Worst state highway system

[hotdogPi]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[US 89]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[Henry]

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.



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...

[Scott5114]

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.

[US 89]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[Mapmikey]

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.



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...

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...

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:


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.

[tq-07fan]

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[fillup420]

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.

[dariusb]

Alaska?

[Rothman]

Alaska?

Why?

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[kenarmy]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[1995hoo]

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...

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.

[kenarmy]

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?   

[kphoger]

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. 

[SkyPesos]

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?   

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

[Bitmapped]

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.

[thspfc]

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).