News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-335 for Des Moines Beltway?

Started by Revive 755, May 09, 2011, 05:19:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Revive 755

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110509/NEWS/105090324/-1/SPORTS12/Des-Moines-City-Council-meeting-set-today

Should be I-435 instead of I-335, otherwise MoDOT should be up in arms about not being allowed to change MO 370 into I-370.


Scott5114

Would much prefer "835" over "435" in this case. Why duplicate numbers if you don't have to?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

iowahighways

Like the idea, hate the number. I would think I-635 or I-835 would be a better option, since people associate I-435 with the Kansas City loop and Des Moines is too close to KC for that number to work.

I wish I could attend the city council meeting tonight but won't be able to due to another commitment...
The Iowa Highways Page: Now exclusively at www.iowahighways.org
The Iowa Highways Photo Gallery: www.flickr.com/photos/iowahighways/

Alps

I would route I-80 over current I-235 and move the 235 number to the beltway outside. No duplication, no confusion with other cities, just one hell of a time for Des Moines residents ;)

froggie

QuoteI would think I-635 or I-835 would be a better option, since people associate I-435 with the Kansas City loop and Des Moines is too close to KC for that number to work.

There's almost 170 miles between the two.  The numerous cases on the East Coast of 3dis with the same number that are much closer together than that (only 25 miles in the case of the two I-291's) puts to rest the argument that it's "too close".

Zmapper

But if you have the option of spreading out the numbers then why not? Some people could confuse two I-435 numbered highways.

agentsteel53

Quote from: Zmapper on May 09, 2011, 10:34:39 PM
But if you have the option of spreading out the numbers then why not? Some people could confuse two I-435 numbered highways.

I don't think the confusion is too much of a problem, given that they're so many miles apart.

and states tend to use the lowest available number of the correct parity.  Counterexamples are tough to find: Connecticut skipping 195, likely to avoid confusion with the RI/MA route; Georgia inexplicably skipping 116 and 316; California omitting 180 because it does not fit their numbering grid; and I'm sure there are other examples but they aren't common.  Oh, AR's first x30 is 430; go figure.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

iowahighways

#7
Updated story from KCCI-TV in Des Moines: http://www.kcci.com/news/27833073/detail.html

Even reporter Todd Magel on the 10:00 news tonight acknowledged that 435 may be the final number instead of 335, "depending on Interstate naming rules".
The Iowa Highways Page: Now exclusively at www.iowahighways.org
The Iowa Highways Photo Gallery: www.flickr.com/photos/iowahighways/

TheStranger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
and states tend to use the lowest available number of the correct parity.  Counterexamples are tough to find: Connecticut skipping 195, likely to avoid confusion with the RI/MA route; Georgia inexplicably skipping 116 and 316; California omitting 180 because it does not fit their numbering grid; and I'm sure there are other examples but they aren't common.  Oh, AR's first x30 is 430; go figure.

With CT's 395, it enters MA so that was the lowest number available in MA.

Outliers that stand out as a higher number than what is available:

- I-710 in southern California (getting its numbering from former State Route 7, IIRC) when I-310 is available
- I-485 in North Carolina when I-285 isn't in use in the state
- I-820 in Texas, no other even I-x20s in that state
- I-435 in San Antonio with I-235 not in use in Texas
- future I-905 in San Diego when I-705 is still free in California
Chris Sampang

agentsteel53

Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM

With CT's 395, it enters MA so that was the lowest number available in MA.

for some reason I had thought that 395 was originally just in Conn and intended to be extended eastward... I might just be mixing it up with the 84/86/384 fiasco.

live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

one example of route numbering which does make sense, even though it is not the lowest available number, is Minnesota and Wisconsin's I-535.  it likely took the number from the fact that it is completely multiplexed with US-53, with an eye towards the fact that it ends at WI-35.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

national highway 1

Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
- I-435 in San Antonio with I-235 not in use in Texas
Actually, it's I-410 in San Antonio, but still, there is no I-210 in TX
Also I-635 in Dallas when there is no I-235 or I-435; Unsigned I-345 (US 75) in Dallas where there is no I-145.
"Set up road signs; put up guideposts. Take note of the highway, the road that you take." Jeremiah 31:21

Henry

#12
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
and states tend to use the lowest available number of the correct parity.  Counterexamples are tough to find: Connecticut skipping 195, likely to avoid confusion with the RI/MA route; Georgia inexplicably skipping 116 and 316; California omitting 180 because it does not fit their numbering grid; and I'm sure there are other examples but they aren't common.  Oh, AR's first x30 is 430; go figure.

With CT's 395, it enters MA so that was the lowest number available in MA.

