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

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Louisiana likes/dislikes:

Good: Basic numbering system makes sense with some study. Major state routes that are not US routes or Interstates generally have low numbers. Clustering exists for higher numbered routes/minor roads. There is a rough grid pattern apparent in the assignment of the lower numbered routes. Evens are usually E-W and odds N-S.

Bad: Some important routes "wander" with no apparent trend of direction (LA 16, LA 27, LA 20, LA 75, etc.). Not a big issue (with the exception of LA 27) but still noticeable.

Good: No LA-US duplication.

Bad: LA-Interstate duplications exist. Not an issue, save LA 59 - I-59, which most people can tell apart anyway since most people recognize the difference between a state highway shield and an Interstate shield.

Good: Our longest route of any sort is numbered LA 1. 

Bad: 3000 series routes. Range from very minor backroads to full freeways. No consistency. Have no idea why 3000 was picked as a starting point to number post-1955 routes.

Bad: Essentially non-existent marked parish road systems (except in Cameron Parish where signage overkill bloomed in the wake of Hurricane Rita - your federal recovery funds at work)

Bad: Too many state routes overall, which is a cause and consequence of under-developed parish road systems. Roads that would have been turned back to localities over the years in other states remain on the state rolls. Lots of useless spurs abound.

Good/Bad: Hyphenated routes. Good due to their uniqueness which makes them kind of cool; bad since they almost always have no reason being state highways. Also, difficult to describe verbally - is LA 611-9 "six eleven nine", "six eleven dash nine", or "section 9 of LA 611"? (I usually opt for the first, though the third is technically correct.) Thankfully few people know or care that these routes even exist so they are called by their regular street names.

[Doctor Whom]

Maryland

Good:

• Some use of clustering.
• Almost no reliance on banners and suffixes on state routes, at least as signed.
• Since there is no grid, the numbering system doesn't pretend that there is.

Bad:

• A general attitude that idle speculation about likelihood of confusion trumps evidence of actual confusion.
• Little or no relation between the importance of a road and its number; low numbers can be wasted on obscure local roads.
• Interstate-state number duplication, even in the same county in one case.
• Overreliance on banners and suffixes on Interstates, combined with poor signage of same.
• No signed county route numbers.
• Discontinuous routes.
• I-97.

Virginia

Good:

• The primary-secondary distinction gives some indication, although imperfect, of a route's importance.
• Since there is no grid, the numbering system doesn't pretend that there is.
• While a secondary route can have a high number, there is some attempt to give important secondary routes easily remembered numbers (e.g., ending in 00 or even 000).

Bad:

• Completely off of the deep end in terms of signing secondary routes.
• The numbering of institutional routes wastes numbers in the primary range.

District of Columbia

Good:

• Hard to mess up a numbering system if you don't even have one.

Bad:

• At the very least, the E Street Expressway ought to have a signed route number.
• Tourists have been known to complain about the lack of route numbers, although I don't know how widespread actual confusion is.
• The routing of US 29 through DC is a long-running joke.
• If the money can be found for those "To I-495 Maryland/Virginia" and "To monuments" signs, the money can be found for route-number signs.

[NWI_Irish96]

Indiana:

Like: Same grid system as US highways:  Odd numbers for N-S increasing from E to W, and even numbers for E-W, increasing from N to S.

Dislike: Many highways have 2-4 discontinuous segments.  With they would either multiplex the route to make it continuous or pick different numbers for the different segments. 

Also, while no numbers duplicate US highways, a few duplicate interstate highways, including one that intersects with the same-numbered interstate (64).

[Eth]

Georgia:

Good: ...hmm, this is a tough one. The vast majority of state route numbers are under 400, I guess?

Bad: No odd/even direction rule.

Good: Oh! The lowest-numbered routes (under about 40 or so) tend to be major cross-state routes.

Bad: Apart from those really low-numbered routes, there is pretty much no discernible system whatsoever, since most of the route numbers were assigned chronologically.

