What are your likes/dislikes of your State's Numbering Schemes?

[TheStranger]

Fully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

The "shield overload" does create an issue, no question about that, but I think outside of S.F. and L.A., it wasn't as prevalent as some made it out to be.

Considering the size of the Southland's population I feel like this still disproportionally affected a majority 1950s/1960s commuters in California:

I-10/US 70/US 99 (as US 60 was already off the routing by 1962-1963 based on photos I've seen on here)
I-5/US 99
US 6/Route 11 (which were cosigned on the Harbor Freeway for years) - note that Route 11 followed Alt US 66 rather than the Arroyo Seco Parkway, which led to Route 11/US 6/Alt US 66 briefly north of I-5
I-15/US 66/US 91/US 395 as mentioned earlier
US 101/I-5
US 91/Alt US 101 and US 6/Alt US 101 (leading to "southbound" US 91 going "north" along today's Route 1 near Long Beach)
US 60/US 395 (now today's Route 60/I-215)

Post-1964, within Los Angeles County the only major concurrency that's left is I-5/I-10, along with Route 2/US 101; in Orange County the only prominent freeway concurrency is Route 22 with I-405.

In comparison, the pre-1964 freeway co-signings in NorCal were as follows:

I-80/US 40/US 50
I-80/US 101 (may or may have not been signed) along the Central Freeway
US 50/I-5W
Route 17/US 40/I-80 (now today's I-580/I-80) along the Eastshore Freeway
I-80/US 40/US 99E in Arden/north Sacramento
I-80/US 40/US 99W in West Sacramento
US 50/US 99 in South Sacramento to Stockton
US 101/Route 1 from the Presidio northward, as is still the case today
I-280/Route 17 and I-680/Route 17 (all now I-880) respectively from San Jose to Fremont
Route 17/Business US 50 briefly along the Cypress Freeway in Oakland

Something like the I-10/US-60/US-70/US-99/CA-18 could have had the guide signs only showing I-10, while the actual reassurance markers continue to sign all the routes. This way, a motorist can follow the most important, direct route, but all other information is still doled out, just not necessarily at once. (Keep in mind this makes sense in my head, in practice, this might be a disaster). But again, I know other states have no issue with route duplication or concurrencies... How is signage handed in those situations? (I keep thinking of Texas, which has I-10 and TX-10, US-69 and I-69, US-54 and TX-54, etc.)

Texas for the most part is large enough that the same-numbered routes don't cross each other (unlike say State Road 64 and I-64 in Indiana), plus the classifications are emphasized (SH, US, IH, FM).

Your suggestion reminds me of how the Route 128/I-95 concurrency in suburban Boston is handled, particularly with MassDOT's attempts at deemphasizing the Route 128 designation (even though the public continues to use that more established number).

With regards to 246/154/150, I think 154 as a standalone route makes perfect sense (though I kinda wish it was ALT US 101).  For Route 2...IIRC, Route 173 is unpaved and not particularly important navigationally.  It might be a case where 138 was extended primarily so that the through route would not need to make a turn.

There is some route clustering with the post-1964 system (i.e. Routes 82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area, Routes 236/237/238 along former Route 9 segments) but it isn't super obvious.  I also feel like there is a weird reluctance to leave perfectly good numbers unused for long periods of time (i.e. 30 post-2000 and 31 since 1974), especially when number recycling has occurred (i.e. Route 7 near El Centro which really should be an extension of Route 115).

I agree about CA-173 not being an overall important route, and given it had until recently a jeep trail, makes me wonder why it was a state highway in the first place. Which kind of brings me to my point... Seems it would have been easier to simply realign CA-2 onto what is today CA-138 east of I-15 rather than truncate it and extend the route that originally used to end at it. Seems to be like an exercise in futility, akin to the notion of moving something like I-580 and putting it where I-980 presently is. CA-2 had existed from L.A. to the Big Bear area for three decades at that point, and thus truncating it just seemed to make no real sense.

Especially when the reason I-180 has never been available is because Route 180 was intentionally retained in 1964 even while other routes were being renumbered (the old Route 8 in Stockton, the old Route 5 from San Francisco south).

I agree about CA-154 being US-101 Alt. In fact, this routing was the original routing of US-101 back in the day, though I don't know if it was ever actually signed as such. (It might have been the original El Camino Real trail, much of which later became the 101).

