AARoads Forum

This is kind of a spinoff of the State Numbering thread, but what do you like, or dislike, about your state's state route numbering scheme, and what would you do to change it?

Here's what I like about Utah's scheme:

--Route clustering.  While there is no grid, many routes with similar numbers are often found or assigned near one another, usually making travel by numbers rather convenient (take Highway 30 west to Highway 38, then take Hwy. 38 south)

--Keeping numbers where they are.  Many of the routes that don't quite fit any cluster today once did.  For example, UT-130 once had a UT-129 and UT-126 nearby.  This also leads to routes that have kept the same number since the state system's early days, such as UT-10, UT-14, UT-18, UT-43, and UT-44.

--No route number duplication.  This one's simple; it seems that most Utahns refer to a non-Interstate route as "highway ##."  Since there's only one Highway 89 (US-89), Highway 9 (UT-9), or Highway 50 (US-50), most people will know what you're talking about.

--Using state routes for Interstate business loops.  While I do disagree on using several numbers for an Interstate's several business routes, I'll admit that I do like this practice, as it does pinpoint a specific BL (i.e., UT-19 means the Green River business loop).  Where necessary, longer state routes double as business loops, like UT-130 in Cedar City and UT-28 in Nephi.

--Every state-maintained road receives a specific number.  This one helps identify what is and what isn't state maintained.


Here's what I don't like about Utah's state route numbering scheme:

--The "institutional" routes (281-299). The purpose of any standard route, be it state, US, or Interstate, is to connect towns/cities and other points of interest, not to show that you're near a hospital, university, or a driving test range.  While this seems to contradict the "every UDOT maintained road receives a number" thing, I'll explain the differences.

--No (state) route overlays. While I agree that most roadways should only carry one number, sometimes a multiplex is necessary to carry different "streams" of traffic.  There are only 5 overlays that I can think of in Utah that involve state routes:

1.)  The portions of I-84 and I-15 that would carry eastbound UT-30 between Snowville and Tremonton
2.)  US-89/UT-30 between Logan and Garden City
3.)  US-89/UT-71 (though very short) in Draper
4.)  UT-118/120 in Richfield
5.)  UT-48/68 in West Jordan.

I don't see any problem, aside from milepost reposting and sign changes, with posting both routes on these overlays, and legislatively defining all overlays (this includes I/I, I/US, US/US, and anything else involving any 2+ routes at least SR or higher).  This is, I suspect, one of the reasons why US Routes often go MIA when paired up with an Interstate (I-15/US-50, I-15/US-89, I-80/US-189, US-40/189, I-70/Any US Route that overlays not named US-89), as many people treat them as state routes.

--No suffixed routes.  This was one of the main problems between the whole UT-11/US-89A thing, as Utah didn't recognize suffixed routes (and probably doesn't, with the lone exception of US-89A, but mainly because it's a US Route).  While I wouldn't go helter-skelter with alternate/business/etc. routes, some alternatives to either major state or US routes could still be legitimate, such as restoring US-189A along UT-32.  This could also solve the 281-299 issue as well.

--Shortness of (some) routes.  Many state routes in Utah could be longer, and one of the main reasons are that they are separated by maybe one block of another route.  Case in point:  UT-14 and UT-56 in Cedar City; UT-14 could stretch all the way to the Nevada border, absorbing UT-56, if UDOT wouldn't mind putting a short overlay with UT-130 (I-15 BL in Cedar). UT-10 could absorb UT-72 all the way down to UT-24 at Loa, if UDOT wouldn't mind resetting UT-10's mileposts to continue north of I-70.  There are several shorter routes that could be made more considerable in length.  However, some changes have done just this:  UT-28 absorbing UT-41 in Nephi, becoming I-15's BL there, and UT-106 absorbing UT-131, which was one of the shortest signed routes in the state.

I'll get to the solutions later.

California:

the good - no number duplication

the bad - oh lord, where to start.  Original 1934 numbering that was geographically based has been superseded by a 1964 renumbering in which new routes are numbered in order of their admission, except that some numbers are reused when available -thereby granting absolutely no predictability to the scheme from the perspective of the driver that this is supposed to benefit.  Some numbers are randomly hidden and others overlaid randomly - for example, route 164 is the hidden designator for the northern mile or so of route 19, and if anyone can explain the relationship between 47 and 103 without using quantum physics, I'll be impressed.

Several routes are in multiple segments - like 710 has a break in it because it simply was never built (fair enough), but 84 is in two segments for unknown reasons despite the fact that there's road of similar quality to the signed sections connecting the two halves. 

Also, there's a secret set of LRNs (legislative route numbers) that hardly matches the signed routes - the 1964 renumbering attempted to correct this, but never quite did. 

For example, signed I-10 does not quite match legislated route 10 through the East LA interchange.  Why they would bother with two separate schemes is beyond me.  Well, we all know California is drowning in money, so the bureaucrats can afford to waste a taxpayer dollar or two on frivolous stupidity.  Oh, wait...

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2010, 06:11:51 PM
California:

the good - no number duplication

I also add that many routes from 1934 are still in use today - in the Bay Area, several of the state routes (1, 4, 17, 25, 29, 37) have run on some or all of their current alignment since the beginning, as well as US 101; the same can be noted for metro Los Angeles (2, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27, 39, 55, 71, 74, 118, 126, 138).

Quote from: agentsteel53
the bad - oh lord, where to start.  Original 1934 numbering that was geographically based has been superseded by a 1964 renumbering in which new routes are numbered in order of their admission, except that some numbers are reused when available -thereby granting absolutely no predictability to the scheme from the perspective of the driver that this is supposed to benefit.  Some numbers are randomly hidden and others overlaid randomly - for example, route 164 is the hidden designator for the northern mile or so of route 19, and if anyone can explain the relationship between 47 and 103 without using quantum physics, I'll be impressed.

164 actually is a bit longer than that, of which an unbuilt segment is the shortest part (the connector between I-605 and Route 19 that can be approximated by existing surface streets).  I think the concept was to have 164 serve as an intermediate Pasadena-to-Long Beach freeway connector (with the help of 605) and then have it become a seperate route from 19 once built as freeway - but why resign a route that has now existed for 76 years as Route 19?

103/47 relates to the northeast segment of the Terminal Island Freeway corresponding to a proposal to build it to I-710 at the 405 junction (the right of way amazingly still exists for this, and the ramp configuration at the 710/405 interchange was designed to accomodate the TI Freeway) that dated back to the 1950s, even as 47 was always legislatively defined to run approximately up Alameda to I-10.  (47 exits off of the TI Freeway at Henry Ford Avenue and, supposdly is now signed up Henry Ford and Alameda all the way to Route 91.)

Quote from: agentsteel53

Several routes are in multiple segments - like 710 has a break in it because it simply was never built (fair enough), but 84 is in two segments for unknown reasons despite the fact that there's road of similar quality to the signed sections connecting the two halves. 

This relates to the legislative mode of functioning for EVERY state route, in which state maintenance must exist on any state-signed road, except by legislative exception (thus creating unwieldy, navigationally-irrelevant route definitions to account for gaps in state maintenance).  Route 39 amazingly has had this problem for almost its entire life!

As for Route 84, I've never understood having the north-south route from Livermore to West Sacramento added as part of what is a mostly east-west Bay Area corridor; the former should probably receive another number.

Quote from: agentsteel53

Also, there's a secret set of LRNs (legislative route numbers) that hardly matches the signed routes - the 1964 renumbering attempted to correct this, but never quite did. 

Often the lack of matching came about due to segments never being built: cases in point include 260/112 (signed as Route 61, because the segments of 61 north of 260 and south of 112 will never be constructed), 164 (as noted earlier in this post), and 242 (was signed as Route 24 until 1991 - and was signed Route 24 from the 1940s all the way to that point - as a reroute along Ygnacio Valley Road has been planned for decades, but is unlikely to be constructed).

Another use of a "hidden" number came about because of California's insistence on removing suffixed/alternate routes as much as possible after 1964, with I-15E being given the hidden state number of 194 during its ten-year existence (as opposed to simply being on the books as "Route 15E.")

---

My other pet peeve with the 1964 renumbering is the nature of concurrencies in the DOT zeal to remove as many unnecessary ones as possible - the current setup seems to err too much away from that, resulting in route signage gaps (Routes 16, 193, 84) where existing traversable roads do provide a connection.  Basically, the focus for the numbering system in California is too heavily reliant on legislative minutae rather than navigational usefulness (regardless of whether a segment is state or locally maintained).

Connecticut

Likes:
- Cooperation with neighboring states. Almost always, when a route is state-maintained on both sides of the border, it has had the same number. Some CT routes have been renumbered solely to provide continuity across the border.
- Geographic clustering. Not perfect, but you can see, especially in the 1930s and '40s, clusters of routes, such as the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s; the odd-numbered 80s and 90s in almost perfect order; also 130s, 140s.
- Polarity. Especially in the earlier years, the convention of odd = north/south, even = east/west had few exceptions (2 digits: 55, 58, 73, 86). The New England Interstates were grandfathered in.
- Continuity. Only two routes have real gaps in state maintenance ... and they are still signed across the gaps. Contrast this with some states that break routes into disjoint pieces, or where a signed route could have a variety of maintained stretches.

Dislikes:
- Newer number choices. Why? Many designations after the 1930s have made more sense internally than as part of an ordered system. Especially in the 1960s and later, most new numbers are derived as "rhymes" from earlier related numbers. CT 316, which should be an odd number, came from SR 816. CT 272 was old CT 72. As time went on, the ordered system grew into more of an idiosyncratic patchwork. For example, CT 305 (nee SR 905), an east-west route in Windsor, could have been CT 180 (close to CT 178, 187, and 189).
- Unpublicized overlaps. For most of its overlap with I-84, US 6 is ignored. This bugs me. I would like to see US 6 follow US 44 through East Hartford mainly so it would get signed.
- Brevity. Many small routes could be part of longer routes, e.g. CT 317 as part of CT 64. Why? Longer routes are more fun, and suggest different roadtrips and connections between towns. (Actually, I'd like to see 317, 64 and 66 as part of a longer CT 14). Now Maine probably carries this too far, but why not some strategic overlaps to carry a route farther? CT 83 could extend to Old Lyme. CT 190 could (and should have) replaced CT 171 to Putnam.

Here's what I'd do with Utah's system:

--Allow overlays (multiplexes) where needed; UT-48/68, UT-30, UT-118/120, UT-71 would be signed for their whole lengths (though UT-71/US-89 is probably short enough to not be that big of a deal).  The more prominent route's mileposts would be used, but the less prominent state route's mile posts would reflect the distance driven.  In other words, if you're driving UT-30 from Nevada to Wyoming, you hit I-84 at MP 90, use I-84's and I-15's MPs until getting off of I-15, then see MP 130-ish, just like the US and Interstate's mileposts.  Currently you'll see MP 91 after driving 40-plus miles on I-84 and I-15.  UT-68's MPs would be used, as would UT-120's in their respective multiplexes.

--Designate a new level of "state route" to replace the 281-299 set; call them service routes, and have the hyphenated prefix "S-," with UT-282 (lowest current in 281-299 range) becoming UT-S-1, UT-284 becoming UT-S-2, and so on.  Perhaps use letters instead of numbers, i.e.: UT-282 becoming UT-SA, UT-SB, etc.

Oklahoma has a really good basis for a state numbering scheme...when they follow it. Spurs off mainline highways get letter suffixes...except when they get a third digit appended to the front (or get a new number entirely, like 42 and 96!). Three digit numbers are more minor routes, except for 152.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 07, 2010, 08:15:26 PM
Oklahoma has a really good basis for a state numbering scheme...when they follow it. Spurs off mainline highways get letter suffixes...except when they get a third digit appended to the front (or get a new number entirely, like 42 and 96!). Three digit numbers are more minor routes, except for 152.

But there's no real system.  The numbers are seemingly randomly assigned.  And the N-S/E-W numbering is ass-backwards from the US system.

Here is a list of the original state highway system.  It made a little more sense, but much of it was obliterated by the US highway system.

http://okhighways.wkinsler.com/original_state.htm (http://okhighways.wkinsler.com/original_state.htm)

And don't get me started on Arkansas' system.

I would be okay with the N-S even and E-W odd if it were followed consistently, since it'd at least be different, but they can't even stick to that.

