Given the current status of the grid, what are numbers you never see getting used, either due to geographic challenges, lack of any significant population centers, or too close to a similarly numbered US highway (which hasn't stopped WI or NC :-P)
Here's what I came up with.
East/West
6, 18, 28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
North/South
1. The coastlines of California, Oregon, and Washington are pretty rough terrain for an interstate.
9. I would like an interstate in central Oregon but US 97 seems to do just fine. Other than Bend, no huge population centers.
13, 21, 23, 31. No significant population centers where these would fit in the grid.
51. Too close to US 51
Interstate 100. :bigass:
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
Given the current status of the grid, what are numbers you never see getting used, either due to geographic challenges, lack of any significant population centers, or too close to a similarly numbered US highway (which hasn't stopped WI or NC :-P)
Here's what I came up with.
East/West
6, 18, 28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
North/South
1. The coastlines of California, Oregon, and Washington are pretty rough terrain for an interstate.
9. I would like an interstate in central Oregon but US 97 seems to do just fine. Other than Bend, no huge population centers.
13, 21, 23, 31. No significant population centers where these would fit in the grid.
51. Too close to US 51
3, 7, 32, 33, 47, 53 and 92 haven't been used either.
Quote from: Henry on March 05, 2021, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
Given the current status of the grid, what are numbers you never see getting used, either due to geographic challenges, lack of any significant population centers, or too close to a similarly numbered US highway (which hasn't stopped WI or NC :-P)
Here's what I came up with.
East/West
6, 18, 28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
North/South
1. The coastlines of California, Oregon, and Washington are pretty rough terrain for an interstate.
9. I would like an interstate in central Oregon but US 97 seems to do just fine. Other than Bend, no huge population centers.
13, 21, 23, 31. No significant population centers where these would fit in the grid.
51. Too close to US 51
3, 7, 32, 33, 47, 53 and 92 haven't been used either.
True, but I thought some of those have either been proposed or COULD be used. For example, 32 could fit of US 287 from Ft Worth to Amarillo was upgraded
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
I-31 could work for an extended I-135 from Salina KS to Lincoln NE.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.
Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:00:45 AM
Quote from: Henry on March 05, 2021, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
Given the current status of the grid, what are numbers you never see getting used, either due to geographic challenges, lack of any significant population centers, or too close to a similarly numbered US highway (which hasn't stopped WI or NC :-P)
Here's what I came up with.
East/West
6, 18, 28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
North/South
1. The coastlines of California, Oregon, and Washington are pretty rough terrain for an interstate.
9. I would like an interstate in central Oregon but US 97 seems to do just fine. Other than Bend, no huge population centers.
13, 21, 23, 31. No significant population centers where these would fit in the grid.
51. Too close to US 51
3, 7, 32, 33, 47, 53 and 92 haven't been used either.
True, but I thought some of those have either been proposed or COULD be used. For example, 32 could fit of US 287 from Ft Worth to Amarillo was upgraded
287 was once thought to be eventual extension of I-45. Today, it seems a given that I-45 will probably extend US-75 /US-69.
While Texas is no fan of 3DI spurs, the apt number for 287 would either be an X30 or an X40. Some have even suggested it being just I-30. That said, EVERYONE absolutely hates the idea of I-30 and I-40 intersecting twice. The thinking would be this routing would follow SH-114 from Dallas to Rhome and then 287 the rest of the way. As to I-30 going to west of Ft Worth, the last significant renumbering of a Texas US or IH highway was I-20 going around the south end of Dallas and Fort Worth and extending I-30 through the downtowns.
All of this said, HISTORICALLY Texas has not been in love with renumbering highways as interstates. I-69 was congressionally mandated. I-14 (in my opinion) was PR to make sure that Fort Hood was kept on the top rung of military bases. IE to make sure those in other states recognized Texas' commitment to it. Those in other states (as well as my ex-daughter in law) seem to think that IH numbering extolls magic onto a highway.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
Given the current status of the grid, what are numbers you never see getting used, either due to geographic challenges, lack of any significant population centers, or too close to a similarly numbered US highway (which hasn't stopped WI or NC :-P)
Here's what I came up with.
