MoDOT Should designate an I-244 around Springfield, Missouri

[paulthemapguy]

This new I-244 would be too close to Tulsa's 244.  I'd say number it 644.  If Augusta, GA can have their loop interstate, then I don't see why Springfield can't also have one.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does Springfield really need an Interstate-designated loop? I'm still not convinced it does.

[US71]

Does Springfield really need an Interstate-designated loop? I'm still not convinced it does.

Honestly? Probably not. Route 66 is a big draw, so anything detouring traffic around town would likely be frowned upon.

[Bobby5280]

This new I-244 would be too close to Tulsa's 244.  I'd say number it 644.  If Augusta, GA can have their loop interstate, then I don't see why Springfield can't also have one.

Hasn't I-520 in Augusta always been I-520? The odd number designation seems odd now that the highway is an actual loop instead of a spur. But it creates even more problems, particularly for local businesses and their advertising, to just re-number a highway to comply better with Interstate numbering rules.

I just don't agree with Springfield having an even numbered Interstate loop designation. The Southeast corner of the "loop" is really a crossing of two different US highways going in fully perpendicular directions. Eastbound US-60 has a flyover ramp going directly to Northbound US-65. Unfortunately the ramp has only one lane. That's not very good for carrying an Interstate route number's thru traffic through a freeway to freeway interchange. This is why I would find it acceptable for US-60 to have one Interstate route designation and the US-65 freeway to have a different, odd numbered Interstate route designation.

[dvferyance]

This new I-244 would be too close to Tulsa's 244.  I'd say number it 644.  If Augusta, GA can have their loop interstate, then I don't see why Springfield can't also have one.

Hasn't I-520 in Augusta always been I-520? The odd number designation seems odd now that the highway is an actual loop instead of a spur. But it creates even more problems, particularly for local businesses and their advertising, to just re-number a highway to comply better with Interstate numbering rules.

I just don't agree with Springfield having an even numbered Interstate loop designation. The Southeast corner of the "loop" is really a crossing of two different US highways going in fully perpendicular directions. Eastbound US-60 has a flyover ramp going directly to Northbound US-65. Unfortunately the ramp has only one lane. That's not very good for carrying an Interstate route number's thru traffic through a freeway to freeway interchange. This is why I would find it acceptable for US-60 to have one Interstate route designation and the US-65 freeway to have a different, odd numbered Interstate route designation.

It should be changed to I-420 as there once was a proposed I-420 in Atlanta. I-220 is already used in Louisiana I like to avoid duplications when possible.

[hotdogPi]

This new I-244 would be too close to Tulsa's 244.  I'd say number it 644.  If Augusta, GA can have their loop interstate, then I don't see why Springfield can't also have one.

Hasn't I-520 in Augusta always been I-520? The odd number designation seems odd now that the highway is an actual loop instead of a spur. But it creates even more problems, particularly for local businesses and their advertising, to just re-number a highway to comply better with Interstate numbering rules.

I just don't agree with Springfield having an even numbered Interstate loop designation. The Southeast corner of the "loop" is really a crossing of two different US highways going in fully perpendicular directions. Eastbound US-60 has a flyover ramp going directly to Northbound US-65. Unfortunately the ramp has only one lane. That's not very good for carrying an Interstate route number's thru traffic through a freeway to freeway interchange. This is why I would find it acceptable for US-60 to have one Interstate route designation and the US-65 freeway to have a different, odd numbered Interstate route designation.

It should be changed to I-420 as there once was a proposed I-420 in Atlanta. I-220 is already used in Louisiana I like to avoid duplications when possible.

Imagine the theft that would happen.

[kphoger]

I use the James River Freeway somewhat regularly, my wife's family living in Branson (she grew up there) and we living in Wichita. I'll say that the highway has plenty of traffic, serves a large commercial area of the city, and provides a very useful freeway link to both Branson and Rogersville. I'd say it very much "deserves" an Interstate designation. I'm good with either letting it terminate at 60/65 (odd number) or wrapping it back north to 44 again (even number).

