There seem to be some problems with the proposed numbering as shown on http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes/nbrn/USBRSCorridorMap.pdf
. Most major routes are multiples of 5, yet the existing 1 and 76 are included. So why not use 101 for the Pacific Coast route, to match the highway number? 76 is a bigger problem - there seems to be little reason to take it northwest to Oregon, except the desire to give a named route a single number. (If you look at the history of the U.S. Highways, few if any named highways received a single number; the Lincoln Highway, for example, switched from 30 to 530 to 50 across Utah.) Assuming current 76 is to stay, why not take it to Southern California on 70? Colorado Springs to Missoula could be 75, and Missoula to the Oregon Coast could be 30. The existence of 76 also causes bunching of even numbers in the northern half of the country. This could be partially solved by replacing 80 with the newly-freed 70 and 84 with 80. To better match the parallel highway numbers, the multiples of ten from 20 to 50 should be renumbered from 10 to 40 (76 would of course make a good 50 or 60), and 10 should be 2.