In McKean County, Pennsylvania -- specifically the Bradford area -- you can find PA 46 as well as PA 146, 246, 346, 446, 546 and 646 (PA 746 once existed as well). The routes are intertwined with all (except PA 646) having at least one ending at another route in this family.
Are there any other examples in the country with this many members of a route family (Interstate, US or state) so close together ?
Long Island, Has A similar system
W to E
NY 101
NY 106/NY107 (Routes run Concurrent though Hicksville)
NY 108
NY 110
NY 111
NY 112
(NY 113 Decertified now Suffolk CR 104)
NY 114
If I'm not mistaken, the Bay Area has the largest cluster of 3dis from a single parent in one metro area: 280, 380, 480, 580, 680, 780, 880, 980.
(New York has all 9 possible 3dis from I-90, but they're spread across the state.)
Hawaii clusters numbers by island
1x/1xx & 2x/2xx routes-Big Island
3x & 3xx routes-Maui
4x & 4xx routes-Lanai/Molokai
5x & 5xx routes-Kauai
6x-9x & 6xx-9xx Routes-Oahu
CA
23 and 27 in Ventura County
52, 54 & 56 in the San Diego Area
55 & 57 in Orange County
13 & 17; 82, 84, 85 and 87; 236, 237 & 238 in the Bay Area
74, 76, 78 and 79 in SoCal
41 and 43 in the Central Valley
94 and 98 along the Mexican border.
AZ
71, 72 & 74 in western Arizona
73, 75, 77, 78 and 79 in eastern Arizona
87 and 88 in Central Arizona
80, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86 in southern Arizona
101, 202 & 303 in Phoenix
FL
1xx routes north of 10
2xx routes between 10 & 20
3xx routes between 20 & 40
4xx routes between 40 & 50
5xx routes between 50 & 60
6xx routes between 60 & 70
7xx routes between 70 & 80
8xx routes between 80 & 90
9xx routes south of 90
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 22, 2012, 02:59:16 AM
Hawaii clusters numbers by island
1x/1xx & 2x/2xx routes-Big Island
3x & 3xx routes-Maui
4x & 4xx routes-Lanai/Molokai
5x & 5xx routes-Kauai
6x-9x & 6xx-9xx Routes-Oahu
Off hand from CA
23 and 27
13 & 17; 82, 84 and 87; 236, 237 & 238 in the Bay Area
Add 22 to the L.A. area and 85 to the Bay Area.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 22, 2012, 02:22:19 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the Bay Area has the largest cluster of 3dis from a single parent in one metro area: 280, 380, 480, 580, 680, 780, 880, 980.
(New York has all 9 possible 3dis from I-90, but they're spread across the state.)
You can take 480 off your list. The Embarcadero Freeway was torn down two decades ago.
Quote from: mapman1071 on June 22, 2012, 01:17:36 AM
Long Island, Has A similar system
W to E
NY 101
NY 106/NY107 (Routes run Concurrent though Hicksville)
NY 108
NY 110
NY 111
NY 112
(NY 113 Decertified now Suffolk CR 104)
NY 114
Theoretically the entire state does as that's how the highways were numbered in the 30s, though decommissionings, new routes, re-routing, and the interstate system have messed that up.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 22, 2012, 02:22:19 AM
(New York has all 9 possible 3dis from I-90, but they're spread across the state.)
They also cluster too with the exception of I-990; Buffalo has I-190, I-290, and I-990, and Rochester has I-390, I-490, and I-590
Northeastern MD has a bunch of routes in the 270s--272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279. (278 was the connection between PA 896 and DE 896, and became unsigned MD 896.) Neither MD 270 nor MD I-270 are nearby though.
Virginia's 1933 numbering originally had a lot of clustering, because route numbers were assigned by district. This has become less prevalent over the years as routes have been decommissioned and the numbers recycled, usually in other districts. The biggest cluster I can think of is in the Roanoke/Salem area, which has 112, 115, 116, 117, and 118. It also used to have 119 (now 419) and 114 (truncated and rerouted).
111 and 114 aren't too far away in the Blacksburg area.
There's a smaller set of clusters in Bucks County, PA... the x32s (PA 32, 132, 232, 332, 532). I believe all but 132 (Street Road) eventually touch the parent at some point, though 132 crosses all the rest of them. There's also the x13s (US 13, PA 213, 413), where only 413 intersects the parent. 213 only intersects 413. Oh, and I guess there's the x63s as well (PA 63, 263, 363, 463, 563, 663)... not as familiar with them since I never drive them regularly.
Quote from: Compulov on June 22, 2012, 12:45:51 PM
There's a smaller set of clusters in Bucks County, PA... the x32s (PA 32, 132, 232, 332, 532). I believe all but 132 (Street Road) eventually touch the parent at some point, though 132 crosses all the rest of them. There's also the x13s (US 13, PA 213, 413), where only 413 intersects the parent. 213 only intersects 413. Oh, and I guess there's the x63s as well (PA 63, 263, 363, 463, 563, 663)... not as familiar with them since I never drive them regularly.
