limit would randomly and suddenly drop to 35. Overall, not a fan of driving in NM.

Alaska?

Quote from: dariusb on February 13, 2021, 11:52:09 AM
Alaska?

Why?

Quote from: Rothman on February 13, 2021, 04:22:19 PM

Quote from: dariusb on February 13, 2021, 11:52:09 AM
Alaska?

Why?

The fact that Alaska has a viable state network in spite of the massive environmental challenges by default puts it way ahead of the bottom tier states. 

nominating Mississippi.

- There are some dumb gaps in the routes. Idk if it's unsigned or what, but 18 has a 15 mile gap that can be connected with I-20 or US 80. Ms 15 has a gap too.
- The 3 digits are generally more important than the 2 digits now.
- The 2 digit numbering scheme is so messy. It was supposed to be 1-25, then 27-41, then 41- and over repeating the same pattern. What?
Technically every odd number over 25 is out of the grid but:
MS 5 runs east of MS 7.
MS 22 runs between MS 16 and MS 18.
MS 23 runs east of MS 25.
MS 27 runs between MS 33 and MS 35.
MS 28 runs between MS 18 and MS 24, but it was MS 20 before I-20 was built.
MS 29 runs between MS 37 and MS 39.
MS 46 runs between MS 32 and MS 42.
MS 50 runs between MS 32 and MS 42, but it was MS 10 before I-10 was built (this fit into the grid, between MS 8 and MS 12).
MS 67 runs between MS 53 and MS 57, but it was MS 55 before I-55 was built.
MS 43 has a gap and is out of the grid.
- It's so tacky that MS doesn't even assign 2 digit routes anymore, the latest one was MS 76 but that's only cause of corridor v
- Mississippi labels old routings of US routes 1xx, and that can be really confusing because there can be several within a short distance.
- They skipped over most of 1xxs, there's 1 2xx,  and the 6xx are irrelevant.
- They are inconsistent with having the 7xx, 8xx, and 9xx signed.
- They went from a unique design to the boring white circle..
- There are soooo many counties without county roads. They just occur mainly up north.

Numbering and boring white circles?  I hardly think that qualifies a state for "worst state highway system".  That's just little metal signs on posts.

Quote from: Mapmikey on February 11, 2021, 07:36:33 PM

Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2021, 11:24:10 AMIn this same regard, I'd nominate VA and their excessively repetitive secondary route numbers (even with numbers above 600, they tend to reuse the same numbers in many different places). While I do applaud them for not using the standard pentagon shield, there's nothing special about the circle shield either. Maybe an outline of the state would be a better design...

These numbers stay the same over county lines in all but a handful of cases.  If they didn't reuse numbers they would need 6-digit route numbers to not repeat statewide.  Even if they only repeated them in each VDOT district (9 of those) you'd still need a lot of 5 digit numbers.

....

The other thing is that, frankly, the redundancy doesn't really matter as a practical matter because, for the most part (certainly in Northern Virginia and the Charlottesville area), the secondary route numbers aren't generally used to refer to the roads other than a few rare exceptions (e.g., when the Fairfax County Parkway was Route 7100, it wasn't unusual to hear it called 7100, though a lot of that was the radio traffic reporters, and likewise Route 644 in Fairfax County is sometimes called by number because it changes names and both parts are a reasonably significant route). I've never heard anyone call, for example, Braddock Road "620" or Gallows Road "650" despite those numbers appearing on BGSs–secondary roads are almost always referred to by the road names.

Quote from: kphoger on February 14, 2021, 10:11:03 AM
Numbering and boring white circles?  I hardly think that qualifies a state for "worst state highway system".  That's just little metal signs on posts.

So it's ok if we renumber everything to 74?   :popcorn:

Quote from: kenarmy on February 14, 2021, 10:59:16 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 14, 2021, 10:11:03 AM
Numbering and boring white circles?  I hardly think that qualifies a state for "worst state highway system".  That's just little metal signs on posts.

So it's ok if we renumber everything to 74?

Not what I said.  :popcorn:

Quote from: kenarmy on February 14, 2021, 10:59:16 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 14, 2021, 10:11:03 AM
Numbering and boring white circles?  I hardly think that qualifies a state for "worst state highway system".  That's just little metal signs on posts.

So it's ok if we renumber everything to 74?   :popcorn:

I'm fine with it, considering there's already two highway 74s in my area (and yes "Old State Route 74"  counts)

I would to nominate Maryland because of the setup of its state route system itself. Compared to other states, Maryland has a lot of signed routes that abruptly end at city limits, county lines, or other random places. This makes it hard to use signed routes for navigation because they will just suddenly disappear, sometimes without even an End sign. It's frustrating to be following a route and then for it to vanish, like MD 144 does at Ellicott City.

I am heavily in favor of smaller state highway systems. Dirt roads, or de facto dirt roads, shouldn't be state highways (with Alaska being the exception). Putting a brand new shield on a city street or parkway doesn't help anyone - though exceptions can be made for segments of major cross-country routes, or historic routes. I don't think single-county state routes should exist in most cases, with the exceptions being short freeways (WI-172, WI-441) or spurs to important attractions/destinations (MT-64).

