Poll
Question:
Which interstate is the worst interstate ever?
Option 1: Interstate 99
votes: 18
Option 2: Interstate 97
votes: 13
Option 3: Interstate 238
votes: 20
Option 4: Interstate 180
votes: 42
Option 5: Other
votes: 32
Interstate 99: Getting a lot of complaints about it.
Interstate 97: Very short, should be 3 digits.
Interstate 238: No I-38.
Interstate 180: Not a freeway.
I-74 east of Cincinnati is more of a numbering joke than I-97. I-73 is pretty hilariously awful as well.
I-130 ("where the fuck is that?")
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2013, 06:33:37 PM
I-74 east of Cincinnati is more of a numbering joke than I-97. I-73 is pretty hilariously awful as well.
Ditto with I-69 south of Indy (or at least Evansville). And WTF is up with I-69E and I-69C!?!
Quote from: Brandon on August 13, 2013, 06:56:06 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2013, 06:33:37 PM
I-74 east of Cincinnati is more of a numbering joke than I-97. I-73 is pretty hilariously awful as well.
Ditto with I-69 south of Indy (or at least Evansville). And WTF is up with I-69E and I-69C!?!
At least TxDOT and AASHTO can plausibly point the finger at Congress for mandating that all three branches get numbered as I-69. I haven't followed the saga enough, but will I-69E meet I-69C and I-69W at same place? If not, will the first merger northbound create I-69 until the third merges in?
AASHTO, maybe, but not TxDOT. TxDOT could have chosen to build only one branch, which is probably what was intended in the first place. Corridors that split are usually a "pick 1, we haven't decided which is best" situation.
I agree. I could get if they wanted 69W and 69E, but 69C? Even if you really need two interstates (69C & 69E) that essentially go to the same place, couldn't the central one just be 69?
Quote from: Brandon on August 13, 2013, 06:56:06 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2013, 06:33:37 PM
I-74 east of Cincinnati is more of a numbering joke than I-97. I-73 is pretty hilariously awful as well.
Ditto with I-69 south of Indy (or at least Evansville). And WTF is up with I-69E and I-69C!?!
Personally, I don't have a problem with 69, or with 74 if there were any hope of the middle portion being completed. Their original portions were fairly diagonal already, and a diagonal route of significant length is bound to break the grid at some point, such are the limitations of a binary grid.
Also, 73 is as "in the grid" as it could be with the numbers remaining. It's only hilarious because North Carolina seems to be the only state with any interest in building it. (Now that we know there's no hope of 73 stretching much further west, it would be kind of nice if we could switch 73 and 99. Oops, sorry, this isn't in the fictional section.)
To answer the original question, I'd actually put 180 slightly above 238 out of the choices given. But I will agree with Brandon (and the three comments posted while I was typing this) that the "correct" answer is the suffixed 69's.
I believe all segments of I-73 are currently co-signed with I-74. that renders it hilarious.
For the OP: "Worst" is a very broad term. Do you mean to restrict this thread to the most egregious number?
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2013, 08:16:51 PM
For the OP: "Worst" is a very broad term. Do you mean to restrict this thread to the most egregious number?
Right–I'm not all that familiar with Baltimore-Annapolis traffic, but I'd imagine that I-97 serves its purpose–as I-238 does. Numbering aside, these are valid freeways.
And I-180–I assume you're referring to Cheyenne's Inter-boule-stard? Illinois's 180 could probably get even more votes for a different reason.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2013, 08:08:11 PM
I believe all segments of I-73 are currently co-signed with I-74. that renders it hilarious.
This is not quite accurate...there is a short segment of I-73 not co-signed with any other interstate in Greensboro.
http://goo.gl/maps/L3UgL
Mapmikey
I-97 is five times worse than I-99. At least I-99 can theoretically be extended. The DE 1 tollway only to Dover would be far better for an I-97.
I-587 NY Colonel Chandler Drive/NY 28 1.21mi/1.95km
East End: Traffic Circle (I-87/Thruway) NY 28 Continues West
West End: Traffic Signal Intersection (NY32) NY 28 Continues East
All in Kingston, NY and No Interchanges.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 13, 2013, 08:33:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2013, 08:08:11 PM
I believe all segments of I-73 are currently co-signed with I-74. that renders it hilarious.
This is not quite accurate...there is a short segment of I-73 not co-signed with any other interstate in Greensboro.
http://goo.gl/maps/L3UgL
Mapmikey
It actually extends by itself (no I-74) to Randleman now.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 13, 2013, 08:38:51 PMThe DE 1 tollway only to Dover would be far better for an I-99.
FTFY :)
I-97 in MD could've been I-995.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2013, 08:16:51 PM
For the OP: "Worst" is a very broad term. Do you mean to restrict this thread to the most egregious number?
Agree 100%; although one of the OP's choices involves one Interstate (I-180 in Cheyenne) not being an actual freeway.
Quote from: xonhulu on August 13, 2013, 07:48:00 PM
I agree. I could get if they wanted 69W and 69E, but 69C? Even if you really need two interstates (69C & 69E) that essentially go to the same place, couldn't the central one just be 69?
When selecting the I-69C designation for the central corridor, somebody must have been looking at an airport w/3 parallel runways and acted accordingly. The FAA does allow the use of the C-suffix for a central parallel runway number (example: Runways 9L-27R, 9C-27C, 9R-27L).
If suffixed interstates are being allowed once again (yes, I'm aware of the TX & MN I-35W/Es being allowed to remain); such could address some of the more blatant numbering oddities. Examples (yes, Fictional territory here): I-99 could be either I-79E or I-81W. In DE, north of the I-95/295/495 interchanges; I--95 could become I-95W, I-495 could become I-95 and I-295 up to the NJ Turnpike could become I-95E... which would extend north to Exit 6 (I-95/PA Connector).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 14, 2013, 09:38:57 AM
....
If suffixed interstates are being allowed once again (yes, I'm aware of the TX & MN I-35W/Es being allowed to remain); such could address some of the more blatant numbering oddities. Examples (yes, Fictional territory here): I-99 could be either I-79E or I-81W. In DE, north of the I-95/295/495 interchanges; I--95 could become I-95W, I-495 could become I-95 and I-295 up to the NJ Turnpike could become I-95E... which would extend north to Exit 6 (I-95/PA Connector).
Once upon a time I thought the Capital Beltway around DC, which used to be numbered I-95 on the east side and I-495 on the west side (the east side is now dual-signed), ought to be numbered I-95E and I-95W to underscore to out-of-area motorists that yes, they could go either way and still reach their destinations such that there is no need to swerve wildly across five lanes in a panic to make sure you follow the "I-95" side. Back when I was in high school a newspaper columnists was soliciting ideas for making the Beltway less confusing and I sent in that idea, but he didn't print it, probably because I called it the "Final Solution." :-o
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2013, 09:57:51 AMprobably because I called it the "Final Solution." :-o
also, you signed it Jonathan Swift and you threatened to eat his baby.
The Wyoming Interstate 180 is a complete joke and a slap in the face to the whole system. But my vote goes to Interstate 27. It connects Lubbock and Amarillo, two powdunk panhandle towns, giving Amarillo 2 interstates while my home town of Austin which is now the 11th largest city in the US looks like another bump on I-35 on the map (bitter). And it doesn't extend to I-20 which is right there, so it is utterly pointless. It will not be a useful interstate until it is connected to I-20 at the least.
I-97 should become an extension of I-83. Sure, that would put it east of I-95, but at least it would be a longer route connecting two state capitals (Harrisburg and Annapolis).
I'm a person that tries to be pretty anal about the numbering system so everything discussed is irksome to me to varying degrees, but I have to vote for the non-freeway I-180. That's more offensive than Breezewood.
I also think the western Interstate 86 is pretty worthless. Are you telling me Pocatello really needs a connection to points west that bad??
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 14, 2013, 11:38:50 AM
I also think the western Interstate 86 is pretty worthless. Are you telling me Pocatello really needs a connection to points west that bad??
Yes, we are going through the motions again:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ops.fhwa.dot.gov%2Ffreight%2Ffreight_analysis%2Fnat_freight_stats%2Fimages%2Flo_res_jpg%2Fnhslnghultrktraf2007.jpg&hash=0f58c8b1acc17bc1e1e5ebf798cad4b090eb7378)
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2007.htm
Having been born in Cheyenne, have a bit of a soft spot for I-180. However, I-97 really grinds my gears, mostly for being a complete waste of a 2di number. IMO, it should either be part of I-595, or be signed I-995.
Quote from: NE2 on August 14, 2013, 11:42:39 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 14, 2013, 11:38:50 AM
I also think the western Interstate 86 is pretty worthless. Are you telling me Pocatello really needs a connection to points west that bad??
Yes, we are going through the motions again:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ops.fhwa.dot.gov%2Ffreight%2Ffreight_analysis%2Fnat_freight_stats%2Fimages%2Flo_res_jpg%2Fnhslnghultrktraf2007.jpg&hash=0f58c8b1acc17bc1e1e5ebf798cad4b090eb7378)
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2007.htm
Yes I am aware that the western I-86 is a part of the big picture. I am looking to stir the pot!!
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 14, 2013, 01:05:11 PM
Yes I am aware that the western I-86 is a part of the big picture. I am looking to stir the pot!!
in that case: WTF, does Nashville really need
three two-digit interstates?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 01:11:26 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 14, 2013, 01:05:11 PM
Yes I am aware that the western I-86 is a part of the big picture. I am looking to stir the pot!!
in that case: WTF, does Nashville really need three two-digit interstates?
in that case: WTF, does Shreveport really need
three two-digit interstates? :bigass:
I say Interstates 39, 41 & 43. Does Wisconsin really need to waste so many 2 digit Interstate odd numbers?
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 14, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
in that case: WTF, does Shreveport really need three two-digit interstates? :bigass:
is 69 gonna serve Shreveport? I thought it was off to the west, following US-59 in Texas.
I voted "Other", since I didn't see Vermont's I-189 on the list. It has no interchanges, not up to a full freeway in part, and is way too short. It's nothing more than a glorified set of ramps.
Quote from: Janko Dialnice on August 14, 2013, 01:44:17 PM
I voted "Other", since I didn't see Vermont's I-189 on the list. It has no interchanges, not up to a full freeway in part, and is way too short. It's nothing more than a glorified set of ramps.
Hahaha. It does have that long set of mainlanes that are closed that people spray paint and park cars on. :spin:
EDIT: stupid autocorrect
Quote from: xonhulu on August 13, 2013, 07:48:00 PM
I agree. I could get if they wanted 69W and 69E, but 69C? Even if you really need two interstates (69C & 69E) that essentially go to the same place, couldn't the central one just be 69?
69E should have been I-37. 69C should have been 169 or 337
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 01:42:14 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 14, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
in that case: WTF, does Shreveport really need three two-digit interstates? :bigass:
is 69 gonna serve Shreveport? I thought it was off to the west, following US-59 in Texas.
Yes, it will "serve" Shreveport, although the SIU 14 Record of Decision (http://www.dotd.la.gov/planning/environ/documents/I-69_SIU_14_from_El_Dorado,_Ark_to_Shreveport,_LA/I-69%20SIU%2014%20Signed%20ROD%20%2004-27-2012.pdf) discusses how Indianapolis and Houston will one day be connected to Bossier City, not Shreveport (page 4/44 of pdf):
Quote
2.2 Purpose and Need
Previous studies completed for the national I-69 Corridor have demonstrated that extending I-69 from Indianapolis, through Memphis, Bossier City and Houston to the Mexican border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley is a feasible project.
Somewhat similar to I-40 going through North Little Rock but also serving Little Rock.
(I must be having a geek-predominant day ............)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 01:42:14 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 14, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
in that case: WTF, does Shreveport really need three two-digit interstates? :bigass:
is 69 gonna serve Shreveport? I thought it was off to the west, following US-59 in Texas.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJHFlRzp.jpg&hash=fc280895ecbb168c375a580b880523b9eab0a025)
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on August 14, 2013, 01:36:28 PM
I say Interstates 39, 41 & 43. Does Wisconsin really need to waste so many 2 digit Interstate odd numbers?
Not Wisconsin's fault. Illinois' fault, and AASHTO's fault.
yellow-on-gray, extremely small, and JPEG compression?
they weren't going for legible, were they.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 02:12:01 PM
yellow-on-gray, extremely small, and JPEG compression?
they weren't going for legible, were they.
I don't know what they were thinking with that map, but yeah, I-69 will
theoretically go through or near Shreveport.
Here's a better map of the I-69 corridors:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farkansascityusa.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2Fi69-usa-map-600h.jpg&hash=6f8ab486496ba9bcfe1ffc6a98e8f5ca8712d0ae)
Or if you want Shreveport labeled:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi-69.dina.org%2Fmapb.jpg&hash=1214c0669af5f3ce7e3db3c374952d0ebc3209ee)
got it. I thought it went US-59 to US-82.
US 84 into Louisiana, and then new terrain pork.
Quote from: NE2 on August 14, 2013, 02:16:58 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 14, 2013, 01:05:11 PM
I am trolling!
Hey, I troll too. Welcome.
I wouldn't call it trolling. I really do have an issue with the western I-86, but I know it is "needed".
Honestly, I don't like I-180 simply because of the diamond interchange with I-80. The traffic signals don't bother me, just the Diamond Interchange.
Having gone to college in Flint, MI, I would have to say I dislike the E-W I-69 East of Lansing. It would be more logical, to me, to be I-98 or I-96. If the latter, replacing I-96 with either a Michigan Trunk Route, like M-5, or another 3DI, like 696.
I-97 and 99 also don't really bother me. I-238 is irksome, perhaps if it was extended to I-5 it could become a 3DI of I-5.
I-69 in Texas not being split properly does bother me a little, as it is currently setup to be I-69, I-69C, and I-69E, it would actually be an improvement to create I-69W.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 14, 2013, 01:58:25 PM
Somewhat similar to I-40 going through North Little Rock but also serving Little Rock.
Bad analogy by me. This map of the I-69 SIU 15 Study Area (http://i69dotd.com/images/StudyArea2.pdf) indicates that I-69 will not go within the city limits of either Bossier City or Shreveport:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7GP0CKP.jpg&hash=1c427f61460daae06ed5a1ef4b4af2336a540927)
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 14, 2013, 02:27:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 14, 2013, 02:16:58 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 14, 2013, 01:05:11 PM
I am trolling!
Hey, I troll too. Welcome.
I wouldn't call it trolling. I really do have an issue with the western I-86, but I know it is "needed".
I really do have an issue with I-45 as it is. It is needed, but I-41 would've been a far better number for an intrastate-interstate than an I-x5.
Quote from: Brandon on August 14, 2013, 02:48:12 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 14, 2013, 02:27:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 14, 2013, 02:16:58 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 14, 2013, 01:05:11 PM
I am trolling!
Hey, I troll too. Welcome.
I wouldn't call it trolling. I really do have an issue with the western I-86, but I know it is "needed".
I really do have an issue with I-45 as it is. It is needed, but I-41 would've been a far better number for an intrastate-interstate than an I-x5.
I-45 is ok, because it serves Houston, the fourth largest city in the U.S. That isn't to say that it shouldn't be extended to Tulsa or further, though.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2013, 09:57:51 AMOnce upon a time I thought the Capital Beltway around DC, which used to be numbered I-95 on the east side and I-495 on the west side (the east side is now dual-signed), ought to be numbered I-95E and I-95W to underscore to out-of-area motorists that yes, they could go either way and still reach their destinations such that there is no need to swerve wildly across five lanes in a panic to make sure you follow the "I-95" side. Back when I was in high school a newspaper columnists was soliciting ideas for making the Beltway less confusing and I sent in that idea, but he didn't print it, probably because I called it the "Final Solution." :-o
Interesting idea.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 14, 2013, 02:46:22 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 14, 2013, 01:58:25 PM
Somewhat similar to I-40 going through North Little Rock but also serving Little Rock.
Bad analogy by me. This map of the I-69 SIU 15 Study Area (http://i69dotd.com/images/StudyArea2.pdf) indicates that I-69 will not go within the city limits of either Bossier City or Shreveport:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7GP0CKP.jpg&hash=1c427f61460daae06ed5a1ef4b4af2336a540927)
Although it will serve the Port of Shreveport, represented by the star on this map. I really like this map for that reason.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 02:12:01 PM
yellow-on-gray, extremely small, and JPEG compression?
they weren't going for legible, were they.
Maybe they were hoping that you would not notice "Lerado":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FR39WU4S.jpg&hash=b3240b8f2767d35082c178c94ac2e2e525c41f64)
Quote from: Grzrd on August 14, 2013, 05:06:32 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 02:12:01 PM
yellow-on-gray, extremely small, and JPEG compression?
they weren't going for legible, were they.
Maybe they were hoping that you would not notice "Lerado":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FR39WU4S.jpg&hash=b3240b8f2767d35082c178c94ac2e2e525c41f64)
On another note, WTF? Are they actually going to turn 840 into an entire outer loop of Nashville?
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 14, 2013, 05:12:46 PM
On another note, WTF? Are they actually going to turn 840 into an entire outer loop of Nashville?
The orange lines don't seem to correspond to only future interstates. Note I-27 connecting to I-20 and US-287 appearing between Amarillo and Fort Worth, some of the Oklahoma turnpikes and US-69/75 showing up, etc. I wonder what the orange lines *are* supposed to represent, other than perhaps "roads the cartographer likes".
Probably "roads the GIS data used included".
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 13, 2013, 08:38:51 PM
I-97 is five times worse than I-99. At least I-99 can theoretically be extended. The DE 1 tollway only to Dover would be far better for an I-97.
Personally, I think there should be an I-101 from Wilmington, DE down to near Savannah, GA.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2013, 06:20:53 PM
I wonder what the orange lines *are* supposed to represent, other than perhaps "roads the cartographer likes".
I'm curious as to what the selection criteria
were. I was thinking NHS routes or at least NHS freeway routes, but neither of those seem to apply.
Just using PA as an example, the map includes the expected Interstates and...
- US 219 and 22 freeways from Somerset to Altoona–but not any of the other 219 or 22 freeway sections...and none of the US 22/322 freeway
- US 15 from the Maryland line to Harrisburg, including the non-freeway section around Dillsburg, but none of the 15 freeway from Williamsport to the New York line
- PA 61 (!) from Frackville to Reading–not a freeway by any stretch of the imagination
And it oddly omits the section of the NE Ext. between Allentown and the Lehigh Tunnel.
Apart from the illogical number (really should be a 3di off of I-76) , my chief complaint about Interstate 99 is this: Why does US 220 still need to be co-signed with it? Now that 99 more or less provides a direct connection between the PA Turnpike and I-80, it seems to me it would make sense to put 220 back on the local roads. For one thing, this would eliminate the countless Business 220 loops along the way. And they could do away with the "ALT 220" (original 220 routing years ago) between Milesburg and State College.
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2013, 07:15:07 PM
Apart from the illogical number (really should be a 3di off of I-76) , my chief complaint about Interstate 99 is this: Why does US 220 still need to be co-signed with it? Now that 99 more or less provides a direct connection between the PA Turnpike and I-80, it seems to me it would make sense to put 220 back on the local roads. For one thing, this would eliminate the countless Business 220 loops along the way. And they could do away with the "ALT 220" (original 220 routing years ago) between Milesburg and State College.
The problem is with an AASHTO rule that says, essentially, "U.S. routes must follow the best routing between two points". This dates back from the 1920s and was meant to avoid someone benefiting from circuitous routings (like auto trail organizations or corrupt politicians). Unfortunately, these days it basically only prevents any US route from being moved off a freeway.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2013, 06:20:53 PMI wonder what the orange lines *are* supposed to represent, other than perhaps "roads the cartographer likes".
NLCOG created the graphic around 2008, although TxDOT later used it in presentations to the Texas legislature. Probably more like "roads the graphic artist thought would fit in well in the background."
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2013, 07:55:56 PM
The problem is with an AASHTO rule that says, essentially, "U.S. routes must follow the best routing between two points". This dates back from the 1920s
Does it? How was US 55 between Dubuque and Davenport (ca. 1932) allowed?
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2013, 07:15:07 PM
...it seems to me it would make sense to put 220 back on the local roads.
I disagree, because even though the two routes overlap from Bedford to Bellefonte (and eventually, to Williamsport as well), they do diverge there, and US 220 serves a different corridor going to Towanda and Sayre. And southward, 220 goes on to Cumberland, MD and further through WV.
If US routes are still supposed to represent viable paths of travel between points and not be merely old-timey curios (like historic 66), I think they should follow a logical course that people would rationally use. If you were driving from Cumberland to Sayre, would you actually exit the freeway at Bedford and drive through 25 mph town streets in Bedford, Altoona, Tyrone, etc.? I don't think so. And in places like Altoona, which aren't exactly tiny towns, the local roads may be overburdened if town motorists had to share the streets with significant volumes of through traffic.
Now if the bypassing freeway doesn't adequately serve a significant community along a corridor–in this case, let's say if Milesburg was an important destination on 220–I think that would be a valid argument for having 220 break off the freeway and continue up the old alignment in Eagle Valley.
And if two routes simply overlap and truly don't serve different corridors, I think that's perfect justification for decommissioning one of the two or at least truncating it to the point of overlap.
The decision was made in the 1950s to use a different route system for Interstates. Thus you follow the U.S. Route if you want to stick to the surface roads. Interstates added to the system later, such as I-99, screw with this expectation.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2013, 07:55:56 PM
The problem is with an AASHTO rule that says, essentially, "U.S. routes must follow the best routing between two points". This dates back from the 1920s and was meant to avoid someone benefiting from circuitous routings (like auto trail organizations or corrupt politicians). Unfortunately, these days it basically only prevents any US route from being moved off a freeway.
explain how US-80 makes a weird jog to go to Phoenix, or US-395 makes an even weirder jog to go halfway to Susanville, CA.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 10:42:12 PM
explain how US-80 makes a weird jog to go to Phoenix, or US-395 makes an even weirder jog to go halfway to Susanville, CA.
These are explainable by those being the better road at the time (and by Phoenix being a major destination). But US 55 was a worse alternate to existing US 61.
And what about US 64 from Morganton to Statesville, NC, moved off US 70 in the 1980s?
I'm just seeing this thread for the first time. Ignoring the numbers and focusing purely on the roadway at hand:
In terms of design standards: I-278, NY. From the Gowanus to the BQE to the Bruckner, I can't think of any section (even for 50 feet) that's actually up to full Interstate standards.
