The years of hodgepodge route relinquishments in California made me think of a related topics, one which is inherently subjective but still curious as to how the forum folks would think about it:
What state has the most logical use of numbered routes, based on the following factors:
- Navigational clarity: the route is easy to follow, has a coherent sense of shape/direction
- Consistent signage (California's piecemeal "this segment is relinquished but this one is not" really stymies any sort of consistency here)
- Picking the best possible "between point A and point B" route whenever applicable (this may not be as much of a factor for "former routings of another route" or "servicing important community that is slightly off the direct path")
- using one route per straight-line corridor (as opposed to say part of the corridor being one number, then part being another number)
- Helpful numbering choices (i.e. lower digit numbers for more significant routes, or an easy to understand grid/cluster) for remembering major corridors
Florida is going to be hard to beat using the above criterion given the network is grid based and emphasizes important routes with lower numbers. It certainly doesn't hurt that County Routes are incorporated into the larger grid and are generally well signed.
Mississippi might be the worst at most things, but their highway system overall meets these criteria. The lowest numbers (one and two digit) are in the northern and western part of the state, and increase going south and east. Three digit state routes beginning with a 1 are old or business routes (as well as maybe one or two 2nd routes). Three digit routes starting with 301 can be found in the northwest portion of the state, and they all increase as you move south and east, with the highest being a 6xx in the southeastern corner of the state. A vast majority of the US highways that aren't followed by interstates are four lanes, making for a four lane network that's almost as comprehensive as that of Virginia.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 18, 2023, 07:32:20 AM
Florida is going to be hard to beat using the above criterion given the network is grid based and emphasizes important routes with lower numbers. It certainly doesn't hurt that County Routes are incorporated into the larger grid and are generally well signed.
Delaware also has a state route grid, but I'm not sure how organized their county systems are.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 18, 2023, 02:28:43 AM
- using one route per straight-line corridor (as opposed to say part of the corridor being one number, then part being another number)
Ohio's definitely going into the bottom half for this. Three numbers (US 23/OH 15/I-75) for Columbus to Toledo, and the OH 161/37/16 freeway that somehow still have 3 numbers east of Columbus; 6 numbers if you count the whole Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor along it, adding in US 36, US 250 and US 22.
Michigan is pretty good. The original routes were numbered in order of decreasing length, and then numbers were used (roughly) in order of commissioning.
Most routes take a fairly straight-line path, with a few exceptions like M-22 and M-123. (And US-41, but that's because the original plan to go straight north from the western junction with US-2 in Powers never came into being.)
I feel like we can add Colorado. The routes out east are mostly straight, because they can be. The mountain roads take the path of least resistance. Numbering isn't particularly organized any specific way, however.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 18, 2023, 10:30:47 AM
I feel like we can add Colorado. The routes out east are mostly straight, because they can be. The mountain roads take the path of least resistance. Numbering isn't particularly organized any specific way, however.
There's no navigational clarity or consistent signage with CDOT's policy of sporadically at best signing multiplexes. Try to follow US 287, US 24, US 6, US 85, or US 40 from end to end here. Heck two of those routes join an interstate route via an overpass with no exit. State highway multiplexes sometimes are signed, sometimes not, or sometimes just signed as "To CO-xx".
Washington is high up there. Only a handful of unsigned routes (mostly short and incomplete ones), a very clean and consistent numbering scheme (though minus 10 points for relying on implied parent route numbers that don't exist, e.g. SR "15" for spurs of US 97), and relatively straightforward routings.
Utah has to be bottom half for this...
There's pretty much no order at all in how routes were assigned. The earliest numbering system was a cluster scheme that used 1-10 on the most important roads and then assigned up to about 50 in a generally clockwise direction starting in the southwest part of the state. After that, numbers were assigned in order and then also reused haphazardly as routes were deleted, which means most of the longer corridors tend to be 2 digit routes...but there are a handful of long 3 digit routes and an even bigger handful of short 1/2 digit routes. It also means there are several clusters of routes that were all created at the same time in the same area (like 268, 269, 270 in downtown SLC), but that is nowhere near regular enough to be useful.
