What are your likes/dislikes of your State's Numbering Schemes?

[Rover_0]

This is kind of a spinoff of the State Numbering thread, but what do you like, or dislike, about your state's state route numbering scheme, and what would you do to change it?

Here's what I like about Utah's scheme:

--Route clustering.  While there is no grid, many routes with similar numbers are often found or assigned near one another, usually making travel by numbers rather convenient (take Highway 30 west to Highway 38, then take Hwy. 38 south)

--Keeping numbers where they are.  Many of the routes that don't quite fit any cluster today once did.  For example, UT-130 once had a UT-129 and UT-126 nearby.  This also leads to routes that have kept the same number since the state system's early days, such as UT-10, UT-14, UT-18, UT-43, and UT-44.

--No route number duplication.  This one's simple; it seems that most Utahns refer to a non-Interstate route as "highway ##."  Since there's only one Highway 89 (US-89), Highway 9 (UT-9), or Highway 50 (US-50), most people will know what you're talking about.

--Using state routes for Interstate business loops.  While I do disagree on using several numbers for an Interstate's several business routes, I'll admit that I do like this practice, as it does pinpoint a specific BL (i.e., UT-19 means the Green River business loop).  Where necessary, longer state routes double as business loops, like UT-130 in Cedar City and UT-28 in Nephi.

--Every state-maintained road receives a specific number.  This one helps identify what is and what isn't state maintained.


Here's what I don't like about Utah's state route numbering scheme:

--The "institutional" routes (281-299). The purpose of any standard route, be it state, US, or Interstate, is to connect towns/cities and other points of interest, not to show that you're near a hospital, university, or a driving test range.  While this seems to contradict the "every UDOT maintained road receives a number" thing, I'll explain the differences.

--No (state) route overlays. While I agree that most roadways should only carry one number, sometimes a multiplex is necessary to carry different "streams" of traffic.  There are only 5 overlays that I can think of in Utah that involve state routes:

1.)  The portions of I-84 and I-15 that would carry eastbound UT-30 between Snowville and Tremonton
2.)  US-89/UT-30 between Logan and Garden City
3.)  US-89/UT-71 (though very short) in Draper
4.)  UT-118/120 in Richfield
5.)  UT-48/68 in West Jordan.

I don't see any problem, aside from milepost reposting and sign changes, with posting both routes on these overlays, and legislatively defining all overlays (this includes I/I, I/US, US/US, and anything else involving any 2+ routes at least SR or higher).  This is, I suspect, one of the reasons why US Routes often go MIA when paired up with an Interstate (I-15/US-50, I-15/US-89, I-80/US-189, US-40/189, I-70/Any US Route that overlays not named US-89), as many people treat them as state routes.

--No suffixed routes.  This was one of the main problems between the whole UT-11/US-89A thing, as Utah didn't recognize suffixed routes (and probably doesn't, with the lone exception of US-89A, but mainly because it's a US Route).  While I wouldn't go helter-skelter with alternate/business/etc. routes, some alternatives to either major state or US routes could still be legitimate, such as restoring US-189A along UT-32.  This could also solve the 281-299 issue as well.

--Shortness of (some) routes.  Many state routes in Utah could be longer, and one of the main reasons are that they are separated by maybe one block of another route.  Case in point:  UT-14 and UT-56 in Cedar City; UT-14 could stretch all the way to the Nevada border, absorbing UT-56, if UDOT wouldn't mind putting a short overlay with UT-130 (I-15 BL in Cedar). UT-10 could absorb UT-72 all the way down to UT-24 at Loa, if UDOT wouldn't mind resetting UT-10's mileposts to continue north of I-70.  There are several shorter routes that could be made more considerable in length.  However, some changes have done just this:  UT-28 absorbing UT-41 in Nephi, becoming I-15's BL there, and UT-106 absorbing UT-131, which was one of the shortest signed routes in the state.

I'll get to the solutions later.

[agentsteel53]

California:

the good - no number duplication

the bad - oh lord, where to start.  Original 1934 numbering that was geographically based has been superseded by a 1964 renumbering in which new routes are numbered in order of their admission, except that some numbers are reused when available -thereby granting absolutely no predictability to the scheme from the perspective of the driver that this is supposed to benefit.  Some numbers are randomly hidden and others overlaid randomly - for example, route 164 is the hidden designator for the northern mile or so of route 19, and if anyone can explain the relationship between 47 and 103 without using quantum physics, I'll be impressed.