East/West
6, 18, 28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
North/South
1. The coastlines of California, Oregon, and Washington are pretty rough terrain for an interstate.
9. I would like an interstate in central Oregon but US 97 seems to do just fine. Other than Bend, no huge population centers.
13, 21, 23, 31. No significant population centers where these would fit in the grid.
51. Too close to US 51
You are making too many assumptions that people would honor the grid. I-99 shows that this isn't always the case, and that the grid itself isn't a necessity.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 05, 2021, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
Given the current status of the grid, what are numbers you never see getting used, either due to geographic challenges, lack of any significant population centers, or too close to a similarly numbered US highway (which hasn't stopped WI or NC :-P)
Here's what I came up with.
East/West
6, 18, 28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
North/South
1. The coastlines of California, Oregon, and Washington are pretty rough terrain for an interstate.
9. I would like an interstate in central Oregon but US 97 seems to do just fine. Other than Bend, no huge population centers.
13, 21, 23, 31. No significant population centers where these would fit in the grid.
51. Too close to US 51
You are making too many assumptions that people would honor the grid. I-99 shows that this isn't always the case, and that the grid itself isn't a necessity.
That's very true. It's why I left off 3. Isn't there a proposal to have a grid violating I-3 in Georgia?
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.
Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.
The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."
Quote from: epzik8 on March 05, 2021, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.
Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.
The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."
82 drives me nuts. It's a north-south route!
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:35:06 AM
That’s very true. It’s why I left off 3. Isn’t there a proposal to have a grid violating I-3 in Georgia?
Grid violations like I-99 are
reasonable... it's on the right side of the country at least. But an I-3 on the east coast would be beyond stupid.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: epzik8 on March 05, 2021, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it’d be 7.
Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.
The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."
82 drives me nuts. It’s a north-south route!
Eh...geographically it's just as much east-west as it is north-south. And most people who use it are on a decidedly east-west overall travel path between Seattle and Boise/SLC/I-80, so signing and numbering it as an E/W route makes sense from that standpoint.
At least half of the route follows the US 12 corridor, too.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
51. Too close to US 51
Or another redundancy as most of I-39 is cosigned with US 51?
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 12:05:43 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:35:06 AM
That's very true. It's why I left off 3. Isn't there a proposal to have a grid violating I-3 in Georgia?
Grid violations like I-99 are reasonable... it's on the right side of the country at least. But an I-3 on the east coast would be beyond stupid.
Wouldn't bother me in the least.
I-18 makes a lot of sense for anything built along the routing near Meridian/I-20/59 - Cuba, AL - Selma - Montgomery - Columbus - Macon - Augusta. More sense than trying to connect it to I-14 somehow. The Meridian - Selma - Montgomery is actively of interest to Alabama as an I-85 extension, and Columbus to Augusta has the expressway Fall Line "Freeway" upgrade that is GA SR 540, that many parts of could be converted to freeway.
.
I-28 makes sense for US 74 from I-26 to I-85. And perhaps cosigned along 85 and 485 it can extend to I-74, and solve "the problem".
.
I-46 would work in Oklahoma along 351/51/412 between I-40 and I-35.
.
I-56 works for the Cumberland Parkway between I-65 and I-75. Have it subsume the I-165 and Audubon someday.
.
Virginia's pipedream of a US 58 freeway from border to sea... pull a 41 and make it I-58.
.
And Maine would be glad someday to see an I-98 built from Bangor to Calais that would take over I-395 and provide the Maritime Link to NB 1 and the New Brunswick/Nova Scotia freeway systems that would connect Boston to Halifax much better than I-95 to NB 2 does.
I low key hope we leave 47 alone. It's the only 1- or 2-digit number never used for US or Interstate routes
H846
We'll probably see 50 and 60 used for some short expressway spur before 13 gets used.
For 3di, most 9xx won't be used.
8xx: mostly won't be used, but some that I could see being used in the future, in addition to the currently used ones, are 870 (Columbia Bypass), 864 (VA 288? After all, 864 is 288*3), 875 (Chattanooga Eastern Bypass).
7xx: like with 9xx, it's unlikely.
5xx: For some reason, states love to use 5xx over 1xx or 3xx for 3di spurs, which means that 25, 45 and 70 are the only x0 and x5 without a 5xx 3di. Only one that have a possibility to be a future interstate is 570.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 01:56:31 PM
For 3di, most 9xx won't be used.