Good: Almost no discontinuous routes (and the ones that are are so because they dip into another state).

Bad: All the useless US/state route concurrencies. Examples: 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, the vast majority of 10, 12, 14...the list goes on of low-numbered state routes that have served no navigational purpose in 80 years. And unlike FL/AL/TN, they're actually signed here.

Good: Only one level of state route classification. As bad as the system is, adding an extra layer of complexity would only make it worse.

Bad: Duplication all over the place, producing such things like the US 27/GA 27 intersection, US 41 having separate concurrencies with both US 19 and GA 19, I-85 and GA 85 running in the same general direction about 20 miles apart, and of course the US 23/GA 23 (along with 5 other routes) concurrency.

Bad: Overuse of SPUR/CONN/LOOP/etc. auxiliaries for state routes, exacerbated by the fact that these are only required to be unique within a county, of which Georgia has 159. I think these might work better as suffixed routes, a la New York or Oklahoma.

Bad: No signed county road systems (unless you count those mile-marker looking things on the backs of stop signs in some counties).

[triplemultiplex]

Wisconsin

Good:
WI seems to have a good density of state highways in most places; not to many, not too few.

There aren't many state highways that I would demote to county roads as WI has been doing a good job of weeding out much of the lesser ones.  There are still some of course, but not that many.

Wisconsin isn't afraid to move major routes around.  They rerouted WI 13 between Marshfield and Wisconsin Rapids; they moved a huge segment of US 45 between Oshkosh and New London; I like that. 

Though I will also list this as a dislike, the lack of any grid or emphasis on numbers ending in something specific means that no one cares much about having a specific two digit number.  Routes ending in 0 could be major, state-spanning highways or they could just connect a handful of communities in adjacent counties.

Bad:
First and foremost, there are too many meandering routes with long concurrences that should be separate or different routes.  Some of them like WI 22 and 23 just kind of change direction for no apparent reason.  22 is N-S all the way to Shawano, where suddenly it goes due east while a different state highway (55) which came in on a fairly long concurrency, continues north.  There seems to be an attempt to get as much mileage as possible out of 2 digit numbers, even if it means things get ridiculous.

There is no rhyme or reason to where numbers are applied.  Occasionally you get a 3 digit number that acts like a 'spur' of another one, but it's mostly random.  Though I suppose if there was a system, I'd be bitching about every violation of it instead.

No interstate business routes.  There are a few places where these would be useful.

I'm also not a fan of this 'locally signed' approach to business routes in general where almost all of them are not technically state trunkline highways.  This means WisDOT doesn't put them on any of their maps which is pretty stupid, in my opinion.

Don't care:
I really don't care about duplicating I/US/State numbers in a state.  Wisconsin cared for a while but 'saw the light' with I-39.  No state highway should ever stand in the way of making a logical addition or reroute of an interstate or US highway.  As an example, if I wanted an I-243 in Wisconsin somewhere, no one is going to mistake it for that glorified bridge into Minnesota.  I doubt anyone outside of Polk County or our community has even heard of WI 243.  So I would do it.

[agentsteel53]

I really don't care about duplicating I/US/State numbers in a state.

I don't care when it's obviously not gonna cause confusion, but Georgia both duplicates routes, and also has a habit of mixing up US and state route shields.  I can just imagine the cluster when they accidentally sign US-27 intersecting US-27 in Lumpkin.

I believe MA also has a no-duplication policy, which is violated by MA-295: a short connector to New York, on the opposite side of the state as I-295.

[bassoon1986]

Louisiana likes/dislikes:

Good: Basic numbering system makes sense with some study. Major state routes that are not US routes or Interstates generally have low numbers. Clustering exists for higher numbered routes/minor roads. There is a rough grid pattern apparent in the assignment of the lower numbered routes. Evens are usually E-W and odds N-S.

Bad: Some important routes "wander" with no apparent trend of direction (LA 16, LA 27, LA 20, LA 75, etc.). Not a big issue (with the exception of LA 27) but still noticeable.