For the most part, the routes take logical paths, but the state hates concurrencies, so there are a ton of instances where one route ends two blocks from another route that begins and carries on the same direction. Stuff like 248/150 in Kamas or 56/14 in Cedar City. There are also a number of routings, such as the north end of 68 in Bountiful, that smack of "this is how we could get numbers to follow continuous stretches of state maintained road".
There are also numerous "institutional" routes that follow random roads on college campuses that happen to be state maintained, or even parking lots of state facilities. Those are almost always unsigned...as they should be.
At least signage is generally quite good. For years Interstate/US overlap signage was a joke but now there are only a few places where US routes outright disappear.
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 18, 2023, 09:24:40 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 18, 2023, 02:28:43 AM
- using one route per straight-line corridor (as opposed to say part of the corridor being one number, then part being another number)
Ohio's definitely going into the bottom half for this. Three numbers (US 23/OH 15/I-75) for Columbus to Toledo, and the OH 161/37/16 freeway that somehow still have 3 numbers east of Columbus; 6 numbers if you count the whole Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor along it, adding in US 36, US 250 and US 22.
Ohio's interstate network is okay until you get to the cities where ODOT's fetish for channelization and multiplexing slows traffic and creates bottlenecks. I also agree with you about the numbers not being unified. Even if they are going to use their existing numbers they should still give it a unified number like Iowa does with the Avenue of the Saints.
Also, control cities on major US routes should follow the same system used for interstates. When you're driving along I-77 N, nobody cares about Athens and if they do, let them figure it out on their own. That's sign should say Columbus. Technically, that's a West Virginia sign, but Ohio does it that way as well.
Quote from: US 89 on September 30, 2023, 09:34:45 AM
Utah has to be bottom half for this...
There's pretty much no order at all in how routes were assigned. The earliest numbering system was a cluster scheme that used 1-10 on the most important roads and then assigned up to about 50 in a generally clockwise direction starting in the southwest part of the state. After that, numbers were assigned in order and then also reused haphazardly as routes were deleted, which means most of the longer corridors tend to be 2 digit routes...but there are a handful of long 3 digit routes and an even bigger handful of short 1/2 digit routes. It also means there are several clusters of routes that were all created at the same time in the same area (like 268, 269, 270 in downtown SLC), but that is nowhere near regular enough to be useful.
For the most part, the routes take logical paths, but the state hates concurrencies, so there are a ton of instances where one route ends two blocks from another route that begins and carries on the same direction. Stuff like 248/150 in Kamas or 56/14 in Cedar City. There are also a number of routings, such as the north end of 68 in Bountiful, that smack of "this is how we could get numbers to follow continuous stretches of state maintained road".
There are also numerous "institutional" routes that follow random roads on college campuses that happen to be state maintained, or even parking lots of state facilities. Those are almost always unsigned...as they should be.
At least signage is generally quite good. For years Interstate/US overlap signage was a joke but now there are only a few places where US routes outright disappear.
And yet, most of the route numbers in the valleys seem irrelevant to locals for navigation due to the grids, despite the good route signage.
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 18, 2023, 09:24:40 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 18, 2023, 02:28:43 AM
- using one route per straight-line corridor (as opposed to say part of the corridor being one number, then part being another number)
Ohio's definitely going into the bottom half for this. Three numbers (US 23/OH 15/I-75) for Columbus to Toledo, and the OH 161/37/16 freeway that somehow still have 3 numbers east of Columbus; 6 numbers if you count the whole Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor along it, adding in US 36, US 250 and US 22.
Interestingly, this is the same state that used OH 1 (essentially supplanted by I-71) and OH 3 to create unified Columbus to Cleveland pathways.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 01, 2023, 08:38:56 PM
Interestingly, this is the same state that used OH 1 (essentially supplanted by I-71) and OH 3 to create unified Columbus to Cleveland pathways.
Excellent point.