8xx: mostly won't be used, but some that I could see being used in the future, in addition to the currently used ones, are 870 (Columbia Bypass), 864 (VA 288? After all, 864 is 288*3), 875 (Chattanooga Eastern Bypass).
7xx: like with 9xx, it's unlikely.
5xx: For some reason, states love to use 5xx over 1xx or 3xx for 3di spurs, which means that 25, 45 and 70 are the only x0 and x5 without a 5xx 3di. Only one that have a possibility to be a future interstate is 570.
You got a point. States seem to favor lower 3-di designations. 9xx almost seems to be out of necessity (GA being an exception)
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 02:02:27 PM
You got a point. States seem to favor lower 3-di designations. 9xx almost seems to be out of necessity (GA being an exception)
.
California's future I-905 and Louisiana's umarked I-910 disagree? (CA has no 705? LA has no 710?)
Quote from: sturmde on March 05, 2021, 12:58:26 PM
And Maine would be glad someday to see an I-98 built from Bangor to Calais that would take over I-395 and provide the Maritime Link to NB 1 and the New Brunswick/Nova Scotia freeway systems that would connect Boston to Halifax much better than I-95 to NB 2 does.
No, per the troll/sockpuppet on Wikipedia whose vandalism I reverted (and then had the troll/sockpuppet file a frivolous WP:ANI against me), that will be Maine State Route 395 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maine_State_Route_395&diff=prev&oldid=1010057036).
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 01:56:31 PM
For 3di, most 9xx won't be used.
8xx: mostly won't be used, but some that I could see being used in the future, in addition to the currently used ones, are 870 (Columbia Bypass), 864 (VA 288? After all, 864 is 288*3), 875 (Chattanooga Eastern Bypass).
7xx: like with 9xx, it's unlikely.
5xx: For some reason, states love to use 5xx over 1xx or 3xx for 3di spurs, which means that 25, 45 and 70 are the only x0 and x5 without a 5xx 3di. Only one that have a possibility to be a future interstate is 570.
I made a chart of odd 3di, and there's more 7xx than I thought. Note that I excluded a bunch of shorter 2di than what's on the bottom of the chart.
(https://i.imgur.com/7HiphcZ.png?1)
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 02:33:59 PM
I made a chart of odd 3di, and there's more 7xx than I thought. Note that I excluded a bunch of shorter 2di than what's on the bottom of the chart.
(https://i.imgur.com/7HiphcZ.png?1)
Small note, while it is not complete, Interstate 369 does exist on signs in Texarkana right now, so I'd put it in "yes".
I-194 is signed in Michigan
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
I don't know, somewhere out there is a city with a really stupid football team that might have same numbered interstate and US routes really close together.
Go Bears!
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
You do realize that how the grid is set up, all of these could theoretically fall within North Carolina...right?
Quote from: kenarmy on March 05, 2021, 02:48:42 PM
What about my fave, I-220?
Why would I-220 be on a chart of odd 3dis?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 02:49:33 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
28, 34, 36, 38. I don’t think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
You do realize that how the grid is set up, all of these could theoretically fall within North Carolina...right?
Those numbers could work on US 74 Asheville to Wilmington or US 72 Memphis-Chattanooga.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
US 46 is not in its grid position, so an I-46 could work. I have I-46 on the southern I-87 in one of my fictional maps. I have I-48 on Joplin-Wichita on a fictional map, but that corridor isn't even 4 laned, so it most likely wouldn't be an interstate in real life. I-56 or I-58 could be used on the Bluegrass Pkwy in KY. I-62 could go on US 460 in VA if for some reason, the state wanted to revive the old southern alternative of I-64 as a new interstate. On my fictional map, I have I-62 on I-70 between Cove Fort and Green river, with I-70 rerouted on I-80 west to SF.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 02:49:33 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
You do realize that how the grid is set up, all of these could theoretically fall within North Carolina...right?
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 02:53:26 PM
Those numbers could work on US 74 Asheville to Wilmington or US 72 Memphis-Chattanooga.
Also something like US82 between Lubbock and Fort Worth.
Chris
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 05, 2021, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
Given the current status of the grid, what are numbers you never see getting used, either due to geographic challenges, lack of any significant population centers, or too close to a similarly numbered US highway (which hasn't stopped WI or NC :-P)
Here's what I came up with.
