Numbered Route Streets with names; is numbering them now pointless?

[bulkyorled]

Meaning US or State routes that also follow a street with a name.
Do you think its pointless? A few examples would be CA-19 where its never a freeway or anything like that and goes by the street names the cities have, such as Rosemead Bl or Lakewood Bl, or CA-2 when its not the Glendale Fwy and is Santa Monica Bl and then after the Glendale Fwy it becomes Angeles Crest Hwy.
Or even more in abundance would appear to be Vegas, NV-582 aka Boulder Hwy or NV-589 Sahara Av.

Obviously it only counts for signed versions. Not sure about Nevada but the California ones are signed as are many around the country.

Pointless? No one would say here I was on the 19 if they were on Rosemead or Lakewood. They'd say the street. They'd say the 19 if it was a freeway. Well you get it

[deathtopumpkins]

Are you saying it's pointless for numbered highways to also have names? Even in urban areas?

This is a problem for 2 reasons:

• Many roads, urban and otherwise, predated numbered routes. There are streets that were called by their current name for hundreds of years before getting a number.
• In urban areas people usually refer to roads by name rather than number, presumably because names were usually there first and have more significance (or fit into a grid), not to mention the fact that routes often use a combination of a dozen or more streets to get through a city. It wouldn't make sense for a street name to have a gap just because part of it carries a numbered route.

Also, I don't know about SoCal (though I would presume this is the case there as well since you have named freeways), but people don't always use numbers for freeways. No one here in Boston refers to I-93 south of the city as I-93, they refer to it as the [Southeast] Expressway.

[bulkyorled]

That was what I'm questioning. Why does the street need the number if its not a real highway. Obviously at one point it would have made sense, but in the case of say CA19, there are several other options such as I605 to follow nearly the same route and get you there faster. I'm not talking about the past, I mean now in 2012, is there any point to keeping that up?

And yes they refer to it as the Southeast Expressway, but its still I-93. The freeways here are named but no one says "On the Golden State Freeway" or "On the Hollywood Freeway", its either the 5 or the 170.

Adding on its like having a street with 2 names. It happens, and if the road is signed for both names then generally one of the names is used more than the other.
Im sure if you ask most people where CA19 is they'd have no clue. Or if you told them CA2 goes beyond the freeway part in both directions most people wouldnt know that either. I keep using those as examples because they're good examples imo We can use others


Actually CA 1 could be used as another good one. Signed all up and down the coast, but in such places where its known as PCH or Cabrillo Hwy for the majority of it, why is the 1 needed anymore? If basically the entire stretch has a name of its own, why call it CA 1 now?

I suppose it doesnt really even matter either way. Like I said, most people don't notice it for lesser known routes.


Its not a signage/route hate thread haha. If anything I feel like I'm wondering if people even notice these things. Other than the people in this forum....

[deathtopumpkins]

That was what I'm questioning. Why does the street need the number if its not a real highway. Obviously at one point it would have made sense, but in the case of say CA19, there are several other options such as I605 to follow nearly the same route and get you there faster. I'm not talking about the past, I mean now in 2012, is there any point to keeping that up?

Ah, you're one of those folks who think we should move all numbered routes onto freeways and revert the old roads back to local maintenance.
True, the route might not make sense today, but it certainly did before the parallel freeway came along. why bother getting rid of it now? The state could probably make an arrangement with the city to drop the route, but why? I'm sure there's some reason the state or city would want the state to keep maintaining the road.

And yes they refer to it as the Southeast Expressway, but its still I-93. The freeways here are named but no one says "On the Golden State Freeway" or "On the Hollywood Freeway", its either the 5 or the 170.

But didn't you say in your original post that if everyone calls a road by a name the number is pointless? If this is the case then why shouldn't we just decommission I-93 from the US 1 interchange to I-95?

Adding on its like having a street with 2 names. It happens, and if the road is signed for both names then generally one of the names is used more than the other.

Ah but it's not a name, it's a number. Different classification. Names are posted on street blades, numbers are posted on route shields. Numbers generally appear at major intersections, usually with other numbered highways. Names appear at side streets. Numbers are aimed at through travelers, passing at least from one side of the city to another, while names are aimed at local travel originating on those side streets.

