...like California did in 1964?
Probably would cause more confusion than it's worth at this point...
It's also (at least IMO) highly dependent on which state you're talking about.
New Jersey already did it twice - in 1927 and 1953. Do they have to redo it again because of California in 1964?
Texas has to have like 81,000 miles of various state highways. Would be senseless to blow it up at this point. Even though the FM/RM/UR/Re/RR/Loops/Spurs/PR/SH are all excessive. And a big chunk not needed. It still too much for so little gain.
Florida, Nevada, and Washington did it way better than California.
In terms of mass renumbering, no, but some states should rethink their rules about which level of state/local government maintains which class of roads.
Hawaii did it twice, in the mid-1950s (adopting a Hawaii-wide numbered route system for the first time), and the late 1960s (splitting the unified state and county route system into separate state and county networks. with some renumberings and route removals in the process). No need for another overhaul, especially since Hawaiians don't use route numbers for navigation anyway (ditto Alaska, and Canada's Arctic territories).
The OP should tell us what specific states need an overhaul. Some of them clearly do not.
Oregon maybe, although our system isn't bad with exceptions for our countless 3dis. The only thing I'd change is making the internal numbers the same as the public numbers.
What I find interesting is that many states have done a massive renumbering at some point in the past... but the idea is nearly unthinkable now, on account of the cost being too high (not to mention the inevitable confusion) to possibly be justified by any benefit.
So... what was different then, that made renumberings in the olden days possible when they aren't now? Were they less expensive to implement (in relative terms)? Did states generally have more room in their budgets such that the cost was less of a big deal? Were people less averse to change?
Quote from: Duke87 on February 02, 2018, 06:15:55 PM
What I find interesting is that many states have done a massive renumbering at some point in the past... but the idea is nearly unthinkable now, on account of the cost being too high (not to mention the inevitable confusion) to possibly be justified by any benefit.
So... what was different then, that made renumberings in the olden days possible when they aren't now? Were they less expensive to implement (in relative terms)? Did states generally have more room in their budgets such that the cost was less of a big deal? Were people less averse to change?
Back when most of those big renumberings were happening using route numbers for navigation was a way bigger deal than it is now. Also consider that state level highways were often in much better shape than county and locally maintained roadways. Nowadays most people use some sort of device like a GPS to tell them how to get somewhere, so from the aspect why invest in revamping a highway numbering system for navigation? Secondly the level of road maintenance by some county or local DOTs have gotten close to those of state DOTs.
If my state could afford it, I wish they would.
The last "overhaul" that affected several major highways at one time was from 1973-1999.
The thing about renumbering now is that in addition to all the signs, most every DOT has all their numbers in a huge computer database, and changing them all would likely be a tremendous headache.
Utah has never done a complete system-wide renumbering, but there are a few events that come close. Utah had always used hidden state route numbers for its Interstate and US routes for internal purposes. For example, SR-1 was US 91. In 1962 these numbers were moved onto Interstates, such that SR-1 was I-15, SR-2 was I-80, etc. In 1977 the hidden numbers were scrapped completely, and the legislative route numbers were changed to match the signed numbers. The other event that comes close was in 1969, when almost 90 mostly short routes were deleted from the system.
Kentucky has never really done a massive renumbering, although there have been a few tweaks here and there. The ones I'm most familiar with recently are KY 57 and KY 227.
The only major renumbering New York did was in 1930. Most of that was signing routes that were previously unnumbered. Several routes 80 and below predate the renumbering, with most of the changes to those in 1930 being realignments/extensions/truncations. A minor renumbering was done in 1927, mostly to avoid duplication and unnecessary concurrencies with US routes. Major 1927 changes are below.