Part of the reason why the OK system has no base numbering rules is that we're still using a heavily modified 1924 system; no "great renumbering" has ever taken place. Today's SH-9 is pretty much the same as that found in 1924, and SH-14 is all that remains of the 1924 border to border route, truncated to near-death by US highways.

I always found it interesting that most of Delaware's state highways are continuations from other states.

Okey doke-

Things I like about Wyoming:

1. County clustering. All the less important routes in the state are numerically clustered by county. So, when somebody says "I live off WYO 352," I may not know off the top of my head that it's an insanely long spur into nowhere off US-189/191, but I can automatically deduce that it lies within Sublette County.
2. Routes along the same corridor get their number back when they jump in and out of the state- see WYO 89 and WYO 230. 

Things I don't like about Wyoming:
1. WYOs 22, 24, 28, 34, 59, 89, and 92 are useful state highways numbered below 100. WYOs 10, 11, 12, 14, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 50, 51, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96 are all pointless routes that probably wouldn't be state highways in most states. There's no reason to waste so many low numbers on pointless routes. I'd keep the county cluster system as is, but add 100 to every number currently in existence. Ironically, arguably the most important state highway (789), has the highest number in the state.

2. Route number duplication- although it's not really a problem. Besides US-89/WYO 89, none of the duplicated routes really come near each other, and at least one of the two is always quite insignificant- nobody is going to confuse WYO 90 (random spur to a dirt county road near Glenrock) with I-90 or US-191 with WYO 191 (random spur to a dirt county road and a practically non-existent community called Mayoworth near Kaycee). US-89/WYO 89 is awesome and I applaud the state of Wyoming's continuing stubbornness.

3. US Route branching numbers- I've gone back and forth on this one, but I think the system is deprecated (nobody gives a darn that routes are numbered off of US-87, and most probably don't even realize it). and it gives important routes really high numbers. It would be better to renumber all those with more appropriate two-digit numbers.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 07, 2010, 08:34:24 PM
I would be okay with the N-S even and E-W odd if it were followed consistently, since it'd at least be different, but they can't even stick to that.

Part of the reason why the OK system has no base numbering rules is that we're still using a heavily modified 1924 system; no "great renumbering" has ever taken place. Today's SH-9 is pretty much the same as that found in 1924, and SH-14 is all that remains of the 1924 border to border route, truncated to near-death by US highways.

Do you know why OK 11 east of Tulsa was renumbered to OK 33?  That road has had at least 4 numbers: 11, 33, 412, and "Scenic" (Alt) 412.

Nebraska:
Like:
-A well-defined system of primary and secondary highways-i.e. the unique spur and link system.
-Lack of long, unnecessary multiplexes(with a few exceptions).
Dislike:
-No real semblance of organization in numbering.
-Too many gaps.

New Jersey
Like:
- A general polarity among the routes: N-S = odd; E-W = even
- Continuity

Dislike:
- Too many county routes, not enough state routes.
- Three digit numbers on useless routes.

New South Wales
Sydney
Odd numbers were circumferential routes and even numbers were radial routes
Numbers were allocated from 11-77 for odd routes and 12-76 for even.
Most routes have been either decommisioned or replaced by Metroads (major arterial routes)
Exceptions to this rule are:
77 (1988-1993) Introduced out of place for the Cumberland Hwy between 55 & 61 because it was a major circ. route like 11, 33 & 55
66 (1991-2004) Replacement route for a bypassed section of NR1. Lies between 60 and 64. Should have been 60 or 62.
31 (1994-) Replaced a downgraded NR31 when Metroad 5 was commissioned. Should have been a SR 50 extension.
60 (1987-) Replaced Alt NR1. Exists in the right place but wrong city (Wollongong)
Country
Allocated numbers between 78 and 95. No such pattern exists.
Newcastle & Wollongong
Newcastle was allocated 120-149 but only used 121-135. 111 was added in 1988 as a replacement for a bypassed scection of NR1.
Wollongong was allocated 150-179 but only used 4 routes; 151, 153, 155 & 157. Sr 60 is located in Wollongong, but uses a Sydney number.

NSW doesn't have NR/SR duplications, but those that exist (44, 55 & 79) are far away to cause  confusion. SR 31 is only 17km from NH31, but people don't care about route numbers in NSW

QuoteI always found it interesting that most of Delaware's state highways are continuations from other states.

Only along the PA border.  Not along the MD border.  Of the 20 state highway crossings of the MD/DE border, only 7 keep the same number on both sides (16, 54, 273, 286, 300, 404, and 896).  In addition, there are 8 cases where there's a route on the Maryland side of the border, but no route on the Delaware side.

Since NY doesn't have a numbering scheme for touring routes as far as I know (it appears to be random), the only thing I can say is that I dislike the route number duplication with interstates.

Florida

Likes:
-Grid system using the one and two digit primary routes (those ending in 0 and 5, which travel cross-state) as the groundwork.
-Two-digit routes, not ending in 0 or 5, serving as primary connecting routes between points.
-The use of x00 routes for diagonal, cross-state routes (or for two bridge crossings).
-Keeping the whole system consistent (usually) when a state road is decommissioned to a county routes or a county route is recommissioned to a state route.
-Suffixed routes actually being signed.
-Route duplication is done well; routes are far enough apart to not cause confusion.

Dislikes:
-The overzealous nature of certain counties which redesignate perfectly fine three digit county routes into the four-digit county routes. If a road was never signed with a number in the past, then it would be acceptable to designate it with a four-digit number.
-Too many suffixed routes that bear the same letter(s). (In the past, Bay County is the only county to have done a good job of utilizing higher suffixes.)
-Deletion of routes before I have a chance to get to them ;)

Here's a good explanation of the Ohio "system".  

http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/expls.html (http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/expls.html)

I do, however, have to give Ohio credit for at least not re-using any route numbers between systems.  For example, there's only one route 70, which is an interstate highway.  There's no US 70 or OH 70.  Indiana, on the other hand....ugghhhh.

Quote from: froggie on June 08, 2010, 07:25:44 AM

QuoteI always found it interesting that most of Delaware's state highways are continuations from other states.

Only along the PA border.  Not along the MD border.  Of the 20 state highway crossings of the MD/DE border, only 7 keep the same number on both sides (16, 54, 273, 286, 300, 404, and 896).  In addition, there are 8 cases where there's a route on the Maryland side of the border, but no route on the Delaware side.

And there are way too many instances where the best road from Point A to Point B doesn't have shields on it.

For both Alaska and Hawaii, a key fact is that locals refer to roads by name rather than route number, so the good and bad features of their numbering systems are relevant mainly to tourists and roadgeeks.

Alaska:

Likes: 

Only a dozen numbered routes, all with one- or two-digit numbers

Only one multiplex

Dislikes: 

Most state-maintained roads are unnumbered, including some frequented by tourists (like Chena Hot Springs Rd. east of Fairbanks, and the Boundary Spur Road link to YT 9) where a posted route number would actually be useful

Weak correspondence between route names and route numbers -- the Richardson and Seward highways each go through one number change, and route 1 goes through five name changes

Hawaii:

Likes:

Very coherent clustering by island (just in case you're confused about which island you're on), and also parent-daughter numbering of two-digit primary routes and related three-digit secondary routes plus (except on Oahu) 4-digit tertiary routes

No multiplexes within the state system (including the Interstates), and just one between a state route and a numbered county route

No number duplication within the state system

Dislikes:

Substantial number duplication between the state and numbered county systems (which both sprang from a single Federal-Aid number system covering both territorial and county routes) with identical (except near-identical on Maui island) signage, contributing to considerable confusion even for locals about maintenance responsibility

4-digit tertiary route assignments on Oahu seem to be more or less random

Like with Alaska, route numbers don't match up well with route names -- route 19 goes through nine name changes

County number systems are largely carryovers from the pre-statehood system (so new county roads, including some used by tourists, are left unnumbered), and Oahu's county number system has mostly disappeared

Privately-produced maps often show long-extinct route numbers, to further confuse the tourists, and there's no official map to set them straight

Quote from: oscar on June 08, 2010, 11:20:09 AM

Only one multiplex

there's two, if you count the unsigned one of 1 and 3 heading into Anchorage.  3's milepost 0 would be in downtown Anchorage - the split around Wasilla is already mile 20 or so of route 3.

(the other one is the signed 1/9)

there are also some inexplicable discontinuities among the numberings.  10 isn't too absurd, because it is fathomable that a connection can one day be made.  But ... 7?  There are four segments and I believe they're on four different islands.

Quote from: oscar on June 08, 2010, 11:20:09 AM
contributing to considerable confusion even for locals about maintenance responsibility

do the locals care?  I thought they didn't even care about route numbers, much less classifications

Quote from: florida on June 08, 2010, 10:46:08 AM
-Deletion of routes before I have a chance to get to them ;)

not to worry, most routes remain signed thirty or forty years after deletion  :sombrero:

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 08, 2010, 11:50:21 AM

Quote from: oscar on June 08, 2010, 11:20:09 AM
contributing to considerable confusion even for locals about maintenance responsibility

do the locals care?  I thought they didn't even care about route numbers, much less classifications

They sometimes have a hard time figuring who to complain to, or sue, for road problems.  I suspect the state and county DOTs kind of like it that way :D

I honestly say that, until somewhat recently, MDOT's numbering scheme by and large didn't follow a set pattern and I like that. There's also been a tendency to extend or reroute a designation wherever practical instead of having a different number assigned, although sometimes that contributes to the significant reduction of some designations (like M-78 now being nothing more than an M-66/I-69 connector that passes through Bellevue). Given that, there are still some oddball routings out there which are still head scratchers, but by and large MDOT at least tries to have some route number continuity.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 08, 2010, 11:49:26 AM

Quote from: oscar on June 08, 2010, 11:20:09 AM

Only one multiplex

there's two, if you count the unsigned one of 1 and 3 heading into Anchorage.  3's milepost 0 would be in downtown Anchorage - the split around Wasilla is already mile 20 or so of route 3.

(the other one is the signed 1/9)

Like in Arizona, it's not unusual for Alaska route mileposts to start at a number higher than 0, without any multiplex (hidden or otherwise).  The most famous is the Alaska Highway, whose mile 0 is in Dawson Creek BC, and ends at mile 1422 in Delta Junction AK.

But there is one real multiplex between Alaska state routes, where routes 1 and 4 share pavement between Glenallen and Gulkana.

oh yes, 1/4, not 1/9.  One of those!

so does the Alaska Highway officially end in Delta Junction?  I have seen a photo as recent as 1975 that showed a sign in Fairbanks saying "end of Alaska Highway", which is where it was originally constructed to end at in 1942.

Another thing I like about Utah:

--No coherent N/S, E/W polarity between odds and evens (outside of US/Interstates).  It doesn't make too much sense, but I like this quirk.  I like the fact that a N/S route can receive an even number, while an E/W route can receive an odd number.

Another thing I'd do:

--Route consolidation.  I'd "merge" some routes to make them longer, such as UT-10 and UT-72 and UT-14 and UT-56, and numerous shorter routes.

Quote from: Rover_0 on June 08, 2010, 01:39:39 PM

--No coherent N/S, E/W polarity between odds and evens (outside of US/Interstates).  It doesn't make too much sense, but I like this quirk.  I like the fact that a N/S route can receive an even number, while an E/W route can receive an odd number.

are there enough diagonal and otherwise strangely routed* highways to make this a sensible arrangement? 

* see CA 18 for example.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 08, 2010, 01:40:56 PM
* see CA 18 for example.

18 at one point was even worse than it is now, a "W" shaped route almost that incorporated today's Route 259, I-215, Route 91, and Route 19 into Long Beach!

(Some rearrangement of 18, 247, 138 and the other Big Bear Lake/Arrowhead area routes probably would go a long way towards making this more ogical.)

Outside of Big Bear, I think Route 70 (mostly former 1934-era Route 24 and later US 40A) is the only continuous route to go from north-south to east-west on one number, though I feel like the east-west segment from Oroville to Reno Junction is a completely different corridor than the north-south route (with Route 149) that provides an alternate from Chico to Sacramento.

Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2010, 01:46:08 PM
18 at one point was even worse than it is now, a "W" shaped route almost that incorporated today's Route 259, I-215, Route 91, and Route 19 into Long Beach!

here I thought 18 was the route that was originally under what became 91 out of Redondo Beach?  In fact, I thought the 91 state route shields on 405 were covering up old 18 shields. 

Quote(Some rearrangement of 18, 247, 138 and the other Big Bear Lake/Arrowhead area routes probably would go a long way towards making this more ogical.)

