AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Poll

Which interstate is the worst interstate ever?

Interstate 99
- 15 (13%)
Interstate 97
- 12 (10.4%)
Interstate 238
- 20 (17.4%)
Interstate 180
- 36 (31.3%)
Other
- 32 (27.8%)

Total Members Voted: 115


Author Topic: Worst interstate ever  (Read 25662 times)

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1355
  • hi

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Moland, Minnesota
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:27 AM
    • Tumblr blog
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #150 on: October 17, 2013, 03:24:02 PM »

And while extending the I-30 wouldn't make sense from a cross country perspective.
see: I-94

PColumbus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 342
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
  • Last Login: October 28, 2014, 10:06:20 PM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #151 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.

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.
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1642
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: Today at 07:11:51 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #152 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!
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1355
  • hi

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Moland, Minnesota
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:27 AM
    • Tumblr blog
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #153 on: October 17, 2013, 06:45:15 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).

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?

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.

PColumbus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 342
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
  • Last Login: October 28, 2014, 10:06:20 PM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #154 on: October 17, 2013, 07:26:52 PM »

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.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9873
  • Age: 1000
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:24:29 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #155 on: October 17, 2013, 07:34:41 PM »

I-90 should go through Yellowstone.

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6705
  • Violet Elkins, 1998-2011.

  • Age: 52
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: October 31, 2014, 11:15:48 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #156 on: October 17, 2013, 09:31:57 PM »

This thread should go in Fictional Highways.
Logged
RIP Alanland. 8/31/12 - 6/22/14.

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of my employer. All bytes used and opinions expressed here are my own.

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1355
  • hi

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Moland, Minnesota
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:27 AM
    • Tumblr blog
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #157 on: October 17, 2013, 09:47:53 PM »

This thread should go in Fictional Highways.
Just a tangent of it should.

TEG24601

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 288
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Whidbey Island, WA
  • Last Login: October 31, 2014, 05:55:45 PM
    • Tegianzone
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #158 on: October 25, 2013, 01:08:58 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.
Logged
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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Mounds View, MN
  • Last Login: October 30, 2014, 12:34:51 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #159 on: November 18, 2013, 01:21:50 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
Logged
Chris Kalina

I94RoadRunner

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Mounds View, MN
  • Last Login: October 30, 2014, 12:34:51 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #160 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 .....?
Logged
Chris Kalina

deathtopumpkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2029
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Boston, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: September 20, 2014, 10:21:38 AM
    • Rambling Bostonian blog
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #161 on: November 18, 2013, 01:50:28 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...?

I94RoadRunner

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Mounds View, MN
  • Last Login: October 30, 2014, 12:34:51 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #162 on: November 18, 2013, 02:04:31 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
Logged
Chris Kalina

deathtopumpkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2029
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Boston, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: September 20, 2014, 10:21:38 AM
    • Rambling Bostonian blog
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #163 on: November 18, 2013, 02:17:13 PM »

So how can it be the worst interstate ever if it doesn't even exist?

I94RoadRunner

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Mounds View, MN
  • Last Login: October 30, 2014, 12:34:51 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #164 on: November 18, 2013, 02:24:31 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.
Logged
Chris Kalina

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1441
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:40 AM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #165 on: November 18, 2013, 02:32:52 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". ;-)
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1710
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: October 31, 2014, 12:57:31 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #166 on: November 18, 2013, 02:51:06 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.
Logged
Check out my ImageShack profile!

I94RoadRunner

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Mounds View, MN
  • Last Login: October 30, 2014, 12:34:51 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #167 on: November 18, 2013, 03:15:45 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!
Logged
Chris Kalina

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5726
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 37
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 07:30:31 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #168 on: November 18, 2013, 03:41:25 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.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention."
- Ramsay Snow (aka "Boy" aka Ramsay Bolton)

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9873
  • Age: 1000
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:24:29 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #169 on: November 18, 2013, 05:12:11 PM »

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

I94RoadRunner

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Mounds View, MN
  • Last Login: October 30, 2014, 12:34:51 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #170 on: November 18, 2013, 05:42:47 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!
Logged
Chris Kalina

FightingIrish

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 138
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • Last Login: October 31, 2014, 07:06:49 PM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #171 on: November 19, 2013, 08:36:55 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 10:32:32 AM by FightingIrish »
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4191
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 09:46:42 AM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #172 on: November 19, 2013, 09:23:30 AM »

I-90 should go through Yellowstone.

Yellowstone bison has this to say:

Logged
"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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1193
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: October 31, 2014, 07:53:42 PM
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #173 on: November 19, 2013, 12:49:40 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.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1355
  • hi

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Moland, Minnesota
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:27 AM
    • Tumblr blog
Re: Worst interstate ever
« Reply #174 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."

 


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.