East/West
6, 18, 28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
North/South
1. The coastlines of California, Oregon, and Washington are pretty rough terrain for an interstate.
9. I would like an interstate in central Oregon but US 97 seems to do just fine. Other than Bend, no huge population centers.
13, 21, 23, 31. No significant population centers where these would fit in the grid.
51. Too close to US 51
You are making too many assumptions that people would honor the grid. I-99 shows that this isn't always the case, and that the grid itself isn't a necessity.
That's very true. It's why I left off 3. Isn't there a proposal to have a grid violating I-3 in Georgia?
There is, but thankfully that I-3 proposal doesn't look like it will ever see the light of day.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
There was some flirting with "rooftop highway" idea in upstate NY connecting I-87 Ilattsburgh and I-81 in Watertown.
Not sure how big of a chance that idea stands.
https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/tag/rooftop-highway
Quote from: kalvado on March 05, 2021, 08:55:38 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
There was some flirting with "rooftop highway" idea in upstate NY connecting I-87 Ilattsburgh and I-81 in Watertown.
Not sure how big of a chance that idea stands.
https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/tag/rooftop-highway
Every couple of years, NY wastes taxpayer money by giving it to a consultant to copy the last study done that says it isn't worth the cost.
It won't happen.
400, 412, and 425. :bigass:
Quote from: hbelkins on March 05, 2021, 10:00:06 PM
400, 412, and 425. :bigass:
I disagree about 425 - I think that would be the perfect number for the Northwest Parkway and the southernmost section of the US 36 freeway (aka Denver-Boulder Turnpike). Colorado users, what do you think?
By the way, E-470 and C-470 would, of course, be I-470, in my imaginings.
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 05, 2021, 10:41:45 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 05, 2021, 10:00:06 PM
400, 412, and 425. :bigass:
I disagree about 425 - I think that would be the perfect number for the Northwest Parkway and the southernmost section of the US 36 freeway (aka Denver-Boulder Turnpike). Colorado users, what do you think?
Not a Colorado user, but I have 425 in mind for Powers Blvd (CO 21) in Colorado Springs if it gets upgraded to a full freeway. For US 36 Denver-Boulder, I have it as an extension of I-270 (that could be I-170 or 370 if you're really picky about the 3di guidelines), and I-470 for the Northwest Parkway, along with CO 470 and E-470.
To add another specific 3DI to the list, I don't think we'll see a I-420 make a comeback at this point. Just seems too ripe for sign theft at least right now.
I also don't foresee an I-911 and not just because of I-11 being the way it is.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
6, 18, 28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
* As mentioned by others, I-6 could be used in southern Texas. Northern Florida could also be a far future possibility if something such as a new Tallahassee - Gainesville - Dayton Beach corridor were to be developed.
* I-18: Plenty of space between I-10 and I-20 for an I-18 to eventually pop up.
* I-28, I-34, and I-38: Possible for North Carolina or another future corridor (such as Memphis - Huntsville - Chattanooga) between I-20 and I-40.
* I-36: North Carolina already tried to use this one.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
Given the number of similarly numbered US routes and interstates in close proximity these days, I don't think assumption is valid. I'm recalling a news article a few years ago mentioning a possible I-54 for US 54 in Missouri.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM98. No population centers large enough to warrant an interstate.
I wouldn't rule out this one being used for WI 29 some year.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM13, 21, 23, 31. No significant population centers where these would fit in the grid.
While I think one of these may not be used, there are places they could pop up if growth continues in the southwest.
Texas could try for an I-31 northward from Austin some year in the future.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM51. Too close to US 51
Not if it gets used for a north-south route in Iowa, Arkansas, or Missouri. There could always be far future upgrades of US 63, US 65, or some part of the MO 13 corridor that gets upgraded to an I-51. Even the Avenue of the Saints could theoretically become I-51.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 11:00:45 PM
To add another specific 3DI to the list, I don't think we'll see a I-420 make a comeback at this point. Just seems too ripe for sign theft at least right now.
I also don't foresee an I-911 and not just because of I-11 being the way it is.