Im sure if you ask most people where CA19 is they'd have no clue. Or if you told them CA2 goes beyond the freeway part in both directions most people wouldnt know that either. I keep using those as examples because they're good examples imo We can use others

This holds true for almost any route - the locals don't use it as a designation, but that doesn't mean no one does. You live in SoCal, so obviously you would prefer the name. I've never left the east coast, so having a route number to follow through several different streets when I'm 3000 miles from home is really quite helpful. On any long-distance travel I always prefer sticking to route numbers, if only because of the sheer number of times names change (a problem admittedly more severe here in New England - to illustrate, the road connecting me to I-95 is an unnumbered town road that goes by, in order, North Main St, Market St, Topsfield Rd, Ipswich Rd, Underhill St, an d Washington St, all in maybe 5 miles.  But if it were a numbered route it would keep one single number for that route.

Actually CA 1 could be used as another good one. Signed all up and down the coast, but in such places where its known as PCH or Cabrillo Hwy for the majority of it, why is the 1 needed anymore? If basically the entire stretch has a name of its own, why call it CA 1 now?

Because CA 1 is a recognized continuous number.

[1995hoo]

I think a route number can be very useful in an urban area for various reasons. The one that most readily comes to my mind is roads that change names even though you just drive straight ahead. For example, here in Northern Virginia, Route 236 is named Duke Street in the City of Alexandria, Little River Turnpike in Fairfax County, and Main Street in the City of Fairfax, but you can stay on 236 the whole way if you just drive straight ahead. Route 123 is usually Chain Bridge Road to the north of, and in, the City of Fairfax, except for a while in McLean it's Dolley Madison Boulevard and then in the Town of Vienna it's Maple Avenue; meanwhile, once you get south of Fairfax City it becomes Ox Road until it crosses into Price William County and becomes Gordon Boulevard before ending.

Not surprisingly, almost everyone I know (and I've lived in Fairfax County since 1974) generally refers to both of those routes by number, except for sometimes calling the portion of 236 in Old Town Alexandria by its name.

I'm sure this sort of thing isn't unusual at all. I'd argue that in both cases having the number is a lot more convenient even though neither road is a freeway.

(Around here it seems to be a bit of a crapshoot as to which roads people call by name and which by number; there are also some where you'll hear either. I've never heard anyone call Gallows Road "650," for example, and if you did use the number most people wouldn't know what you meant. US-50 in Virginia is often called either "50" or "Arlington Boulevard," though.)

[formulanone]

I kind of prefer the route numbers in almost all cases, if they're used logically and connect/link to other through numbered routes which travel "significant" distances or at least, to a "major" terminus.

"Significant" - More than a mile or two. I don't get that some states mark everything, if it links to nothing of importance which would not be a through road. How is that helpful to anyone? Marking every driveway, school entrance, residential neighborhood road, et cetera is pointless. Keep that on your internal records.

"Major" - A city, town, lake, river, park, something other than what was excluded above.

The point of these numbers are to make it a guide for those travelling form location and location on a map. If the number cannot possibly be found on a map, there's little point to the number, unless it's intuitive to a traveler what it leads to.

I suppose the Florida thing to do is call a route by it's number if it doesn't have a convenient name in most urban/suburban places, and the number in many of the rural areas (probably because the street name might change from town to town).

[bulkyorled]

I think what the two of you said make sense, it almost makes it seem as though if it acts as a highway and linking two towns together that's when it makes sense. Maybe they should unsign or decommission routes such as CA19 that basically got unnoticed.

[roadfro]

In Nevada, for example, many of these numbered urban routes are in place simply because NDOT physically owns and maintains the roadway. Every bit of roadway or pavement under NDOT jurisdiction has some kind of number on it for inventory purposes. I imagine other states are similar and explains why the numbering exists.

