AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Renumberings due to sign theft  (Read 22902 times)

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13573
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:22:52 PM
Renumberings due to sign theft
« on: January 03, 2014, 05:32:51 AM »

Basically I'm looking at which states have or had a 69, 420, 666, or any other numbers that were changed due to sign theft. A simple no implies that sequential numbers just never got that far.
Interstate: 69 yes, 420 never built, 666 no
US: 69 yes, 420 renumbered for unrelated reasons, 666 renumbered 491 in 2003
Alabama: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Alaska: no
Arizona: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Arkansas: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
California: 69 renumbered 245 in 1972, 420 no, 666 no
Colorado: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Connecticut: 69 yes, 420 secret (not due to number), 666 secret (ditto)
Delaware: no
Florida: 69 yes, 420 became a county road in the 1980s; signs mostly disappeared by attrition (since Orange County doesn't care much about county road signage) but FDOT continued to replace stolen signs at the eastern SR 50 junction until some time in the mid-2000s, 666 yes
Georgia: 69 became part of 17 in 1957-1959, probably for unrelated reasons, 420 secret or never assigned (but it should have been?), 666 no
Hawaii: no
Idaho: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Illinois: 69 became part of US 52 for unrelated reasons, 420 no, 666 no
Indiana: 69 yes, 420 became part of I-80/94 for unrelated reasons, 666 no
Iowa: 69 renumbered 138 due to US 69, 420 renumbered 968 for unrelated reasons, 666 no
Kansas: 69 renumbered 65 due to US 69, 420 no, 666 no
Kentucky: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 yes
Louisiana: 69 yes, 420 yes (the Goog shows the first eastbound reassurance was stolen; it's also part of bike route MRT, foo), 666 eliminated for unrelated reasons (? - apparently 5th Street, Berwick)
Maine: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Maryland: 69 disappeared after 1955 for unrelated reasons, 420 same after 1973, 666 same after 1957
Massachusetts: 69 renumbered 71 to match NY, 420 no, 666 no
Michigan: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Minnesota: 69 renumbered 94 due to US 69, 420 no, 666 no
Mississippi: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Missouri: 69 no (briefly assigned but then skipped due to US 69), 420 no, 666 no
Montana: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 no
Nebraska: 69 yes (replaced 76 in the 1970s), 420 renumbered L45B for unrelated reasons, 666 no
Nevada: 69 renumbered 377 for unrelated reasons, 420 no, 666 no
New Hampshire: 69 no (not sure if there ever was one), 420 no, 666 no
New Jersey: 69 renumbered 31 in the mid-1960s, 420 no, 666 no
New Mexico: 69 disappeared in the 1980s (?) for unrelated reasons, 420 yes (assigned in 1988), 666 no
New York: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 no
North Carolina: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
North Dakota: 69 renumbered 4 in the 1990s, 420 no, 666 no
Ohio: 69 became part of 235 in 1967-1969, 420 yes, 666 yes, 714 renumbered 814 in 1982-1983 (apparently due to Quaaludes, the baby ducksheep drug)
Oklahoma: 69 renumbered 54A, 54B, 183A in 1987-1988 (may have been due to theft or other reasons), 420 no, 666 no
Oregon: 69 renumbered 569 in 2007 before signs were posted, 420 secret (one of only a few highway numbers to not get a (sometimes) signed route designation in the 2000s), was coincidentally the old main road from Klamath Falls to Weed, 666 no
Pennsylvania: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 yes
Rhode Island: no
South Carolina: 69 renumbered 65 in early 1980s, 420 yes, 666 probably eliminated for unrelated reasons
South Dakota: no (but 420 may have existed, depending on how the 4xx routes are numbered)
Tennessee: 69 yes, 420 yes, 666 no
Texas: 69 renumbered 112 in 1992 "due to numerous thefts of the popular SH 69 signs" (Park Road 69 and Spur 69 still exist, but neither seems to be signed), 420 yes (FM; Loop renumbered US 83 Business for unrelated reasons), 666 yes (FM)
Utah: 69 renumbered 38 in 1993 since "the SR-69 route signs have become a collectors' item for a large number of individuals", 420 no, 666 no
Vermont: 69 no (was there ever one?), 420 no, 666 no
Virginia: 69 yes, 420 secret (not necessarily due to the number), 666 yes (a bunch of secondaries)
Washington: no
West Virginia: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Wisconsin: 69 yes, 420 no, 666 no
Wyoming: 69 no, 420 renumbered for unrelated reasons, 666 no

In total:
69: 8 probably renumbered due to theft, 24 signed
420: 3 possibly purposely unsigned, 10 signed
666: 1 renumbered (as well as at least one county in NJ), 6 signed
714: 1 renumbered due to theft
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 07:45:38 AM by NE2 »
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Mr. Matté

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 590
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Exit '08
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 08:50:34 PM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2014, 07:21:59 AM »