Yet we DO have both a US and an Interstate 69. I feel those must be prone to some theft. 😂
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 02:33:59 PM
I made a chart of odd 3di, and there's more 7xx than I thought. Note that I excluded a bunch of shorter 2di than what's on the bottom of the chart.
(https://i.imgur.com/7HiphcZ.png?1)
* I-130 seems to have been considered for the Texarkana area prior to I-49 being built.
* I-740 might qualify as formerly planned".http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i740.html#740ar (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i740.html#740ar)
* 755 was a "State Route 3di" like 364 in all but one document I have seen. It may qualify as an unsigned State Route 3di - I recall seeing MoDOT use the number a few times for the ramps at the I-55/I-44/Truman Parkway interchange long after the original freeway died.
* 735: Wasn't there was a blog post somewhere a couple years back that had this as a State Route 3di for one of the unbuilt freeways in the KC area?
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 06, 2021, 08:16:53 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 11:00:45 PM
To add another specific 3DI to the list, I don't think we'll see a I-420 make a comeback at this point. Just seems too ripe for sign theft at least right now.
I also don't foresee an I-911 and not just because of I-11 being the way it is.
Yet we DO have both a US and an Interstate 69. I feel those must be prone to some theft. 😂
I've mentioned this here before, but it bears repeating. I once saw a great t-shirt a few years back worn by some wag out at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. It had a graphic of the I-69 shield with the caption, "I-69, do you?" :-o :nod:
Quote from: kurumi on March 05, 2021, 12:59:17 PM
I low key hope we leave 47 alone. It's the only 1- or 2-digit number never used for US or Interstate routes
I would not be upset about renumbering IH 45 from Galveston to Dallas as IH 47...
and make IH 69 into IH 45.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 10:54:21 AM
Interstate 100. :bigass:
Well...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/21_13_04_21_3_37_09.jpeg)
^^^^^^
In the same vein, this used to be in downtown DC (it's been removed) and bears other numbers mentioned in this thread. Picture from AARoads.
(https://www.aaroads.com/dc/001/us-001_nb_at_madison_dr_nw.jpg)
Yup, Caltrans will never upgrade CA 1 to I-1 and I-50 will never be used, although I 5hink the overlaps with I-35, I-435, and I-470 should be made I-50 like US 41 was made I-41.
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
One of these numbers will have to be used for the Enid OK—Springdale AR interstate that was signed into law since this thread was created.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 10, 2022, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
One of these numbers will have to be used for the Enid OK—Springdale AR interstate that was signed into law since this thread was created.
46, 48, and 58 also don't really leave the east coast/Appalachia, so those could be used elsewhere without duplicating them.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 10, 2022, 12:38:52 PM
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
Though 420 was once proposed for Atlanta.
Quote from: Big John on January 10, 2022, 07:42:42 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 10, 2022, 12:38:52 PM
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
Though 420 was once proposed for Atlanta.
And Monroe, LA
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 10, 2022, 12:38:52 PM
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
I doubt it. If sign theft is a big issue, I-69 wouldn't be quintupled in length, and instead, some other number chosen for the NAFTA interstate.
IMO, I-6 should be the designation for I-49's "southern" extension from Lafayette to New Orleans.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 02:53:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 02:49:33 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
You do realize that how the grid is set up, all of these could theoretically fall within North Carolina...right?
Those numbers could work on US 74 Asheville to Wilmington or US 72 Memphis-Chattanooga.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
US 46 is not in its grid position, so an I-46 could work. I have I-46 on the southern I-87 in one of my fictional maps. I have I-48 on Joplin-Wichita on a fictional map, but that corridor isn't even 4 laned, so it most likely wouldn't be an interstate in real life. I-56 or I-58 could be used on the Bluegrass Pkwy in KY. I-62 could go on US 460 in VA if for some reason, the state wanted to revive the old southern alternative of I-64 as a new interstate. On my fictional map, I have I-62 on I-70 between Cove Fort and Green river, with I-70 rerouted on I-80 west to SF.
US 400 does a fine job as is. No need to turn it into I-48.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 11, 2022, 08:23:29 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 02:53:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 02:49:33 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
28, 34, 36, 38. I don't think this would really fit anywhere between existing routes.
You do realize that how the grid is set up, all of these could theoretically fall within North Carolina...right?