As it is, it's kind of crazy that drivers going from Joplin to Branson have to use four route numbers (44-360-60-65) of three classes (I-, SR-, US-) just to navigate the obvious route around the city.

As for 65 down to Branson, Rand McNally used to show it as all freeway, until I emailed them about it. It could stand to be a freeway, but until that happens, a spur Interstate number would be silly.

[bugo]

No. It isn't a functional loop. The only thing they could do that makes sense is to make MO 360/US 60/US 160 from I-44 to US 65 (and beyond if necessary) as I-144 to reduce confusion. Of course they could just sign MO 360 all the way to US 65 and take care of the problem that way.

[US71]

No. It isn't a functional loop. The only thing they could do that makes sense is to make MO 360/US 60/US 160 from I-44 to US 65 (and beyond if necessary) as I-144 to reduce confusion. Of course they could just sign MO 360 all the way to US 65 and take care of the problem that way.

Extending the 360 designation makes no sense, unless you send US 60 back through town.  I-144, I could see.

[bugo]

It makes sense. It gives the entire James River Freeway one single number. The other thing that could be done is to reroute US 60 along I-44 from somewhere to the west to the JRF interchange. US 60 west of I-44 and east of Springfield are really two different corridors with the same number.

[kphoger]

No. It isn't a functional loop. The only thing they could do that makes sense is to make MO 360/US 60/US 160 from I-44 to US 65 (and beyond if necessary) as I-144 to reduce confusion. Of course they could just sign MO 360 all the way to US 65 and take care of the problem that way.

Extending the 360 designation makes no sense, unless you send US 60 back through town.  I-144, I could see.

MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River.  Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number.  That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.

[US71]

MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River.  Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number.  That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.

Why waste the signage?

[intelati49]

MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River.  Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number.  That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.

Why waste the signage?

Because every loop should have a consistent number? Not exactly sure. Except in cases of detours, it doesn't do that. It acts more like a triangle...

[US71]

MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River.  Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number.  That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.

Why waste the signage?

Because every loop should have a consistent number? Not exactly sure. Except in cases of detours, it doesn't do that. It acts more like a triangle...

360 isn't intended to be a loop, but a spur from I-44 to US 60.  Using 360/60/65 as anything beyond an emergency bypass seems a waste to me.

[intelati49]

MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River.  Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number.  That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.

Why waste the signage?

Because every loop should have a consistent number? Not exactly sure. Except in cases of detours, it doesn't do that. It acts more like a triangle...

360 isn't intended to be a loop, but a spur from I-44 to US 60.  Using 360/60/65 as anything beyond an emergency bypass seems a waste to me.

(Just in case my point isn't clear, I come to the same conclusion. I'm just arguing the opposite point for the sake of discussion)

edit: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/(.png

[US71]

(Just in case my point isn't clear, I come to the same conclusion. I'm just arguing the opposite point for the sake of discussion)

edit: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/(.png

[intelati49]

(Just in case my point isn't clear, I come to the same conclusion. I'm just arguing the opposite point for the sake of discussion)

edit: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/(.png

Also...

[sparker]

MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River.  Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number.  That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.

Why waste the signage?

Because every loop should have a consistent number? Not exactly sure. Except in cases of detours, it doesn't do that. It acts more like a triangle...

360 isn't intended to be a loop, but a spur from I-44 to US 60.  Using 360/60/65 as anything beyond an emergency bypass seems a waste to me.

(Just in case my point isn't clear, I come to the same conclusion. I'm just arguing the opposite point for the sake of discussion)

edit: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/(.png

One alternative:  designate MO 360 and the part of US 60 from 360 to 65 as I-144 or I-344; the BGS's along the I-44 EB approach to the present 360 interchange would read "I-144 TO US 60 EAST/US 65 SOUTH" with secondary signage listing Branson and Willow Springs as control points.  WB would be simple: "I-144 to US 60"; secondary signage would reference Republic and possible Monett.  This would give the James River/south Springfield loop a singular Interstate number, ending at a logical distribution point.  US 60 signage would remain along the new Interstate route where it is today.