Is Phoenix the largest metro area without a 3digit interstate?

[hotdogPi]

Hello Orlando, FL is now a large metro being served by only one primary highway with no children as the connecting freeways are all tolled and under FL law ( the Sunshine Skyway and Alligator Alley are grandfathered in cause they both predate the interstate system) cannot be if they become interstate anyhow.

I found that Orlando's metro area is 2nd behind Phoenix for those without a 3di (it's in Reply #4, but it could easily be missed since the information was in my second edit, after Reply #5 had already been written).

[roadman65]

Yeah, its below the line where it looks like a typical signature.  At least three users on here did not see it before you did as I hate arguing which on here is very easy to do these days.

[Bobby5280]

Phoenix is most definitely the most populous city in the United States without a 3 digit Interstate. As of 2016 Census estimates the city limits population is over 1.6 million people. That ranks 5th in the nation (behind NYC, LA, Chicago and Houston, all of which have over 2 million in city limits population).

Austin could pass the 1 million mark on city limits population within the next few years unless the city prices itself out of being able to do so in terms of living costs. The metro area and zone between Austin and San Antonio is booming with rapid population growth.

Albuquerque's city limits population is about 560,000 people. That's only 1/3 the size of Phoenix' city limits population. Its metro area population of just under 1 million is a fraction of Phoenix' metro population of over 3 million.

[dvferyance]

Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.

[Pink Jazz]

Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.

If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:

   
• Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
• Loop 202 - Interstate 610
• Loop 303 - Interstate 217
• SR 51 - Interstate 510
• SR 143 - Interstate 110
• US 60 - Interstate 317

[sparker]

Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.

If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:

   
• Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
• Loop 202 - Interstate 610
• Loop 303 - Interstate 217
• SR 51 - Interstate 510
• SR 143 - Interstate 110
• US 60 - Interstate 317

Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?

[Max Rockatansky]

Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.

If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:

   
• Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
• Loop 202 - Interstate 610
• Loop 303 - Interstate 217
• SR 51 - Interstate 510
• SR 143 - Interstate 110
• US 60 - Interstate 317

Thing is...what does it add?  Really the 3ds are over saturated around the country and it was always really refreshing to see ADOT shun them completely.  Overlapping an Interstate designation on a US Route like US 395/I-580 is completely unnecessary IMO.

[Pink Jazz]

Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.

If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:

   
• Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
• Loop 202 - Interstate 610
• Loop 303 - Interstate 217
• SR 51 - Interstate 510
• SR 143 - Interstate 110
• US 60 - Interstate 317

Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?

I-317 would start at The Stack and would include what is currently the southernmost portion of I-17, and would be concurrent with I-10 for a few miles until the Superstition Transition.

[vdeane]

Thing is...what does it add?  Really the 3ds are over saturated around the country and it was always really refreshing to see ADOT shun them completely.  Overlapping an Interstate designation on a US Route like US 395/I-580 is completely unnecessary IMO.

I don't think 3dis are oversaturated, though there are some odd ones that I question.  Agree on the US route overlaps, but I'd say that the US should have been left where it was.

[Duke87]

As a slight aside, it's been noted previously that Austin is the largest city in the US with exactly one interstate (Phoenix may not have any 3dis, but it does have two 2dis - Austin has only one).

If you look at metro areas, Orlando is the largest with only one interstate - unless you go by the combined statistical area with Daytona Beach, in which case you have both I-95 and I-4.


At any rate, something interesting Orlando and Phoenix have in common is that neither are particularly for want of freeway mileage. They have plenty of freeways looping and spurring off the interstates. The loops and spurs just don't have 3di designations as they might in other cities.

Not coincidentally, Orlando and Phoenix are both much larger today than they were in 1956 when the interstate system was first laid out and funding was allotted. In 1956, neither really needed any spurs or loops, so they were not assigned any. Subsequently, as the areas have grown and needed more freeways, the folks in them have elected to pay for their construction using other revenue streams (a local sales tax surcharge for Phoenix, tolls for Orlando) rather than seek federal interstate funding. Without the funding motive, they haven't seen the need to apply for interstate designations for these roads - and why would they? These roads already have perfectly good numbers.

The thing to remember is that despite the interstates being an ostensibly federal system, just about everything that's been added to it after the initial plan was added to it because a particular state or congressman from a particular state wanted it to be - not because there was any central planning. So you're going to see inconsistency between states (North Carolina wants to put an interstate shield on everything, Florida does its own thing and is not really interested in any new interstate designations) depending on what each state wants.