In terms of engineering: I-480, CA. Way to put a double decker freeway in an earthquake-prone area.
In terms of traffic: Let's go back to I-278. Honorable mention to I-95 through NYC, but I-278 is notable in that backups routinely occur pretty much everywhere on the route.
Future/planned: I-69 through TN. I-55 is right there to the west. Just route 69 that way and over I-155. Bam. Done.
In terms of didn't need the number: I-2.
In terms of wasting money: I-93 through Boston
Quote from: Steve on August 15, 2013, 12:18:15 AM
In terms of didn't need the number: I-2.
I would put 97 ahead of 2 in this category.
or, to take "didn't need the number" in various other directions... a lot of the tiny three-digit interstates really don't need to be signed. both I-375s, Florida I-175... all are just glorified off-ramps that should be treated like I-345: an internal reference number, and signed "TO" something or another in either direction.
Quote from: NE2 on August 14, 2013, 11:12:16 PM
But US 55 was a worse alternate to existing US 61.
55, I assume, went where it did for the sole purpose of serving Clinton. There are far better ways they could have planned that, I know, but meh... https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9800.msg230898#msg230898
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2013, 07:15:07 PM
Apart from the illogical number (really should be a 3di off of I-76) , my chief complaint about Interstate 99 is this: Why does US 220 still need to be co-signed with it? Now that 99 more or less provides a direct connection between the PA Turnpike and I-80, it seems to me it would make sense to put 220 back on the local roads. For one thing, this would eliminate the countless Business 220 loops along the way. And they could do away with the "ALT 220" (original 220 routing years ago) between Milesburg and State College.
My thought regarding 220 is that it should be replaced with US 15 above Williamsport, dropped from I-99, replaced with US 221 from Roanoke to Bedford,
PA then renumbered as state routes Roanoke to Rockingham wherever it isn't part of I-73.
Back in the day before I-73 and I-99 came along I used to think US 220 should be extended south to Cheraw SC then replace SC 9 to North Myrtle Beach.
Mapmikey
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on August 14, 2013, 01:36:28 PM
I say Interstates 39, 41 & 43. Does Wisconsin really need to waste so many 2 digit Interstate odd numbers?
I-39 was IL's fault for not allowing I-43 for the US51 corridor (they wanted Madison linked southwards). WI had to do something to have the interstate have a unique section in their state... Oh, and I-43 was due to I-55 or I-57 (which I believe was the number WI and AASHTO/FHWA wanted) being blocked by IL.
And didn't I-41 talks start with extending up from Chicago? And when that was blocked WI consulted on I-41, I-47, I-794 and I-243, with I-41 the clear winner.
I mean, why wouldn't IL force the state to the north to use different 2di numbers so that, one day, it can extend them south in its 2di gluttony fest.
In fact, I'm highly surprised that I-92 for Chicago-Detroit didn't happen, so they could claim another. Or that, more recently, they didn't push for an I-44 extension into IL with the renumbering needed for the St Louis new bridge ;)
---
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 14, 2013, 03:01:00 PMI-45 is ok, because it serves Houston, the fourth largest city in the U.S. That isn't to say that it shouldn't be extended to Tulsa or further, though.
Part of the problem is that the odd US4x routes kinds of puts the squeeze on the I-4x series (really anything odd between I-35 and I-55).
When the interstate system was created, I-45 was the only N-S route between I-35 and I-55. I-37 was added before numbers were final. I-49 in LA was 1970, 12 years later.
Back in the late 50s, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth had only just started their population explosions, but given that both are top 10 urban areas, you can't begrudge I-45 too much.
---
Quite clearly some criteria needs to be set:
1) substandard roadway - at grade junctions, etc
2) poor use of a decent number - short 2dis
3) lack of traffic function - low AADT
4) lack of network purpose - why is it on a national network?
I'm going to say: I-A3.
Not divided for most of it. No reason why it's not part of I-A1 that it meets end-on (esp given that both are AK1), and the tiny town at the southern end is really not that important.
I say H-201. Too many numbers to fit on a shield.
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2013, 07:15:07 PM
Now that 99 more or less provides a direct connection between the PA Turnpike and I-80, it seems to me it would make sense to put 220 back on the local roads. For one thing, this would eliminate the countless Business 220 loops along the way. And they could do away with the "ALT 220" (original 220 routing years ago) between Milesburg and State College.
I've thought that for years.
Maybe I've been a little conditioned to expect something like that. A little further west we have US 19 fairly closely paralleling I-79, which seems just fine.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 15, 2013, 03:02:36 PM
I say H-201. Too many numbers to fit on a shield.
3 is too many?
Quote from: NE2 on August 15, 2013, 05:20:21 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 15, 2013, 03:02:36 PM
I say H-201. Too many numbers to fit on a shield.
3 is too many?
Well, that's a judgement call you'd have to make on your own, but it does appear that way with 4 digits. I'd say just redesignate it as H1A or for those "suffixed-route-sensitive" folks, H4.
If we're talking about numbering, I-238, hands down, for not having a parent 2di.
I-97 is the runner-up of the choices offered here.
If we're talking about a glorified set of ramps, Virginia's I-381 counts for certain.
The first one that came to my mind was I-278.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2013, 12:26:50 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 15, 2013, 12:18:15 AM
In terms of didn't need the number: I-2.
I would put 97 ahead of 2 in this category.
or, to take "didn't need the number" in various other directions... a lot of the tiny three-digit interstates really don't need to be signed. both I-375s, Florida I-175... all are just glorified off-ramps that should be treated like I-345: an internal reference number, and signed "TO" something or another in either direction.
97 needed some sort of Interstate number to get the funding. 2 was already built. The designation does absolutely nothing.
Quote from: ap70621 on August 16, 2013, 12:05:51 AM
The first one that came to my mind was I-278.
Same here, not because I have that much against it myself, but it's a commonly cited candidate for worst Interstate. Surprisingly, though, most of the responses so far have been about worst choice of Interstate
designation, not that the roads themselves are so bad.
I must say that I'm a little surprised by all of the hatred for I-97. Not just here, but all of the "my renumbering proposal" kinds of threads.
I still remember when I first saw I-97 on a map back around '94. I was quite young...still kind of a proto-roadgeek...and this was well before I ever heard of m.t.r. or the MUTCD or any of the things I'd discover in the following years. And I was surprised to see I-97 shields on the map, but at least it fit the grid–and the fact that it was the shortest 2-digit Interstate I had ever seen was intriguing. And in part, I think those kinds of oddities–not out-and-out violations, but oddities–are the kinds of things that got me interested in roadgeeking in the first place. Even now, I'm completely fine with I-97. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not as if a bunch of other Eastern states are begging AASHTO for an Interstate designation, but they can't get one because 97 is already taken.
Contrast that with 99: A lowlife sludge of a politician from Nowheresville handpicks a vanity number for his pork-barrel graft-way... Gets my vote without question. ...if we're talking about numbering, that is.
Quote from: briantroutman on August 16, 2013, 01:44:04 AM
I must say that I'm a little surprised by all of the hatred for I-97. Not just here, but all of the "my renumbering proposal" kinds of threads.
I still remember when I first saw I-97 on a map back around '94. I was quite young...still kind of a proto-roadgeek...and this was well before I ever heard of m.t.r. or the MUTCD or any of the things I'd discover in the following years. And I was surprised to see I-97 shields on the map, but at least it fit the grid–and the fact that it was the shortest 2-digit Interstate I had ever seen was intriguing. And in part, I think those kinds of oddities–not out-and-out violations, but oddities–are the kinds of things that got me interested in roadgeeking in the first place. Even now, I'm completely fine with I-97. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not as if a bunch of other Eastern states are begging AASHTO for an Interstate designation, but they can't get one because 97 is already taken.
I was on a whirlwind weekend trip to DC and somehow ended up out on 50 late at night and came across and I-97 shield while all bleary-eyed. It shocked and confused the hell out of me. I knew there was no major long-distance highway there, so what the hell was this 97 that wasn't on any of my maps? I was baffled and convinced the 24 hours awake had finally taken its toll.
QuoteContrast that with 99: A politician of a politician from Nowheresville handpicks a vanity number for his pork-barrel graft-way... Gets my vote without question. ...if we're talking about numbering, that is.
FTFY (redundant)
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 15, 2013, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 15, 2013, 05:20:21 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 15, 2013, 03:02:36 PM
I say H-201. Too many numbers to fit on a shield.
3 is too many?
Well, that's a judgement call you'd have to make on your own, but it does appear that way with 4 digits. I'd say just redesignate it as H1A or for those "suffixed-route-sensitive" folks, H4.
That's what Hawaii wanted to do in the first place. They wanted to call it I-H1A. AASHTO said no. The state struggled for years trying to figure out how to fit all those digits on a sign. So in the meantime, they signed it as a state highway.
Sometime last decade, they said screw it and started signing it as H201.
I-277 in Akron:
1) Less than 5 miles in length.
2) Does not connect to I-77 on one end, yet can easily be routed & co-signed with the 2 mile stretch of I-76 to do so.
3) I-277 is simply an overlap route on US-224. Simply signing it as US-224 - TO I-77 (or I-76) would serve the same purpose.
4) If ODOT truly wanted to make I-277 a true Akron bypass, co-sign I-277 further west along I-76/US 224 and route it up along the current SR-21 freeway back to I-77.
Guys... H is not a digit...
Although it probably will never be built, I-3 in GA is a prime candidate. Wrong number, wrong place. If anything, it should be used for a potential US 101 freeway upgrade between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2013, 10:25:47 AM
Guys... H is not a digit...
Okay, how about 'character'? Or 'prefix'?
By using the term "digit", I'm pretty sure everyone but you knew what I was talking about.
Quote from: Henry on August 16, 2013, 11:12:04 AM
Although it probably will never be built, I-3 in GA is a prime candidate. Wrong number, wrong place. If anything, it should be used for a potential US 101 freeway upgrade between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
I-3 in Georgia is ridiculous. Sounds to me like another Bud Shuster-type porkway. The numbering itself is asinine, and I don't care about the 3rd Division or whatever it's named after. Here in Wisconsin, we use state highways for that (like WIS 32).
But it will probably never be built anyways, since nobody but a few politicians and businessmen actually want it built. The environmentalists absolutely loathe the idea.
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2013, 10:25:47 AM
Guys... H is not a digit...
I got it after I typed my response. Not only that, I stated too many numbers in lieu too many characters.
Other really terribly designed Interstates, honorable mentions behind I-278:
*I-280, Newark NJ: Takeover of NJ 58, four lanes barely squeezed in, and requires a high-volume weave to stay on the mainline in either direction (Garden State Parkway to Exit 13/unbuilt NJ 75).
*I-93 Boston - HOV Lane in particular. It begins, it ends, there are reversible barriers, stripes, signs, all in all it's a gigantic mess and then turns into way too much pavement near South Station. Obviously it's an afterthought to the whole system, but the engineering itself was an afterthought to the decision to put it in.
*I-495 NJ: Mercifully de-designated (you did say "ever"), this was only applied in the vain hope of connecting it to the actual freeway in NY. The NJ roadway was designed and constructed a lot earlier, has no shoulders, a reversible bus lane separated by only pylons, is impossible to widen thanks to rock walls and the community above, low clearances, choking traffic at all hours of the day, a crumbling helix loop that still hasn't been replaced...
*I-66 DC: The mile or so that you can travel on is a nightmare of entrances and exits on the left and right, with enough overpasses to make signing difficult to see at much more than 35 MPH. So be glad it was never extended as a through road with even more traffic.
There are so many contenders for Interstates that are bad at even being decent roads, but 84 west of I-91 in CT is a bad one. Too much traffic for the two-lane section, too many tight turns, and the sloppy chaos of the Hartford section (unfulfilled interchanges galore that left only more hard turns and countless left exits). Even the eastern New York section is annoying in that it reaches so far north to Newburgh to turn southwest again (yes, I realize and am glad that this avoids disturbing the breathtaking gorge south of Newburgh, but it renders 84 less practical a route).
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 16, 2013, 07:45:06 PM
Even the eastern New York section is annoying in that it reaches so far north to Newburgh to turn southwest again (yes, I realize and am glad that this avoids disturbing the breathtaking gorge south of Newburgh, but it renders 84 less practical a route).
It's doubtful that any mileage would have been saved by going over the Bear Mountain. As it is, I-84 and US 6 are almost exactly the same length between Brewster and Middletown
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2013, 07:49:29 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 16, 2013, 07:45:06 PM
Even the eastern New York section is annoying in that it reaches so far north to Newburgh to turn southwest again (yes, I realize and am glad that this avoids disturbing the breathtaking gorge south of Newburgh, but it renders 84 less practical a route).
It's doubtful that any mileage would have been saved by going over the Bear Mountain. As it is, I-84 and US 6 are almost exactly the same length between Brewster and Middletown
No, 6 is indeed a long way to go as well. I guess in a scenario free of consequences I'd hope for a route that bisects the current paths of 84 and 6. Of course, other than said topography that straight line also contains a whole lot of rich people and military, so it'd be a non-starter anyway.
Quote from: NE2 on August 16, 2013, 10:25:47 AM
Guys... H is not a digit...
So, are you saying that A is not a digit, either? How is it then that AASHTO or some sort of DoT representative allow I-A1, 2, 3 and 4 in Alaska and H1, 2, 3, and 201 in Hawaii? I guess were prefix and suffix sensitive now.
In my case, I think I-90 and 15 are worse in winter time conditions and people don't realize the fact that when you pack snow down on to the roadway with the weight of the car, truck, or whatever, it acts like ice. Or when the dirt and deicing agents mix with snow, sort of what I call a "soup kettle", a.k.a. slush, that is never a good thing. I think most Montanans realize the fact because of how long certain people lived in the state. I've been in Montana long enough to understand that if the roads on I-90 and 15 get that bad in winter, fuck it. I ain't taking a chance at driving there. Heck, if we were to take a poll on worst state highways in regards to extreme weather conditions, MT 200 would take the cake because that cuts through Rogers Pass. I-15 cuts through Monida while 90 cuts by Lookout Pass, and 4th of July Pass on the Idaho side.
Quote from: briantroutman on August 16, 2013, 01:44:04 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not as if a bunch of other Eastern states are begging AASHTO for an Interstate designation, but they can't get one because 97 is already taken.
Actually, all of the north-south 2dis in the east have been used up. Even if Schuster hadn't wanted I-99 because he liked the number, AASHTO would have had no other choice in designating the road because it was the only number available (don't forget, it's supposed to extend to Corning, so a 3di wouldn't work here).
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2013, 07:55:56 PM
The problem is with an AASHTO rule that says, essentially, "U.S. routes must follow the best routing between two points". This dates back from the 1920s and was meant to avoid someone benefiting from circuitous routings (like auto trail organizations or corrupt politicians). Unfortunately, these days it basically only prevents any US route from being moved off a freeway.
It seems that this rule is from 1937: http://www.gbcnet.com/ushighways/history/new_signing_policy_on_us_routes.pdf
QuoteNo additional road shall be added to the U.S. numbered road system, and no existing U.S. road shall be extended except where there is a definite showing of an adequately improved highway carrying an established and necessary line of interstate traffic not otherwise provided for by existing U.S. routes and for which traffic adequate service cannot be provided by State route numbers.
I still say that the decision to use a separate numbering for Interstates changed the dynamic, and that Interstates should be ignored when applying the rule. This usually only comes up when a new Interstate number not in the original plans is added.
I just remembered another fairly recent change that goes against this rule: US 41 between Jasper and Monteagle, TN. US 41 was moved off I-24 in about 1980 onto a parallel route that had never been a U.S. Highway.
Quote from: Janko Dialnice on August 14, 2013, 01:44:17 PM
I voted "Other", since I didn't see Vermont's I-189 on the list. It has no interchanges, not up to a full freeway in part, and is way too short. It's nothing more than a glorified set of ramps.
What part of it is not freeway standard? You're not talking about the crossover are you?
Quote from: Janko Dialnice on August 14, 2013, 01:44:17 PM
I voted "Other", since I didn't see Vermont's I-189 on the list. It has no interchanges, not up to a full freeway in part, and is way too short. It's nothing more than a glorified set of ramps.
Sounds similar to Detroit's I-375, less than 1 mile long, one off ramp South, one on ramp North, and ends at a traffic light.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 16, 2013, 09:43:30 PM
So, are you saying that A is not a digit, either? How is it then that AASHTO or some sort of DoT representative allow I-A1, 2, 3 and 4 in Alaska and H1, 2, 3, and 201 in Hawaii? I guess were prefix and suffix sensitive now.
I once had a theory was that since their "interstates were never going to be connected to the main Interstate (I- ) system, they were given a different letter prefix and considered to be separate H- and A- systems. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case, but those pesky H's and A's would've made more sense if it had.
As for I-H201: I don't see why it couldn't have just been I-H4. After all, I-H2 and I-H3 are so short they could've just been 3di spurs of I-H1, but they were given their own numbers. I-H201 should've gotten the same treatment.
Quote from: xonhulu on August 19, 2013, 09:16:55 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 16, 2013, 09:43:30 PM
So, are you saying that A is not a digit, either? How is it then that AASHTO or some sort of DoT representative allow I-A1, 2, 3 and 4 in Alaska and H1, 2, 3, and 201 in Hawaii? I guess were prefix and suffix sensitive now.
I once had a theory was that since their "interstates were never going to be connected to the main Interstate (I- ) system, they were given a different letter prefix and considered to be separate H- and A- systems. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case, but those pesky H's and A's would've made more sense if it had.
As for I-H201: I don't see why it couldn't have just been I-H4. After all, I-H2 and I-H3 are so short they could've just been 3di spurs of I-H1, but they were given their own numbers. I-H201 should've gotten the same treatment.
I believe I read somewhere that they wanted to emphasize that H-201 was an alternate to H-1, rather than a separate route connecting a different place.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 20, 2013, 08:46:32 AM
I believe I read somewhere that they wanted to emphasize that H-201 was an alternate to H-1, rather than a separate route connecting a different place.
I thought of that, too.
There is another radical solution to the 4 characters on a shield problem: why not just leave off the H's? Even with I-2 existing in Texas, no one's going to confuse that with a Hawaiian I-2, just like no one has trouble with the dual branches of I-76, I-84, I-86, and I-88. Same with any future I-1 or I-3 on the mainland.
If there's really a need to differentiate the Hawaii interstates from their mainland counterparts, then go back to my original notion that they comprise a separate system, and modify the shields like so:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2F8bdce8d5-b5ae-41f5-9a44-44196c872d1e_zpsb0df91c0.jpg%3Ft%3D1377020174&hash=26b47ffde78fb2dfc48f2dfbe59dddadc8d9d33d) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2Fhawaii__201_zpsfb35655d.png&hash=3515fe7452db997629dc52fcd7eed9bea903ed98)
The same could be done for Alaska if they want to sign their interstate-quality freeways with red-and-blues.
Anyway, just a thought. I actually kind of like the H's on those freeways, even with the absurdity of having 4 characters on the H201 shields. It's the oddballs that make the network interesting.
Quote from: xonhulu on August 20, 2013, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 20, 2013, 08:46:32 AM
I believe I read somewhere that they wanted to emphasize that H-201 was an alternate to H-1, rather than a separate route connecting a different place.
I thought of that, too.
There is another radical solution to the 4 characters on a shield problem: why not just leave off the H's? Even with I-2 existing in Texas, no one's going to confuse that with a Hawaiian I-2, just like no one has trouble with the dual branches of I-76, I-84, I-86, and I-88. Same with any future I-1 or I-3 on the mainland.
If there's really a need to differentiate the Hawaii interstates from their mainland counterparts, then go back to my original notion that they comprise a separate system, and modify the shields like so:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2F8bdce8d5-b5ae-41f5-9a44-44196c872d1e_zpsb0df91c0.jpg%3Ft%3D1377020174&hash=26b47ffde78fb2dfc48f2dfbe59dddadc8d9d33d) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2Fhawaii__201_zpsfb35655d.png&hash=3515fe7452db997629dc52fcd7eed9bea903ed98)
The same could be done for Alaska if they want to sign their interstate-quality freeways with red-and-blues.
Anyway, just a thought. I actually kind of like the H's on those freeways, even with the absurdity of having 4 characters on the H201 shields. It's the oddballs that make the network interesting.
My quibble is with that spec, there has to be something where the state name would normally go, otherwise it simply doesn't look right.
larger numbers.
use 10" on the 24" blank instead of 8" and that slightly awkward gap goes away.
Or, instead of using HAWAII in place of INTERSTATE, go back to using state-named shields. :sombrero:
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 20, 2013, 01:53:15 PM
My quibble is with that spec, there has to be something where the state name would normally go, otherwise it simply doesn't look right.
Depending on where one lives, one could respond, "What do you mean? There's no state name on an Interstate shield." :-D
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 20, 2013, 01:53:15 PM
My quibble is with that spec, there has to be something where the state name would normally go, otherwise it simply doesn't look right.
I would've moved the numbers up and/or made them bigger to fill that space, but the shield generator didn't have that feature and I didn't feel like spending forever modifying the pic. The point was to substitute "Hawaii" for "Interstate" to denote that it's part of the Hawaii "interstate" system, not the mainland Interstate system. And even I realize that's probably a lot of bother just to eliminate the H.
Too bad there's no non-Latin Hawaiian orthography, or you could put the native name written in such in one of the spaces.
Or, alternatively, if any Hawaiian interstates are built on other islands, you could put the island name where the state name is supposed to go.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Put Oahu above the number.
Quote from: xonhulu on August 20, 2013, 02:46:32 PM
the shield generator didn't have that feature
try "layouts" -> "interstate shields" -> "1961 generic".
it's not quite correct... the real 1961 generic has a slightly smaller red crown, but it's close enough and I'm too lazy to change it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2013, 03:20:40 PM
try "layouts" -> "interstate shields" -> "1961 generic".
it's not quite correct... the real 1961 generic has a slightly smaller red crown, but it's close enough and I'm too lazy to change it.
Thanks for the tip, but I'm also too lazy to try it.
When I saw Interstate 180 in the poll, I assumed what they meant was the I-180 in Illinois. That's a pointless interstate, at least now.
That double meaning is exactly why I voted for I-180.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 16, 2013, 08:54:46 AM
I-277 in Akron:
1) Less than 5 miles in length.