Quote from: thspfc on February 15, 2021, 02:41:42 PM
I don't think single-county state routes should exist in most cases

MA 114?

Quote from: thspfc on February 15, 2021, 02:41:42 PM
I am heavily in favor of smaller state highway systems. Dirt roads, or de facto dirt roads, shouldn't be state highways (with Alaska being the exception). Putting a brand new shield on a city street or parkway doesn't help anyone - though exceptions can be made for segments of major cross-country routes, or historic routes. I don't think single-county state routes should exist in most cases, with the exceptions being short freeways (WI-172, WI-441) or spurs to important attractions/destinations (MT-64).

It sure helps out a lot to put a shield on a city street if you drive a large vehicle. I drive buses and when we do change-offs (take a good bus to replace a bad one) or a substitutions we are allowed to use the route we think will be the fastest route, but one that a bus can to operate on. OH 264 is Glenway Ave in the city of Cincinnati then turns onto Bridgetown Rd in the county. It's been years ago but one evening I had to take a bus from Western Hills to Addyston Ohio. I took 264 just because it's a state route so I knew I'd have no problem with clearances or weight restrictions, even though I had never actually driven 264 in anything. I learned pretty early on that not all unknown roads are good for buses, in particularly in an area as hilly as Cincinnati and Hamilton County is so the shields help.

I also can say that before I lived here I was able to negotiate Cincinnati by following the shields for OH 561 to a job Interview. I like having state routes in cities, I think it helps for giving directions too.

Jim

Quote from: tq-07fan on February 15, 2021, 09:37:34 PM
It sure helps out a lot to put a shield on a city street if you drive a large vehicle. I drive buses and when we do change-offs (take a good bus to replace a bad one) or a substitutions we are allowed to use the route we think will be the fastest route, but one that a bus can to operate on. OH 264 is Glenway Ave in the city of Cincinnati then turns onto Bridgetown Rd in the county. It's been years ago but one evening I had to take a bus from Western Hills to Addyston Ohio. I took 264 just because it's a state route so I knew I'd have no problem with clearances or weight restrictions, even though I had never actually driven 264 in anything. I learned pretty early on that not all unknown roads are good for buses, in particularly in an area as hilly as Cincinnati and Hamilton County is so the shields help.

I also can say that before I lived here I was able to negotiate Cincinnati by following the shields for OH 561 to a job Interview. I like having state routes in cities, I think it helps for giving directions too.

Jim

I forget OH 264 exists unless I'm actually on it, which is very rare. It's not signed on any BGS at all from both I-71 and I-75; only US 50 is signed.

And OH 561 makes way too many turns on its route that I lost track of them while driving on it. I guess this is why city street state routes exist. Here's a list of them from a look at google maps, from south to north:
- starts at junction with US 50/OH 32/OH 125
- slight left at some weird intersection with Delta Ave
- left from Linwood Ave to Observatory Ave
- right from Observatory Ave to Edwards Rd
- left from Edwards Rd to Edmonson Rd, which continues as Smith Rd after intersection with I-71 ramps
- left from Smith Rd to Maple Ave
- right from Maple Ave to Montgomery Rd (US 22/OH 3)
- junction with OH 562 while on Montgomery Rd
- left from Montgomery Rd to Ross Ave
- right from Ross Ave to Carthage Ave, which changes name to Seymour Ave mid way
- ends at junction with OH 4, with ramps to I-75

My experience with route numbers on surface streets in large metropolitan areas is that nobody uses them to navigate. Everyone in Atlanta knows where Piedmont Rd is, but you'll get a blank "WTF?" stare if you tell them to take GA 237.

The one possible exception is if it's a US highway that follows the same road for a long time - most people seem to understand that Santa Fe Drive in Denver is also US 85, or that State Street in Salt Lake is US 89. This seems to be less of a thing in Atlanta but that's probably more due to the large number of concurrencies and turns on the US highways there.

Quote from: tq-07fan on February 15, 2021, 09:37:34 PM
I drive buses and when we do change-offs (take a good bus to replace a bad one) or a substitutions we are allowed to use the route we think will be the fastest route, but one that a bus can to operate on. OH 264 is Glenway Ave in the city of Cincinnati then turns onto Bridgetown Rd in the county. It's been years ago but one evening I had to take a bus from Western Hills to Addyston Ohio. I took 264 just because it's a state route so I knew I'd have no problem with clearances or weight restrictions, even though I had never actually driven 264 in anything. I learned pretty early on that not all unknown roads are good for buses, in particularly in an area as hilly as Cincinnati and Hamilton County is so the shields help.

Heh.  I was once on a Greyhound bus approaching Chicago from the south.  This was a run that made stops at a couple of minor stations along the way before getting to downtown.  At one point, the driver looked back and asked the passengers what the best way was to the station!  A couple of guys moved up to the front row and gave him turn-by-turn directions.