Certainly many Route 666s changed due to theft. It's likely a partial reason for the transition from US 666 to US 491 and another example includes Maryland Route 666 Morris County [NJ] Route 666 --> CR 665.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13573
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:22:52 PM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2014, 07:22:46 AM »

Duh. I totally forgot about 666. It doesn't look like any state route 666es were changed, but there aren't that many in the first place.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 07:46:12 AM by NE2 »
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

usends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 454
  • usends.com

  • Location: Headwaters Hill, CO
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 08:12:47 PM
    • US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2014, 09:32:11 AM »

On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
I had a college roommate who drove a long distance for the sole purpose of stealing milepost 69, so I'm assuming those are chronic targets.
Logged
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13573
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:22:52 PM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2014, 09:41:49 AM »

On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
I think I read here than one state places mile 69.1 instead of 69.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5890
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 19
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 12:56:56 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2014, 10:34:34 AM »

On US 1 in Massachusetts, there is no mile 66.6 (the location is in Topsfield).
Logged
Clinched, plus MA 108

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐⒙22.40.99.10⒎10⒏1⒒1⒚127.141.15⒐286
NH 27,111A
NY 366
GA 42,140
FL A1A
CT 32

Flickr

Zeffy

  • Better hold on tight, before you know it's gone
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4371
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Hillsborough, New Jersey
  • Last Login: April 18, 2017, 10:11:41 AM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2014, 11:04:49 AM »

Atlantic County, NJ: AFAIK, not renumbered, but definitely a target for sign theft:



(Also, does the middle '6' in that look like it's a different width, or am I seeing things?)
Logged

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4865
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 30
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Last Login: Today at 12:38:52 AM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2014, 11:10:41 AM »

Semi-related- Hooker County, Nebraska doesnt post signs with the county name anywhere

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5890
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 19
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 12:56:56 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2014, 11:25:02 AM »


(Also, does the middle '6' in that look like it's a different width, or am I seeing things?)

It's a different width and a slightly different color.
Logged
Clinched, plus MA 108

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐⒙22.40.99.10⒎10⒏1⒒1⒚127.141.15⒐286
NH 27,111A
NY 366
GA 42,140
FL A1A
CT 32

Flickr

SD Mapman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 980
  • The best pace is a pace, and today is a good day.

  • Location: Running somewhere in Lawrence County
  • Last Login: November 13, 2018, 04:00:08 AM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2014, 11:25:46 AM »

South Dakota: no (but 420 may have existed, depending on how the 4xx routes are numbered)
I think you can just change that to an overall no... the 3-digit numbering system doesn't go up that high. It only goes up to the mid-300s
Logged
The traveler sees what he sees, the tourist sees what he has come to see. - G.K. Chesterton

hubcity

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 125
  • Location: Central NJ
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 05:07:04 PM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2014, 12:07:48 PM »

On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
I had a college roommate who drove a long distance for the sole purpose of stealing milepost 69, so I'm assuming those are chronic targets.

I'd think the 420s would be chronic targets.

/thank you. tip your bartender. try the veal.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12344
  • (Censored by spoilsports. They ruin everything.)

  • Age: 56
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 10:35:33 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2014, 12:24:06 PM »

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Yes, Kentucky has KY 69 (and now I-69), KY 420 and KY 666, but no, none of them have been renumbered because of sign theft.

KY 420 is, for the most part, an old routing of US 127. I'm not sure that KY 666 is signed, and it's a route in the western part of the state along an Ohio River bottom that frequently floods. I'm not quite sure if it's paved; an old-style Kentucky county map of whatever county it's in (Union, Henderson or thereabouts) from about 20 years ago showed it as being unpaved. I'm not sure what will happen to KY 69 now that I-69 is signed in the state.

Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3352
  • Last Login: Today at 02:43:26 AM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2014, 12:41:09 PM »

I know that what was once Route 69 in California suddenly became Route 245 in the early 1970s, but not sure if this was at all related to sign theft issues.  But that number has never been used again...
Logged
Chris Sampang

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9804
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 41
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 09:39:31 AM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2014, 12:49:21 PM »

On a related note, I wonder if any of the DOTs have decided to stop replacing their mile markers that correspond to those numbers. 
I had a college roommate who drove a long distance for the sole purpose of stealing milepost 69, so I'm assuming those are chronic targets.

I'd think the 420s would be chronic targets.

/thank you. tip your bartender. try the veal.

That was blunt.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Screw the KSA; Stand with Canada.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11970
  • Views expressed are my own, not my employer's.

  • Age: 35
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 01:13:11 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2014, 06:40:19 PM »

Atlantic County, NJ: AFAIK, not renumbered, but definitely a target for sign theft:



(Also, does the middle '6' in that look like it's a different width, or am I seeing things?)
Clearly using recycled shields from other routes to cut costs. Atlantic's 666s do get stolen, but another popular pastime is putting up crosses on the,.

NE2 - I get why you've bolded certain ones in your post, but NJ 69-31 definitely was renumbered due to theft. Hell, the one in my room here is made of wood, the only NJDOT wooden sign I know of ever.

