State Route Oddities

[brownpelican]

There are four (if not more) MS-149s. Yet, none of them are duplexed with US 49 in signage.

Eight. Plus eight MS 184s, nine MS 145s (two of them quite lengthy), and five MS 182s.

And a few MS 198s too (Tylertown, Columbia and Lucedale).

[Quillz]

Oklahoma 37 is weird. Has a section in the central portion of the state and another in the southeast corner, where it connects to Texas 37. The two are separated by many other state highways and there is no sense of continuity between the two at all.

[Kacie Jane]

Oklahoma 37 is weird. Has a section in the central portion of the state and another in the southeast corner, where it connects to Texas 37. The two are separated by many other state highways and there is no sense of continuity between the two at all.

Presumably, it's meant to be treated as two separate highways rather than one discontinuous one (similar to I-76, 84, 86, or 88).  Pennsylvania used to have the same thing with 17, there's the still existing one in central Pennsylvania, plus the unrelated one near Erie that's now solely I-86.

Here's my oddity.  As mentioned in the "state highway grids" thread, Washington has a system of longer two-digit highways, and shorter three-digit spurs, although they're numbered the reverse of interstates and US routes (spurs off SR 24 are numbered SR 24x; spurs off one-digit highways like I-5 are numbered SR 5xx).

Oddity #1: SR 19 doesn't fit into the grid (in a completely different part of the state from SR 17 and SR 21), and would clearly be better suited with a three-digit number.

Oddity #2: Spurs off I-90 are numbered SR 9xx, and is apparently unwilling to share that range of numbers with SR 9.  SR 9 has two spurs, they are numbered.... SR 92 and SR 96.  Yeah, two-digit numbers.  Wrap your head around that one.

[froggie]

You'd think they'd just run it concurrent with U.S. 78 / I-22, since it crosses the Tenn-Tom about three miles south of there.

You'd think....but MDOT's intention is to use MS 178 for old alignments of US 78 that they want retained on the state highway system.  Running it concurrent with US 78 across the Tenn-Tom defeats the purpose of that intention.

[okroads]

Oklahoma 37 is weird. Has a section in the central portion of the state and another in the southeast corner, where it connects to Texas 37. The two are separated by many other state highways and there is no sense of continuity between the two at all.

There are several state highways in Oklahoma with 2 different sections: OK 74, OK 2, OK 82, OK 69A, OK 37, OK 4, and OK 5 just to name a few. There are also 3 OK 9A's.

[sandiaman]

  You  gotta love Texas,   they don't  care  about  triplication of numbers.  In West  Texas , you have US 54, TX  54 and FM  54.  The  motorist should  be able  to figure  out  the differences, Right?

[The High Plains Traveler]

Here's my oddity.  As mentioned in the "state highway grids" thread, Washington has a system of longer two-digit highways, and shorter three-digit spurs, although they're numbered the reverse of interstates and US routes (spurs off SR 24 are numbered SR 24x; spurs off one-digit highways like I-5 are numbered SR 5xx).

Oddity #1: SR 19 doesn't fit into the grid (in a completely different part of the state from SR 17 and SR 21), and would clearly be better suited with a three-digit number.

Oddity #2: Spurs off I-90 are numbered SR 9xx, and is apparently unwilling to share that range of numbers with SR 9.  SR 9 has two spurs, they are numbered.... SR 92 and SR 96.  Yeah, two-digit numbers.  Wrap your head around that one.

That second oddity is the weakness of the three-digit numbering scheme that Washington has that uses XXn instead of nXX for branches of route XX. Under that scheme, those branches of SR-9 should be SR-092 and SR-096. Washington should have not used single-digit primary route numbers.

[Quillz]

Here's my oddity.  As mentioned in the "state highway grids" thread, Washington has a system of longer two-digit highways, and shorter three-digit spurs, although they're numbered the reverse of interstates and US routes (spurs off SR 24 are numbered SR 24x; spurs off one-digit highways like I-5 are numbered SR 5xx).