There's also x20s (US 20, 220, PA 320 & 420) although both PA routes are nowhere near US 20, 420's northern end is at 320), x52s (PA 52, 152, 252, 352, 452), where only 352 and 452 connect (452's northern terminus); x22s (US 22, 222, 322, 422, 522), x72s (PA 72, 272, 372, 472 & 772).
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 22, 2012, 12:08:29 PM
Northeastern MD has a bunch of routes in the 270s--272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279. (278 was the connection between PA 896 and DE 896, and became unsigned MD 896.) Neither MD 270 nor MD I-270 are nearby though.
One interesting thing there that I've always wondered about the history of: Pennsylvania (as already mentioned) does a lot of clustering where several routes in the same area share the same last two digits: for example, Pa. 72, 272, 372, 472, 772 all serve Lancaster County. Maryland, as mentioned, will have a lot of series that start out the same, such as all those 270s in Cecil County. One oddity is that Pa. 272 - which fits into that x72 series in Pennsylvania - connects to Md. 272 - which fits into that 27x series in Maryland. Obviously the two 272s lining up is not a coincidence, but the fact that they both fit into their own states' separate numbering systems is interesting.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on June 22, 2012, 03:01:40 PM
One interesting thing there that I've always wondered about the history of: Pennsylvania (as already mentioned) does a lot of clustering where several routes in the same area share the same last two digits: for example, Pa. 72, 272, 372, 472, 772 all serve Lancaster County. Maryland, as mentioned, will have a lot of series that start out the same, such as all those 270s in Cecil County. One oddity is that Pa. 272 - which fits into that x72 series in Pennsylvania - connects to Md. 272 - which fits into that 27x series in Maryland. Obviously the two 272s lining up is not a coincidence, but the fact that they both fit into their own states' separate numbering systems is interesting.
I used to think that it was an interesting coincidence that PA 73 and NJ 73 lined up (not realizing at the time that NJ did purposefully use the same number as bordering states for highways that connected. I figured it fit NJ's "grid" (which, iirc, just happens to be whatever order they assigned them in) since it was in the same area as NJ 70.
OR 6, 8, 10 (and WA 14!), 18; [OR] (former 208), 210, 211, 212, 213 (and 214 at a stretch), 217, 224 in the Portland Metro area
Richmond has VA 2, 5, and 6, as well as US 1. It also had VA 4 from 1933-38. Most of the 400 series routes introduced in the 1980s are/were grouped in cities. Alexandria has 400-402, Norfolk has 403-407, Virginia Beach had 407-411 (all removed/decommissioned in 2001), and Richmond had 416-418 from 1982-1990.
Washington's route numbering scheme gives rise to clustering, especially along the I-5 corridor in and just north of Seattle, and also a lot of the 26Xes are near each other.
Quote from: Compulov on June 22, 2012, 12:45:51 PM
There's a smaller set of clusters in Bucks County, PA... the x32s (PA 32, 132, 232, 332, 532). I believe all but 132 (Street Road) eventually touch the parent at some point, though 132 crosses all the rest of them. There's also the x13s (US 13, PA 213, 413), where only 413 intersects the parent. 213 only intersects 413. Oh, and I guess there's the x63s as well (PA 63, 263, 363, 463, 563, 663)... not as familiar with them since I never drive them regularly.
There is also a PA 513 in that group of x13's, and it intersects its parent. PA 313 exists, too, but I am not as familiar with that one -- it is north of the rest. PA 113 also exists, but in Chester County. Not sure that one reaches U.S. 13, but I know it does not get to any of the others.
PA 432 existed at one point in the Langhorne and Yardley areas as well.
That's all that come to mind right now . . .
PA's route numbering system is very well outlined on the following site (not my site), and it explains that the clustering is intentional. Before there were a ton of renumberings and decommissionings, there were many more clusters of route numbers. http://www.m-plex.com/roads/numbering.html (http://www.m-plex.com/roads/numbering.html).
Utah largely uses route clustering to number its (state) routes.
You have SRs 7, 8, 9 (well, a part of 9) in the vicinity of St. George, along with SRs 12, 14, 17, and 18 that are in the southwestern part of the state.* Of course, SR-9 used to be SR-15, but still.
In the more central-southern part of the state, you have SRs 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, and 29.
Around Richfield, there are SRs 118, 119, and 120 (I-70/US-89's business loop) and around Sevier County you have SRs 256, 258, 259, and 260.
Davis and Weber counties have SRs 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, and 109.
State Routes 65, 66, 67, and 68 are all kinda close to Wasatch Front (though 65 and 66 are more along the Wasatch Back).
In central Utah (Millard and Sanpete counties), there's also SRs 132, 133, 136, and 137. SR-139 also is a little further east in Carbon County.