NY 1 -> US 1
NY 2 -> US 11
NY 4 -> NY 2 (later US/NY 15)
NY 6 -> US 9E/US 9 (modern US 9)
NY 7 -> US 20 east of Auburn, NY 35 west of Auburn
NY 9 -> NY 7 (there was a continuous state route 9 from the PA/NY line to Calais at one point)
NY 20 -> NY 57
NY 30 -> US 4
NY 37 -> US 6 (US 6 was previously unnumbered west of Peekskill)
NY 50 -> US 6N -> US 209 in 1933
Other than a truncation east of Albany (became US 20) and realignment west of Buffalo (old route now US 20), NY 5 generally follows the same route as it did pre-1927
All I can think of with Tennessee is getting rid of the confusing primary/secondary route designations. Delaware really doesn't need an overhaul.
Neither have had a mass renumbering, and neither really need it.
CT did it in 1926 and 1963, mostly in response to the addition of US highways in 1926 and Interstates in 1963. The 1926 renumbering created many new numbered state routes, while the 1963 renumbering tended to combine many existing routes into longer routes, and add new routes that the federal system had decommissioned.
As far as renumberings, I'm kind of torn. Can the system use an updating and somewhat of a logical pattern? Yes. Would it confuse people and cost money that the state currently doesn't have ? Also yes. I've already created a new route system for CT that would require some minor accommodation from surrounding states, would attempt to use up any unused numbers so long as they didn't conflict with Interstate or US routes, but would preserve the heavy hitters such as CT 2, CT 8, CT 9, CT 10, and CT 34. My ideas are contained in this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18689.0
Quote from: Duke87 on February 02, 2018, 06:15:55 PM
So... what was different then, that made renumberings in the olden days possible when they aren't now? Were they less expensive to implement (in relative terms)? Did states generally have more room in their budgets such that the cost was less of a big deal? Were people less averse to change?
One of the top reasons in my view: Social Media. In the past, the most people could do was attend public hearings (rarely done) or write letters to the editor of their local paper. Today, people can scream and holler on social media and create a firestorm to get their way. They can easily form and organize groups to make loud protests. Heck, thousands of people from other states or countries can write in saying they don't want it done, even though it won't affect them whatsoever.
NJ kept plans quiet when they wanted to renumber I-95 to I-295 around Trenton. So much so that public hearings on reconstructing the I-95 bridge from NJ to PA never once mentioned the upcoming renumbering, even though the renumbering will be taking place well before the bridge is reconstructed. The less people know, the better, especially when it comes to some things (whether that's proper or not is another story...).
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.
If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.
If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.
If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.
And comparable to population in Georgia, but definitely not Iowa.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.
If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.
6,000 miles is still ridiculously small. New York has over 14,000 miles of state highways and parkways on about 15% less land area. Granted, NY doesn't have nearly as many US highways as most other states, but that doesn't make up all the difference. Excluding overlaps, Georgia's state highway system is roughly 11,000 miles.
Quote from: cl94 on February 12, 2018, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.
If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.
6,000 miles is still ridiculously small. New York has over 14,000 miles of state highways and parkways on about 15% less land area. Granted, NY doesn't have nearly as many US highways as most other states, but that doesn't make up all the difference. Excluding overlaps, Georgia's state highway system is roughly 11,000 miles.
It depends on how the state divides up the jurisdiction of the roadways. In some states, every inch of pavement is state road. In other states, the majority of roadway is county or municipal jurisdiction. A very, very quick look on Google seems to support this - 73% of the roadway miles in Michigan are county maintained.
This is also how surveys and comparisons get screwed up - "researchers" will look around at the various states, find the amount of mileage in each state, and run various comparisons. However, they're rarely looking at apples-applies comparisons. They'll find a general State Mileage number, not understanding all the various jurisdictions, and use that.
Quote from: 1 on February 12, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.
If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.
And comparable to population in Georgia, but definitely not Iowa.
That's true. Iowa's population doesn't even top Metro Detroit's population.