Oddity #1: SR 19 doesn't fit into the grid (in a completely different part of the state from SR 17 and SR 21), and would clearly be better suited with a three-digit number.

Oddity #2: Spurs off I-90 are numbered SR 9xx, and is apparently unwilling to share that range of numbers with SR 9.  SR 9 has two spurs, they are numbered.... SR 92 and SR 96.  Yeah, two-digit numbers.  Wrap your head around that one.

That second oddity is the weakness of the three-digit numbering scheme that Washington has that uses XXn instead of nXX for branches of route XX. Under that scheme, those branches of SR-9 should be SR-092 and SR-096. Washington should have not used single-digit primary route numbers.

I agree. I came up with a fictitious numbering system where 0-99 are reserved for Interstates and US Routes, and then 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900 are the primary state route numbers. Everything else in between are technically "spurs," although they can be as long or as important as necessary.

[hbelkins]

  You  gotta love Texas,   they don't  care  about  triplication of numbers.  In West  Texas , you have US 54, TX  54 and FM  54.  The  motorist should  be able  to figure  out  the differences, Right?

My gripe with Texas is that all the state routes are signed the same on interstate guide signs. And the signs are nothing like what they are on independent mounts -- "TEXAS" is supposed to go below the route number, and the Farm-to-Market roads are supposed to be signed in an outline of the state. Why are they done differently on interstate guide signs?

[Alps]

So NJ has only been mentioned so far for NJ 440 being in two pieces and the high exit number on I-76 leaving PA. Here are some other oddities:

NJ 7 exists in two pieces but is signed as one piece. The western piece ends at the Newark border, while the eastern piece begins about five blocks north and east at the county line on the Passaic River. No one really knows the western piece continues south past the eastern piece - and certainly no one knows why.
US 9 has a permanent closure at Beesley's Point. Let's see how long before it's rerouted.
NJ 20 ends as a one-way pair at the top of Paterson... but there's basically nothing for it to end at. Begin/end signage isn't even certain of where the route is. It just sorta starts as you come out from some buildings.
NJ 29, for a few years in the early 2000s, was legislated on a one-way street before NJ figured out the NB side had to follow NJ 165. Now both sides follow 165 (see below).
NJ 36 is C-shaped. It used to be signed east-west on the top and bottom legs of the C, meaning that over the course of driving the route you would reverse direction. "Take 35 to 36 east" was a headache.
NJ 37 had two pieces built that never became part of the route. One is in the middle of the state on CR 539. The other is on CR 524 at I-195, and was kept in the state Straight Line Diagrams as "NJ 524" for a long time.
NJ 41 was the only modern route to be signed as Temporary, and there's still plenty of signage around although the county-maintained route was made permanent because the bypass will never be finished.
NJ 43, until 1988, was signed where NJ 143 is now. Before 1953, all of US 30 was NJ 43. The little spur to Ancora was built as another piece of 43, meaning 43 would have intersected itself - but by the time it opened, the numbering had just changed to remove state/US multiplexes. So 43 in 1954 was completely different than 43 in 1952, yet completely related.
NJ 59 is now signed for all of a short block under a railroad overpass.
NJ 69 is the only 2-digit NJ state highway renumbered after 1953 (to 31).
I-78, as we all know, has traffic signals in Jersey City.
NJ 94 is the only NJ state highway that doesn't pick up as a numbered highway across the border. (It's a 4-digit road in PA.)
I-95, as we all know, has a discontinuity in NJ.
NJ 139 has a lower and Upper (officially NJ 139U) roadway, each 2-way. You can't get directly from the beginning of NJ 139 to the eastbound Upper.
NJ 152 is the next bridge up from NJ 52, but as far as anyone can tell, the numbering is completely coincidental.
NJ 161 was conceived (and numbered pre-1953) as a spur from NJ 3 (then S-3), but 3 was built on a new alignment (in the late 30s/early 40s) instead of along Allwood Road. Surprisingly, 161 was never connected to the actual 3. (It wasn't the only spur disconnected from its parent - NJ 87 was originally numbered as a spur of then-NJ 4, which followed US 9, but a key bridge was never built to Absecon.)
NJ 165 is (now) entirely duplexed with NJ 29, and it's unsigned. Why is it still around?
NJ 167 exists in two pieces. A mile and a half was decommissioned that is closed to all traffic, and the remaining gap consists of bridges that have long since disappeared.
NJ 182 ends catty-corner at NJ 57. It's where NJ 24 used to end, and any hope of extending 57 eastward has long been abandoned, so 57 should have absorbed 182.
NJ 413 is the only NJ state highway to not be state-maintained for any part of its length.
I-676 ends at the PA state line and is discontiguous from the Vine St. Expressway. Technically, it should be I-176, which may be why the number 176 was skipped in state route assignments. (Everything else from 151 to 185 was used at some point, although 178 was never built - 176 wasn't even reserved in legislation, which is very unusual, as NJ tends to reserve numbers even if it won't ever use them.)