The Tremonton/Riverside areas also have SRs 81, 82, and 83.*
There's also SRs 43, 44, and 45 in the Uintah Basin and northeastern Utah.*
Who can forget SRs 268, 269, and 270 that connect I-15/80 with downtown SLC?
There's also a lot of pairs as well:
--SRs 32 and 35 near Kamas
--SRs 116 and 117 in Sanpete County
--SRs 123 and 124 in Carbon County (122 isn't far, either)
--SRs 162 and 262 near the Four Corners
--SRs 275 and 276 in San Juan County (SR-279 is in the same region, as well)
*Of course, I-15 in the southwest, I-84 near Tremonton, and US-40 in Uintah County could also fit into these patterns.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 22, 2012, 11:55:44 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 22, 2012, 02:22:19 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the Bay Area has the largest cluster of 3dis from a single parent in one metro area: 280, 380, 480, 580, 680, 780, 880, 980.
(New York has all 9 possible 3dis from I-90, but they're spread across the state.)
You can take 480 off your list. The Embarcadero Freeway was torn down two decades ago.
Geez, can't believe I did that...and I lived there at the time!
I-90 three digits are in numerical order from W to E in New York, except I-990 cause that was added later to the system.
deanj is right with his observation. On the larger scale the whole state is a fraction of I-90's total cross country routing, thus could all be considered a cluster from one point.
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 22, 2012, 12:08:29 PM
Northeastern MD has a bunch of routes in the 270s--272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279. (278 was the connection between PA 896 and DE 896, and became unsigned MD 896.) Neither MD 270 nor MD I-270 are nearby though.
Maryland does this throughout the state, at least for numbers over 40 and under about 300 or so. For instance, where I used to live in central Montgomery County, almost all the route numbers were in the 107-124 range. Further south in the county, there were a bunch of 180s and 190s. To the north in Frederick County, most numbers were in the 80s and 90s. Mostly 200s and 210s to the east in Prince George's County. And so on and so on.
Georgia doesn't really have any good examples I can think of. Unless you cheat and count 400, 401, 402, 403, and 407 all showing up in Atlanta. :sombrero:
The 1955 Louisiana route numbering system created numerous numerical clusters in the farm-to-market route sequence (basically any state route numbered 300-1241). If you know the route number clusters well enough, you can usually correctly guess the part of the state where a route is located from the number alone.
CA-38 and CA-138 are relatively close to one another and both begin (or end, depending on how you look at it) in the Big Bear Lake area.
CA-221 ends at a junction with CA-121.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on June 22, 2012, 03:01:40 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 22, 2012, 12:08:29 PM
Northeastern MD has a bunch of routes in the 270s--272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279. (278 was the connection between PA 896 and DE 896, and became unsigned MD 896.) Neither MD 270 nor MD I-270 are nearby though.
One interesting thing there that I've always wondered about the history of: Pennsylvania (as already mentioned) does a lot of clustering where several routes in the same area share the same last two digits: for example, Pa. 72, 272, 372, 472, 772 all serve Lancaster County. Maryland, as mentioned, will have a lot of series that start out the same, such as all those 270s in Cecil County. One oddity is that Pa. 272 - which fits into that x72 series in Pennsylvania - connects to Md. 272 - which fits into that 27x series in Maryland. Obviously the two 272s lining up is not a coincidence, but the fact that they both fit into their own states' separate numbering systems is interesting.
PA-172 and PA-672 were also in that area. 172 is now Little Britain Road, and 672 is Fruitville Pike.
Also, on PurdueBill's comment, there is an MD-495 in Garrett County, obviously a long, long way away from I-495. (MD-495 hits I-68, confusing many)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 22, 2012, 04:52:47 PMWashington's route numbering scheme gives rise to clustering
Exactly what I was thinking:
Vancouver; SR (I-)5, 500, 501, 502, 503
Kelso/Longview: SR 4, 411, 432, 433
Lewis County (Chehalis, Centralia): SR (I-)5, 505, 506, 507, 508; SR 6, 603
Tacoma: SR (I-) 5, I-705, SR 509, 512, 99; SR 16, 161, 163, 167 (161 and 167 no longer join its parent route)
King County (Seattle): SR (I-)5, I-405, SR 509, 515, 516, 518, 519, 520, 522, 523, 527, 599, 99
Quote from: Bickendan on June 22, 2012, 04:30:51 PMOR ...
Of course using the internal highway system, all secondary highways are clustered by county; further highways 1 (I-5), 2 (I-84), and 3 (Oregon 43) all come together in downtown Portland; as did the former 1W (99W, now highway 91), 1E (99E, now highway 81) and 2W (U.S. 30 west to Astoria, now highway 92).
If you throw in Yamhill County as part of the Portland Metro area (which the Census Bureau does) you can also include 221 and 233 - they are no more of a stretch than 214 is. 219 in Hillsboro is definitely in the Metro area, and connects right up to 214 at its southern end and a stone's throw away from 211.
