California highways with most concurrencies

[dbz77]

But that of course doesn't mean that the concurrency itself doesn't exist per se, just that it isn't codified in the route definitions.

I suspect this was done to simplify route logs (especially in the context of bridges and underpasses and tunnels.)

[Max Rockatansky]

But that of course doesn't mean that the concurrency itself doesn't exist per se, just that it isn't codified in the route definitions.

I suspect this was done to simplify route logs (especially in the context of bridges and underpasses and tunnels.)

True, but it ultimately made the process of signing Highways much more ridged and bound to the whims of the Legislature. 

[sparker]

That old ultra-long US 6/395 concurrency was typical of pre-renumbering Division of Highways practice; US 70/99 (with the occasional presence of US 60) from L.A. to Indio was one of the longest out there; the 60/70 concurrence east of there to the AZ line (and beyond all the way to Globe, AZ) was one of the longest in the nation if not the single longest.  And don't forget about US 91/466 from north Barstow to the NV state line and on to Las Vegas!  And the US 50/99 concurrency between Stockton and Sacramento was short compared to those in the southern half of the state.  Western topology -- and CA's in particular, rendered those concurrencies necessary if route continuity was to be achieved; in the heyday of the US highway system (pre-Interstate, of course) lengthy concurrencies out West were S.O.P. (just look at the trio of US 20/26/30 and how often they concurred between eastern Wyoming and Oregon!).

At least in CA the Division of Highways had LRN's -- completely separate from field-signed numbers -- as references for funding, maintenance, and the like; concurrencies were of little consequence prior to the '60's.

[TheStranger]

But that of course doesn't mean that the concurrency itself doesn't exist per se, just that it isn't codified in the route definitions.

I suspect this was done to simplify route logs (especially in the context of bridges and underpasses and tunnels.)

True, but it ultimately made the process of signing Highways much more ridged and bound to the whims of the Legislature. 

The original 1964-1980s route definitions were extremely simple (i.e. identification of end points and maybe some major cities reached along the way) though not sure if they offered much flexibility for CalTrans in the field.  Certainly when Route 82 was rerouted in Santa Clara to bypass an older segment of The Alameda ca. 1968, no route definition changes had to occur for that to happen.

But in the age of reliniquishment...things start to get a little bit hyper-detailed (and IMO not for the better).