News:

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

Main Menu

Route numbers that don't make sense

Started by fillup420, October 08, 2017, 11:42:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ekt8750

PA's state routes (re)numbered after the advent of the Interstate system. Before that they followed a standard parent/child system then lost a bunch of 2 digit routes to the US Highway System but the renumbered routes kept to the system for the most part. It wasn't til the Interstates came to be that PADH and later PennDOT just said fuck and started numbering routes way out of the convention they had set.


hotdogPi

Quote from: Charles2 on October 09, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
I've never understood why Tennessee's lone spur route from I-40 is designated as I-140, given that it connects Knoxville and Maryville.  Since it's in the eastern part of the state, shouldn't it have been I-540, 740 or 940?

There is no difference between a 1xx, 3xx, 5xx, etc., except that ones designated later often have higher numbers. Position has nothing to do with it. (I used to think that lower first digits were longer on average, but that's not the case.)
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Henry

In addition to the aforementioned examples, I'd like to throw in I-520 around Augusta, I-540 in Raleigh and I-495 on Long Island, for the following reasons:


  • I-520 now touches its parent on both ends, when a few years ago, this wasn't the case. Granted, it exists in two states now, but I-620 would've been a better choice for when the inevitable happened.
  • I-540 is a weird number choice for the outer beltway, even if NC 540 will be the dominant route on it. I still believe that the whole thing should be I-640, but too late for that.
  • I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.

Then there are US 57 and US 163, as the former is more east-west than north-south, and the latter is nowhere close to US 63.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Brandon

"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

CNGL-Leudimin

Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
In addition to the aforementioned examples, I'd like to throw in I-520 around Augusta, I-540 in Raleigh and I-495 on Long Island, for the following reasons:


  • I-520 now touches its parent on both ends, when a few years ago, this wasn't the case. Granted, it exists in two states now, but I-620 would've been a better choice for when the inevitable happened.
  • I-540 is a weird number choice for the outer beltway, even if NC 540 will be the dominant route on it. I still believe that the whole thing should be I-640, but too late for that.
  • I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.

Then there are US 57 and US 163, as the former is more east-west than north-south, and the latter is nowhere close to US 63.

Also US 96, which is the opposite of US 57. And in the same state!
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

Charles2

Quote from: 1 on October 10, 2017, 07:13:39 AM
Quote from: Charles2 on October 09, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
I've never understood why Tennessee's lone spur route from I-40 is designated as I-140, given that it connects Knoxville and Maryville.  Since it's in the eastern part of the state, shouldn't it have been I-540, 740 or 940?

There is no difference between a 1xx, 3xx, 5xx, etc., except that ones designated later often have higher numbers. Position has nothing to do with it. (I used to think that lower first digits were longer on average, but that's not the case.)

I guess I just assumed (yeah, we all know what happens when that happens) that lower number 3-di's were assigned to the southern or western part of states.  I know now better!  :)

formulanone

#31
Quote from: Charles2 on October 10, 2017, 09:51:44 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 10, 2017, 07:13:39 AM
Quote from: Charles2 on October 09, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
I've never understood why Tennessee's lone spur route from I-40 is designated as I-140, given that it connects Knoxville and Maryville.  Since it's in the eastern part of the state, shouldn't it have been I-540, 740 or 940?

There is no difference between a 1xx, 3xx, 5xx, etc., except that ones designated later often have higher numbers. Position has nothing to do with it. (I used to think that lower first digits were longer on average, but that's not the case.)

I guess I just assumed (yeah, we all know what happens when that happens) that lower number 3-di's were assigned to the southern or western part of states.  I know now better!  :)

Alabama seems to be one of the exceptions that numbers their 3dis with respect to some sort of future order...leaving out 159, 259, 365, 559, if needed. Of course, I-165 was the consolation prize for not getting 210.