If you keep going south, you have 226 and 228 (and they're close to 22, albeit only by coincidence); 223 is not too far to the west from 221 (and again by coincidence right by 22). 228 is the furthest south of the cluster.
Another coincidence is found in Clatsop County/Astoria - Clatsop County is assigned the 100 routes, so you have 102, 103, 104 and 105...and of course U.S. 101. (Highway 100 is an anomaly, being assigned to the Historic Columbia River Highway in Multnomah County whose routes should be in the 120 range.)
Ohio's route numberings are pretty much haphazard. However, where I grew up, there's 4 north-south routes that may have been numbered together. Routes 57, 58, 60, & 61 are separated apart by about 8 miles in Lorain, Erie, & Huron counties. Then of course, Route 59 (which would make sense in this group) is an east-west route in the Akron area. So, my theory is probably just a fluke.
I prefer clusters of consecutive numbers to clusters of parent-child numbers.
That is to say, I would prefer a region to have a cluster of this sort:
131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138
OTOH, when a region has this sort of cluster, I very easily get the routes mixed up in my mind:
72, 172, 272, 372, 472, 572
Quote from: sandwalk on June 24, 2012, 11:58:25 AM
Ohio's route numberings are pretty much haphazard. However, where I grew up, there's 4 north-south routes that may have been numbered together. Routes 57, 58, 60, & 61 are separated apart by about 8 miles in Lorain, Erie, & Huron counties. Then of course, Route 59 (which would make sense in this group) is an east-west route in the Akron area. So, my theory is probably just a fluke.
Here's the explanation for Ohio's numbering system:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050316065727/http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/expls.html
I kinda consider 152 and 156 in my area to be clustered together. Oh, and how about 41, 43, and maybe 46 in the Central Valley?
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2012, 04:36:41 PM
I prefer clusters of consecutive numbers to clusters of parent-child numbers.
That is to say, I would prefer a region to have a cluster of this sort:
131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138
OTOH, when a region has this sort of cluster, I very easily get the routes mixed up in my mind:
72, 172, 272, 372, 472, 572
I think it depends on the type of cluster. If you're talking about a parent/siblings cluster (where each of the children intersects other children or a parent), I'd rather they all end in the same digit(s). If you mean a cluster where they were all just built around the same time, I'd much rather them be sequentially numbered.
I'm going to go even further and say I prefer the Interstate style numbering system. If you have a family (parent and child routes), stick with odd first digits for spurs and even digits for ones which intersect the parent and/or siblings multiple times.
Yeah, I know, that's asking a lot...
Quote from: deanej on June 22, 2012, 12:00:44 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 22, 2012, 02:22:19 AM
(New York has all 9 possible 3dis from I-90, but they're spread across the state.)
They also cluster too with the exception of I-990; Buffalo has I-190, I-290, and I-990, and Rochester has I-390, I-490, and I-590
You mean I-690 (Syracuse), I-790 (Utica), and I-890 (Schenectady)? :confused:
Are there any states that use a radial numbering system?
Some European nations will set it up so that the most important city, usually the capital, has all the primary routes begin there and follow the clock face. So, Route 1 might go northeast, and in between Route 1 and Route 2 that is more due east, you'll find Routes 11, 12, 13, etc.
Quote from: Quillz on June 25, 2012, 02:25:27 AM
Are there any states that use a radial numbering system?
Some European nations will set it up so that the most important city, usually the capital, has all the primary routes begin there and follow the clock face. So, Route 1 might go northeast, and in between Route 1 and Route 2 that is more due east, you'll find Routes 11, 12, 13, etc.
I'm pretty sure Great Britain has one, 1 to 6 radiating out from London, and 7, 8 and 9 radiating out from Edinburgh.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 24, 2012, 11:16:01 PM
I kinda consider 152 and 156 in my area to be clustered together. Oh, and how about 41, 43, and maybe 46 in the Central Valley?
Also, 150 and 154 around Santa Barbara.
Quote from: Compulov on June 24, 2012, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2012, 04:36:41 PM
I prefer clusters of consecutive numbers to clusters of parent-child numbers.
That is to say, I would prefer a region to have a cluster of this sort:
131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138
OTOH, when a region has this sort of cluster, I very easily get the routes mixed up in my mind:
72, 172, 272, 372, 472, 572
I think it depends on the type of cluster. If you're talking about a parent/siblings cluster (where each of the children intersects other children or a parent), I'd rather they all end in the same digit(s). If you mean a cluster where they were all just built around the same time, I'd much rather them be sequentially numbered.
I'm going to go even further and say I prefer the Interstate style numbering system. If you have a family (parent and child routes), stick with odd first digits for spurs and even digits for ones which intersect the parent and/or siblings multiple times.
Yeah, I know, that's asking a lot...