Actually 154 I don't think was ever El Camino Real or US 101 in any form.

But it still begs the question, I think, why it couldn't have just remained 150, or even made the entire 154-192-150 corridor something like US-101 Alt. I still can't figure out any logical reason why you'd divide one route into four. Especially when all the routes that replaced 150 ultimately go the same places, anyway. Had 150 been some bizarre shaped route that had no clear orientation, like CA-18, I could understand. But it wasn't... It ran west-east from the ocean to Santa Paula, generally a northern parallel of 101. Seems odd to break that up, although it the route does exist in multiple counties, so maybe that played a factor.

I actually see some of the logic in it: 154 is still a usable corridor for trucks looking to shortcut away from Gaviota, but much of the 150/192 route is too windy for that type of bypassing.  (Also, 150 heading out towards Santa Paula takes a very indirect route)

[Quillz]

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

Not a bad idea. I remember driving on Latigo Canyon Road between Malibu and Kanan-Dume Road not too long back, and a side-street had a sign saying "END COUNTY MAINTENANCE." Maybe something like that could work with the state highways? It would certainly get rid of the madness of routes that mysteriously die at city limits, like how CA-91 just ends around Artesia instead of a logical westward connection to CA-1.

Another way to deal with large concurrencies is make better use of parallel and frontage roads. For example, I-15 through the Mojave Desert makes use of a frontage road from Hesperia to at least as far as Victorville. That could have easily been US-91, and would have functioned exactly as it did before, even if it was realigned from its previous location (i.e. slightly to the right). Same thing through the L.A. area... There are plenty of streets that parallel the major interstates, it doesn't seem like it would have been a major issue to keep the freeway just I-10, and move US-60 and US-99 onto a parallel or frontage road. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but it seems like there were several options that could have been explored before outright canceling routes.

I actually see some of the logic in it: 154 is still a usable corridor for trucks looking to shortcut away from Gaviota, but much of the 150/192 route is too windy for that type of bypassing.  (Also, 150 heading out towards Santa Paula takes a very indirect route)

More reason to make all of what is today CA-154 a US-101 Alt, as you suggested. 

[bzakharin]

New Jersey
Like:
- A general polarity among the routes: N-S = odd; E-W = even

Really? I've lived in NJ for 25 years and have noticed such a pattern. Here's a list of notable counterexamples: 5, 13, 18, 20, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, 42, 44, 49, 50, 52, 54, 57, 62, 64, 68, 75, 83, 120, 154, 156, 159, 166, 168, 173, 182, 185.

- Three digit numbers on useless routes.

If you mean county routes, I find these very helpful especially where a street name is very common (a lot of "main street"s have county numbers for example)

[TheStranger]

Another way to deal with large concurrencies is make better use of parallel and frontage roads. For example, I-15 through the Mojave Desert makes use of a frontage road from Hesperia to at least as far as Victorville. That could have easily been US-91, and would have functioned exactly as it did before, even if it was realigned from its previous location (i.e. slightly to the right). Same thing through the L.A. area... There are plenty of streets that parallel the major interstates, it doesn't seem like it would have been a major issue to keep the freeway just I-10, and move US-60 and US-99 onto a parallel or frontage road. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but it seems like there were several options that could have been explored before outright canceling routes.

This seems to be the philosophy in other states (i.e. I-70 and US 6 and US 40 in Colorado & Kansas).  California seems to be "upgrade or decommission" - once a route reaches freeway status, if it then is supplanted by another number, reversion to parallel surface route or old routing is almost always never a consideration (i.e. US 101 south of Los Angeles; its former routing becoming Route 72 and county roads once I-5 was prioritized over the older US route designation).  (Compare to the saga of US 117 in Goldsboro, North Carolina, which at one point ran on today's I-795 but then was moved back to its former alternate surface route)

[Quillz]

Being a roadgeek, I do prefer the approach other states take in keeping around lower-level highways and just using them as supplements, not deleting them outright. Seems to function a bit more like the European highways, where you have M-class routes, A-class routes, etc.

[DTComposer]

With regards to 246/154/150, I think 154 as a standalone route makes perfect sense (though I kinda wish it was ALT US 101).