[Pink Jazz]

As a slight aside, it's been noted previously that Austin is the largest city in the US with exactly one interstate (Phoenix may not have any 3dis, but it does have two 2dis - Austin has only one).

If you look at metro areas, Orlando is the largest with only one interstate - unless you go by the combined statistical area with Daytona Beach, in which case you have both I-95 and I-4.


At any rate, something interesting Orlando and Phoenix have in common is that neither are particularly for want of freeway mileage. They have plenty of freeways looping and spurring off the interstates. The loops and spurs just don't have 3di designations as they might in other cities.

Not coincidentally, Orlando and Phoenix are both much larger today than they were in 1956 when the interstate system was first laid out and funding was allotted. In 1956, neither really needed any spurs or loops, so they were not assigned any. Subsequently, as the areas have grown and needed more freeways, the folks in them have elected to pay for their construction using other revenue streams (a local sales tax surcharge for Phoenix, tolls for Orlando) rather than seek federal interstate funding. Without the funding motive, they haven't seen the need to apply for interstate designations for these roads - and why would they? These roads already have perfectly good numbers.

The thing to remember is that despite the interstates being an ostensibly federal system, just about everything that's been added to it after the initial plan was added to it because a particular state or congressman from a particular state wanted it to be - not because there was any central planning. So you're going to see inconsistency between states (North Carolina wants to put an interstate shield on everything, Florida does its own thing and is not really interested in any new interstate designations) depending on what each state wants.

The big difference with Orlando is that most of its freeways are toll roads.

[Max Rockatansky]

As a slight aside, it's been noted previously that Austin is the largest city in the US with exactly one interstate (Phoenix may not have any 3dis, but it does have two 2dis - Austin has only one).

If you look at metro areas, Orlando is the largest with only one interstate - unless you go by the combined statistical area with Daytona Beach, in which case you have both I-95 and I-4.


At any rate, something interesting Orlando and Phoenix have in common is that neither are particularly for want of freeway mileage. They have plenty of freeways looping and spurring off the interstates. The loops and spurs just don't have 3di designations as they might in other cities.

Not coincidentally, Orlando and Phoenix are both much larger today than they were in 1956 when the interstate system was first laid out and funding was allotted. In 1956, neither really needed any spurs or loops, so they were not assigned any. Subsequently, as the areas have grown and needed more freeways, the folks in them have elected to pay for their construction using other revenue streams (a local sales tax surcharge for Phoenix, tolls for Orlando) rather than seek federal interstate funding. Without the funding motive, they haven't seen the need to apply for interstate designations for these roads - and why would they? These roads already have perfectly good numbers.

The thing to remember is that despite the interstates being an ostensibly federal system, just about everything that's been added to it after the initial plan was added to it because a particular state or congressman from a particular state wanted it to be - not because there was any central planning. So you're going to see inconsistency between states (North Carolina wants to put an interstate shield on everything, Florida does its own thing and is not really interested in any new interstate designations) depending on what each state wants.

The big difference with Orlando is that most of its freeways are toll roads.

More so, Phoenix actually has a planned out street grid whereas Orlando does not.  The really interesting thing is that Phoenix is actually slightly older having been settled in 1867 while Orlando was 1875.  Having lived in both cities I can certainly say that the lack of urban planning is really the culprit behind the traffic problems that the city has.  The main roads are often limited on the surface, some require you to actually drive through residential areas like FL 15 does.  With I-4 being the only "free" limited access road it causes people to pile onto said Interstate but also the free surface routes.  Phoenix is sublime in comparison terms of overall design and traffic flow, everything makes sense with the street grid and where the freeways are located.

[paulthemapguy]

Loop 101 should be an x17, in which case SR-51 could be either an x10 or x17.  US60 should be an x10. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Loop 101 should be an x17, in which case SR-51 could be either an x10 or x17.  US60 should be an x10.

There might be some merit to the US 60 freeway if it had been done while it was signed as AZ 360.  What's the point of having an Interstate completely multiplexed with a US Route on to have it suddenly end?....looking at you I-580 in Nevada.  Really the 3d Interstates are such a watered down product that most states that didn't get Federal Highway Fund money aren't even bothering to petition for new ones.  Really the 303 ought to be a 3d of I-17 when it is built up to complete freeway standards, especially if ADOT gets smart and routes I-11 on the southern segment from Grand Avenue/US 60.

Personally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes.  There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.

