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

I94RoadRunner

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 .....?
Chris Kalina

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


Molandfreak

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: 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.

I94RoadRunner

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 .....
Chris Kalina

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

kkt

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?

NE2

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.
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".

hotdogPi

It's done the RIGHT way in Maine (I-295). And Brunswick does not "sux".
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Molandfreak

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: 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.

FightingIrish

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.

I94RoadRunner

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 .....
Chris Kalina

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

kkt

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.

FightingIrish

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?

NE2

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.
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".

froggie

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.

FightingIrish

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.

kkt

(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...

english si

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?

NE2

The 35 splits are roughly the same distance and serve roughly equally important cities. None of the other splits satisfied both conditions.
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

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

kkt

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.

vdeane

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

Molandfreak

#195
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: 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.

NE2

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.
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 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: 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.

NE2

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?
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".

kkt

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.



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.