Could we ever see another mass renumbering of state highways again?

[Mr. Matté]

Back in the day as states were developing their state highway systems, some states performed massive renumbering of their state highways to eliminate duplications with US/Interstate numbers, suffixes, prefixes, etc. Probably the most covered at least roadgeek-wise would be New Jersey's 1927 and 1953 renumberings, though other states have done so like Ohio, Iowa, and Utah.


In these modern times, do you think we'd ever see mass renumberings like that again? There's business owners who create a big hoopla if say the highway exit near where they are located is renumbered for whatever reason. They might cite driver confusion as a reason why they might not patronize their business. When other exits are changed, or roads are renumbered or downgraded, the old signs might be left up with a new "OLD/FORMER" banner added, or a whole new sign might be placed with the former designation. States might not want to deal with the costs of adding such signs and replacement of old ones. We'd also have to deal with various GPS / map apps that would need to be updated. Thoughts?

[Scott5114]

I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?). So renumbering roads would be done for inventory purposes, which isn't worth the disruption and could be handled by an internal numbering system like Oregon's, if it were necessary.

[Roadrunner75]

Let's not make this motel owner go through this twice.  The add-on "1"s are finally arriving this week!

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.171265,-74.0672602,3a,75y,130.15h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpGtdGXsEVTm7UWRvIfrMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Max Rockatansky]

I could see a body like the Forest Service overhauling their road numbering system way before any states would.  At least there one could make a reasonable argument that navigational aid is needed and the current signage standards need upgrading.  Across the board I don't see the general public using numbers for navigation to any extent like they used to.  I would find it hard to believe that any legislative body can realistically justify the cost/benefits of a large scale Renumbering. 

[jp the roadgeek]

The only way I can see it happening (especially in the northeast) is if a bunch of state DOT's get together to coordinate on it, and create more MSR's.  For more on some of my ideas for CT, which would include some coordination with MA, NY, and RI, read this thread:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18689.0

[froggie]

I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).

Disagree with your latter point.  Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing.  Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.

[kphoger]

I can easily see renumbering route inventory numbers that don't affect signage in the field.  For example, if a highway is signed as "SR 84" in the field but listed as "Route 323" in the inventory, I don't think there'd be any problem renumbering the inventory file.  What states do this sort of thing?

[kalvado]

I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).

Disagree with your latter point.  Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing.  Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.

Renumbering MAY benefit those just passing through the area - at a cost of ruining local

navigation, location placement, and business marketing

I don't think similar concerns stopped exit renumbering requirements, so really this would not be a factor for road renumbering as well.

[hbelkins]

I can easily see renumbering route inventory numbers that don't affect signage in the field.  For example, if a highway is signed as "SR 84" in the field but listed as "Route 323" in the inventory, I don't think there'd be any problem renumbering the inventory file.  What states do this sort of thing?

Tennessee, as it pertains to US highways. Each US route not concurrent with an Interstate has a hidden and usually unsigned state route. Most times, the only evidence of it is on the mile markers, which have the state route number indicated instead of the signed US route number. I've even seen public communications from TDOT (press releases and social media posts) that will refer to the hidden state route number and not the posted US route number.

[wanderer2575]

Let's not make this motel owner go through this twice.  The add-on "1"s are finally arriving this week!

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.171265,-74.0672602,3a,75y,130.15h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpGtdGXsEVTm7UWRvIfrMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

He could take the extra "1"s from these signs, especially now that the place apparently is permanently closed.
(On US-12 in Wayne MI, which used to be US-112.)

https://goo.gl/maps/ZrzS7qv9S8t39pwf8

[Max Rockatansky]

I can easily see renumbering route inventory numbers that don't affect signage in the field.  For example, if a highway is signed as "SR 84" in the field but listed as "Route 323" in the inventory, I don't think there'd be any problem renumbering the inventory file.  What states do this sort of thing?

California does that occasionally with the current example of CA 51 being signed as I-80 Business.  That's how the state got away with signing I-15E since it was legislatively CA 194.

[Scott5114]

I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).

Disagree with your latter point.  Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing.  Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.

That's not exactly the point I was making. Very rarely does anyone make use of–or even know–system-level information like "I-95's number implies it is generally to the east of I-85" or "Interstates ending in 5 or 0 are more major than others" that would make a mass renumbering attractive. On the other hand, they do use individual route numbers for navigation, which a mass renumbering would make more difficult.