Those numbers could work on US 74 Asheville to Wilmington or US 72 Memphis-Chattanooga.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
US 46 is not in its grid position, so an I-46 could work. I have I-46 on the southern I-87 in one of my fictional maps. I have I-48 on Joplin-Wichita on a fictional map, but that corridor isn't even 4 laned, so it most likely wouldn't be an interstate in real life. I-56 or I-58 could be used on the Bluegrass Pkwy in KY. I-62 could go on US 460 in VA if for some reason, the state wanted to revive the old southern alternative of I-64 as a new interstate. On my fictional map, I have I-62 on I-70 between Cove Fort and Green river, with I-70 rerouted on I-80 west to SF.
US 400 does a fine job as is. No need to turn it into I-48.
I can tell exactly where you stopped reading my post here :-D
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 10, 2022, 12:38:52 PM
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
I doubt it. If sign theft is a big issue, I-69 wouldn't be quintupled in length, and instead, some other number chosen for the NAFTA interstate.
I agree. We have US-69, many states have state routes numbered 69, there are numerous exit 69's throughout the country, etc. Some locations are likely more targeted than others, but
most people aren't that childish to steal a road sign because of "funny sex number".
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 11, 2022, 10:45:48 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 10, 2022, 12:38:52 PM
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
I doubt it. If sign theft is a big issue, I-69 wouldn't be quintupled in length, and instead, some other number chosen for the NAFTA interstate.
I agree. We have US-69, many states have state routes numbered 69, there are numerous exit 69's throughout the country, etc. Some locations are likely more targeted than others, but most people aren't that childish to steal a road sign because of "funny sex number".
Laughs in Ohio SR 235 extension. (Originally SR 69 from I-75 intersection in downtown Dayton north to its end at SR 65 near Otsego.)
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 11, 2022, 10:45:48 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 10, 2022, 12:38:52 PM
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
I doubt it. If sign theft is a big issue, I-69 wouldn't be quintupled in length, and instead, some other number chosen for the NAFTA interstate.
I agree. We have US-69, many states have state routes numbered 69, there are numerous exit 69's throughout the country, etc. Some locations are likely more targeted than others, but most people aren't that childish to steal a road sign because of "funny sex number".
Utah entirely renumbered their SR 69 to 38 due to thefts, so it may be a bigger issue than you think... although a big contributing factor in that case is that it was pretty close to Utah State and Weber State Universities, and hence had a higher volume of college students who are probably more likely to steal said signs.
I doubt any route will ever be numbered 420 again. DOTs can't even keep 420 mileposts up, and Colorado's attempt at a solution (MILE 419.99) didn't work either.
I-100, I-200 etc
They would be spurs of I-00 which isn't happening.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: epzik8 on March 05, 2021, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.
Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.
The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."
82 drives me nuts. It's a north-south route!
It's also north of I-84.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 05, 2021, 02:41:20 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
I don't know, somewhere out there is a city with a really stupid football team that might have same numbered interstate and US routes really close together.
Go Bears!
I think we can put the US vs Interstates having the same number in the same state argument to rest. It made sense when the system was first starting out to reduce confusion, but so much time has gone by now, and nobody cares anymore.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 01:56:31 PM
For 3di, most 9xx won't be used.
8xx: mostly won't be used, but some that I could see being used in the future, in addition to the currently used ones, are 870 (Columbia Bypass), 864 (VA 288? After all, 864 is 288*3), 875 (Chattanooga Eastern Bypass).
7xx: like with 9xx, it's unlikely.
5xx: For some reason, states love to use 5xx over 1xx or 3xx for 3di spurs, which means that 25, 45 and 70 are the only x0 and x5 without a 5xx 3di. Only one that have a possibility to be a future interstate is 570.
Interstate 820 in Ft Worth, TX
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2022, 08:43:31 AM
I think we can put the US vs Interstates having the same number in the same state argument to rest. It made sense when the system was first starting out to reduce confusion, but so much time has gone by now, and nobody cares anymore.
It still matters if the parallel surface road is a US route, e.g. I-64 can't become I-60 where it's parallel with US 60.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2022, 08:46:13 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2022, 08:43:31 AM
I think we can put the US vs Interstates having the same number in the same state argument to rest. It made sense when the system was first starting out to reduce confusion, but so much time has gone by now, and nobody cares anymore.