Michigan's state highways are usually spaced out pretty good and there are a lot of county maintained roads in the state, some of which are maintained pretty good and some aren't maintained the best. Michigan's state highways also are just that the state highways and nothing else like in Florida where you have the unsigned state highways along with the Interstate and US highways, Michigan doesn't have that in the state highway system. And getting around Michigan really isn't that difficult except for a few areas in the U.P.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 01:44:55 PM
Michigan's state highways are usually spaced out pretty good and there are a lot of county maintained roads in the state, some of which are maintained pretty good and some aren't maintained the best. Michigan's state highways also are just that the state highways and nothing else like in Florida where you have the unsigned state highways along with the Interstate and US highways, Michigan doesn't have that in the state highway system. And getting around Michigan really isn't that difficult except for a few areas in the U.P.
Did the state have a say in turning 27 into 127? Seems to make sense (though overall a flipflop would have made more sense)
I don't really see the point of mass renumberings. For example, I'm sure nobody in NJ cares why a given road has a given number, as long as it's signed well. The only good things to come from these renumberings are that they guarantee no route number duplication, and US route numbers were assigned. But neither of these things required a mass renumbering, just renumber the duplicate routes and decomission concurrencies with US routes.
No. Aside from the disruption issues, people are relying upon the numbering systems less and less as navigation devices take over their attention to them.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 12:06:06 PM
It depends on how the state divides up the jurisdiction of the roadways. In some states, every inch of pavement is state road. In other states, the majority of roadway is county or municipal jurisdiction. A very, very quick look on Google seems to support this - 73% of the roadway miles in Michigan are county maintained.
This is also how surveys and comparisons get screwed up - "researchers" will look around at the various states, find the amount of mileage in each state, and run various comparisons. However, they're rarely looking at apples-applies comparisons. They'll find a general State Mileage number, not understanding all the various jurisdictions, and use that.
It is worth noting, though, that large amounts of the state highway systems in the northeast and Ohio are, in fact, locally-maintained. The general rule in NY, OH, and VT is that all state and US highways inside cities are locally-maintained. From looking at MA's jurisdiction map, well over a third of the numbered highways in Massachusetts are town-maintained.
Everything in New York City is either city-maintained or maintained by a toll authority, ditto for Baltimore.
Not true. Region 11 certainly lets projects of its own on NYSDOT facilities in the City.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 12, 2018, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 01:44:55 PM
Michigan's state highways are usually spaced out pretty good and there are a lot of county maintained roads in the state, some of which are maintained pretty good and some aren't maintained the best. Michigan's state highways also are just that the state highways and nothing else like in Florida where you have the unsigned state highways along with the Interstate and US highways, Michigan doesn't have that in the state highway system. And getting around Michigan really isn't that difficult except for a few areas in the U.P.
Did the state have a say in turning 27 into 127? Seems to make sense (though overall a flipflop would have made more sense)
MDOT pentioned for that removal themselves. They said it was to ease confusion along the US 27/127 corridor.
Quote from: cl94It is worth noting, though, that large amounts of the state highway systems in the northeast and Ohio are, in fact, locally-maintained. The general rule in NY, OH, and VT is that all state and US highways inside cities are locally-maintained.
Besides what Rothman noted for NYC, this is not entirely correct in Vermont, either. The cities and villages are generally responsible for day-to-day maintenance of VT/US routes in their jurisdictions (which primarily consists of winter plowing), but reconstruction, paving, bridge, and other major projects are still either fully done by or heavily coordinated with VTrans.
Furthermore, of the roughly 2,970 centerline miles of state/US/Interstate highway in Vermont, less than 12% (roughly 330 miles) has some sort of local maintenance, and much of this consists of inter-town routes that are along Class 2 Town Highways such as VT 35, VT 121, or VT 132.
To be honest I don't know why they couldn't of switched US 27 and US 127 around keeping the US 27 shield all the way to Grayling, Michigan and US 127 to Fort Wayne. The only thing would be US 27 goes into Indiana and ends in Fort Wayne and US 127 stays in Ohio until the Michigan border. I remember when they made this switch and people were still calling it US 27.