Quote from: kphoger on February 16, 2021, 09:42:40 AM

Quote from: tq-07fan on February 15, 2021, 09:37:34 PM
I drive buses and when we do change-offs (take a good bus to replace a bad one) or a substitutions we are allowed to use the route we think will be the fastest route, but one that a bus can to operate on. OH 264 is Glenway Ave in the city of Cincinnati then turns onto Bridgetown Rd in the county. It's been years ago but one evening I had to take a bus from Western Hills to Addyston Ohio. I took 264 just because it's a state route so I knew I'd have no problem with clearances or weight restrictions, even though I had never actually driven 264 in anything. I learned pretty early on that not all unknown roads are good for buses, in particularly in an area as hilly as Cincinnati and Hamilton County is so the shields help.

Heh.  I was once on a Greyhound bus approaching Chicago from the south.  This was a run that made stops at a couple of minor stations along the way before getting to downtown.  At one point, the driver looked back and asked the passengers what the best way was to the station!  A couple of guys moved up to the front row and gave him turn-by-turn directions.

:nod:
I've gave directions to a Greyhound driver to get the station in Middletown Ohio when it had one. I have had also to ask passengers for clarification when I was driving routes that come out of our other garage or if it's been years since I drove a particular route from my own. I guess I paid it forward on the Greyhound!

Jim

In quality alone, SC takes the cake. I've driven all across that state and I've barely ever had a good experience with it.
Just incredibly underfunded all the wat around. I-73 being something that their DOT wants very badly but just can't work out the funding for is sad.
They also did end up with some crap luck in that 95 kind of misses all their population centers except Florence.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 11, 2021, 10:35:38 PM

Quote from: tq-07fan on February 11, 2021, 10:23:44 PM

Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 11, 2021, 02:46:42 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 08:14:42 AM
California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. [...] whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

I don't know that any of that is necessarily a problem. If state routes are always state-maintained, it shouldn't matter whether a city is on board with it because the state is the only one responsible for maintaining signage. Also, I don't think major suburban roads (that aren't freeways) necessarily need to carry numbers. In my experience, people will always refer to suburban surface roads with their name anyway (nobody in Norman knows or cares where US-77 is, it's always referred to as "12th" or "Tecumseh") and do not use the numbers for navigation purposes.

Some of California's state routes are locally maintained, though. I believe Caltrans will often relinquish segments of routes to local jurisdictions while keeping the legal definitions of those routes unchanged. These local jurisdictions are then theoretically responsible for maintaining signage on these relinquished route segments...though they often don't.

That may explain a faded CA 82 shield I observed in Millbrae on the El Camino Real.

Jim

Pretty much that is run of the mill on CA 82, the only segment that has been relinquished Post-1964 is in San Jose:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE082.html

Although CA 82 has officially been relinquished south of its junction with I-880 -- and the city of San Jose, in a similar fashion to CA 130 as cited in a previous post, simply removed all the signage (although one quite new and oversize CA 82 shield was posted EB on The Alameda near Sunol Street for years until it just disappeared in 2018).  Nevertheless, trailblazer signage remains on the intersecting freeways (CA 87 at San Carlos, I-280 at the 7th Street interchange -- although former CA 82 was six blocks distant! -- and US 101 at Blossom Hill Road, which was originally utilized to shunt CA 82 over to its US 101 terminus from its nominal path down Monterey Road).  But that's SOP for D4 -- contradictory actions and a penchant for looking the other way when local jurisdictions simply decide to erase any trace of a former through route (in this case, the driver-less-than-friendly City of San Jose; ironically, the exception to the lack of 82 signage is the remnant "end" assembly on Blossom Hill Rd. at the US 101 interchange).  They won't even sign or even trailblaze the few blocks north of 82's current south terminus, although neighboring Santa Clara is replete with nice shiny new shields!  In fact, except for freeway trailblazers, there's not a single surface-street reassurance shield within San Jose city limits except a couple of CA 130 examples on Mount Hamilton Road east of Alum Rock Rd, which is no longer Caltrans-maintained nor signed; signed CA 130 is duly orphaned!

Personally, IMO there's really no need for CA 82 through central San Jose; the historic US 101 route it followed was interrupted in the '80's when the Montgomery/Autumn duplex was pressed into service to remove the through route from downtown San Jose.  More to the point would be to sign "Historic US 101" prominently along the original route through downtown -- and march it right down through Morgan Hill & Gilroy (along with actually posting the end of CA 82 at I-880).       

Quote from: sparker on February 17, 2021, 02:26:41 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 11, 2021, 10:35:38 PM

Quote from: tq-07fan on February 11, 2021, 10:23:44 PM

Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 11, 2021, 02:46:42 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 08:14:42 AM
California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. [...] whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

I don't know that any of that is necessarily a problem. If state routes are always state-maintained, it shouldn't matter whether a city is on board with it because the state is the only one responsible for maintaining signage. Also, I don't think major suburban roads (that aren't freeways) necessarily need to carry numbers. In my experience, people will always refer to suburban surface roads with their name anyway (nobody in Norman knows or cares where US-77 is, it's always referred to as "12th" or "Tecumseh") and do not use the numbers for navigation purposes.