I agree about CA-154 being US-101 Alt. In fact, this routing was the original routing of US-101 back in the day, though I don't know if it was ever actually signed as such. (It might have been the original El Camino Real trail, much of which later became the 101). But it still begs the question, I think, why it couldn't have just remained 150, or even made the entire 154-192-150 corridor something like US-101 Alt. I still can't figure out any logical reason why you'd divide one route into four. Especially when all the routes that replaced 150 ultimately go the same places, anyway. Had 150 been some bizarre shaped route that had no clear orientation, like CA-18, I could understand. But it wasn't... It ran west-east from the ocean to Santa Paula, generally a northern parallel of 101. Seems odd to break that up, although it the route does exist in multiple counties, so maybe that played a factor.

If I were to hazard a guess, it was that 150 as an entire route didn't do anything that wasn't already done better by another route. No one going from Santa Paula to Lompoc would take 150; they would take 126-101-1. Better, faster roads.

In fact, if you take all the urban areas 150 connected: Santa Paula-Ojai-Santa Barbara-Santa Ynez-Lompoc, anyone traveling more than one "stop" had a better, faster alternative.

As for 154, it was likely part of the "real" El Camino Real, but was never part of US-101. The Gaviota-Buellton segment of US-101 was part of the State Highway system from the beginning (LRN 2), and the 1930 Caltrans map confirms this was the US-101 routing.

I get the idea of 154 as Alt-US-101 (I lived in Santa Barbara for seven years), but would probably want some more safety upgrades to the San Marcos Pass section before I would actively encourage a non-local driver to use it as a bypass.

Back on topic: It seems that Caltrans is now using the lowest available number when assigning new routes, which means numbers like 7 and 11 (both of which should have been saved for potential Interstate use) got assigned to short little routes connecting I-8 to the border. 21 is next; I wonder where that will be?

[ekt8750]

I'll bite with PA:

Like:

The primary state highways are mostly numbered on parent/child system similar to the US Route System. There's some exceptions and other oddities that were mostly due to avoiding duplicates of US Routes and Interstates.

Dislike:

PennDOT not making the driving public more aware of the Quadrant Route system. Knowing these routes is particularly helpful say like in the aftermath of this big blizzard we had this past weekend. You figure a road that PennDOT maintains would be better plowed than a road maintained by a municipality and therefor you could get around with slightly less of a headache than if you didn't know where you were going.

[roadman]

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, the Lowell Connector was once called Business Spur 495

But only on side streets in Lowell that intersected the Connector.  It was never signed as a Business Spur on the Connector itself, or on either the I-495 or US 3 mainlines for the Connector exit (as conformed by personal - and extensive - review of signing plans for I-495, US 3, and the Lowell Connector from when all the roads were originally built to the current signing).

IIRC, the last remaining Business 495 marker is located on Gorham Street eastbound prior to the Connector, and is planned to be removed as part of the latest sign replacement project.

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

The legend for these signs are State Highway Begins and State Highway Ends.  As the legends imply, these signs denote the limits of state jurisdction (mostly for legal reasons), and can be found on several secondary highways within Massachusetts.

[PHLBOS]

IIRC, the last remaining Business 495 marker is located on Gorham Street eastbound prior to the Connector, and is planned to be removed as part of the latest sign replacement project.

Based on latest GSVs, there's no BUS 495 signs (or even traces of such) along Gorham St/Thorndike St./MA 3A.

The last known Bus 495 shield was along Plain St. just north of the interchange.  Only the old JTC. panel remains.

[briantroutman]

You figure a road that PennDOT maintains would be better plowed than a road maintained by a municipality and therefor you could get around with slightly less of a headache than if you didn't know where you were going.

Of course everyone's experiences are bound to differ, but I'll throw an anecdote out there. My late grandmother's home is on a rural arterial road that had been an SR from at least the '40s up until about 2004 when it was turned back to the local township. On numerous occasions, she remarked that the winter maintenance noticeably improved when the township took over–or conversely, that the road was something of a neglected stepchild under PennDOT maintenance.

If I had to speculate, PennDOT maintenance may be better than local maintenance in absolute terms, but during significant weather events, they understandably need to prioritize Interstates, US routes, and roads with the keystone marker ahead of quadrant routes. Yet for municipalities, the arterial roads that equate to PennDOTs quadrant routes are the highest priority they have.

