CA-2 truncation...

[Quillz]

I was looking at a 1950 road map of California, when I noticed that CA-2 used to continue eastward into the Lake Arrowhead area. After being concurrent with CA-138 for a while, it eventually moved onto a separate alignment that is today all of CA-173.

Does anyone know the reasoning for this truncation, given that the sections it no longer covered remained within the state highway system?

[NE2]

Maybe because SR 173 was never paved.

[Quillz]

It's a possibility. Some other California routes were broken up into multiple routes, like CA-150. I assume there was a similar reasoning here.

[JustDrive]

Maybe the 2/138 concurrency would have been too long?

[Quillz]

Maybe the 2/138 concurrency would have been too long?

Maybe. Though it really depends on your definition of "too long." The 395/6 concurrency was pretty long and existed until 1964, and today, you've got the 138/14 concurrency that is seemingly just as long as the one the 138/2 would have had.

[NE2]

Wait a second - where are you seeing SR 138 east of Cajon before 1964? SR 2 had gone to Arrowhead Lake since 1934, and the 1963 official shows SR 2 rerouted to SR 18 at Crestline (which happened in 1957-58), with SR 138 only overlapping SR 2 to Cajon (as it did since 1934, presumably because 'to' plates had not yet been invented). 1964 is when SR 2 was cut back and became SR 138 east of Cajon.

[mrsman]

Wait a second - where are you seeing SR 138 east of Cajon before 1964? SR 2 had gone to Arrowhead Lake since 1934, and the 1963 official shows SR 2 rerouted to SR 18 at Crestline (which happened in 1957-58), with SR 138 only overlapping SR 2 to Cajon (as it did since 1934, presumably because 'to' plates had not yet been invented). 1964 is when SR 2 was cut back and became SR 138 east of Cajon.

That makes perfect sense.  SR 2 being a low digit number would probably be longer than SR 138.

[Quillz]

Wait a second - where are you seeing SR 138 east of Cajon before 1964? SR 2 had gone to Arrowhead Lake since 1934, and the 1963 official shows SR 2 rerouted to SR 18 at Crestline (which happened in 1957-58), with SR 138 only overlapping SR 2 to Cajon (as it did since 1934, presumably because 'to' plates had not yet been invented). 1964 is when SR 2 was cut back and became SR 138 east of Cajon.

What was the point of doing all that, then? Why replace the 2 with the 138? Seems like a strange renumbering exercise.

[707]

Wait a second - where are you seeing SR 138 east of Cajon before 1964? SR 2 had gone to Arrowhead Lake since 1934, and the 1963 official shows SR 2 rerouted to SR 18 at Crestline (which happened in 1957-58), with SR 138 only overlapping SR 2 to Cajon (as it did since 1934, presumably because 'to' plates had not yet been invented). 1964 is when SR 2 was cut back and became SR 138 east of Cajon.

What was the point of doing all that, then? Why replace the 2 with the 138? Seems like a strange renumbering exercise.

States do weird things like that. Nevada's highway renumbering for example.

[roadfro]

What was the point of doing all that, then? Why replace the 2 with the 138? Seems like a strange renumbering exercise.

States do weird things like that. Nevada's highway renumbering for example.

Nevada's highway renumbering did have a method to the madness. Old sign route numbers were assigned by the legislature/state law, and in many cases signed routes were not on NDOH owned/maintained roads. The new route numbers matched signed routes to the internal Federal Aid Highway numbers (which were also renumbered around the same time) and did away with legislative routes.

[707]

What was the point of doing all that, then? Why replace the 2 with the 138? Seems like a strange renumbering exercise.

States do weird things like that. Nevada's highway renumbering for example.

Nevada's highway renumbering did have a method to the madness. Old sign route numbers were assigned by the legislature/state law, and in many cases signed routes were not on NDOH owned/maintained roads. The new route numbers matched signed routes to the internal Federal Aid Highway numbers (which were also renumbered around the same time) and did away with legislative routes.