It still matters if the parallel surface road is a US route, e.g. I-64 can't become I-60 where it's parallel with US 60.
What about I-41 and US-41. They are cosigned or parallel the whole way.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2022, 08:46:13 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2022, 08:43:31 AM
I think we can put the US vs Interstates having the same number in the same state argument to rest. It made sense when the system was first starting out to reduce confusion, but so much time has gone by now, and nobody cares anymore.
It still matters if the parallel surface road is a US route, e.g. I-64 can't become I-60 where it's parallel with US 60.
Methinks you are confusing the words "can't" and "shouldn't":
https://goo.gl/maps/UNohoxjA3iX1UWyF6
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2022, 08:49:02 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2022, 08:46:13 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2022, 08:43:31 AM
I think we can put the US vs Interstates having the same number in the same state argument to rest. It made sense when the system was first starting out to reduce confusion, but so much time has gone by now, and nobody cares anymore.
It still matters if the parallel surface road is a US route, e.g. I-64 can't become I-60 where it's parallel with US 60.
What about I-41 and US-41. They are cosigned or parallel the whole way.
They're the same road. You don't have I-41 and US 41 as two
different but parallel routes.
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2022, 08:50:27 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2022, 08:49:02 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2022, 08:46:13 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2022, 08:43:31 AM
I think we can put the US vs Interstates having the same number in the same state argument to rest. It made sense when the system was first starting out to reduce confusion, but so much time has gone by now, and nobody cares anymore.
It still matters if the parallel surface road is a US route, e.g. I-64 can't become I-60 where it's parallel with US 60.
What about I-41 and US-41. They are cosigned or parallel the whole way.
They're the same road. You don't have I-41 and US 41 as two different but parallel routes.
I still don't think it matters. Again that rule was put in placed back when the interstates were brand new and everyone was trying to get used to differentiate them from their US counterparts. Its been 65 years. People are now more used to the system and know there is a difference between US-60 and I-60.
For an I-60, use I-58 and also I-48 for 50. I say.
Principle 0 and 5 routes shouldn't be duplicated with US #'s.
41 isn't principle.
Quote from: US20IL64 on January 12, 2022, 10:46:45 AM
For an I-60, use I-58 and also I-48 for 50. I say.
More like for I-50 and I-60, use I-44 and I-64, when the interstate system was first laid out.
I-70 theoretically could've been numbered as I-60, if the planners back then had no issue with it sharing a state (Missouri), but not meeting with US 60. Then, I-80->70, 90->80, and 94->90. Coincidentally, this would have each x0 and one of its parallel US route add up to 100 (I-60+US 40, 70+30, 80+20, 90+10).
Quote from: US 89 on January 12, 2022, 12:11:27 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 11, 2022, 10:45:48 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 10, 2022, 12:38:52 PM
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
I doubt it. If sign theft is a big issue, I-69 wouldn't be quintupled in length, and instead, some other number chosen for the NAFTA interstate.
I agree. We have US-69, many states have state routes numbered 69, there are numerous exit 69's throughout the country, etc. Some locations are likely more targeted than others, but most people aren't that childish to steal a road sign because of "funny sex number".
Utah entirely renumbered their SR 69 to 38 due to thefts, so it may be a bigger issue than you think... although a big contributing factor in that case is that it was pretty close to Utah State and Weber State Universities, and hence had a higher volume of college students who are probably more likely to steal said signs.
I doubt any route will ever be numbered 420 again. DOTs can't even keep 420 mileposts up, and Colorado's attempt at a solution (MILE 419.99) didn't work either.
Virginia doesn't post VA 420. It's simply marked Seminary Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8321369,-77.1152312,3a,75y,156.45h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDojgudk4Ffl8aDqqoPkkww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) or Janneys Lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8137114,-77.0711728,3a,32.8y,342.79h,86.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2KgqysVJsB4jYH6UR4zwng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Quote from: skluth on January 12, 2022, 12:15:42 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 12, 2022, 12:11:27 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 11, 2022, 10:45:48 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 10, 2022, 12:38:52 PM
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
I doubt it. If sign theft is a big issue, I-69 wouldn't be quintupled in length, and instead, some other number chosen for the NAFTA interstate.