Several routes are in multiple segments - like 710 has a break in it because it simply was never built (fair enough), but 84 is in two segments for unknown reasons despite the fact that there's road of similar quality to the signed sections connecting the two halves. 

Also, there's a secret set of LRNs (legislative route numbers) that hardly matches the signed routes - the 1964 renumbering attempted to correct this, but never quite did. 

For example, signed I-10 does not quite match legislated route 10 through the East LA interchange.  Why they would bother with two separate schemes is beyond me.  Well, we all know California is drowning in money, so the bureaucrats can afford to waste a taxpayer dollar or two on frivolous stupidity.  Oh, wait...

[TheStranger]

California:

the good - no number duplication

I also add that many routes from 1934 are still in use today - in the Bay Area, several of the state routes (1, 4, 17, 25, 29, 37) have run on some or all of their current alignment since the beginning, as well as US 101; the same can be noted for metro Los Angeles (2, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27, 39, 55, 71, 74, 118, 126, 138).

the bad - oh lord, where to start.  Original 1934 numbering that was geographically based has been superseded by a 1964 renumbering in which new routes are numbered in order of their admission, except that some numbers are reused when available -thereby granting absolutely no predictability to the scheme from the perspective of the driver that this is supposed to benefit.  Some numbers are randomly hidden and others overlaid randomly - for example, route 164 is the hidden designator for the northern mile or so of route 19, and if anyone can explain the relationship between 47 and 103 without using quantum physics, I'll be impressed.

164 actually is a bit longer than that, of which an unbuilt segment is the shortest part (the connector between I-605 and Route 19 that can be approximated by existing surface streets).  I think the concept was to have 164 serve as an intermediate Pasadena-to-Long Beach freeway connector (with the help of 605) and then have it become a seperate route from 19 once built as freeway - but why resign a route that has now existed for 76 years as Route 19?

103/47 relates to the northeast segment of the Terminal Island Freeway corresponding to a proposal to build it to I-710 at the 405 junction (the right of way amazingly still exists for this, and the ramp configuration at the 710/405 interchange was designed to accomodate the TI Freeway) that dated back to the 1950s, even as 47 was always legislatively defined to run approximately up Alameda to I-10.  (47 exits off of the TI Freeway at Henry Ford Avenue and, supposdly is now signed up Henry Ford and Alameda all the way to Route 91.)

Several routes are in multiple segments - like 710 has a break in it because it simply was never built (fair enough), but 84 is in two segments for unknown reasons despite the fact that there's road of similar quality to the signed sections connecting the two halves. 

This relates to the legislative mode of functioning for EVERY state route, in which state maintenance must exist on any state-signed road, except by legislative exception (thus creating unwieldy, navigationally-irrelevant route definitions to account for gaps in state maintenance).  Route 39 amazingly has had this problem for almost its entire life!

As for Route 84, I've never understood having the north-south route from Livermore to West Sacramento added as part of what is a mostly east-west Bay Area corridor; the former should probably receive another number.

Also, there's a secret set of LRNs (legislative route numbers) that hardly matches the signed routes - the 1964 renumbering attempted to correct this, but never quite did. 

Often the lack of matching came about due to segments never being built: cases in point include 260/112 (signed as Route 61, because the segments of 61 north of 260 and south of 112 will never be constructed), 164 (as noted earlier in this post), and 242 (was signed as Route 24 until 1991 - and was signed Route 24 from the 1940s all the way to that point - as a reroute along Ygnacio Valley Road has been planned for decades, but is unlikely to be constructed).

Another use of a "hidden" number came about because of California's insistence on removing suffixed/alternate routes as much as possible after 1964, with I-15E being given the hidden state number of 194 during its ten-year existence (as opposed to simply being on the books as "Route 15E.")

---

My other pet peeve with the 1964 renumbering is the nature of concurrencies in the DOT zeal to remove as many unnecessary ones as possible - the current setup seems to err too much away from that, resulting in route signage gaps (Routes 16, 193, 84) where existing traversable roads do provide a connection.  Basically, the focus for the numbering system in California is too heavily reliant on legislative minutae rather than navigational usefulness (regardless of whether a segment is state or locally maintained).

