Topic: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate (Read 9718 times)

Tarkus · « **on:** February 24, 2009, 09:09:09 PM »

Well, as someone who has driven Interstate 82 in Oregon/Washington a fair amount, I've kind of wondered about this for some time now. Interstate 82 made sense when I-84 was still I-80N until the 1980s, but now, it doesn't make much sense and violates the numbering conventions.

I know some roadgeeks have suggested extending it south eventually, but even in its current state, at both its termini, it's heading north-south.

So, I'm curious to know what everyone thinks.

-Alex (Tarkus)

DrZoidberg · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2009, 09:13:53 PM »

I'd be in favor of renumbering it as either an I-X84 or even an I-90 3-di. I've never heard of plans to extend it south. What would those plans entail?

I suppose, if they ever wanted to expand, they COULD multiplex it with I-84 through Boise and axe I-86 altogether.

DrZoidberg · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2009, 09:19:17 PM »

Quote

I suppose, if they ever wanted to expand, they COULD multiplex it with I-84 through Boise and axe I-86 altogether.

Though I should add this would be quite pointless....

flaroads · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:15:12 PM »

...Or multiplex Interstate 86 with Interstate 84 and switch it from 82 to 86. Then Interstate 182 could become 186. That would make a little more sense and keep it within the "grid" per say. And if an I-x84 or and I-x90 were used it would create a problem for existing I-182 (as in what would that become?). Just a thought.

DrZoidberg · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:58:00 PM »

Quote

And if an I-x84 or and I-x90 were used it would create a problem for existing I-182 (as in what would that become?). Just a thought.

I'm guessing it could become either unsigned (sign it as US 12) or perhaps I-190 or an odd 3-di off the existing 3-di.

If I-82 became a 3-di, would it be an odd or even? It doesn't return to its parent, which makes me think odd...

Sykotyk · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2009, 12:09:40 PM »

For that many miles, for a non x5 or x0 route, no need to multiplex it.

Just relabel I-82 as I-86. Nobody in traveling will confuse the two segments. Akin to Illinois and New York both having I-88.

But, mostly, I'd be in favor of it being a 3di. Just as I would when US395 gets fully upgraded to freeway standards in the distant future.

Sykotyk

exit322 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2009, 01:40:18 PM »

It's been around long enough, and isn't that egregious a penalty, that I-82 wouldn't really even be a problem to keep.

If worried about it, put I-84 on the I-82 alignment and change I-84 west of that to the "new" I-82.

DrZoidberg · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2009, 09:06:24 PM »

I always thought I-82 would be better signed as a north-south route. I-11 anybody?

corco · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2009, 10:21:51 PM »

Running any route concurrent between I-86 and the I-82 split would be a ridiculously long and pointless concurrency that I'm adamantly against.

I'd say just leave it as is. It's not a huge deal and at this point the confusion caused by resigning it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

If US-395 from Pasco to Spokane and US-97 from Bend or Weed CA to Biggs are ever both fully upgraded to interstate standards and up for interstate designation then the debate can be opened and I-82 should be eliminated altogether for an I-11, but for now it's not worth the trouble

Tarkus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2009, 01:18:12 AM »

It would have made a little more sense if the FHWA/AASHTO had decided to make I-80N into I-82 instead of I-84 originally, and then turned I-86 into I-84 and I-82 into I-86. My guess is that they didn't because of the serious mindbender that moving I-82 could have done.

An I-7 designation would make the most sense, I think. The freeway is 143 miles long, and about 80 of it is north-south.

-Alex (Tarkus)

Steve · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2009, 07:02:39 PM »

No one has suggested I-88 yet. You have them in NY and IL. This would be the first 88 to cross a state line, still a thousand miles from the next one, and creates three instances of the same route which is just awesome. But I like having an 82 around. I'd rather swap IL 88 with 82 if anything had to be done.

V'Ger · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2009, 03:51:34 PM »

I feel really bad for the 8x numbers, they're always being split up by different states!

Tarkus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2009, 04:21:11 PM »

I think part of the problem is that when they started doling the Interstate numbers out, they concentrated the 8X numbers in the most populated east-west belt across the entire country, whereas other parts of the 2di range, like around the 5X-6X area, are barely used. They kinda screwed up there, methinks.

Of course, what also could help is if the FHWA decided to adopt Hexadecimal.