Actually, I'm specifically disagreeing with the Interstate-style parent—child relationship. On Interstates, it's not so bad, because they are fewer in number than surface highways. My go-to example is Branson, Missouri, which has US-65 (easy to remember), as well as state routes 165, 265, and 465 (always getting these mixed up); then state routes 76, 176, and 376; then state routes 13 and 413. I would keep these straight in my mind if the numbers were more random.
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 25, 2012, 03:27:45 AM
Quote from: Quillz on June 25, 2012, 02:25:27 AM
Are there any states that use a radial numbering system?
Some European nations will set it up so that the most important city, usually the capital, has all the primary routes begin there and follow the clock face. So, Route 1 might go northeast, and in between Route 1 and Route 2 that is more due east, you'll find Routes 11, 12, 13, etc.
I'm pretty sure Great Britain has one, 1 to 6 radiating out from London, and 7, 8 and 9 radiating out from Edinburgh.Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 24, 2012, 11:16:01 PM
I kinda consider 152 and 156 in my area to be clustered together. Oh, and how about 41, 43, and maybe 46 in the Central Valley?
Also, 150 and 154 around Santa Barbara.
Belgium does the radial thing. Don't know of anything this side of the pond, but I don't claim to know state highways well outside the Northeast.
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on June 25, 2012, 12:07:33 AM
Quote from: deanej on June 22, 2012, 12:00:44 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 22, 2012, 02:22:19 AM
(New York has all 9 possible 3dis from I-90, but they're spread across the state.)
They also cluster too with the exception of I-990; Buffalo has I-190, I-290, and I-990, and Rochester has I-390, I-490, and I-590
You mean I-690 (Syracuse), I-790 (Utica), and I-890 (Schenectady)? :confused:
Nope; note that I-990 is in Buffalo with I-190 and I-290, while every other x90 increments as I-90 heads east. It's a major anomaly in NY's numbering system.
Quote from: Compulov on June 22, 2012, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on June 22, 2012, 03:01:40 PM
One interesting thing there that I've always wondered about the history of: Pennsylvania (as already mentioned) does a lot of clustering where several routes in the same area share the same last two digits: for example, Pa. 72, 272, 372, 472, 772 all serve Lancaster County. Maryland, as mentioned, will have a lot of series that start out the same, such as all those 270s in Cecil County. One oddity is that Pa. 272 - which fits into that x72 series in Pennsylvania - connects to Md. 272 - which fits into that 27x series in Maryland. Obviously the two 272s lining up is not a coincidence, but the fact that they both fit into their own states' separate numbering systems is interesting.
I used to think that it was an interesting coincidence that PA 73 and NJ 73 lined up (not realizing at the time that NJ did purposefully use the same number as bordering states for highways that connected. I figured it fit NJ's "grid" (which, iirc, just happens to be whatever order they assigned them in) since it was in the same area as NJ 70.
NJ sort of has some clustering 30s around Central NJ/Trenton with 38, 40(now 70), 41, 42, 44, 45, 47 sort of radiating from Camden. 40 was changed to 70 and now there is a 70s cluster near 70... 71 in Monmouth County, 72 in Burlington/Ocean, 73 Burlington/Camden
Before the Great Renumbering of 1953, New Jersey route numbers - generally speaking - increased from the northeast to the southwest.
Quote from: jwolfer on June 25, 2012, 10:49:11 AM
NJ sort of has some clustering 30s around Central NJ/Trenton with 38, 40(now 70), 41, 42, 44, 45, 47 sort of radiating from Camden. 40 was changed to 70 and now there is a 70s cluster near 70... 71 in Monmouth County, 72 in Burlington/Ocean, 73 Burlington/Camden
Not to mention you've got the NJ 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 cluster down the shore. As pointed out by the previous post, that's probably due to the way NJ sequentially numbered their routes.
Quote from: Compulov on June 25, 2012, 01:05:08 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on June 25, 2012, 10:49:11 AM
NJ sort of has some clustering 30s around Central NJ/Trenton with 38, 40(now 70), 41, 42, 44, 45, 47 sort of radiating from Camden. 40 was changed to 70 and now there is a 70s cluster near 70... 71 in Monmouth County, 72 in Burlington/Ocean, 73 Burlington/Camden
Not to mention you've got the NJ 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 cluster down the shore. As pointed out by the previous post, that's probably due to the way NJ sequentially numbered their routes.
I grew up in Pt Pleasant Beach. When I was a kid we even have 38 nearby. I wondered where 32 and 39 were
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 22, 2012, 02:59:16 AM
Hawaii clusters numbers by island
1x/1xx & 2x/2xx routes-Big Island
3x & 3xx routes-Maui
4x & 4xx routes-Lanai/Molokai
5x & 5xx routes-Kauai
6x-9x & 6xx-9xx Routes-Oahu
there is more clustering than just the island-based scheme. three-digit numbers tend to take the first two digits from a nearby two-digit. for example, on the big island, 15 and 151 come to mind.