Eth

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1964
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Georgia
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:50 PM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2014, 08:08:10 PM »

Georgia: 69 became part of 17 in 1957-1959, probably for unrelated reasons, 420 secret or never assigned (but it should have been?), 666 no

All the even 400-series numbers up through 410 have been used. I seem to recall 412 and 414 being assigned to freeways that were ultimately not built (and I believe one of these was I-420, funnily enough). To the best of my knowledge, the only even number above that to be assigned is 422, on the Athens beltway. It's entirely possible that 420 may have been deliberately skipped, though of course if it were assigned to an Interstate it would be secret anyway.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13573
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:22:52 PM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2014, 02:30:32 AM »

NE2 - I get why you've bolded certain ones in your post, but NJ 69-31 definitely was renumbered due to theft.
I bolded ones that were probably or definitely due to theft.

All the even 400-series numbers up through 410 have been used. I seem to recall 412 and 414 being assigned to freeways that were ultimately not built (and I believe one of these was I-420, funnily enough). To the best of my knowledge, the only even number above that to be assigned is 422, on the Athens beltway. It's entirely possible that 420 may have been deliberately skipped, though of course if it were assigned to an Interstate it would be secret anyway.
400 I-485 and continuation north-south
401 I-75
402 I-20
403 I-85
404 I-16
405 I-95
406 I-59
407 I-285
408 I-475
409 I-24
410 I-485 and continuation east
411 I-185
412 I-175
413 I-675
414 I-420
415 I-520
416 ?
417 I-575
418 ?
419 I-985
420 ?
421 I-516
422 Athens Perimeter

It's possible that they deliberately assigned 417-419-421 to north-south routes, then thought 422 was the next available number.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13573
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:22:52 PM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2014, 09:40:36 AM »

Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.
The only reason people care about 666 is religious fundamentalists. Owned.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11970
  • Views expressed are my own, not my employer's.

  • Age: 35
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 01:13:11 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2014, 01:29:06 PM »

NE2 - I get why you've bolded certain ones in your post, but NJ 69-31 definitely was renumbered due to theft.
I bolded ones that were probably or definitely due to theft.
mber.
I thought it wasn't bolded when I read it. I have no idea why.

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 37
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2014, 01:35:02 PM »

On US 1 in Massachusetts, there is no mile 66.6 (the location is in Topsfield).

there is exit 665 and 668 on I-5; I do not know if 665 is fudged.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9199
  • Age: 43
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 09:10:59 AM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2014, 01:39:58 PM »

There appears to be a Burlington County, NJ Rt. 666 in North Hanover Twp.  It may not be signed though.  (Note for those unaware: NJ can have multiple 6xx routes of the same number, as long as they don't overlap within the county).

But, apparently you can buy a Burlington County Rt. 666 on a baseball cap.

http://www.zazzle.com/burlington_county_route_666_new_jersey_hat-148043521529318501

Logged

Zeffy

  • Better hold on tight, before you know it's gone
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4371
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Hillsborough, New Jersey
  • Last Login: April 18, 2017, 10:11:41 AM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2014, 01:49:30 PM »

There appears to be a Burlington County, NJ Rt. 666 in North Hanover Twp.  It may not be signed though.  (Note for those unaware: NJ can have multiple 6xx routes of the same number, as long as they don't overlap within the county).

But, apparently you can buy a Burlington County Rt. 666 on a baseball cap.

http://www.zazzle.com/burlington_county_route_666_new_jersey_hat-148043521529318501

You can buy a lot of the county routes from that place... there's even an I-295 shirt made by the same person.
Logged

Mr. Matté

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 590
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Exit '08
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 08:50:34 PM
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2014, 06:28:40 PM »

There appears to be a Burlington County, NJ Rt. 666 in North Hanover Twp.  It may not be signed though.  (Note for those unaware: NJ can have multiple 6xx routes of the same number, as long as they don't overlap within the county).

But, apparently you can buy a Burlington County Rt. 666 on a baseball cap.

http://www.zazzle.com/burlington_county_route_666_new_jersey_hat-148043521529318501

You can buy a lot of the county routes from that place... there's even an I-295 shirt made by the same person bot taking all images from Wikipedia and putting them on shitty merchandise that's put on a website that will eat your credit card number.

FTFY.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5866
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 11:08:07 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2014, 09:53:40 AM »

Lots of myths abound about the US 666 renumbering. It wasn't done because of sign theft or because of undue pressure from religious fundamentalists, despite some of the things that got posted on MTR at the time it happened.

Yes, it was.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12344
  • (Censored by spoilsports. They ruin everything.)

  • Age: 56
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 10:35:33 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Renumberings due to sign theft
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2014, 02:28:32 PM »

I have no desire to search the archives of MTR dating back to the renumbering of US 666, but there were countless links to news stories and official press releases posted there that disprove your above assertion, which you also made repeatedly back on MTR when it happened.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.