For my home state of IL, the grid is pretty much on par with several other states, with most routes taking a fairly straight path, with the lone exception being the crooked IL 110, which is always multiplexed with others, including I-88 and I-290. Its US highways are neat parallels to the Interstates they complement, even without US 66. Plus I like how IL 1 stretches from Chicago to the other end of the state.
Quote from: Henry on October 02, 2023, 10:30:12 PM
For my home state of IL, the grid is pretty much on par with several other states, with most routes taking a fairly straight path, with the lone exception being the crooked IL 110, which is always multiplexed with others, including I-88 and I-290. Its US highways are neat parallels to the Interstates they complement, even without US 66. Plus I like how IL 1 stretches from Chicago to the other end of the state.
The Single Digit IL State Routes tend to have a bit of significance
IL 1 was already mentioned, and a bonus: the northern third of the route is also essentially the old Dixie Highway routing in IL
IL 2 runs along the Rock River between Rockford and Sterling
IL 3 is a significant route in SW IL, from Cairo near the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi, up into and thru the Metro East, ending at Grafton near the confluence of the Illinois and the Mississippi
IL 4 historically was a Chicago-St Louis predecessor highway to what became US 66 and then I-55. The current route encompasses past of the historical routing between Springfield and Staunton, then making a de facto outer Metro East/STL eastern bypass, and the 4 number continues south into Jackson County and ends north of Murphysboro
IL 5 used to be the then-East-West now Reagan Tollway/I-88, and still exists as a major roadway in the Quad Cities area
IL 6 is the designation of the part of the Peoria Beltway Freeway north of I-74
IL 7 is a major highway in the Southwest Chicago Suburbs, going from Rockdale and Joliet to Harlem Ave/IL 43 near the Chicago City Limits. IL 7 is aptly named Southwest Highway for much of its length
IL 8 is shorter, but crosses the IL River in Peoria and is an important route in that part of the state
IL 9 successfully runs Indiana to Iowa across Central Illinois, meeting IN 26 to the east, and crossing the Mississippi to reach Business US 61 in Fort Madison, IA
Regarding IL 110, either it or IL 336 should be decommissioned. The would-be independent section of IL 336 between Macomb and Peoria is either officially or unofficially cancelled, and 110 and 336 are 100% multiplexed with each other. Every inch of 336 is also 110
California did have a pretty nice network prior to 1964. There was a pretty logical order in how things were arranged, and the state sign routes were more flexible in that the priority seems to have been maintaining a number, not who maintains the route number itself. You can still see the original logic in NorCal, as many of the two-digit routes are from 1934 and haven't changed. It seems from 1964 onward, numbers were just assigned in the order they were needed, and there was no more thought about where they were being assigned.
In that sense, I feel Texas and Alaska has some of the worst routing logics. Numbers seemingly were just assigned in arbitrary orders, I suppose the order they were thought of, or built, or funded, whatever. Texas doesn't seem to have any clustering or anything like that, either. So it's almost impossible to discern any logic.
Conversely, I've felt Oregon has a pretty good route network. It was modeled after the US highways so you find lower numbers in the northeast and higher numbers in the southwest. I also like Nevada's current logic of assigning their routes based on the counties, ordered alphabetically.
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2023, 04:11:19 AM
California did have a pretty nice network prior to 1964. There was a pretty logical order in how things were arranged, and the state sign routes were more flexible in that the priority seems to have been maintaining a number, not who maintains the route number itself. You can still see the original logic in NorCal, as many of the two-digit routes are from 1934 and haven't changed. It seems from 1964 onward, numbers were just assigned in the order they were needed, and there was no more thought about where they were being assigned.
There were a few exceptions to this:
- the Orange County tollways (231/241/261) though 231 was renumbered partially as an extension of 133.
- The numbers that exist specifcally as derivation of former routes (242, 330, 371), in some ways the continuation of what started with late-1930s Route 107.