If an orderly system made navigation easier as a whole, then it would make sense to do so because the long-term gains would overcome the short-term pain of renumbering. But given that Arkansas manages to survive with however many copies of AR 74 they're up to now...

[catch22]

Let's not make this motel owner go through this twice.  The add-on "1"s are finally arriving this week!

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.171265,-74.0672602,3a,75y,130.15h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjpGtdGXsEVTm7UWRvIfrMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

He could take the extra "1"s from these signs, especially now that the place apparently is permanently closed.
(On US-12 in Wayne MI, which used to be US-112.)

https://goo.gl/maps/ZrzS7qv9S8t39pwf8

If they did that, would I have to change my avatar?   (heh heh)

To answer the original question, I doubt it.  At this point, I can see the occasional renumbering here and there, but that's it.

[Roadgeekteen]

When did we last have one? Numbers are pretty ingrained into our memory now.

[hotdogPi]

When did we last have one? Numbers are pretty ingrained into our memory now.

California in 1964, Connecticut in 1963.

[Max Rockatansky]

When did we last have one? Numbers are pretty ingrained into our memory now.

California in 1964, Connecticut in 1963.

Nevada during 1976 which was probably one of the most needed. 

[oscar]

When did we last have one? Numbers are pretty ingrained into our memory now.

California in 1964, Connecticut in 1963.

Nevada during 1976 which was probably one of the most needed. 

Hawaii's last significant renumberings were in 1968. That was not nearly as significant as the comprehensive route numbering in the mid-1950s (a few years before statehood) that gave the future state its first permanent, signed route number system.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I believe Minnesota's last major one was 1933 when the first round of legislative routes were added. The original constitutional route system was relegated to being unsigned if it overlapped with US routes (they had been signed as duplexes the first few years), and some of those newly unsigned numbers were then reassigned to other roads.

[roadman65]

Would be good for us, but for non road enthusiasts not so much.  The GPS ruined the number verses map thing nowadays, plus people do not even look at the signs to see they are on a toll road, as many come to Florida and then have a fit when the GPS takes them there.

I worked at the Beachline West, and when you ask a driver why he ignored the sign he would tell you this: " I do not know the other roads, so I have to follow the GPS" as if it were the only way around and that they know now a ticket citation is no longer like it used to be.

This is not only the millenials either as many baby boomers also forgot that they got around before the GPS also.

[DandyDan]

I could see Iowa doing so as they have only a little over 100 different numbers used, but they use numbers in the 400's. Iowa also could tidy some things up. Of course, I can't say whether it would go over with the general public.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).

Disagree with your latter point.  Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing.  Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.

All you have to do is look at all the people that call US-95 I-95 to realize that a number is just a number. 

[kalvado]

I don't think it's particularly likely, mostly because the general public doesn't really use a numbering system as a navigational guide much anymore (did they ever?).

Disagree with your latter point.  Large swaths of the nation have the general public attuned to the numbers, both for navigation, location placement, and business marketing.  Numerous areas have the "street name" of a given roadway as the highway number.

All you have to do is look at all the people that call US-95 I-95 to realize that a number is just a number.

I heard people calling NY-85 "I-85" because, apparently, they were driving on a few northern miles of it, towards I-90 only, where NY-85 is actually a divided highway

[deathtopumpkins]

navigation, location placement, and business marketing

I don't think similar concerns stopped exit renumbering requirements, so really this would not be a factor for road renumbering as well.

*laughs in Massachusetts*

[kalvado]

navigation, location placement, and business marketing

I don't think similar concerns stopped exit renumbering requirements, so really this would not be a factor for road renumbering as well.

*laughs in Massachusetts*

Please note, I didn't say "stopped renumbering", i deliberately said " stopped exit renumbering requirements"
*giggles in NY*

[kphoger]

Illinois has a gradual, ongoing change to its internal numbering system.  As new routes are added to the system, they do not receive an SBI number; as a segment of an existing route is transferred to local agency jurisdiction, the SBI designation is permanently removed.

Are FAP and FAS numbers still used in any context in Illinois?  I'm still a little fuzzy on that.