Some of California's state routes are locally maintained, though. I believe Caltrans will often relinquish segments of routes to local jurisdictions while keeping the legal definitions of those routes unchanged. These local jurisdictions are then theoretically responsible for maintaining signage on these relinquished route segments...though they often don't.

That may explain a faded CA 82 shield I observed in Millbrae on the El Camino Real.

Jim

Pretty much that is run of the mill on CA 82, the only segment that has been relinquished Post-1964 is in San Jose:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE082.html

Although CA 82 has officially been relinquished south of its junction with I-880 -- and the city of San Jose, in a similar fashion to CA 130 as cited in a previous post, simply removed all the signage (although one quite new and oversize CA 82 shield was posted EB on The Alameda near Sunol Street for years until it just disappeared in 2018).  Nevertheless, trailblazer signage remains on the intersecting freeways (CA 87 at San Carlos, I-280 at the 7th Street interchange -- although former CA 82 was six blocks distant! -- and US 101 at Blossom Hill Road, which was originally utilized to shunt CA 82 over to its US 101 terminus from its nominal path down Monterey Road).  But that's SOP for D4 -- contradictory actions and a penchant for looking the other way when local jurisdictions simply decide to erase any trace of a former through route (in this case, the driver-less-than-friendly City of San Jose; ironically, the exception to the lack of 82 signage is the remnant "end" assembly on Blossom Hill Rd. at the US 101 interchange).  They won't even sign or even trailblaze the few blocks north of 82's current south terminus, although neighboring Santa Clara is replete with nice shiny new shields!  In fact, except for freeway trailblazers, there's not a single surface-street reassurance shield within San Jose city limits except a couple of CA 130 examples on Mount Hamilton Road east of Alum Rock Rd, which is no longer Caltrans-maintained nor signed; signed CA 130 is duly orphaned!

Personally, IMO there's really no need for CA 82 through central San Jose; the historic US 101 route it followed was interrupted in the '80's when the Montgomery/Autumn duplex was pressed into service to remove the through route from downtown San Jose.  More to the point would be to sign "Historic US 101" prominently along the original route through downtown -- and march it right down through Morgan Hill & Gilroy (along with actually posting the end of CA 82 at I-880).     

That 130 shield from the overhead sign on 101 northbound ever get removed?  I know it did from 101 southbound approaching Alum Rock.

Arkansas isn't horrible but can be a lot better. A lot of major state highways are crookeder than some Texas FM roads. That was how they were laid out in the 1930s or whenever. They keep the pavement mostly in good shape, but I would kick just about any triple-digit route numbered above 200 to the counties. Exception: AR 247 from North Dardanelle to Pottsville, which is my US 266 extension.

Quote from: Road Hog on February 18, 2021, 06:51:01 PM
Arkansas isn't horrible but can be a lot better. A lot of major state highways are crookeder than some Texas FM roads. That was how they were laid out in the 1930s or whenever. They keep the pavement mostly in good shape, but I would kick just about any triple-digit route numbered above 200 to the counties. Exception: AR 247 from North Dardanelle to Pottsville, which is my US 266 extension.

Arkansas is so dramatic.. Like just look at the routings of the US highways. Gross.

Quote from: Road Hog on February 18, 2021, 06:51:01 PM
Arkansas isn't horrible but can be a lot better. A lot of major state highways are crookeder than some Texas FM roads. That was how they were laid out in the 1930s or whenever. They keep the pavement mostly in good shape, but I would kick just about any triple-digit route numbered above 200 to the counties. Exception: AR 247 from North Dardanelle to Pottsville, which is my US 266 extension.

I've only been on I-40, US 70 and AR 261 in between. The roads in Arkansas are kept up nice. I took a look at the roadmap and wow, there's a lot going on there!

Arkansas State Map (https://www.arkansashighways.com/Trans_Plan_Policy/mapping_graphics/2019-2021/AR%20State%20Highway%20Map%202019-2021_final_front_10-26.pdf/)

I especially like how 139 ends at the Missouri state line, then starts up again. Some of the other routes do some really weird stuff... 

Jim

Quote from: ahj2000 on February 17, 2021, 01:01:54 AM
In quality alone, SC takes the cake. I’ve driven all across that state and I’ve barely ever had a good experience with it.
Just incredibly underfunded all the wat around. I-73 being something that their DOT wants very badly but just can’t work out the funding for is sad.
They also did end up with some crap luck in that 95 kind of misses all their population centers except Florence.

I imagine at least part of SC's problem is that just about every paved road outside city limits (and many roads in them!) is a secondary state highway. The primary state highway system on its own is not small, but when combined with secondaries...that's a hell of a lot of mileage SCDOT has to maintain.

Quote from: SkyPesos on February 14, 2021, 12:47:03 PM

Quote from: kenarmy on February 14, 2021, 10:59:16 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 14, 2021, 10:11:03 AM
Numbering and boring white circles?  I hardly think that qualifies a state for "worst state highway system".  That's just little metal signs on posts.

So it's ok if we renumber everything to 74?   :popcorn:

I'm fine with it, considering there's already two highway 74s in my area (and yes "Old State Route 74"  counts)

If its 74s you want, NC is the place to be. US 74, I-74, and now NC 74!