Some geographic clustering occurred post-1964 as well, not that this has much significance on navigation:
- 77, 82 (former 101), 84, 85, 87, 92, (unsigned) 93 all in the Bay Area
- 57 being placed parallel to the 1934-era 55
- 52, 54, 56 in San Diego
- unbuilt 81 was planned not far from and parallel to 83
Unfortunately the 1934 pattern was probably doomed to fail given how many Legislative Routes didn't initially have Sign Routes assigned to them. The 1934 grid was designed with the belief that not every Legislative Route was going to become important enough to warrant a Sign Route:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/04/patterns-in-original-1934-california.html?m=1
While there's no numbering system, I've found Massachusetts to be logical in what routes should and shouldn't exist. No 1/2-mile routes, C-shaped routes (with the exceptions of MA 145, which has to do with peninsula geography, and MA 80, which is the one route I think should be axed), routes on extremely minor roads, or anything like that. New Hampshire is similarly good at this.
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2023, 04:11:19 AM
I also like Nevada's current logic of assigning their routes based on the counties, ordered alphabetically.
To expand on that point, as to state routes, there are no duplexes or multiplexes with each other or with Interstate or US routes, so they are all single-segment point-to-point routings.
The numbering system is well-organized, by county alphabetically, generally as follows:
100s: Major routes in Churchill and Clark
200s: Major routes in Douglas, Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka and Humboldt
300s: Major routes in Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Pershing and Storey
400s: Major routes in Washoe and White Pine
500s: Urban routes in Elko, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas (formerly including Carson City as well)
600s: Urban routes Henderson and Reno/Sparks
700s: Connectors in Churchill through Humboldt Counties (excluding Clark)
800s: Connectors in Lander through White Pine Counties (excluding Washoe)
That contrasts to the OP's example of California. Not far from me is one of the numerous segments of California's SR 89, which is an all time great hodgepodge of discrete segments and duplexes from I-5 at Mt. Shasta City to US 395 near Topaz Lake.
Quote from: Henry on October 02, 2023, 10:30:12 PM
For my home state of IL, the grid is pretty much on par with several other states, with most routes taking a fairly straight path, with the lone exception being the crooked IL 110, which is always multiplexed with others, including I-88 and I-290. Its US highways are neat parallels to the Interstates they complement, even without US 66. Plus I like how IL 1 stretches from Chicago to the other end of the state.
Interestingly, my impression was largely the opposite when dealing with this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6689212,-89.5778251,3a,24.9y,144.12h,95.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL53N8f9S3ebrQgIpU8Mkbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) (not included in the sine salad: US 24 and US 150, which have a wrong-way concurrency to the northeast of here (left turn)). Now, the individual routes aren't as bad when their path is viewed on their own.
Is this type of concurrency mess common, or just an East Peoria thing?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2023, 08:48:12 AM
Unfortunately the 1934 pattern was probably doomed to fail given how many Legislative Routes didn't initially have Sign Routes assigned to them. The 1934 grid was designed with the belief that not every Legislative Route was going to become important enough to warrant a Sign Route:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/04/patterns-in-original-1934-california.html?m=1
Which is ironic, as I believe one of the original goals was to leave room for expansion. When I did a renumbering, what I found worked was to make all the original west-east routes increase by 12. So if you keep CA-4 in place, then original CA-8 became CA-16, for example. This meant something like real world CA-44 became CA-76, but now you have a good amount of space for more numbers. It offered expansion while retaining the grid schematic a bit better.
But yes, I suppose having an internal and external numbering system was just inevitably going to lead to confusion and numbers being assigned without much regard for how they fit with each other.
Connecticut has a dense network that is generally quite sensical. I'd also agree with Washington as having a really good one.
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2023, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2023, 08:48:12 AM
Unfortunately the 1934 pattern was probably doomed to fail given how many Legislative Routes didn't initially have Sign Routes assigned to them. The 1934 grid was designed with the belief that not every Legislative Route was going to become important enough to warrant a Sign Route:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/04/patterns-in-original-1934-california.html?m=1
Which is ironic, as I believe one of the original goals was to leave room for expansion. When I did a renumbering, what I found worked was to make all the original west-east routes increase by 12. So if you keep CA-4 in place, then original CA-8 became CA-16, for example. This meant something like real world CA-44 became CA-76, but now you have a good amount of space for more numbers. It offered expansion while retaining the grid schematic a bit better.
