CA-2 truncation...

[mrsman]

What about cases like Route 65, where the state still thinks they'll construct the middle portion of the freeway but we'll likely all be dead first?

Good question.  Already part of what was the old Route 65 has been renumbered twice (first to Route 69, then Route 245) to accommodate the still-unbuilt portion from Exeter to Roseville. 

More definitive cases of "separate segments should be given separate numbers" IMO:

- Route 16
- Route 160 (part of me would love to see the 160 freeway in North Sacramento incorporated into a new middle segment of Route 16, but that's not realistic)
- Route 84
- Route 90
- most of the trans-Sierra crossings that will never be constructed, i.e. Route 190, Route 168

Ah Route 90. Another case of having to plow through miles of urban Los Angeles to finish it. That's probably more likely than the 2 freeway, but is still highly unlikely after I-105 was built, and even that's technically still not finished. The Marina Freeway should be renumbered in this case, as it's a small stub and most of Route 90 is in Orange County.

Also while both routes are technically completed, I've always groaned at how the Ronald Reagan Freeway switches numbers when it crosses Los Angeles Ave in Moorpark, and along with it, the postmiles. If you're getting on from the 101, you'll soon pass exits 18, 19 and 20, and then 18, 19 and 20...again.

I don't find that all that confusing, and it's just coincidental the numbers line up like that.

It's not confusing for native Californians, since we don't navigate by exit number to the same extent that people in other parts of the country do.  We've adapted exit numbers much more recently.

When was the last time you recieved directions to get off at exit #X vs. getting off at a specific street name?