Quote from: US 89 on February 19, 2021, 01:29:16 AM

Quote from: ahj2000 on February 17, 2021, 01:01:54 AM
In quality alone, SC takes the cake. I've driven all across that state and I've barely ever had a good experience with it.
Just incredibly underfunded all the wat around. I-73 being something that their DOT wants very badly but just can't work out the funding for is sad.
They also did end up with some crap luck in that 95 kind of misses all their population centers except Florence.

I imagine at least part of SC's problem is that just about every paved road outside city limits (and many roads in them!) is a secondary state highway. The primary state highway system on its own is not small, but when combined with secondaries...that's a hell of a lot of mileage SCDOT has to maintain.

The SC secondary system (S-xx-xxx) is rather similar to NC's secondary system (SR xxxx) in terms of responsibilities. NC DOT maintains a vast majority of all paved roads in the state. Difference is, NC DOT does a pretty good job of maintaining the secondary roads, as well as the primary highways. I lived in SC for a bit, I can agree that the quality is not nearly on par with NC. Its a common joke that there doesn't need to be welcome signs for SC, as the sudden decrease in pavement quality is so noticeable. Also, the signage in SC is pretty hit or miss. I have noticed a habit of SC DOT is to mount guide sign assemblies at intersections in such a way that one is visible from multiple directions. Thus decreasing the amount of signage needed. However this can make the directions a bit confusing at times. They seem to be getting away from this practice, but many older setups remain out in the sticks, which i spent a lot of time driving around when i lived there.

I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Why?

Due to the provincial downloading of provincial roads in 1998 (downloading means transferring responsibility of roads to local municipalities and counties) in order to pursue austerity, we now have a smaller density of provincial roads, with discontinuties and stubs.

Example: Highway 7 is broken into two because the section in Brampton and York Region were transferred. (Now they're Peel Regional Road 107 and York Regional Road 7). Red is current, green is formerly Hwy 7.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Highway7.PNG)

Another example: Highway 2 in Gananoque. It used to go from Windsor to Quebec, and now it's a 2 km stub.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Highway_2_map.png)

Another example: The City of Toronto, the most populous city in the province, has no non-freeway provincial highways that go through it.

It used to have Highway 2 (Lakeshore Blvd), Highway 11 (Yonge Street), Highway 11A (Avenue Road), Highway 5 (Dundas Street), Highway 48 (Markham Road), Highway 27, Highway 50 (Albion Road). All have been transferred to the City for maintenance.

Map in 1994:
(https://www.thekingshighway.ca/MAPS/Hwy50map-1994.jpg)

I'm very surprised. In all the years this thread has existed, not one person has suggested Pennsylvania.

The road numbering is not all that bad. The quality of the roads in the system leaves much to be desired...overall though, I would not consider PA's system the "worst".

Quote from: Crown Victoria on February 27, 2021, 12:07:57 AM
I'm very surprised. In all the years this thread has existed, not one person has suggested Pennsylvania.

The road numbering is not all that bad. The quality of the roads in the system leaves much to be desired...overall though, I would not consider PA's system the "worst".

If you don't think PA is the worst, then why are you surprised no one has mentioned it in a thread about the worst?

Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2021, 08:29:45 AM

Quote from: Crown Victoria on February 27, 2021, 12:07:57 AM
I'm very surprised. In all the years this thread has existed, not one person has suggested Pennsylvania.

The road numbering is not all that bad. The quality of the roads in the system leaves much to be desired...overall though, I would not consider PA's system the "worst".

If you don't think PA is the worst, then why are you surprised no one has mentioned it in a thread about the worst?

Because those going by pavement quality and not route numbering would have a legitimate case.

Quote from: 1 on February 27, 2021, 08:33:36 AM

Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2021, 08:29:45 AM

Quote from: Crown Victoria on February 27, 2021, 12:07:57 AM
I'm very surprised. In all the years this thread has existed, not one person has suggested Pennsylvania.

The road numbering is not all that bad. The quality of the roads in the system leaves much to be desired...overall though, I would not consider PA's system the "worst".

If you don't think PA is the worst, then why are you surprised no one has mentioned it in a thread about the worst?

Because those going by pavement quality and not route numbering would have a legitimate case.

But no one's done that. :D

...which is surprising.   :awesomeface:

Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2021, 08:29:45 AM

Quote from: Crown Victoria on February 27, 2021, 12:07:57 AM
I'm very surprised. In all the years this thread has existed, not one person has suggested Pennsylvania.

The road numbering is not all that bad. The quality of the roads in the system leaves much to be desired...overall though, I would not consider PA's system the "worst".

If you don't think PA is the worst, then why are you surprised no one has mentioned it in a thread about the worst?

Because, generally, any discussion about bad roads inevitably involves Pennsylvania, my personal opinion notwithstanding.

Perhaps "worst highway system" ought to include some discussion of road quality and not arbitrary numbers... certainly, I'd not mind if PA renumbered their highways to make a little more sense, but my real preference would be to drop the number of curvy-for-no-reason shoulderless highways posted at 35mph.