[Scott5114]

OK 251A exists, with no OK 251 ever existing anywhere in the state.

Check this link, there was once an OK 251D between Wagoner and Chouteau:

http://msrmaps.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=15&X=360&Y=4984&W=3&qs=%7cokay%7cok%7c

My suspicion is that the OK 251 route numbers were intended to be temporary assignments to allow for state construction funding, and 251A was useful enough to keep on the state highway system. Why it was never renumbered into something that made sense is another matter.

Bizarre. More research!

[Kacie Jane]

Here's my oddity.  As mentioned in the "state highway grids" thread, Washington has a system of longer two-digit highways, and shorter three-digit spurs, although they're numbered the reverse of interstates and US routes (spurs off SR 24 are numbered SR 24x; spurs off one-digit highways like I-5 are numbered SR 5xx).

Oddity #1: SR 19 doesn't fit into the grid (in a completely different part of the state from SR 17 and SR 21), and would clearly be better suited with a three-digit number.

Oddity #2: Spurs off I-90 are numbered SR 9xx, and is apparently unwilling to share that range of numbers with SR 9.  SR 9 has two spurs, they are numbered.... SR 92 and SR 96.  Yeah, two-digit numbers.  Wrap your head around that one.

That second oddity is the weakness of the three-digit numbering scheme that Washington has that uses XXn instead of nXX for branches of route XX. Under that scheme, those branches of SR-9 should be SR-092 and SR-096. Washington should have not used single-digit primary route numbers.

Disagree.  Typically, the one-digit routes have Xnn for branches of route X.  I-5 has spurs from 501-548 (plus 599), US 101 (which would be SR 1 by location) has spurs from 102-119, and SR 3 has a spur numbered 310.  So, particularly in the case of I-5, one of the great advantages of this system is that it allocates 10 times as many numbers for these routes.  (The two-digit routes, partly by coincidence, partly by geography, are either shorter or in the more sparsely populated eastern half of the state, so they don't need as many numbers for spurs.)

So the problem isn't with assigning one-digit numbers to the primary routes.  It only really exists where you have a conflict, such as between SR 9 and I-90, or between US 2 and SR 20.  The correct solution is what they did in the latter case.

Since numbers beginning with 20x are used by US 2, SR 20 uses instead spurs beginning with 21x.  Fortunately, SR 21 doesn't have any spurs, so there's no conflict there.  Ironically, this would be even easier to implement to solve the SR 9 problem. Those spurs could have been given 91x numbers, and there would be no conflict since there's no SR 91.

Or, SR 9 and I-90 could have just used the same range of numbers.  Between the two of them, they only have a total of five spurs.
Or, SR 92 and SR 96 could have just been numbered as spurs of other highways, as I proposed today in a fictional highways thread.
Or, SR 9 could have been given a non-conflicting number (see the same thread).