[kurumi]

Connecticut

Likes:
- Cooperation with neighboring states. Almost always, when a route is state-maintained on both sides of the border, it has had the same number. Some CT routes have been renumbered solely to provide continuity across the border.
- Geographic clustering. Not perfect, but you can see, especially in the 1930s and '40s, clusters of routes, such as the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s; the odd-numbered 80s and 90s in almost perfect order; also 130s, 140s.
- Polarity. Especially in the earlier years, the convention of odd = north/south, even = east/west had few exceptions (2 digits: 55, 58, 73, 86). The New England Interstates were grandfathered in.
- Continuity. Only two routes have real gaps in state maintenance ... and they are still signed across the gaps. Contrast this with some states that break routes into disjoint pieces, or where a signed route could have a variety of maintained stretches.

Dislikes:
- Newer number choices. Why? Many designations after the 1930s have made more sense internally than as part of an ordered system. Especially in the 1960s and later, most new numbers are derived as "rhymes" from earlier related numbers. CT 316, which should be an odd number, came from SR 816. CT 272 was old CT 72. As time went on, the ordered system grew into more of an idiosyncratic patchwork. For example, CT 305 (nee SR 905), an east-west route in Windsor, could have been CT 180 (close to CT 178, 187, and 189).
- Unpublicized overlaps. For most of its overlap with I-84, US 6 is ignored. This bugs me. I would like to see US 6 follow US 44 through East Hartford mainly so it would get signed.
- Brevity. Many small routes could be part of longer routes, e.g. CT 317 as part of CT 64. Why? Longer routes are more fun, and suggest different roadtrips and connections between towns. (Actually, I'd like to see 317, 64 and 66 as part of a longer CT 14). Now Maine probably carries this too far, but why not some strategic overlaps to carry a route farther? CT 83 could extend to Old Lyme. CT 190 could (and should have) replaced CT 171 to Putnam.

[Rover_0]

Here's what I'd do with Utah's system:

--Allow overlays (multiplexes) where needed; UT-48/68, UT-30, UT-118/120, UT-71 would be signed for their whole lengths (though UT-71/US-89 is probably short enough to not be that big of a deal).  The more prominent route's mileposts would be used, but the less prominent state route's mile posts would reflect the distance driven.  In other words, if you're driving UT-30 from Nevada to Wyoming, you hit I-84 at MP 90, use I-84's and I-15's MPs until getting off of I-15, then see MP 130-ish, just like the US and Interstate's mileposts.  Currently you'll see MP 91 after driving 40-plus miles on I-84 and I-15.  UT-68's MPs would be used, as would UT-120's in their respective multiplexes.

--Designate a new level of "state route" to replace the 281-299 set; call them service routes, and have the hyphenated prefix "S-," with UT-282 (lowest current in 281-299 range) becoming UT-S-1, UT-284 becoming UT-S-2, and so on.  Perhaps use letters instead of numbers, i.e.: UT-282 becoming UT-SA, UT-SB, etc.

[Scott5114]

Oklahoma has a really good basis for a state numbering scheme...when they follow it. Spurs off mainline highways get letter suffixes...except when they get a third digit appended to the front (or get a new number entirely, like 42 and 96!). Three digit numbers are more minor routes, except for 152.

[bugo]

Oklahoma has a really good basis for a state numbering scheme...when they follow it. Spurs off mainline highways get letter suffixes...except when they get a third digit appended to the front (or get a new number entirely, like 42 and 96!). Three digit numbers are more minor routes, except for 152.

But there's no real system.  The numbers are seemingly randomly assigned.  And the N-S/E-W numbering is ass-backwards from the US system.

Here is a list of the original state highway system.  It made a little more sense, but much of it was obliterated by the US highway system.

http://okhighways.wkinsler.com/original_state.htm

And don't get me started on Arkansas' system.

[Scott5114]

I would be okay with the N-S even and E-W odd if it were followed consistently, since it'd at least be different, but they can't even stick to that.

Part of the reason why the OK system has no base numbering rules is that we're still using a heavily modified 1924 system; no "great renumbering" has ever taken place. Today's SH-9 is pretty much the same as that found in 1924, and SH-14 is all that remains of the 1924 border to border route, truncated to near-death by US highways.

[Ian]

I always found it interesting that most of Delaware's state highways are continuations from other states.

[corco]

Okey doke-

Things I like about Wyoming:

1. County clustering. All the less important routes in the state are numerically clustered by county. So, when somebody says "I live off WYO 352," I may not know off the top of my head that it's an insanely long spur into nowhere off US-189/191, but I can automatically deduce that it lies within Sublette County.
2. Routes along the same corridor get their number back when they jump in and out of the state- see WYO 89 and WYO 230. 