But yes, I suppose having an internal and external numbering system was just inevitably going to lead to confusion and numbers being assigned without much regard for how they fit with each other.
Right, but that expansion took place quickly and was largely already maxed out on available route numbers by the 1964 Renumbering came. Other factors like the Interstates duplicating many 1934 era sign routes was also a problem which was addressed.
Wisconsin's routing logic can probably be described as midpack. Lake Michigan and Chicago mess up a lot of route paths, with US-12 and US-14 out of sequence of (former) US-16 and US-18 due to their path into Chicago, and later I-90 and I-94 taking similarly wonky paths across the state.
Route numbers are almost never reused between state and US highways, which is helpful. Some decisions, like the one to truncate Hwy 13 to the Dells instead of maintaining a long multiplex south to Evansville (where Hwy 213 picks up to Beloit) make sense. Hwy 11 makes for a reasonable route along the lower tier of counties. Hwy 21 and Hwy 77 have sensible routing. Hwy 35 is near fanatical about being the first route encountered crossing from Iowa or Minnesota. Hwys 29 and 64 are good examples of coherent straight-line routes.
But other decisions, like the routing of Hwy 23, seem to defy logic. There is no way that someone starting in Sheboygan is going to follow Hwy 23 to reach Mineral Point or Darlington. Ditto for Hwy 22, which starts at a random spot north of DeForest and wanders around before veering east into Green Bay (the actual Bay, not the city of).
The path of Hwy 73 is similarly drunk, first veering east of, then west of US-51 (and later I-39) to end up at a random spot off US-8 in the middle of the Northwoods. Hwy 67 starts off in Beloit as a E-W roadway within a mile of the Illinos line, and then randomly makes a left turn and heads north before dropping you just south of Fond du Lac. just west of Manitowoc.
US-45 is reasonably coherent north of Oshkosh. But then it wanders around a bit randomly and out of the grid before being a basically parallel surface route to US-41 south of Milwaukee.
US-53 doesn't follow the best path between Eau Claire and LaCrosse, conflicting with it's almost-an-Interstate status between Eau Claire and Superior. Hwy 93 clearly was intended to replace the existing US-53 routing, but never did.
Geography doesn't help with highway logistics, but some of these routing decisions defy logic even when accounting for geography.
Quote from: TempoNick on September 30, 2023, 10:52:17 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 18, 2023, 09:24:40 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 18, 2023, 02:28:43 AM
- using one route per straight-line corridor (as opposed to say part of the corridor being one number, then part being another number)
Ohio's definitely going into the bottom half for this. Three numbers (US 23/OH 15/I-75) for Columbus to Toledo, and the OH 161/37/16 freeway that somehow still have 3 numbers east of Columbus; 6 numbers if you count the whole Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor along it, adding in US 36, US 250 and US 22.
Ohio's interstate network is okay until you get to the cities where ODOT's fetish for channelization and multiplexing slows traffic and creates bottlenecks. I also agree with you about the numbers not being unified. Even if they are going to use their existing numbers they should still give it a unified number like Iowa does with the Avenue of the Saints.
What I don't get is that OhioDOT has unified the various numbers of an expressway corridor to a single number before. OH 32 used to be a mix of OH 32 (old OH 74), OH 124 (which it still shares a long concurrency with) and some other numbers. They could do the same with OH 16/161 if they want to.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 01, 2023, 08:38:56 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 18, 2023, 09:24:40 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 18, 2023, 02:28:43 AM
- using one route per straight-line corridor (as opposed to say part of the corridor being one number, then part being another number)
Ohio's definitely going into the bottom half for this. Three numbers (US 23/OH 15/I-75) for Columbus to Toledo, and the OH 161/37/16 freeway that somehow still have 3 numbers east of Columbus; 6 numbers if you count the whole Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor along it, adding in US 36, US 250 and US 22.