In conclusion, it's certainly a unique system (although West Virginia's fractional secondaries are similar), but I'd call these easily solvable idiosyncracies rather than weaknesses or failures.

[agentsteel53]

I do rather like Washington's ad-hoc approach to its numbering system.  spurs of 5 are 501, 502, 503.  spurs of 26 are 261, 262, 263.  spurs of 101, a major route?  why, 102, 103, 104, of course. 

it may not be the most completely internally consistent of numbering schemes, but it definitely serves to execute the intended purpose correctly.

the older route system (pre-1964), with lettered routes, was fairly unique as well.  The primary routes were numbered, as today, but the spurs were lettered.  I have seen a state route 2T shield.

[Quillz]

I do rather like Washington's ad-hoc approach to its numbering system.  spurs of 5 are 501, 502, 503.  spurs of 26 are 261, 262, 263.  spurs of 101, a major route?  why, 102, 103, 104, of course.  

it may not be the most completely internally consistent of numbering schemes, but it definitely serves to execute the intended purpose correctly.

the older route system (pre-1964), with lettered routes, was fairly unique as well.  The primary routes were numbered, as today, but the spurs were lettered.  I have seen a state route 2T shield.

That is an interesting approach. Say a primary highway had 27 spurs, would we have seen 1Z followed by 1AA?

[surferdude]

IN PA in the western part there is PA 65 it starts southern end on the North Shore of Pittsburgh and the nothern end at Business 422 in New Castle, PA.  In and around Ellwood City, New Castle, Zelienople, Beaver Falls, there are connecting Routes of PA
PA 288 (Ellwood City to Zelienople)
PA 488 (Energy to Volant)
PA 388 (Ellwood to Zelienople)
PA 588 (Ellwood to Beaver Falls)

There is a PA 88 but it is south of Pittsburgh does not have connecting routes.

PA 88 was signed all of the way to New Castle until 1961 on what is currently PA 65.

I found historic type 10 maps.  1930 Lawrence County it lists PA 65 as PA 315 which goes through Ellwood City to New Castle.
ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Lawrence_1930.pdf


1916  beaver County it lists it as appl routes and has different numbers
ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Beaver_1916.pdf

1926 beaver county does nor anything for route 65.  
ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Beaver_1926.pdf
in fact it appears that it has not been built yet.

1941 Beaver County Map does list it as SR 0088.

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Beaver_1941.pdf

1961 Beaver County Map shows PA 65


ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Beaver_1961.pdf


1958 lawrence county map has it lists it as PA 88.

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Maps/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Lawrence_1958.pdf

[J N Winkler]

My gripe with Texas is that all the state routes are signed the same on interstate guide signs. And the signs are nothing like what they are on independent mounts -- "TEXAS" is supposed to go below the route number, and the Farm-to-Market roads are supposed to be signed in an outline of the state. Why are they done differently on interstate guide signs?

Unlike independent-mount route markers in most conventional-road signing scenarios, freeway guide signs are designed to give plenty of advance notice of upcoming maneuvers.  In order to do this successfully, route markers have to have a consistent digit height--which does not really occur with independent-mount markers because digit height on most markers other than the US and Interstate shields varies with digit count.

There is a standard design of guide-sign marker for Texas state routes (SH, FM, RM, PR, SP, BS, . . .) with fixed overall height, fixed corner radius, fixed height of route number digit (nearly always Series D, though some TxDOT districts use Series E or E Modified), fixed height of system designation word, and no fixed overall width.  Texas does not use fixed two- and three-digit widths for guide-sign state routes, unlike most other states.

South Carolina and Louisiana have more than two standard shield widths to accommodate US and state routes respectively, and California used to have more than two standard widths each for US, Interstate, and state routes in the outline-shield era, but none of these states allow shield width to slide freely to accommodate the route number like Texas does.  TxDOT's standard for guide-sign state route shields is not only a masterpiece of engineering for legibility; it is also, as far as I know, unique in the USA.