[vdeane]

More nuance on NY:
-Like: Suffixes used as spurs, not split alignments
-Like: US routes not merged onto long useless overlaps with interstates or spammed on minor roads like many other states
-Dislike: Duplications of interstates/state routes and US 2 and 220 with state routes
-Dislike: There are a few small routes that should really be reference routes (NY 421 and NY 419 come to mind)

[Pete from Boston]

Fully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

It's common practice all over the place here, but I can't cite an example for you.

[Quillz]

I guess they would look similar to this:



Frankly, this is exactly what California needs. Any place a state highway is no longer maintained by Caltrans, erect these signs but continue to sign the state highway. I cited CA-91 earlier as an example of a route that ends at city limits rather than a logical point like another state highway. But there are many other examples.

[SD Mapman]

Fully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

It's common practice all over the place here, but I can't cite an example for you.

It's technically legal in SD, too, but I think that only SD 42, 63, and 115 utilize this quirk (although there are no "END STATE MAINTENANCE" signs).

Other likes:
The Grid. Yes, I know it might be boring, but it's nice to have some order in the state highways. Heck, even the 3-digit routes are on their own grid (minus SD 231)! Even the rural addresses are on a statewide grid! All that, to me, is cool.
No number duplication. This is self-explanatory.
Non-proliferation of routes (think Arkansas for a contrary). This means the existing roads get maintained better.
Number-direction parity. Yes, I know E-W even routes and N-S odd routes are plain and boring, but they're nice. NOTE: This rule is being violated East River by whoever designs the new BGS's or a renegade contractor; hopefully this will be cracked down on.
Bannered routes instead of suffixed routes (minus the Alternates (and those "P" routes that nobody knows about)). Saying a highway is "xxL" or "xxB" leads to confusion over what the letters mean, so it's nice to have clarity. NOTE: This is violated at the Brookings exit, see earlier note about East River taking everything too literally. Darn flatlanders.

Dislikes:
The unsigned routes. I mean, just sign them already.

[Quillz]

I actually disagree with you on suffixes vs. banners. I was in South Dakota over the summer, and I drove on both US-16 and US-16A. (There was also a US-16T). For me, though, it's just aesthetics... I find "16A" easier to say and understand than "16 Alternate." But it's just a matter of opinion, and AASHTO obviously disagrees with me. (For the record, South Dakota also centered the suffix and had it half the height of the numeral legend, which again gave it a nice, balanced look).



On the subject of South Dakota, I also like that they use green-on-white for their state highway shields, which extends to the directional banners. It creates a subtle, yet visible, contrast from the black-on-white US highway shields. One of the only other states to do this is Vermont.

[SD Mapman]

I actually disagree with you on suffixes vs. banners. I was in South Dakota over the summer, and I drove on both US-16 and US-16A. (There was also a US-16T). For me, though, it's just aesthetics... I find "16A" easier to say and understand than "16 Alternate." But it's just a matter of opinion, and AASHTO obviously disagrees with me. (For the record, South Dakota also centered the suffix and had it half the height of the numeral legend, which again gave it a nice, balanced look).

I don't mind the A's, as it's pretty obvious what the A stands for (at least for me). I think 16T does not exist anymore (and it was signed as Truck when it was... the new truck is legally 16B)

If you didn't come up to the Northern Hills (which it sounds like you didn't), you missed out big time.


The erroneous suffixes in Brookings were uncentered, normal size, and just plain looked wrong.

[Quillz]

Don't have a pic handy, but I distinctly remember a "16T" shield. I was only in the state for a few days, visiting Rushmore and Jewel Cave, so I didn't go north of I-90.

[SD Mapman]

Well, if there was one still there, it shouldn't be there (should be 16B not T). I guess they didn't get rid of all of them, as I've only ever seen bannered 16 Truck shields.

[Rothman]

Fully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

Very common in Massachusetts all around.  Those signs also show up on MA 9, MA 63 and most likely MA 116...and they're all shielded after the "end state maintenance" signs.

[vdeane]

That's another thing I like about NY: not many bannered routes.  Banners here are pretty much unofficial truck routes established by municipalities and Business US 62 (which Niagara Falls shoved down our throat).

[hbelkins]

I guess they would look similar to this:



Frankly, this is exactly what California needs. Any place a state highway is no longer maintained by Caltrans, erect these signs but continue to sign the state highway. I cited CA-91 earlier as an example of a route that ends at city limits rather than a logical point like another state highway. But there are many other examples.