Interestingly, this is the same state that used OH 1 (essentially supplanted by I-71) and OH 3 to create unified Columbus to Cleveland pathways.
Little tidbit, that's actually the second OH 1. The first one is now US 40. In fact, I like how Ohio's initial state routes system have the single digit numbers on cross-state routes, before clustering numbers. Probably the best routing logic this state ever had with state routes.
OH 1 - became US 40
OH 2 - became US 20 (current OH 2 was part of OH 120 and OH 12)
OH 3 - As is
OH 4 - US 23 Portsmouth to Marion, then current OH 4 to Sandusky
OH 5 - became US 30
OH 6 - became US 25, now various county and state routes parallel with I-75
OH 7 - existing route, plus US 52 and US 50 along the Ohio river to the IN border
OH 8 - became US 21, now various county and state routes parallel with I-77. Second iteration of this route south of Akron is today's OH 800
OH 9 - became US 127
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2023, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2023, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2023, 08:48:12 AM
Unfortunately the 1934 pattern was probably doomed to fail given how many Legislative Routes didn't initially have Sign Routes assigned to them. The 1934 grid was designed with the belief that not every Legislative Route was going to become important enough to warrant a Sign Route:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/04/patterns-in-original-1934-california.html?m=1
Which is ironic, as I believe one of the original goals was to leave room for expansion. When I did a renumbering, what I found worked was to make all the original west-east routes increase by 12. So if you keep CA-4 in place, then original CA-8 became CA-16, for example. This meant something like real world CA-44 became CA-76, but now you have a good amount of space for more numbers. It offered expansion while retaining the grid schematic a bit better.
But yes, I suppose having an internal and external numbering system was just inevitably going to lead to confusion and numbers being assigned without much regard for how they fit with each other.
Right, but that expansion took place quickly and was largely already maxed out on available route numbers by the 1964 Renumbering came. Other factors like the Interstates duplicating many 1934 era sign routes was also a problem which was addressed.
That's why I think the only way the system would have worked is if from the start, more space was used. It seems every fourth number was assigned (so 4, 8, 12, 16, etc.) Had the initial range been 2-3x larger, there would have been a lot more room to work in new routes as they were converted from legislative to state. But we got what we got, so no point thinking about it too much.
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2023, 06:48:04 AM
Quote from: US 89 on September 30, 2023, 09:34:45 AM
Utah has to be bottom half for this...
There's pretty much no order at all in how routes were assigned. The earliest numbering system was a cluster scheme that used 1-10 on the most important roads and then assigned up to about 50 in a generally clockwise direction starting in the southwest part of the state. After that, numbers were assigned in order and then also reused haphazardly as routes were deleted, which means most of the longer corridors tend to be 2 digit routes...but there are a handful of long 3 digit routes and an even bigger handful of short 1/2 digit routes. It also means there are several clusters of routes that were all created at the same time in the same area (like 268, 269, 270 in downtown SLC), but that is nowhere near regular enough to be useful.
For the most part, the routes take logical paths, but the state hates concurrencies, so there are a ton of instances where one route ends two blocks from another route that begins and carries on the same direction. Stuff like 248/150 in Kamas or 56/14 in Cedar City. There are also a number of routings, such as the north end of 68 in Bountiful, that smack of "this is how we could get numbers to follow continuous stretches of state maintained road".
There are also numerous "institutional" routes that follow random roads on college campuses that happen to be state maintained, or even parking lots of state facilities. Those are almost always unsigned...as they should be.
At least signage is generally quite good. For years Interstate/US overlap signage was a joke but now there are only a few places where US routes outright disappear.
And yet, most of the route numbers in the valleys seem irrelevant to locals for navigation due to the grids, despite the good route signage.
It's not the grids themselves - it's that such a large percentage of Utah's state highway mileage is dedicated to urban arterials with street names, and those highways typically don't extend far outside the metro areas if at all.