Things I don't like about Wyoming:
1. WYOs 22, 24, 28, 34, 59, 89, and 92 are useful state highways numbered below 100. WYOs 10, 11, 12, 14, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 50, 51, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96 are all pointless routes that probably wouldn't be state highways in most states. There's no reason to waste so many low numbers on pointless routes. I'd keep the county cluster system as is, but add 100 to every number currently in existence. Ironically, arguably the most important state highway (789), has the highest number in the state.

2. Route number duplication- although it's not really a problem. Besides US-89/WYO 89, none of the duplicated routes really come near each other, and at least one of the two is always quite insignificant- nobody is going to confuse WYO 90 (random spur to a dirt county road near Glenrock) with I-90 or US-191 with WYO 191 (random spur to a dirt county road and a practically non-existent community called Mayoworth near Kaycee). US-89/WYO 89 is awesome and I applaud the state of Wyoming's continuing stubbornness.

3. US Route branching numbers- I've gone back and forth on this one, but I think the system is deprecated (nobody gives a darn that routes are numbered off of US-87, and most probably don't even realize it). and it gives important routes really high numbers. It would be better to renumber all those with more appropriate two-digit numbers.

[bugo]

I would be okay with the N-S even and E-W odd if it were followed consistently, since it'd at least be different, but they can't even stick to that.

Part of the reason why the OK system has no base numbering rules is that we're still using a heavily modified 1924 system; no "great renumbering" has ever taken place. Today's SH-9 is pretty much the same as that found in 1924, and SH-14 is all that remains of the 1924 border to border route, truncated to near-death by US highways.

Do you know why OK 11 east of Tulsa was renumbered to OK 33?  That road has had at least 4 numbers: 11, 33, 412, and "Scenic" (Alt) 412.

[huskeroadgeek]

Nebraska:
Like:
-A well-defined system of primary and secondary highways-i.e. the unique spur and link system.
-Lack of long, unnecessary multiplexes(with a few exceptions).
Dislike:
-No real semblance of organization in numbering.
-Too many gaps.

[njroadhorse]

New Jersey
Like:
- A general polarity among the routes: N-S = odd; E-W = even
- Continuity

Dislike:
- Too many county routes, not enough state routes.
- Three digit numbers on useless routes.

[national highway 1]

New South Wales
Sydney
Odd numbers were circumferential routes and even numbers were radial routes
Numbers were allocated from 11-77 for odd routes and 12-76 for even.
Most routes have been either decommisioned or replaced by Metroads (major arterial routes)
Exceptions to this rule are:
77 (1988-1993) Introduced out of place for the Cumberland Hwy between 55 & 61 because it was a major circ. route like 11, 33 & 55
66 (1991-2004) Replacement route for a bypassed section of NR1. Lies between 60 and 64. Should have been 60 or 62.
31 (1994-) Replaced a downgraded NR31 when Metroad 5 was commissioned. Should have been a SR 50 extension.
60 (1987-) Replaced Alt NR1. Exists in the right place but wrong city (Wollongong)
Country
Allocated numbers between 78 and 95. No such pattern exists.
Newcastle & Wollongong
Newcastle was allocated 120-149 but only used 121-135. 111 was added in 1988 as a replacement for a bypassed scection of NR1.
Wollongong was allocated 150-179 but only used 4 routes; 151, 153, 155 & 157. Sr 60 is located in Wollongong, but uses a Sydney number.

NSW doesn't have NR/SR duplications, but those that exist (44, 55 & 79) are far away to cause  confusion. SR 31 is only 17km from NH31, but people don't care about route numbers in NSW

[froggie]

I always found it interesting that most of Delaware's state highways are continuations from other states.

Only along the PA border.  Not along the MD border.  Of the 20 state highway crossings of the MD/DE border, only 7 keep the same number on both sides (16, 54, 273, 286, 300, 404, and 896).  In addition, there are 8 cases where there's a route on the Maryland side of the border, but no route on the Delaware side.

[vdeane]

Since NY doesn't have a numbering scheme for touring routes as far as I know (it appears to be random), the only thing I can say is that I dislike the route number duplication with interstates.

[florida]

Florida

Likes:
-Grid system using the one and two digit primary routes (those ending in 0 and 5, which travel cross-state) as the groundwork.
-Two-digit routes, not ending in 0 or 5, serving as primary connecting routes between points.
-The use of x00 routes for diagonal, cross-state routes (or for two bridge crossings).
-Keeping the whole system consistent (usually) when a state road is decommissioned to a county routes or a county route is recommissioned to a state route.
-Suffixed routes actually being signed.
-Route duplication is done well; routes are far enough apart to not cause confusion.