Good: No LA-US duplication.

Bad: LA-Interstate duplications exist. Not an issue, save LA 59 - I-59, which most people can tell apart anyway since most people recognize the difference between a state highway shield and an Interstate shield.

Good: Our longest route of any sort is numbered LA 1. 

Bad: 3000 series routes. Range from very minor backroads to full freeways. No consistency. Have no idea why 3000 was picked as a starting point to number post-1955 routes.

Bad: Essentially non-existent marked parish road systems (except in Cameron Parish where signage overkill bloomed in the wake of Hurricane Rita - your federal recovery funds at work)

Bad: Too many state routes overall, which is a cause and consequence of under-developed parish road systems. Roads that would have been turned back to localities over the years in other states remain on the state rolls. Lots of useless spurs abound.

Good/Bad: Hyphenated routes. Good due to their uniqueness which makes them kind of cool; bad since they almost always have no reason being state highways. Also, difficult to describe verbally - is LA 611-9 "six eleven nine", "six eleven dash nine", or "section 9 of LA 611"? (I usually opt for the first, though the third is technically correct.) Thankfully few people know or care that these routes even exist so they are called by their regular street names.

Agreed on all of these. Especially the fact that we have too many state routes and many are on roads of no good use. I wish more of the major highways used the lower numbers that are used poorly now or meander (5, 12,16, 22, 50, etc.)

I dislike that so many numbered routes are not even close to being the best point from A to B. I don't think that every route needs to serve that purpose but there are so many LA routes that make no sense to drive from end to end: LA 112, LA 151, the "J-shaped" LA 27...

[Alps]

NJ

Like: The original 1926 renumbering and its remnants, including accidental additions that fit in the system like 31. The sequential 1xx series of added routes. Exceptions like 139, 324, 147/347, 143 that have their unique histories.
Dislike: Interlopers with randomly chosen numbers (70/72 and all of those higher numbers), and numbering to match neighboring states (284, 94, etc.)

[agentsteel53]

numbering to match neighboring states (284, 94, etc.)

why is this a bad thing?

[NE2]

numbering to match neighboring states (284, 94, etc.)

why is this a bad thing?

Because it was done at the request of the Military Industrial Complex.

[Avalanchez71]

Tennessee's numbering scheme...

Likes:

1. State routes are divided into primary and secondary routes

Dislikes:

1. No grid or zone system of any kind; numbers are picked seemingly at random
2. No even/odd rule for north-south and east-west routes
3. Numbers are sometimes duplicated; Tennessee has an I-155 and a TN 155, as well as a US 31 and a TN 31.
4. No county routes
5. Many important local roads that should be numbered and signed (e.g. County 11 North, County 11 South) don't have any kind of route number. Roads like Clarksville's Ted Crozier Blvd and Peachers Mill Rd, as well as Hendersonville's Indian Lake Blvd really should be numbered and signed. Even when a route number exists it often is poorly marked in developed areas. Springfield, Tennessee must be hogging all the numbers - every major road there has a route number, and Memorial Blvd is a multiplex of US 41, US 431, TN 76, and TN 11.
6. Most of the single-digit state routes are overlain on US Routes, when they should be used for important independent routes.
7. Relationships between 3-digit routes and parent 2-digit routes is rare - 155 and 255 have nothing to do with 55, and 374 has no relation to 74, but 149 and 249 are branches of 49.

Some counties do have blue pentagons; however, they are only signed as like street blades with no reassurance markers.  McMinn, Polk and a couple of others.

No grid or cluster; however, there are more 100 numbers in West TN, 200 numbers in Middle TN and 300 numbers in East TN.