If you read up the thread a bit, much of the discussion on NM centered on their terrible road quality...

Quote from: Crown Victoria on February 27, 2021, 12:07:57 AM
I'm very surprised. In all the years this thread has existed, not one person has suggested Pennsylvania.

The road numbering is not all that bad. The quality of the roads in the system leaves much to be desired...overall though, I would not consider PA's system the "worst".

I was going to say this. Every time I come back into Maryland from there the roads are just better and it feel refreshing.

Also, why do people here like reviving 12-year-old threads?

Quote from: epzik8 on February 27, 2021, 06:14:55 PM
Also, why do people here like reviving 12-year-old threads?

I wouldn't use people as a plural.

Chris

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 26, 2021, 08:29:24 PM
I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 12:38:06 AM

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 26, 2021, 08:29:24 PM
I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 10:22:17 AM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 12:38:06 AM

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 26, 2021, 08:29:24 PM
I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 28, 2021, 10:24:41 AM

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 10:22:17 AM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 12:38:06 AM

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 26, 2021, 08:29:24 PM
I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

I don't see anything wrong with pointing them out.

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 12:38:06 AM

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 26, 2021, 08:29:24 PM
I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

:facepalm:

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 28, 2021, 10:37:19 AM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 12:38:06 AM

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 26, 2021, 08:29:24 PM
I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

:facepalm:

Wow. Usually we get the loud complaint that it's *too* restrictive to the US only. First time I've ever seen someone do the opposite! :)

Exactly. That is the reason I would answer "null" or "Not applicable" to any threads containing "your state" in the title.

Anyway, I feel Aragon has the worst regional ("state") system in Spain. Although things are starting to change thanks to a tax hike a few years ago.

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 10:26:46 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 28, 2021, 10:24:41 AM

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 10:22:17 AM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 12:38:06 AM

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 26, 2021, 08:29:24 PM
I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

I don't see anything wrong with pointing them out.

The first line of the OP's original post says, "Which state do you think has the worst system of state highways?" . So I think it's safe to assume they were asking which of the 50 US states has the worst system. I don't really think they were referring to ANY territory in the world that could be classified as a "state" . Call me picky, but Ontario and Spain do not fit the parameters of the OP. Sorry not sorry. :colorful:

Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Washington, DC

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 03:16:43 PM
Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

I am still waiting to hear about the systems in Mexican states.

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 03:46:42 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 03:16:43 PM
Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

The forum started on 1/15/09. You can't get much older than that thread.

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 03:48:41 PM
I am still waiting to hear about the systems in Mexican states.

I bet they hate the Texas highway system for asking for a continuation of one of their most important routes.. for 98 miles from nowhere to nowhere  :-P.

Quote from: 1 on February 28, 2021, 03:51:44 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 03:46:42 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 03:16:43 PM
Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

The forum started on 1/15/09. You can't get much older than that thread.

Oh, so it is at least possible to get one from when George W. Bush was president. If anyone does that I'm mailing a jar of moldy baked beans to their house.

Quote from: kenarmy on February 28, 2021, 03:55:46 PM

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 03:48:41 PM
I am still waiting to hear about the systems in Mexican states.

I bet they hate the Texas highway system for asking for a continuation of one of their most important routes.. for 98 miles from nowhere to nowhere  :-P.

I kind of doubt they care, or if they do, think it's neat. Internal ODOT documents seemed to appreciate the gesture when the southern K-8 was created and it's way more pathetic that US-57.

Quote from: Scott5114
Please don't bump threads from two Presidential administrations ago.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 04:56:55 PM
Oh, so it is at least possible to get one from when George W. Bush was president. If anyone does that I'm mailing a jar of moldy baked beans to their house.

I'm a fan of how you measure post age by presidential administration.  :-D

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 05:10:23 PM
I'm a fan of how you measure post age by presidential administration.  :-D

I find it helps to fix in my mind (and thus hopefully others') how long of a timespan we're talking here. People have a funny way of internally judging time and tend to have a mental "current date" that tends to be a few years out of date, so saying "2009" doesn't seem like that long ago. 2009 sure doesn't feel like 12 years ago.

Fixing a post date to "this was three days after Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009" helps make the date concrete–either you have a memory of that day and what that time period was like on a personal level (I can easily recall that when Obama took office, I was working at Burger King saving up money to get my first apartment), or you can't remember it at all, meaning it's from the Scary Before Times that we call Ancient History.

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 02:41:55 PM

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 10:26:46 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 28, 2021, 10:24:41 AM

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 10:22:17 AM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 12:38:06 AM

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 26, 2021, 08:29:24 PM
I'm going to have to say Ontario.

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

I don't see anything wrong with pointing them out.

The first line of the OP's original post says, "Which state do you think has the worst system of state highways?" . So I think it's safe to assume they were asking which of the 50 US states has the worst system. I don't really think they were referring to ANY territory in the world that could be classified as a "state" . Call me picky, but Ontario and Spain do not fit the parameters of the OP. Sorry not sorry. :colorful:

I imagine most of the "state" threads are using "state" because the OP didn't bother to get into the nitty-gritty of places like DC, Canada, etc., not because they meant to specifically exclude them.

