How did the children get their names ^H^H^H^H^H^H numbers?

[Henry]

It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.

It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.

And besides, all the even I-x95's in NYC were being used up, so IMO, there was no easy solution for it.

[formulanone]

All this talk of child interstates, and nobody's suggested that boy interstates take the parent's name, and girl interstates take the name of the one they hook up with?

P.S. Somebody tell I-238 it was adopted.

[Pete from Boston]

It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.

It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.

995 implies a spur, not a loop.  There was really no reasonable way to label the roads in NY properly, given a) the jumble, and b) the shortage of good "parents"  Probably the simplest solution would be to make 495 into 395 (it ended up a dangling spur) and call 287 495.  But I admit there is almost no point in doing so.

[Brandon]

In Illinois, they were numbered, with the exception of I-474, in the order they were created.

I-180 is the first spur of I-80, likewise, I-280 is the first loop (in Illinois, even 3dis connect at both ends to their parent).

I-190 is the first spur, and I-290 is the first loop (having been I-90 prior to 1978).

I-294 is the first loop.  IL-394 was numbered along with IL-194 (former number for the Kennedy Expy/Northwest Twy) and IL-594 (which was a bit later and is currently I-190).

I-155 was the first spur while I-355 was the second.  I-255 is obviously the first and only loop.  Why was I-155, I-155 instead of I-174 or I-374?  No idea.  I-355 was more obvious, ending at I-290.

I-270 is the first and only loop, numbered in conjunction with Missouri.

I-172 is the first and only spur.

I-474 is a bit of a mystery.  It is the first and only loop of I-74, but numbered as if it were the second.  IIRC, there may have been plans for an I-274 in the Quad Cities, but nothing ever came of it if there was.

[getemngo]

I-474 is a bit of a mystery.

Not as big a mystery as I-894!

[Zeffy]

P.S. Somebody tell I-238 it was adopted.

But don't tell it that it was a mistake. 

[Eth]

Since non-roadgeeks in Grand Rapids still confuse "I-96" and "196" to this day, and I-375 wasn't planned and was commissioned after I-196 and I-194, perhaps MDOT decided no more 3di's should start with a 1 to prevent "motorist confusion."

When I was a kid, my grandmother always referred to I-185 as "eye-eighty-five", as opposed to the actual I-85, which was simply "eighty-five", so I can see the argument here. (I can't recall how she referred to SR 85, which parallels I-85 about 10-20 miles to the east.) It is the only 3di in Georgia beginning with a 1 (there was a planned I-175 along the corridor of today's SR 300, but it was cancelled).

[oscar]

I-474 is a bit of a mystery.  It is the first and only loop of I-74, but numbered as if it were the second.  IIRC, there may have been plans for an I-274 in the Quad Cities, but nothing ever came of it if there was.

See http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix74.html about the long-dead plans for I-274 in the Quad Cities.

[TheCatalyst31]

I-474 is a bit of a mystery.

Not as big a mystery as I-894!

My best guess for that one (and the related question of I-794) is that Wisconsin didn't want to use the same numbers as its neighbors. Illinois had 294 (and 194, 394, and 594 as state highways), and Minnesota had 394, 494, and 694, so 794 and 894 were the lowest (and in 894's case, only) numbers left. (Which just leads back to the question of why Minnesota needed both 494 and 694, of course...)

[Molandfreak]

I-474 is a bit of a mystery.

Not as big a mystery as I-894!

My best guess for that one (and the related question of I-794) is that Wisconsin didn't want to use the same numbers as its neighbors. Illinois had 294 (and 194, 394, and 594 as state highways), and Minnesota had 394, 494, and 694, so 794 and 894 were the lowest (and in 894's case, only) numbers left. (Which just leads back to the question of why Minnesota needed both 494 and 694, of course...)

494 is a beltway. 694 is a bypass.

[vdeane]

It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.

It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.

995 implies a spur, not a loop.  There was really no reasonable way to label the roads in NY properly, given a) the jumble, and b) the shortage of good "parents"  Probably the simplest solution would be to make 495 into 395 (it ended up a dangling spur) and call 287 495.  But I admit there is almost no point in doing so.

You could alway introduce x87 numbers into the mix, given that the only ones used are I-287, I-587 (yeesh), and I-787 (though I-687 was also planned).

As for how I-287 got that number in the first place... keep in mind, that as far as New York residents (especially upstate NY residents) are concerned, it's not a beltway, but two separate roads.  People around here don't really think of the multiplex, and both NYSTA and NYSDOT would prefer to pretend it doesn't exist; the exit numbers and mileposts both do this, and NYSTA does the minimal signage necessary on the portion co-signed with I-87 (which most people think of as "The Thruway" anyways).  People coming from the Thruway ticket system are either going to the Cross-Westchester or the New Jersey I-287 (or a local exit), not both.  We didn't even want them to have the same number; the FHWA forced us to because they wanted a NYC beltway.