-Alex (Tarkus)

V'Ger · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2009, 04:22:05 PM »

"Honey, you need to get off at #F00F00!"

mightyace · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2009, 05:36:41 PM »

Quote from: Tarkus on February 28, 2009, 04:21:11 PM

I think part of the problem is that when they started doling the Interstate numbers out, they concentrated the 8X numbers in the most populated east-west belt across the entire country, whereas other parts of the 2di range, like around the 5X-6X area, are barely used. They kinda screwed up there, methinks.

Of course, what also could help is if the FHWA decided to adopt Hexadecimal.

-Alex (Tarkus)

I think that the reason they did that is that they didn't want the same US and I numbers in the same area. Since US E-W numbers increase N-S and I numbers increase S-N there would be potential overlap in the 5x and 6x area.

Of course, with things like I-39, I-43 and the proposed I-41 in Wisconsin, you have that now anyway.

Sykotyk · « **Reply #15 on:** February 28, 2009, 11:00:26 PM »

That's why there's no I-50 and I-60.

Sykotyk

ComputerGuy · « **Reply #16 on:** March 21, 2009, 06:02:07 PM »

Hmm.. Washington State Route 82!

Fcexpress80 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 24, 2009, 02:23:58 AM »

See my other posts on the subject of I-82. It should have been redesignated I-88 when I-86 and I-84 were redesignated. My vote is to rename it I-9 with a freeway extension north from I-90 in Ellensburg to US-2/97 in Wenatchee over Colockum Pass/Ridge. I-7 would be the Central Oregon "Volcano" Interstate and I-11 would be the Boise/Reno/Las Vegas corridor.

florida · « **Reply #18 on:** April 25, 2009, 01:50:09 PM »

If it's renamed a 3-di (I-390; I-384), then it would be no problem to renumber I-182 to an I-190 or I-184. (See I-270/370; 275 and 175/375; even 795 spurring off 695 in Baltimore.)

Sykotyk · « **Reply #19 on:** April 25, 2009, 09:55:43 PM »

I love when you're given directions from Portland to Pasco and are told "go east on I-84 and then north on I-82".

Sykotyk

DrZoidberg · « **Reply #20 on:** April 25, 2009, 11:25:25 PM »

Quote

I love when you're given directions from Portland to Pasco and are told "go east on I-84 and then north on I-82".

Reminds me of Wisconsin, specifically I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago, where traffic reports refer to I-94 north or southbound.

Revive 755 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 27, 2009, 10:39:01 PM »

Quote from: Tarkus

Of course, what also could help is if the FHWA decided to adopt Hexadecimal.

Why stop with hexadecimal? Let's go to Base 36, with '0' having a forward slash added to distinguish it from "O".

leifvanderwall · « **Reply #22 on:** August 17, 2009, 10:47:28 AM »

If you would ask me I-82 is definitely in the wrong place... in the country that is. To me, I-82 is much better served in New Jersey, Penn., and Ohio taking over the US 422 route and part of the Atlantic City Expressway. I also have I-82 starting from Chicago and ending at the Quad Cities taking over I-88 and I-290. The I-82 in Washington should be I-186. See my postings on "if You Controlled the Highway System" in Fictional Roads to view my proposals for a new I-82.

Bickendan · « **Reply #23 on:** August 17, 2009, 02:45:31 PM »

What about WA I-182?

Also, having two I-82s wouldn't be an issue -- see I-88, 84, 76...

For the time being, I-82 where it is (even north of I-84) isn't an issue (aside for there being an unrelated OR 82 in the same region in Oregon).

The one 'proposal' correcting this mess I've seen that I like is the 'I-7' idea. I-7'd start in Weed, head along US 97 to Klamath Falls, Bend and Redmond before arcing northeast through the Blues to I-82 at I-84, follow I-82 to the US 395 split south of the TriCities, then follow the US 395 corridor toward Spokane, while an I-x90 would take I-82 from I-90 to I-182 and along I-182 to I-7. The remaining portion of I-82, bypassing the TriCities between US 395 and I-182 would become I-407 (WA 207 already exists and WA doesn't duplicate route numbers).

xonhulu · « **Reply #24 on:** August 20, 2009, 08:53:56 PM »

Want a crazy suggestion?

I-80 is way too far south for its number in NV/CA, so put I-80 on current I-84 and renumber the current CA/NV/UT I-80 as I-52, I-54, I-56, I-58, I-60 or I-62. Then the freeway south of I-82 has a smaller number and all is good. Of course, you had to spend millions renumbering I-80 as well as every I-x80 in CA....

Seriously, I-84 should have been I-82, but since it wasn't then I'd go with the odd number for I-82. I'm not sure an I-x90 or I-x84 would be appropriate for what functions like a mainline interstate, not a spur.

News:

Author Topic: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate (Read 9718 times)

ComputerGuy