[Takumi]

My likes and dislikes for Virginia:

Likes:
-No grid, no even-odd rule. I'm not anal about these things.
-Some clustering, although deletions and additions over the past 80 years have caused this to be less true than when the current system was implemented.
-Primary and secondary routes are easily distinguished by their numbers, something that, with the ever-decreasing quality control in the signage department, is necessary.
-Low numbers generally are assigned to long or important routes, current VA 4 notwithstanding.
-Continuing numbers across state lines.
-Clear guidelines for (new, at least) primary routes.
-Numbers that are duplicated between US and primary routes are usually related. (Signage often gets them confused a lot, however, and then there's VA 13...)

Dislikes:
-The woeful signage, but that isn't the fault of the CTB.
-The seemingly random number assignment of new primary routes. Only with the 3 Northern VA parkways being added last year was there any sort of cohesion with number additions (the 3 numbers had been out of use the longest).
-Only 50 miles of new primary routing are allowed each year.

[Alps]

numbering to match neighboring states (284, 94, etc.)

why is this a bad thing?

Broke apart NJ's intuitive numbering scheme. 94 should be 8, 17 should be 2 (though 17 sorta fits the grid anyway).

[Brian556]

TEXAS

Likes:
Different route types to meet logical need

Dislikes:
Number duplication. FM 75 and US 75 are too close together, SH 121 and FM 121 almost intersect, both cross US 75, causing confusion

Secondary routes agricultural names. First of all, having both FARM and RANCH is silly, and creates issues if both farms and ranches are present in an area. Second, having agricultural names for secondaries is bad because many are in urban areas. Heck, in the 90's, TxDOT considered a third secondary type: URBAN. This only good thing about this is that "Farm"/"FM" are easier to say than "secondary"

FLORIDA

Likes: Organized numbering grid.

Dislikes: Lack of Loops/Spurs

Old alignments retaining original number as county road. ie: Lake CR 44; Seminole CR 415.

Same number for both mainline/ spur. ie: CR 438 at Oakland. Really dislike this. Very Confusing.

[mefailenglish]

FLORIDA

Dislikes: Lack of Loops/Spurs

There's at least one Loop out there...

[NE2]

Most Texas loops aren't really loops but links or connectors (Nebraska and Georgia get it right).

[Brian556]

Most Texas loops aren't really loops but links or connectors (Nebraska and Georgia get it right).
Yeah, NE2, I don't really like these. Especially when loop designations are given to former US or state highway alignments that are not loops.
A great example of this is LOOP 354 in Dallas. It is a short section of Former BUSINESS US 77

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.877569,-96.868687&spn=0.095871,0.200329&t=h&z=13

[Thing 342]

Virginia:

Good: Primary (<600) vs Secondary (>600) can roughly give a distinction in the level of service.

Bad: Secondary routes are a complete crapshoot, ranging from expressways to jeep trails.

Good: Some clustering, with primaries, with 174-183 all in the Eastern Shore.

Bad: Renumbers and new routes have basically made the bunching useless.

Good: Primaries are generally all well-maintained roads.

Bad: Several wandering routes that nobody would drive end-to-end. (VA 156 and VA 165 come to mind)

Good: Numbers maintained over state lines (16, 32, 168, Etc)

Bad: Many routes abuse concurrencies. (6, 40, 56 come to mind)

Good: Secondaries (county route equivalent) keep their numbers across county lines.

Bad: Far too many secondaries. Seriously, in Fairfax County, they extend into the 5 digits.

Good: The F-routes for frontage roads.

Bad: The 300-series institutional routes are a waste of numbers.

Good: The Y-routes prevent unnecessary route numbers.

[Takumi]

I don't get the hate for the facility routes being a waste of numbers. It isn't like Virginia is going to run out of numbers anytime soon. VA 4 was a waste of that number, but I think the facility routes are one of the cool quirks Virginia has.

[Quillz]

I know this is an old thread, but wanted to add my thoughts...

California
---
Likes: Each class of highway has a unique cutout shield, both in shape and color.