Now, the question becomes whether it is necessary to sign every route. Apparently, NDOT doesn't think so, as the majority of its urban state routes are sparsely signed (if at all). If they actually go somewhere (i.e. SR 147, SR 159, SR 160, SR 564) then it certainly makes sense to sign them for navigational purposes--otherwise, the numbers aren't used for meaningful navigation and don't need to be posted.

[bulldog1979]

Actually, there is a valuable benefit to retaining a street name, even on something that's a highway now: that piece of pavement may not always be a state highway. When the day comes that jurisdiction/ownership of a street is changed for some reason, the residents or business along the road won't have to change their addresses.

For instance, Washington and Front streets in Marquette, Michigan, were a part of a state highway from 1913 until 2005, when MDOT transferred control back to the city. No businesses or residents had to file change of address forms because BUS US 41 was no more in the fall of 2005; they always used an address of Washington Street or Front Street. Of course, they didn't have to change addresses when downtown was bypassed in 1963 and US 41 was rerouted off those two streets either. Nor when M-15 was removed and replaced with US 41 in 1926.

[mcdonaat]

Numbered routes are convenient for when I am traveling to a new area. A trip down US 167 sends me through Ville Platte, Opelousas, Lafayette, and Abbeville. It would be confusing to follow a thru route if the roads weren't numbered.

[sp_redelectric]

I can see a few examples where route numbers are pointless.  In the Portland area:

Oregon 8 - "T.V. Highway", also "Canyon Road" east of Beaverton.  Rarely referred to as "Highway 8", the legal definition of T.V. Highway continues as Oregon 47 south of Forest Grove to McMinnville which is generally referred to as "Highway 47" rather than its legal name.  West of Forest Grove Oregon 8 is routed on the county-maintained Gales Creek Road, and there are very few route signs indicating that it's part of Oregon 8.

Oregon 10 - known as Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway east of Beaverton; Farmington Road west.  West of Beaverton it is mostly a county road not under ODOT jurisdiction.

Oregon 213 - the section also known as "Cascade Highway North" is better known as 82nd Avenue.  While it is still considered a state highway, functionally it's just a city arterial street.  Further to the south, its southern end between Silverton and Salem is better known as "Silverton Road" and is also county maintained; the state highway actually follows Oregon 214 south of Silverton.

U.S. 30 Bypass - This is really a whole other situation; it no longer functions as a bypass but more a business route (there used to be a U.S. 30 Business as well but it was decommissioned a few years ago).  Today U.S. 30 Bypass is a series of local streets through North Portland.

Oregon 99E - also known as "M.L.K. Jr. Boulevard" and "Grand Avenue".  It's sister route 99W has largely been decommissioned and removed so that 99W no longer exists north of Tigard (although there was an attempt to resurrect it, but it didn't stick.)

[flowmotion]

Roadfro hit it on the head, route numbering is useful when it serves some navigational purpose. However many highway departments treat it like an inventory numbering system, which when signed actually obscures the navigational routes through excess information.

Also, my assumption is that humans find it much easier to remember names rather than numbers. In many cases, "Foo Highway" might be a better primary designation than Route 982.

For example, on my visits to Northern Virginia, it seems like every suburban road is a signed state highway, and I find it confusing as hell.

[bulkyorled]

In Nevada, for example, many of these numbered urban routes are in place simply because NDOT physically owns and maintains the roadway. Every bit of roadway or pavement under NDOT jurisdiction has some kind of number on it for inventory purposes. I imagine other states are similar and explains why the numbering exists.

Now, the question becomes whether it is necessary to sign every route. Apparently, NDOT doesn't think so, as the majority of its urban state routes are sparsely signed (if at all). If they actually go somewhere (i.e. SR 147, SR 159, SR 160, SR 564) then it certainly makes sense to sign them for navigational purposes--otherwise, the numbers aren't used for meaningful navigation and don't need to be posted.

That definitely does hit the nail on the head. Certain routes make sense, some are meaningless and what was said above me is definitely true, names are easier than numbers to remember in those instances.

For example, on my visits to Northern Virginia, it seems like every suburban road is a signed state highway, and I find it confusing as hell.

Right! I've not been there for quite some time but I do remember that being a problem when we'd visit that all the roads seemed to be numbered routes.