Quote from: jwolfer on June 25, 2012, 03:52:41 PM
Quote from: Compulov on June 25, 2012, 01:05:08 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on June 25, 2012, 10:49:11 AM
NJ sort of has some clustering 30s around Central NJ/Trenton with 38, 40(now 70), 41, 42, 44, 45, 47 sort of radiating from Camden. 40 was changed to 70 and now there is a 70s cluster near 70... 71 in Monmouth County, 72 in Burlington/Ocean, 73 Burlington/Camden
Not to mention you've got the NJ 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 cluster down the shore. As pointed out by the previous post, that's probably due to the way NJ sequentially numbered their routes.
I grew up in Pt Pleasant Beach. When I was a kid we even have 38 nearby. I wondered where 32 and 39 were
The pre-'53 system is on Steve's site: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/log/sr2.html
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 24, 2012, 11:16:01 PM
I kinda consider 152 and 156 in my area to be clustered together. Oh, and how about 41, 43, and maybe 46 in the Central Valley?
Not a cluster, but in terms of numbering schemes, I was thinking the cross-Central Valley routes had some semblance of order - north-to-south: 120, 132, 140, 152, 180, 198.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 25, 2012, 05:21:52 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 24, 2012, 11:16:01 PM
I kinda consider 152 and 156 in my area to be clustered together. Oh, and how about 41, 43, and maybe 46 in the Central Valley?
Not a cluster, but in terms of numbering schemes, I was thinking the cross-Central Valley routes had some semblance of order - north-to-south: 120, 132, 140, 152, 180, 198.
Those clusters are a remnant of California's original numbering system, where there were clusters of routes separated by 4. In the L.A. area, you had 3 (later Alt. 101 and now 1), 7, 11, 15, 19. Also 2, 6 (became 26 when U.S. 6 came in), 10 (later 42), 14 (91), 18, 22, and original 26 which was quickly dropped from the state route system.
Minnesota also had small clusters of minor routes when the 1920 Babcock Amendment that established the trunk highway system was adopted. Example: 56, 57, 58 and 59 (later U.S. 63).
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 25, 2012, 07:22:08 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 25, 2012, 05:21:52 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 24, 2012, 11:16:01 PM
I kinda consider 152 and 156 in my area to be clustered together. Oh, and how about 41, 43, and maybe 46 in the Central Valley?
Not a cluster, but in terms of numbering schemes, I was thinking the cross-Central Valley routes had some semblance of order - north-to-south: 120, 132, 140, 152, 180, 198.
Those clusters are a remnant of California's original numbering system, where there were clusters of routes separated by 4. In the L.A. area, you had 3 (later Alt. 101 and now 1), 7, 11, 15, 19. Also 2, 6 (became 26 when U.S. 6 came in), 10 (later 42), 14 (91), 18, 22, and original 26 which was quickly dropped from the state route system.
What intrigues me are the post-1964 clusters (i.e. 236, 237, 238 on former Route 9), which include:
231 (now gone), 241, 261 for the Orange County tollroads
72, 73 near 74 in Orange County (though 72 no longer goes to Orange County)
46 and 43 which run near Route 41
Route 63, roughly parallel to the original Route 65
Route 57, parallel to 1934-present Route 55
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
Route 63, roughly parallel to the original Route 65
63, while not an original bear route, did exist by the 50s. I have held in my hands a 1958 example of a route 63 white spade shield.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
46 and 43 which run near Route 41
I always thought of CA-43, defined about the same time as the major 1964 route renumbering, as a probably deliberate clustering with CA-41 even though by that time there was no real constraint on route numbering because any "system" had long since become redundant. On the other hand, I figured CA-46 was a derivation of its pre-1964 designation, U.S. 466. I know CA-58 was the old legislative route number for U.S. 466 from Bakersfield to Barstow.
I reckon 41 and 43 are close together because of the two grids between NorCal and Socal come together in Kern County.
Michigan only has a couple:
M-37 and M-137 near Traverse City (separated by 5.5 miles along US-31)
M-79 and M-179 near Hastings (separated by 6 miles along M-37 and M-43)
The second one is intentional. I saw somewhere M-179 would have been an extension of M-79 if not for a three-way concurrency in Hastings.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2012, 08:16:34 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
Route 63, roughly parallel to the original Route 65
63, while not an original bear route, did exist by the 50s. I have held in my hands a 1958 example of a route 63 white spade shield.
This suddenly makes me think:
We know of 1934-era routes (i.e. 180, 1) and the 1964-era routes (i.e. 58). But I don't know if there's been really much chronology listed yet for routes created between those two periods (the current 28, 42, 17, 107) - would be fascinating to see which existing routes were not original to 1934 but were created before 1964.
Would 43's existence as a 1950s route make it one of the earliest examples of clustering in its current form in California?
Quote from: TheStranger on June 26, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
This suddenly makes me think:
We know of 1934-era routes (i.e. 180, 1) and the 1964-era routes (i.e. 58). But I don't know if there's been really much chronology listed yet for routes created between those two periods (the current 28, 42, 17, 107) - would be fascinating to see which existing routes were not original to 1934 but were created before 1964.
