CA-118 and CA-126

[SoCal Kid]

I'm not sure if 3dis non-spur or loop state routes are allowed, but how come they are given their numbers. CA-18 is nowhere near CA-118, the same goes for CA-126 and CA-26. Again, not sure if Interstate spur/loops regulations apply to state routes

[emory]

They don't apply them to state routes. That's more of a US route and Interstate thing.

[SoCal Kid]

I see

[cahwyguy]

State routes are numbered very different than the interstates. Finding that answer is one of the reasons I set up the California Highway pages long before you were born. Take a look at https://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html , in particular the section on California State Routes.

[SoCal Kid]

State routes are numbered very different than the interstates. Finding that answer is one of the reasons I set up the California Highway pages long before you were born. Take a look at https://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html , in particular the section on California State Routes.

Thanks!

[DTComposer]

If you go to one of the maps that show the earliest numbering scheme:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Date%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=14&trs=86

You'll see some of the patterns. Regarding 118 and 126 in particular: many of the laterals in the central and southern part of the state were three-digit, ascending from L.A. northward until about Visalia, then descending again to about Stockton. Many of the routes had nearby routes with a difference of 12. So north of 126, you'll find 138, then 150 (today's 246/154/192). You'll see 166, 178, and 190; 152 and 140; 132, 120, and 108. Not sure on the rationale for the routes that didn't fall in the 12 pattern such as 118 and 198.

You'll also see some patterns in and around the Bay Area and L.A. Dan's page mentions assigning lower numbers in pairs between the two metros; so in the Bay Area/Sacramento, you'll see (west to east, more or less) 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29; and (south to north, more or less) 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, (40 skipped due to US-40), 44.

In L.A. you'll see (west to east, more or less) 3, 7, 11, 15, 19 (then going back to the west, not sure why), 23, 27 (then going back to the east), 31, 35; and north to south, more or less) 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26.

As Dan's pages mention, the extension/truncation of routes, additions of U.S. and then Interstate routes, and the 1964 renumbering pretty much blew up this system, but the remnants are there.

[SoCal Kid]

If you go to one of the maps that show the earliest numbering scheme:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Date%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=14&trs=86

You'll see some of the patterns. Regarding 118 and 126 in particular: many of the laterals in the central and southern part of the state were three-digit, ascending from L.A. northward until about Visalia, then descending again to about Stockton. Many of the routes had nearby routes with a difference of 12. So north of 126, you'll find 138, then 150 (today's 246/154/192). You'll see 166, 178, and 190; 152 and 140; 132, 120, and 108. Not sure on the rationale for the routes that didn't fall in the 12 pattern such as 118 and 198.

You'll also see some patterns in and around the Bay Area and L.A. Dan's page mentions assigning lower numbers in pairs between the two metros; so in the Bay Area/Sacramento, you'll see (west to east, more or less) 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29; and (south to north, more or less) 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, (40 skipped due to US-40), 44.

In L.A. you'll see (west to east, more or less) 3, 7, 11, 15, 19 (then going back to the west, not sure why), 23, 27 (then going back to the east), 31, 35; and north to south, more or less) 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26.

As Dan's pages mention, the extension/truncation of routes, additions of U.S. and then Interstate routes, and the 1964 renumbering pretty much blew up this system, but the remnants are there.

Knew about the lower number in large metro area thing, but I didnt know about the difference in 12 of nearby routes. But if the metro pattern is true, why is 23 so? I dont really consider Simi Valley/Moorpark/Thousand Oaks a "metro".

[cahwyguy]

Hint: Not everything makes sense. The numbers were not assigned by people as obsessed as we are. 23 was in the southern part of the state, to go with 22. 24 and 25 in the north. 26 and 27 in the south. 28 and 29 in the north. 30 and 31 in the south, and so on.

[SoCal Kid]

Hint: Not everything makes sense. The numbers were not assigned by people as obsessed as we are. 23 was in the southern part of the state, to go with 22. 24 and 25 in the north. 26 and 27 in the south. 28 and 29 in the north. 30 and 31 in the south, and so on.

Got it

[sparker]

What has always been interesting to me (particularly as a Glendale native) is how the 3-digit even state routes not divisible by 4, ostensibly arranged to increase from central L.A. all the way to SSR 198 across the San Joaquin Valley, had the "oddball" anomaly of SSR 134 where a SSR 114 should have been (south of SSR 118); by all means, the 134 number should have been assigned to something north of 126 but south of 138 -- or to something with a similar latitude, like one of the shorter routes in the San Bernardino Mountains.   Aside from the public records, which simply show results, it would be interesting to acquire minutes of various Division of Highways meetings just to see how these anomalies in the original -- and, considering the state's topology, pretty damn rational -- numbering scheme came to pass.  Also -- why the original scheme was discarded in '64, when it could have easily served as a template for numbering of routes, particularly in the Central Valley, that were previously unsigned.