To Renumber or Not, That is the Question

[HighwayStar]

Renumbering has become a VERY hot topic on some threads the last few days, and failing to find a thread that dealt with the principle of the matter I am creating this one to allow the crew to get their feelings on the issue out there.

Personally, I am a proponent of it. I am a firm believer that numbering systems should be logical, informative, and provide a backup system for navigation even in our digital obsessed world.
Sure there are some short term costs, confusion, etc. but I don't see these one time issues as serious barriers to fixing the system.
California of course renumbered their highways in the 60's, just for one example.

On some level I feel like the entire enlargement mirrors the debate over going to the metric system, with similar objections and proposals from both sides. But I digress.

So is renumbering a good idea? Or leave it as is?

[kphoger]

My opinions can be summarized thusly:

In keeping with my dislike of parent/child numbering relationships, I propose we randomize the highway numbers.  Few people besides roadgeeks know about numbering grids; even fewer actually care.  And there is an insane number of unused designations out there.

Using a random sequence generator to build a pool of numbers from 1 to 999, I came up with the following.  I probably left a few out by mistake, and I included some that aren't quite "official" yet.



(By the way, this took waaaaaay too long!)

PS     Any system is better than one where there are eight separate routes numbered 295.

If I could go back in time (and somehow had the power to make this kind of decision), I would nix the idea of having any sort of E-W or N-S numbering scheme for highways.  None of this "running out" of numbers nonsense, no need for bypasses or spurs to somehow resemble a supposed parent's number, no roadgeek fights over numbers like 99 or 101 or 238 or 400, no quibbles about whether a diagonal route should get an even or an odd number.  Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.  By my count, we wouldn't even be a third of the way to "running out" of Interstate highway numbers.

I prefer random route numbers over any organized system, because organized systems invariable fall apart at some point.

[HighwayStar]

Few people besides roadgeeks know about numbering grids; even fewer actually care

That can and should be fixed.

Drivers education should include a comprehensive unit on roadway design and navigation, and the exam should cover the same. And the exam should be mandatory with every renewal.
Even if the numbering scheme is not critical under normal circumstances, it still provides a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios.

[GaryV]

Even if the numbering scheme is not critical under normal circumstances, it still provides a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios.

Can you provide one example?  Just 1.  Where the current highway number does not provide "a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios" but a renumbered highway system (presumably in a perfect grid) would provide it.

[Angelo71]

RENUMBER.

[kphoger]

Few people besides roadgeeks know about numbering grids; even fewer actually care

That can and should be fixed.

Drivers education should include a comprehensive unit on roadway design and navigation, and the exam should cover the same. And the exam should be mandatory with every renewal.
Even if the numbering scheme is not critical under normal circumstances, it still provides a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios.

So....   you would prefer that people be more confused than they currently are, just so you could have better grounds for renumbering.  This is ridiculous logic.

1.  People neither know about the current numbering system nor care about it.
2.  Therefore, people are not confused by numbers that violate the current numbering system.
3.  People should be forced to learn the current numbering system.
4.  Then people would be more confused by numbers that violate the current numbering system.
5.  Because the current numbering system would then be more confusing, it should be renumbered.
6.  After that, and after the initial widespread confusion due to mass renumberings subsides, people would be less confused.

Except we left out Part 3b, which is that, after having been forced to learn the current numbering system, people still wouldn't care about it.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Renumber I-5, I-10, I-90, and I-95 into I-1000, a super beltway.

[jmacswimmer]

Renumber I-5, I-10, I-90, and I-95 into I-1000, a super beltway.

I-1000 will be routed over the hypotenuse in Chicago, I presume?

