Back in the day as states were developing their state highway systems, some states performed massive renumbering of their state highways to eliminate duplications with US/Interstate numbers, suffixes, prefixes, etc. Probably the most covered at least roadgeek-wise would be New Jersey's 1927 and 1953 renumberings, though other states have done so like Ohio, Iowa, and Utah.
In these modern times, do you think we'd ever see mass renumberings like that again? There's business owners who create a big hoopla if say the highway exit near where they are located is renumbered for whatever reason. They might cite driver confusion as a reason why they might not patronize their business. When other exits are changed, or roads are renumbered or downgraded, the old signs might be left up with a new "OLD/FORMER" banner added, or a whole new sign might be placed with the former designation. States might not want to deal with the costs of adding such signs and replacement of old ones. We'd also have to deal with various GPS / map apps that would need to be updated. Thoughts?
I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?). So renumbering roads would be done for inventory purposes, which isn't worth the disruption and could be handled by an internal numbering system like Oregon's, if it were necessary.
Let's not make this motel owner go through this twice. The add-on "1"s are finally arriving this week!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.171265,-74.0672602,3a,75y,130.15h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpGtdGXsEVTm7UWRvIfrMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.171265,-74.0672602,3a,75y,130.15h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpGtdGXsEVTm7UWRvIfrMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
I could see a body like the Forest Service overhauling their road numbering system way before any states would. At least there one could make a reasonable argument that navigational aid is needed and the current signage standards need upgrading. Across the board I don't see the general public using numbers for navigation to any extent like they used to. I would find it hard to believe that any legislative body can realistically justify the cost/benefits of a large scale Renumbering.
The only way I can see it happening (especially in the northeast) is if a bunch of state DOT's get together to coordinate on it, and create more MSR's. For more on some of my ideas for CT, which would include some coordination with MA, NY, and RI, read this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18689.0
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 02, 2020, 07:57:46 PM
I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).
Disagree with your latter point. Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing. Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.
I can easily see renumbering route inventory numbers that don't affect signage in the field. For example, if a highway is signed as "SR 84" in the field but listed as "Route 323" in the inventory, I don't think there'd be any problem renumbering the inventory file. What states do this sort of thing?
Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 02, 2020, 07:57:46 PM
I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).
Disagree with your latter point. Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing. Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.
Renumbering MAY benefit those just passing through the area - at a cost of ruining local
Quotenavigation, location placement, and business marketing
I don't think similar concerns stopped exit renumbering requirements, so really this would not be a factor for road renumbering as well.
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 10:39:34 AM
I can easily see renumbering route inventory numbers that don't affect signage in the field. For example, if a highway is signed as "SR 84" in the field but listed as "Route 323" in the inventory, I don't think there'd be any problem renumbering the inventory file. What states do this sort of thing?
Tennessee, as it pertains to US highways. Each US route not concurrent with an Interstate has a hidden and usually unsigned state route. Most times, the only evidence of it is on the mile markers, which have the state route number indicated instead of the signed US route number. I've even seen public communications from TDOT (press releases and social media posts) that will refer to the hidden state route number and not the posted US route number.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 02, 2020, 08:09:55 PM
Let's not make this motel owner go through this twice. The add-on "1"s are finally arriving this week!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.171265,-74.0672602,3a,75y,130.15h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpGtdGXsEVTm7UWRvIfrMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.171265,-74.0672602,3a,75y,130.15h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpGtdGXsEVTm7UWRvIfrMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
He could take the extra "1"s from these signs, especially now that the place apparently is permanently closed.
(On US-12 in Wayne MI, which used to be US-112.)
https://goo.gl/maps/ZrzS7qv9S8t39pwf8
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 10:39:34 AM
I can easily see renumbering route inventory numbers that don't affect signage in the field. For example, if a highway is signed as "SR 84" in the field but listed as "Route 323" in the inventory, I don't think there'd be any problem renumbering the inventory file. What states do this sort of thing?
California does that occasionally with the current example of CA 51 being signed as I-80 Business. That's how the state got away with signing I-15E since it was legislatively CA 194.
Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 02, 2020, 07:57:46 PM
I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).
Disagree with your latter point. Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing. Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.