138 isn't all that senseless.  38 is, and I can't keep track of what is going on with 30 and 330, but 210 isn't too bad.

QuoteOutside of Big Bear, I think Route 70 (mostly former 1934-era Route 24 and later US 40A) is the only continuous route to go from north-south to east-west on one number, though I feel like the east-west segment from Oroville to Reno Junction is a completely different corridor than the north-south route (with Route 149) that provides an alternate from Chico to Sacramento.

I don't particularly mind that one since it is, literally, an alternate to 40, and back in the day when Donner Pass was a nightmare of cannibalism, an alternate was sorely needed.  Current 70 reflects the idea that there was once a 40A, and so I like it for its historic value.

(there are some 40A street blades left from the early 60s in a small town, interestingly enough!)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 08, 2010, 01:49:37 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2010, 01:46:08 PM
18 at one point was even worse than it is now, a "W" shaped route almost that incorporated today's Route 259, I-215, Route 91, and Route 19 into Long Beach!

here I thought 18 was the route that was originally under what became 91 out of Redondo Beach?  In fact, I thought the 91 state route shields on 405 were covering up old 18 shields.  

IIRC, 18 followed what was US 91 (including the old post-1964 Route 214) along Carson Street to Route 19, while pre-1964 Route 14 continued on to Redondo along today's Route 91.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 08, 2010, 01:49:37 PM

Quote(Some rearrangement of 18, 247, 138 and the other Big Bear Lake/Arrowhead area routes probably would go a long way towards making this more ogical.)

138 isn't all that senseless.  38 is, and I can't keep track of what is going on with 30 and 330, but 210 isn't too bad.

138 is great - but I feel like extending it east towards the lake itself could go a long way to eliminating one of the question-marked shaped routes' directional changes.

I was thinking, 247 south towards Big Bear to take over that segment of 18, and 18 east along 247 to Route 62 would at least allow both routes to maintain one set of cardinal directions.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 08, 2010, 01:49:37 PM

QuoteOutside of Big Bear, I think Route 70 (mostly former 1934-era Route 24 and later US 40A) is the only continuous route to go from north-south to east-west on one number, though I feel like the east-west segment from Oroville to Reno Junction is a completely different corridor than the north-south route (with Route 149) that provides an alternate from Chico to Sacramento.

I don't particularly mind that one since it is, literally, an alternate to 40, and back in the day when Donner Pass was a nightmare of cannibalism, an alternate was sorely needed.  Current 70 reflects the idea that there was once a 40A, and so I like it for its historic value.

(there are some 40A street blades left from the early 60s in a small town, interestingly enough!)

Considering that the termini at modern I-80 were along today's Route 113 and US 395, Route 70 as a viable I-80/old US 40 alternate is nowhere as obvious as it was in the past.  

For that matter, Route 24 (the predecessor to US 40A) at its longest extent was such a hodgepodge - at one point, before the current El Centro Road was built north of Sacramento, running west towards Woodland with Route 16 on what was ostensibly the eastbound/northbound direction! - that it isn't surprising that it is currently represented by multiple roads now - Route 13, today's Route 24, I-680, Route 242, Route 4, Route 160, former Route 16, Route 113 or current Route 99, and Route 70.

149 and the north-south 70 would make a good 99A, if California still believed in alternate routes.  (Well, in addition to the modern 50A, we DO have 14U and 86S.   :-D )

Quote from: shoptb1 on June 08, 2010, 11:01:47 AM
Here's a good explanation of the Ohio "system".  

http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/expls.html (http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/expls.html)

I do, however, have to give Ohio credit for at least not re-using any route numbers between systems.  For example, there's only one route 70, which is an interstate highway.  There's no US 70 or OH 70.  Indiana, on the other hand....ugghhhh.

Are you refering to SR 70 or I-70, or SR 64 being 10 miles north of I-64, or SR 69 going to be 20 miles west of I-69. In fairness though most US and Interstate routes aren't repeated by the state highways. That is the reason that SR 135 is a major route from Indianapolis to the Ohio River, it is supposed to be SR 35 but the state changed it when US 35 was created.

Speaking of which, the Indiana grid is in my opinion among the best in the country, since it can be relied on (mostly) throughout the state. Knowing the highway number can usually tell you where in Indiana you are. However, there are some routes that do make you think WTF (SR 129 and 229 being nowhere near SR 29) for instance.

Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2010, 02:16:14 PM

IIRC, 18 followed what was US 91 (including the old post-1964 Route 214) along Carson Street to Route 19, while pre-1964 Route 14 continued on to Redondo along today's Route 91.

so that's gotta be 14 shields under there.  Good to know!

Quote138 is great - but I feel like extending it east towards the lake itself could go a long way to eliminating one of the question-marked shaped routes' directional changes.

while we're at it, can we pave 173?  Not only is that a dirt road, but it is a very bad dirt road.  I've only driven it once, and that was too many times.  I had to have one set of wheels on the "shoulder", about 6 inches away from dropping off the edge of the cliff, just so I could keep the other set of wheels down the middle of the road, and thereby not high-center the car.

I've seen good-quality dirt roads - Hell, I've done 100mph on good-quality dirt roads! - and 173 is nowhere near a good-quality dirt road.  There's a road that needs to be evicted from the state highway system, on grounds of public expectation of quality.  When I imagine a dirt road being signed as a state highway, I certainly don't imagine a 9-foot-wide one-lane goat path along a cliff wall.

QuoteI was thinking, 247 south towards Big Bear to take over that segment of 18, and 18 east along 247 to Route 62 would at least allow both routes to maintain one set of cardinal directions.

while we're at it, 62 all the way to Parker can become 18.  I like long routes with a single number.   Then we can route US-60 over it ...

Quote149 and the north-south 70 would make a good 99A, if California still believed in alternate routes.  (Well, in addition to the modern 50A, we DO have 14U and 86S.   :-D )

14U is an abomination of taxpayer waste ("here, we signed this road to denote that we won't be signing this road anymore") and I have no idea why 86S got the number it did, as opposed to being plain old 86. 

149 and 70 would make a good 99E, to correspond to 99W taking over the former 99E.  And yes, both should be US routes.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 08, 2010, 02:25:05 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2010, 02:16:14 PM

IIRC, 18 followed what was US 91 (including the old post-1964 Route 214) along Carson Street to Route 19, while pre-1964 Route 14 continued on to Redondo along today's Route 91.

so that's gotta be 14 shields under there.  Good to know!

I wonder if they're white-background or outline, though I suspect outline.

Quote from: agentsteel53

Quote138 is great - but I feel like extending it east towards the lake itself could go a long way to eliminating one of the question-marked shaped routes' directional changes.

while we're at it, can we pave 173?  Not only is that a dirt road, but it is a very bad dirt road.  I've only driven it once, and that was too many times.  I had to have one set of wheels on the "shoulder", about 6 inches away from dropping off the edge of the cliff, just so I could keep the other set of wheels down the middle of the road, and thereby not high-center the car.

For that matter, a one-lane road from nowhere to nowhere (229 out in Santa Margarita) isn't exactly the best choice for a state highway, not when "not-state-maintained" County Route N8 isn't good enough to be Route 39 between Azusa and Fullerton. :p

Quote from: agentsteel53

Quote149 and the north-south 70 would make a good 99A, if California still believed in alternate routes.  (Well, in addition to the modern 50A, we DO have 14U and 86S.   :-D )

14U is an abomination of taxpayer waste ("here, we signed this road to denote that we won't be signing this road anymore") and I have no idea why 86S got the number it did, as opposed to being plain old 86.  

149 and 70 would make a good 99E, to correspond to 99W taking over the former 99E.  And yes, both should be US routes.

IIRC, 86S was supposed to become 86 at some point...not sure that's completely happened yet, although supposedly Route 195 was to be decomissioned upon 86S's construction.

As for 99...I've gotten the impression (speculation on my part, based on reading the articles on the 1964 renumbering) that the long stand-alone segment got demoted not because it didn't qualify as a US highway (look at someting like the much shorter single-state US 46 or the recently-extended US 311!!!!) but because..."green shield = more readable!"

Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2010, 02:29:29 PM

I wonder if they're white-background or outline, though I suspect outline.

I believe the signs are from 1960, so that would imply outline with the extra-square-edged spade.

QuoteFor that matter, a one-lane road from nowhere to nowhere (229 out in Santa Margarita) isn't exactly the best choice for a state highway, not when "not-state-maintained" County Route N8 isn't good enough to be Route 39 between Azusa and Fullerton. :p

229 isn't a bad road at all.  I've met traffic coming the other way and we squeezed past each other.  On 173, either one of us would've had to just plain fall off the cliff, or - even more harrowingly - drive in reverse to a point where it became possible to get around each other.

QuoteIIRC, 86S was supposed to become 86 at some point...not sure that's completely happened yet, although supposedly Route 195 was to be decomissioned upon 86S's construction.

I thought 195 was decommissioned.  Are there any shields left for it?  I know of one paddle on the east end of Box Canyon (old 60/70).

QuoteAs for 99...I've gotten the impression (speculation on my part, based on reading the articles on the 1964 renumbering) that the long stand-alone segment got demoted not because it didn't qualify as a US highway (look at someting like the much shorter single-state US 46!!!!) but because..."green shield = more readable!"

gah!  I did not need to know that.  How many perfectly serviceable US-99 shields got torn down because of such silliness?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 08, 2010, 02:33:30 PM

QuoteIIRC, 86S was supposed to become 86 at some point...not sure that's completely happened yet, although supposedly Route 195 was to be decomissioned upon 86S's construction.

I thought 195 was decommissioned.  Are there any shields left for it?  I know of one paddle on the east end of Box Canyon (old 60/70).

Oh, Google Street View provides:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=CA-111+%26+CA-195,+Mecca,+CA&sll=33.568915,-116.077702&sspn=0.008993,0.017166&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=California+111+%26+California+195,+Coachella+Valley,+Riverside,+California&ll=33.569009,-116.077799&spn=0.001124,0.002146&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.568907,-116.07771&panoid=CJORoOcqHagvIAtEpQdP6w&cbp=12,354.26,,1,7.81

Quote from: agentsteel53

QuoteAs for 99...I've gotten the impression (speculation on my part, based on reading the articles on the 1964 renumbering) that the long stand-alone segment got demoted not because it didn't qualify as a US highway (look at someting like the much shorter single-state US 46!!!!) but because..."green shield = more readable!"

gah!  I did not need to know that.  How many perfectly serviceable US-99 shields got torn down because of such silliness?

http://www.gbcnet.com/ushighways/history/1964_route_renumbering.pdf is the article where I basically got that impression, with a little bit of detail on how white-on-green replaced black-on-white (and also mentioning that some US routes not supplanted by Interstates would be retaining their black-on-white US shields - of course, Route 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Red Bluff should have qualified in this regard, after the West Side Freeway alignments were chosen!)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 08, 2010, 01:35:04 PM
oh yes, 1/4, not 1/9.  One of those!

so does the Alaska Highway officially end in Delta Junction?  I have seen a photo as recent as 1975 that showed a sign in Fairbanks saying "end of Alaska Highway", which is where it was originally constructed to end at in 1942.

Actually, IIRC, the Alaska Highway construction ended at Delta Junction, since the Richardson Highway was already in place between Delta Junction and Fairbanks.  Alaska DOT also considers the Alaska Highway to end in Delta Junction, and the AH mileposting ends at the monument marking mile 1422.  In that and many other ways, the good people of Delta Junction pound into your brain, at every opportunity, that the Alaska Highway ends there rather than in Fairbanks.  

Quote from: oscar on June 08, 2010, 02:47:17 PM

Actually, IIRC, the Alaska Highway construction ended at Delta Junction, since the Richardson Highway was already in place between Delta Junction and Fairbanks.

that's what I thought, but seeing that 1975 photo from Fairbanks made me reconsider.  I know nowadays Delta Junction has a very elaborate setup for the end of the highway.

I'm reading a 1957 travel guide that summarizes the Alaska Highway, and its intent was to connect to a railhead at Fairbanks, but this does not imply one way or the other whether there were already extant parts of the route.

Wisconsin

Likes:

--Lack of a grid system of any sort.  There really is no need for grid in today's age anyway.
--Lettered county highways.  Make it easy to differentiate from numbered routes
--Maintenance.  With few exceptions, WI state highways are maintained well and can generally be considered good roads to drive upon.


