News:

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

Main Menu

Worst interstate ever

Started by hotdogPi, August 13, 2013, 06:20:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Which interstate is the worst interstate ever?

Interstate 99
18 (14.4%)
Interstate 97
13 (10.4%)
Interstate 238
20 (16%)
Interstate 180
42 (33.6%)
Other
32 (25.6%)

Total Members Voted: 125

DandyDan

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).
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE


TEG24601

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.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

kkt

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?

empirestate

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.)

NE2

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.)
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Molandfreak

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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

kkt

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.

31E

Personally, I'd change 84 to 82, 82 to 9, and 86 to 282.

vdeane

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
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

kkt

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...

empirestate

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.

Molandfreak

#136
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: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

andy3175

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
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Indyroads

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.
And a highway will be there;
    it will be called the Way of Holiness;
    it will be for those who walk on that Way.
The unclean will not journey on it;
    wicked fools will not go about on it.
Isaiah 35:8-10 (NIV)

TEG24601

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.



They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

xonhulu

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.

cpzilliacus

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.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

kkt

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.

Charles2

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

PColumbus73

#144
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.

Buck87

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.

PColumbus73

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.)

Molandfreak

#147
No. Axe 22 and extend 30. There's only an hour time difference (less if you want to extend I-269).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Charles2

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.

PColumbus73

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.