That's not exactly the point I was making. Very rarely does anyone make use of–or even know–system-level information like "I-95's number implies it is generally to the east of I-85" or "Interstates ending in 5 or 0 are more major than others" that would make a mass renumbering attractive. On the other hand, they
do use individual route numbers for navigation, which a mass renumbering would make more difficult.
If an orderly system made navigation easier as a whole, then it would make sense to do so because the long-term gains would overcome the short-term pain of renumbering. But given that Arkansas manages to survive with however many copies of AR 74 they're up to now...
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 03, 2020, 12:40:13 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 02, 2020, 08:09:55 PM
Let's not make this motel owner go through this twice. The add-on "1"s are finally arriving this week!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.171265,-74.0672602,3a,75y,130.15h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpGtdGXsEVTm7UWRvIfrMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.171265,-74.0672602,3a,75y,130.15h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpGtdGXsEVTm7UWRvIfrMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
He could take the extra "1"s from these signs, especially now that the place apparently is permanently closed.
(On US-12 in Wayne MI, which used to be US-112.)
https://goo.gl/maps/ZrzS7qv9S8t39pwf8
If they did that, would I have to change my avatar? (heh heh)
To answer the original question, I doubt it. At this point, I can see the occasional renumbering here and there, but that's it.
When did we last have one? Numbers are pretty ingrained into our memory now.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 07:28:25 PM
When did we last have one? Numbers are pretty ingrained into our memory now.
California in 1964, Connecticut in 1963.
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2020, 07:34:55 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 07:28:25 PM
When did we last have one? Numbers are pretty ingrained into our memory now.
California in 1964, Connecticut in 1963.
Nevada during 1976 which was probably one of the most needed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2020, 08:16:25 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2020, 07:34:55 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 07:28:25 PM
When did we last have one? Numbers are pretty ingrained into our memory now.
California in 1964, Connecticut in 1963.
Nevada during 1976 which was probably one of the most needed.
Hawaii's last significant renumberings were in 1968. That was not nearly as significant as the comprehensive route numbering in the mid-1950s (a few years before statehood) that gave the future state its first permanent, signed route number system.
I believe Minnesota's last major one was 1933 when the first round of legislative routes were added. The original constitutional route system was relegated to being unsigned if it overlapped with US routes (they had been signed as duplexes the first few years), and some of those newly unsigned numbers were then reassigned to other roads.
Would be good for us, but for non road enthusiasts not so much. The GPS ruined the number verses map thing nowadays, plus people do not even look at the signs to see they are on a toll road, as many come to Florida and then have a fit when the GPS takes them there.
I worked at the Beachline West, and when you ask a driver why he ignored the sign he would tell you this: " I do not know the other roads, so I have to follow the GPS" as if it were the only way around and that they know now a ticket citation is no longer like it used to be.
This is not only the millenials either as many baby boomers also forgot that they got around before the GPS also.
I could see Iowa doing so as they have only a little over 100 different numbers used, but they use numbers in the 400's. Iowa also could tidy some things up. Of course, I can't say whether it would go over with the general public.
Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 02, 2020, 07:57:46 PM
I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).
Disagree with your latter point. Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing. Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.
All you have to do is look at all the people that call US-95 I-95 to realize that a number is just a number.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2020, 07:40:36 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 02, 2020, 07:57:46 PM
I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).
Disagree with your latter point. Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing. Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.
All you have to do is look at all the people that call US-95 I-95 to realize that a number is just a number.
I heard people calling NY-85 "I-85" because, apparently, they were driving on a few northern miles of it, towards I-90 only, where NY-85 is actually a divided highway
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2020, 12:22:10 PM
Quotenavigation, location placement, and business marketing
I don't think similar concerns stopped exit renumbering requirements, so really this would not be a factor for road renumbering as well.
*laughs in Massachusetts*
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 04, 2020, 08:49:28 AM
Quote from: kalvado on June 03, 2020, 12:22:10 PM
Quotenavigation, location placement, and business marketing
I don't think similar concerns stopped exit renumbering requirements, so really this would not be a factor for road renumbering as well.