Sorry. Nevada roads often confuse me with all the jumbled 3DI's laying around everywhere and never made much sense to me. Though that makes it easier for NVDOT, wouldn't the big jumble of 3di numbers confuse drivers?

[Quillz]

What was the point of doing all that, then? Why replace the 2 with the 138? Seems like a strange renumbering exercise.

States do weird things like that. Nevada's highway renumbering for example.

Nevada's highway renumbering did have a method to the madness. Old sign route numbers were assigned by the legislature/state law, and in many cases signed routes were not on NDOH owned/maintained roads. The new route numbers matched signed routes to the internal Federal Aid Highway numbers (which were also renumbered around the same time) and did away with legislative routes.

Sorry. Nevada roads often confuse me with all the jumbled 3DI's laying around everywhere and never made much sense to me. Though that makes it easier for NVDOT, wouldn't the big jumble of 3di numbers confuse drivers?

It was confusing for me at first, but once I learned how the system worked, it wasn't too bad. IIRC, the counties are arranged in alphabetical order and then given a series of numbers. So the Clark County numbers are lower than the ones in Washoe County, for example. Thus, highway numbers actually do follow a pattern of sorts.

[roadfro]

Sorry. Nevada roads often confuse me with all the jumbled 3DI's laying around everywhere and never made much sense to me. Though that makes it easier for NVDOT, wouldn't the big jumble of 3di numbers confuse drivers?

Terminology note: "3DI" = "3-Digit Interstate"  Nevada has a lot of 3-digit state routes, but only 3 3DI's.

The large number of 3 digit state routes isn't incredibly confusing, when you consider that usually the ones that don't matter as much are not usually used by people for navigation and are not consistently signed.


And now I'm done hijacking this California thread with Nevada discussion 

[Atomica]

Wait a second - where are you seeing SR 138 east of Cajon before 1964? SR 2 had gone to Arrowhead Lake since 1934, and the 1963 official shows SR 2 rerouted to SR 18 at Crestline (which happened in 1957-58), with SR 138 only overlapping SR 2 to Cajon (as it did since 1934, presumably because 'to' plates had not yet been invented). 1964 is when SR 2 was cut back and became SR 138 east of Cajon.

What was the point of doing all that, then? Why replace the 2 with the 138? Seems like a strange renumbering exercise.

States do weird things like that. Nevada's highway renumbering for example.

So I have noticed.  MO1 is a very short highway, only a few miles inside the Kansas City metropolitan area - mostly because most of it south of that became part of US71 and later the I-49.  I too think it is rather peculiar where CA2 is placed - ditto CA7 and other routes...

[andy3175]

So I have noticed.  MO1 is a very short highway, only a few miles inside the Kansas City metropolitan area - mostly because most of it south of that became part of US71 and later the I-49.  I too think it is rather peculiar where CA2 is placed - ditto CA7 and other routes...

I believe CA 7 and 11 were assigned because they were the "next available" route numbers for newly assigned routes. Both 7 and 11 were identified as routes serving Southern California, so their newer incarnations also serve Southern California. My theory is that the next new route identified in Northern California would be a reincarnated CA 21, and the next new route identified in Southern California would be CA 30 or 31. This is assuming there is actual logic applied to state route numbering and that the assignment of 7 and 11 was in keeping with this theory and not merely coincidence. The other option would have been to continue numbering three-digit state routes where they left off, which would have resumed with a route number around 285 or 286.

[Atomica]

The way so many routes and areas have changed, I wonder if California  are due for another great renumbering.

[TheStranger]

So I have noticed.  MO1 is a very short highway, only a few miles inside the Kansas City metropolitan area - mostly because most of it south of that became part of US71 and later the I-49.  I too think it is rather peculiar where CA2 is placed - ditto CA7 and other routes...