2) Does not connect to I-77 on one end, yet can easily be routed & co-signed with the 2 mile stretch of I-76 to do so.
3) I-277 is simply an overlap route on US-224. Simply signing it as US-224 - TO I-77 (or I-76) would serve the same purpose.
4) If ODOT truly wanted to make I-277 a true Akron bypass, co-sign I-277 further west along I-76/US 224 and route it up along the current SR-21 freeway back to I-77.
Or even better: Route I-277 to SR 21. It would serve much better as a by-pass of Akron and Canton.
If you live in Orlando, FL you would be saying that I-4 is the worst interstate trafficwise!
Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2013, 10:17:17 PM
Actually, all of the north-south 2dis in the east have been used up. Even if Schuster hadn't wanted I-99 because he liked the number, AASHTO would have had no other choice in designating the road because it was the only number available (don't forget, it's supposed to extend to Corning, so a 3di wouldn't work here).
That could be open for debate. The current I-99 plus the extension to Corning could be a combination of two or three 3-dis (example: 270/280/186) or another case to warrant a suffixed 2di (79W or 81E).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 26, 2013, 11:49:44 AM
The current I-99 plus the extension to Corning could be a combination of two or three 3-dis
I strongly favor one number in any case of a continuous route. If anything, 99 could be a 3di from Cumberland to Williamsport, and 83 could be extended up U.S. 15, take over I-180, the rest of planned 99, and I-390.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 26, 2013, 10:43:14 AM
If you live in Orlando, FL you would be saying that I-4 is the worst interstate trafficwise!
Not southwest of downtown, it's not...
What, no love (hate) for I-878? It runs in only one direction, it's .7 miles long, and it's not signed as an Interstate. I think it might really be the worst.
Quote from: DandyDan on August 24, 2013, 07:22:59 AM
When I saw Interstate 180 in the poll, I assumed what they meant was the I-180 in Illinois. That's a pointless interstate, at least now.
Me too. I guess they are all bunched together.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 26, 2013, 01:08:27 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 26, 2013, 11:49:44 AM
The current I-99 plus the extension to Corning could be a combination of two or three 3-dis
I strongly favor one number in any case of a continuous route. If anything, 99 could be a 3di from Cumberland to Williamsport, and 83 could be extended up U.S. 15, take over I-180, the rest of planned 99, and I-390.
I don't actually think of "original" I-99 (the US 220 corridor) as being particularly related to its northward extension (the US 15/NY 15 corridor). I-83 makes better sense, as the US 15 route continues down along the Susquehanna, even though of course that's not all freeway right now. If there weren't already a precedent of unrelated pairs of 2dis, I wouldn't object to having a northern and a southern I-83, with non-freeway US 15 in between, showing the relationship between the 83s.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 26, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
What, no love (hate) for I-878? It runs in only one direction, it's .7 miles long, and it's not signed as an Interstate. I think it might really be the worst.
it's not signed, so I'm okay with it. the various I-375s need to go the same way.
Quote from: empirestate on August 26, 2013, 05:36:35 PM
If there weren't already a precedent of unrelated pairs of 2dis, I wouldn't object to having a northern and a southern I-83, with non-freeway US 15 in between, showing the relationship between the 83s.
Given that New York is pretty close to getting it's stretch of future I-99 done, it's possible we could see that split situation with I-99 for who knows how long, since a couple of stretches of US-220 north of I-80 (and the I-80 interchanges) seem to be in a permanent funding limbo.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 26, 2013, 06:18:37 PM
Quote from: empirestate on August 26, 2013, 05:36:35 PM
If there weren't already a precedent of unrelated pairs of 2dis, I wouldn't object to having a northern and a southern I-83, with non-freeway US 15 in between, showing the relationship between the 83s.
Given that New York is pretty close to getting it's stretch of future I-99 done, it's possible we could see that split situation with I-99 for who knows how long, since a couple of stretches of US-220 north of I-80 (and the I-80 interchanges) seem to be in a permanent funding limbo.
Just one problem with that: PennDOT screwed up and US 15 north of Williamsport isn't actually up to interstate standards (or so I've heard from someone who works for NYSDOT).
Quote from: vdeane on August 26, 2013, 09:36:38 PM
Just one problem with that: PennDOT screwed up and US 15 north of Williamsport isn't actually up to interstate standards (or so I've heard from someone who works for NYSDOT).
If you're talking about the recent rebuilding on the long grade, there'd probably be an exemption due to terrain.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 26, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
What, no love (hate) for I-878? It runs in only one direction, it's .7 miles long, and it's not signed as an Interstate. I think it might really be the worst.
You know i have honestly wondered why there hasn't been a aashto resolution or some sort of definition that would not allow an interstate designation for a 2di interstate to be shorter than lets say 50 miles or a 3di shorter than 2 miles. any interstates thatviolate these routes would have to be renumbered or decommissioned. It seems that any old connector can be assigned an interstate number and it doesnt even matter if its just a long offramp (ie I-190 in Butte MT and the unsigned I-115 in Great Falls MT. also some other examples are in St Pete FL (I-175 and I-375) and Miami (I-395) as well. this would also get rid of that nasty I-180 in Cheyenne as well.
Quote from: NE2 on August 26, 2013, 09:39:53 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 26, 2013, 09:36:38 PM
Just one problem with that: PennDOT screwed up and US 15 north of Williamsport isn't actually up to interstate standards (or so I've heard from someone who works for NYSDOT).
If you're talking about the recent rebuilding on the long grade, there'd probably be an exemption due to terrain.
Really? I haven't heard about that. Is it a more recent project done wrong, or one of the older ones.
If it's one of the more recent stretches, I could also see getting an exemption. I wonder who, and how, someone dropped the ball on that one.
I didn't think to ask which project at the time. I believe it was for something that PennDOT wanted an exemption for but didn't actually wait for it to be approved only to run into a skeptical AASHTO.
Quote from: Indyroads on August 27, 2013, 04:57:33 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 26, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
What, no love (hate) for I-878? It runs in only one direction, it's .7 miles long, and it's not signed as an Interstate. I think it might really be the worst.
You know i have honestly wondered why there hasn't been a aashto resolution or some sort of definition that would not allow an interstate designation for a 2di interstate to be shorter than lets say 50 miles or a 3di shorter than 2 miles. any interstates thatviolate these routes would have to be renumbered or decommissioned. It seems that any old connector can be assigned an interstate number and it doesnt even matter if its just a long offramp (ie I-190 in Butte MT and the unsigned I-115 in Great Falls MT. also some other examples are in St Pete FL (I-175 and I-375) and Miami (I-395) as well. this would also get rid of that nasty I-180 in Cheyenne as well.
This doesn't apply to extremes like 878, but I think there is so much politics involved that very few interested parties near the Interstate brand will let tht proximity go without a fight.
Quote from: Indyroads on August 27, 2013, 04:57:33 PMYou know i have honestly wondered why there hasn't been a aashto resolution or some sort of definition that would not allow an interstate designation for a 2di interstate to be shorter than lets say 50 miles or a 3di shorter than 2 miles. any interstates thatviolate these routes would have to be renumbered or decommissioned. It seems that any old connector can be assigned an interstate number and it doesnt even matter if its just a long offramp (ie I-115 in Butte MT and the unsigned I-315 in Great Falls MT. also some other examples are in St Pete FL (I-175 and I-375) and Miami (I-395) as well. this would also get rid of that nasty I-180 in Cheyenne as well.
FTFY.
I think the worst interstate ever is that NC mess of 73 and 74.
I would say that 73 has a purpose. 74 is (with the plans to connect it to the Ohio - Iowa 74 basically dead) a needless parallel route that spends most of its time multiplexed with another route. The routing between 95 and Myrtle Beach is equally insane, and should really be rerouted to Wilmington via US 74/76.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 09, 1970, 03:36:39 AM
Yes I am aware that the western I-86 is a part of the big picture. I am looking to stir the pot!!
I've always thought I-86 should have been a 3di, considering its short length and the fact that it's a duplicate number. I go with I-238 for the worst number because it's not even a valid Interstate number (no I-38!), 480 has been an available number for the past 20 years, and it wasn't vital to get an Interstate shield slapped on it in the first place.
Quote from: 31E on August 30, 2013, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 09, 1970, 03:36:39 AM
Yes I am aware that the western I-86 is a part of the big picture. I am looking to stir the pot!!
I've always thought I-86 should have been a 3di, considering its short length and the fact that it's a duplicate number. I go with I-238 for the worst number because it's not even a valid Interstate number (no I-38!), 480 has been an available number for the past 20 years, and it wasn't vital to get an Interstate shield slapped on it in the first place.
My personal thought about that is that when they decided to eliminate I-80N, they should have fixed up all the interstates in the northwest US. I would have made I-84 east of Declo, ID I-82, I-84 west of Declo and I-86 the new I-84 and I-82 in WA and OR I-86 or I-88 (whichever they wanted).
Quote from: DandyDan on August 31, 2013, 05:14:20 AM
My personal thought about that is that when they decided to eliminate I-80N, they should have fixed up all the interstates in the northwest US. I would have made I-84 east of Declo, ID I-82, I-84 west of Declo and I-86 the new I-84 and I-82 in WA and OR I-86 or I-88 (whichever they wanted).
Actually, given that I-82 is largely a North-South route, it should be I-7, 9, or 11. I would prefer 9, then renumber US 395 as I-11 all the way to the border. This would also imply a future extension South through Eastern Oregon, perhaps to Bend, but more likely Reno.
I would have done something completely different with the elimination of I-80N. I would have run 80 to Portland (as it largely follows US 30 anyway), run a number in the 70's from SLC to SFB, or 70 its self, then replaced 70 with 60. The grid would be much better off with that adjustment, and a major port city on the West Coast would get a x0 number, like it should.
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 31, 2013, 10:28:59 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on August 31, 2013, 05:14:20 AM
My personal thought about that is that when they decided to eliminate I-80N, they should have fixed up all the interstates in the northwest US. I would have made I-84 east of Declo, ID I-82, I-84 west of Declo and I-86 the new I-84 and I-82 in WA and OR I-86 or I-88 (whichever they wanted).
Actually, given that I-82 is largely a North-South route, it should be I-7, 9, or 11. I would prefer 9, then renumber US 395 as I-11 all the way to the border. This would also imply a future extension South through Eastern Oregon, perhaps to Bend, but more likely Reno.
I-82 is N-S along its length, but it functions as a segment of E-W trips for most of the traffic on it, Seattle-Salt Lake City and points east. I'm not concerned that it has an even number. However, it's a short enough route that it would make a good 3di off of either I-84 or I-90.
Quote
I would have done something completely different with the elimination of I-80N. I would have run 80 to Portland (as it largely follows US 30 anyway), run a number in the 70's from SLC to SFB, or 70 its self, then replaced 70 with 60. The grid would be much better off with that adjustment, and a major port city on the West Coast would get a x0 number, like it should.
I'm not sure why they didn't use I-70 for the Salt Lake City-Donner Pass-San Francisco route. In 1964, US-70 was being removed from California because it was concurrent with US-60 and US-99 in California, and former Alt US-40 over Beckwourth Pass was changed to CA-70. So why didn't they use some other number for Beckwourth Pass and use I-70 for Donner Pass?
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 31, 2013, 10:28:59 AM
I would have done something completely different with the elimination of I-80N. I would have run 80 to Portland (as it largely follows US 30 anyway), run a number in the 70's from SLC to SFB, or 70 its self, then replaced 70 with 60. The grid would be much better off with that adjustment, and a major port city on the West Coast would get a x0 number, like it should.
Agreed that San Francisco is too far south to have I-80 going to it, and that I-84 looks a lot more like what I-80 should be. Ideally, SF should have I-50 ending at it, but if you don't like the US 50 conflict, then I-60 would work, and if you still think we should avoid both of those Interstate numbers, then that brings you to I-70. (Or I-40, but it's a decidedly Southern Interstate, and SF is decidedly not a Southern city.)
I-70 would need to overlap I-25 to reach Frisco. (No, they're not going to build a redundant freeway in Utah to make the numbering marginally better.)
Quote from: NE2 on August 31, 2013, 08:20:37 PM
I-70 would need to overlap I-25 to reach Frisco. (No, they're not going to build a redundant freeway in Utah to make the numbering marginally better.)
Yes, the smartest alternative would be to route 70 up I-270 and 25 to Cheyenne, then across on 80. 76 can take over the rest of 70; the little blip of I-70 in Denver near where they would cross could be I-276.
You have to admit, though, putting an interstate on the U.S. 6 corridor in Utah is a hell of a lot smarter than putting one on U.S. 50 across Nevada.
Looking at it again, the alternatives to the current numbering all have serious problems. There's only four E-W interstates that cross the intermountain west, I-10, I-40, I-80, and I-90. There's no need for more. I-84 only goes 1/4 of the way across the country, and thus shouldn't have an I-x0 interstate number. Also, Portland is a river port, not a sea port, and a good deal smaller metro area than L.A., S.F., or even Seattle. The midwest and east coast have many more interstates, and the current interstate numbering works better there because there's no need for E-W routes across Lake Michigan or much north of Massachusetts.
Personally, I'd change 84 to 82, 82 to 9, and 86 to 282.
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2013, 01:37:18 AM
I-84 only goes 1/4 of the way across the country, and thus shouldn't have an I-x0 interstate number.
See: I-30
Quote from: vdeane on September 01, 2013, 10:23:21 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2013, 01:37:18 AM
I-84 only goes 1/4 of the way across the country, and thus shouldn't have an I-x0 interstate number.
See: I-30
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Overlapping I-25 to reach I-80 would be silly. The route would be duplexed with I-80 across the Rockies, Wyoming, and part of Utah before they split again. Yes, the I-90/94 duplex is as long, but see paragraph 1.
Besides, most traffic from the midwest and east coast would take I-29 from Kansas City to Nebraska City, then NE-2 to I-80 at Lincoln.
To fix I-84 to Portland in a way that improved the grid as a whole and reflected routes people wanted to take, you'd have to make sweeping changes to existing I-70, 80, and 90. Not worth it just because Portland would like their E-W route to end in 0. Heck, Philadelphia is much bigger than Portland, and its E-W interstate doesn't end in 0...
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2013, 01:49:56 PM
Overlapping I-25 to reach I-80 would be silly. The route would be duplexed with I-80 across the Rockies, Wyoming, and part of Utah before they split again. Yes, the I-90/94 duplex is as long, but see paragraph 1.
Besides, most traffic from the midwest and east coast would take I-29 from Kansas City to Nebraska City, then NE-2 to I-80 at Lincoln.
To fix I-84 to Portland in a way that improved the grid as a whole and reflected routes people wanted to take, you'd have to make sweeping changes to existing I-70, 80, and 90. Not worth it just because Portland would like their E-W route to end in 0. Heck, Philadelphia is much bigger than Portland, and its E-W interstate doesn't end in 0...
Agreed on two counts: 1) The solution, if undertaken in real life, would be at least as silly as the problem. 2) Definitely not worth it if actually carried out. Worth it, though, in hypothetical exercise land.
What's set is set; we should be able to dream about what could've happened, though. Western I-84, eastern I-76, I-64, and I-8 absolutely should have been part of larger x0s in my book, in the same sense as I-30 in it's current form should have been I-32 (DFW and Little Rock already have x0s). But today, renumbering that many miles of road simply isn't worth it.
Quote from: Indyroads on August 27, 2013, 04:57:33 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 26, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
What, no love (hate) for I-878? It runs in only one direction, it's .7 miles long, and it's not signed as an Interstate. I think it might really be the worst.
You know i have honestly wondered why there hasn't been a aashto resolution or some sort of definition that would not allow an interstate designation for a 2di interstate to be shorter than lets say 50 miles or a 3di shorter than 2 miles. any interstates thatviolate these routes would have to be renumbered or decommissioned. It seems that any old connector can be assigned an interstate number and it doesnt even matter if its just a long offramp (ie I-190 in Butte MT and the unsigned I-115 in Great Falls MT. also some other examples are in St Pete FL (I-175 and I-375) and Miami (I-395) as well. this would also get rid of that nasty I-180 in Cheyenne as well.
The unsigned spur in Great Falls, MT is I-315, and believe it or not, it has its own standalone interchange: Exit 0 (14th St SW). The road is signed as Business Loop I-15, U.S. 89, Montana 3, and Montana 200.
I-115 is signed (along with Business Loop I-15 and Business Loop I-90) on its short route into Butte, MT. It has one interchange (Exit 1, with Excelsior Avenue).
Regards,
Andy
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on September 01, 2013, 08:54:48 PM
Quote from: Indyroads on August 27, 2013, 04:57:33 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 26, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
What, no love (hate) for I-878? It runs in only one direction, it's .7 miles long, and it's not signed as an Interstate. I think it might really be the worst.
You know i have honestly wondered why there hasn't been a aashto resolution or some sort of definition that would not allow an interstate designation for a 2di interstate to be shorter than lets say 50 miles or a 3di shorter than 2 miles. any interstates thatviolate these routes would have to be renumbered or decommissioned. It seems that any old connector can be assigned an interstate number and it doesnt even matter if its just a long offramp (ie I-190 in Butte MT and the unsigned I-115 in Great Falls MT. also some other examples are in St Pete FL (I-175 and I-375) and Miami (I-395) as well. this would also get rid of that nasty I-180 in Cheyenne as well.
The unsigned spur in Great Falls, MT is I-315, and believe it or not, it has its own standalone interchange: Exit 0 (14th St SW). The road is signed as Business Loop I-15, U.S. 89, Montana 3, and Montana 200.
I-115 is signed (along with Business Loop I-15 and Business Loop I-90) on its short route into Butte, MT. It has one interchange (Exit 1, with Excelsior Avenue).
Regards,
Andy
Regards,
Andy
You are absolutely right about that, not sure why I didnt double check that before I posted it. I still think that these very short "glorified offramp systems that are marked as 3di's dont really serve that much of a purpose. It I-115 in Butte actually ran to and connected to the city center, that would make it more warrant the I-115 designation.
Maybe for some of these very short spurs, there should be a invisible 4 digit interstate designation, to mark them as qualifying for interstate funds. However a 1 mile Interstate 115 connecting to a surface street doesnt make sense. IT would be better to just leave it signed as Business Loop 15/90.
For Miami... The Interstate 395 designation would be more impactful if they were to remove tolls from FL-836 and renumber it as I-395 for it's entire length, However that is likely never going to happen. Tolls are well established in this region. For route continuity it should just be signed as FL-836 for its entire length, and the interstate portion given a hidden interstate designation (such as I-1395) for funding purposes.
Also I have wondered why I-595 hasn't been replaced by I-75. I-75 currently unceremoniously ends at a junction with the FL turnpike extension, It would be more fitting to have it routed to a terminus at I-95 instead. The former I-75 could become I-575.
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2013, 01:37:18 AM
Looking at it again, the alternatives to the current numbering all have serious problems. There's only four E-W interstates that cross the intermountain west, I-10, I-40, I-80, and I-90. There's no need for more. I-84 only goes 1/4 of the way across the country, and thus shouldn't have an I-x0 interstate number. Also, Portland is a river port, not a sea port, and a good deal smaller metro area than L.A., S.F., or even Seattle. The midwest and east coast have many more interstates, and the current interstate numbering works better there because there's no need for E-W routes across Lake Michigan or much north of Massachusetts.
Actually, this is why I would want to see the "new" I-80 extended to Astoria, as there is a real need for a safe roadway to the Oregon Coast. An alternative would be to route it towards Lincoln City instead of Astoria.
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 11, 2013, 04:48:51 PM
Actually, this is why I would want to see the "new" I-80 extended to Astoria, as there is a real need for a safe roadway to the Oregon Coast. An alternative would be to route it towards Lincoln City instead of Astoria.
Given current traffic levels on US 26 to Astoria and OR 99W/OR 18 to Lincoln City, the need would be greater to Lincoln City. In fact, ODOT is breaking ground on the Newberg-Dundee Bypass right now, and has long range plans to 4-lane much of OR 18, though not necessarily to interstate standards. But I don't know of any planned improvements on US 26 outside of the metro region.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
If we're talking about a glorified set of ramps, Virginia's I-381 counts for certain.
Maryland's I-395 deserves (dis)honorable mention in the glorified set of ramps department.
Quote from: xonhulu on October 11, 2013, 07:25:52 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 11, 2013, 04:48:51 PM
Actually, this is why I would want to see the "new" I-80 extended to Astoria, as there is a real need for a safe roadway to the Oregon Coast. An alternative would be to route it towards Lincoln City instead of Astoria.
Given current traffic levels on US 26 to Astoria and OR 99W/OR 18 to Lincoln City, the need would be greater to Lincoln City. In fact, ODOT is breaking ground on the Newberg-Dundee Bypass right now, and has long range plans to 4-lane much of OR 18, though not necessarily to interstate standards. But I don't know of any planned improvements on US 26 outside of the metro region.
The traffic levels justify 4 lanes, but there are an awful lot of driveways on the route and I don't really see them acquiring right of way for a parallel freeway. It would look nice on the map, but I don't really see the need for an interstate for the foreseeable future.
My award for the future worst interstate may go to the proposed extension of I-85 west of Montgomery. The route is supposed to connect Montgomery with I-20/59 just east of the Mississippi border. It's bad enough that the last 20 or so miles of the route leading from Auburn and Tuskegee travel east-west, while I-85 is signed as a north-south route, but if 85 is extended towards the state line, one would be looking at another +/- 130 miles of I-85 travelling east-west. Furthermore, in order for the proposed route to connect with the only quasi-major town along the route, Selma, South (West) I-85 would have to travel in a northwesterly direction.
https://www.google.com/maps/preview?ie=UTF-8&hl=en#!data=!4m18!3m17!1m5!1sMontgomery%2C+AL!2s0x888e8194b0d481f9%3A0x8e1b511d354285ff!3m2!3d32.3668052!4d-86.2999689!1m1!1sCuba%2C+AL!3m8!1m3!1d1437540!2d-86.2382789!3d33.617955!3m2!1i1152!2i649!4f13.1&fid=0
Quote from: Charles2 on October 15, 2013, 11:17:04 PM
My award for the future worst interstate may go to the proposed extension of I-85 west of Montgomery. The route is supposed to connect Montgomery with I-20/59 just east of the Mississippi border. It's bad enough that the last 20 or so miles of the route leading from Auburn and Tuskegee travel east-west, while I-85 is signed as a north-south route, but if 85 is extended towards the state line, one would be looking at another +/- 130 miles of I-85 travelling east-west. Furthermore, in order for the proposed route to connect with the only quasi-major town along the route, Selma, South (West) I-85 would have to travel in a northwesterly direction.
https://www.google.com/maps/preview?ie=UTF-8&hl=en#!data=!4m18!3m17!1m5!1sMontgomery%2C+AL!2s0x888e8194b0d481f9%3A0x8e1b511d354285ff!3m2!3d32.3668052!4d-86.2999689!1m1!1sCuba%2C+AL!3m8!1m3!1d1437540!2d-86.2382789!3d33.617955!3m2!1i1152!2i649!4f13.1&fid=0
When/if this is completed, why not sign it as I-20 and either truncate I-85 to Atlanta or have it follow I-185 to Columbus, GA and maybe Tallahassee, FL? The current I-20 from Birmingham to Atlanta would be an extension of I-22.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 16, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
When/if this is completed, why not sign it as I-20 and either truncate I-85 to Atlanta or have it follow I-185 to Columbus, GA and maybe Tallahassee, FL? The current I-20 from Birmingham to Atlanta would be an extension of I-22.