*laughs in Massachusetts*
Please note, I didn't say "stopped renumbering", i deliberately said " stopped exit renumbering
requirements"
*giggles in NY*
Illinois has a gradual, ongoing change to its internal numbering system. As new routes are added to the system, they do not receive an SBI number; as a segment of an existing route is transferred to local agency jurisdiction, the SBI designation is permanently removed.
Are FAP and FAS numbers still used in any context in Illinois? I'm still a little fuzzy on that.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 07:28:25 PM
When did we last have one? Numbers are pretty ingrained into our memory now.
In Spain pretty much every road that is not a National highway has been renumbered since the late 80s :sombrero:, as the various regional networks were formed. Previously there was a country-wide, three-layer numbering system, of which only the National highways survive. If anyone is interested on this, I can open a thread over at International Highways.
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2020, 07:34:55 PM
California in 1964.
Known by me as "The Purge", as they removed many US Routes.
Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 11:04:42 AM
Are FAP and FAS numbers still used in any context in Illinois? I'm still a little fuzzy on that.
They are still listed in bid plans for project let by IDOT.
Extremely unlikely in CA due to official apathy regarding route continuity and/or signage. Playing devils' advocate here, Caltrans does have a lot on its plate at present, not all of which are its own doing. HSR, shepherding local projects, commute rail/Amtrak California and transit issues up the wazoo! Worrying about highway minutiae -- even though that's what they did for the first 70 years of their existence -- seems to play second fiddle to juggling input from folks who by all rights shouldn't be addressing roadway issues.
The only thing they never seem to tire of these days is deploying roundabouts! :eyebrow:
Quote from: sparker on June 06, 2020, 01:58:37 AM
Extremely unlikely in CA due to official apathy regarding route continuity and/or signage. Playing devils' advocate here, Caltrans does have a lot on its plate at present, not all of which are its own doing. HSR, shepherding local projects, commute rail/Amtrak California and transit issues up the wazoo! Worrying about highway minutiae -- even though that's what they did for the first 70 years of their existence -- seems to play second fiddle to juggling input from folks who by all rights shouldn't be addressing roadway issues.
The only thing they never seem to tire of these days is deploying roundabouts! :eyebrow:
It's almost as though consolidating every state branch into one transportation body just created one tired agency that gets pushed around way more than it's predecessor. The legislature essentially has full control over what Caltrans does and doesn't do. In some cases like CA 51 the legislature even decided on what the highway will actually be signed in field. Mass transit has been a hot topic in California for decades but the roadways and signage really have on the whole fallen way behind the times. Interestingly even though the gas taxes are high in California the amount of revenue generated is in peril due to things like better fuel efficiency and alternate fuel sources. Things like SB1 (Which largely guaranteed a large amount of road funding) and the weather related infrastructure problems of 2017 helped but it won't fix decades of state level apathy towards road. Given all that the chances of another Renumbering essentially are about zero.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 02, 2020, 05:52:51 PM
In these modern times, do you think we'd ever see mass renumberings like that again?
Absolutely not. Even in days when the state DOT budgets are not under the severe pressure that they are right now, this involves a large amount of money that the DOTs do not have, and I cannot think of even one state legislature that would appropriate money for something like this.
Especially in states like Virginia and West Virginia, where most secondary highways and roads are state-maintained too - making a project like this an order of magnitude more expensive.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 06, 2020, 03:05:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 02, 2020, 05:52:51 PM
In these modern times, do you think we'd ever see mass renumberings like that again?
Absolutely not. Even in days when the state DOT budgets are not under the severe pressure that they are right now, this involves a large amount of money that the DOTs do not have, and I cannot think of even one state legislature that would appropriate money for something like this.
Especially in states like Virginia and West Virginia, where most secondary highways and roads are state-maintained too - making a project like this an order of magnitude more expensive.
If I were to ever win a $250M+ lottery prize, I'd offer to pay INDOT the entire cost of re-signing if they adopt my plan.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 02, 2020, 05:52:51 PM
In these modern times, do you think we'd ever see mass renumberings like that again?