Going back to NY, OH, and VT: yes, the capital projects are still state-funded. I was referring more to the day-to-day maintenance. NYSDOT Region 11 does little more than let capital projects (NYCDOT does the day-to-day stuff). Of course, we could say that systems of county routes in several states (MI and MN are the main ones I can think of) have a similar or slightly-smaller amount of state input.
Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 03, 2018, 06:18:09 PM
All I can think of with Tennessee is getting rid of the confusing primary/secondary route designations. Delaware really doesn't need an overhaul.
Neither have had a mass renumbering, and neither really need it.
There is sort of a clustering of the secondary roads in each grand division but not really. There are a lot of the 100's in East Tennessee, 200's in Middle Tennessee, and 300's in West Tennessee but not really.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 13, 2018, 12:51:42 PM
To be honest I don't know why they couldn't of switched US 27 and US 127 around keeping the US 27 shield all the way to Grayling, Michigan and US 127 to Fort Wayne. The only thing would be US 27 goes into Indiana and ends in Fort Wayne and US 127 stays in Ohio until the Michigan border. I remember when they made this switch and people were still calling it US 27.
At what point to the south do you switch the route numbers? If US-27 goes straight south into Ohio and US-127 ends in northwest Indiana, then you have to flip-flop the route numbers going all the way down to Cincinnati. The most appropriate action would have been to label the highway going north out of Lansing as I-73 (even with the incomplete portion around St. Johns).
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 13, 2018, 12:51:42 PM
To be honest I don't know why they couldn't of switched US 27 and US 127 around keeping the US 27 shield all the way to Grayling, Michigan and US 127 to Fort Wayne. The only thing would be US 27 goes into Indiana and ends in Fort Wayne and US 127 stays in Ohio until the Michigan border. I remember when they made this switch and people were still calling it US 27.
It made perfect sense it eliminated the long duplex with I-69. I think they should also end US 52 in St Paul and have the North Dakota portion as an extension of US 10. That would eliminate the long duplex with I-94 it would also make sense becasue 52 is too high of a number for that far north. Also it would make US 10 longer which is rather short for a US highway ending in zero. Yes I know it once went all the way to Seattle.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 02, 2018, 06:15:55 PM
So... what was different then, that made renumberings in the olden days possible when they aren't now? Were they less expensive to implement (in relative terms)? Did states generally have more room in their budgets such that the cost was less of a big deal? Were people less averse to change?
Florida probably had it a bit easier in 1947; there were only 2.5 million residents (at the time, mostly in the Panhandle/northern tier of the state), no freeways/expressways, not as much US Route mileage, and signage seemed to be nowhere near as plentiful as it is today. I'm guessing that reassurance signage really wasn't a big deal then, just an SR sign or two at the intersection. The reasons for the overhaul must have been because old routes seemed to be discontinuously laid out, there was no even/odd structure, there were confusing spur/alternate routes...tourism started to take off in Florida after World War II, the powers-that-be probably desired some sort of standardized layout.
Maybe there were all sorts of budget imbalances for roads to places that didn't really exist (there were lots of these towards the late-1930s), or state monies towards roads that didn't seem to serve much of anything other than a few farmers; although to be fair, there were many swampy areas that probably needed some sort of basic connection between towns, so the highest land in the area would suffice. So a thorough re-working of the routes probably made a good deal of sense.
I'm not sure too much of this was designed around hurricane evacuation, although a lot more east-west routes were constructed or designated in the following years. Budgets started to swell because folks came from all over to see alligators, beaches, citrus fruit, grandparents, and later...Mickey Mouse.
Florida had the Big Downgrade of 1977-78, but that was done on the cheap. The 1981-83 re-numberings (mostly south of Lake Okeechobee) were seemingly unnecessary, but a few duplicate numbers were renumbered. I think today, it's possible to create near-immediate concerns and complaints via internet, so things like this don't seem as commonplace. There's also a certain lethargy in just leaving things alone that don't really need to be changed. Whereas forty years ago, it would have hardly made any press to announce a few signage changes (probably on page 8, on a slow news day).