I like that idea (the version with 85 ending in Atlanta.) Eliminates the 59/20 multiplex, gives 22 a little more beef, and would fix the 85/75 grid problem. Of course you'd also have to renumber I-185 to I-X20.
Quote from: Buck87 on October 16, 2013, 03:26:31 PM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 16, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
When/if this is completed, why not sign it as I-20 and either truncate I-85 to Atlanta or have it follow I-185 to Columbus, GA and maybe Tallahassee, FL? The current I-20 from Birmingham to Atlanta would be an extension of I-22.
I like that idea (the version with 85 ending in Atlanta.) Eliminates the 59/20 multiplex, gives 22 a little more beef, and would fix the 85/75 grid problem. Of course you'd also have to renumber I-185 to I-X20.
Plus, if I-20 were to be rerouted onto the southeast quadrant of I-285, that may take some pressure off of downtown Atlanta (although that might be a wash with the I-22 extension.)
No. Axe 22 and extend 30. There's only an hour time difference (less if you want to extend I-269).
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 16, 2013, 03:36:21 PM
No. Axe 22 and extend 30. There's only an hour time difference (less if you want to extend I-269).
Extending I-30 would give it one of the most bizarre trajectories of any Interstate route: NE-SW from Dallas to Little Rock, E-W from Little Rock to Memphis, then SE-NW from Memphis to Birmingham. Plus, while you would eliminate at 160-ish mile concurrency of I-20 & I-59 from Meridian to Birmingham, you would instead have a 150-ish mile concurrency of I-30 & I-40 from North Little Rock to West Memphis, then a triplexed concurrency of I-30, I-55 & I-69 through parts of Memphis, Southaven and beyond.
Agreed, extending I-30 would make it zig-zag from Birmingham to Dallas. And while extending the I-30 wouldn't make sense from a cross country perspective. Going from Atlanta to Dallas, it would be quicker to use the extended I-85 (or I-20, if rerouted) to bypass Birmingham, Memphis and Little Rock.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2013, 10:27:09 AM
And while extending the I-30 wouldn't make sense from a cross country perspective.
see: I-94
I had a feeling I-94 would come up, and the difference between I-94 and an extended I-30 is that I-94 has to go around Lake Michigan.
I-94 also covers a little over 1,500, nearly twice that of I-30's estimated 800 miles if it went from Atlanta to Dallas. Also, I-94 spends an estimated 143.4 miles multiplexed with any given Interstate (I-39, 43, 80 and 90). I-30 would spend roughly 142 miles multiplexed with Interstate 40, 55, and 240.
I-22 and I-30 work well as seperate highways.
Between Montana and Wisconsin, I-94 is shorter than I-90 and serves a much more major met area in MSP - other than the availability of lots of even I-9x and scarcity of even I-8x, there's no explanation for why it isn't I-90.
Oh, wait, you mean the Chicago dip - yes it should just end in Milwaukee (or take the ferry and I-96's route to Detroit).
It was even worse in the '58 plan where it went MSP - Milwaukee - Chicago - Grand Rapids - Detroit!
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2013, 05:49:55 PM
I had a feeling I-94 would come up, and the difference between I-94 and an extended I-30 is that I-94 has to go around Lake Michigan.
So? I-92 is available west of Milwaukee, and I-94 is seen as the more urban alternate to I-90 between Tomah and Billings (pay NO attention to google maps; I-90 is almost always the faster way for construction and traffic reasons).
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2013, 05:49:55 PM
I-94 also covers a little over 1,500, nearly twice that of I-30's estimated 800 miles if it went from Atlanta to Dallas.
Who cares?
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2013, 05:49:55 PM
Also, I-94 spends an estimated 143.4 miles multiplexed with any given Interstate (I-39, 43, 80 and 90). I-30 would spend roughly 142 miles multiplexed with Interstate 40, 55, and 240.
1. I-94 will have more with I-41.
2. It replaces I-59's problem of being multiplexed 1/3 of it's length with I-30 being multiplexed for less than 1/4 of it's length.
Also, if I may point out, if it's I-30 then Birmingham won't have to lose an x0.
I-30 would better serve as a diagonal route traveling northeast to meet I-57, or somewhere near there. Sure it crosses the grid, but the precedent has already been established by several other Interstates. This gives Dallas and Chicago a near direct route.
Even if I-20 were rerouted away from Birmingham, that city still has 3 interstates serving it.
I-90 should go through Yellowstone.
This thread should go in Fictional Highways.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2013, 09:31:57 PM
This thread should go in Fictional Highways.
Just a tangent of it should.
Quote from: english si on October 17, 2013, 06:08:25 PM
Between Montana and Wisconsin, I-94 is shorter than I-90 and serves a much more major met area in MSP - other than the availability of lots of even I-9x and scarcity of even I-8x, there's no explanation for why it isn't I-90.
Oh, wait, you mean the Chicago dip - yes it should just end in Milwaukee (or take the ferry and I-96's route to Detroit).
It was even worse in the '58 plan where it went MSP - Milwaukee - Chicago - Grand Rapids - Detroit!
This is why I'd replace the entirety of I-94 with I-90, all the way to Pt. Huron, then have it reappear in Niagara Falls (like how US 2 had a break for Canada). The N/S section of I-90 between MT and WY would become an extension of I-25, and if I had my druthers, the I-90 East of I-25 would be I-80, which would be extended Westward to meet with I-84 in Idaho, and replace it. Followed by a general shift of I-80 and I-70's related routes northward, and I-70 replaced with I-60.
Quote from: NE2 on August 13, 2013, 06:52:28 PM
I-130 ("where the fuck is that?")
I-130 was supposed to be in Texarkana south of I-30. Now it is part of future I-49
I think that NCDOT adding I-44 along US 64 in the future is a joke. There are so many other available numbers. Why not I-36, I-38, I-42, or I-46 since these numbers are NOT yet in the Interstate system .....?
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 01:25:33 PM
I think that NCDOT adding I-44 along US 64 in the future is a joke. There are so many other available numbers. Why not I-36, I-38, I-42, or I-46 since these numbers are NOT yet in the Interstate system .....?
When did this happen...?
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 18, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 01:25:33 PM
I think that NCDOT adding I-44 along US 64 in the future is a joke. There are so many other available numbers. Why not I-36, I-38, I-42, or I-46 since these numbers are NOT yet in the Interstate system .....?
When did this happen...?
It has not happened yet, though it is proposed for the future to connect Raleigh to Norfolk along US 64, US 17, and NC/VA 168
So how can it be the worst interstate ever if it doesn't even exist?
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 18, 2013, 02:17:13 PM
So how can it be the worst interstate ever if it doesn't even exist?
Well, you have a good point. If you are only looking at existing interstates, I would vote for any of the suffixed routes: 35E and 35W, or now the NEW routes 69E, 69W, and 69C! One thought I have heard about 35E and 35W was to just make one of them I-33 and the other I-35 both at Dallas-Fort Worth and also for the Twin Cities.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 18, 2013, 02:17:13 PM
So how can it be the worst interstate ever if it doesn't even exist?
Well, you have a good point. If you are only looking at existing interstates...
I think that's inherent in the thread topic, yes. "Worst interstate ever", not "Worst interstate
never". ;-)
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 18, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 01:25:33 PM
I think that NCDOT adding I-44 along US 64 in the future is a joke. There are so many other available numbers. Why not I-36, I-38, I-42, or I-46 since these numbers are NOT yet in the Interstate system .....?
When did this happen...?
It has not happened yet, though it is proposed for the future to connect Raleigh to Norfolk along US 64, US 17, and NC/VA 168
I'd rather they use I-46 or even I-48 than I-44, as it will most likely never connect to the one in St. Louis.
Quote from: Henry on November 18, 2013, 02:51:06 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 18, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 01:25:33 PM
I think that NCDOT adding I-44 along US 64 in the future is a joke. There are so many other available numbers. Why not I-36, I-38, I-42, or I-46 since these numbers are NOT yet in the Interstate system .....?
When did this happen...?
It has not happened yet, though it is proposed for the future to connect Raleigh to Norfolk along US 64, US 17, and NC/VA 168
I'd rather they use I-46 or even I-48 than I-44, as it will most likely never connect to the one in St. Louis.
Yep, my point exactly!
Quote from: Henry on November 18, 2013, 02:51:06 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 18, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 01:25:33 PM
I think that NCDOT adding I-44 along US 64 in the future is a joke. There are so many other available numbers. Why not I-36, I-38, I-42, or I-46 since these numbers are NOT yet in the Interstate system .....?
When did this happen...?
It has not happened yet, though it is proposed for the future to connect Raleigh to Norfolk along US 64, US 17, and NC/VA 168
I'd rather they use I-46 or even I-48 than I-44, as it will most likely never connect to the one in St. Louis.
Fair enough point. There are plenty of even I-4x's left as opposed to the even I-7x and I-8x series.
Uh guys. AASHTO/FHWA approved I-495 on US 64. Ignore the eejit.
Quote from: NE2 on November 18, 2013, 05:12:11 PM
Uh guys. AASHTO/FHWA approved I-495 on US 64. Ignore the eejit.
I had heard that number some time ago, now I-495 is approved? Much better number!
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 18, 2013, 02:17:13 PM
So how can it be the worst interstate ever if it doesn't even exist?
Well, you have a good point. If you are only looking at existing interstates, I would vote for any of the suffixed routes: 35E and 35W, or now the NEW routes 69E, 69W, and 69C! One thought I have heard about 35E and 35W was to just make one of them I-33 and the other I-35 both at Dallas-Fort Worth and also for the Twin Cities.
Having lived in the Twin Cities, I never had a problem with I-35W/E. In that area, along with Dallas/Ft. Worth, the designation, though against AASHTO's wishes, makes perfect sense, and are very familiar with local residents. The original idea was to turn one of them into a 3di (likely 35E through St. Paul, part of which was in long-term freeway revolt limbo), but nobody in Minnesota could come up with a compromise. So they kept the suffixed highways. I assume the same thing occurred in DFW.
At least the two routes of I-35 reconnect at both ends of their suffixed run. The problem with suffixed interstates were spurred examples of roads like I-80 (most of them current I-76) that were just confusing and pointless.
Some people have a problem with the I-69 splits in Texas. While none of the routes connect with each other directly on the south end, the designations do make some sense, since all three routes go right to the border. I think giving each one its own distinct route number would be more confusing, but I-69E/C/W, as ridiculous as it may seem, does make some sense. I really don't think AASHTO's decisions and mandates are 100% perfect.
Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2013, 07:34:41 PMI-90 should go through Yellowstone.
Yellowstone bison has this to say:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fodiedog.com%2Fimages%2FYellowStone%2Fslides%2FBison-Roadblock-Yellowstone.jpg&hash=6065be34503b04a7e90f5cf9d0db63133471d9f5)
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 19, 2013, 08:36:55 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 18, 2013, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 18, 2013, 02:17:13 PM
So how can it be the worst interstate ever if it doesn't even exist?
Well, you have a good point. If you are only looking at existing interstates, I would vote for any of the suffixed routes: 35E and 35W, or now the NEW routes 69E, 69W, and 69C! One thought I have heard about 35E and 35W was to just make one of them I-33 and the other I-35 both at Dallas-Fort Worth and also for the Twin Cities.
Having lived in the Twin Cities, I never had a problem with I-35W/E. In that area, along with Dallas/Ft. Worth, the designation, though against AASHTO's wishes, makes perfect sense, and are very familiar with local residents. The original idea was to turn one of them into a 3di (likely 35E through St. Paul, part of which was in long-term freeway revolt limbo), but nobody in Minnesota could come up with a compromise. So they kept the suffixed highways. I assume the same thing occurred in DFW.
At least the two routes of I-35 reconnect at both ends of their suffixed run. The problem with suffixed interstates were spurred examples of roads like I-80 (most of them current I-76) that were just confusing and pointless.
Some people have a problem with the I-69 splits in Texas. While none of the routes connect with each other directly on the south end, the designations do make some sense, since all three routes go right to the border. I think giving each one its own distinct route number would be more confusing, but I-69E/C/W, as ridiculous as it may seem, does make some sense. I really don't think AASHTO's decisions and mandates are 100% perfect.
The suffixed interstates are not a problem
for you because you're used to them. They could probably take all the navigational aid signs off altogether and you could still get around. The problem is they are confusing for strangers, especially if they got directions through a fuzzy phone or radio connection.
I don't think AASHTO is perfect, but eliminating the directional suffixes is one of their good decisions.
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 06:36:15 PM
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
True, however what is wrong with using I-235 for example .....?
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 06:36:15 PM
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
True, however what is wrong with using I-235 for example .....?
The two cities don't get an "equal share" of the mainline in that case. Something a little more creative could have been done in Minnesota where both Minneapolis and Saint Paul would get I-35 via a multiplex with I-94, and two 3dis would exist north and south of the multiplex. I wouldn't recommend this, however. The current situation is just fine. In Texas, with Dallas and Fort Worth being so far apart, I wouldn't recommend the same solution.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 07:34:14 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 06:36:15 PM
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
True, however what is wrong with using I-235 for example .....?
The two cities don't get an "equal share" of the mainline in that case. Something a little more creative could have been done in Minnesota where both Minneapolis and Saint Paul would get I-35 via a multiplex with I-94, and two 3dis would exist north and south of the multiplex. I wouldn't recommend this, however. The current situation is just fine. In Texas, with Dallas and Fort Worth being so far apart, I wouldn't recommend the same solution.
Alex had once suggested using I-33 for one of the cities and I-35 for the other.
At least your idea would get rid of that parkway section along the I-35E mainline. 45MPH speed limit on an interstate is ridiculous! I-35W could then get I-235 north of I-94 and maybe MN 27 for the Parkway section in the spirit of the Ave of the Saints in this scenario .....? Of course the existing MN 27 near Moose Lake would need to be renumbered too .....
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 06:36:15 PM
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
"The route splits! Which way should I take? I don't know. Why don't we pull over to the shoulder and dig out a map."
What's wrong with picking the least congested, quicker, or best geometric route to be I-35 and making the other one I-235? Do people think Bellevue sux because Seattle has I-5 and Bellevue only has I-405?
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2013, 07:53:24 PM
Do people think Bellevue sux because Seattle has I-5 and Bellevue only has I-405?
Wrong order. Bellevue has I-405 because it's suburban sux.
It's done the RIGHT way in Maine (I-295). And Brunswick does not "sux".
Bellevue is obviously a suburb, but that's beside the point. Have Bellevue or Brunswick ever revolted because they didn't get a split? Politically, both Minneapolis and Saint Paul wanted an equal share of I-35, being Minnesota's largest city and state capitol. Obviously something else could have been done in Texas, but I don't think the 35 split comes anywhere close to the atrocity that is the 69 split. The two routes are roughly the same distance, and rejoin.
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2013, 12:49:40 PM
The suffixed interstates are not a problem for you because you're used to them. They could probably take all the navigational aid signs off altogether and you could still get around. The problem is they are confusing for strangers, especially if they got directions through a fuzzy phone or radio connection.
I don't think AASHTO is perfect, but eliminating the directional suffixes is one of their good decisions.
I would think that the signs that say "Thru Traffic Follow 35W" posted at each end would give travelers a hint. The split is not very complicated, even to foreigners driving to Duluth. Besides, both roads end up in the same place anyways.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 07:34:14 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 06:36:15 PM
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
True, however what is wrong with using I-235 for example .....?
The two cities don't get an "equal share" of the mainline in that case. Something a little more creative could have been done in Minnesota where both Minneapolis and Saint Paul would get I-35 via a multiplex with I-94, and two 3dis would exist north and south of the multiplex. I wouldn't recommend this, however. The current situation is just fine. In Texas, with Dallas and Fort Worth being so far apart, I wouldn't recommend the same solution.
Alex had once suggested using I-33 for one of the cities and I-35 for the other.
At least your idea would get rid of that parkway section along the I-35E mainline. 45MPH speed limit on an interstate is ridiculous! I-35W could then get I-235 north of I-94 and maybe MN 27 for the Parkway section in the spirit of the Ave of the Saints in this scenario .....? Of course the existing MN 27 near Moose Lake would need to be renumbered too .....
MNDOT spent about three decades trying to complete 35E going through the southwest side of St. Paul. But local residents, many of whom were wealthy businessmen with heavy political clout, put the brakes on that. The 45MPH four lane parkway was a compromise. The road finally got completed. And after all that fuss, MNDOT is not going to reassign highways just for the sake of placating road geeks. They get federal funds for 35E.
And there are many stretches of urban interstate throughout the country that have 45MPH sections. Not a really big deal. There is nothing wrong with 35E. Or 35W for that matter.
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 19, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2013, 12:49:40 PM
The suffixed interstates are not a problem for you because you're used to them. They could probably take all the navigational aid signs off altogether and you could still get around. The problem is they are confusing for strangers, especially if they got directions through a fuzzy phone or radio connection.
I don't think AASHTO is perfect, but eliminating the directional suffixes is one of their good decisions.
I would think that the signs that say "Thru Traffic Follow 35W" posted at each end would give travelers a hint. The split is not very complicated, even to foreigners driving to Duluth. Besides, both roads end up in the same place anyways.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 07:34:14 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 06:36:15 PM
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
True, however what is wrong with using I-235 for example .....?
The two cities don't get an "equal share" of the mainline in that case. Something a little more creative could have been done in Minnesota where both Minneapolis and Saint Paul would get I-35 via a multiplex with I-94, and two 3dis would exist north and south of the multiplex. I wouldn't recommend this, however. The current situation is just fine. In Texas, with Dallas and Fort Worth being so far apart, I wouldn't recommend the same solution.
Alex had once suggested using I-33 for one of the cities and I-35 for the other.
At least your idea would get rid of that parkway section along the I-35E mainline. 45MPH speed limit on an interstate is ridiculous! I-35W could then get I-235 north of I-94 and maybe MN 27 for the Parkway section in the spirit of the Ave of the Saints in this scenario .....? Of course the existing MN 27 near Moose Lake would need to be renumbered too .....
MNDOT spent about three decades trying to complete 35E going through the southwest side of St. Paul. But local residents, many of whom were wealthy businessmen with heavy political clout, put the brakes on that. The 45MPH four lane parkway was a compromise. The road finally got completed. And after all that fuss, MNDOT is not going to reassign highways just for the sake of placating road geeks. They get federal funds for 35E.
And there are many stretches of urban interstate throughout the country that have 45MPH sections. Not a really big deal. There is nothing wrong with 35E. Or 35W for that matter.
At least the road did get finished with the exception of the Ayd-Mill connector that was planned to connect I-94 west to I-35E south. What to ultimately do with this road is still debated at times. I have heard everything from turning it into a park to finishing what it was intended for .....
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 19, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2013, 12:49:40 PM
The suffixed interstates are not a problem for you because you're used to them. They could probably take all the navigational aid signs off altogether and you could still get around. The problem is they are confusing for strangers, especially if they got directions through a fuzzy phone or radio connection.
I don't think AASHTO is perfect, but eliminating the directional suffixes is one of their good decisions.
I would think that the signs that say "Thru Traffic Follow 35W" posted at each end would give travelers a hint. The split is not very complicated, even to foreigners driving to Duluth. Besides, both roads end up in the same place anyways.
Not as simple as calling the route for through traffic I-35 and the other one I-235. You know it's the same route, but strangers would have to pull over a look at a map to make sure, and see if they rejoined before or after their destination.
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 19, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 07:34:14 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 06:36:15 PM
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
True, however what is wrong with using I-235 for example .....?
The two cities don't get an "equal share" of the mainline in that case. Something a little more creative could have been done in Minnesota where both Minneapolis and Saint Paul would get I-35 via a multiplex with I-94, and two 3dis would exist north and south of the multiplex. I wouldn't recommend this, however. The current situation is just fine. In Texas, with Dallas and Fort Worth being so far apart, I wouldn't recommend the same solution.
Alex had once suggested using I-33 for one of the cities and I-35 for the other.
Not long enough for a 2di.
Quote
Quote
At least your idea would get rid of that parkway section along the I-35E mainline. 45MPH speed limit on an interstate is ridiculous! I-35W could then get I-235 north of I-94 and maybe MN 27 for the Parkway section in the spirit of the Ave of the Saints in this scenario .....? Of course the existing MN 27 near Moose Lake would need to be renumbered too .....
MNDOT spent about three decades trying to complete 35E going through the southwest side of St. Paul. But local residents, many of whom were wealthy businessmen with heavy political clout, put the brakes on that. The 45MPH four lane parkway was a compromise. The road finally got completed. And after all that fuss, MNDOT is not going to reassign highways just for the sake of placating road geeks. They get federal funds for 35E.
St. Paul wants to have a 45 mph parkway, fine. They get I-235. That should please the local residents.
It's not to please road geeks, it's to make life simple and consistent for the hapless motorist. Directional suffixes are confusing when giving or getting directions.
Quote
And there are many stretches of urban interstate throughout the country that have 45MPH sections. Not a really big deal. There is nothing wrong with 35E. Or 35W for that matter.
There's nothing wrong with 3dis.
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2013, 11:39:01 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 19, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2013, 12:49:40 PM
The suffixed interstates are not a problem for you because you're used to them. They could probably take all the navigational aid signs off altogether and you could still get around. The problem is they are confusing for strangers, especially if they got directions through a fuzzy phone or radio connection.