Dislike #1: Signage is seemingly prioritizing who maintains any given route, rather than navigation. I've pointed out many times before that I, as a motorist, have very little interest in whether Caltrans maintains a route or if the local community does, all I care about is being able to follow the route. Even in 2016, I should be able to do this via guide signs and reassurance markers, because I may not always have a map or GPS handy. One of ironies of the '64 renumbering was to reduce the number of routes on any given highway, yet the opposite issue is now happening: concurrencies are rarely signed, even when they would make sense. This is why CA-1 seemingly disappears several times when it's concurrent with US-101. This is why other routes like CA-16 seemingly exist in two segments. I personally find that much more confusing than being on a highway that is signed as both I-5 and CA-16. (On the other hand, I can excuse routes with implied connections that are the result of geography, such as the various Sierra crossings that are unfeasible to build.)

Dislike #2: Route duplication. I never thought I'd say this, but the more I think about it, the more I dislike it. I've come to realize now that there's a big difference between theory and practice. Again, I can understand what the '64 renumbering was all about: mainly to reduce the number of routes being signed all at once. But in practice, there were many other alternatives that could have been done, nor do I really believe that your typical motorist would be horribly confused on a route that may have 2-3 different concurrencies. When I'm driving without a map or a GPS, my instinct is to follow the route I'm on... As long as I'm following US-101, I don't care if it also shares the highway with CA-1, CA-135 and US-466. I have enough common sense to filter out the information I don't need. Anyway, my point is, I really don't have an issue with route duplication. Again, California has both physical and color differentiation between each class of highway, to the point that it's incredibly unlikely a motorist would ever confuse CA-10 for I-10, even if they were relatively close together. And again, there is common sense. A motorist today understands that interstate are for long-distance travel, so they'd understand I-10 will get them from Los Angeles to Palm Springs, whereas CA-10 is going to be geared more for local locations. Many other states duplicate routes, and I really don't think it's an issue, certainly not anymore with GPS assistance. Which brings me to...

Dislike #3: The insistence of not duplicating routes and avoiding concurrencies has reduced the numbering scheme to a literal crapshoot. I've seen the original 1934 state highway layout, and while it had some "violations" here and there, there was a clear order. Every other route number was either in NorCal (0, 4, 8) or SoCal (2, 6, 10). And while the big cities got the lower numbers, there was still a logic: routes generally increased as you moved east and south. Even when that wasn't always the case (sometimes it would be reversed), there was still a logical order: CA-180 was north of CA-178, CA-198 was north of CA-190, CA-126 was north of CA-118. But when the '64 renumbering came into play, that order was pretty much gone. New routes were just assigned in some willy-nilly order where needed, and not much thought was given to maintaining the notion of even numbered routes being west-east and odd numbered routes being south-north. In addition, it seemed many routes were truncated or changed for no real reason. For example, CA-2 used to go into the Lake Arrowhead area, by making use of what is today CA-138 and CA-173. But then it just ended at CA-138, which went into the area, and CA-173 was created. Why? To me, why break up a perfectly fine state route into two or three new ones? Why fix what isn't broken? Same logic with CA-150... Was a perfectly fine route how it was, but then it was truncated and the western portion became CA-246, CA-154, and CA-192. Again, for what reason? Wouldn't having four routes to replace what used to be one longer route be confusing? It seems like it's just a waste of numbers. I'm of the opinion that the fewer routes, the better. And the longer, the better. Don't use four routes when one will do. There's nothing wrong with a 100+ mile route, no need to truncate it at something arbitrary like a county line.

Oregon
---
Like #1: Unlike California, Oregon has maintained a largely logical numbering scheme to the present day. Like the US highways, the state highways generally increase in number as one goes south and west. Thus, you can roughly discern where you are within the state by the route number: Oregon 3 is towards the east end of the state, Oregon 70 is towards the south end of the state. Of course, there are a few violations here and there, mostly with the post-2002 additions to the network, but the key is consistency. Even with US highways and interstates, Oregon has maintained a well-numbered state highway network.

