Interstate numbers that will likely never be used

[OCGuy81]

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  )

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

[JoePCool14]

Interstate 100. 

[OCGuy81]

Interstate 100. 

Nation Line Rd? LOL

[Henry]

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  )

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.

[OCGuy81]

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  )

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

[Crown Victoria]

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. 

I-9 is a possibility in California.

I-31 could work for an extended I-135 from Salina KS to Lincoln NE.

[OCGuy81]

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. 

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.

[Crown Victoria]

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. 

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.

[bwana39]

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  )

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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  )

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.

[OCGuy81]

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  )

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?

[epzik8]

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. 

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."

[OCGuy81]

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. 

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!

[JoePCool14]

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.

[US 89]

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. 

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.

[Big John]

51. Too close to US 51

Or another redundancy as most of I-39 is cosigned with US 51?

[SEWIGuy]

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. 

[kenarmy]

Interstate 100. 

Nation Line Rd? LOL

Wait you might be on to something..

[sturmde]

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.
.

[sturmde]

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.

[kurumi]

I low key hope we leave 47 alone. It's the only 1- or 2-digit number never used for US or Interstate routes

[kphoger]

H846

[formulanone]

We'll probably see 50 and 60 used for some short expressway spur before 13 gets used.

[SkyPesos]

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.

[OCGuy81]

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)