"Ever" can be a very long time. However I don't anticipate anything like that happening again for the foreseeable future. It was a fairly painful process, and as pointed out already with GPS people are depending less on route numbers than in the past.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 06, 2020, 08:22:47 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 06, 2020, 01:58:37 AM
Extremely unlikely in CA due to official apathy regarding route continuity and/or signage. Playing devils' advocate here, Caltrans does have a lot on its plate at present, not all of which are its own doing. HSR, shepherding local projects, commute rail/Amtrak California and transit issues up the wazoo! Worrying about highway minutiae -- even though that's what they did for the first 70 years of their existence -- seems to play second fiddle to juggling input from folks who by all rights shouldn't be addressing roadway issues.
The only thing they never seem to tire of these days is deploying roundabouts! :eyebrow:
It's almost as though consolidating every state branch into one transportation body just created one tired agency that gets pushed around way more than it's predecessor. The legislature essentially has full control over what Caltrans does and doesn't do. In some cases like CA 51 the legislature even decided on what the highway will actually be signed in field. Mass transit has been a hot topic in California for decades but the roadways and signage really have on the whole fallen way behind the times. Interestingly even though the gas taxes are high in California the amount of revenue generated is in peril due to things like better fuel efficiency and alternate fuel sources. Things like SB1 (Which largely guaranteed a large amount of road funding) and the weather related infrastructure problems of 2017 helped but it won't fix decades of state level apathy towards road. Given all that the chances of another Renumbering essentially are about zero.
It wasn't exactly an accident. The legislature deliberately took more control. They were responding to popular discontent with the number of urban freeways being built and proposed, with little consideration for the communities or the impacted landowners, and ignoring the possibility that public transportation would be more effective in some areas.
Why? California doesn't even put markers on their highways much of the time, especially if they've turned road maintenance over to a local community. Not an issue in semi-rural areas where you can pick up the signs once you leave the town hugging the interstate. But it's a real disaster if you are navigating by Rand McNally Road Atlas in the LA/OC/IE area. I doubt anyone would even notice if CA 39 was renumbered.
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2020, 05:21:17 PM
Why? California doesn't even put markers on their highways much of the time, especially if they've turned road maintenance over to a local community. Not an issue in semi-rural areas where you can pick up the signs once you leave the town hugging the interstate. But it's a real disaster if you are navigating by Rand McNally Road Atlas in the LA/OC/IE area. I doubt anyone would even notice if CA 39 was renumbered.
At some point along the line having reassurance shields in California became an affair about who maintains the road rather than providing a navigational aid. It wasn't that way for a really long time and it was fairly common for State Highways to be signed on non-state maintained roadways. I'd settle for having just plain route continuity (looking at you Rice Avenue near Oxnard) over something like another renumbering. The problem is that there is no secondary body to Caltrans that could pick up a large number of signage contracts like the Auto Clubs once did.
I could never see Texas changing our state highway numbers. Not a massive renumbering at least. For one, we have too many of them and our system is more complex than most states. With State Highway Routes, spurs, loops, FM and RM routes, Park Roads... and we all are way too familiar with the system we have now. I can't imagine how they'd change it. Sometimes a route will be renumbered for one reason or another...like FM 149 becoming SH 249 from Pinehurst to Houston when it was upgraded to a freeway.
I think some states can reclassify, if not totally renumber, state highways based on traffic counts and general utility.
However, the FM roads were built in Texas for that very purpose – farm to market – and they still perform that function today. Notwithstanding the massive growth of metro areas into former farmland.
Quote from: kkt on June 08, 2020, 03:09:41 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 02, 2020, 05:52:51 PM
In these modern times, do you think we'd ever see mass renumberings like that again?
"Ever" can be a very long time. However I don't anticipate anything like that happening again for the foreseeable future. It was a fairly painful process, and as pointed out already with GPS people are depending less on route numbers than in the past.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 06, 2020, 08:22:47 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 06, 2020, 01:58:37 AM
Extremely unlikely in CA due to official apathy regarding route continuity and/or signage. Playing devils' advocate here, Caltrans does have a lot on its plate at present, not all of which are its own doing. HSR, shepherding local projects, commute rail/Amtrak California and transit issues up the wazoo! Worrying about highway minutiae -- even though that's what they did for the first 70 years of their existence -- seems to play second fiddle to juggling input from folks who by all rights shouldn't be addressing roadway issues.