I don't think AASHTO is perfect, but eliminating the directional suffixes is one of their good decisions.
I would think that the signs that say "Thru Traffic Follow 35W" posted at each end would give travelers a hint. The split is not very complicated, even to foreigners driving to Duluth. Besides, both roads end up in the same place anyways.
Not as simple as calling the route for through traffic I-35 and the other one I-235. You know it's the same route, but strangers would have to pull over a look at a map to make sure, and see if they rejoined before or after their destination.
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 19, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 07:34:14 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 06:36:15 PM
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
True, however what is wrong with using I-235 for example .....?
The two cities don't get an "equal share" of the mainline in that case. Something a little more creative could have been done in Minnesota where both Minneapolis and Saint Paul would get I-35 via a multiplex with I-94, and two 3dis would exist north and south of the multiplex. I wouldn't recommend this, however. The current situation is just fine. In Texas, with Dallas and Fort Worth being so far apart, I wouldn't recommend the same solution.
Alex had once suggested using I-33 for one of the cities and I-35 for the other.
Not long enough for a 2di.
Quote
Quote
At least your idea would get rid of that parkway section along the I-35E mainline. 45MPH speed limit on an interstate is ridiculous! I-35W could then get I-235 north of I-94 and maybe MN 27 for the Parkway section in the spirit of the Ave of the Saints in this scenario .....? Of course the existing MN 27 near Moose Lake would need to be renumbered too .....
MNDOT spent about three decades trying to complete 35E going through the southwest side of St. Paul. But local residents, many of whom were wealthy businessmen with heavy political clout, put the brakes on that. The 45MPH four lane parkway was a compromise. The road finally got completed. And after all that fuss, MNDOT is not going to reassign highways just for the sake of placating road geeks. They get federal funds for 35E.
St. Paul wants to have a 45 mph parkway, fine. They get I-235. That should please the local residents.
It's not to please road geeks, it's to make life simple and consistent for the hapless motorist. Directional suffixes are confusing when giving or getting directions.
Quote
And there are many stretches of urban interstate throughout the country that have 45MPH sections. Not a really big deal. There is nothing wrong with 35E. Or 35W for that matter.
There's nothing wrong with 3dis.
Dude, they ain't changing it and they'd be stupid to do so.
You don't drive on it so why do you care?
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 20, 2013, 12:46:52 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2013, 11:39:01 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 19, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2013, 12:49:40 PM
The suffixed interstates are not a problem for you because you're used to them. They could probably take all the navigational aid signs off altogether and you could still get around. The problem is they are confusing for strangers, especially if they got directions through a fuzzy phone or radio connection.
I don't think AASHTO is perfect, but eliminating the directional suffixes is one of their good decisions.
I would think that the signs that say "Thru Traffic Follow 35W" posted at each end would give travelers a hint. The split is not very complicated, even to foreigners driving to Duluth. Besides, both roads end up in the same place anyways.
Not as simple as calling the route for through traffic I-35 and the other one I-235. You know it's the same route, but strangers would have to pull over a look at a map to make sure, and see if they rejoined before or after their destination.
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 19, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 07:34:14 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 19, 2013, 06:36:15 PM
Suffixes that rejoin and have less than a ten minute time difference generally aren't a problem for the general public. It's basically a way of saying "hey, go wherever you want. These will end up in the same place anyway."
True, however what is wrong with using I-235 for example .....?
The two cities don't get an "equal share" of the mainline in that case. Something a little more creative could have been done in Minnesota where both Minneapolis and Saint Paul would get I-35 via a multiplex with I-94, and two 3dis would exist north and south of the multiplex. I wouldn't recommend this, however. The current situation is just fine. In Texas, with Dallas and Fort Worth being so far apart, I wouldn't recommend the same solution.
Alex had once suggested using I-33 for one of the cities and I-35 for the other.
Not long enough for a 2di.
Quote
Quote
At least your idea would get rid of that parkway section along the I-35E mainline. 45MPH speed limit on an interstate is ridiculous! I-35W could then get I-235 north of I-94 and maybe MN 27 for the Parkway section in the spirit of the Ave of the Saints in this scenario .....? Of course the existing MN 27 near Moose Lake would need to be renumbered too .....
MNDOT spent about three decades trying to complete 35E going through the southwest side of St. Paul. But local residents, many of whom were wealthy businessmen with heavy political clout, put the brakes on that. The 45MPH four lane parkway was a compromise. The road finally got completed. And after all that fuss, MNDOT is not going to reassign highways just for the sake of placating road geeks. They get federal funds for 35E.
St. Paul wants to have a 45 mph parkway, fine. They get I-235. That should please the local residents.
It's not to please road geeks, it's to make life simple and consistent for the hapless motorist. Directional suffixes are confusing when giving or getting directions.
Quote
And there are many stretches of urban interstate throughout the country that have 45MPH sections. Not a really big deal. There is nothing wrong with 35E. Or 35W for that matter.
There's nothing wrong with 3dis.
Dude, they ain't changing it and they'd be stupid to do so.
You don't drive on it so why do you care?
This quote is longer than present I-69W.
QuoteIt's not to please road geeks, it's to make life simple and consistent for the hapless motorist. Directional suffixes are confusing when giving or getting directions.
The number of "hapless motorists" we're referring to is not enough to require 5 digits. Aside from long-haul truck traffic (and even not a lot of that just "passing through", the Twin Cities being a major trucking hub and all), there just isn't a whole lot of pass-through traffic. 40 years ago, this might have been a possibility. But at this point, you would cause FAR MORE CONFUSION renumbering one of the 35s than you create just leaving them as-is.
Optimially, there wouldn't be directional suffixes. Realistically, some are here to stay...35E/35W being two of them.
Okay, time to start fresh without quotes...
I decided to do a little digging on the history of split routes. And sure enough, the best I found was on an AARoads site (Interstate Guide):
QuoteHistory of Split Routes
In their guidelines of signing Interstates, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) mandated that all suffixed Interstate highways be removed from the Interstate system in the late 1960s and 1970s. This resulted in many changes to the system, including:
Interstate 5W to Interstate 505 and Interstate 580 (Oakland to south of Tracy) in California
Interstate 15E to Interstate 215 in California (former U.S. 395)
Interstate 15W to the Western Interstate 86 in Idaho
Interstate 35 to Interstate 135 in Kansas
Interstate 70N to Interstate 70 and Interstate 70S to Interstate 270 in Maryland
Interstate 75E to Interstate 75 in the Tampa Bay Area (original Interstate 75 was renumbered Interstate 275)
Interstate 80N to Interstate 680 in Iowa
Interstate 80N to the Western Interstate 84 in Oregon, Idaho, and Utah
Interstate 80S to Interstate 76 in Colorado
Interstate 80S to Interstate 76 in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey
Interstate 81E to Interstate 380 in Pennsylvania
Most of these conversions were completed during the 1960s and 1970s. The Western Interstate 84 was among the last, as it was converted by 1980. However, there are two exceptions remaining in the system: Interstate 35 splits twice into Interstate 35E and Interstate 35W, once in the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area and again in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. The reason these split routes still remain is that neither city wanted to relinquish the routing of Interstate 35. AASHTO gave in to these demands, and the split suffixed routing remains in both Texas and Minnesota.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-035ew_mn.html
It was probably easier for AASHTO to allow 35E/W to be grandfathered since those routes split and then reunite in both Texas and Minnesota. The changed routes do look rather ridiculous (like I-5E and I-80S). I believe AASHTO's main goal was to eliminate suffixed spur routes that went off in a different direction, as they don't seem to make much sense. In the case of I-35E/W (and perhaps even I-69E/C/W), the roads go to the same destination. And in the case of Minnesota, MNDOT advises travelers going through the Twin Cities to use I-35W.
As for the parkway, again, this was a compromise that took 2-3 decades to sort out. So a short stretch is a rather attractive (for interstate highway standards) parkway that is reduced to 45mph. Again, there are many, many stretches of urban interstate with reduced speeds (i.e. I-90 in Cleveland), so it really isn't that big a deal. There are also many examples of compromises on the interstate system, with resulting roads being the product of nasty freeway revolts. That would explain I-43 in the north suburbs of Milwaukee County, which drops down to a congested two lane per side bottleneck (long-term plans call for widening it) going into Ozaukee County. In all cases, it was either compromise or no freeway.
Finally, in the case of I-69E/C/W, while it is tempting to despise the concept because it comes from Texas (ironic in that this Tea Party-heavy state is so gung-ho about extracting as many highway funds from the federal government as possible), I do see a point to it. The route splits and links the Mexican border and some sizable border towns to the system and will be a big benefit to commercial traffic. I don't see much confusion to the routes when completed.
(Most of the quotes including the history section deleted)
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 20, 2013, 09:23:00 AM
It was probably easier for AASHTO to allow 35E/W to be grandfathered since those routes split and then reunite in both Texas and Minnesota. The changed routes do look rather ridiculous (like I-5E and I-80S). I believe AASHTO's main goal was to eliminate suffixed spur routes that went off in a different direction, as they don't seem to make much sense. In the case of I-35E/W (and perhaps even I-69E/C/W), the roads go to the same destination. And in the case of Minnesota, MNDOT advises travelers going through the Twin Cities to use I-35W.
Lots of the old directionally suffixed routes split and then reunited later. Looking down the list:
I-5W California
I-15E California
I-75E Florida
I-80N Nebraska
There's nothing particularly special about the Twin Cities or Dallas-Fort Worth that makes the reasoning not apply to them. They just shouted longer out of perceived status of being the "main route". I expect that from Texas, but I'm a little surprised about Minnesota. Especially when I-35E is marked as
not the main route.
AASHTO's goal was to reduce driver confusion resulting from discontinuity of the main route and confusion between direction traveled vs. which segment of road they're on. And AASHTO was right. After a few years, locals got used to the changed numbers, and travelers had an easier time. No one's arguing to change the ones they changed in the 1960s and 70s back.
Incidentally, I-5W was not a ridiculous route. It serves far more traffic and larger population centers than I-5 through Sacramento. A case could be made that the route through Sacramento should have been a 2di.
Again, I have no objections to building a parkway through St. Paul. I have a lot of sympathy for people in historic city centers that don't want them demolished to make room for 8-lane interstates with 70 mph design speeds. And I don't even object to the parkway being an interstate. I just object to calling it I-35-anything when it's not the recommended route for through travelers on I-35.
I-69 is a whole nother rant...
Quote from: kkt on November 20, 2013, 01:03:09 PMIncidentally, I-5W was not a ridiculous route. It serves far more traffic and larger population centers than I-5 through Sacramento. A case could be made that the route through Sacramento should have been a 2di.
Do you mean Oakland (as I-3), or have I-7 for Sacramento, performing an I-12 esque function?
The 35 splits are roughly the same distance and serve roughly equally important cities. None of the other splits satisfied both conditions.
Quote from: kkt on November 20, 2013, 01:03:09 PMconfusion between direction traveled vs. which segment of road they're on
The number of idiots who say "US 25 East" and "US 25 West" in this part of Kentucky, when we've had the suffixed US 25 splits for eons, never ceases to amaze me.
Quote from: english si on November 20, 2013, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 20, 2013, 01:03:09 PMIncidentally, I-5W was not a ridiculous route. It serves far more traffic and larger population centers than I-5 through Sacramento. A case could be made that the route through Sacramento should have been a 2di.
Do you mean Oakland (as I-3), or have I-7 for Sacramento, performing an I-12 esque function?
Sorry, I meant I-5 through Sacramento could have been a
3di, not a 2di.
Although I-7 for Sacramento as an analog of I-12 would have been a good idea too.
Given that I-35E is specifically marked as not the main route, it should be the one to become a 3di. For Dallas/Fort Worth, I'd go with the "which city have people actually heard of?" test. Dallas wins.
For the I-69s, I'd use I-69E as the real I-69 for the following reasons:
-it had a sigment signed first, as a non-suffixed route, no less
-it goes to a more populated area
I'd made I-69W (or is it just I-69?) into I-2 (and make the real I-2 a 3di) and get rid of I-69C entirely.
A case could be made that I-215 and I-15 should've been switched, as well as I-275 and I-75. I strongly believe in both of these switches.
One other thing: Where was I-80N in Nebraska? Are you referring to the Iowa one? That never returned to I-80.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 20, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
The number of idiots who say "US 25 East" and "US 25 West" in this part of Kentucky, when we've had the suffixed US 25 splits for eons, never ceases to amaze me.
What the hell is wrong with that? It's an eastern/western route of US 25. I think they do the same in MSP.
And god damn, those people who say Kentucky Jelly really suck.
Quote from: NE2 on November 20, 2013, 03:57:28 PM
I think they do the same in MSP.
Nope, it's always 35E and 35W. No east or west involved.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 20, 2013, 04:04:24 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 20, 2013, 03:57:28 PM
I think they do the same in MSP.
Nope, it's always 35E and 35W. No east or west involved.
OK, then it was just the Liberal Media calling it 35 West. More like 35 Wet amirite?
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 20, 2013, 03:53:21 PM
One other thing: Where was I-80N in Nebraska? Are you referring to the Iowa one? That never returned to I-80.
I see, I thought I-80N followed current I-680 through Omaha. Thanks for keeping me honest.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 20, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 20, 2013, 01:03:09 PMconfusion between direction traveled vs. which segment of road they're on
The number of idiots who say "US 25 East" and "US 25 West" in this part of Kentucky, when we've had the suffixed US 25 splits for eons, never ceases to amaze me.
When I hear someone say something like that not in the context of giving directions, I assume they're referring to the part of a road that lies in a given direction. For example, when I was in college, everyone in Charlottesville referred to the portion of US-29 located north of the bypass (an area of heavy commercial development) as "29 North." Someone giving directions from the airport to the Holiday Inn might say, "Take Airport Road east to the traffic light, then go south on 29 North until you cross Hydraulic Road. The hotel is then on the right."
In the years before I-66 opened inside the Capital Beltway everyone here called it "66 East" regardless of the direction involved (thus, the westbound commuter bus that used the road prior to it opening to the public would leave the Ballston Metro and take "66 East" to the Beltway, which of course is a westbound trip).
QuoteAnd in the case of Minnesota, MNDOT advises travelers going through the Twin Cities to use I-35W.
Do they really? Used to be they'd recommend 35E to the 494/694 beltway due to congestion on 35W.
QuoteEspecially when I-35E is marked as not the main route.
I'd like to know your reasoning behind this one. Especially since I-35's milemarkers follow I-35E.
QuoteMore like 35 Wet amirite?
Noyernot.
Quote from: froggie on November 20, 2013, 04:41:08 PM
QuoteAnd in the case of Minnesota, MNDOT advises travelers going through the Twin Cities to use I-35W.
Do they really? Used to be they'd recommend 35E to the 494/694 beltway due to congestion on 35W.
I've seen signs at the north and south junctions that advised thru traffic to take 35W. I assume they especially mean large trucks, which aren't allowed on the parkway section of 35E.
But when all is said and done, they're both I-35, and whenever anyone mentions 35W or 35E, everyone in Minnesota knows what they're talking about.
Quote from: froggie on November 20, 2013, 04:41:08 PM
QuoteAnd in the case of Minnesota, MNDOT advises travelers going through the Twin Cities to use I-35W.
Do they really? Used to be they'd recommend 35E to the 494/694 beltway due to congestion on 35W.
QuoteEspecially when I-35E is marked as not the main route.
I'd like to know your reasoning behind this one. Especially since I-35's milemarkers follow I-35E.
QuoteMore like 35 Wet amirite?
Noyernot.
Yes, I remember seeing the sign for 35W as the through route not too long ago. I will try to get a pic of it next time I am in that area.
The main reason the 35Ws and 35Es have existed is because neither city in both twin city example wanted to relinquish the Interstate 35 designation. And also because they, in both cases, reunite back into Interstate 35 at both ends, they were allowed to remain. In Dallas and Ft. Worth the suffixed interstates are referred to as just 35 or I-35. This is exactly why they wanted the suffixes to remain.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on November 27, 2013, 12:18:29 PM
The main reason the 35Ws and 35Es have existed is because neither city in both twin city example wanted to relinquish the Interstate 35 designation. And also because they, in both cases, reunite back into Interstate 35 at both ends, they were allowed to remain. In Dallas and Ft. Worth the suffixed interstates are referred to as just 35 or I-35. This is exactly why they wanted the suffixes to remain.
Yes. That sort of petty jealousy at the expense of out-of-area travelers is exactly why Interstate numbers should not be determined by the cities they pass through.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2013, 11:58:53 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on November 27, 2013, 12:18:29 PM
The main reason the 35Ws and 35Es have existed is because neither city in both twin city example wanted to relinquish the Interstate 35 designation. And also because they, in both cases, reunite back into Interstate 35 at both ends, they were allowed to remain. In Dallas and Ft. Worth the suffixed interstates are referred to as just 35 or I-35. This is exactly why they wanted the suffixes to remain.
Yes. That sort of petty jealousy at the expense of out-of-area travelers is exactly why Interstate numbers should not be determined by the cities they pass through.
Tell ya what. Next time you run into someone who is truly confused by it, by all means, let us know.
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2013, 01:37:18 AM
Looking at it again, the alternatives to the current numbering all have serious problems. There's only four E-W interstates that cross the intermountain west, I-10, I-40, I-80, and I-90. There's no need for more. I-84 only goes 1/4 of the way across the country, and thus shouldn't have an I-x0 interstate number. Also, Portland is a river port, not a sea port, and a good deal smaller metro area than L.A., S.F., or even Seattle. The midwest and east coast have many more interstates, and the current interstate numbering works better there because there's no need for E-W routes across Lake Michigan or much north of Massachusetts.
Correction: Portland is an inland seaport. The distinction should be made because both the Willamette and Columbia Rivers are big and deep enough to handle seafaring vessels.
Quote from: FightingIrish on December 01, 2013, 11:15:23 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2013, 11:58:53 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on November 27, 2013, 12:18:29 PM
The main reason the 35Ws and 35Es have existed is because neither city in both twin city example wanted to relinquish the Interstate 35 designation. And also because they, in both cases, reunite back into Interstate 35 at both ends, they were allowed to remain. In Dallas and Ft. Worth the suffixed interstates are referred to as just 35 or I-35. This is exactly why they wanted the suffixes to remain.
Yes. That sort of petty jealousy at the expense of out-of-area travelers is exactly why Interstate numbers should not be determined by the cities they pass through.
Tell ya what. Next time you run into someone who is truly confused by it, by all means, let us know.
I think the confusion is only there when people try to think of them as Interstate 35 East and Interstate 35 West. That is not their names. The letter is not a direction designation. They are Interstate 35E and Interstate 35W. The letter at the end is just another digit. The funny thing is in Dallas and Fort Worth the control cities for those interstate are Waco (south) and Denton (north). If you are with it enough you know that I-35 goes through those towns so you know if you get on I-35E south you will wind up in Waco and back on I-35 so there is no need to get confused.
Quote from: Bickendan on December 01, 2013, 11:08:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2013, 01:37:18 AM
Looking at it again, the alternatives to the current numbering all have serious problems. There's only four E-W interstates that cross the intermountain west, I-10, I-40, I-80, and I-90. There's no need for more. I-84 only goes 1/4 of the way across the country, and thus shouldn't have an I-x0 interstate number. Also, Portland is a river port, not a sea port, and a good deal smaller metro area than L.A., S.F., or even Seattle. The midwest and east coast have many more interstates, and the current interstate numbering works better there because there's no need for E-W routes across Lake Michigan or much north of Massachusetts.
Correction: Portland is an inland seaport. The distinction should be made because both the Willamette and Columbia Rivers are big and deep enough to handle seafaring vessels.
Portland can handle
some smaller ocean-going ships, but there are also a lot that cannot easily make the twisty trip upriver. Really big ships go to Puget Sound or the San Francisco Bay.
I say that I-69 is useless. What about the I-11 that everyone is talking about useless. What point is there with I-49 going around LA then up to Kansas City?
I wish we could get rid of the US 25 and US 31 suffixes. They are especially confusing in Kentucky, where some of these routes converge. Nothing about this makes sense: http://goo.gl/maps/WIBjO
US 25 enters at top; US 25W diverges south; US 25E goes west and east, when it should just head east. And in Tennessee, US 25W is multiplexed for much of its length.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on May 30, 2014, 10:01:24 AM
I wish we could get rid of the US 25 and US 31 suffixes. They are especially confusing in Kentucky, where some of these routes converge. Nothing about this makes sense: http://goo.gl/maps/WIBjO
US 25 enters at top; US 25W diverges south; US 25E goes west and east, when it should just head east. And in Tennessee, US 25W is multiplexed for much of its length.
AASHO tried. One of the results was the never used US-37.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on May 30, 2014, 10:01:24 AM
I wish we could get rid of the US 25 and US 31 suffixes. They are especially confusing in Kentucky, where some of these routes converge. Nothing about this makes sense: http://goo.gl/maps/WIBjO
US 25 enters at top; US 25W diverges south; US 25E goes west and east, when it should just head east. And in Tennessee, US 25W is multiplexed for much of its length.
The suffixes never bothered me. It would appear to me that Tennessee is the primary champion of the suffixed routes, since it has the most of any state.
As for the US 25E extension, I guess Kentucky wanted a consistent route number for the four-lane route that connects to I-75. I don't remember what the state route number was for that road before 25E was placed on it. I suppose "Spur 25E" would work.
AASHTO should play King Solomon with the suffixed I-35's: tell MSP and St. Paul that I-35 will be decommissioned entirely. The city that protests, saying the route should be kept alive and given to the other city, will get to keep it.
Quote from: kurumi on May 30, 2014, 11:18:34 AM
AASHTO should play King Solomon with the suffixed I-35's: tell MSP and St. Paul that I-35 will be decommissioned entirely. The city that protests, saying the route should be kept alive and given to the other city, will get to keep it.
That's the easy one. I-35E there is substandard (by court order) and should be I-235. Now, Dallas and Fort Worth on the other hand...
I-45 could be extended north to Denton, I-35 goes through Fort Worth, and I-35E between Dallas and I-35 to the south can become I-135.
Now about those I-69s.
Quote from: kurumi on May 30, 2014, 11:18:34 AM
AASHTO should play King Solomon with the suffixed I-35's: tell MSP and St. Paul that I-35 will be decommissioned entirely. The city that protests, saying the route should be kept alive and given to the other city, will get to keep it.