And I agree about Ontario.  The roadway quality is good, and sparse isn't bad per se, but it's so sparse that areas with lots of freeways don't have any regular provincial routes, and the routes that do exist have lots of gaps and start/end in odd places.  A comprehensive system, it aint.  In fact, it's not a system at all - it's a random collection of roads that just happen to be maintained by the MTO.  This is because the MTO is very anal about things like who maintains the road and whether something is a freeway (for example, we would say the Thruway is a freeway and always has been; they wouldn't, because the toll barriers didn't meet freeway standards).  Even the 400 series highways don't extend to the border.  They don't care, either - designation continuity and connectivity isn't important to them.

Quote from: vdeane on February 28, 2021, 08:32:10 PM

I imagine most of the "state" threads are using "state" because the OP didn't bother to get into the nitty-gritty of places like DC, Canada, etc., not because they meant to specifically exclude them.

And I agree about Ontario.  The roadway quality is good, and sparse isn't bad per se, but it's so sparse that areas with lots of freeways don't have any regular provincial routes, and the routes that do exist have lots of gaps and start/end in odd places.  A comprehensive system, it aint.  In fact, it's not a system at all - it's a random collection of roads that just happen to be maintained by the MTO.  This is because the MTO is very anal about things like who maintains the road and whether something is a freeway (for example, we would say the Thruway is a freeway and always has been; they wouldn't, because the toll barriers didn't meet freeway standards).  Even the 400 series highways don't extend to the border.  They don't care, either - designation continuity and connectivity isn't important to them.

Yeah I never knew some people were so anal about the semantics of the phrase "which states"

On the topic of Ontario, I'd say it used to be a comprehensive system before 1998 when all the downloading happened. And I agree that now it's a collection of roads maintained by the MTO. Lots of the roads are signed poorly, especially in Southern Ontario. For example, there are no Start/End signs on many routes, for example, there is none at the southern end of Highway 12, none at the southern end of Highway 48, etc etc.

What makes it worse is that the county/regional road system quality also varies by county/region. Some regions sign their routes relatively well while others do not; the route number is secondary to the route name. Some regions (like the City of Toronto, City of Hamilton) don't even have numbered roads.


York Region, for example, does the latter. There no reassurance markers on York Regional Roads; nor are there any junction signs at any intersection. The only York Regional Road shield you see are affixed to the traffic light pole at major intersections. Example:
(https://i.imgur.com/TXKrSFL.png)

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 04:56:55 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 28, 2021, 03:51:44 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 03:46:42 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 03:16:43 PM
Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

The forum started on 1/15/09. You can't get much older than that thread.

Oh, so it is at least possible to get one from when George W. Bush was president. If anyone does that I'm mailing a jar of moldy baked beans to their house.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=42.0
Ten hours before the end of Bush's second term. If you'd like to bump it, eat your heart out. If it'd get you kicked out of your mod role, let me know and I'd be happy to do the honors.

Quote from: andrepoiy on February 28, 2021, 11:36:34 PM
Yeah I never knew some people were so anal about the semantics of the phrase "which states"

I was just trying to keep things factually correct. Cool your jets.

Quote from: Ketchup99 on March 01, 2021, 12:56:32 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 04:56:55 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 28, 2021, 03:51:44 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 03:46:42 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 03:16:43 PM
Well, given that OP posted it three days after Barack Obama became president, who can even know for sure?

Heh, I didn't even notice that. There's been so many bumps lately that I'm becoming accustomed to very old threads.

The forum started on 1/15/09. You can't get much older than that thread.

Oh, so it is at least possible to get one from when George W. Bush was president. If anyone does that I'm mailing a jar of moldy baked beans to their house.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=42.0
Ten hours before the end of Bush's second term. If you'd like to bump it, eat your heart out. If it'd get you kicked out of your mod role, let me know and I'd be happy to do the honors.

We definitely need to revive a discussion from three Presidential Administrations ago.  :nod:

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 02:41:55 PM

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 10:26:46 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 28, 2021, 10:24:41 AM

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 10:22:17 AM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 28, 2021, 12:38:06 AM

Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.

Potato, potato.

So if I were lob up some suggestions of Mexican States with the worst highway system would it be more legit?

I don't see anything wrong with pointing them out.

The first line of the OP's original post says, "Which state do you think has the worst system of state highways?" . So I think it's safe to assume they were asking which of the 50 US states has the worst system. I don't really think they were referring to ANY territory in the world that could be classified as a "state" . Call me picky, but Ontario and Spain do not fit the parameters of the OP. Sorry not sorry.

Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2021, 03:48:41 PM
I am still waiting to hear about the systems in Mexican states.