Dislikes:

--A number of county highways should have state route designations.  (Dane County N for example)
--Too many routes  (I know that sounds contradictory.)  But there are a number of cases where short duplexes could mean less overall routes.  WI-153 and WI-98 should really be one highway with a short WI-13 duplex.

Georgia:

* The numbering system's a bit random (i.e., high/low numbers co-mingle, if you will).
* Routes aren't necessarily signed well, and take crazy twists and turns to stay on their route.


Be well,

Bryant

Quote from: Bryant5493 on June 08, 2010, 07:56:02 PM
Georgia:

* The numbering system's a bit random (i.e., high/low numbers co-mingle, if you will).
* Routes aren't necessarily signed well, and take crazy twists and turns to stay on their route.

Not to mention that Georgia has even numbered routes that run North and South and Odd numbered routes that run East and West.

Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2010, 02:16:14 PM\(Well, in addition to the modern 50A, we DO have 14U and 86S.   :-D )

Wait -- where's 14U? Gotta include that in the California set for the Clinched Highways.

QuoteAs for 99...I've gotten the impression (speculation on my part, based on reading the articles on the 1964 renumbering) that the long stand-alone segment got demoted not because it didn't qualify as a US highway (look at someting like the much shorter single-state US 46 or the recently-extended US 311!!!!) but because..."green shield = more readable!"

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.courtneyhoskins.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FDoubleFacePalm.jpg&hash=5dde0bb84204b9f448dc61433651f82cb048e541)

Quote from: Bickendan on June 08, 2010, 08:57:45 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2010, 02:16:14 PM\(Well, in addition to the modern 50A, we DO have 14U and 86S.   :-D )

Wait -- where's 14U? Gotta include that in the California set for the Clinched Highways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_14U

The specific routing of Route 14U:

QuoteA section of Sierra Highway near Santa Clarita is designated and signed[1] as State Route 14U, which signifies that it is an unrelinquished section of State Route 14, still owned by Caltrans despite being bypassed by a freeway ca. 1971.[2] SR 14U is 7.33 miles (11.80 km) long, from postmile 24.28 (at the bridge carrying SR 14 over SR 14U, just north of the south end of Sierra Highway) north to postmile 31.61 (at the SR 14 ramps near Via Princessa).[2]

Mixed bag:

Massachusetts keeps its route number when changing states, including into New York.

There is 8, 10, and 12 in order, as long north-south routes. (But then 31 and 32 are mixed in, as well as US 5 and US 7.)

2-digit numbers above 38 change roads a lot, with multiple concurrencies (based on 62 and 97), because they were created after routes 101-146.

No truck or business routes.

One big problem is that it's hard to tell where a route ends, since sometimes there is no signage.

And Route 107 is completely hidden from every freeway. (This is neither good nor bad.)

Quote from: 1 on August 10, 2013, 05:33:23 PMAnd Route 107 is completely hidden from every freeway. (This is neither good nor bad.)

MA 107 probably doesn't appear on any freeway signage because it doesn't intersect any freeways. It is consistenly signed from other intersecting state routes though.


Also, holy thread necromancy! It's been over 3 years since anyone posted in this thread...

Quote from: 1 on August 10, 2013, 05:33:23 PMNo truck or business routes.

In most instances, where other states use the Business Route designation; MA uses the A suffix.  Examples: 1A for US 1, 2A for MA 2, 3A for US/MA 3, etc.

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, the Lowell Connector was once called Business Spur 495.  A remant of such signage (I believe is now gone) can be found below (scroll down):

http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/ (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/lowell/)

There are one or two places where Truck routes of route numbers exist in the Bay State but they're not usually marked as Truck Routes in the traditional/MUTCD sense.  One example of such is truck prohibition along MA 114 (Gardner St.) in Peabody.  "Truck" Route 114 runs along MA 35 (Margin/Water St.) to the Peabody/Danvers line (where construction of that Danvers River crossing is a a stand-still for a few years) then turns left onto Liberty St. (which become Pulaski St.) and rejoins MA 114 at the Gardner St. intersection.  Again, while the truck route is indeed signed as such; it's not exactly per MUTCD standards.

Quote from: 1 on August 10, 2013, 05:33:23 PMOne big problem is that it's hard to tell where a route ends, since sometimes there is no signage.

That is indeed very true, especially for the southern end of MA 99.   In other instances, signage for a route gets very sparce in areas where it should be more prominent.  MA 129 through Downtown Lynn is the most blatant example of such.  Between its multiplex w/MA 1A (Broad St.) and Union St., there's almost no signage for MA 129 despite the fact that the road makes a few turns (street changes) along the way.

Which leads to another gripe/dislike; when the state relocates a route, it's not always done in a consistent and uniform manner and many signs along the old route aren't always revised/updated to reflect such.  The above routing/rerouting of MA 129 through Lynn circa the 1990s and even the more recent rerouting of MA 107 onto the new Bridge St. Bypass are two examples of such.

Even worse, when a sign along a redesignated route gets replaced (whether a one-off due to an accident or as part of a road/sign upgrade); the updated route info. doesn't always get included/implemented on the signs.  One old through-LGS along MA 16 West (markeded as MA 1A dating back to when that road was such pre-1971) near the MA 107 interchange was replaced in the 90s with the exact same long-since-obsolete 1-A rather than the current 16 message on the LGS.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 11, 2013, 12:52:11 AM

Quote from: 1 on August 10, 2013, 05:33:23 PMAnd Route 107 is completely hidden from every freeway. (This is neither good nor bad.)

MA 107 probably doesn't appear on any freeway signage because it doesn't intersect any freeways. It is consistenly signed from other intersecting state routes though.

Once upon a time, and I think there may be one or two remaining MDC-spec'd MDC LGS' indicating such, MA 107 used to continue south of the MA 16 (Revere Beach Parkway) interchange into downtown Chelsea.  If that was indeed true (and the MDC wasn't erroneous in it signage at the time it was erected), then MA 107 had a nearby connection w/the Tobin Bridge/Northeast Expressway (US 1).

I've lived in a couple of states, and spent a lot of time in others, so here is my thoughs...

Washington
Good: State Routes exist in a rough grid, with the state separated into thirds for one digit and two digit routes.
Bad: SR-20 exists in all 3 thirds.
Good: Three Digit routes are branches of one and two digit routes, which grow in number from the beginning to the end of the parent route.
Bad: No logical provision for branch routes off of three digit routes, which causes many bannered routes, especially spurs, to be created.
Bad: Some adjacent route numbers have huge gaps between them, making it difficult to properly add addition state routes to the system, if needed.
- Solution, average 00 through 99 along the length of the route, then assign route numbers based on location of junction and direction of travel. (BTW, I like the joke for SR-599)

Oregon
Good: One and Two Digit routes are Primary, a grid like system exists, but if often violated.
Bad: Two numbering systems, one the "State Highways" the other "Oregon Routes", rarely do the numbers match.
Good: Continue route numbering from neighboring states to create continuous routes to other numbered routes.

Michigan
Good: Major routes given single digit route numbers.
Good: All State Trunk Routes have a number.
Good: I Love the "M" designation for State Trunk Routes.
Bad: No rhyme or reason to the numbering, most, aside from the single digits are in order of creation.
Bad: Duplicated numbers, on non-related routes in close proximity (M-24/US-24, I forgive US-10 and M-10 because M-10 used to be US 10, and they are far enough away to not be confused.
Bad: No rhyme or reason for directions, odds can go E-W, evens can go N-S.

Indiana
Good: Strong Grid, mostly logical.
Good: Three Digit routes are branches of one and two digit routes, which grow in number from the beginning to the end of the parent route.
Good: Adding business routes when bypassing a city with a new roadway.
Bad: No logical provision for branch routes off of three digit routes.
Bad: Removal of state road designations within major cities (Lafayette, Ft. Wayne, Indianpolis), making it difficult to navigate these cities.

Florida
State route numbering is good.
Mileage signs are bad, as in some areas they are no longer being used after route junctions, especially in the Orlando area and District 4.
City Limits signs are disappearing in some areas and not being used.  Example, US 1 mainly south of Vero Beach.


New Jersey
Random numbers and some routes can be either realigned along other roads or extended.  Some 500 series county roads could be renumbered to state routes as well.

Delaware
Good East-West numbering grid.  Bad North- South grid.

Georgia
Some route numbers are not actual highways, but back roads more.  Example GA 122 is not a main highway and has a state number. 

Tennessee's numbering scheme...

Likes:

1. State routes are divided into primary and secondary routes

Dislikes:

1. No grid or zone system of any kind; numbers are picked seemingly at random
2. No even/odd rule for north-south and east-west routes
3. Numbers are sometimes duplicated; Tennessee has an I-155 and a TN 155, as well as a US 31 and a TN 31.
4. No county routes
5. Many important local roads that should be numbered and signed (e.g. County 11 North, County 11 South) don't have any kind of route number. Roads like Clarksville's Ted Crozier Blvd and Peachers Mill Rd, as well as Hendersonville's Indian Lake Blvd really should be numbered and signed. Even when a route number exists it often is poorly marked in developed areas. Springfield, Tennessee must be hogging all the numbers - every major road there has a route number, and Memorial Blvd is a multiplex of US 41, US 431, TN 76, and TN 11.
6. Most of the single-digit state routes are overlain on US Routes, when they should be used for important independent routes.
7. Relationships between 3-digit routes and parent 2-digit routes is rare - 155 and 255 have nothing to do with 55, and 374 has no relation to 74, but 149 and 249 are branches of 49.

Louisiana likes/dislikes:

Good: Basic numbering system makes sense with some study. Major state routes that are not US routes or Interstates generally have low numbers. Clustering exists for higher numbered routes/minor roads. There is a rough grid pattern apparent in the assignment of the lower numbered routes. Evens are usually E-W and odds N-S.

Bad: Some important routes "wander" with no apparent trend of direction (LA 16, LA 27, LA 20, LA 75, etc.). Not a big issue (with the exception of LA 27) but still noticeable.

Good: No LA-US duplication.

Bad: LA-Interstate duplications exist. Not an issue, save LA 59 - I-59, which most people can tell apart anyway since most people recognize the difference between a state highway shield and an Interstate shield.

Good: Our longest route of any sort is numbered LA 1.  :clap:

Bad: 3000 series routes. Range from very minor backroads to full freeways. No consistency. Have no idea why 3000 was picked as a starting point to number post-1955 routes.

Bad: Essentially non-existent marked parish road systems (except in Cameron Parish where signage overkill bloomed in the wake of Hurricane Rita - your federal recovery funds at work)

Bad: Too many state routes overall, which is a cause and consequence of under-developed parish road systems. Roads that would have been turned back to localities over the years in other states remain on the state rolls. Lots of useless spurs abound.

Good/Bad: Hyphenated routes. Good due to their uniqueness which makes them kind of cool; bad since they almost always have no reason being state highways. Also, difficult to describe verbally - is LA 611-9 "six eleven nine", "six eleven dash nine", or "section 9 of LA 611"? (I usually opt for the first, though the third is technically correct.) Thankfully few people know or care that these routes even exist so they are called by their regular street names.

Maryland

Good:

• Some use of clustering.
• Almost no reliance on banners and suffixes on state routes, at least as signed.
• Since there is no grid, the numbering system doesn't pretend that there is.

Bad:

• A general attitude that idle speculation about likelihood of confusion trumps evidence of actual confusion.
• Little or no relation between the importance of a road and its number; low numbers can be wasted on obscure local roads.
• Interstate-state number duplication, even in the same county in one case.
• Overreliance on banners and suffixes on Interstates, combined with poor signage of same.
• No signed county route numbers.
• Discontinuous routes.
• I-97.

Virginia

Good:

• The primary-secondary distinction gives some indication, although imperfect, of a route's importance.
• Since there is no grid, the numbering system doesn't pretend that there is.
• While a secondary route can have a high number, there is some attempt to give important secondary routes easily remembered numbers (e.g., ending in 00 or even 000).

Bad:

• Completely off of the deep end in terms of signing secondary routes.
• The numbering of institutional routes wastes numbers in the primary range.

District of Columbia

Good:

• Hard to mess up a numbering system if you don't even have one.

Bad:

• At the very least, the E Street Expressway ought to have a signed route number.
• Tourists have been known to complain about the lack of route numbers, although I don't know how widespread actual confusion is.
• The routing of US 29 through DC is a long-running joke.
• If the money can be found for those "To I-495 Maryland/Virginia" and "To monuments" signs, the money can be found for route-number signs.