Would 43's existence as a 1950s route make it one of the earliest examples of clustering in its current form in California?
Daniel Faigin's cahighways site tends to have this information, but it is collated in a strange manner, with a lot of reliance on the old LRN system.
the easiest thing to do is look up each individual signed number and read very carefully.
Quote from: akotchi on June 22, 2012, 05:36:14 PM
There is also a PA 513 in that group of x13's, and it intersects its parent. PA 313 exists, too, but I am not as familiar with that one -- it is north of the rest. PA 113 also exists, but in Chester County. Not sure that one reaches U.S. 13, but I know it does not get to any of the others.
I had forgotten about 113 and 313 (given they're in areas I rarely go). I also forgot about 513.
So, while looking at 113 and 313 today, I was trying to figure out how they fit into the cluster. They do cross each other, but that didn't alone fit them into the x13 family. I saw on PAHighways.com that 113 originally terminated at US 13, but was moved in 1946. I was curious what its original route looked like, since US 13 is nowhere near where it runs now. I found some maps on the USGS site (Burlington and Langhorne 1947, in case anyone is interested) and it looks like 113 was actually run along Bensalem Blvd earlier in its life. It also looks like there was a 713 designated along Newportville Rd at one point.
This does beg the question, what clusters do we have presently that might not make sense along current alignments, but make sense in a historical context? Guess that's a lot more work to figure out...
Sorry for going off topic.
Only a few cluster groupings left here in the "Land of Entrapment" ( New Mexico). A good example would be in north central NM, you would find state routes 75, 76 (the high road to Taos), a small remnant of 74 , which used to run all the way to the Colorado border and is now US 285, and 73, a very short route around the mountain village of Penasco. NM 71 was also in that same cluster around the north side of Las Vegas.
Quote from: sandiaman on June 27, 2012, 06:49:56 PM
Only a few cluster groupings left here in the "Land of Entrapment" ( New Mexico). A good example would be in north central NM, you would find state routes 75, 76 (the high road to Taos), a small remnant of 74 , which used to run all the way to the Colorado border and is now US 285, and 73, a very short route around the mountain village of Penasco. NM 71 was also in that same cluster around the north side of Las Vegas.
You need a new spacebar.
Quote from: sandiaman on June 27, 2012, 06:49:56 PM
Only a few cluster groupings left here in the "Land of Entrapment" ( New Mexico). A good example would be in north central NM, you would find state routes 75, 76 (the high road to Taos), a small remnant of 74 , which used to run all the way to the Colorado border and is now US 285, and 73, a very short route around the mountain village of Penasco. NM 71 was also in that same cluster around the north side of Las Vegas.
Most of the true route clusters in New Mexico are a result of the 1988 renumbering that affected some but not all routes. As examples: there are numerous routes in the 180s and 190s from Sunland Park up the Rio Grande Valley to T or C. There are also some 250s routes around Roswell that, though they have the proper NMDOT district prefix, pre-date 1988. I wouldn't consider 73 at Peñasco and former 71 at Las Vegas to be clustered - those were 1960s (?) routes likely just assigned available numbers (both had been 1920s routes elsewhere that disappeared by the 1930s). 74, 75 and 76 cited above were probably 1920s route clusters.
A few in Denver: (italics are decomissioned/unsigned)
30, 32, 33, 35, 36
72 and 75
83, US 85, US 87 and 88
Reno/Sparks
430, 431, 443 & 445
647, 648, 650, 651, 659, 663, 667, 671
Las Vegas
146, 147, 159, 160, 171
562, 564, 573, 574, 582, 589, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 599
604, 605, 607, 610, 612
I'm guessing both the current Nevada system and the pre-1976 system both had/have several instances of route clustering.
Does Bergen County, NJ count with CR's 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 507. 506 does not quite make it into Bergen, but is just south of the Bergen/ Hudon Line along NJ 7.
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 28, 2012, 07:50:03 PM
Reno/Sparks
430, 431, 443 & 445
647, 648, 650, 651, 659, 663, 667, 671
Las Vegas
146, 147, 159, 160, 171
562, 564, 573, 574, 582, 589, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 599
604, 605, 607, 610, 612
I'm guessing both the current Nevada system and the pre-1976 system both had/have several instances of route clustering.
Your list actually leaves out a lot more clustering than actually exists (or existed)... it would take a while to list them all.
The current numbering system in Nevada is based on assignment of numbers in the Federal Aid highway system and State Aid system. These numbers were assigned by county for the Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) and State Aid Primary (SAP) routes, and were assigned by urbanized area for the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) routes--numbers were assigned increasing through the county/urban area alphabetically. Many numbers were assigned, not all were state highways--wherever an FAS/FAU/SAP route was state maintained, it kept that number as the state route number. This is why you see a group of state highways somewhat close together in one geographic area, but the next highway in numerical order will be in a completely different part of the state. [This concept has been discussed in greater detail in other threads.]