The only thing they never seem to tire of these days is deploying roundabouts! :eyebrow:
It's almost as though consolidating every state branch into one transportation body just created one tired agency that gets pushed around way more than it's predecessor. The legislature essentially has full control over what Caltrans does and doesn't do. In some cases like CA 51 the legislature even decided on what the highway will actually be signed in field. Mass transit has been a hot topic in California for decades but the roadways and signage really have on the whole fallen way behind the times. Interestingly even though the gas taxes are high in California the amount of revenue generated is in peril due to things like better fuel efficiency and alternate fuel sources. Things like SB1 (Which largely guaranteed a large amount of road funding) and the weather related infrastructure problems of 2017 helped but it won't fix decades of state level apathy towards road. Given all that the chances of another Renumbering essentially are about zero.
It wasn't exactly an accident. The legislature deliberately took more control. They were responding to popular discontent with the number of urban freeways being built and proposed, with little consideration for the communities or the impacted landowners, and ignoring the possibility that public transportation would be more effective in some areas.
The 1973 Caltrans consolidation, which took place during Reagan's 2nd gubernatorial term, was actually less about satisfying primordial urbanist seniments or addressing homeowner and/or minority concerns than placing the then-nascent rail systems -- the local California Amtrak routes, Caltrain in the Bay Area, and the then-planned San Diego LR network -- within some level of state coordination. That particular administration was not generally hostile toward freeway development in general, although "penny pinching" was being implemented on some projects, which had the effect of delaying completion in some. The anti-freeway sentiment of the time was largely concentrated in the Bay area, with an offshoot up in Sacramento as well as some low-key rumblings in Long Beach concerning the proposed (with an adopted alignment) CA 1 freeway crossing the city along 10th Street, which featured considerable historical housing. Nonetheless, no broadly-based statewide anti-freeway movement existed at that time, just the local instances that had gained some publicity, like the injunction against the CA 238 freeway through Hayward and Union City, issued in 1972. Also at that time the state legislature had yet to be dominated by the Democratic Party; the majority ping-ponged between parties every couple of election cycles, with a moderate Republican, Bob Monaghan from Tracy, handing off periodically to one of the Bay's Burton brothers or one of the various associates of the old Unruh faction from the L.A. area. The legislature wasn't at the time terribly apt to make radical changes, either on the progressive or conservative side -- neither party's leadership had enough time at the helm to do so. It wasn't until the Brown administration ('75-'83) that anti-car and subsequently anti-freeway sentiment became a quasi-official Caltrans blanket policy under the leadership of Adriana Gianturco. Brown gave her broad leeway to make policy from within the agency; she chose to wield a machete rather than a scalpel for the most part. Using the 1975 advent of the Coastal Commission as a rationale, virtually every planned freeway -- adopted or not -- within the parvenu of the Commission (in the L.A. basin that extended about 5 miles inland) was rescinded or deleted, including the CA 1 (PCH) Long Beach segment cited above. Uncompleted Interstates were excepted; curiously, freeways near the coast in San Diego county like CA 54 and CA 56 (52 had been done between I-5 and then-US 395 in 1968) were also exempted, although many of the planned inland connectors (CA 171, CA 157, CA 252) were deleted. The first two were widely considered gratuitous, so their deletion was neither surprising nor mourned, but connectors to the third from I-805 were already constructed -- but became actual "roads to nowhere", touching down on local streets.
But the point here is that the consolidation of Caltrans was primarily to combine various transportation-related agencies under one omnibus umbrella and to place rail development, in terms of LR, commute rail, and regional service as integral parts of transportation planning
alongside the longstanding highway program. It wasn't until two years later that any inkling of anti-automotive activity was embedded within the agency -- at least at the policy and planning levels -- where public transit, including rail and bus service, was framed as a desired
substitute for car travel.
I don't think we're likely to see a massive renumbering all at once, but more gradual changes? Sure.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 02, 2020, 05:52:51 PM
In these modern times, do you think we'd ever see mass renumberings like that again?
The era of rapid growth of the interstates, and the renumbering of US routes to interstates that came with it is over and doesn't seem likely to return in the short or medium term.
Confusion is a factor. Most people will only want to renumber if there's a strong reason for it - better than "it doesn't fit the grid perfectly".
Both of those said, though, "ever" is a very long time.