Edit: now that I think about it, maybe they avoided Interstates 1xx and 2xx so that they wouldn't duplicate state routes; though SRs 10, 20, 22, 59, 65, and 165 exist.

ilpt4u

#32
I'm thinking IL starts low and gets higher

I-80: I-180, I-280
I-55: I-155, I-255/IL 255, I-355. Supposedly the FHWA felt I-455 was more appropriate, but ISTHA wanted and felt 355 was more appropriate
I-90: I-190, I-290, IL 390, and soon IL 490
I-94: I-294, IL 394. I-494 was Proposed. IL 194 and IL 594 are no more. A new I-594 is potentially proposed
I-72: I-172
I-70: I-270

I-74 is a bit of an outlier, with I-474 instead of I-274

Big John


TheHighwayMan3561

#34
Not that it makes it any more sensible, but I believe US 57 was "upgraded"  to signify more of a connection to the associated route in Mexico, though I don't know why it couldn't just remain SH 57. The Texas section was renumbered SH 57 from 76 in 1966 and then given the US 57 designation in 1970.

And I can tell you, that's a pretty lonely place where it meets I-35.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

DandyDan

In my area, it would have to be US 218. It seems to me they should have called it US 265 when they made it.

Elsewhere,  there's US 220.
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE

Rover_0

#36
While the closest thing to a numbering system Utah has is putting similar/near-consecutive (or consecutive) numbers nearby one another (think of most numbers between UT-7 through UT-18 in the southwest corner of the state), going by this there are a few exceptions, but even then, there's another similar route number within a couple hours (that's very broad, I know, but still).

UT-13 (Tremonton-Plymouth)  and UT-16 (Wyoming near Evanston, connects to WYO-89, to UT-30 via Randolph) are in far northern Utah.
UT-26 is in the general Ogden area while most routes in the 20s are in the central/southern reaches of the state.
UT-34 is St. George Blvd while all other existing routes in the 30s are in the northern half of the state.
UT-72 (Loa to I-70) and UT-76 (connector between 72 and I-70) are farther south than most routes in the 70s (mostly Utah County)
UT-87 and UT-88 are in the Uintah Basin while most 80s routes (north-central Utah, near Tremonton).

And so forth. But one that sticks out to me is UT-252 (Logan's 1000 West and 2500 North). It was a trade-off between Logan City and UDOT for UT-237 (Utah State University to US-91 in Hyde Park), UT-238 (a loop to Millville, Providence, and River Heights from UT-165 in Nibley to US-89/91 in south Logan), UT-239 (Logan's 1400 North between US-91 and 800 East AKA old UT-237), and UT-288 (Logan's 1200 East between US-89/UT-30 and 1000 North from 1200 East to old UT-237). (At least that was their latest iterations.) There's no nearby route number, as most of the existing 250s routes tend to be in the Sevier Valley (UT-256, UT-258, UT-259, and sure, let's add UT-260 though it should've been UT-250 IMO), and even UT-257 is roughly the same latitude as well, just a bit further west. Besides UT-252, no other number between UT-250 through UT-255 currently exists. I'm not sure why they didn't use the number 33 or 166. Perhaps another state route in the Cache Valley is somewhere on the way that will be UT-251 or UT-253?
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

NWI_Irish96

IN 47 is E-W but has an odd number
IN 162 is partly E-W but mostly N-S yet is an even number
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 09, 2017, 11:10:40 PM
Quote from: bing101 on October 08, 2017, 07:37:50 PM
CA-170 has to be a carryover when US-70 was in the Los Angeles area but the 70 designation for California moved to the Sacramento Valley as CA-70. Its now in Oroville and Marysville. CA-170 would have to be moved to northern portion of the Sacramento Valley.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_70


CA-180


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_180


Its the only I/CA-X80 that does not connect or is hundreds of miles away from I-80.

Thing is that CA 180 has been there since 1934, way before the Interstate era.  Given that it isn't an X80 number it wasn't like it could just been swapped out with another kind of how like the original CA 28 was renumbered CA 128.  I guess it could be assigned a lower digit given the importance of the corridor has grown if the 180 number ever needed to be freed up.  It isn't like there aren't numbers like "30" available for reuse these days.

Interestingly one could make the argument that there is way too many 3d Interstates in California and that they are actually what doesn't make much sense.  Hell Caltrans could throw CA 17 back on I-880 and it would have a lot more route continuity, I-238 could just be bumped back down to a state highway. 

Absolutely no connection between US 70 and CA 170; the former would have been decommissioned concurrent with the establishment of the latter; the number, like so many in the '64 renumbering, seems to have been pulled out of some orifice somewhere or the product of random generation. 