I think that trick has worked precisely once in recorded history.
Quote from: Brandon on May 30, 2014, 11:39:29 AM
Quote from: kurumi on May 30, 2014, 11:18:34 AM
AASHTO should play King Solomon with the suffixed I-35's: tell MSP and St. Paul that I-35 will be decommissioned entirely. The city that protests, saying the route should be kept alive and given to the other city, will get to keep it.
That's the easy one. I-35E there is substandard (by court order) and should be I-235.
Yes.
Quote
Now, Dallas and Fort Worth on the other hand...
I-45 could be extended north to Denton, I-35 goes through Fort Worth, and I-35E between Dallas and I-35 to the south can become I-135.
That would get rid of the suffixed route, but I was thinking someday US 75 from Dallas to Tulsa would turn into a new section of I-45. And it leaves I-635 without a connection to I-35.
I-35W could become I-33. Maybe having a 2di instead of a 3di would be a big enough bone to throw to Ft. Worth's ego.
Quote
Now about those I-69s.
The law requires the east and central branches to be "designated" I-69 East and I-69 Central. The law doesn't require those to be the
only designations. They could call I-69E I-369 everywhere and then put up a supplementary guide sign every 10 miles with an Interstate 369 shield and "I-69 East Branch" below it.
Just read through all 9 pages of this thread.
Wow, you guys are serious, serious dudes. Very impressive.
Here are my nominations:
Worst engineering: I-83 in Pennsylvania. The last time I drove on it, there weren't any acceleration ramps and the jersey barrier in the center was too close to the passing lanes, so a distracted driver could easily crash into it.
Most in need of widening: I-26 in South Carolina. Lots of truck traffic and travelers going from the Midwest to Florida clog this road up, not to mention the fact that it links two of the state's biggest cities.
Worst numbering scheme: The eastern terminus of I-64. This interstate is fine until you get to the Norfolk area, where the eastbound route somehow turns clockwise and heads west for several miles like it's some type of beltway. This road really should have been numbered I-264 or 464 or something like that, but it might be a situation similar to why Dallas and Fort Worth fought over keeping the I-35 designation. I guess having a 3di is not good for business?
Worst waste of a 2di number: I-97 because it's shorter than my driveway. Seriously, I don't see why this can't be an extension of I-83. I REALLY despise the possible designation I-101 because what would a 3di of I-101 be called?
Most frustrating interstate terminus: A two-way tie between the southern end of I-75 and the eastern end of I-70. Really, both of these interstates should end at a junction with I-95.
Interstate with the worst "brand:" I-73/74 because, well, I'm not sure they will ever be finished and I don't want to drive on the segments that exist now because they may end in random places and I'll get lost.
Worst junction (that I've driven on): Take a look at the I-20/26/126 junction in Columbia, SC. Whoa...
Least safe: I-77 in West Virginia. If you were to tell me that 5 people died on this interstate because of crossover accidents every day, I would believe you. No center guardrails or jersey barriers to be found, and the northbound and southbound lanes arethisclosetoeachother.
Random comments related to earlier posts in this thread:
1. Why aren't the Hawaii interstates simply 1, 2, 3 and 101? I mean, if we already have two I-88s and two I-86s, why not have two I-2s or I-3s? It's not like the people in the 48 contiguous states will confuse Hawaii's I-2 with the I-2 in southern Texas.
2. Someone said I-2 was a wasted number. Why? It fits perfectly in the grid, right? How else should it be numbered?
3. I agree that I-4 was poorly planned. Even doubling its lanes would likely not be enough to accommodate all the traffic.
4. I also agree that I-3 is a lousy designation. Okay, so we want to number roads based on honoring military brigades? Riiiiight. It's just cheap political posturing that ignores the common good. But really, Augusta and Savannah are two of the biggest cities in Georgia. They really should have an interstate connection. I don't see why I-18 is not an option.
Seems to me that Interstate 705 was ignored. The 1.5-mile glorified offramp into Tacoma is basically worthless and replaced tracks leading up to Union Station, which is a pretty nice looking train station.
Plus, everyone hates Tacoma.
Quote from: Bruce on May 30, 2014, 07:42:27 PM
Seems to me that Interstate 705 was ignored. The 1.5-mile glorified offramp into Tacoma is basically worthless and replaced tracks leading up to Union Station, which is a pretty nice looking train station.
Plus, everyone hates Tacoma.
I-705 gives trucks a quicker way to the Port of Tacoma that doesn't involve waiting for ages at the railroad crossing. I like Union Station too, but it wasn't I-705 that motivated removing the tracks. A competitive port is a good thing.
Tacoma isn't all bad, especially now that the Asarco smelter is gone.
I nominate the worst stretch of Interstate I have traveled in recent years - I-70 in SW Pennsylvania between the Turnpike and the WV State Line!
Quote from: Brandon on May 30, 2014, 11:39:29 AM
Quote from: kurumi on May 30, 2014, 11:18:34 AM
AASHTO should play King Solomon with the suffixed I-35's: tell MSP and St. Paul that I-35 will be decommissioned entirely. The city that protests, saying the route should be kept alive and given to the other city, will get to keep it.
That's the easy one. I-35E there is substandard (by court order) and should be I-235. Now, Dallas and Fort Worth on the other hand...
I-45 could be extended north to Denton, I-35 goes through Fort Worth, and I-35E between Dallas and I-35 to the south can become I-135.
Now about those I-69s.
35E is a practice freeway in Saint Paul. 35W is the mainline.
I-45 need to go north along US 75 into Oklahoma.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 30, 2014, 03:31:56 PM
Just read through all 9 pages of this thread.
Wow, you guys are serious, serious dudes. Very impressive.
We spend a lot of time worrying about things 99.999% of the world could care less about. Luckily the .001% of us are all on here.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2013, 11:58:53 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on November 27, 2013, 12:18:29 PM
The main reason the 35Ws and 35Es have existed is because neither city in both twin city example wanted to relinquish the Interstate 35 designation. And also because they, in both cases, reunite back into Interstate 35 at both ends, they were allowed to remain. In Dallas and Ft. Worth the suffixed interstates are referred to as just 35 or I-35. This is exactly why they wanted the suffixes to remain.
Yes. That sort of petty jealousy at the expense of out-of-area travelers is exactly why Interstate numbers should not be determined by the cities they pass through.
Back when anyone actually cared. It's like people on this site saying everyone would be outraged if there city lost an x5 or an x0
Quote from: Bruce on May 30, 2014, 07:42:27 PM
Seems to me that Interstate 705 was ignored. The 1.5-mile glorified offramp into Tacoma is basically worthless and replaced tracks leading up to Union Station, which is a pretty nice looking train station.
Plus, everyone hates Tacoma.
Screw you, I love Tacoma and it would be my place of choice if I moved back to the Puget Sound region- lower cost of living, decent nightlife, not dangerous anymore, has its own culture but isn't too far from Seattle.
Back on topic, I-705 is such a kickass road to drive- it's neatly engineered, has a great view, and interchanges with another major highway (509), making it more than a glorified off-ramp.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 30, 2014, 08:23:28 PM
I nominate the worst stretch of Interstate I have traveled in recent years - I-70 in SW Pennsylvania between the Turnpike and the WV State Line!
I think you mean the section between the Turnpike and Washington (Pa)–which dates from the early '50s and has no center shoulders, a Jersey barrier hugging the left lane, and terrible interchange geometry.
From Washington westward to Wheeling, I-70 is modern by '60s PA standards and was in reasonable shape the last I drove it.
Why Isn't I-180 Wyoming converted or re-signed as Wyoming State Route 180 or County route 180 since the road is than 1 mile long. :confused:
I'm sorry, were you asking a question or a making a statement?
Quote from: corco on May 30, 2014, 08:43:56 PM
Back on topic, I-705 is such a kickass road to drive- it's neatly engineered, has a great view, and interchanges with another major highway (509), making it more than a glorified off-ramp.
no state-named shields. route does not exist in my world.
Quote from: corco on May 30, 2014, 08:43:56 PM
Back on topic, I-705 is such a kickass road to drive- it's neatly engineered, has a great view, and interchanges with another major highway (509), making it more than a glorified off-ramp.
And it does connect to SR 7 on the south end too.
Quote from: Bickendan on May 30, 2014, 10:43:53 PM
I'm sorry, were you asking a question or a making a statement?
I was making a statement. for I-180
Quote from: briantroutman on May 30, 2014, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 30, 2014, 08:23:28 PM
I nominate the worst stretch of Interstate I have traveled in recent years - I-70 in SW Pennsylvania between the Turnpike and the WV State Line!
I think you mean the section between the Turnpike and Washington (Pa)–which dates from the early '50s and has no center shoulders, a Jersey barrier hugging the left lane...
That's exactly what I experienced on I-83 and I-78 in PA as late as 2001. I guess it's a statewide issue. That's pretty dangerous because you don't even have enough room for rumble strips to alert you that you are veering out of your lane.
I-180 WY is also US 85 and BUS I-25 and US 87.
Quote from: bing101 on May 30, 2014, 10:21:38 PM
Why Isn't I-180 Wyoming converted or re-signed as Wyoming State Route 180 or County route 180 since the road is than 1 mile long. :confused:
They got federal funding for it.
Typically, I don't mind a few little irregularities or quirks in the system. It reminds me not to take life too seriously.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 31, 2014, 12:05:20 AM
Quote from: corco on May 30, 2014, 08:43:56 PM
Back on topic, I-705 is such a kickass road to drive- it's neatly engineered, has a great view, and interchanges with another major highway (509), making it more than a glorified off-ramp.
no state-named shields. route does not exist in my world.
There's also no cops...it's the only place in Washington where 70-80 is the norm. My Dad lives at the northern end of the freeway, so I drive it all the time, and my speeds rarely drop below 70. However, when traffic on the 5 backs up, it leaks onto 705(S) and that ruins the fun.
Also, it's only one lane between the A-street off ramp and the S 21st onramp going north. Not too many one-lane interstates in Washington to my knowledge.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 31, 2014, 11:09:23 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on May 30, 2014, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 30, 2014, 08:23:28 PM
I nominate the worst stretch of Interstate I have traveled in recent years - I-70 in SW Pennsylvania between the Turnpike and the WV State Line!
I think you mean the section between the Turnpike and Washington (Pa)–which dates from the early '50s and has no center shoulders, a Jersey barrier hugging the left lane...
That's exactly what I experienced on I-83 and I-78 in PA as late as 2001. I guess it's a statewide issue. That's pretty dangerous because you don't even have enough room for rumble strips to alert you that you are veering out of your lane.
Yes, and on the Schuylkill Expressway and mainline PA Turnpike (I-76) and the NE Extension (I-476)–all of which, at least in part, predate the design standards and funding of the 1956 Highway Act. So as blame-worthy as PennDOT and the PTC often are, the under-engineered Interstates are more the price of Pennsylvania being a pioneer–similar to the Arroyo Seco Parkway in LA or some of the New York Parkways-turned-Interstates.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 01, 2014, 10:52:31 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 31, 2014, 11:09:23 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on May 30, 2014, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 30, 2014, 08:23:28 PM
I nominate the worst stretch of Interstate I have traveled in recent years - I-70 in SW Pennsylvania between the Turnpike and the WV State Line!
I think you mean the section between the Turnpike and Washington (Pa)—which dates from the early '50s and has no center shoulders, a Jersey barrier hugging the left lane...
That's exactly what I experienced on I-83 and I-78 in PA as late as 2001. I guess it's a statewide issue. That's pretty dangerous because you don't even have enough room for rumble strips to alert you that you are veering out of your lane.
Yes, and on the Schuylkill Expressway and mainline PA Turnpike (I-76) and the NE Extension (I-476)—all of which, at least in part, predate the design standards and funding of the 1956 Highway Act. So as blame-worthy as PennDOT and the PTC often are, the under-engineered Interstates are more the price of Pennsylvania being a pioneer—similar to the Arroyo Seco Parkway in LA or some of the New York Parkways-turned-Interstates.
This is exactly what it is. Pennsylvania started building its own highways before Dwight Eisenhower was even elected president, so there were no "Interstate standards" to build anything to. Then came the 1970's and 1980's, when PennDOT ran out of money and the federal government put most of its effort into building new Interstates instead of rebuilding existing Interstates.
Since the 1990's, PennDOT has rebuilt plenty of Interstates. I-79 between the West Virginia state line and the Ohio River has been completely rebuilt, with the exception of the multiplex with I-70, and that's about to be underway. I-81 between the Maryland state line and Harrisburg has as well, with the exception of a small segment near Carlisle.
I-70 (http://www.i-70projects.com/) near Pittsburgh is being rebuilt as I type this, and so is
I-95 (http://www.95revive.com/) in Philadelphia.
What baffled me, though, is that PennDOT didn't start rebuilding the substandard segments first. I guess they started with those that either had the worst pavement quality. The good news, though, is that I-70 is
making progress (http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5870537-74/washington-walkush-highway), and they're making final designs for a segment of I-83 on the north side of York, I-78 west of Allentown, I-80 in Stroudsburg, U.S. 22 in Allentown, and U.S. 422 in Reading. I-83 in Harrisburg is going to look
radically different (http://www.i-83beltway.com/mp/master_plan/mp_52.html) about 10 years from now too.
And none of this includes the
ongoing reconstruction (http://www.paturnpike.com/improve/improve_map.aspx) of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
I-585 in Spartanburg, SC. FWIW, it neither begins nor ends at another interstate.
Quote from: msubulldog on June 02, 2014, 04:16:18 PM
I-585 in Spartanburg, SC. FWIW, it neither begins nor ends at another interstate.
Long range plans are for it to be fully connected with I-85 at the north end at least.
Quote from: jake on June 01, 2014, 01:21:13 AM
There's also no cops...it's the only place in Washington where 70-80 is the norm.
in just about every other state, 70-80 is the norm when there is the threat of cops. wtf, Washington.
if in California someone put up a sign that said "speed limits not enforced", we'd all be doing 120.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 03, 2014, 03:23:53 PM
Quote from: jake on June 01, 2014, 01:21:13 AM
There's also no cops...it's the only place in Washington where 70-80 is the norm.
in just about every other state, 70-80 is the norm when there is the threat of cops. wtf, Washington.
if in California someone put up a sign that said "speed limits not enforced", we'd all be doing 120.
Oh, I know. My step mom lives in Moreno Valley, and it's always a treat when I go there and get to drive...I always feel like it's a race everywhere, and I love it!
EDIT: Maybe you'd be interested to know, my first ticket was for going 76 in a 60. It was at 1:30 in the afternoon at 317th & I-5 near Federal Way, WA...completely sunny. I was not happy.
Quote from: bing101 on May 31, 2014, 01:35:00 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 30, 2014, 10:43:53 PM
I'm sorry, were you asking a question or a making a statement?
I was making a statement. for I-180
Quote from: bing101 on May 30, 2014, 10:21:38 PM
Why Isn't I-180 Wyoming converted or re-signed as Wyoming State Route 180 or County route 180 since the road is than 1 mile long. :confused:
Statements do not begin with 'Why', and the post was phrased as a question, save for the period at the end which caused the ambiguity.
As for why Wyoming's I-180 isn't a freeway, it's a reminder that thinking in absolutes is a bad idea, as well as giving digital map makers a hard time because it means that the Interstate shield cannot be exclusive to the controlled-access roadway classification.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 03, 2014, 06:05:54 PM
As for why Wyoming's I-180 isn't a freeway, it's a reminder that thinking in absolutes is a bad idea, as well as giving digital map makers a hard time because it means that the Interstate shield cannot be exclusive to the controlled-access roadway classification.
Doesn't this issue for digital map makers also apply to 78 in Jersey City, 70 in Breezewood, and (to some extent) 676 in Philly?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 03, 2014, 03:23:53 PM
Quote from: jake on June 01, 2014, 01:21:13 AM
There's also no cops...it's the only place in Washington where 70-80 is the norm.
in just about every other state, 70-80 is the norm when there is the threat of cops. wtf, Washington.
Meh. Just drove down to Portland and back, and I assure you that on the southern section of I-5 (where the speed limit is 70 as opposed to 60), actual speeds are definitely in the high 70s.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 03, 2014, 06:37:52 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on June 03, 2014, 06:05:54 PM
As for why Wyoming's I-180 isn't a freeway, it's a reminder that thinking in absolutes is a bad idea, as well as giving digital map makers a hard time because it means that the Interstate shield cannot be exclusive to the controlled-access roadway classification.
Doesn't this issue for digital map makers also apply to 78 in Jersey City, 70 in Breezewood, and (to some extent) 676 in Philly?
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 03, 2014, 06:57:14 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 03, 2014, 03:23:53 PM
Quote from: jake on June 01, 2014, 01:21:13 AM
Forgot 587 Kingston, NY
There's also no cops...it's the only place in Washington where 70-80 is the norm.
in just about every other state, 70-80 is the norm when there is the threat of cops. wtf, Washington.
Meh. Just drove down to Portland and back, and I assure you that on the southern section of I-5 (where the speed limit is 70 as opposed to 60), actual speeds are definitely in the high 70s.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 03, 2014, 06:37:52 PM
Doesn't this issue for digital map makers also apply to 78 in Jersey City, 70 in Breezewood, and (to some extent) 676 in Philly?
I'm not sure about I-78 in Jersey City, but as far as PennDOT is concerned, US 30 in Breezewood is not I-70 and the ramps around Franklin Square are not I-676. Actually, PennDOT considers I-676 to terminate at the interchange with I-95–the continuation of the Vine Street Expressway is designated as SR 0676 in official records. In both cases, I-70 and I-676 shields are signed to direct motorists to where the routes continue, but they are, in the strictest sense, discontinuous.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 03, 2014, 06:57:14 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 03, 2014, 03:23:53 PM
Quote from: jake on June 01, 2014, 01:21:13 AM
There's also no cops...it's the only place in Washington where 70-80 is the norm.
in just about every other state, 70-80 is the norm when there is the threat of cops. wtf, Washington.
Meh. Just drove down to Portland and back, and I assure you that on the southern section of I-5 (where the speed limit is 70 as opposed to 60), actual speeds are definitely in the high 70s.
What I meant to say was "The only urban interstate where..." I wish Washington would up the rural speed limits to 75, or 80. I hate being barely better than Oregon. :-D
EDIT: mapman1071, reply #245 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10138.msg303764#msg303764) is confusing me. I think something got messed up.
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
I especially like Honolulu's 10mph legal range. I love it but it's still pretty nuts.
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
At least they connect to the main system. The ones in Hawaii (and currently I-2) do not.
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
I hate to express myself so bluntly, but:
yawn.
this discussion again? I have more well-reasoned conversations about the interstate system with people who have no interest at all in roads.
"but there's interstates in Hawaii."
"it's a system built to particular standards, from funds allocated through specific laws. and the system's formal name includes the word 'defense'. lots of military relevance to the Hawaii routes."
"oh. cool. so is it true that every so often they build the road straight for five miles so that planes can land on it?"
"nah. never was part of the plan. US 40 in eastern Maryland, maybe, before they put in a dividing median. I'll have to get back to you on that."
speaking of which - did we ever find out an answer to that for sure?
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2014, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
At least they connect to the main system. The ones in Hawaii (and currently I-2) do not.
The ones in Hawaii will never connect to the main system either.
Quote from: US 41 on June 04, 2014, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2014, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
At least they connect to the main system. The ones in Hawaii (and currently I-2) do not.
The ones in Hawaii will never connect to the main system either.
Now I-2 on the other hand...
Quote from: US 41 on June 04, 2014, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2014, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
At least they connect to the main system. The ones in Hawaii (and currently I-2) do not.
The ones in Hawaii will never connect to the main system either.
What if they build a really long bridge?
Quote from: US 41 on June 04, 2014, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2014, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
At least they connect to the main system. The ones in Hawaii (and currently I-2) do not.
The ones in Hawaii will never connect to the main system either.
Time to buy a Dutton and carry lots of extra gas cans!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F02242%2F02_Dutton-Commande_2242895i.jpg&hash=5720fe5bf480cc8ec292b1484253db6b793a3c52)
While this thread's still crackin', I took a look at how many different freeways are part of the 53-mile I-278:
* Union Freeway (late 1960s)
* Goethals Bridge (1920s)
* Staten Island Expressway and Lower Gowanus (early 1960s)
* Upper Gowanus (early 1940s)
* Lower BQE (1950s)
* Kosciuszko Bridge (1939)
* Upper BQE (1960)
* Grand Central Parkway, Triboro Bridge (1930s)
* Bruckner Expressway (1960s)
Nine different freeways in 53 miles.
^^ In short, that's why the Northeast makes me want to hang myself over a ledge and let go. Of course, they're all historical names but for anyone not from the area, it's needlessly confusing and history for the sake of history (my opinion).
I spent my teenage years growing up near Winston-Salem. I never understood that the original I-40 through downtown there was mostly only 4 lanes. I thought that it was way underpowered and a disgrace of an interstate. However, I now see that this type of freeway exists in a lot of bigger cities, so it doesn't feel as bad
Quote from: kendancy66 on June 05, 2014, 09:26:58 AM
I spent my teenage years growing up near Winston-Salem. I never understood that the original I-40 through downtown there was mostly only 4 lanes. I thought that it was way underpowered and a disgrace of an interstate. However, I now see that this type of freeway exists in a lot of bigger cities, so it doesn't feel as bad
Yeah, however they're rebuilding (or plan on to rebuild) that section of original 40 through downtown W-S. How they are planning to do that is beyond me. There is NO room for widening or something like that. But, yes this type of freeway exists everywhere.
Quote from: jake on June 05, 2014, 12:43:46 AM
^^ In short, that's why the Northeast makes me want to hang myself over a ledge and let go. Of course, they're all historical names but for anyone not from the area, it's needlessly confusing and history for the sake of history (my opinion).
And you'd be wrong. I suspect I-278 actually changes roads completely at those points.