The potential for confusion across system is less than might seem at first glance.  TxDOT state highways (SH) span just the low hundreds.  FM and RM routes take their numbering from a common system (no FM has a duplicating RM and vice versa) and run up to the low thousands.  Numbered routes on the other systems (PR, RR, etc.) are so rare as to be novelties.

Cross-system number duplications are typically well separated from each other, often by hundreds of miles.  I know of just one situation on the 77,000-odd miles of state highway in Texas (and in the almost 11,000 TxDOT sign design sheets I have) where signing has to be provided specially to warn drivers against cross-system confusion:  FM 121 and SH 121 have exits within about 20 miles of each other on US 75 north of Dallas and the FM 121 exit has signs warning drivers not to exit if they want DFW Airport.

[J N Winkler]

That is an interesting approach. Say a primary highway had 27 spurs, would we have seen 1Z followed by 1AA?

In old Washington Department of Highways parlance, the spurs were called "Secondary State Highways" and the letter suffix was always hyphenated in print materials.  So Primary State Highway 11 (PSH 11) had, for example, Secondary State Highway 11-G (SSH 11-G) as a spur.

I am not sure there was ever a plan in place to address exhaustion of alphabetic SSH designator suffixes.  I distantly remember reading, however, that there were "spurs of spurs" which resulted in designations like SSH 11-G3.  Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Washington state highways can confirm?

Common practice in composing state highway shields for SSHs (for use both on independent mount and on guide signs) was to place the letter suffix on its own line below the numeric part of the designation.  At that time Washington had just a two-digit marker (Houdon bust profile silhouette, unstretched).  I presume that alphanumeric character height was higher for PSHs than for SSHs because the designation was all on one line for PSHs.

[The High Plains Traveler]

The potential for confusion across system is less than might seem at first glance.  TxDOT state highways (SH) span just the low hundreds.  FM and RM routes take their numbering from a common system (no FM has a duplicating RM and vice versa) and run up to the low thousands.

Not intended to disagree with your statement, but a numbering oddity nonetheless. We visited the Fredericksburg/Kerrville area of the Hill Country a few years ago and i noted that a single route (FM/RM 337) east of U.S. 83 was alternatively signed both ways. Not on one signpost, but it changed as we proceeded, back and forth between the two [farm/ranch]-to-market routes.  It was an area that was consistent with either kind of route, rolling hills and grazing land combined with valleys with agriculture.

[The High Plains Traveler]

That second oddity is the weakness of the three-digit numbering scheme that Washington has that uses XXn instead of nXX for branches of route XX. Under that scheme, those branches of SR-9 should be SR-092 and SR-096. Washington should have not used single-digit primary route numbers.


Disagree.  Typically, the one-digit routes have Xnn for branches of route X.  I-5 has spurs from 501-548 (plus 599), US 101 (which would be SR 1 by location) has spurs from 102-119, and SR 3 has a spur numbered 310.  So, particularly in the case of I-5, one of the great advantages of this system is that it allocates 10 times as many numbers for these routes.  (The two-digit routes, partly by coincidence, partly by geography, are either shorter or in the more sparsely populated eastern half of the state, so they don't need as many numbers for spurs.)

It is what it is. So, our discussion is what should have happened in 1963 when the system was designed. My only point is that if all primary routes were assumed to be two-digit and - though I didn't state it - "imaginary" route numbers could have been assigned to U.S. and Interstate routes, a somewhat more coherent system could have been derived without stretching the numbering rules. (Of course, the "99%" of the driving public to whom this discussion would be gibberish could not care less.)  So, if U.S. 101 were assigned "secret" SR-11 and I-5 had been assigned "secret" SR-15, ten spur / secondary routes would have been available for each primary route and a more consistent-looking numbering system established. This system would have immediately been challenged when U.S. 12 was extended into the state replacing U.S. 410 in part, and U.S. 830 (originally SR-12 east of I-5) eliminated from the U.S. system so it's academic.