[bzakharin]

Trenton, NJ doesn't host any interstates of any sort either, though one might say it's "served" by I-295 and I-195

[hm insulators]

Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.

If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:

   
• Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
• Loop 202 - Interstate 610
• Loop 303 - Interstate 217
• SR 51 - Interstate 510
• SR 143 - Interstate 110
• US 60 - Interstate 317

Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?

I was thinking the same thing.

[hm insulators]

Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.

If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:

   
• Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
• Loop 202 - Interstate 610
• Loop 303 - Interstate 217
• SR 51 - Interstate 510
• SR 143 - Interstate 110
• US 60 - Interstate 317

Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?

I-317 would start at The Stack and would include what is currently the southernmost portion of I-17, and would be concurrent with I-10 for a few miles until the Superstition Transition.

Okay, gotcha. Incidentally, did you move? You used to live in Gilbert, if I'm not mistaken.

[Pink Jazz]

Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.

If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:

   
• Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
• Loop 202 - Interstate 610
• Loop 303 - Interstate 217
• SR 51 - Interstate 510
• SR 143 - Interstate 110
• US 60 - Interstate 317

Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?

I-317 would start at The Stack and would include what is currently the southernmost portion of I-17, and would be concurrent with I-10 for a few miles until the Superstition Transition.

Okay, gotcha. Incidentally, did you move? You used to live in Gilbert, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, I moved. I live with my parents, so I moved with them.

[DJStephens]

Loop 101 should be an x17, in which case SR-51 could be either an x10 or x17.  US60 should be an x10.

Used to possess an old map of Phoenix metro, circa mid to late eighties.  The then progressing Loop 101 was signed as "417", inside an oval.   On the map, that is.   

[Pink Jazz]

Loop 101 should be an x17, in which case SR-51 could be either an x10 or x17.  US60 should be an x10.

Used to possess an old map of Phoenix metro, circa mid to late eighties.  The then progressing Loop 101 was signed as "417", inside an oval.   On the map, that is.

That was for the Agua Fria portion, with the Price/Pima portion being proposed as 117.


For Loop 202, there were four different proposed designations for four different segments.  The portion of the Red Mountain Freeway west of the Price/Pima Freeway was proposed as SR 217, the portion of the Red Mountain between the Price/Pima Freeway and the Superstition Freeway was proposed as SR 216, the SanTan Freeway was proposed as SR 220, and the South Mountain Freeway was proposed as SR 218.

[Exit58]

Personally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes.  There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.

I can see this becoming a real problem if Caltrans does this. It would be kinda meaningless tbh, as the route numbers would likely stay the same, but all the route shields would have to change. And if they do change the route numbers, locals will be very confused that the numbers have changed. It's just better to stay as it is, even with how confusing the LA Freeway system might be. What I would like to see is for Caltrans to completely revamp the entire number system, aka another 'Great Renumbering'. Either leave the federal routes (any 2di Inter and US Highways remain), and the state routes get completely renumbered to fall into a grid system of numbers, or leave all primary routes alone like SR 1, SR 99, etc. The remainder would be auxiliary of the main parent routes.

Personally, I see no use for a 3di interstate in Phoenix yet, but there is always growth somewhere in the valley that will need a freeway connection, and local dollars might not always fill the gap. Arizona's highway system as a whole is so well laid out, I haven't seen anything that needs improvement except for a way to stop wrong way drivers.

[sparker]

Personally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes.  There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.

I can see this becoming a real problem if Caltrans does this. It would be kinda meaningless tbh, as the route numbers would likely stay the same, but all the route shields would have to change. And if they do change the route numbers, locals will be very confused that the numbers have changed. It's just better to stay as it is, even with how confusing the LA Freeway system might be. What I would like to see is for Caltrans to completely revamp the entire number system, aka another 'Great Renumbering'. Either leave the federal routes (any 2di Inter and US Highways remain), and the state routes get completely renumbered to fall into a grid system of numbers, or leave all primary routes alone like SR 1, SR 99, etc. The remainder would be auxiliary of the main parent routes.

Personally, I see no use for a 3di interstate in Phoenix yet, but there is always growth somewhere in the valley that will need a freeway connection, and local dollars might not always fill the gap. Arizona's highway system as a whole is so well laid out, I haven't seen anything that needs improvement except for a way to stop wrong way drivers.

It's a bit of a shame that back in '64 CA didn't attempt to actually expand on the numbering system they had (albeit with a lot of variance, much due to topology) rather than the essentially randomized approach they took: ....let's see, we'll replace US 466 with the old LRN number 58, but we'll pull a number out of the hat for replacing US 99 in the desert......86.....now that's the ticket......Might as well move 70 up to the Feather River......that'll give us another 70/99 multiplex up there......hee, hee!.