Indiana:

Like: Same grid system as US highways:  Odd numbers for N-S increasing from E to W, and even numbers for E-W, increasing from N to S.

Dislike: Many highways have 2-4 discontinuous segments.  With they would either multiplex the route to make it continuous or pick different numbers for the different segments. 

Also, while no numbers duplicate US highways, a few duplicate interstate highways, including one that intersects with the same-numbered interstate (64).

Georgia:

Good: ...hmm, this is a tough one. The vast majority of state route numbers are under 400, I guess?

Bad: No odd/even direction rule.

Good: Oh! The lowest-numbered routes (under about 40 or so) tend to be major cross-state routes.

Bad: Apart from those really low-numbered routes, there is pretty much no discernible system whatsoever, since most of the route numbers were assigned chronologically.

Good: Almost no discontinuous routes (and the ones that are are so because they dip into another state).

Bad: All the useless US/state route concurrencies. Examples: 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, the vast majority of 10, 12, 14...the list goes on of low-numbered state routes that have served no navigational purpose in 80 years. And unlike FL/AL/TN, they're actually signed here.

Good: Only one level of state route classification. As bad as the system is, adding an extra layer of complexity would only make it worse.

Bad: Duplication all over the place, producing such things like the US 27/GA 27 intersection, US 41 having separate concurrencies with both US 19 and GA 19, I-85 and GA 85 running in the same general direction about 20 miles apart, and of course the US 23/GA 23 (along with 5 other routes) concurrency.

Bad: Overuse of SPUR/CONN/LOOP/etc. auxiliaries for state routes, exacerbated by the fact that these are only required to be unique within a county, of which Georgia has 159. I think these might work better as suffixed routes, a la New York or Oklahoma.

Bad: No signed county road systems (unless you count those mile-marker looking things on the backs of stop signs in some counties).

Wisconsin

Good:
WI seems to have a good density of state highways in most places; not to many, not too few.

There aren't many state highways that I would demote to county roads as WI has been doing a good job of weeding out much of the lesser ones.  There are still some of course, but not that many.

Wisconsin isn't afraid to move major routes around.  They rerouted WI 13 between Marshfield and Wisconsin Rapids; they moved a huge segment of US 45 between Oshkosh and New London; I like that. 

Though I will also list this as a dislike, the lack of any grid or emphasis on numbers ending in something specific means that no one cares much about having a specific two digit number.  Routes ending in 0 could be major, state-spanning highways or they could just connect a handful of communities in adjacent counties.

Bad:
First and foremost, there are too many meandering routes with long concurrences that should be separate or different routes.  Some of them like WI 22 and 23 just kind of change direction for no apparent reason.  22 is N-S all the way to Shawano, where suddenly it goes due east while a different state highway (55) which came in on a fairly long concurrency, continues north.  There seems to be an attempt to get as much mileage as possible out of 2 digit numbers, even if it means things get ridiculous.

There is no rhyme or reason to where numbers are applied.  Occasionally you get a 3 digit number that acts like a 'spur' of another one, but it's mostly random.  Though I suppose if there was a system, I'd be bitching about every violation of it instead.

No interstate business routes.  There are a few places where these would be useful.

I'm also not a fan of this 'locally signed' approach to business routes in general where almost all of them are not technically state trunkline highways.  This means WisDOT doesn't put them on any of their maps which is pretty stupid, in my opinion.

Don't care:
I really don't care about duplicating I/US/State numbers in a state.  Wisconsin cared for a while but 'saw the light' with I-39.  No state highway should ever stand in the way of making a logical addition or reroute of an interstate or US highway.  As an example, if I wanted an I-243 in Wisconsin somewhere, no one is going to mistake it for that glorified bridge into Minnesota.  I doubt anyone outside of Polk County or our community has even heard of WI 243.  So I would do it.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 14, 2013, 12:12:46 PM
I really don't care about duplicating I/US/State numbers in a state.

I don't care when it's obviously not gonna cause confusion, but Georgia both duplicates routes, and also has a habit of mixing up US and state route shields.  I can just imagine the cluster when they accidentally sign US-27 intersecting US-27 in Lumpkin.

I believe MA also has a no-duplication policy, which is violated by MA-295: a short connector to New York, on the opposite side of the state as I-295.

Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on August 12, 2013, 10:33:18 PM
Louisiana likes/dislikes:

Good: Basic numbering system makes sense with some study. Major state routes that are not US routes or Interstates generally have low numbers. Clustering exists for higher numbered routes/minor roads. There is a rough grid pattern apparent in the assignment of the lower numbered routes. Evens are usually E-W and odds N-S.

Bad: Some important routes "wander" with no apparent trend of direction (LA 16, LA 27, LA 20, LA 75, etc.). Not a big issue (with the exception of LA 27) but still noticeable.

Good: No LA-US duplication.

Bad: LA-Interstate duplications exist. Not an issue, save LA 59 - I-59, which most people can tell apart anyway since most people recognize the difference between a state highway shield and an Interstate shield.

Good: Our longest route of any sort is numbered LA 1.  :clap:

Bad: 3000 series routes. Range from very minor backroads to full freeways. No consistency. Have no idea why 3000 was picked as a starting point to number post-1955 routes.

Bad: Essentially non-existent marked parish road systems (except in Cameron Parish where signage overkill bloomed in the wake of Hurricane Rita - your federal recovery funds at work)

Bad: Too many state routes overall, which is a cause and consequence of under-developed parish road systems. Roads that would have been turned back to localities over the years in other states remain on the state rolls. Lots of useless spurs abound.

Good/Bad: Hyphenated routes. Good due to their uniqueness which makes them kind of cool; bad since they almost always have no reason being state highways. Also, difficult to describe verbally - is LA 611-9 "six eleven nine", "six eleven dash nine", or "section 9 of LA 611"? (I usually opt for the first, though the third is technically correct.) Thankfully few people know or care that these routes even exist so they are called by their regular street names.

Agreed on all of these. Especially the fact that we have too many state routes and many are on roads of no good use. I wish more of the major highways used the lower numbers that are used poorly now or meander (5, 12,16, 22, 50, etc.)

I dislike that so many numbered routes are not even close to being the best point from A to B. I don't think that every route needs to serve that purpose but there are so many LA routes that make no sense to drive from end to end: LA 112, LA 151, the "J-shaped" LA 27...

NJ

Like: The original 1926 renumbering and its remnants, including accidental additions that fit in the system like 31. The sequential 1xx series of added routes. Exceptions like 139, 324, 147/347, 143 that have their unique histories.
Dislike: Interlopers with randomly chosen numbers (70/72 and all of those higher numbers), and numbering to match neighboring states (284, 94, etc.)

Quote from: Steve on August 15, 2013, 12:28:57 AMnumbering to match neighboring states (284, 94, etc.)

why is this a bad thing?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2013, 12:30:20 AM

Quote from: Steve on August 15, 2013, 12:28:57 AMnumbering to match neighboring states (284, 94, etc.)

why is this a bad thing?

Because it was done at the request of the Military Industrial Complex.

Quote from: 31E on August 12, 2013, 06:02:39 PM
Tennessee's numbering scheme...

Likes:

1. State routes are divided into primary and secondary routes

Dislikes:

1. No grid or zone system of any kind; numbers are picked seemingly at random
2. No even/odd rule for north-south and east-west routes
3. Numbers are sometimes duplicated; Tennessee has an I-155 and a TN 155, as well as a US 31 and a TN 31.
4. No county routes
5. Many important local roads that should be numbered and signed (e.g. County 11 North, County 11 South) don't have any kind of route number. Roads like Clarksville's Ted Crozier Blvd and Peachers Mill Rd, as well as Hendersonville's Indian Lake Blvd really should be numbered and signed. Even when a route number exists it often is poorly marked in developed areas. Springfield, Tennessee must be hogging all the numbers - every major road there has a route number, and Memorial Blvd is a multiplex of US 41, US 431, TN 76, and TN 11.
6. Most of the single-digit state routes are overlain on US Routes, when they should be used for important independent routes.
7. Relationships between 3-digit routes and parent 2-digit routes is rare - 155 and 255 have nothing to do with 55, and 374 has no relation to 74, but 149 and 249 are branches of 49.

Some counties do have blue pentagons; however, they are only signed as like street blades with no reassurance markers.  McMinn, Polk and a couple of others.

No grid or cluster; however, there are more 100 numbers in West TN, 200 numbers in Middle TN and 300 numbers in East TN.

My likes and dislikes for Virginia:

Likes:
-No grid, no even-odd rule. I'm not anal about these things.
-Some clustering, although deletions and additions over the past 80 years have caused this to be less true than when the current system was implemented.
-Primary and secondary routes are easily distinguished by their numbers, something that, with the ever-decreasing quality control in the signage department, is necessary.
-Low numbers generally are assigned to long or important routes, current VA 4 notwithstanding.
-Continuing numbers across state lines.
-Clear guidelines for (new, at least) primary routes.
-Numbers that are duplicated between US and primary routes are usually related. (Signage often gets them confused a lot, however, and then there's VA 13...)

Dislikes:
-The woeful signage, but that isn't the fault of the CTB.
-The seemingly random number assignment of new primary routes. Only with the 3 Northern VA parkways being added last year was there any sort of cohesion with number additions (the 3 numbers had been out of use the longest).
-Only 50 miles of new primary routing are allowed each year.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2013, 12:30:20 AM

Quote from: Steve on August 15, 2013, 12:28:57 AMnumbering to match neighboring states (284, 94, etc.)

why is this a bad thing?

Broke apart NJ's intuitive numbering scheme. 94 should be 8, 17 should be 2 (though 17 sorta fits the grid anyway).

TEXAS

Likes:
Different route types to meet logical need

Dislikes:
Number duplication. FM 75 and US 75 are too close together, SH 121 and FM 121 almost intersect, both cross US 75, causing confusion

Secondary routes agricultural names. First of all, having both FARM and RANCH is silly, and creates issues if both farms and ranches are present in an area. Second, having agricultural names for secondaries is bad because many are in urban areas. Heck, in the 90's, TxDOT considered a third secondary type: URBAN. This only good thing about this is that "Farm"/"FM" are easier to say than "secondary"

FLORIDA

Likes: Organized numbering grid.

Dislikes: Lack of Loops/Spurs

Old alignments retaining original number as county road. ie: Lake CR 44; Seminole CR 415.

Same number for both mainline/ spur. ie: CR 438 at Oakland. Really dislike this. Very Confusing.

Quote from: Brian556 on August 16, 2013, 01:13:37 AM

FLORIDA

Dislikes: Lack of Loops/Spurs

There's at least one Loop out there...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FDSCF0003_zps70d55aca.jpg&hash=61e84ddb42b2c5ab437dedfc8b541adb34b710b3)

Most Texas loops aren't really loops but links or connectors (Nebraska and Georgia get it right).

Most Texas loops aren't really loops but links or connectors (Nebraska and Georgia get it right). (//http://)
Yeah, NE2, I don't really like these. Especially when loop designations are given to former US or state highway alignments that are not loops.
A great example of this is LOOP 354 in Dallas. It is a short section of Former BUSINESS US 77

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.877569,-96.868687&spn=0.095871,0.200329&t=h&z=13 (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.877569,-96.868687&spn=0.095871,0.200329&t=h&z=13)

Virginia:

Good: Primary (<600) vs Secondary (>600) can roughly give a distinction in the level of service.

Bad: Secondary routes are a complete crapshoot, ranging from expressways to jeep trails.

Good: Some clustering, with primaries, with 174-183 all in the Eastern Shore.

Bad: Renumbers and new routes have basically made the bunching useless.

Good: Primaries are generally all well-maintained roads.

Bad: Several wandering routes that nobody would drive end-to-end. (VA 156 and VA 165 come to mind)

Good: Numbers maintained over state lines (16, 32, 168, Etc)

Bad: Many routes abuse concurrencies. (6, 40, 56 come to mind)

Good: Secondaries (county route equivalent) keep their numbers across county lines.

Bad: Far too many secondaries. Seriously, in Fairfax County, they extend into the 5 digits.

Good: The F-routes for frontage roads.

Bad: The 300-series institutional routes are a waste of numbers.

Good: The Y-routes prevent unnecessary route numbers.

I don't get the hate for the facility routes being a waste of numbers. It isn't like Virginia is going to run out of numbers anytime soon. VA 4 was a waste of that number, but I think the facility routes are one of the cool quirks Virginia has.

I know this is an old thread, but wanted to add my thoughts...

