News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

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

Molandfreak

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
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.


PColumbus73

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.

english si

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!

Molandfreak

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.
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.

PColumbus73

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.

NE2

I-90 should go through Yellowstone.
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".

hbelkins

This thread should go in Fictional Highways.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Molandfreak

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: 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.

TEG24601

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.
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.

I94RoadRunner

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
Chris Kalina

“The easiest solution to fixing the I-238 problem is to redefine I-580 as I-38

I94RoadRunner

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 .....?
Chris Kalina

“The easiest solution to fixing the I-238 problem is to redefine I-580 as I-38

deathtopumpkins

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...?
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

I94RoadRunner

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
Chris Kalina

“The easiest solution to fixing the I-238 problem is to redefine I-580 as I-38

deathtopumpkins

So how can it be the worst interstate ever if it doesn't even exist?
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

I94RoadRunner

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.
Chris Kalina

“The easiest solution to fixing the I-238 problem is to redefine I-580 as I-38

empirestate

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". ;-)

Henry

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.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

I94RoadRunner

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!
Chris Kalina

“The easiest solution to fixing the I-238 problem is to redefine I-580 as I-38

Brandon

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.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

NE2

Uh guys. AASHTO/FHWA approved I-495 on US 64. Ignore the eejit.
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".

I94RoadRunner

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!
Chris Kalina

“The easiest solution to fixing the I-238 problem is to redefine I-580 as I-38

FightingIrish

#171
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.

J N Winkler

Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2013, 07:34:41 PMI-90 should go through Yellowstone.

Yellowstone bison has this to say:

"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

kkt

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.

Molandfreak

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: 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.



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.