Like #2: Unlike another West Coast state, Oregon has largely maintained its US highways. Some have been lost, like 99 and 126, but most are still there: 20, 26, 30, 97. It's just the roadgeek in me, but I think there's a certain charm to maintaining such old highway numbers. Not everything needs to be a state highway. US-30 is, to me, as important a highway as US-66 or I-95. (I'm obviously not talking in a literal sense).

Like #3: I *HATE* business routes. Hate, hate, hate them. They annoy me to no end. Thus, I very much appreciate that Oregon hates them, too. Rather, they use US highways (namely the 30) and state highways (namely the 99) in place of them. Which to me, is a perfect usage of the "lesser" highway networks. Interstates are there for the most direct line of travel, so when they bypass a town or community, you use the next lowest class of highway to provide access to those places. To me, Oregon uses US highways exactly how they should be used in modern times: as a supplement to interstates, not as a legacy that needs to be killed off. Yes, perhaps signage of US-30 next to I-84 is largely unnecessary, but again, I really hate "hidden" routes. Oregon has found a good compromise by using US-30 as more or less a frontage road to I-84. This way, you avoid a statewide concurrency, while keeping US-30 around, fully signed, as your go-to route for business loops. I imagine other states do this, too, but I've always associated it with Oregon.

Dislike #1: Oregon doesn't use cutout shields anymore. Really liked those old eagle heads...

[mrose]

Colorado is a very odd one, indeed.

Like: The shield.

Dislike: They put a lot of state highway numbers on city and suburban streets here in Denver that don't really go outside the city.

C-44, for example, is five miles long and covers 104th avenue for its entire length. The western terminus is at I-25 right in the middle of suburban Northglenn despite being a busy surface arterial on both sides of I-25.

C-30 is even weirder..... starts at I-25 as Hampden Ave where US 285 terminates from the other direction. Runs east on Hampden, north on Havana St, then east again on 6th Ave, and then finally turning south onto Gun Club Road where it ends at a traffic signal with Quincy Avenue one block east of Quincy's interchange with C-470.

C-26 is three miles of Alameda Ave. between Sheridan Blvd. and I-25 and never leaves the Denver city limits.

In general, a lot of the state highways are really short, often 10 miles or less and begin or end at nothing, even ones with smaller numbers. Colorado 11 is 1.4 miles long.

[US71]

I dislike Arkansas signing half-mile routes to provide state-maintained driveways for factories.

I'm also not too keen on the stop-start-jump around numbering (such as AR 74).

I also think they need to do a better job of co-signing multiplexes (the TO signs are redundant)

[TheStranger]

I know this is an old thread, but wanted to add my thoughts...

California

Dislike #1: Signage is seemingly prioritizing who maintains any given route, rather than navigation. I've pointed out many times before that I, as a motorist, have very little interest in whether Caltrans maintains a route or if the local community does, all I care about is being able to follow the route. Even in 2016, I should be able to do this via guide signs and reassurance markers, because I may not always have a map or GPS handy. One of ironies of the '64 renumbering was to reduce the number of routes on any given highway, yet the opposite issue is now happening: concurrencies are rarely signed, even when they would make sense. This is why CA-1 seemingly disappears several times when it's concurrent with US-101. This is why other routes like CA-16 seemingly exist in two segments. I personally find that much more confusing than being on a highway that is signed as both I-5 and CA-16. (On the other hand, I can excuse routes with implied connections that are the result of geography, such as the various Sierra crossings that are unfeasible to build.)

Fully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Dislike #2: Route duplication. I never thought I'd say this, but the more I think about it, the more I dislike it. I've come to realize now that there's a big difference between theory and practice. Again, I can understand what the '64 renumbering was all about: mainly to reduce the number of routes being signed all at once. But in practice, there were many other alternatives that could have been done, nor do I really believe that your typical motorist would be horribly confused on a route that may have 2-3 different concurrencies. When I'm driving without a map or a GPS, my instinct is to follow the route I'm on... As long as I'm following US-101, I don't care if it also shares the highway with CA-1, CA-135 and US-466. I have enough common sense to filter out the information I don't need.