California
---
Likes: Each class of highway has a unique cutout shield, both in shape and color.

Dislike #1: Signage is seemingly prioritizing who maintains any given route, rather than navigation. I've pointed out many times before that I, as a motorist, have very little interest in whether Caltrans maintains a route or if the local community does, all I care about is being able to follow the route. Even in 2016, I should be able to do this via guide signs and reassurance markers, because I may not always have a map or GPS handy. One of ironies of the '64 renumbering was to reduce the number of routes on any given highway, yet the opposite issue is now happening: concurrencies are rarely signed, even when they would make sense. This is why CA-1 seemingly disappears several times when it's concurrent with US-101. This is why other routes like CA-16 seemingly exist in two segments. I personally find that much more confusing than being on a highway that is signed as both I-5 and CA-16. (On the other hand, I can excuse routes with implied connections that are the result of geography, such as the various Sierra crossings that are unfeasible to build.)

Dislike #2: Route duplication. I never thought I'd say this, but the more I think about it, the more I dislike it. I've come to realize now that there's a big difference between theory and practice. Again, I can understand what the '64 renumbering was all about: mainly to reduce the number of routes being signed all at once. But in practice, there were many other alternatives that could have been done, nor do I really believe that your typical motorist would be horribly confused on a route that may have 2-3 different concurrencies. When I'm driving without a map or a GPS, my instinct is to follow the route I'm on... As long as I'm following US-101, I don't care if it also shares the highway with CA-1, CA-135 and US-466. I have enough common sense to filter out the information I don't need. Anyway, my point is, I really don't have an issue with route duplication. Again, California has both physical and color differentiation between each class of highway, to the point that it's incredibly unlikely a motorist would ever confuse CA-10 for I-10, even if they were relatively close together. And again, there is common sense. A motorist today understands that interstate are for long-distance travel, so they'd understand I-10 will get them from Los Angeles to Palm Springs, whereas CA-10 is going to be geared more for local locations. Many other states duplicate routes, and I really don't think it's an issue, certainly not anymore with GPS assistance. Which brings me to...

Dislike #3: The insistence of not duplicating routes and avoiding concurrencies has reduced the numbering scheme to a literal crapshoot. I've seen the original 1934 state highway layout, and while it had some "violations" here and there, there was a clear order. Every other route number was either in NorCal (0, 4, 8) or SoCal (2, 6, 10). And while the big cities got the lower numbers, there was still a logic: routes generally increased as you moved east and south. Even when that wasn't always the case (sometimes it would be reversed), there was still a logical order: CA-180 was north of CA-178, CA-198 was north of CA-190, CA-126 was north of CA-118. But when the '64 renumbering came into play, that order was pretty much gone. New routes were just assigned in some willy-nilly order where needed, and not much thought was given to maintaining the notion of even numbered routes being west-east and odd numbered routes being south-north. In addition, it seemed many routes were truncated or changed for no real reason. For example, CA-2 used to go into the Lake Arrowhead area, by making use of what is today CA-138 and CA-173. But then it just ended at CA-138, which went into the area, and CA-173 was created. Why? To me, why break up a perfectly fine state route into two or three new ones? Why fix what isn't broken? Same logic with CA-150... Was a perfectly fine route how it was, but then it was truncated and the western portion became CA-246, CA-154, and CA-192. Again, for what reason? Wouldn't having four routes to replace what used to be one longer route be confusing? It seems like it's just a waste of numbers. I'm of the opinion that the fewer routes, the better. And the longer, the better. Don't use four routes when one will do. There's nothing wrong with a 100+ mile route, no need to truncate it at something arbitrary like a county line.

Oregon
---
Like #1: Unlike California, Oregon has maintained a largely logical numbering scheme to the present day. Like the US highways, the state highways generally increase in number as one goes south and west. Thus, you can roughly discern where you are within the state by the route number: Oregon 3 is towards the east end of the state, Oregon 70 is towards the south end of the state. Of course, there are a few violations here and there, mostly with the post-2002 additions to the network, but the key is consistency. Even with US highways and interstates, Oregon has maintained a well-numbered state highway network.

Like #2: Unlike another West Coast state, Oregon has largely maintained its US highways. Some have been lost, like 99 and 126, but most are still there: 20, 26, 30, 97. It's just the roadgeek in me, but I think there's a certain charm to maintaining such old highway numbers. Not everything needs to be a state highway. US-30 is, to me, as important a highway as US-66 or I-95. (I'm obviously not talking in a literal sense).

Like #3: I *HATE* business routes. Hate, hate, hate them. They annoy me to no end. Thus, I very much appreciate that Oregon hates them, too. Rather, they use US highways (namely the 30) and state highways (namely the 99) in place of them. Which to me, is a perfect usage of the "lesser" highway networks. Interstates are there for the most direct line of travel, so when they bypass a town or community, you use the next lowest class of highway to provide access to those places. To me, Oregon uses US highways exactly how they should be used in modern times: as a supplement to interstates, not as a legacy that needs to be killed off. Yes, perhaps signage of US-30 next to I-84 is largely unnecessary, but again, I really hate "hidden" routes. Oregon has found a good compromise by using US-30 as more or less a frontage road to I-84. This way, you avoid a statewide concurrency, while keeping US-30 around, fully signed, as your go-to route for business loops. I imagine other states do this, too, but I've always associated it with Oregon.

Dislike #1: Oregon doesn't use cutout shields anymore. Really liked those old eagle heads...

Colorado is a very odd one, indeed.

Like: The shield.

Dislike: They put a lot of state highway numbers on city and suburban streets here in Denver that don't really go outside the city.

C-44, for example, is five miles long and covers 104th avenue for its entire length. The western terminus is at I-25 right in the middle of suburban Northglenn despite being a busy surface arterial on both sides of I-25.

C-30 is even weirder..... starts at I-25 as Hampden Ave where US 285 terminates from the other direction. Runs east on Hampden, north on Havana St, then east again on 6th Ave, and then finally turning south onto Gun Club Road where it ends at a traffic signal with Quincy Avenue one block east of Quincy's interchange with C-470.

C-26 is three miles of Alameda Ave. between Sheridan Blvd. and I-25 and never leaves the Denver city limits.

In general, a lot of the state highways are really short, often 10 miles or less and begin or end at nothing, even ones with smaller numbers. Colorado 11 is 1.4 miles long.

I dislike Arkansas signing half-mile routes to provide state-maintained driveways for factories.

I'm also not too keen on the stop-start-jump around numbering (such as AR 74).

I also think they need to do a better job of co-signing multiplexes (the TO signs are redundant)

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:46:45 AM
I know this is an old thread, but wanted to add my thoughts...

California

Dislike #1: Signage is seemingly prioritizing who maintains any given route, rather than navigation. I've pointed out many times before that I, as a motorist, have very little interest in whether Caltrans maintains a route or if the local community does, all I care about is being able to follow the route. Even in 2016, I should be able to do this via guide signs and reassurance markers, because I may not always have a map or GPS handy. One of ironies of the '64 renumbering was to reduce the number of routes on any given highway, yet the opposite issue is now happening: concurrencies are rarely signed, even when they would make sense. This is why CA-1 seemingly disappears several times when it's concurrent with US-101. This is why other routes like CA-16 seemingly exist in two segments. I personally find that much more confusing than being on a highway that is signed as both I-5 and CA-16. (On the other hand, I can excuse routes with implied connections that are the result of geography, such as the various Sierra crossings that are unfeasible to build.)

Fully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:46:45 AM
Dislike #2: Route duplication. I never thought I'd say this, but the more I think about it, the more I dislike it. I've come to realize now that there's a big difference between theory and practice. Again, I can understand what the '64 renumbering was all about: mainly to reduce the number of routes being signed all at once. But in practice, there were many other alternatives that could have been done, nor do I really believe that your typical motorist would be horribly confused on a route that may have 2-3 different concurrencies. When I'm driving without a map or a GPS, my instinct is to follow the route I'm on... As long as I'm following US-101, I don't care if it also shares the highway with CA-1, CA-135 and US-466. I have enough common sense to filter out the information I don't need.

To be fair, overly large concurrencies were a problem in the early 1960s (i.e. I-15/Route 18/US 66/US 91/US 395) which while interesting to us, served little navigational purpose (except to create an excessive message load) once the Interstates became emphasized.  On the other hand, turning the independent segment of US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Red Bluff into a state route was unnecessary and I recall a discussion here where the California Highways and Public Works magazine from around the time of the 1964 renumbering strongly hinted that this was primarily done to introduce the white-on-green shield for visibility reasons.

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:46:45 AM


Dislike #3: The insistence of not duplicating routes and avoiding concurrencies has reduced the numbering scheme to a literal crapshoot. I've seen the original 1934 state highway layout, and while it had some "violations" here and there, there was a clear order. Every other route number was either in NorCal (0, 4, 8) or SoCal (2, 6, 10). And while the big cities got the lower numbers, there was still a logic: routes generally increased as you moved east and south. Even when that wasn't always the case (sometimes it would be reversed), there was still a logical order: CA-180 was north of CA-178, CA-198 was north of CA-190, CA-126 was north of CA-118. But when the '64 renumbering came into play, that order was pretty much gone. New routes were just assigned in some willy-nilly order where needed, and not much thought was given to maintaining the notion of even numbered routes being west-east and odd numbered routes being south-north. In addition, it seemed many routes were truncated or changed for no real reason. For example, CA-2 used to go into the Lake Arrowhead area, by making use of what is today CA-138 and CA-173. But then it just ended at CA-138, which went into the area, and CA-173 was created. Why? To me, why break up a perfectly fine state route into two or three new ones? Why fix what isn't broken? Same logic with CA-150... Was a perfectly fine route how it was, but then it was truncated and the western portion became CA-246, CA-154, and CA-192. Again, for what reason? Wouldn't having four routes to replace what used to be one longer route be confusing? It seems like it's just a waste of numbers. I'm of the opinion that the fewer routes, the better. And the longer, the better. Don't use four routes when one will do. There's nothing wrong with a 100+ mile route, no need to truncate it at something arbitrary like a county line.

With regards to 246/154/150, I think 154 as a standalone route makes perfect sense (though I kinda wish it was ALT US 101).  For Route 2...IIRC, Route 173 is unpaved and not particularly important navigationally.  It might be a case where 138 was extended primarily so that the through route would not need to make a turn.

There is some route clustering with the post-1964 system (i.e. Routes 82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area, Routes 236/237/238 along former Route 9 segments) but it isn't super obvious.  I also feel like there is a weird reluctance to leave perfectly good numbers unused for long periods of time (i.e. 30 post-2000 and 31 since 1974), especially when number recycling has occurred (i.e. Route 7 near El Centro which really should be an extension of Route 115).

QuoteFully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I've heard various suggestions for things that California could do if they are so determined on denoting who maintains a route, such as using black-on-white shields for indicating local maintenance, or changing the "California" legend to something like the town or city name. These are all novel ideas, but I think they are completely unnecessary. As you pointed out, signage should always prioritize navigation over legislation. There are plenty of other ways to figure out who maintains any given stretch of road.

QuoteTo be fair, overly large concurrencies were a problem in the early 1960s (i.e. I-15/Route 18/US 66/US 91/US 395) which while interesting to us, served little navigational purpose (except to create an excessive message load) once the Interstates became emphasized.  On the other hand, turning the independent segment of US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Red Bluff into a state route was unnecessary and I recall a discussion here where the California Highways and Public Works magazine from around the time of the 1964 renumbering strongly hinted that this was primarily done to introduce the white-on-green shield for visibility reasons.

The "shield overload" does create an issue, no question about that, but I think outside of S.F. and L.A., it wasn't as prevalent as some made it out to be. Certainly in modern times, I think it would be a non-issue with GPS pretty much being standard on smartphones. But I was thinking about the issue, and I thought of a potential compromise: only sign the dominant route. Just like how mile markers typically only favor the route of the highest order (i.e. interstates over US highways), the same could be done with signage. Something like the I-10/US-60/US-70/US-99/CA-18 could have had the guide signs only showing I-10, while the actual reassurance markers continue to sign all the routes. This way, a motorist can follow the most important, direct route, but all other information is still doled out, just not necessarily at once. (Keep in mind this makes sense in my head, in practice, this might be a disaster). But again, I know other states have no issue with route duplication or concurrencies... How is signage handed in those situations? (I keep thinking of Texas, which has I-10 and TX-10, US-69 and I-69, US-54 and TX-54, etc.)