Under the previous -- but often ignored or bypassed -- Division of Highways idiom (<1963), the 170 number would have been applied to an east-west highway between SSR 166 and SSR 178 anywhere between US 101 and the desert; what's now CA 223 would have been a likely candidate for such a designation if signed under the old system, as would CA 202.  Even numbered 3-digit SSR's not divisible by 4 commenced in downtown L.A. and were theoretically to be applied to E-W routes northward until 198 -- but there were some unexplained oddities (under this theorem SSR 134 should have been SSR 114, with SSR 118 the next corridor to the north).  198 was to be the highest number in the series; the 3-digit numbering system then switched over to the other set that was divisible by 4 and decreasing as one progressed north.  By the time the renumbering occurred, 180 was the highest-numbered of these.  If all LRN's in the SJ Valley had received SSR numbers, under this system it's likely present CA 216 would have been LRN 196, and CA 201 LRN 192 or even 188.  Chances are present CA 146 and CA 129 over nearer the coast would have been subject to that SSR numbering routine as well (likely 184 and 160 respectively).  But all that is speculation; the renumbering threw pretty much the whole network into the chaos it is today!

Roadgeekteen

God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

GaryV

M-123.  There's no reason the portion from Newberry to Paradise couldn't have been M-117 (as the first few miles north of Newberry once was).

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: GaryV on October 11, 2017, 06:57:44 PM
M-123.  There's no reason the portion from Newberry to Paradise couldn't have been M-117 (as the first few miles north of Newberry once was).

Even M-22 doesn't make a lot of sense in places.  The route along the Lake Michigan Coast up to the top of the Leelanau Peninsula makes sense but then the route changes direction much like M-123 does.  The whole multiplex with M-72 into Traverse City just to end at US 31/M-37 is really weird also.  It seems to me that the Grand Traverse Bay portion ought to be numbered M-201 all the way to the top of Leelanau...but then again that would hack up a tourist favorite, so really its a minimal gripe.

hotdogPi

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 11, 2017, 07:48:23 PM
Quote from: GaryV on October 11, 2017, 06:57:44 PM
M-123.  There's no reason the portion from Newberry to Paradise couldn't have been M-117 (as the first few miles north of Newberry once was).

Even M-22 doesn't make a lot of sense in places.  The route along the Lake Michigan Coast up to the top of the Leelanau Peninsula makes sense but then the route changes direction much like M-123 does.  The whole multiplex with M-72 into Traverse City just to end at US 31/M-37 is really weird also.  It seems to me that the Grand Traverse Bay portion ought to be numbered M-201 all the way to the top of Leelanau...but then again that would hack up a tourist favorite, so really its a minimal gripe.

They're numbered based on length, right? What makes 22 a bad number?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: 1 on October 11, 2017, 09:21:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 11, 2017, 07:48:23 PM
Quote from: GaryV on October 11, 2017, 06:57:44 PM
M-123.  There's no reason the portion from Newberry to Paradise couldn't have been M-117 (as the first few miles north of Newberry once was).

Even M-22 doesn't make a lot of sense in places.  The route along the Lake Michigan Coast up to the top of the Leelanau Peninsula makes sense but then the route changes direction much like M-123 does.  The whole multiplex with M-72 into Traverse City just to end at US 31/M-37 is really weird also.  It seems to me that the Grand Traverse Bay portion ought to be numbered M-201 all the way to the top of Leelanau...but then again that would hack up a tourist favorite, so really its a minimal gripe.

They're numbered based on length, right? What makes 22 a bad number?

It changes cardinal direction in the middle of the route, 123 does the same thing.  If anything 22 should be cut back to 72 instead of multiplexing it. 

mapman1071

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 09, 2017, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona.

Neither do AZ 347, AZ 238 (which ends at the Pima/Maricopa County line, becoming County Road 238 between there and Gila Bend), the former AZ 153 (now 44th St. in south Phoenix), and the future AZ 30 (Durango Freeway).  Let's not even talk about AZ 210 in Tucson, which connects to no other numbered highway.  Arizona never numbered any non-Interstate below 60 until recent years. 