That picture looks familiar. 

FWIW, that assembly is gone. KY 555 was extended north of the Bluegrass Parkway to end at US 62. That extension is part of an improved route that also includes sections of US 62, KY 248 and KY 44 that ends at Taylorsville.

[Charles2]

Alabama

LIKES:

*State routes are, for the most part well-signed.
*Limited amount of gridding (71, 73 and 75 in NE Alabama, 20 and 24 in the northern part of the state, and 17 and 19 in NW Alabama come to mind, and to a lesser extent SR-10 and SR-14 in south Alabama)
*Duplicated Interstate and state route numbers are fairly well separated to avoid confusion (Yes, there are both I-10 and SR-10, I-20 and SR-20, I-22 and SR-22, I-59 and SR-59, I-65 and SR-65, I-85 and SR-85, and I-165 and SR-165).
*No duplication of US and state routes (the current numbering plan was adopted in 1957)

DISLIKES:
*Most state route numbers seem randomly assigned
*Wasting perfectly good route numbers to be paired with US routes and unsigned (1=431, 2=72, 3=31, 4=78, 6=82, 7=11, 8=80, 12=84, 13=43, albeit 13 is an independent route in west Alabama, 15=29, 16=90, 17=45, then 43, but there are sections of 17 that are independent routes, 38=280, 42=98, 53=231, 74=278.  SR-9 (331) and SR-25 (411) get hall passes, since they are standalone routes past the termini of 331 and 411.
*SR-5 is a NE-SW route from south Alabama to Birmingham, but it becomes a NW-SE route as it leaves Birmingham.  Should be two separate routes.
*Random assignment of new three digit routes.  In most instances, it's a case of what's the next available number.
*State routes that have termini at junctions with county roads.  I don't know if that's common in other states.
*Some state routes should be upgraded to US routes in order to provide direct connections with cities in neighboring states.  In my mind,there should be a continuous route number connecting Decatur and Tupelo along AL-24 and MS-23 (Hello, US-478 or US-272?), and perhaps Florence and Jackson, TN (extend US 641 to Florence?)

[Quillz]

CA-59 ends at County Route 59. I would imagine other states have a similar setup, too.

[andy3175]

I actually disagree with you on suffixes vs. banners. I was in South Dakota over the summer, and I drove on both US-16 and US-16A. (There was also a US-16T). For me, though, it's just aesthetics... I find "16A" easier to say and understand than "16 Alternate." But it's just a matter of opinion, and AASHTO obviously disagrees with me. (For the record, South Dakota also centered the suffix and had it half the height of the numeral legend, which again gave it a nice, balanced look).

I have a theory (no proof or citations) related to the number of syllables for a given numerical or alpha-numerical route designation. I would agree that 16A is easier to say than Alternate 16, and I would further say that this same logic can be applied to other numbering schemes. I believe some designations were given due to the ease with it can be said rather than applying it for a number scheme. As a fake/non-real-world example, 510 is easier to say than 57 due to the fact 510 has two syllables (five ten) and 57 has four syllables (fifty seven). In the real world, I'd submit that this might be a reason why there are several number-letter route designations (such as 9A) in New York rather than jumping up to, say, a bunch of signed four-digit state route numbers in New York. But I can't prove that syllables and ease of speech was considered when assigning state route numbers; it's just a theory.

[roadfro]

I have a theory (no proof or citations) related to the number of syllables for a given numerical or alpha-numerical route designation. I would agree that 16A is easier to say than Alternate 16, and I would further say that this same logic can be applied to other numbering schemes. I believe some designations were given due to the ease with it can be said rather than applying it for a number scheme. As a fake/non-real-world example, 510 is easier to say than 57 due to the fact 510 has two syllables (five ten) and 57 has four syllables (fifty seven). In the real world, I'd submit that this might be a reason why there are several number-letter route designations (such as 9A) in New York rather than jumping up to, say, a bunch of signed four-digit state route numbers in New York. But I can't prove that syllables and ease of speech was considered when assigning state route numbers; it's just a theory.

Certainly plausible.

I imagine this is why the Alternate U.S. routes in Nevada are typically referred to as though they are suffixed routes. Route shields typically use the "ALT" banner (some errant examples on US 95A notwithstanding), but some street name signs use "US xxA" lettering.