Again, the overwhelming bulk of the driving public pays little or no heed to whether it's a random or systematic numbering system.

[NE2]

I am not sure there was ever a plan in place to address exhaustion of alphabetic SSH designator suffixes.  I distantly remember reading, however, that there were "spurs of spurs" which resulted in designations like SSH 11-G3.  Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Washington state highways can confirm?

No. But not every route had only two ends - PSH 3 had a number of branches (which had unsigned lettered suffixes for internal use). The numbers were (and still are) assigned by the legislature. Some time ago I compiled this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Washington_State_Highways/List_of_pre-1964_highways

[Quillz]

As much as I like an orderly state route grid, I also like systems that are seemingly thrown together haphazardly. Some states just number their highways in the order they are created, with no regards given to orientation, length or importance. And I kind of like that.

[vtk]

As much as I like an orderly state route grid, I also like systems that are seemingly thrown together haphazardly. Some states just number their highways in the order they are created, with no regards given to orientation, length or importance. And I kind of like that.

I think that's why Ohio has so few "oddities" – it has no strict grid or pattern to break.  Though I suppose credit is also due for not having discontinuous routes like many other states...

[J N Winkler]

Not intended to disagree with your statement, but a numbering oddity nonetheless. We visited the Fredericksburg/Kerrville area of the Hill Country a few years ago and i noted that a single route (FM/RM 337) east of U.S. 83 was alternatively signed both ways. Not on one signpost, but it changed as we proceeded, back and forth between the two [farm/ranch]-to-market routes.  It was an area that was consistent with either kind of route, rolling hills and grazing land combined with valleys with agriculture.

The route description is here:

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/rm/rm0337.htm

There is no description for FM 337 (the appropriate URL was actually the first I tried).  So it looks like the FM 337 signs are in error.

There have been various attempts to determine what rule TxDOT uses for deciding whether a given route number is RM or FM.  FM if it is east of I-35, RM if it is west of there; FM if it serves primarily cultivated land, RM if it serves primarily rangeland, etc.  There are too many exceptions for any of these to be plausible.  (Would you want to try farming along FM 170, for example?)  The most convincing theory I have heard is that TxDOT goes in with FM as the default and changes it to RM if enough ranchers complain about being on a "farm" road.

[DTComposer]

the south segment, which is what everyone is familiar with as "interstate 710" has a northern terminus at Valley Boulevard.  the southern end splits into three termini serving Long Beach and the cruise ship ports; all of them are officially part of the route.

and what's even more nuts - the OFFICIAL terminus of Interstate 710 - as defined - is at Route 47...with Route 47 exiting off of itself in a Breezewood-like situation to reach the Terminal Island Freeway!

Based on signage, I think this terminus of 710 is shared with that of Route 103.

Actually, the only "official" route of 710 is down the west riverbank of the L.A. River, then the curve onto Ocean Boulevard/Seaside Boulevard until the Terminal Island Freeway. Right now, Caltrans only maintains the route until just north of Ocean Boulevard; the City and Port maintain the rest, including the spurs into Downtown and towards the Queen Mary.

This can be confirmed by both the legislative definition and the Caltrans bridge log, which doesn't mention, say, the bridge on the Downtown exit over the L.A. River, any of the structures along Harbor Scenic Drive, etc. The bridge log doesn't even mention the Gerald Desmond Bridge (which is along the intended official route, and is scheduled to be replaced by 2016. Once replaced, Caltrans will assume maintenance of this portion of the route).

[Alps]

As much as I like an orderly state route grid, I also like systems that are seemingly thrown together haphazardly. Some states just number their highways in the order they are created, with no regards given to orientation, length or importance. And I kind of like that.

You'd be happy in New England.