As for the second part, you're correct. From what I've read, it was indeed the '64 introduction of the white-on-green shields that caused US-99 to be downgraded to CA-99. It was above the 300-mile minimum threshold set by AASHTO, so legally, it could have existed. (On the other hand, while I disagree with AASHTO's 300-mile definition, I accept this is why US-299 and US-399 had to be removed). Makes me wonder why California couldn't have just created a white-on-green US highway shield, especially since colored US shields weren't unheard of during the 50s and 60s. Maybe the state wouldn't get federal money if they moved away from the '61 cutout design, I don't know.

QuoteWith regards to 246/154/150, I think 154 as a standalone route makes perfect sense (though I kinda wish it was ALT US 101).  For Route 2...IIRC, Route 173 is unpaved and not particularly important navigationally.  It might be a case where 138 was extended primarily so that the through route would not need to make a turn.

There is some route clustering with the post-1964 system (i.e. Routes 82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area, Routes 236/237/238 along former Route 9 segments) but it isn't super obvious.  I also feel like there is a weird reluctance to leave perfectly good numbers unused for long periods of time (i.e. 30 post-2000 and 31 since 1974), especially when number recycling has occurred (i.e. Route 7 near El Centro which really should be an extension of Route 115).

I agree about CA-173 not being an overall important route, and given it had until recently a jeep trail, makes me wonder why it was a state highway in the first place. Which kind of brings me to my point... Seems it would have been easier to simply realign CA-2 onto what is today CA-138 east of I-15 rather than truncate it and extend the route that originally used to end at it. Seems to be like an exercise in futility, akin to the notion of moving something like I-580 and putting it where I-980 presently is. CA-2 had existed from L.A. to the Big Bear area for three decades at that point, and thus truncating it just seemed to make no real sense.

I agree about CA-154 being US-101 Alt. In fact, this routing was the original routing of US-101 back in the day, though I don't know if it was ever actually signed as such. (It might have been the original El Camino Real trail, much of which later became the 101). But it still begs the question, I think, why it couldn't have just remained 150, or even made the entire 154-192-150 corridor something like US-101 Alt. I still can't figure out any logical reason why you'd divide one route into four. Especially when all the routes that replaced 150 ultimately go the same places, anyway. Had 150 been some bizarre shaped route that had no clear orientation, like CA-18, I could understand. But it wasn't... It ran west-east from the ocean to Santa Paula, generally a northern parallel of 101. Seems odd to break that up, although it the route does exist in multiple counties, so maybe that played a factor.

Ohio:

      Likes
            - The state routes are very well signed
            - Multiplexes are well signed, too, even if a state route is jumping on an interstate for a bit
            - State Route, US Route, and Interstate Highway numbers never overlap
            - There is some quasi-regional numbering with the 3 digit state routes, or at least that's my observation
            - Almost all (and possibly all) of the state routes are continuous

      Dislikes
            - Despite some quasi-regional numbering, there doesn't seem to be a really distinct pattern in the numbering
            - The state routes are not polar

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM

QuoteFully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM
The "shield overload" does create an issue, no question about that, but I think outside of S.F. and L.A., it wasn't as prevalent as some made it out to be.

Considering the size of the Southland's population I feel like this still disproportionally affected a majority 1950s/1960s commuters in California:

I-10/US 70/US 99 (as US 60 was already off the routing by 1962-1963 based on photos I've seen on here)
I-5/US 99
US 6/Route 11 (which were cosigned on the Harbor Freeway for years) - note that Route 11 followed Alt US 66 rather than the Arroyo Seco Parkway, which led to Route 11/US 6/Alt US 66 briefly north of I-5
I-15/US 66/US 91/US 395 as mentioned earlier
US 101/I-5
US 91/Alt US 101 and US 6/Alt US 101 (leading to "southbound" US 91 going "north" along today's Route 1 near Long Beach)
US 60/US 395 (now today's Route 60/I-215)

Post-1964, within Los Angeles County the only major concurrency that's left is I-5/I-10, along with Route 2/US 101; in Orange County the only prominent freeway concurrency is Route 22 with I-405.

In comparison, the pre-1964 freeway co-signings in NorCal were as follows:

I-80/US 40/US 50
I-80/US 101 (may or may have not been signed) along the Central Freeway
US 50/I-5W
Route 17/US 40/I-80 (now today's I-580/I-80) along the Eastshore Freeway
I-80/US 40/US 99E in Arden/north Sacramento
I-80/US 40/US 99W in West Sacramento
US 50/US 99 in South Sacramento to Stockton
US 101/Route 1 from the Presidio northward, as is still the case today
I-280/Route 17 and I-680/Route 17 (all now I-880) respectively from San Jose to Fremont
Route 17/Business US 50 briefly along the Cypress Freeway in Oakland

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM
Something like the I-10/US-60/US-70/US-99/CA-18 could have had the guide signs only showing I-10, while the actual reassurance markers continue to sign all the routes. This way, a motorist can follow the most important, direct route, but all other information is still doled out, just not necessarily at once. (Keep in mind this makes sense in my head, in practice, this might be a disaster). But again, I know other states have no issue with route duplication or concurrencies... How is signage handed in those situations? (I keep thinking of Texas, which has I-10 and TX-10, US-69 and I-69, US-54 and TX-54, etc.)

Texas for the most part is large enough that the same-numbered routes don't cross each other (unlike say State Road 64 and I-64 in Indiana), plus the classifications are emphasized (SH, US, IH, FM).

Your suggestion reminds me of how the Route 128/I-95 concurrency in suburban Boston is handled, particularly with MassDOT's attempts at deemphasizing the Route 128 designation (even though the public continues to use that more established number).

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM

QuoteWith regards to 246/154/150, I think 154 as a standalone route makes perfect sense (though I kinda wish it was ALT US 101).  For Route 2...IIRC, Route 173 is unpaved and not particularly important navigationally.  It might be a case where 138 was extended primarily so that the through route would not need to make a turn.

There is some route clustering with the post-1964 system (i.e. Routes 82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area, Routes 236/237/238 along former Route 9 segments) but it isn't super obvious.  I also feel like there is a weird reluctance to leave perfectly good numbers unused for long periods of time (i.e. 30 post-2000 and 31 since 1974), especially when number recycling has occurred (i.e. Route 7 near El Centro which really should be an extension of Route 115).

I agree about CA-173 not being an overall important route, and given it had until recently a jeep trail, makes me wonder why it was a state highway in the first place. Which kind of brings me to my point... Seems it would have been easier to simply realign CA-2 onto what is today CA-138 east of I-15 rather than truncate it and extend the route that originally used to end at it. Seems to be like an exercise in futility, akin to the notion of moving something like I-580 and putting it where I-980 presently is. CA-2 had existed from L.A. to the Big Bear area for three decades at that point, and thus truncating it just seemed to make no real sense.

Especially when the reason I-180 has never been available is because Route 180 was intentionally retained in 1964 even while other routes were being renumbered (the old Route 8 in Stockton, the old Route 5 from San Francisco south).

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM

I agree about CA-154 being US-101 Alt. In fact, this routing was the original routing of US-101 back in the day, though I don't know if it was ever actually signed as such. (It might have been the original El Camino Real trail, much of which later became the 101).

Actually 154 I don't think was ever El Camino Real or US 101 in any form.

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM


But it still begs the question, I think, why it couldn't have just remained 150, or even made the entire 154-192-150 corridor something like US-101 Alt. I still can't figure out any logical reason why you'd divide one route into four. Especially when all the routes that replaced 150 ultimately go the same places, anyway. Had 150 been some bizarre shaped route that had no clear orientation, like CA-18, I could understand. But it wasn't... It ran west-east from the ocean to Santa Paula, generally a northern parallel of 101. Seems odd to break that up, although it the route does exist in multiple counties, so maybe that played a factor.

I actually see some of the logic in it: 154 is still a usable corridor for trucks looking to shortcut away from Gaviota, but much of the 150/192 route is too windy for that type of bypassing.  (Also, 150 heading out towards Santa Paula takes a very indirect route)

QuoteI want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

Not a bad idea. I remember driving on Latigo Canyon Road between Malibu and Kanan-Dume Road not too long back, and a side-street had a sign saying "END COUNTY MAINTENANCE." Maybe something like that could work with the state highways? It would certainly get rid of the madness of routes that mysteriously die at city limits, like how CA-91 just ends around Artesia instead of a logical westward connection to CA-1.

Another way to deal with large concurrencies is make better use of parallel and frontage roads. For example, I-15 through the Mojave Desert makes use of a frontage road from Hesperia to at least as far as Victorville. That could have easily been US-91, and would have functioned exactly as it did before, even if it was realigned from its previous location (i.e. slightly to the right). Same thing through the L.A. area... There are plenty of streets that parallel the major interstates, it doesn't seem like it would have been a major issue to keep the freeway just I-10, and move US-60 and US-99 onto a parallel or frontage road. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but it seems like there were several options that could have been explored before outright canceling routes.

QuoteI actually see some of the logic in it: 154 is still a usable corridor for trucks looking to shortcut away from Gaviota, but much of the 150/192 route is too windy for that type of bypassing.  (Also, 150 heading out towards Santa Paula takes a very indirect route)

More reason to make all of what is today CA-154 a US-101 Alt, as you suggested.  :bigass:

Quote from: njroadhorse on June 07, 2010, 10:20:05 PM
New Jersey
Like:
- A general polarity among the routes: N-S = odd; E-W = even

Really? I've lived in NJ for 25 years and have noticed such a pattern. Here's a list of notable counterexamples: 5, 13, 18, 20, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, 42, 44, 49, 50, 52, 54, 57, 62, 64, 68, 75, 83, 120, 154, 156, 159, 166, 168, 173, 182, 185.

Quote
- Three digit numbers on useless routes.

If you mean county routes, I find these very helpful especially where a street name is very common (a lot of "main street"s have county numbers for example)

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:57:42 PM

Another way to deal with large concurrencies is make better use of parallel and frontage roads. For example, I-15 through the Mojave Desert makes use of a frontage road from Hesperia to at least as far as Victorville. That could have easily been US-91, and would have functioned exactly as it did before, even if it was realigned from its previous location (i.e. slightly to the right). Same thing through the L.A. area... There are plenty of streets that parallel the major interstates, it doesn't seem like it would have been a major issue to keep the freeway just I-10, and move US-60 and US-99 onto a parallel or frontage road. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but it seems like there were several options that could have been explored before outright canceling routes.

This seems to be the philosophy in other states (i.e. I-70 and US 6 and US 40 in Colorado & Kansas).  California seems to be "upgrade or decommission" - once a route reaches freeway status, if it then is supplanted by another number, reversion to parallel surface route or old routing is almost always never a consideration (i.e. US 101 south of Los Angeles; its former routing becoming Route 72 and county roads once I-5 was prioritized over the older US route designation).  (Compare to the saga of US 117 in Goldsboro, North Carolina, which at one point ran on today's I-795 but then was moved back to its former alternate surface route)

Being a roadgeek, I do prefer the approach other states take in keeping around lower-level highways and just using them as supplements, not deleting them outright. Seems to function a bit more like the European highways, where you have M-class routes, A-class routes, etc.

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM

QuoteWith regards to 246/154/150, I think 154 as a standalone route makes perfect sense (though I kinda wish it was ALT US 101).

I agree about CA-154 being US-101 Alt. In fact, this routing was the original routing of US-101 back in the day, though I don't know if it was ever actually signed as such. (It might have been the original El Camino Real trail, much of which later became the 101). But it still begs the question, I think, why it couldn't have just remained 150, or even made the entire 154-192-150 corridor something like US-101 Alt. I still can't figure out any logical reason why you'd divide one route into four. Especially when all the routes that replaced 150 ultimately go the same places, anyway. Had 150 been some bizarre shaped route that had no clear orientation, like CA-18, I could understand. But it wasn't... It ran west-east from the ocean to Santa Paula, generally a northern parallel of 101. Seems odd to break that up, although it the route does exist in multiple counties, so maybe that played a factor.

If I were to hazard a guess, it was that 150 as an entire route didn't do anything that wasn't already done better by another route. No one going from Santa Paula to Lompoc would take 150; they would take 126-101-1. Better, faster roads.

In fact, if you take all the urban areas 150 connected: Santa Paula-Ojai-Santa Barbara-Santa Ynez-Lompoc, anyone traveling more than one "stop" had a better, faster alternative.