Here's something similar for I-94 in Illinois:
Tri-State Tollway
Edens Spur
Edens Expressway
Kennedy Expressway
Dan Ryan Expressway
Bishop Ford Freeway
Kingery Expressway
I-94 leaves the Tri-State Tollway in Deerfield. That continues as I-294. It then takes the short Spur over to the Edens Expressway which started as US-41 just north of there. I-94 then follows the Edens south to the Kennedy Junction where it meets I-90 which is already the Kennedy Expressway (since Rosemont). I-94 then follows the Kennedy to the Circle where it becomes the Dan Ryan Expressway (with I-90). I-94 then follows the Ryan south to the Split where the Ryan takes a turn to the west and becomes I-57. I-94 then becomes the Bishop Ford Freeway at this point. I-94 then follows the Bishop Ford down to I-80 and I-294. At I-80 it leaves the Bishop Ford (which continues as IL-394) and follows I-80 out of Illinois on the short Kingery Expressway.
It's no different than a US highway or state route following different streets through a city.
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 04, 2014, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 04, 2014, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2014, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
At least they connect to the main system. The ones in Hawaii (and currently I-2) do not.
The ones in Hawaii will never connect to the main system either.
What if they build a really long bridge?
It is funny you mention that. There were plans drawn up in 60s, 70s, and even into the late 80s to build a series of artificial Islands to connect Hawaii to San Diego. Some were Rail, some were highways.
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 05, 2014, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 04, 2014, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 04, 2014, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2014, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
At least they connect to the main system. The ones in Hawaii (and currently I-2) do not.
The ones in Hawaii will never connect to the main system either.
What if they build a really long bridge?
It is funny you mention that. There were plans drawn up in 60s, 70s, and even into the late 80s to build a series of artificial Islands to connect Hawaii to San Diego. Some were Rail, some were highways.
I fail to see what could go wrong there...
Quote from: Brandon on June 05, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: jake on June 05, 2014, 12:43:46 AM
^^ In short, that's why the Northeast makes me want to hang myself over a ledge and let go. Of course, they're all historical names but for anyone not from the area, it's needlessly confusing and history for the sake of history (my opinion).
And you'd be wrong. I suspect I-278 actually changes roads completely at those points.
Here's something similar for I-94 in Illinois:
Tri-State Tollway
Edens Spur
Edens Expressway
Kennedy Expressway
Dan Ryan Expressway
Bishop Ford Freeway
Kingery Expressway
I-94 leaves the Tri-State Tollway in Deerfield. That continues as I-294. It then takes the short Spur over to the Edens Expressway which started as US-41 just north of there. I-94 then follows the Edens south to the Kennedy Junction where it meets I-90 which is already the Kennedy Expressway (since Rosemont). I-94 then follows the Kennedy to the Circle where it becomes the Dan Ryan Expressway (with I-90). I-94 then follows the Ryan south to the Split where the Ryan takes a turn to the west and becomes I-57. I-94 then becomes the Bishop Ford Freeway at this point. I-94 then follows the Bishop Ford down to I-80 and I-294. At I-80 it leaves the Bishop Ford (which continues as IL-394) and follows I-80 out of Illinois on the short Kingery Expressway.
It's no different than a US highway or state route following different streets through a city.
Look at SoCal freeways as a minor example. Offhand:
I-5 - Montgomery Frwy
San Diego Frwy ( -> I-405)
Santa Ana Frwy ( -> US 101)
Golden State Frwy ( -> CA 99)
West Side Frwy
I-10 - Santa Monica Frwy
Golden State Frwy
San Bernardino Frwy ( -> I-215?)
Redlands Frwy
I-15 - Wabash Frwy
Escondido Frwy ( -> I-215)
Corona Frwy ( discontinuous -> CA 71)
Ontario Frwy
Barstow Frwy ( <- I-215)
CA 60 - Pomona Frwy
Moreno Valley Frwy
CA 91 - Redondo Beach Frwy
Artesia Frwy
Riverside Frwy ( -> I-215)
US 101 - Santa Ana Frwy ( <- I-5)
Hollywood Frwy ( -> CA 170)
Ventura Frwy ( <- CA 134)
El Camino Real
Bayshore Frwy
James Lick Frwy ( -> I-80)
Central Frwy
I/CA 110 - Harbor Frwy
Pasadena Frwy/Arroyo Seco Pkwy
I-215 - Escondido Frwy ( <- I-15)
Moreno Valley Frwy
Riverside Frwy ( <- CA 91)
San Bernardino Frwy (?) ( <- I-10)
Barstow Frwy ( -> I-15)
(And in Portland, I-5 -
Baldock Frwy
Eastbank Frwy
Minnesota Frwy)
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 05, 2014, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 04, 2014, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 04, 2014, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2014, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
At least they connect to the main system. The ones in Hawaii (and currently I-2) do not.
The ones in Hawaii will never connect to the main system either.
What if they build a really long bridge?
It is funny you mention that. There were plans drawn up in 60s, 70s, and even into the late 80s to build a series of artificial Islands to connect Hawaii to San Diego. Some were Rail, some were highways.
nice. (http://everything2.com/title/The+Bridge+to+Hawaii)
Quote from: Bickendan on June 05, 2014, 03:37:58 PM
Look at SoCal freeways as a minor example. Offhand:
US 101 - Santa Ana Frwy ( <- I-5)
Hollywood Frwy ( -> CA 170)
Ventura Frwy ( <- CA 134)
El Camino Real
Bayshore Frwy
James Lick Frwy ( -> I-80)
Central Frwy
I don't know much in common use it has ever been, but the section of 101 from SJ to Gilroy that was never part of Bayshore Highway IIRC is "South Valley Freeway", while most people consider the James Lick name as one of those honorary monikers and think of 101 to the Central Freeway/80 as the north extent of Bayshore. (Pretty neat how except for James Lick, all of the names you listed ARE in somewhat common use).
Could even argue that after the Central Freeway, 101 and its named freeways remain closely tied together: Presidio Parkway/Doyle Drive, Redwood Highway.
Some more California examples:
I-280: (680 ->) Sinclair Freeway (name not really commonly noted by public)
Junipero Serra Freeway (-> Route 1)
Southern Freeway
Southern Embarcadero Freeway (name not in common use)/280 Extension
I-580: (unnamed route along the Hoffman Boulevard corridor)
Eastshore Freeway
MacArthur Freeway
(no common use names to I-5)
I-880:
Nimitz Freeway
Cypress Freeway (name not in regular use since 1997, though was in the media constantly during the realignment project)
I-80:
San Francisco Skyway/James Lick Skyway
Eastshore Freeway
Quote from: Brandon on June 05, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: jake on June 05, 2014, 12:43:46 AM
^^ In short, that's why the Northeast makes me want to hang myself over a ledge and let go. Of course, they're all historical names but for anyone not from the area, it's needlessly confusing and history for the sake of history (my opinion).
I suspect I-278 actually changes roads completely at those points...
If that's the case, then I recede my previous point.
In Western Washington, where I'm from, freeways are not named. We have a couple exceptions (Boeing Freeway, Valley Freeway), but neither are signed, and the latter isn't even official...
Quote from: Brandon on June 05, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
It's no different than a US highway or state route following different streets through a city.
In Seattle, a freeway is a number (SR 520, SR 167, SR 512), but when it becomes an at-grade boulevard or road, it becomes "Rainier Ave", "Meridian", and so on.
For example, when directions are being given, my mom will often say "Take SR 167 to Rainier Ave S", even though they are the same thing.
My point being, it is different than US highway/State Route going through a city on surface streets, because at least in my area, no one (other than the acutely aware) is aware that States Routes also run on surface streets.
EDIT:
Quote from: Brandon on June 05, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
Tri-State Tollway
Edens Spur
Edens Expressway
Kennedy Expressway
Dan Ryan Expressway
Bishop Ford Freeway
Kingery Expressway
What the f*** is the point of all those names?
Quote from: Brandon on June 05, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
And you'd be wrong. I suspect I-278 actually changes roads completely at those points.
Many of them are at bridges. Gowanus/BQE may or may not count as changing roads. BQE/Grand Central Parkway definitely counts.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 05, 2014, 04:29:32 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on June 05, 2014, 03:37:58 PM
Look at SoCal freeways as a minor example. Offhand:
US 101 - Santa Ana Frwy ( <- I-5)
Hollywood Frwy ( -> CA 170)
Ventura Frwy ( <- CA 134)
El Camino Real
Bayshore Frwy
James Lick Frwy ( -> I-80)
Central Frwy
I don't know much in common use it has ever been, but the section of 101 from SJ to Gilroy that was never part of Bayshore Highway IIRC is "South Valley Freeway", while most people consider the James Lick name as one of those honorary monikers and think of 101 to the Central Freeway/80 as the north extent of Bayshore. (Pretty neat how except for James Lick, all of the names you listed ARE in somewhat common use).
I did miss the South Valley portion. It's something like this, right?
El Camino Real ( -> Bus US 101/CA 82)
South Valley Frwy ( -> CA 85)
Bayshore Frwy
Quote from: Bickendan on June 05, 2014, 03:13:29 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 05, 2014, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 04, 2014, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 04, 2014, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 03, 2014, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 03, 2014, 09:32:43 PM
Any interstate in Hawaii is the worst considering they're all intrastates.
Well, what about I-4, I-97, I-87, I-27 and a few other intrastate Interstates?
At least they connect to the main system. The ones in Hawaii (and currently I-2) do not.
The ones in Hawaii will never connect to the main system either.
What if they build a really long bridge?
It is funny you mention that. There were plans drawn up in 60s, 70s, and even into the late 80s to build a series of artificial Islands to connect Hawaii to San Diego. Some were Rail, some were highways.
I fail to see what could go wrong there...
I'm all for a bridge connecting Honolulu with San Diego! Doesn't Washington have some floating bridges? They could use that engineering, right? Now, what to do about rest areas, gas, and distracted drivers driving over the bridge and into the water? These are the questions that keep me up at night!
And I don't mind intrastate interstates, especially if they connect two major interstates, such as I-16 (I-75/95) and I-45 (I-10/20).
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 06, 2014, 12:53:01 AM
I'm all for a bridge connecting Honolulu with San Diego! Doesn't Washington have some floating bridges? They could use that engineering, right? Now, what to do about rest areas, gas, and distracted drivers driving over the bridge and into the water? These are the questions that keep me up at night!
The bridge should incorporate gasoline and diesel pipelines! At every artificial island, say every 10 miles or so, the bridge is anchored and there's a service plaza with food, and gas and diesel piped in. Some of the gas and diesel are also piped to Hawaii, reducing gas prices there. Some of the service plazas will also need hotels. It will all be an extension of I-H3.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 05, 2014, 04:29:32 PM
I don't know much in common use it has ever been, but the section of 101 from SJ to Gilroy that was never part of Bayshore Highway IIRC is "South Valley Freeway", while most people consider the James Lick name as one of those honorary monikers and think of 101 to the Central Freeway/80 as the north extent of Bayshore. (Pretty neat how except for James Lick, all of the names you listed ARE in somewhat common use).
I dunno, I've heard many traffic reporters use the James Lick Freeway quite often in their reports (especially on KCBS (740AM) and on KRON-4 TV).
Quote from: TheStranger on June 05, 2014, 04:29:32 PM
I-880:
Nimitz Freeway
Cypress Freeway (name not in regular use since 1997, though was in the media constantly during the realignment project)
The name "Cypress Freeway" isn't something I hear very often even back in the 90's. I know of the "Cypress Structure" which was the double-decked portion of I-880 that collapsed in the 1989 Loma Prieta quake. I did not know the new alignment of I-880 was named the Cypress Freeway.
Quote from: jake on June 05, 2014, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 05, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: jake on June 05, 2014, 12:43:46 AM
^^ In short, that's why the Northeast makes me want to hang myself over a ledge and let go. Of course, they're all historical names but for anyone not from the area, it's needlessly confusing and history for the sake of history (my opinion).
I suspect I-278 actually changes roads completely at those points...
If that's the case, then I recede my previous point.
In Western Washington, where I'm from, freeways are not named. We have a couple exceptions (Boeing Freeway, Valley Freeway), but neither are signed, and the latter isn't even official...
Quote from: Brandon on June 05, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
It's no different than a US highway or state route following different streets through a city.
In Seattle, a freeway is a number (SR 520, SR 167, SR 512), but when it becomes an at-grade boulevard or road, it becomes "Rainier Ave", "Meridian", and so on.
For example, when directions are being given, my mom will often say "Take SR 167 to Rainier Ave S", even though they are the same thing.
My point being, it is different than US highway/State Route going through a city on surface streets, because at least in my area, no one (other than the acutely aware) is aware that States Routes also run on surface streets.
EDIT:
Quote from: Brandon on June 05, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
Tri-State Tollway
Edens Spur
Edens Expressway
Kennedy Expressway
Dan Ryan Expressway
Bishop Ford Freeway
Kingery Expressway
What the f*** is the point of all those names?
In the large cities most know the freeways and have referred to them by the names rather than the numbers. LA and SF are notable exceptions.
In Southern California (in general) every numbered highway is referred to as "the 5", "the 2", "the 101", etc. Northern Calif - same, except chop off the "the".
Quote from: Strider on June 05, 2014, 12:56:07 PM
Quote from: kendancy66 on June 05, 2014, 09:26:58 AM
I spent my teenage years growing up near Winston-Salem. I never understood that the original I-40 through downtown there was mostly only 4 lanes. I thought that it was way underpowered and a disgrace of an interstate. However, I now see that this type of freeway exists in a lot of bigger cities, so it doesn't feel as bad
Yeah, however they're rebuilding (or plan on to rebuild) that section of original 40 through downtown W-S. How they are planning to do that is beyond me. There is NO room for widening or something like that. But, yes this type of freeway exists everywhere.
I wouldn't mind seeing Business 40/US 421 rebuilt as an expressway/boulevard between MLK Drive and NC 150 (Peters Creek Pkwy). I think the segment between US 52 and at least Broad St could be rebuilt similar to US 17 in Charleston, SC, (aka The Crosstown) south/west of I-26 where there are signalized intersections but left (and some right) turns are prohibited.
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 06, 2014, 07:07:20 AM
In the large cities most know the freeways and have referred to them by the names rather than the numbers. LA and SF are notable exceptions.
In Southern California (in general) every numbered highway is referred to as "the 5", "the 2", "the 101", etc. Northern Calif - same, except chop off the "the".
I think it really depends on the individual. In California, generally the people who have lived in the area longer tend to use the names of the freeways. "Hollywood Freeway", "Santa Monica Freeway", and some other names get used very frequently, especially on radio traffic reports. Some freeways are almost never referred to by name: "San Gabriel River Freeway" (too wordy), "Orange Freeway", "Gardena Freeway", "Glenn Anderson Freeway".
Transplants to the area almost exclusively use the numbers.
As Caltrans (especially District 7) gets rid of naming the freeways on BGS's, fewer and fewer people will get to know these names.
In other places, like New York there are many controlled-access highways without numbers (Grand Central Parkway, FDR Drive), so they cannot exclusively be referred by numbers only, so names are very heavily used.
Quote from: jake on June 05, 2014, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 05, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
Tri-State Tollway
Edens Spur
Edens Expressway
Kennedy Expressway
Dan Ryan Expressway
Bishop Ford Freeway
Kingery Expressway
What the f*** is the point of all those names?
These are the names of the freeways and tollways. They are used heavily by the locals and do appear on the signs.
Examples (caution, photo-heavy):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2145.jpg&hash=e27ad7b9e5b94ed0be7d302adcd5d993617ce4ce) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2145.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2252.jpg&hash=26bc8bdee622483bb974bf762eab1d4ffa4772e5) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2252.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2775.jpg&hash=45eebe72813e359fa5e4d219b2187d925ba16dcf) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2775.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2778.jpg&hash=bf206d9c90fc3f218a1d5e4cb42681b103bc2c9f) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2778.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3387_zps4205b2ff.jpg&hash=b09d4d77652292765f00138de80f08ca46bbacfe) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3387_zps4205b2ff.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3397_zpsc8af7ffb.jpg&hash=7470168f06aa18295be9372ae0f8b597ed454948) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3397_zpsc8af7ffb.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3499_zps273e39c8.jpg&hash=817d5200037a3badaba43ad36a992f4b14c0828c) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3499_zps273e39c8.jpg.html)
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 06, 2014, 02:18:04 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 05, 2014, 04:29:32 PM
I don't know much in common use it has ever been, but the section of 101 from SJ to Gilroy that was never part of Bayshore Highway IIRC is "South Valley Freeway", while most people consider the James Lick name as one of those honorary monikers and think of 101 to the Central Freeway/80 as the north extent of Bayshore. (Pretty neat how except for James Lick, all of the names you listed ARE in somewhat common use).
I dunno, I've heard many traffic reporters use the James Lick Freeway quite often in their reports (especially on KCBS (740AM) and on KRON-4 TV).
That's interesting. Is that just the 101 segment, or all the way to the Bay Bridge? I think there is exactly one sign for "James Lick" in SF (101 north near Candlestick).
I've heard "Skyway" for 80 in SF every once in a while on traffic reports.
The photo I posted earlier this week of that 480 west signage for Bayshore Freeway does fit in with all of this: 1. that the James Lick and Bayshore identities in SF were for the most part synonymous 2. that the "Bayshore" route is all of what was Legislative Route 68, which continued to the bridge.
Over in Mountain View, I saw a surprising amount of signs pointing to the Bayshore Freeway (with no 101 shield) along Middlefield Road last week.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 06, 2014, 02:18:04 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 05, 2014, 04:29:32 PM
I-880:
Nimitz Freeway
Cypress Freeway (name not in regular use since 1997, though was in the media constantly during the realignment project)
The name "Cypress Freeway" isn't something I hear very often even back in the 90's. I know of the "Cypress Structure" which was the double-decked portion of I-880 that collapsed in the 1989 Loma Prieta quake. I did not know the new alignment of I-880 was named the Cypress Freeway.
The project was often referred to as the Cypress Freeway ca. 1996-1997 when I would hear about it on local news and I think was officially noted as the "Cypress Freeway Replacement". Completely deprecated though as a name, especially with Cypress Street itself having been given a new identity (Mandela Parkway) around the same time.
Quote from: mrsmanI think it really depends on the individual. In California, generally the people who have lived in the area longer tend to use the names of the freeways. "Hollywood Freeway", "Santa Monica Freeway", and some other names get used very frequently, especially on radio traffic reports. Some freeways are almost never referred to by name: "San Gabriel River Freeway" (too wordy), "Orange Freeway", "Gardena Freeway", "Glenn Anderson Freeway".
It seems in general that the names of freeways used commonly in SoCal and NorCal are ones that were established pre-1970:
SoCal - Santa Ana, San Diego, Santa Monica, Hollywood, and especially Harbor and Ventura. Not sure about Long Beach Freeway or Pomona Freeway or Foothill or Riverside, all of which have existed for years but might be better known by their numbers.
I know the colloquial name for 105 is the Century Freeway (and late-80s news articles noted how the public basically gave it that moniker) but I don't know how commonly that is used at this point.
NorCal - Bayshore, Nimitz, MacArthur Eastshore, Central are the top five easily, with Junipero Serra a very very distant 6th. When it existed, Embarcadero Freeway was noted a lot (mostly because it was disliked so much).
The "James Lick Freeway" is 101 from the 101-280 interchange to the 101-80 interchange and 80 from the 101-80 interchange to the Bay Bridge.
For many people, names are easier to remember than numbers. Also, for a period in the late 50s to early 70s, numbers were being changed all willy-nilly, while the names stayed put. Even now numbers are more changeable than names; when the Loma Prieta Earthquake knocked down the Cyprus Structure I hadn't been living in the Bay Area since it's number changed from CA 17, and I was very confused. I-880? What? How did an earthquake in the Santa Cruz Mountains knock down a beltway around Sacramento?
I'd like to see names included on the overhead signs along with route numbers when possible, though I know it's a challenge to keep down the amount of information on the signs.
Quote from: mrsman on June 06, 2014, 10:25:17 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 06, 2014, 07:07:20 AM
In the large cities most know the freeways and have referred to them by the names rather than the numbers. LA and SF are notable exceptions.
In Southern California (in general) every numbered highway is referred to as "the 5", "the 2", "the 101", etc. Northern Calif - same, except chop off the "the".
I think it really depends on the individual. In California, generally the people who have lived in the area longer tend to use the names of the freeways. "Hollywood Freeway", "Santa Monica Freeway", and some other names get used very frequently, especially on radio traffic reports. Some freeways are almost never referred to by name: "San Gabriel River Freeway" (too wordy), "Orange Freeway", "Gardena Freeway", "Glenn Anderson Freeway".
Transplants to the area almost exclusively use the numbers.
As Caltrans (especially District 7) gets rid of naming the freeways on BGS's, fewer and fewer people will get to know these names.
In other places, like New York there are many controlled-access highways without numbers (Grand Central Parkway, FDR Drive), so they cannot exclusively be referred by numbers only, so names are very heavily used.
My opinion here, but when someone says "The 5" or "The 10", it's not a name like "Santa Ana Freeway", it's just the route number with a definite article. The UK does the same thing ("the A46 towards Cleethorpes"). For example, the "Glenn Anderson Freeway" is the name, but the number is "The 105", regardless if it's with the definite article.Nevermind. I have once again mis-interpreted the original post. :pan:
Add Saint Louis and Seattle to the list of cities without freeway names.
Quote from: kkt on June 06, 2014, 02:30:18 PM
The "James Lick Freeway" is 101 from the 101-280 interchange to the 101-80 interchange and 80 from the 101-80 interchange to the Bay Bridge.
So basically, all of old LRN 68 after all. It seems the CSAA San Francisco map is where "San Francisco Skyway" tended to be prevalent for the 80 portion, though I know of it mostly as the "Skyway" in practice.
As noted before, there's exactly 1 sign for "James Lick Freeway" in existence. May have been more in the past, but the one on 101 north between Candlestick and 3rd Street is the only one I'm familiar with.
Along 280 north approaching the Alemany Maze, that portion of 101 is signed for "Bayshore Freeway" (photo noted later in this post).
Quote from: kkt on June 06, 2014, 02:30:18 PM
I'd like to see names included on the overhead signs along with route numbers when possible, though I know it's a challenge to keep down the amount of information on the signs.
I have always liked the Chicago approach of name legend that is larger than cardinal direction and smaller than the control cities.
Having said that, it's fascinating to see this debate (route names to be mentioned or not to be mentioned) play out earlier in the District 7 resigning plans thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11603.0
Quote from: jakeAdd Saint Louis and Seattle to the list of cities without freeway names.
Not necessarily:
Seattle has the Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR 99), which is being replaced with a tunnel. St. Louis has US 40 on the Daniel Boone Expressway (and I-70 on the Mark Twain Expressway), though I'm not sure that name is as commonly used as it was in past years.
