Routing logic from state to state

[agentsteel53]

Rover: are you aware of this former method of marking SR 30?

that's pretty "dimented". 

seriously, legislative and signed numbering seems like such a completely bizarre, ass-backwards, and downright moronic idea that I wonder how so many states (especially out west) seem to have all decided it was the way to go.  Oregon seems to be the worst.

[TheStranger]

seriously, legislative and signed numbering seems like such a completely bizarre, ass-backwards, and downright moronic idea that I wonder how so many states (especially out west) seem to have all decided it was the way to go.  Oregon seems to be the worst.

California began legislative route numbering approximately 3 decades before signed numbered routes were created.  This makes me wonder though what entity (the auto clubs?) decided the 1934 set of sign numbers that is the basis for today's post-1964 system.

[NE2]

Oregon doesn't use legislative numbering. Both systems are assigned by ODOT (and the Oregon Transportation Commission? or are they ODOT?).

[vdeane]

seriously, legislative and signed numbering seems like such a completely bizarre, ass-backwards, and downright moronic idea that I wonder how so many states (especially out west) seem to have all decided it was the way to go.  Oregon seems to be the worst.

California began legislative route numbering approximately 3 decades before signed numbered routes were created.  This makes me wonder though what entity (the auto clubs?) decided the 1934 set of sign numbers that is the basis for today's post-1964 system.

States probably figured "if the US routes are numbered and it's helpful, why not the state routes?"  I think the auto clubs were more tied to the named trails.

[agentsteel53]

Oregon doesn't use legislative numbering. Both systems are assigned by ODOT (and the Oregon Transportation Commission? or are they ODOT?).

whatever.

having a completely different set of internal and external numberings is completely idiotic.  it makes sense to have certain routes be hidden and have only an internal number, but for signed routes, why have two systems?

[NE2]

it makes sense to have certain routes be hidden and have only an internal number, but for signed routes, why have two systems?

The original numbers were probably kept to make record keeping easier. But I see no reason the secondary routes added in the 1930s (three-digit highway numbers, 2xx route numbers) could not have had the numbers match.

As for California, perhaps they didn't have a great relationship with the legislature and wanted to make sure sign numbers could be easily changed.

[froggie]

it makes sense to have certain routes be hidden and have only an internal number, but for signed routes, why have two systems?

Because in some cases, what the DOT signs (i.e. MnDOT) makes more sense than what the Legislature numbered it (i.e. MN Legislature).

[TheStranger]

seriously, legislative and signed numbering seems like such a completely bizarre, ass-backwards, and downright moronic idea that I wonder how so many states (especially out west) seem to have all decided it was the way to go.  Oregon seems to be the worst.

California began legislative route numbering approximately 3 decades before signed numbered routes were created.  This makes me wonder though what entity (the auto clubs?) decided the 1934 set of sign numbers that is the basis for today's post-1964 system.

States probably figured "if the US routes are numbered and it's helpful, why not the state routes?"  I think the auto clubs were more tied to the named trails.

Though in California's case, CSAA/ACSC were involved with signing the numbered routes from 1934 into the 1950s.  Not sure if they handled route assignment though.

I've always been of the mind that route assignment should be DOT territory - even in post-1964 California, this remains a task for legislators, which has resulted in the awkwardness of paper routes and piecemeal relinquishments.

[Rover_0]

Seriously, legislative and signed numbering seems like such a completely bizarre, ass-backwards, and downright moronic idea that I wonder how so many states (especially out west) seem to have all decided it was the way to go.  Oregon seems to be the worst.

I'm glad that Utah figured out to match legislative and posted route numbers. California and Oregon have a lot on their plate in this regard.

[TheStranger]

Seriously, legislative and signed numbering seems like such a completely bizarre, ass-backwards, and downright moronic idea that I wonder how so many states (especially out west) seem to have all decided it was the way to go.  Oregon seems to be the worst.

I'm glad that Utah figured out to match legislative and posted route numbers. California and Oregon have a lot on their plate in this regard.

California post-1964 for the most part does; the exceptions can be counted rather quickly (164/19, 51/Business 80, 61/260) and some have been reverted to signing the actual designation (24/242, 185/77).

[golden eagle]

Mississippi's highways tend to end at another highway. We do, however, have a problem with non-continguous state route signings (i.e., MS 18 & 149).

[froggie]

Mississippi's highways tend to end at another highway.

The 1/2-digit routes tend to.  However, there are numerous 3-digit routes that have arbitrary termini (404, 493, 393, 511, to cite a few examples).