If Florida tried a massive overhaul in 1990, when population was well over 12 million and growing, with growth being consistent, the tourism boom seemed to centralize on a few key areas, and generations of citizens starting to make roots all over the state, hold this probably wouldn't have been a good idea. I'm sure the various tourism committees, construction conglomerates, along with Disney and Publix, would voice their concerns to Tallahassee!
Quote from: dvferyance on February 13, 2018, 05:54:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 13, 2018, 12:51:42 PM
To be honest I don't know why they couldn't of switched US 27 and US 127 around keeping the US 27 shield all the way to Grayling, Michigan and US 127 to Fort Wayne. The only thing would be US 27 goes into Indiana and ends in Fort Wayne and US 127 stays in Ohio until the Michigan border. I remember when they made this switch and people were still calling it US 27.
It made perfect sense it eliminated the long duplex with I-69. I think they should also end US 52 in St Paul and have the North Dakota portion as an extension of US 10. That would eliminate the long duplex with I-94 it would also make sense becasue 52 is too high of a number for that far north. Also it would make US 10 longer which is rather short for a US highway ending in zero. Yes I know it once went all the way to Seattle.
It does seem strange to me that US 52 reaches the Canadian border. About 10 years ago I was driving on it between the Twin Cities and Rochester and was wondering why it was numbered 52 and not an odd number. Then I looked at it's routing and noticed it runs on an angle between South Carolina and North Dakota, strange routing if you ask me. I was on the other US highway that I've often wondered why it has that number (US 24 in Michigan) it runs north-south and is signed as such, but after entering Ohio it is an east-west route.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 14, 2018, 11:47:03 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 13, 2018, 05:54:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 13, 2018, 12:51:42 PM
To be honest I don't know why they couldn't of switched US 27 and US 127 around keeping the US 27 shield all the way to Grayling, Michigan and US 127 to Fort Wayne. The only thing would be US 27 goes into Indiana and ends in Fort Wayne and US 127 stays in Ohio until the Michigan border. I remember when they made this switch and people were still calling it US 27.
It made perfect sense it eliminated the long duplex with I-69. I think they should also end US 52 in St Paul and have the North Dakota portion as an extension of US 10. That would eliminate the long duplex with I-94 it would also make sense becasue 52 is too high of a number for that far north. Also it would make US 10 longer which is rather short for a US highway ending in zero. Yes I know it once went all the way to Seattle.
It does seem strange to me that US 52 reaches the Canadian border. About 10 years ago I was driving on it between the Twin Cities and Rochester and was wondering why it was numbered 52 and not an odd number. Then I looked at it's routing and noticed it runs on an angle between South Carolina and North Dakota, strange routing if you ask me. I was on the other US highway that I've often wondered why it has that number (US 24 in Michigan) it runs north-south and is signed as such, but after entering Ohio it is an east-west route.
What about US 62? It's the same situation as US 52, but with the other diagonal.
Quote from: 1 on February 14, 2018, 11:48:50 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 14, 2018, 11:47:03 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 13, 2018, 05:54:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 13, 2018, 12:51:42 PM
To be honest I don't know why they couldn't of switched US 27 and US 127 around keeping the US 27 shield all the way to Grayling, Michigan and US 127 to Fort Wayne. The only thing would be US 27 goes into Indiana and ends in Fort Wayne and US 127 stays in Ohio until the Michigan border. I remember when they made this switch and people were still calling it US 27.
It made perfect sense it eliminated the long duplex with I-69. I think they should also end US 52 in St Paul and have the North Dakota portion as an extension of US 10. That would eliminate the long duplex with I-94 it would also make sense becasue 52 is too high of a number for that far north. Also it would make US 10 longer which is rather short for a US highway ending in zero. Yes I know it once went all the way to Seattle.