[kphoger]

For those new to the conversation, or who lost track during the other threads, here is a recap:

–  Our highway system needs to be renumbered.
–  Why?  People aren't confused by what we have.
–  That's just because people don't understand the system.
–  Correct.  They don't, nor do they care.  Therefore, they aren't confused.
–  They should.
–  Why?  So they'd be more confused?  How would that be better?
–  Because then they'd be more knowledgeable drivers, which might come in handy sometime.
–  But, as I said, they don't care.
–  They should.
–  But they don't.
–  But they should.
–  But they don't.
–  But they should.
–  But what we have now isn't causing any actual problems.  You know, in real life.
–  That's just because people don't understand the system.
–  Correct.  They don't, nor do they care.  Therefore, they aren't confused.
–  They should.

[SEWIGuy]

Few people besides roadgeeks know about numbering grids; even fewer actually care

That can and should be fixed.

Drivers education should include a comprehensive unit on roadway design and navigation, and the exam should cover the same. And the exam should be mandatory with every renewal.
Even if the numbering scheme is not critical under normal circumstances, it still provides a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios.

So....   you would prefer that people be more confused than they currently are, just so you could have better grounds for renumbering.  This is ridiculous logic.

1.  People neither know about the current numbering system nor care about it.
2.  Therefore, people are not confused by numbers that violate the current numbering system.
3.  People should be forced to learn the current numbering system.
4.  Then people would be more confused by numbers that violate the current numbering system.
5.  Because the current numbering system would then be more confusing, it should be renumbered.
6.  After that, and after the initial widespread confusion due to mass renumberings subsides, people would be less confused.

Except we left out Part 3b, which is that, after having been forced to learn the current numbering system, people still wouldn't care about it.

Exactly on the bolded.  The grid doesn't impact people's lives in any meaningful way.  Renumbering to a strict grid doesn't change that.  And teaching them about the grid doesn't change that. 

This entire topic is about HighwayStar's OCD.

[SEWIGuy]

For those new to the conversation, or who lost track during the other threads, here is a recap:

–  Our highway system needs to be renumbered.
–  Why?  People aren't confused by what we have.
–  That's just because people don't understand the system.
–  Correct.  They don't, nor do they care.  Therefore, they aren't confused.
–  They should.
–  Why?  So they'd be more confused?  How would that be better?
–  Because then they'd be more knowledgeable drivers, which might come in handy sometime.
–  But, as I said, they don't care.
–  They should.
–  But they don't.
–  But they should.
–  But they don't.
–  But they should.
–  But what we have now isn't causing any actual problems.  You know, in real life.
–  That's just because people don't understand the system.
–  Correct.  They don't, nor do they care.  Therefore, they aren't confused.
–  They should.

HighwayStar wants us all to have advanced degrees in electrical engineering so we know how electricity works.

[GaryV]

No, we don't need an EE degree so we know how electricity works.  We need it so we know how to plug in the toaster in the morning.  (Ooo, is that an analogy?)

[Ned Weasel]

Personally, I am a proponent of it. I am a firm believer that numbering systems should be logical, informative, and provide a backup system for navigation even in our digital obsessed world.
Sure there are some short term costs, confusion, etc. but I don't see these one time issues as serious barriers to fixing the system.

As much as I sympathize with the idealism of a logical numbering system, I can't help but cast a skeptical glance on its practicality in the real world.  Is your proposal really a one-time deal?  I ask this because, no matter how rigid one makes a numbering system, there will almost certainly be a case that doesn't neatly fit the pattern.  I-99 happened in part because I-79 and I-81 were already taken, and it's debatable as to whether the route would have been better off as a 3DI.  US 101 was never a child of US 1 in this universe.  Texas probably had some reason for really strongly wanting to bring back suffixed Interstates.

So, when you fix all the flaws in the current system, what do you do once a new flaw or inconsistency is eventually introduced?  Fix it all over again?  It's bound to happen, because any system like this ends up being the work of more than just one master designer.  You might say, "Yes, fix it again," but it's not unreasonable to argue that the system is "good enough" and an endless series of overhauls is just a frivolous case of people making work for themselves and having resources wasted in the process.

California of course renumbered their highways in the 60's, just for one example.