To be fair, overly large concurrencies were a problem in the early 1960s (i.e. I-15/Route 18/US 66/US 91/US 395) which while interesting to us, served little navigational purpose (except to create an excessive message load) once the Interstates became emphasized.  On the other hand, turning the independent segment of US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Red Bluff into a state route was unnecessary and I recall a discussion here where the California Highways and Public Works magazine from around the time of the 1964 renumbering strongly hinted that this was primarily done to introduce the white-on-green shield for visibility reasons.

Dislike #3: The insistence of not duplicating routes and avoiding concurrencies has reduced the numbering scheme to a literal crapshoot. I've seen the original 1934 state highway layout, and while it had some "violations" here and there, there was a clear order. Every other route number was either in NorCal (0, 4, 8) or SoCal (2, 6, 10). And while the big cities got the lower numbers, there was still a logic: routes generally increased as you moved east and south. Even when that wasn't always the case (sometimes it would be reversed), there was still a logical order: CA-180 was north of CA-178, CA-198 was north of CA-190, CA-126 was north of CA-118. But when the '64 renumbering came into play, that order was pretty much gone. New routes were just assigned in some willy-nilly order where needed, and not much thought was given to maintaining the notion of even numbered routes being west-east and odd numbered routes being south-north. In addition, it seemed many routes were truncated or changed for no real reason. For example, CA-2 used to go into the Lake Arrowhead area, by making use of what is today CA-138 and CA-173. But then it just ended at CA-138, which went into the area, and CA-173 was created. Why? To me, why break up a perfectly fine state route into two or three new ones? Why fix what isn't broken? Same logic with CA-150... Was a perfectly fine route how it was, but then it was truncated and the western portion became CA-246, CA-154, and CA-192. Again, for what reason? Wouldn't having four routes to replace what used to be one longer route be confusing? It seems like it's just a waste of numbers. I'm of the opinion that the fewer routes, the better. And the longer, the better. Don't use four routes when one will do. There's nothing wrong with a 100+ mile route, no need to truncate it at something arbitrary like a county line.

With regards to 246/154/150, I think 154 as a standalone route makes perfect sense (though I kinda wish it was ALT US 101).  For Route 2...IIRC, Route 173 is unpaved and not particularly important navigationally.  It might be a case where 138 was extended primarily so that the through route would not need to make a turn.

There is some route clustering with the post-1964 system (i.e. Routes 82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area, Routes 236/237/238 along former Route 9 segments) but it isn't super obvious.  I also feel like there is a weird reluctance to leave perfectly good numbers unused for long periods of time (i.e. 30 post-2000 and 31 since 1974), especially when number recycling has occurred (i.e. Route 7 near El Centro which really should be an extension of Route 115).

[Quillz]

Fully agree on this one.  (Route numbering as a navigational aid should NEVER be up to the legislature IMO, due to the obvious bureaucratic red tape that has existed since 1964)  I like how some Northeast states (Massachusetts) handle this, where state maintenance and numbered route status are not one and the same (so in-town/in-city segments of some routes aren't state-maintained but remain signed)

Is there an example of this? Does the shield itself change, or are routes just signed regardless of who maintains them?

I've heard various suggestions for things that California could do if they are so determined on denoting who maintains a route, such as using black-on-white shields for indicating local maintenance, or changing the "California" legend to something like the town or city name. These are all novel ideas, but I think they are completely unnecessary. As you pointed out, signage should always prioritize navigation over legislation. There are plenty of other ways to figure out who maintains any given stretch of road.

To be fair, overly large concurrencies were a problem in the early 1960s (i.e. I-15/Route 18/US 66/US 91/US 395) which while interesting to us, served little navigational purpose (except to create an excessive message load) once the Interstates became emphasized.  On the other hand, turning the independent segment of US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Red Bluff into a state route was unnecessary and I recall a discussion here where the California Highways and Public Works magazine from around the time of the 1964 renumbering strongly hinted that this was primarily done to introduce the white-on-green shield for visibility reasons.