One of these days I'll do a map reflecting what I'd have done back in '64.  I was only 14 when the changes occurred, but the whole process seemed odd to me even back then!

[Max Rockatansky]

Personally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes.  There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.

I can see this becoming a real problem if Caltrans does this. It would be kinda meaningless tbh, as the route numbers would likely stay the same, but all the route shields would have to change. And if they do change the route numbers, locals will be very confused that the numbers have changed. It's just better to stay as it is, even with how confusing the LA Freeway system might be. What I would like to see is for Caltrans to completely revamp the entire number system, aka another 'Great Renumbering'. Either leave the federal routes (any 2di Inter and US Highways remain), and the state routes get completely renumbered to fall into a grid system of numbers, or leave all primary routes alone like SR 1, SR 99, etc. The remainder would be auxiliary of the main parent routes.

Personally, I see no use for a 3di interstate in Phoenix yet, but there is always growth somewhere in the valley that will need a freeway connection, and local dollars might not always fill the gap. Arizona's highway system as a whole is so well laid out, I haven't seen anything that needs improvement except for a way to stop wrong way drivers.

It's a bit of a shame that back in '64 CA didn't attempt to actually expand on the numbering system they had (albeit with a lot of variance, much due to topology) rather than the essentially randomized approach they took: ....let's see, we'll replace US 466 with the old LRN number 58, but we'll pull a number out of the hat for replacing US 99 in the desert......86.....now that's the ticket......Might as well move 70 up to the Feather River......that'll give us another 70/99 multiplex up there......hee, hee!.

One of these days I'll do a map reflecting what I'd have done back in '64.  I was only 14 when the changes occurred, but the whole process seemed odd to me even back then!

Really the concept the Divison of Highways seemed to be going for was threefold; eliminate as many many multiplexes as possible, eliminate intrastate US Routes, and change the route numbers to what is signed in the field.  In retrospect the multiplexes minimizing was pretty sound given how crazy long multiplexes like US 91/466 and US 6/US 395 really got.  Aside from just a handful of 3d designations like I-280 and I-210 really there wasn't a ton of point to muddy up previous routes numbers.  Granted getting a draw from Federal funds and having the "Interstate" designation was a new fangled fancy pants thing.  IMO it would be a lot more simple to leave state route numbers in place and either eliminate the Interstate designation or make it silent.  I would hate for a city like Phoenix with a super easy to understand highway numbering system to be changed up now.  If anything 51, 24, and 143 maybe ought to be converted into X0X route numbers. 

[kkt]

Personally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes.  There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.

I can see this becoming a real problem if Caltrans does this. It would be kinda meaningless tbh, as the route numbers would likely stay the same, but all the route shields would have to change. And if they do change the route numbers, locals will be very confused that the numbers have changed. It's just better to stay as it is, even with how confusing the LA Freeway system might be. What I would like to see is for Caltrans to completely revamp the entire number system, aka another 'Great Renumbering'. Either leave the federal routes (any 2di Inter and US Highways remain), and the state routes get completely renumbered to fall into a grid system of numbers, or leave all primary routes alone like SR 1, SR 99, etc. The remainder would be auxiliary of the main parent routes.

Personally, I see no use for a 3di interstate in Phoenix yet, but there is always growth somewhere in the valley that will need a freeway connection, and local dollars might not always fill the gap. Arizona's highway system as a whole is so well laid out, I haven't seen anything that needs improvement except for a way to stop wrong way drivers.

It's a bit of a shame that back in '64 CA didn't attempt to actually expand on the numbering system they had (albeit with a lot of variance, much due to topology) rather than the essentially randomized approach they took: ....let's see, we'll replace US 466 with the old LRN number 58, but we'll pull a number out of the hat for replacing US 99 in the desert......86.....now that's the ticket......Might as well move 70 up to the Feather River......that'll give us another 70/99 multiplex up there......hee, hee!.

One of these days I'll do a map reflecting what I'd have done back in '64.  I was only 14 when the changes occurred, but the whole process seemed odd to me even back then!

Even before 1964 there wasn't much of a system...  in retrospect it would have been nice to make more changes in order to have a more orderly system.  Still, it's hard to adjust to route changes and I can understand why they didn't want to change more than they had to.

[silverback1065]

california's numbering system makes no sense