It does seem strange to me that US 52 reaches the Canadian border. About 10 years ago I was driving on it between the Twin Cities and Rochester and was wondering why it was numbered 52 and not an odd number. Then I looked at it's routing and noticed it runs on an angle between South Carolina and North Dakota, strange routing if you ask me. I was on the other US highway that I've often wondered why it has that number (US 24 in Michigan) it runs north-south and is signed as such, but after entering Ohio it is an east-west route.
What about US 62? It's the same situation as US 52, but with the other diagonal.
US 62 is the same way but it goes the other direction. Ending US 52 at St. Paul and running US 10 west of Fargo makes sense. All US 52 does between St. Paul and Fargo is runs multiplexed with I-94, actually it goes farther west than Fargo but Fargo is where US 10 ends. US 52 stays multiplexed with I-94 until Jamestown, that's almost a 350 mile multiplex. I just don't know what you'd do with the 260 miles between Jamestown and the Canadian border.
Quote from: formulanone on February 13, 2018, 09:41:22 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 02, 2018, 06:15:55 PM
So... what was different then, that made renumberings in the olden days possible when they aren't now? Were they less expensive to implement (in relative terms)? Did states generally have more room in their budgets such that the cost was less of a big deal? Were people less averse to change?
Florida probably had it a bit easier in 1947; there were only 2.5 million residents (at the time, mostly in the Panhandle/northern tier of the state), no freeways/expressways, not as much US Route mileage, and signage seemed to be nowhere near as plentiful as it is today. I'm guessing that reassurance signage really wasn't a big deal then, just an SR sign or two at the intersection. The reasons for the overhaul must have been because old routes seemed to be discontinuously laid out, there was no even/odd structure, there were confusing spur/alternate routes...tourism started to take off in Florida after World War II, the powers-that-be probably desired some sort of standardized layout.
Maybe there were all sorts of budget imbalances for roads to places that didn't really exist (there were lots of these towards the late-1930s), or state monies towards roads that didn't seem to serve much of anything other than a few farmers; although to be fair, there were many swampy areas that probably needed some sort of basic connection between towns, so the highest land in the area would suffice. So a thorough re-working of the routes probably made a good deal of sense.
I'm not sure too much of this was designed around hurricane evacuation, although a lot more east-west routes were constructed or designated in the following years. Budgets started to swell because folks came from all over to see alligators, beaches, citrus fruit, grandparents, and later...Mickey Mouse.
Florida had the Big Downgrade of 1977-78, but that was done on the cheap. The 1981-83 re-numberings (mostly south of Lake Okeechobee) were seemingly unnecessary, but a few duplicate numbers were renumbered. I think today, it's possible to create near-immediate concerns and complaints via internet, so things like this don't seem as commonplace. There's also a certain lethargy in just leaving things alone that don't really need to be changed. Whereas forty years ago, it would have hardly made any press to announce a few signage changes (probably on page 8, on a slow news day).
If Florida tried a massive overhaul in 1990, when population was well over 12 million and growing, with growth being consistent, the tourism boom seemed to centralize on a few key areas, and generations of citizens starting to make roots all over the state, hold this probably wouldn't have been a good idea. I'm sure the various tourism committees, construction conglomerates, along with Disney and Publix, would voice their concerns to Tallahassee!
What were the renumberings? Of the top of my head I know of SR 82 to SR 736. I think some of the Dade County routes were renumbered to 900 series from 800 series numbers.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 14, 2018, 01:12:50 PM
What were the renumberings? Of the top of my head I know of SR 82 to SR 736. I think some of the Dade County routes were renumbered to 900 series from 800 series numbers.
Mostly Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, Lee, and Collier counties. Seems a lot of downgrades to the southwest freed up some numbers to be used in Broward and Dade County, while a bunch of South Dade route numbers disappeared.