The "shield overload" does create an issue, no question about that, but I think outside of S.F. and L.A., it wasn't as prevalent as some made it out to be. Certainly in modern times, I think it would be a non-issue with GPS pretty much being standard on smartphones. But I was thinking about the issue, and I thought of a potential compromise: only sign the dominant route. Just like how mile markers typically only favor the route of the highest order (i.e. interstates over US highways), the same could be done with signage. Something like the I-10/US-60/US-70/US-99/CA-18 could have had the guide signs only showing I-10, while the actual reassurance markers continue to sign all the routes. This way, a motorist can follow the most important, direct route, but all other information is still doled out, just not necessarily at once. (Keep in mind this makes sense in my head, in practice, this might be a disaster). But again, I know other states have no issue with route duplication or concurrencies... How is signage handed in those situations? (I keep thinking of Texas, which has I-10 and TX-10, US-69 and I-69, US-54 and TX-54, etc.)

As for the second part, you're correct. From what I've read, it was indeed the '64 introduction of the white-on-green shields that caused US-99 to be downgraded to CA-99. It was above the 300-mile minimum threshold set by AASHTO, so legally, it could have existed. (On the other hand, while I disagree with AASHTO's 300-mile definition, I accept this is why US-299 and US-399 had to be removed). Makes me wonder why California couldn't have just created a white-on-green US highway shield, especially since colored US shields weren't unheard of during the 50s and 60s. Maybe the state wouldn't get federal money if they moved away from the '61 cutout design, I don't know.

With regards to 246/154/150, I think 154 as a standalone route makes perfect sense (though I kinda wish it was ALT US 101).  For Route 2...IIRC, Route 173 is unpaved and not particularly important navigationally.  It might be a case where 138 was extended primarily so that the through route would not need to make a turn.

There is some route clustering with the post-1964 system (i.e. Routes 82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area, Routes 236/237/238 along former Route 9 segments) but it isn't super obvious.  I also feel like there is a weird reluctance to leave perfectly good numbers unused for long periods of time (i.e. 30 post-2000 and 31 since 1974), especially when number recycling has occurred (i.e. Route 7 near El Centro which really should be an extension of Route 115).

I agree about CA-173 not being an overall important route, and given it had until recently a jeep trail, makes me wonder why it was a state highway in the first place. Which kind of brings me to my point... Seems it would have been easier to simply realign CA-2 onto what is today CA-138 east of I-15 rather than truncate it and extend the route that originally used to end at it. Seems to be like an exercise in futility, akin to the notion of moving something like I-580 and putting it where I-980 presently is. CA-2 had existed from L.A. to the Big Bear area for three decades at that point, and thus truncating it just seemed to make no real sense.

I agree about CA-154 being US-101 Alt. In fact, this routing was the original routing of US-101 back in the day, though I don't know if it was ever actually signed as such. (It might have been the original El Camino Real trail, much of which later became the 101). But it still begs the question, I think, why it couldn't have just remained 150, or even made the entire 154-192-150 corridor something like US-101 Alt. I still can't figure out any logical reason why you'd divide one route into four. Especially when all the routes that replaced 150 ultimately go the same places, anyway. Had 150 been some bizarre shaped route that had no clear orientation, like CA-18, I could understand. But it wasn't... It ran west-east from the ocean to Santa Paula, generally a northern parallel of 101. Seems odd to break that up, although it the route does exist in multiple counties, so maybe that played a factor.

[jbnati27]

Ohio:

      Likes
            - The state routes are very well signed
            - Multiplexes are well signed, too, even if a state route is jumping on an interstate for a bit
            - State Route, US Route, and Interstate Highway numbers never overlap
            - There is some quasi-regional numbering with the 3 digit state routes, or at least that's my observation
            - Almost all (and possibly all) of the state routes are continuous

      Dislikes
            - Despite some quasi-regional numbering, there doesn't seem to be a really distinct pattern in the numbering
            - The state routes are not polar