Quote from: Bickendan
I did miss the South Valley portion. It's something like this, right?
El Camino Real ( -> Bus US 101/CA 82)
South Valley Frwy ( -> CA 85)
Bayshore Frwy
Correct!
Also, how would we measure out the James Lick Freeway portion if it is entirely concurrent/synonymous with the northernmost part of the Bayshore Freeway? (In fact, the latter is the one with the more notable signage today - https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4896320571/in/set-72157624531453370 - and in the past - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12495.0 )
Quote from: TheStranger on June 06, 2014, 03:49:19 PM
Also, how would we measure out the James Lick Freeway portion if it is entirely concurrent/synonymous with the northernmost part of the Bayshore Freeway? (In fact, the latter is the one with the more notable signage today - https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4896320571/in/set-72157624531453370 - and in the past - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12495.0 )
I personally would call the north end of Bayshore Freeway to be at Caesar Chavez, where old Bayshore Boulevard ends. But CA Roads says the name Bayshore Freeway extends up to the 101-80 junction, and they're probably right legislatively.
Quote from: kkt on June 06, 2014, 05:20:26 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 06, 2014, 03:49:19 PM
Also, how would we measure out the James Lick Freeway portion if it is entirely concurrent/synonymous with the northernmost part of the Bayshore Freeway? (In fact, the latter is the one with the more notable signage today - https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4896320571/in/set-72157624531453370 - and in the past - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12495.0 )
I personally would call the north end of Bayshore Freeway to be at Caesar Chavez, where old Bayshore Boulevard ends. But CA Roads says the name Bayshore Freeway extends up to the 101-80 junction, and they're probably right legislatively.
I think there's also some painted-on bridge markings noting the "Bayshore Viaduct" on the Skyway:
http://infospigot.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451588769e20133f347e817970b-pi
For bad Interstates, what about Interstate 595 in its construction stage to make the Tolled Express Lanes? (Now that I think about it, there are a lot of tolled roads in the USA. Why? Because of $$$ Money Money Money :pan: )
Edited to remove excess smileys and fix grammar. Please learn capitalization. Do not post excessive smileys. One is plenty. Thank you! ~S
Quote from: Legodinodoctor on June 07, 2014, 06:31:17 PM
For bad Interstates, what about Interstate 595 in its construction stage to make the Tolled Express Lanes? (Now that I think about it, there are a lot of tolled roads in the USA. Why? Because of $$$ Money Money Money :pan: )
Edited to remove excess smileys and fix grammar. Please learn capitalization. Do not post excessive smileys. One is plenty. Thank you! ~S
France has a lot of tolled freeways. If I am correct, all of Japan's freeways are tolled.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 09, 2014, 03:52:23 AM
Quote from: Legodinodoctor on June 07, 2014, 06:31:17 PM
For bad Interstates, what about Interstate 595 in its construction stage to make the Tolled Express Lanes? (Now that I think about it, there are a lot of tolled roads in the USA. Why? Because of $$$ Money Money Money :pan: )
France has a lot of tolled freeways. If I am correct, all of Japan's freeways are tolled.
And they are in immensely better shape in contrast to our freeways.
I've been to Cheyenne, so I can attest that the whole I-180 thing is horrendous and makes AASHTO looks like idiots. Horrendous as it may seem, it at least connects to its parent, I-80. So it follows the rules in that regard. Why is it I-238? I don't see the reasoning behind that and it just looks like a huge error that is in dire need of correction. What's wrong with keeping it CA 238? They have CA 85 and 87 in San Jose. :confused:
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on June 30, 2014, 03:14:26 AM
Why is it I-238? I don't see the reasoning behind that and it just looks like a huge error that is in dire need of correction. What's wrong with keeping it CA 238? They have CA 85 and 87 in San Jose. :confused:
Because the upgrade to Interstate standards received Interstate funds, and at the time, CalTrans was unwilling to renumber either former I-480 or 1934-present state route 180 (the only two x80 numbers available in 1984).
Neither Route 85 nor Route 87 received Interstate funding for their construction (though one part of what was proposed as 87's northern extension is now I-280 north of Cesar Chavez (Army) Street in SF).
I still haven't seen any rule which prohibits a four-digit interstate, such as I-1080.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 30, 2014, 11:31:44 AM
I still haven't seen any rule which prohibits a four-digit interstate, such as I-1080.
Have they ever been proposed? California 1005 or 1080, N.Y. 1095?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 30, 2014, 11:31:44 AM
I still haven't seen any rule which prohibits a four-digit interstate, such as I-1080.
I'm sure a four-digit interstate is quite doable given that H201 (without the hyphen) can be made to legibiy fit on a 3di shield.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 30, 2014, 11:05:34 AM
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on June 30, 2014, 03:14:26 AM
Why is it I-238? I don't see the reasoning behind that and it just looks like a huge error that is in dire need of correction. What's wrong with keeping it CA 238? They have CA 85 and 87 in San Jose. :confused:
Because the upgrade to Interstate standards received Interstate funds, and at the time, CalTrans was unwilling to renumber either former I-480 or 1934-present state route 180 (the only two x80 numbers available in 1984).
Neither Route 85 nor Route 87 received Interstate funding for their construction (though one part of what was proposed as 87's northern extension is now I-280 north of Cesar Chavez (Army) Street in SF).
I see. It just boggles me as to how CalTrans actually got interstate funding to begin with. But wait, that was then. I understand the 180 (CA 180, Fresno) and avoiding a duplication of numbers in the highway system. Since I-480 was decommissioned, would it be a wiser idea to reuse I-480 over I-238, just for sake of continuity and number violation?
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on June 30, 2014, 02:20:53 PMSince I-480 was decommissioned, would it be a wiser idea to reuse I-480 over I-238, just for sake of continuity and number violation?
too confusing to have the new 480 in the same general area.
the 238 number seems to be getting deprecated in the field. it's mainly signed as "to 880" on 580.
What about SPUR I-580?
A route numbered 480 was last on the books twenty-three years ago. I doubt any confusion would arise at this point.
Plus it could just be a hidden designation. No need to post the number.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 06, 2014, 03:49:19 PM
St. Louis has US 40 on the Daniel Boone Expressway (and I-70 on the Mark Twain Expressway), though I'm not sure that name is as commonly used as it was in past years.
IIRC, in the St. Louis area the only freeway that was more often identified by name over a number was the Inner Belt (I-170). I wonder though whether MO 364 is more often identified by number or by "Page Avenue," "Page Avenue Extension," or something similar.
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on June 30, 2014, 02:20:53 PM
I see. It just boggles me as to how CalTrans actually got interstate funding to begin with.
Glenn Anderson, whose efforts were honored when I-105/the Century Freeway also was named after him. He basically campaigned for interstate funds to be used to improve freeways in California in the 1980s, most strongly I-880 (which came about along with 238 and the 580 extension).
180 would not have even been available for 238 as it was the first proposed number (until 1984) for the 580 extension to San Rafael.
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on June 30, 2014, 02:20:53 PM
But wait, that was then. I understand the 180 (CA 180, Fresno) and avoiding a duplication of numbers in the highway system. Since I-480 was decommissioned, would it be a wiser idea to reuse I-480 over I-238, just for sake of continuity and number violation?
480 was still an active state route number at the time (unlike 880 which was then reused in the Bay Area 2-3 years after being removed from the Sacramento area). Only time I can think of that California renumbered a route just for the sake of renumbering a route was the change of Route 69 to Route 245 in the early 1970s.
Quote from: Scott5114A route numbered 480 was last on the books twenty-three years ago. I doubt any confusion would arise at this point.
I agree, though I think 480 specifically conjures up very negative attitudes to longtime Bay Area residents (given the strong opposition to the Embarcadero Freeway throughout its existence). I wonder if THAT is why that number never got reused, ultimately.
At this point most people who were around for the freeway revolts have gotten much older, though I surmise one effect of them is the usage of "Presidio Parkway" for what is clearly a rebuild/upgrade project for the 101 freeway segment in the Presidio (the former Doyle Drive).
Quote from: Avalanchez71What about SPUR I-580?
Funny enough, from 1964-1968, while not a true "SPUR xx" route, the legislative definition of Route 1 between the Junipero Serra Freeway and San Jose Avenue (along what is now 280) basically had a segment that was discontinuous with the actual through route of 1 (which then, as now, continued up the Junipero Serra Freeway to Font Boulevard along what was then-proposed 280). And in LA, we functionally have a spur of I-10 in that form (the San Bernardino Freeway that was US 60/70/99 west of I-5) to this day!
Quote from: Scott5114A route numbered 480 was last on the books twenty-three years ago. I doubt any confusion would arise at this point.
This is what I said earlier. I mean, the I-480 that was in San Francisco/the Embarcadero actually required something to be built and for land to be used up. I-238 is already built, so it's just a numbering change. If it had to involve having imminent domain and having a new section of freeway built, then yeah I can see that causing a stir. And you said 1984, so surely after 30 years it wouldn't cause any issue and the attitudes would have changed.
At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2014, 03:45:44 PM
At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?
You're preaching to the choir here :-D. Let's be like New York and I-90 and use up all the 3-di if possible.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2014, 03:45:44 PM
At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?
Well, I opposed the Embarcadero Freeway and I remember what number it carried...
If CA-238 between 880 and 580 were being renumbered today, I'm sure it would be fine to use I-480. But every numbering change has a cost: obsoleted maps, obsoleted directions on web sites and printed handouts, obsoleted memories. The change from CA-238 to I-238 was mandatory at the time, because interstate funding carried the requirement that the road have an interstate number. Now there's no such mandatory change. There's few people but a handful of roadgeeks who even notice that it doesn't follow the numbering plan, let alone care.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2014, 03:45:44 PM
At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?
Signage for the road (marked as CLOSED off of the Skyway/I-80) DID stay up until about 1992-1993 at least...though that's quickly not recent anymore.
Is SF the only city to have a complete anti-freeway policy codified as local ordinance (as opposed to simply blocking projects during the 60s/70s)? Interesting that the one section of freeway being upgraded and completely rebuilt now under the "Parkway" moniker...would have been (but never was signed as) part of the complete 480 route.
Los Angeles DID reuse 105 about 10 years on paper after the original 105 was removed from the Interstate system, though in that case it was basically a hidden designation for the portion of the Santa Ana Freeway/US 101 between the East Los Angeles Interchange and San Bernardino Split. (tied into this: 110 was reused about 13 years after it was removed from what is now basically the I-10 spur from 5 to 101)
Quote from: kkt on July 01, 2014, 06:41:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2014, 03:45:44 PM
At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?
Well, I opposed the Embarcadero Freeway and I remember what number it carried...
If CA-238 between 880 and 580 were being renumbered today, I'm sure it would be fine to use I-480. But every numbering change has a cost: obsoleted maps, obsoleted directions on web sites and printed handouts, obsoleted memories. The change from CA-238 to I-238 was mandatory at the time, because interstate funding carried the requirement that the road have an interstate number. Now there's no such mandatory change. There's few people but a handful of roadgeeks who even notice that it doesn't follow the numbering plan, let alone care.
I don't know that the requirement extends to actually
signing that number. There are many unsigned interstates, such as I-478, I-878, I-595 MD, etc.
Quote from: vdeane on July 01, 2014, 10:42:18 PM
I don't know that the requirement extends to actually signing that number. There are many unsigned interstates, such as I-478, I-878, I-595 MD, etc.
Even by 1984, unsigned interstates were already in use (specific example: I-305 in Sacramento). Having said that, 478 and 595 you brought up were planned to have been signed at one point (unlike 305).
I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.
Signing 238 as an interstate is an advantage to truckers unfamiliar with the area that the truck route from Tracy to Oakland really is I-580, I-238, I-880, rather than I-580 all the way.
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.
Just a nitpick, I-305 is signed as BL-80, not I-80.
Quote from: Brandon on July 02, 2014, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.
Just a nitpick, I-305 is signed as BL-80, not I-80.
Now, yes, but from 1964 to 1980 it was I-80.
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.
If I'm not mistaken (and TheStranger can correct me if I'm wrong), I-305 didn't come about until I-80 was rerouted around Sacramento on what was then I-880.
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Signing 238 as an interstate is an advantage to truckers unfamiliar with the area that the truck route from Tracy to Oakland really is I-580, I-238, I-880, rather than I-580 all the way.
Trucks cannot use I-580 "all the way" because they are banned on I-580 from I-238 to downtown Oakland. Trucks headed to the Port of Oakland from the Central Valley on I-580 *must* use I-238 and I-880.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 02, 2014, 12:16:11 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.
If I'm not mistaken (and TheStranger can correct me if I'm wrong), I-305 didn't come about until I-80 was rerouted around Sacramento on what was then I-880.
That's true. The point was (there was a point, really) that although I-305 is an unsigned interstate now, it was built as signed interstate and was a signed interstate for a long time. Use interstate funds to build it means signing it as an interstate, at least for a while.
Quote
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2014, 12:52:47 AM
Signing 238 as an interstate is an advantage to truckers unfamiliar with the area that the truck route from Tracy to Oakland really is I-580, I-238, I-880, rather than I-580 all the way.
Trucks cannot use I-580 "all the way" because they are banned on I-580 from I-238 to downtown Oakland. Trucks headed to the Port of Oakland from the Central Valley on I-580 *must* use I-238 and I-880.
Exactly right. That is why it's an advantage to show that the truck route is an interstate quality route, and truckers who follow it aren't going to be dumped off onto a city street or goat path somewhere, as they were up until the route from 580 to 880 was upgraded.
Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates? :confused:
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2014, 12:35:43 PM
Exactly right. That is why it's an advantage to show that the truck route is an interstate quality route, and truckers who follow it aren't going to be dumped off onto a city street or goat path somewhere, as they were up until the route from 580 to 880 was upgraded.
I believe that was the main reason why Caltrans wanted the Interstate designation for that portion of route 238, to facilitate freight movement to and from the Port of Oakland.
BTW, you had to throw in a gratuitous Alanland reference didn't you. :-D
Quote from: billtm on July 02, 2014, 01:21:35 PM
Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates? :confused:
because for maintenance funding purposes, they need an interstate designation. if they were decommissioned (likely turned over to county or city control), there would not be a guarantee of consistent quality.
(yeah, I know, there isn't one anyway - I-580 is abysmal in some places and it's even signed!)
Quote from: billtm on July 02, 2014, 01:21:35 PM
Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates? :confused:
Do the states have obligations to maintain interstate routes, even unsigned, that are greater than their obligations to other National Highway System routes?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 02, 2014, 01:29:03 PM
Quote from: billtm on July 02, 2014, 01:21:35 PM
Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates? :confused:
because for maintenance funding purposes, they need an interstate designation. if they were decommissioned (likely turned over to county or city control), there would not be a guarantee of consistent quality.
(yeah, I know, there isn't one anyway - I-580 is abysmal in some places and it's even signed!)
I-580 doesn't seem so bad. I-880 through Oakland is just awful and a disgrace to California and Interstates everywhere.
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2014, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 02, 2014, 01:29:03 PM
Quote from: billtm on July 02, 2014, 01:21:35 PM
Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates? :confused:
because for maintenance funding purposes, they need an interstate designation. if they were decommissioned (likely turned over to county or city control), there would not be a guarantee of consistent quality.
(yeah, I know, there isn't one anyway - I-580 is abysmal in some places and it's even signed!)
I-580 doesn't seem so bad. I-880 through Oakland is just awful and a disgrace to California and Interstates everywhere.
Which is probably why that portion of 880 (namely the section between 980 and High Street) seems to have been under constant construction in the last few years. (I do find it funny that much of the MacArthur Freeway was built as an Interstate (originally I-5W) to Interstate standards, yet preserved a truck ban dating back to the days US 50 ran along MacArthur Boulevard...while the official truck route uses a portion of 880 that for many years has been a barely-upgraded segment of former Route 17)
Most substandard CURRENTLY signed Interstate higwhay in California would likely be I-80 on the San Francisco Skyway. Past example? the old Cypress Freeway is one...what is now Business 80 northeast of El Camino Avenue is another. (While never signed as an interstate, the Santa Ana Freeway/US 101 segment northwest of the East Los Angeles Interchange likely is the most definitive example, during its 4 years as unmarked I-105.)
---
Re: Myosh_tino - for 305, you are correct: it basically is all of what used to be I-80 (and specifically, the portion of it that WAS built as an Interstate, which explains recent FHWA length total corrections to the route) from West Sacramento to E Street, the portion northeast of there built originally as substandard US 99E.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 09, 2014, 03:52:23 AM
France has a lot of tolled freeways. If I am correct, all of Japan's freeways are tolled.
If all of Japan's freeways are tolled , I Would NOT want to live there :ded:
Quote from: Legodinodoctor on July 05, 2014, 03:29:33 PM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 09, 2014, 03:52:23 AM
France has a lot of tolled freeways. If I am correct, all of Japan's freeways are tolled.
If all of Japan's freeways are tolled , I Would NOT want to live there :ded:
All or almost all of Mexico's freeways are tolled too.
Quote from: US 41 on July 06, 2014, 08:44:19 AM
All or almost all of Mexico's freeways are tolled too.
Then I wouldn't want to live in Mexico Either
Quote from: Legodinodoctor on July 06, 2014, 09:44:47 AM
Quote from: US 41 on July 06, 2014, 08:44:19 AM
All or almost all of Mexico's freeways are tolled too.
Then I wouldn't want to live in Mexico Either
Mexico's toll roads aren't cheap either. Taking a bypass around a small town could cost you over 100 pesos (10 USD). On my planned Mexico trip from Nuevo Laredo - Mazatlan - Nogales, it will cost me 162 dollars in tolls according to Mexico's government website.
Quote from: US 41 on July 06, 2014, 03:59:31 PM
Mexico's toll roads aren't cheap either. Taking a bypass around a small town could cost you over 100 pesos (10 USD). On my planned Mexico trip from Nuevo Laredo - Mazatlan - Nogales, it will cost me 162 dollars in tolls according to Mexico's government website.
Those prices remind of the E-470 around Denver. That mofo ain't cheap. According to Wikipedia (bare with me) it's ~$13 for transponders and ~$17 for licence plates from north to south.
Of the choices, I-180 has got to be the worst, it literally isn't even an interstate. I-189 in Burlington, Vermont isn't much different. That is basically an exit ramp. :-|
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 20, 2014, 09:00:02 AM
Of the choices, I-180 has got to be the worst, it literally isn't even an interstate. I-189 in Burlington, Vermont isn't much different. That is basically an exit ramp. :-|
At least I-189 has a system interchange with its parent unlike I-180
Quote from: Henry on August 14, 2013, 10:38:24 AM
I-97 should become an extension of I-83. Sure, that would put it east of I-95, but at least it would be a longer route connecting two state capitals (Harrisburg and Annapolis).
That would be the perfect solution to the whole I-97 thing. Either that, or they rename I-97 as I-995, which would be fine.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 20, 2014, 09:04:47 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 20, 2014, 09:00:02 AM
Of the choices, I-180 has got to be the worst, it literally isn't even an interstate. I-189 in Burlington, Vermont isn't much different. That is basically an exit ramp. :-|
At least I-189 has a system interchange with its parent unlike I-180
Then there's the infamous I-587 in New York. It's so bad, its parent doesn't even acknowledge it.
QuoteOf the choices, I-180 has got to be the worst, it literally isn't even an interstate. I-189 in Burlington, Vermont isn't much different. That is basically an exit ramp. :-|
Can one argue that I-375 (or is it 175, I tend to get em mixed up) in Tampa is basically a long exit ramp as well?
Quote from: Brandon on August 20, 2014, 09:20:35 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 20, 2014, 09:04:47 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 20, 2014, 09:00:02 AM
Of the choices, I-180 has got to be the worst, it literally isn't even an interstate. I-189 in Burlington, Vermont isn't much different. That is basically an exit ramp. :-|
At least I-189 has a system interchange with its parent unlike I-180
Then there's the infamous I-587 in New York. It's so bad, its parent doesn't even acknowledge it.
And I-78 disowned its children. Even NYSDOT doesn't acknowledge I-878!
At least I-189 has an overpass and a stub. While it has no interchanges except termini, at least it doesn't have at-grades. Burlington wants to revive the stub as a two lane parkway to downtown.
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2014, 12:44:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 20, 2014, 09:20:35 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 20, 2014, 09:04:47 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 20, 2014, 09:00:02 AM
Of the choices, I-180 has got to be the worst, it literally isn't even an interstate. I-189 in Burlington, Vermont isn't much different. That is basically an exit ramp. :-|
At least I-189 has a system interchange with its parent unlike I-180
Then there's the infamous I-587 in New York. It's so bad, its parent doesn't even acknowledge it.
And I-78 disowned its children. Even NYSDOT doesn't acknowledge I-878!
At least I-189 has an overpass and a stub. While it has no interchanges except termini, at least it doesn't have at-grades. Burlington wants to revive the stub as a two lane parkway to downtown.
If we're talking about the x78s, I-278 is substandard for most (if not all) of its length, bans trucks in sections, has low clearances, AND has a very low speed limit in downtown Brooklyn. If we're only considering full "freeways", this might be the worst for that reason.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 20, 2014, 12:12:23 PM
QuoteOf the choices, I-180 has got to be the worst, it literally isn't even an in
Can one argue that I-375 (or is it 175, I tend to get em mixed up) in Tampa is basically a long exit ramp as well?
Yep. Both I-175 and I-375 are basically long exit ramps in St. Petersburg, FL.
Quote
At least I-189 has an overpass and a stub. While it has no interchanges except termini, at least it doesn't have at-grades. Burlington wants to revive the stub as a two lane parkway to downtown.
Yeah, at least I-189 has that. :sombrero:
QuoteYep. Both I-175 and I-375 are basically long exit ramps in St. Petersburg, FL.
This got my thought train a-rollin' about Florida. They also have I-395, which I believe is also a glorified exit ramp. Why does that even exist? Couldn't they have just routed US 41 along it the entire way?
395 has two exits, depending which way you're going. Why they didn't extend it along the Dolphin Expressway (836) when they had the chance is beyond me...maybe it was denied.
It would have made sense to do that. Extending I-395 to the FL Turnpike would make a lot of sense. However, we all know the sensible thing to do has not quite always been done. Hey look at NJ not extending I-76 to Atlantic City via the freeway system they have already. There are more, but I think that one is enough to point out.