Okay, and then what?  Did they keep renumbering them over and over again?  The Renumbering Zealouts have probably been drooling over I-238 for decades now.  When is the state gonna let them sink their teeth into that one?

On some level I feel like the entire enlargement mirrors the debate over going to the metric system, with similar objections and proposals from both sides. But I digress.

Different concept.  Converting to the metric system would be largely for the sake of being consistent with all but two other countries on the planet.  There is no planet-wide numbering system that the U.S. has any reason to try to align itself with.  (Should there be???)

So is renumbering a good idea? Or leave it as is?

On a large scale, I'm not with it, and for the most part, I'd leave it as it is, despite how much some of it annoys me.

[JoePCool14]

Renumber I-5, I-10, I-90, and I-95 into I-1000, a super beltway.

I-1000 will be routed over the hypotenuse in Chicago, I presume?

No, but it will be routed through Breezewood.

[kphoger]

No, we don't need an EE degree so we know how electricity works.  We need it so we know how to plug in the toaster in the morning.  (Ooo, is that an analogy?)

No, we need an EE degree so, when the outlet the microwave is plugged into doesn't work, we know how to use the toaster oven instead.

[Angelo71]

Just use my map and everything will be amazing!

[jmacswimmer]

No, we don't need an EE degree so we know how electricity works.  We need it so we know how to plug in the toaster in the morning.  (Ooo, is that an analogy?)

No, we need an EE degree so, when the outlet the microwave is plugged into doesn't work, we know how to use the toaster oven instead.

An EE degree is also helpful for when your laptop is acting up, so you know how to turn it off & turn it back on again.

[Scott5114]

I have yet to hear anyone present a convincing argument for why any highway should be renumbered at all–with the exception of one-off cases like two different same-numbered highways intersecting.

You could make the case that a number of Oklahoma highways could and should be renumbered to bring them into or out of the lettered-spur system. For instance, it might be better for SH-42 to be renumbered to SH-152A, as the residents of Dill City don't probably particularly need the number to find their way into town, and it's more there to ensure that the main road into town is well-maintained. That would mean the number 42 could be used for a road that's more important. The benefit here would be to clean up the system and make the basic rule "highways with letter suffixes are less important and those without are more important" more consistent.

Something like "SH-152 should be renumbered back to SH-41 because I think it is important enough that it deserves a two-digit/lower number" are silly, though.

[Roadgeekteen]

Under certain circumstances:

If a road is getting an Interstate upgrade
If it helps alleviate confusion in any way
Otherwise, I would keep it the same

[HighwayStar]

Personally, I am a proponent of it. I am a firm believer that numbering systems should be logical, informative, and provide a backup system for navigation even in our digital obsessed world.
Sure there are some short term costs, confusion, etc. but I don't see these one time issues as serious barriers to fixing the system.

As much as I sympathize with the idealism of a logical numbering system, I can't help but cast a skeptical glance on its practicality in the real world.  Is your proposal really a one-time deal?  I ask this because, no matter how rigid one makes a numbering system, there will almost certainly be a case that doesn't neatly fit the pattern.  I-99 happened in part because I-79 and I-81 were already taken, and it's debatable as to whether the route would have been better off as a 3DI.  US 101 was never a child of US 1 in this universe.  Texas probably had some reason for really strongly wanting to bring back suffixed Interstates.

So, when you fix all the flaws in the current system, what do you do once a new flaw or inconsistency is eventually introduced?  Fix it all over again?  It's bound to happen, because any system like this ends up being the work of more than just one master designer.  You might say, "Yes, fix it again," but it's not unreasonable to argue that the system is "good enough" and an endless series of overhauls is just a frivolous case of people making work for themselves and having resources wasted in the process.

California of course renumbered their highways in the 60's, just for one example.

Okay, and then what?  Did they keep renumbering them over and over again?  The Renumbering Zealouts have probably been drooling over I-238 for decades now.  When is the state gonna let them sink their teeth into that one?

On some level I feel like the entire enlargement mirrors the debate over going to the metric system, with similar objections and proposals from both sides. But I digress.