2 fit the 1934 numbering system (which I recall was deciphered by NE2 in another thread - every four numbers would be in one region, i.e. 1, 5, 9, original 13 in NorCal vs. 2, original 6, original 10 in SoCal etc.) with its Southern California location.

The way so many routes and areas have changed, I wonder if California  are due for another great renumbering.

Truncations and relinquishments seem to be more prevalent than any actual numbering/routing changes, with many urban surface routes moving over to local maintenance.

[Quillz]

The way so many routes and areas have changed, I wonder if California  are due for another great renumbering.

Could happen, I suppose. With interstates and U. S. highways taken into account, a numbering scheme similar to the original 1934 one might work. Obviously, some numbers would be in different places.

[TheStranger]

The way so many routes and areas have changed, I wonder if California  are due for another great renumbering.

Could happen, I suppose. With interstates and U. S. highways taken into account, a numbering scheme similar to the original 1934 one might work. Obviously, some numbers would be in different places.

At the same time, most of the state highway numbers in use today have been in place for 51 years (i.e. Route 82 as El Camino Real in the Bay Area, Route 91 for the east-west Artesia corridor, Route 14 for former US 6 in the Antelope Valley), and some of the 1934-era numbers have now been signed continuously for 81 years (180 in the Central Valley comes to mind). 

Only changes that should be made really are either 1. to accommodate future Interstates (i.e. if Route 3 or Route 9 had to be renumbered for that reason) or 2. to provide more logical continuity (i.e. I don't think the two segments of Route 84 should be given one number, and if the two segments of Route 16 remain separate, one of them should be renumbered IMO).

[emory]

The way so many routes and areas have changed, I wonder if California  are due for another great renumbering.

Could happen, I suppose. With interstates and U. S. highways taken into account, a numbering scheme similar to the original 1934 one might work. Obviously, some numbers would be in different places.

At the same time, most of the state highway numbers in use today have been in place for 51 years (i.e. Route 82 as El Camino Real in the Bay Area, Route 91 for the east-west Artesia corridor, Route 14 for former US 6 in the Antelope Valley), and some of the 1934-era numbers have now been signed continuously for 81 years (180 in the Central Valley comes to mind). 

Only changes that should be made really are either 1. to accommodate future Interstates (i.e. if Route 3 or Route 9 had to be renumbered for that reason) or 2. to provide more logical continuity (i.e. I don't think the two segments of Route 84 should be given one number, and if the two segments of Route 16 remain separate, one of them should be renumbered IMO).

What about cases like Route 65, where the state still thinks they'll construct the middle portion of the freeway but we'll likely all be dead first?

[TheStranger]

What about cases like Route 65, where the state still thinks they'll construct the middle portion of the freeway but we'll likely all be dead first?

Good question.  Already part of what was the old Route 65 has been renumbered twice (first to Route 69, then Route 245) to accommodate the still-unbuilt portion from Exeter to Roseville. 

More definitive cases of "separate segments should be given separate numbers" IMO:

- Route 16
- Route 160 (part of me would love to see the 160 freeway in North Sacramento incorporated into a new middle segment of Route 16, but that's not realistic)
- Route 84
- Route 90
- most of the trans-Sierra crossings that will never be constructed, i.e. Route 190, Route 168

[emory]

What about cases like Route 65, where the state still thinks they'll construct the middle portion of the freeway but we'll likely all be dead first?

Good question.  Already part of what was the old Route 65 has been renumbered twice (first to Route 69, then Route 245) to accommodate the still-unbuilt portion from Exeter to Roseville. 

More definitive cases of "separate segments should be given separate numbers" IMO:

- Route 16
- Route 160 (part of me would love to see the 160 freeway in North Sacramento incorporated into a new middle segment of Route 16, but that's not realistic)
- Route 84
- Route 90
- most of the trans-Sierra crossings that will never be constructed, i.e. Route 190, Route 168

Ah Route 90. Another case of having to plow through miles of urban Los Angeles to finish it. That's probably more likely than the 2 freeway, but is still highly unlikely after I-105 was built, and even that's technically still not finished. The Marina Freeway should be renumbered in this case, as it's a small stub and most of Route 90 is in Orange County.