↓   Well, in that case, allow me to simply cross-post from a different thread.   ↓

Quote from: Jbte on January 10, 2017, 04:00:20 PM
Roads are bad in Veracruz state, so I warn you to drive slow and watch all time for potholes. If you believe the main toll highway 145D it's fast and free of potholes... you're wrong (yeah you're paying for a terrible road), the worst segment it's the libre segment past Minatitlán, with huge potholes, where you can't travel fast until you arrive to Tabasco state.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 11, 2021, 08:25:53 AM

Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 08:14:42 AM
California's system has several problems. Despite being the most populous state and third largest land area, its route numbers only go into the 200s, leaving most suburban major roads unnumbered. In addition, there are gaps in the routes, and some of them are solely because they enter a city that the city refuses to sign. Also, routes should never be signed into law, as that makes them harder to change, and in California's case, disallows overlaps that are found in every other state. The other problem with putting highways into state law is that whether a route gets a number or not is based on state maintenance and not whether it's actually useful.

Wasn't that way with the Sign State Routes largely before the 1964 Renumbering.  The State had Legislative Route Numbers but the Sign State Routes weren't really tied to whether the state maintained a segment or not.  Prior to 1940 there was a ton of local roads that received Sign State Route shields but that began to wane in the decades approaching the 1964 Renumbering.  One highway I'm presently writing about (the Shoreline Highway) had CA 1 signed on two local segments (Valley Ford-Jenner and Westport-Leggett) before they were officially adopted as part of Legislative Route Number 56 in the 1950s. 

Some other problems in California lies with Caltrans maintenance and signage standards falling way behind much of the country.  SB1 has done a ton to remedy this but not every Caltrans district has seemed interested in using funds.  Caltrans District 4 as an example has done relatively little to replace old button copy and reflective paint signage whereas others like District 6 largely eliminated all but the newest variants.  There is a lot of reasons the maintenance levels dipped so much from the 1970s but this isn't really the thread to get into something lengthy like that. 

Your first point is great and completely reflects my own thoughts on the matter. Shields with route numbers should exist for navigation, first and foremost. The vast majority of motorists are not going to know or care who maintains the route. They just want to get from A to B. I've always felt that as long as a traversable route exists between gaps, they should be filled in. For example, perhaps the best example is CA-190. You can drive between the two gaps because roads exist through the Sierra that will get it done. Sherman Pass Road, for example. I'm not about to say these are the best quality roads, but they are certainly drivable. And so what if the county or someone else maintains them? Post CA-190 shields to aid with navigation. Of course, if you've got something like CA-168 where there is no physical connection to fill the gaps, so be it. Nothing that can be done there. This is why I felt in some ways the older state sign route network was more flexible, it seemed to be built around navigation first. This had its own issues, like unnecessary concurrencies, but the '64 revision largely solved this issue while overcorrecting in the other direction.

With that said, I would have to agree with some others that Oregon's highway system isn't the best. Signage isn't as prevalent as it could be, and there are some very rough patches of road. Outside of the interstates, there is also no real way to gauge quality. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of states tend to keep US highways up to pretty decent standards, they'll be wider, have more passing lanes, things like that. In Oregon, it's always a bit of a crap shoot. US-20 is a good example of a cross-state route that generally has good quality, but then you've got stretches of US-26 and US-30 that are narrower, to the point I've found several state highways (such as 6 or 18) better for traveling.

I am not so sure that motorists don't care about who maintains a stretch of road...as many a DOT recpetionist will tell you when a stretch of road is not properly maintained.

Responding to Quillz regarding Oregon.  A lot of times the only indication you are passing by a highway maintained by ODOT is the presence of a well made sign with control cities on it.  I think it's still kind of strange Oregon has hung onto legislative highway numbers instead of just designating them as what they are field signed.

I'm gonna say that I don't like state networks where roads are often in multiple segments due to mileage caps. If a road has to be split, all segments should have a different number unless they're planned to be (re)connected.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on September 14, 2021, 10:08:04 AM
I'm gonna say that I don't like state networks where roads are often in multiple segments due to mileage caps. If a road has to be split, all segments should have a different number unless they're planned to be (re)connected.

Don't know whether or not you were specifically referencing Indiana, but to clear up one of the most common misconceptions on this board, Indiana is not up against its mileage cap and routes have been split with portions turned over to local control for financial reasons, not cap reasons.

But Indiana still has multiple segments of road with the same number that don't really connect. IN 101 is the one that comes rapidly to mind.

Quote from: hbelkins on September 14, 2021, 10:55:23 AM
But Indiana still has multiple segments of road with the same number that don't really connect. IN 101 is the one that comes rapidly to mind.

That's true, but that was done because of the grid numbering system and not because of a mileage cap.

Quote from: Rothman on September 14, 2021, 07:14:48 AM
I am not so sure that motorists don't care about who maintains a stretch of road...as many a DOT recpetionist will tell you when a stretch of road is not properly maintained.

I think navigation is first and foremost the most important thing. I have seen plenty of "END STATE MAINTENANCE" signs that indicate when the stretch of road you are on is maintained by someone else. I've no issue with signs like that, and should be used accordingly. But I've been with quite a few drivers who actually have lost track of the highway they were following due to lack of signage due to some technicality (maintained by a county, city, etc.) Obviously in the era of GPS this is becoming less of an issue, but it does still persist.