Frankly, that's not all that unusual in the past few decades...there's still newly-minted state roads that appear and suddenly disappear from the FDOT route logs a few years later.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 14, 2018, 11:58:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 14, 2018, 11:48:50 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 14, 2018, 11:47:03 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 13, 2018, 05:54:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 13, 2018, 12:51:42 PM
To be honest I don't know why they couldn't of switched US 27 and US 127 around keeping the US 27 shield all the way to Grayling, Michigan and US 127 to Fort Wayne. The only thing would be US 27 goes into Indiana and ends in Fort Wayne and US 127 stays in Ohio until the Michigan border. I remember when they made this switch and people were still calling it US 27.
It made perfect sense it eliminated the long duplex with I-69. I think they should also end US 52 in St Paul and have the North Dakota portion as an extension of US 10. That would eliminate the long duplex with I-94 it would also make sense becasue 52 is too high of a number for that far north. Also it would make US 10 longer which is rather short for a US highway ending in zero. Yes I know it once went all the way to Seattle.
It does seem strange to me that US 52 reaches the Canadian border. About 10 years ago I was driving on it between the Twin Cities and Rochester and was wondering why it was numbered 52 and not an odd number. Then I looked at it's routing and noticed it runs on an angle between South Carolina and North Dakota, strange routing if you ask me. I was on the other US highway that I've often wondered why it has that number (US 24 in Michigan) it runs north-south and is signed as such, but after entering Ohio it is an east-west route.
What about US 62? It's the same situation as US 52, but with the other diagonal.
US 62 is the same way but it goes the other direction. Ending US 52 at St. Paul and running US 10 west of Fargo makes sense. All US 52 does between St. Paul and Fargo is runs multiplexed with I-94, actually it goes farther west than Fargo but Fargo is where US 10 ends. US 52 stays multiplexed with I-94 until Jamestown, that's almost a 350 mile multiplex. I just don't know what you'd do with the 260 miles between Jamestown and the Canadian border.
The Jamestown to Minot portion becomes and extension of US 10. The rest gets downgraded to a state highway since it's more minor.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 14, 2018, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 14, 2018, 11:58:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 14, 2018, 11:48:50 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 14, 2018, 11:47:03 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 13, 2018, 05:54:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 13, 2018, 12:51:42 PM
To be honest I don't know why they couldn't of switched US 27 and US 127 around keeping the US 27 shield all the way to Grayling, Michigan and US 127 to Fort Wayne. The only thing would be US 27 goes into Indiana and ends in Fort Wayne and US 127 stays in Ohio until the Michigan border. I remember when they made this switch and people were still calling it US 27.
It made perfect sense it eliminated the long duplex with I-69. I think they should also end US 52 in St Paul and have the North Dakota portion as an extension of US 10. That would eliminate the long duplex with I-94 it would also make sense becasue 52 is too high of a number for that far north. Also it would make US 10 longer which is rather short for a US highway ending in zero. Yes I know it once went all the way to Seattle.
It does seem strange to me that US 52 reaches the Canadian border. About 10 years ago I was driving on it between the Twin Cities and Rochester and was wondering why it was numbered 52 and not an odd number. Then I looked at it's routing and noticed it runs on an angle between South Carolina and North Dakota, strange routing if you ask me. I was on the other US highway that I've often wondered why it has that number (US 24 in Michigan) it runs north-south and is signed as such, but after entering Ohio it is an east-west route.
What about US 62? It's the same situation as US 52, but with the other diagonal.
US 62 is the same way but it goes the other direction. Ending US 52 at St. Paul and running US 10 west of Fargo makes sense. All US 52 does between St. Paul and Fargo is runs multiplexed with I-94, actually it goes farther west than Fargo but Fargo is where US 10 ends. US 52 stays multiplexed with I-94 until Jamestown, that's almost a 350 mile multiplex. I just don't know what you'd do with the 260 miles between Jamestown and the Canadian border.
The Jamestown to Minot portion becomes and extension of US 10. The rest gets downgraded to a state highway since it's more minor.
So in that case US 10 would end at US 2 I'm assuming. I just don't care for US 52's terminus up there in between US 83 and US 85.