The pre-1976 numbering in Nevada was based legislatively in state law, and routes were more-or-less assigned in numerical order based on date (although others were later altered). There was some clustering, only by virtue of routes being established around the same time--old SR 27 & SR 28 come to mind (old SR 27 is now SR 431, so these two actually intersected at Incline Village).
Quote from: roadman65 on June 28, 2012, 08:42:50 PM
Does Bergen County, NJ count with CR's 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 507. 506 does not quite make it into Bergen, but is just south of the Bergen/ Hudon Line along NJ 7.
That's not a route cluster, that's just the fact that CR numbering works from E-W and N-S.
California has Routes 23 and 27 fairly close together, and Route 33 isn't far west from them, either.
Quote from: Quillz on June 30, 2012, 12:30:41 AM
California has Routes 23 and 27 fairly close together, and Route 33 isn't far west from them, either.
CA 33 was extended south onto US 399 to Ventura in 1964 - US 399 turned east onto what is now CA 119. CA 33 originally used CA 166 to connect to old US 99.
This is completely random (not planned), but:
In northeast Massachusetts, routes 108, 110, 111 (NH), 113, and 114 are close together.
Route 114 doesn't touch any of the others, but it's still extremely close to the others.
Route 111 is closer in New Hampshire than it is in Massachusetts, but it's the same route.
108, 110, and 113 are in Haverhill, MA.
NH 107 is just a bit too far away for it to count.
NH 107A might count though.
Also, even they are not that close, NH 84, 85, 87, and 88 are all single county routes in Rockingham County. And 286 used to be 86 (also in Rockingham County).
I feel like MA has planned clusters. 127, 128, 129 are also near each other, from what I recall.
Yes, 127, 128, and 129 are all close.
MA does make some attempt at clustering, particularly with the low-100s numbers, but it's not very consistent.
Quote from: ftballfan on June 26, 2012, 08:21:00 AM
Michigan only has a couple:
M-37 and M-137 near Traverse City (separated by 5.5 miles along US-31)
M-79 and M-179 near Hastings (separated by 6 miles along M-37 and M-43)
The second one is intentional. I saw somewhere M-179 would have been an extension of M-79 if not for a three-way concurrency in Hastings.
And M-120 is a spur from, and former routing of, M-20.
In Virginia, the Hampton Roads area has a cluster from 164-173 (including the decommissioned 167), the Eastern Shore has a cluster in the 170's and 180's, Richmond/Petersburg has some 140's and 150's, and Roanoke has the 110's. Also, southside Hampton Roads has a cluster of 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, and 196.
Doesn't Northern Virginia have a cluster in the 230's?
Virginia's current numbering scheme actually was entirely clustered by district originally, but over time as routes have been decommissioned/renumbered and new routes created, this has become less obvious.
And they didn't leave any empty space in 1933. All so they could start secondaries at 600 rather than 900.
Related: Route strings. Sullivan County, NY strings together county route numbers. Following the same road, you're on 151, 152, 153, 154... there might be a 157 spur too. Numbers reset at junctions or sometimes just village centers.
Quote from: 1 on August 15, 2013, 02:05:48 PM
Yes, 127, 128, and 129 are all close.
I thought this thread was going to be about the new roadgeek cereal.
125 is close to those as well (though 126 is a bit far west in Concord).
SR 246 & SR 247 meet and have a short concurrence with each other in Maury County, TN.
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2013, 06:49:06 PM
And they didn't leave any empty space in 1933. All so they could start secondaries at 600 rather than 900.
I started a fictional numbering project guessing what today's routes would be numbered had they stayed with the 1928 system, but never got far with it. There are so many variables that have happened since then that it could never really be much more than conjecture.
I've always wondered if CA-52 and 56 were intentionally numbered so to correspond to the other 5x freeway in the area. was 54 a freeway in the works by the time 52 and 56 were designated?
I can't say there are many clusters of three-digit Minnesota highways, if at all, but I can say there are clusters of numbers very close to each other in a given area. In the quad cities, you have 135 (formerly 35) and 37, which intersect. In the east metro, you have 95, 96, and 97 in the same general area (you also had 94 which was overtaken by U.S. 10, and 98 was formerly in the area as well). In southeastern Minnesota, north of Rochester, 56, 57, and 58 are all north-south highways that appear to be part of a grid; before U.S. 63 came in, MN 59 was part of this "mini-grid" as well.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 17, 2013, 12:11:48 AM
I've always wondered if CA-52 and 56 were intentionally numbered so to correspond to the other 5x freeway in the area. was 54 a freeway in the works by the time 52 and 56 were designated?
All three numbers were first used in the 1964 renumbering, so it was probably purposeful clustering.
Keene NH: NH 9, NH 10, NH 12
Near Albany NY: NY 85, I-87, I-88, I-90