As for 154, it was likely part of the "real" El Camino Real, but was never part of US-101. The Gaviota-Buellton segment of US-101 was part of the State Highway system from the beginning (LRN 2), and the 1930 Caltrans map confirms this was the US-101 routing.

I get the idea of 154 as Alt-US-101 (I lived in Santa Barbara for seven years), but would probably want some more safety upgrades to the San Marcos Pass section before I would actively encourage a non-local driver to use it as a bypass.

Back on topic: It seems that Caltrans is now using the lowest available number when assigning new routes, which means numbers like 7 and 11 (both of which should have been saved for potential Interstate use) got assigned to short little routes connecting I-8 to the border. 21 is next; I wonder where that will be?

I'll bite with PA:

Like:

The primary state highways are mostly numbered on parent/child system similar to the US Route System. There's some exceptions and other oddities that were mostly due to avoiding duplicates of US Routes and Interstates.

Dislike:

PennDOT not making the driving public more aware of the Quadrant Route system. Knowing these routes is particularly helpful say like in the aftermath of this big blizzard we had this past weekend. You figure a road that PennDOT maintains would be better plowed than a road maintained by a municipality and therefor you could get around with slightly less of a headache than if you didn't know where you were going.

QuoteA long time ago in a galaxy far far away, the Lowell Connector was once called Business Spur 495

But only on side streets in Lowell that intersected the Connector.  It was never signed as a Business Spur on the Connector itself, or on either the I-495 or US 3 mainlines for the Connector exit (as conformed by personal - and extensive - review of signing plans for I-495, US 3, and the Lowell Connector from when all the roads were originally built to the current signing).

IIRC, the last remaining Business 495 marker is located on Gorham Street eastbound prior to the Connector, and is planned to be removed as part of the latest sign replacement project.

QuoteI want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

The legend for these signs are State Highway Begins and State Highway Ends.  As the legends imply, these signs denote the limits of state jurisdction (mostly for legal reasons), and can be found on several secondary highways within Massachusetts.

Quote from: roadman on January 28, 2016, 04:26:03 PMIIRC, the last remaining Business 495 marker is located on Gorham Street eastbound prior to the Connector, and is planned to be removed as part of the latest sign replacement project.

Based on latest GSVs, there's no BUS 495 signs (or even traces of such) along Gorham St/Thorndike St./MA 3A.

The last known Bus 495 shield was (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6257904,-71.322003,3a,75y,136.03h,67.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb4tYWTFdsdg_bXREj7Vy7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along Plain St. just north of the interchange.  Only the old JTC. panel remains.

Quote from: ekt8750 on January 28, 2016, 03:48:39 PM
You figure a road that PennDOT maintains would be better plowed than a road maintained by a municipality and therefor you could get around with slightly less of a headache than if you didn't know where you were going.

Of course everyone's experiences are bound to differ, but I'll throw an anecdote out there. My late grandmother's home is on a rural arterial road that had been an SR from at least the '40s up until about 2004 when it was turned back to the local township. On numerous occasions, she remarked that the winter maintenance noticeably improved when the township took over–or conversely, that the road was something of a neglected stepchild under PennDOT maintenance.

If I had to speculate, PennDOT maintenance may be better than local maintenance in absolute terms, but during significant weather events, they understandably need to prioritize Interstates, US routes, and roads with the keystone marker ahead of quadrant routes. Yet for municipalities, the arterial roads that equate to PennDOTs quadrant routes are the highest priority they have.

More nuance on NY:
-Like: Suffixes used as spurs, not split alignments
-Like: US routes not merged onto long useless overlaps with interstates or spammed on minor roads like many other states
-Dislike: Duplications of interstates/state routes and US 2 and 220 with state routes
-Dislike: There are a few small routes that should really be reference routes (NY 421 and NY 419 come to mind)

Quote from: TheStranger on January 28, 2016, 12:55:53 PM

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM

QuoteFully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

It's common practice all over the place here, but I can't cite an example for you.

I guess they would look similar to this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FClFFjiE.jpg&hash=d109c9ee8c150201494c14df65b8e016c036de7a)

Frankly, this is exactly what California needs. Any place a state highway is no longer maintained by Caltrans, erect these signs but continue to sign the state highway. I cited CA-91 earlier as an example of a route that ends at city limits rather than a logical point like another state highway. But there are many other examples.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2016, 08:13:02 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on January 28, 2016, 12:55:53 PM

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM

QuoteFully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

It's common practice all over the place here, but I can't cite an example for you.

It's technically legal in SD, too, but I think that only SD 42, 63, and 115 utilize this quirk (although there are no "END STATE MAINTENANCE" signs).

Other likes:
The Grid. Yes, I know it might be boring, but it's nice to have some order in the state highways. Heck, even the 3-digit routes are on their own grid (minus SD 231)! Even the rural addresses are on a statewide grid! All that, to me, is cool.
No number duplication. This is self-explanatory.
Non-proliferation of routes (think Arkansas for a contrary). This means the existing roads get maintained better.
Number-direction parity. Yes, I know E-W even routes and N-S odd routes are plain and boring, but they're nice. NOTE: This rule is being violated East River by whoever designs the new BGS's or a renegade contractor; hopefully this will be cracked down on.
Bannered routes instead of suffixed routes (minus the Alternates (and those "P" routes that nobody knows about)). Saying a highway is "xxL" or "xxB" leads to confusion over what the letters mean, so it's nice to have clarity. NOTE: This is violated at the Brookings exit, see earlier note about East River taking everything too literally. Darn flatlanders.

Dislikes:
The unsigned routes. I mean, just sign them already.

I actually disagree with you on suffixes vs. banners. I was in South Dakota over the summer, and I drove on both US-16 and US-16A. (There was also a US-16T). For me, though, it's just aesthetics... I find "16A" easier to say and understand than "16 Alternate." But it's just a matter of opinion, and AASHTO obviously disagrees with me. (For the record, South Dakota also centered the suffix and had it half the height of the numeral legend, which again gave it a nice, balanced look).

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/SD/SD19660161i1.jpg)

On the subject of South Dakota, I also like that they use green-on-white for their state highway shields, which extends to the directional banners. It creates a subtle, yet visible, contrast from the black-on-white US highway shields. One of the only other states to do this is Vermont.

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
I actually disagree with you on suffixes vs. banners. I was in South Dakota over the summer, and I drove on both US-16 and US-16A. (There was also a US-16T). For me, though, it's just aesthetics... I find "16A" easier to say and understand than "16 Alternate." But it's just a matter of opinion, and AASHTO obviously disagrees with me. (For the record, South Dakota also centered the suffix and had it half the height of the numeral legend, which again gave it a nice, balanced look).

I don't mind the A's, as it's pretty obvious what the A stands for (at least for me). I think 16T does not exist anymore (and it was signed as Truck when it was... the new truck is legally 16B)

If you didn't come up to the Northern Hills (which it sounds like you didn't), you missed out big time.


The erroneous suffixes in Brookings were uncentered, normal size, and just plain looked wrong.

Don't have a pic handy, but I distinctly remember a "16T" shield. I was only in the state for a few days, visiting Rushmore and Jewel Cave, so I didn't go north of I-90.

Well, if there was one still there, it shouldn't be there (should be 16B not T). I guess they didn't get rid of all of them, as I've only ever seen bannered 16 Truck shields.

Quote from: TheStranger on January 28, 2016, 12:55:53 PM

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 12:31:50 PM

QuoteFully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I want to say Route 2 somewhere in Massachusetts has a spot entering a town where "End State Maintenance" signs are placed but the route shields continue.  I don't recall where, I remember reading it on this forum years ago.

Very common in Massachusetts all around.  Those signs also show up on MA 9, MA 63 and most likely MA 116...and they're all shielded after the "end state maintenance" signs.

That's another thing I like about NY: not many bannered routes.  Banners here are pretty much unofficial truck routes established by municipalities and Business US 62 (which Niagara Falls shoved down our throat).

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 10:05:42 PM
I guess they would look similar to this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FClFFjiE.jpg&hash=d109c9ee8c150201494c14df65b8e016c036de7a)

Frankly, this is exactly what California needs. Any place a state highway is no longer maintained by Caltrans, erect these signs but continue to sign the state highway. I cited CA-91 earlier as an example of a route that ends at city limits rather than a logical point like another state highway. But there are many other examples.

That picture looks familiar.  :D

FWIW, that assembly is gone. KY 555 was extended north of the Bluegrass Parkway to end at US 62. That extension is part of an improved route that also includes sections of US 62, KY 248 and KY 44 that ends at Taylorsville.

Alabama

LIKES:

*State routes are, for the most part well-signed.
*Limited amount of gridding (71, 73 and 75 in NE Alabama, 20 and 24 in the northern part of the state, and 17 and 19 in NW Alabama come to mind, and to a lesser extent SR-10 and SR-14 in south Alabama)
*Duplicated Interstate and state route numbers are fairly well separated to avoid confusion (Yes, there are both I-10 and SR-10, I-20 and SR-20, I-22 and SR-22, I-59 and SR-59, I-65 and SR-65, I-85 and SR-85, and I-165 and SR-165).
*No duplication of US and state routes (the current numbering plan was adopted in 1957)

DISLIKES:
*Most state route numbers seem randomly assigned
*Wasting perfectly good route numbers to be paired with US routes and unsigned (1=431, 2=72, 3=31, 4=78, 6=82, 7=11, 8=80, 12=84, 13=43, albeit 13 is an independent route in west Alabama, 15=29, 16=90, 17=45, then 43, but there are sections of 17 that are independent routes, 38=280, 42=98, 53=231, 74=278.  SR-9 (331) and SR-25 (411) get hall passes, since they are standalone routes past the termini of 331 and 411.
*SR-5 is a NE-SW route from south Alabama to Birmingham, but it becomes a NW-SE route as it leaves Birmingham.  Should be two separate routes.
*Random assignment of new three digit routes.  In most instances, it's a case of what's the next available number.
*State routes that have termini at junctions with county roads.  I don't know if that's common in other states.
*Some state routes should be upgraded to US routes in order to provide direct connections with cities in neighboring states.  In my mind,there should be a continuous route number connecting Decatur and Tupelo along AL-24 and MS-23 (Hello, US-478 or US-272?), and perhaps Florence and Jackson, TN (extend US 641 to Florence?)

CA-59 ends at County Route 59. I would imagine other states have a similar setup, too.

Quote from: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
I actually disagree with you on suffixes vs. banners. I was in South Dakota over the summer, and I drove on both US-16 and US-16A. (There was also a US-16T). For me, though, it's just aesthetics... I find "16A" easier to say and understand than "16 Alternate." But it's just a matter of opinion, and AASHTO obviously disagrees with me. (For the record, South Dakota also centered the suffix and had it half the height of the numeral legend, which again gave it a nice, balanced look).

I have a theory (no proof or citations) related to the number of syllables for a given numerical or alpha-numerical route designation. I would agree that 16A is easier to say than Alternate 16, and I would further say that this same logic can be applied to other numbering schemes. I believe some designations were given due to the ease with it can be said rather than applying it for a number scheme. As a fake/non-real-world example, 510 is easier to say than 57 due to the fact 510 has two syllables (five ten) and 57 has four syllables (fifty seven). In the real world, I'd submit that this might be a reason why there are several number-letter route designations (such as 9A) in New York rather than jumping up to, say, a bunch of signed four-digit state route numbers in New York. But I can't prove that syllables and ease of speech was considered when assigning state route numbers; it's just a theory.

Quote from: andy3175 on February 03, 2016, 12:04:20 AM
I have a theory (no proof or citations) related to the number of syllables for a given numerical or alpha-numerical route designation. I would agree that 16A is easier to say than Alternate 16, and I would further say that this same logic can be applied to other numbering schemes. I believe some designations were given due to the ease with it can be said rather than applying it for a number scheme. As a fake/non-real-world example, 510 is easier to say than 57 due to the fact 510 has two syllables (five ten) and 57 has four syllables (fifty seven). In the real world, I'd submit that this might be a reason why there are several number-letter route designations (such as 9A) in New York rather than jumping up to, say, a bunch of signed four-digit state route numbers in New York. But I can't prove that syllables and ease of speech was considered when assigning state route numbers; it's just a theory.

Certainly plausible.

I imagine this is why the Alternate U.S. routes in Nevada are typically referred to as though they are suffixed routes. Route shields typically use the "ALT" banner (some errant examples on US 95A notwithstanding), but some street name signs use "US xxA" lettering.