Different concept.  Converting to the metric system would be largely for the sake of being consistent with all but two other countries on the planet.  There is no planet-wide numbering system that the U.S. has any reason to try to align itself with.  (Should there be???)

So is renumbering a good idea? Or leave it as is?

On a large scale, I'm not with it, and for the most part, I'd leave it as it is, despite how much some of it annoys me.

There was a question about the "it will break again" issue in another thread, but my response is basically that in renumbering you distribute gaps for future roads where possible (akin to how Basic is coded with line numbers by 10), can use 3 digit or special route numbers in many cases, may actually transfer a number because another road is being replaced, or can use a state designation if all else fails.

In practical terms, with as slow as the US is to build roads, I think a well implemented renumbering of the US Highway system could last a century or more. The next 100 years will see only a minute fraction of the construction of the last 100, so past experience is not the best guiding principle here. The main point is to come up with a compliant numbering each time rather than let the problem compound itself and become enormous.

As to California, that is simply an example for those that might not be familiar. Again, I find the argument that "it will break anyway" unconvincing with the rate of new construction.

Actually the comparison to the metric system is not that different.
being consistent with all but two other countries on the planet why does this matter in the age of the internet, the smartphone, etc. You don't need to be consistent with other countries, I have seen a number of sites with international users where everything is converted to display correctly in your countries system. So why align them if most people no longer encounter the issue? Not actually advocating anything either way here, just illustrating the similarity I see.

My basic argument is a one time "fix" of the system is likely to last a very long time now that it is mostly built, so if it annoys you why not just get it over with and solve the problem.

(For the fictional side of the question I have a thread on a comprehensive renumbering plan for US Highways over in Fictional)

[sparker]

Just use my map and everything will be amazing!

Wow! -- someone's even more northeast-heavy than Tom MacDonald and his associates in the '40's, when the basic system finalized in 1956-58 was being formulated.  The "rust belt" phenomenon that emerged in the '60's had yet to be recognized ten years previously, so an assumption that the economic primacy in the NE quadrant of the nation would continue held sway.  So that portion of the country, by current standards, is overbuilt compared with the remainder, where economic growth is still occurring (hence the presence of such "aftermarket" Interstates as I-49, I-22, the I-69 southern extension, etc.). 

[Roadgeekteen]

Just use my map and everything will be amazing!

Wow! -- someone's even more northeast-heavy than Tom MacDonald and his associates in the '40's, when the basic system finalized in 1956-58 was being formulated.  The "rust belt" phenomenon that emerged in the '60's had yet to be recognized ten years previously, so an assumption that the economic primacy in the NE quadrant of the nation would continue held sway.  So that portion of the country, by current standards, is overbuilt compared with the remainder, where economic growth is still occurring (hence the presence of such "aftermarket" Interstates as I-49, I-22, the I-69 southern extension, etc.).

This is Virginia heavy. I don't think that he likes the rust belt, especially a certain city...

[Rothman]

This thread should be in Fictional.

[Scott5114]

There was a question about the "it will break again" issue in another thread, but my response is basically that in renumbering you distribute gaps for future roads where possible (akin to how Basic is coded with line numbers by 10)

Geez, if you're citing BASIC in your design spec, there is something seriously wrong with the fundamental premise.

[Dirt Roads]

This thread should be in Fictional.

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Fictional is probably the official position of NYSDOT as well.

On a non-Fictional note, my favorite rant is about the non-connectivity of the numbering system.  We have many limited-access freeways deserving of a NHS number, and also have many partially-limited access highways that deserve a U.S. route number.  We also have too many continuous through routes (or nearly so) that are overlapped with a bunch of U.S. route numbers, but are deserving of a single route number.  But I also think (belongs in Fictional here) that there should be a third NHS numbering system (or lettering system like the Appalachian Highway Corridor System) that is entirely limited-access and partially-limited access corridors, with certain provisions for future connectivity.