Dislikes:
-The overzealous nature of certain counties which redesignate perfectly fine three digit county routes into the four-digit county routes. If a road was never signed with a number in the past, then it would be acceptable to designate it with a four-digit number.
-Too many suffixed routes that bear the same letter(s). (In the past, Bay County is the only county to have done a good job of utilizing higher suffixes.)
-Deletion of routes before I have a chance to get to them

[shoptb1]

Here's a good explanation of the Ohio "system".  

http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/expls.html

I do, however, have to give Ohio credit for at least not re-using any route numbers between systems.  For example, there's only one route 70, which is an interstate highway.  There's no US 70 or OH 70.  Indiana, on the other hand....ugghhhh.

[elsmere241]

I always found it interesting that most of Delaware's state highways are continuations from other states.

Only along the PA border.  Not along the MD border.  Of the 20 state highway crossings of the MD/DE border, only 7 keep the same number on both sides (16, 54, 273, 286, 300, 404, and 896).  In addition, there are 8 cases where there's a route on the Maryland side of the border, but no route on the Delaware side.

And there are way too many instances where the best road from Point A to Point B doesn't have shields on it.

[oscar]

For both Alaska and Hawaii, a key fact is that locals refer to roads by name rather than route number, so the good and bad features of their numbering systems are relevant mainly to tourists and roadgeeks.

Alaska:

Likes: 

Only a dozen numbered routes, all with one- or two-digit numbers

Only one multiplex

Dislikes: 

Most state-maintained roads are unnumbered, including some frequented by tourists (like Chena Hot Springs Rd. east of Fairbanks, and the Boundary Spur Road link to YT 9) where a posted route number would actually be useful

Weak correspondence between route names and route numbers -- the Richardson and Seward highways each go through one number change, and route 1 goes through five name changes

Hawaii:

Likes:

Very coherent clustering by island (just in case you're confused about which island you're on), and also parent-daughter numbering of two-digit primary routes and related three-digit secondary routes plus (except on Oahu) 4-digit tertiary routes

No multiplexes within the state system (including the Interstates), and just one between a state route and a numbered county route

No number duplication within the state system

Dislikes:

Substantial number duplication between the state and numbered county systems (which both sprang from a single Federal-Aid number system covering both territorial and county routes) with identical (except near-identical on Maui island) signage, contributing to considerable confusion even for locals about maintenance responsibility

4-digit tertiary route assignments on Oahu seem to be more or less random

Like with Alaska, route numbers don't match up well with route names -- route 19 goes through nine name changes

County number systems are largely carryovers from the pre-statehood system (so new county roads, including some used by tourists, are left unnumbered), and Oahu's county number system has mostly disappeared

Privately-produced maps often show long-extinct route numbers, to further confuse the tourists, and there's no official map to set them straight

[agentsteel53]

Only one multiplex

there's two, if you count the unsigned one of 1 and 3 heading into Anchorage.  3's milepost 0 would be in downtown Anchorage - the split around Wasilla is already mile 20 or so of route 3.

(the other one is the signed 1/9)

there are also some inexplicable discontinuities among the numberings.  10 isn't too absurd, because it is fathomable that a connection can one day be made.  But ... 7?  There are four segments and I believe they're on four different islands.

[agentsteel53]

contributing to considerable confusion even for locals about maintenance responsibility

do the locals care?  I thought they didn't even care about route numbers, much less classifications

[agentsteel53]

-Deletion of routes before I have a chance to get to them

not to worry, most routes remain signed thirty or forty years after deletion 

[oscar]

contributing to considerable confusion even for locals about maintenance responsibility

do the locals care?  I thought they didn't even care about route numbers, much less classifications

They sometimes have a hard time figuring who to complain to, or sue, for road problems.  I suspect the state and county DOTs kind of like it that way

[rawmustard]

I honestly say that, until somewhat recently, MDOT's numbering scheme by and large didn't follow a set pattern and I like that. There's also been a tendency to extend or reroute a designation wherever practical instead of having a different number assigned, although sometimes that contributes to the significant reduction of some designations (like M-78 now being nothing more than an M-66/I-69 connector that passes through Bellevue). Given that, there are still some oddball routings out there which are still head scratchers, but by and large MDOT at least tries to have some route number continuity.