In any large or mid-sized city I have ever lived or spent substantial time in, locals typically don't care one bit about route designations unless they are clearly and obviously part of a much longer corridor, especially if they're US highways. For example, here in Tallahassee, it's generally known that Tennessee St is part of US 90. But nobody gives one shit that West Pensacola is SR 366, Meridian is SR 155, Magnolia is SR 265, and so on. We just use the street names. Atlanta's roads are so messy that even the US highways were pretty obscure to most people when I lived there.
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2023, 08:47:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2023, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2023, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2023, 08:48:12 AM
Unfortunately the 1934 pattern was probably doomed to fail given how many Legislative Routes didn't initially have Sign Routes assigned to them. The 1934 grid was designed with the belief that not every Legislative Route was going to become important enough to warrant a Sign Route:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/04/patterns-in-original-1934-california.html?m=1
Which is ironic, as I believe one of the original goals was to leave room for expansion. When I did a renumbering, what I found worked was to make all the original west-east routes increase by 12. So if you keep CA-4 in place, then original CA-8 became CA-16, for example. This meant something like real world CA-44 became CA-76, but now you have a good amount of space for more numbers. It offered expansion while retaining the grid schematic a bit better.
But yes, I suppose having an internal and external numbering system was just inevitably going to lead to confusion and numbers being assigned without much regard for how they fit with each other.
Right, but that expansion took place quickly and was largely already maxed out on available route numbers by the 1964 Renumbering came. Other factors like the Interstates duplicating many 1934 era sign routes was also a problem which was addressed.
That's why I think the only way the system would have worked is if from the start, more space was used. It seems every fourth number was assigned (so 4, 8, 12, 16, etc.) Had the initial range been 2-3x larger, there would have been a lot more room to work in new routes as they were converted from legislative to state. But we got what we got, so no point thinking about it too much.
Agree, to a point. Going by every 4 does leave some room for routes in the middle, but the problem that CA had with the original numbering scheme of 1934 was that they used up some of the same numbers simultaneously. I.e. 4, 8, 12, 16 did not leave room for 2,6,10,14 since the 4-16 pattern was used in NoCal and the 2-14 pattern was used in SoCal.
By my count, the 1934 system identified 41 even numbered routes and 28 odd numbered routes. It was certainly correct to make E-W even and N-S odd to conform with the US system (and the later Interstate system), and it is also certainly correct to assign more important routes as 2 digit and less important routes as 3 digits, while also allowing some 3 digit routes to come into place later as gap fillers as new highways are identified.
So in my estimation, a better system to account for growth and to provide a consistent numbering pattern would be something along the lines of the following:
1, 9, 17, ... 217, 225. Increasing from west to east. Providing gaps for new routes. Since CA's population areas are largley on the coast, the lower numbers will serve the bigger cities.
2, 10, 18, ... 354, 362. Increasing from north to south. Providing gaps for new routes.
But that's all fictional. Appreciate that it started as a reasonable system that had to be changed into a mishmash largely because of 1964 renumberings and the additions of interstate and other state highways.
Quote from: mrsman on November 02, 2023, 11:24:12 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2023, 08:47:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2023, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2023, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2023, 08:48:12 AM
Unfortunately the 1934 pattern was probably doomed to fail given how many Legislative Routes didn't initially have Sign Routes assigned to them. The 1934 grid was designed with the belief that not every Legislative Route was going to become important enough to warrant a Sign Route:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/04/patterns-in-original-1934-california.html?m=1
Which is ironic, as I believe one of the original goals was to leave room for expansion. When I did a renumbering, what I found worked was to make all the original west-east routes increase by 12. So if you keep CA-4 in place, then original CA-8 became CA-16, for example. This meant something like real world CA-44 became CA-76, but now you have a good amount of space for more numbers. It offered expansion while retaining the grid schematic a bit better.
But yes, I suppose having an internal and external numbering system was just inevitably going to lead to confusion and numbers being assigned without much regard for how they fit with each other.
Right, but that expansion took place quickly and was largely already maxed out on available route numbers by the 1964 Renumbering came. Other factors like the Interstates duplicating many 1934 era sign routes was also a problem which was addressed.