Also while both routes are technically completed, I've always groaned at how the Ronald Reagan Freeway switches numbers when it crosses Los Angeles Ave in Moorpark, and along with it, the postmiles. If you're getting on from the 101, you'll soon pass exits 18, 19 and 20, and then 18, 19 and 20...again.

[Occidental Tourist]

What about cases like Route 65, where the state still thinks they'll construct the middle portion of the freeway but we'll likely all be dead first?

Good question.  Already part of what was the old Route 65 has been renumbered twice (first to Route 69, then Route 245) to accommodate the still-unbuilt portion from Exeter to Roseville. 

More definitive cases of "separate segments should be given separate numbers" IMO:

- Route 16
- Route 160 (part of me would love to see the 160 freeway in North Sacramento incorporated into a new middle segment of Route 16, but that's not realistic)
- Route 84
- Route 90
- most of the trans-Sierra crossings that will never be constructed, i.e. Route 190, Route 168

Ah Route 90. Another case of having to plow through miles of urban Los Angeles to finish it. That's probably more likely than the 2 freeway, but is still highly unlikely after I-105 was built, and even that's technically still not finished. The Marina Freeway should be renumbered in this case, as it's a small stub and most of Route 90 is in Orange County.

Also while both routes are technically completed, I've always groaned at how the Ronald Reagan Freeway switches numbers when it crosses Los Angeles Ave in Moorpark, and along with it, the postmiles. If you're getting on from the 101, you'll soon pass exits 18, 19 and 20, and then 18, 19 and 20...again.

It's two separate routes and pretty well marked.  While I think it would make more sense to motorists to turn the freeway portions of the 23 and 118 into some type of loop route with a single number, as it stands right now, both routes have correct exit numbers.

[emory]

It's two separate routes and pretty well marked.  While I think it would make more sense to motorists to turn the freeway portions of the 23 and 118 into some type of loop route with a single number, as it stands right now, both routes have correct exit numbers.

Everything on that freeway is marked and is technically correct, but I don't trust motorists to realize that exit numbers are tied to state route mileposts rather than the freeway itself. The Los Angeles Avenue route change doesn't appear like you're getting onto another freeway. This is pretty much my attitude towards any freeway that changes numbers. Another one is the Moreno Valley Freeway (CA 60) out in Riverside, where I-215 leaves the Riverside Freeway and cosigns with CA 60 and renumbers the exits, and does it backwards, for 5 miles before it departs south and begins the Escondido Freeway.

[Quillz]

What about cases like Route 65, where the state still thinks they'll construct the middle portion of the freeway but we'll likely all be dead first?

Good question.  Already part of what was the old Route 65 has been renumbered twice (first to Route 69, then Route 245) to accommodate the still-unbuilt portion from Exeter to Roseville. 

More definitive cases of "separate segments should be given separate numbers" IMO:

- Route 16
- Route 160 (part of me would love to see the 160 freeway in North Sacramento incorporated into a new middle segment of Route 16, but that's not realistic)
- Route 84
- Route 90
- most of the trans-Sierra crossings that will never be constructed, i.e. Route 190, Route 168

Ah Route 90. Another case of having to plow through miles of urban Los Angeles to finish it. That's probably more likely than the 2 freeway, but is still highly unlikely after I-105 was built, and even that's technically still not finished. The Marina Freeway should be renumbered in this case, as it's a small stub and most of Route 90 is in Orange County.

Also while both routes are technically completed, I've always groaned at how the Ronald Reagan Freeway switches numbers when it crosses Los Angeles Ave in Moorpark, and along with it, the postmiles. If you're getting on from the 101, you'll soon pass exits 18, 19 and 20, and then 18, 19 and 20...again.

I don't find that all that confusing, and it's just coincidental the numbers line up like that.