Outliers that stand out as a higher number than what is available:

- I-710 in southern California (getting its numbering from former State Route 7, IIRC) when I-310 is available
- I-485 in North Carolina when I-285 isn't in use in the state
- I-820 in Texas, no other even I-x20s in that state
- I-435 in San Antonio with I-235 not in use in Texas
- future I-905 in San Diego when I-705 is still free in California


I-510 hasn't been used in California either! And I-285 is being reserved for the US 52 freeway spur into Winston-Salem.

As for the Des Moines Beltway, it should be I-435.

A few more examples to consider:

  • I-459 in Alabama instead of I-259
  • I-430 in Arkansas instead of I-230
  • I-530 in Arkansas instead of I-330 (I-130 is reserved for a spur that may one day become part of an extended I-49)
  • I-555 in Arkansas instead of I-155 or I-355
  • I-575 in Georgia instead of I-175 or I-375
  • I-985 in Georgia instead of I-385, I-585 or I-785
  • I-375 in Michigan instead of I-175
  • I-535 in Minnesota instead of I-135 or I-335
  • I-515 in Nevada instead of I-115 or I-315
  • I-393 in New Hampshire instead of I-193
  • I-587 in New York State instead of I-187 or I-387
  • I-540 in North Carolina instead of I-340
  • I-785 in North Carolina instead of I-185, I-385 or I-585
  • I-795 in North Carolina instead of I-195, I-395 or I-595
  • I-564 in Virginia instead of I-164 or I-364
  • I-705 in Washington State instead of I-105, I-305 or I-505
  • I-794 in Wisconsin instead of I-194, I-394 or I-594
  • I-894 in Wisconsin instead of I-294, I-494 or I-694

I am aware of some unused numbers being proposed in the past (I-175 in Georgia and I-335 in Minnesota), but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

froggie

Several of your examples allude to other 3-digit routes that were proposed at the time, but later cancelled or renumbered.  The Virginia example represents the lowest unused odd x64 number, which is a similar case with other routes, at least in those states that tended to avoid duplication.

Buummu

I-335.. for Des Moines Beltway.. does that include the future section from I-80 North to I-35?

Brandon

I-335 is fine for the beltway, IMHO.  It doesn't return to I-35 a la I-155 or I-355 in Illinois.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

triplemultiplex

If it connects two interstates, the default should be an even 3di regardless if it returns to it's parent.

I'd make exceptions if means a state would have to burn it's last even 3di for a given interstate.  But as this is not the case here, 435 is fine, just fine or for that matter, 635 or 835.  But definitely even.  Iowa ain't going to be using all its even x35's anytime soon.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

TheStranger

Quote from: national highway 1 on May 10, 2011, 01:35:31 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
- I-435 in San Antonio with I-235 not in use in Texas
Actually, it's I-410 in San Antonio, but still, there is no I-210 in TX

Thanks for the correction.  Though there is a lack of I-235 in Missouri, that makes sense as the lowest number used - I-435 - is not the lowest one available in the other state it runs in, Kansas.
Chris Sampang

Revive 755

Quote from: Buummu on May 10, 2011, 02:48:43 PM
I-335.. for Des Moines Beltway.. does that include the future section from I-80 North to I-35?

I was 95% sure that the extension north and back west to I-35 is dead.

But, as I search tonight to see if the southwest section from I-35 back to I-80 still has any life, I find a public hearing for it back in January:
http://www.polkcountyiowa.gov/publicworks/Pages/neBeltway.aspx

Buummu


rickmastfan67

Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
- I-485 in North Carolina when I-285 isn't in use in the state

But there is a "Future" I-285 in NC.

froggie

QuoteBut there is a "Future" I-285 in NC.

Which came LONG after I-485 was designated.

Buummu

and there is a "Future" I-785 as well.. both of them coming in the very far away future.

Bickendan

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 10, 2011, 12:42:59 AM
one example of route numbering which does make sense, even though it is not the lowest available number, is Minnesota and Wisconsin's I-535.  it likely took the number from the fact that it is completely multiplexed with US-53, with an eye towards the fact that it ends at WI-35.
I'm thinking I-705 in Tacoma may be a sim
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
and states tend to use the lowest available number of the correct parity.  Counterexamples are tough to find: Connecticut skipping 195, likely to avoid confusion with the RI/MA route; Georgia inexplicably skipping 116 and 316; California omitting 180 because it does not fit their numbering grid; and I'm sure there are other examples but they aren't common.  Oh, AR's first x30 is 430; go figure.

With CT's 395, it enters MA so that was the lowest number available in MA.

Outliers that stand out as a higher number than what is available:

- I-710 in southern California (getting its numbering from former State Route 7, IIRC) when I-310 is available
I'm thinking I-705 in Tacoma might be a similar story.

Alps

I'm thinking this could be a fun topic in General Highways, if you're so inclined. So I set one up.



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.