I agree. We have US-69, many states have state routes numbered 69, there are numerous exit 69's throughout the country, etc. Some locations are likely more targeted than others, but most people aren't that childish to steal a road sign because of "funny sex number".
Utah entirely renumbered their SR 69 to 38 due to thefts, so it may be a bigger issue than you think... although a big contributing factor in that case is that it was pretty close to Utah State and Weber State Universities, and hence had a higher volume of college students who are probably more likely to steal said signs.
I doubt any route will ever be numbered 420 again. DOTs can't even keep 420 mileposts up, and Colorado's attempt at a solution (MILE 419.99) didn't work either.
Virginia doesn't post VA 420. It's simply marked Seminary Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8321369,-77.1152312,3a,75y,156.45h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDojgudk4Ffl8aDqqoPkkww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) or Janneys Lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8137114,-77.0711728,3a,32.8y,342.79h,86.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2KgqysVJsB4jYH6UR4zwng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Mile Marker 420 on Interstate 20 in Texas is/was imbedded (https://goo.gl/maps/7EZojRqYyWoyaHHX9) into the concrete pillar of a bridge, so if you steel the sign you have to steel the whole pier.
I-35E has a mile marker 420 in Dallas, but either it's missing because it was hit, been stolen or TxDOT said "we aren't signing this anymore."
It should be somewhere around here. (https://goo.gl/maps/jgctCiTVi7qgLqh18)
I-10 also has a mile marker 420 in Texas, but it is signed normally and never has a theft issue, mainly because it is so hard to get to. (https://goo.gl/maps/5bMxXNNp86bSuzqp7)
There were two cancelled I-420's that were never built. There was the proposed I-420 in Atlanta, but I'm sure you all knew that. Then there was another one cancelled in Monroe, Louisiana.
In case anyone wants to see Colorado's MILE 419.99 who hasn't yet, here it is back in 2012:
https://goo.gl/maps/iY456fqJ3DWh6rz48
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 12, 2022, 05:18:46 PM
In case anyone wants to see Colorado's MILE 419.99 who hasn't yet, here it is back in 2012:
https://goo.gl/maps/iY456fqJ3DWh6rz48
Looks like MILE 68.99 is still here in the most recent GSV view:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3980296,-108.1198542,3a,15y,83.28h,85.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slLuDAwWioJM_5TdfmYq7ZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 12, 2022, 07:37:47 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: epzik8 on March 05, 2021, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.
Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.
The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."
82 drives me nuts. It's a north-south route!
It's also north of I-84.
IMO I-82 should be used for western I-84 and I-82 becomes I-7 or I-9. :bigass:
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 12, 2022, 07:37:47 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: epzik8 on March 05, 2021, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.
Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.
The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."
82 drives me nuts. It's a north-south route!
It's also north of I-84.
To be fair, though, the highway that is now I-84 was originally signed as I-80N, so I-82 fit in the grid back then. If I were to complain about the number change, it would be that I-82 should've been extended south and east through ID and UT.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 10, 2022, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.
One of these numbers will have to be used for the Enid OK—Springdale AR interstate that was signed into law since this thread was created.
I'm betting on I-50. And it'll continue on to Nashville. But none of us will see it.
Quote from: Henry on January 12, 2022, 07:46:50 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 12, 2022, 07:37:47 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: epzik8 on March 05, 2021, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 05, 2021, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 05, 2021, 11:02:25 AM
I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.
I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. :spin:
I-9 is a possibility in California.
Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.
Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.
The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."
82 drives me nuts. It's a north-south route!
It's also north of I-84.
To be fair, though, the highway that is now I-84 was originally signed as I-80N, so I-82 fit in the grid back then. If I were to complain about the number change, it would be that I-82 should've been extended south and east through ID and UT.
And I would keep the 84 numbering since x4's are next in line behind x0's (I-44,64,84w,94) as long distance east-west interstates. For odds, 9's would follow the x5s (I-29,49,69) though a similar argument could be made for the x7s (I-57,77).
Quote from: Big John on January 10, 2022, 07:42:42 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 10, 2022, 12:38:52 PM
Interstate 420
Interstate 666
sign theft may be an issue with them
Though 420 was once proposed for Atlanta.
There aren't many WI 69 signs posted along that highway, either.
:-P
Mike