Neither did they use 0 thru 5 as the second digit on 3-digit highways, with the exception of AZ 504 in the Navajo Nation, continued from NM 504, in the 1970s.  Now we have/had/will have State Routes 24, 30, ex-50, 143, ex-153, L101, L202, 210, 238, L303, and 347.

My guess is that state routes numbered 12 thru 59 (10 and 11 are/will be Interstates, and there are no single-digit highways in Arizona other than I-8) are to be allocated for non-interstate freeways, although I've never been able to find any documentation on it.

I've always had a question about the Loop 303 (officially, AZ 303L).  It's not a loop, never has been, and never will be one AFAIK.  Why not renumber it as AZ 33 (other than $$$, of course.  :-D )?

IF complete L303 will form a 1/4 Loop from I-8 In Goodyear (yes the south border of Goodyear is I-8) to I-17 In Phoenix

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: mapman1071 on October 12, 2017, 07:07:04 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 09, 2017, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona.

Neither do AZ 347, AZ 238 (which ends at the Pima/Maricopa County line, becoming County Road 238 between there and Gila Bend), the former AZ 153 (now 44th St. in south Phoenix), and the future AZ 30 (Durango Freeway).  Let's not even talk about AZ 210 in Tucson, which connects to no other numbered highway.  Arizona never numbered any non-Interstate below 60 until recent years. 

Neither did they use 0 thru 5 as the second digit on 3-digit highways, with the exception of AZ 504 in the Navajo Nation, continued from NM 504, in the 1970s.  Now we have/had/will have State Routes 24, 30, ex-50, 143, ex-153, L101, L202, 210, 238, L303, and 347.

My guess is that state routes numbered 12 thru 59 (10 and 11 are/will be Interstates, and there are no single-digit highways in Arizona other than I-8) are to be allocated for non-interstate freeways, although I've never been able to find any documentation on it.

I've always had a question about the Loop 303 (officially, AZ 303L).  It's not a loop, never has been, and never will be one AFAIK.  Why not renumber it as AZ 33 (other than $$$, of course.  :-D )?

IF complete L303 will form a 1/4 Loop from I-8 In Goodyear (yes the south border of Goodyear is I-8) to I-17 In Phoenix

Is it really now?  The last I saw Goodyear annexed land south to Mobile and AZ 238.  No wonder the Sonoran Desert National Monument was created, between Goodyear and Buckeye there wouldn't be very much open desert left at the rate they are land grabbing.

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

TheStranger

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 10, 2017, 10:55:19 AM
Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
In addition to the aforementioned examples, I'd like to throw in I-520 around Augusta, I-540 in Raleigh and I-495 on Long Island, for the following reasons:


  • I-520 now touches its parent on both ends, when a few years ago, this wasn't the case. Granted, it exists in two states now, but I-620 would've been a better choice for when the inevitable happened.
  • I-540 is a weird number choice for the outer beltway, even if NC 540 will be the dominant route on it. I still believe that the whole thing should be I-640, but too late for that.
  • I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.

Then there are US 57 and US 163, as the former is more east-west than north-south, and the latter is nowhere close to US 63.

Also US 96, which is the opposite of US 57. And in the same state!

IIRC, what is now US 96 is the old US 59 while the current US 59 from about Houston southwest is the original 1926-1930s US 96.  Seems like the designations  were flipped ca. 1939 to extend US 59 to the Mexican border.
Chris Sampang

dgolub

Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM

  • I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.

That's correct.  NJ 495 is numbered as such because it was supposed to be part of it.  (In fact, the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel is signed incorrectly as I-495.)

Kacie Jane

Quote from: dgolub on October 13, 2017, 06:54:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM

  • I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.

That's correct.  NJ 495 is numbered as such because it was supposed to be part of it.  (In fact, the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel is signed incorrectly as I-495.)

Slightly incorrect.  The section in New Jersey was part of I-495 originally.  The part planned to connect the two across Manhattan was canceled in the 70s, so in the 80s, the Jersey side was demoted to a state route.

I remember still seeing interstate shields on the Jersey side into the 90s that weren't incorrect when they were put up.  But you're right that New York seems to still be putting up new interstate shields, and that is incorrect.



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