That's why I think the only way the system would have worked is if from the start, more space was used. It seems every fourth number was assigned (so 4, 8, 12, 16, etc.) Had the initial range been 2-3x larger, there would have been a lot more room to work in new routes as they were converted from legislative to state. But we got what we got, so no point thinking about it too much.
Agree, to a point. Going by every 4 does leave some room for routes in the middle, but the problem that CA had with the original numbering scheme of 1934 was that they used up some of the same numbers simultaneously. I.e. 4, 8, 12, 16 did not leave room for 2,6,10,14 since the 4-16 pattern was used in NoCal and the 2-14 pattern was used in SoCal.
By my count, the 1934 system identified 41 even numbered routes and 28 odd numbered routes. It was certainly correct to make E-W even and N-S odd to conform with the US system (and the later Interstate system), and it is also certainly correct to assign more important routes as 2 digit and less important routes as 3 digits, while also allowing some 3 digit routes to come into place later as gap fillers as new highways are identified.
So in my estimation, a better system to account for growth and to provide a consistent numbering pattern would be something along the lines of the following:
1, 9, 17, ... 217, 225. Increasing from west to east. Providing gaps for new routes. Since CA's population areas are largley on the coast, the lower numbers will serve the bigger cities.
2, 10, 18, ... 354, 362. Increasing from north to south. Providing gaps for new routes.
But that's all fictional. Appreciate that it started as a reasonable system that had to be changed into a mishmash largely because of 1964 renumberings and the additions of interstate and other state highways.
Similar idea to what I did. I simply assigned the original batch of numbers to increase by 12 instead of 4. So 4, 16, 28, 1, 13, and so on. Allows for some expansion in between. I'm not sure why some legislative routes were not originally planned to be state highways, maybe it was due to poor road quality or not having traffic counts to justify it. I do know some legislative routes in the Eastern Sierra (notably the Westgard Pass route that later became part of CA-168) was due to the former not being paved until about the late 1950s or so.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 02, 2023, 11:11:16 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 02, 2023, 10:30:12 PM
For my home state of IL, the grid is pretty much on par with several other states, with most routes taking a fairly straight path, with the lone exception being the crooked IL 110, which is always multiplexed with others, including I-88 and I-290. Its US highways are neat parallels to the Interstates they complement, even without US 66. Plus I like how IL 1 stretches from Chicago to the other end of the state.
The Single Digit IL State Routes tend to have a bit of significance
IL 1 was already mentioned, and a bonus: the northern third of the route is also essentially the old Dixie Highway routing in IL
IL 2 runs along the Rock River between Rockford and Sterling
IL 3 is a significant route in SW IL, from Cairo near the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi, up into and thru the Metro East, ending at Grafton near the confluence of the Illinois and the Mississippi
IL 4 historically was a Chicago-St Louis predecessor highway to what became US 66 and then I-55. The current route encompasses past of the historical routing between Springfield and Staunton, then making a de facto outer Metro East/STL eastern bypass, and the 4 number continues south into Jackson County and ends north of Murphysboro
IL 5 used to be the then-East-West now Reagan Tollway/I-88, and still exists as a major roadway in the Quad Cities area
IL 6 is the designation of the part of the Peoria Beltway Freeway north of I-74
IL 7 is a major highway in the Southwest Chicago Suburbs, going from Rockdale and Joliet to Harlem Ave/IL 43 near the Chicago City Limits. IL 7 is aptly named Southwest Highway for much of its length
IL 8 is shorter, but crosses the IL River in Peoria and is an important route in that part of the state
IL 9 successfully runs Indiana to Iowa across Central Illinois, meeting IN 26 to the east, and crossing the Mississippi to reach Business US 61 in Fort Madison, IA
Regarding IL 110, either it or IL 336 should be decommissioned. The would-be independent section of IL 336 between Macomb and Peoria is either officially or unofficially cancelled, and 110 and 336 are 100% multiplexed with each other. Every inch of 336 is also 110
IL 110 is more a 'promotional' route, aka "Chicago to Kansas City". To get more traffic to Western IL, aka "Forgottenonia".