NY doesn't really have beltways at all.  I-481, which looks the most like one, is considered a bypass of I-81 for through trucks.  Rochester comes the closest, and arguably would have had a de facto beltway had the NY 104 freeway between NY 390 and the Veterans Memorial Bridge been built, but that still would have been a patchwork of 3-5 designations.  I-390/NY 390 and I-590/NY 590 are spurs of each other to connect I-390 and I-90 to Rochester's northern suburbs.  I-190 is a Thruway spur to Niagara Falls.  I-290 is a bypass of I-190 through downtown Buffalo to Niagara Falls.  Albany doesn't even have anything that even remotely resembles a loop.  The more beltware-like freeway proposals here arrived after freeway construction was already waning and only portions got built, if anything at all.

[Duke87]

It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.

It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.

And besides, all the even I-x95's in NYC were being used up, so IMO, there was no easy solution for it.

295 and 495 should be first digit odd by standard convention, since they do not have both ends at another interstate (for 495, neither end is).

So 295 or 495 could have been used for 287 had the roads they were actually put on been given first digit odd numbers - all of those are available in New York for I-95.

You could alway introduce x87 numbers into the mix, given that the only ones used are I-287, I-587 (yeesh), and I-787 (though I-687 was also planned).

As for how I-287 got that number in the first place... keep in mind, that as far as New York residents (especially upstate NY residents) are concerned, it's not a beltway, but two separate roads.

The history of New York's x87s is as tortured as the history of its x78s. What actually got built and numbered what bears almost no resemblance to the original plans, which are further mangled by the fact that originally New York wanted to build new freeway for I-87 all the way up the east side of the Hudson rather than putting it on the Thruway.

[Revive 755]

My best guess for that one (and the related question of I-794) is that Wisconsin didn't want to use the same numbers as its neighbors. Illinois had 294 (and 194, 394, and 594 as state highways), and Minnesota had 394, 494, and 694, so 794 and 894 were the lowest (and in 894's case, only) numbers left. (Which just leads back to the question of why Minnesota needed both 494 and 694, of course...)

You forgot the cancelled I-494 for the Crosstown Expressway in Chicago.

As for 794, the Lake Freeway was supposed to go into Illinois, so there may have been plans to bring the 794 designation across the state line.

Really curious if Wisconsin would have sought an x94 for the cancelled Racine loop freeway.

And there is the curious case of I-255 and I-270 in St. Louis. I-270 could have been the full loop and that segment of I-270 between I-255 and I-55/I-70 could have been a different route number. Of course the lowest numbered interstate in STL is I-44.

That idea had been brought up before I-255 was completed, see http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i870.html#870il

[Pete from Boston]

It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.

It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.

995 implies a spur, not a loop.  There was really no reasonable way to label the roads in NY properly, given a) the jumble, and b) the shortage of good "parents"  Probably the simplest solution would be to make 495 into 395 (it ended up a dangling spur) and call 287 495.  But I admit there is almost no point in doing so.

You could alway introduce x87 numbers into the mix, given that the only ones used are I-287, I-587 (yeesh), and I-787 (though I-687 was also planned).

As for how I-287 got that number in the first place... keep in mind, that as far as New York residents (especially upstate NY residents) are concerned, it's not a beltway, but two separate roads.  People around here don't really think of the multiplex, and both NYSTA and NYSDOT would prefer to pretend it doesn't exist; the exit numbers and mileposts both do this, and NYSTA does the minimal signage necessary on the portion co-signed with I-87 (which most people think of as "The Thruway" anyways).  People coming from the Thruway ticket system are either going to the Cross-Westchester or the New Jersey I-287 (or a local exit), not both.  We didn't even want them to have the same number; the FHWA forced us to because they wanted a NYC beltway.

I'm not sure who you mean — living for many years about 15 minutes away from 87/287 and spending a great deal of time along the northern half of 287, I never got the sense that anyone gave it much thought.  When it was two separate roads, sure, people along one part and the other had little connection, but it has been 21 years.  There was a development surge along the new and old parts after the completion, and with population turnover, fading memories, and changed settlement patterns, the number of people for whom a divided 287 has any meaning is dwindling. 

These days, communities along the 287 corridor have more in common with their neighbors along the corridor than they do with the city (or the rest of the Thruway corridor).

[jeffandnicole]

It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.

It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.

And besides, all the even I-x95's in NYC were being used up, so IMO, there was no easy solution for it.

295 and 495 should be first digit odd by standard convention, since they do not have both ends at another interstate (for 495, neither end is).

So 295 or 495 could have been used for 287 had the roads they were actually put on been given first digit odd numbers - all of those are available in New York for I-95.

If you're including renumbering 287 into NJ, 295 would not be available: It already exists in South Jersey.

Even 495 isn't (wasn't) available because of its usage (and former usage) going into NYC.

[Henry]

It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.

It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.

And besides, all the even I-x95's in NYC were being used up, so IMO, there was no easy solution for it.

295 and 495 should be first digit odd by standard convention, since they do not have both ends at another interstate (for 495, neither end is).

So 295 or 495 could have been used for 287 had the roads they were actually put on been given first digit odd numbers - all of those are available in New York for I-95.

If you're including renumbering 287 into NJ, 295 would not be available: It already exists in South Jersey.

Even 495 isn't (wasn't) available because of its usage (and former usage) going into NYC.

But if plans for tearing down the Sheridan Expressway go through, I-895 would be available once again. However, even that might not be obtained as it's still being reserved for an unbuilt corridor in the Philadelphia area.

[jeffandnicole]

What's wrong with I-1095? 

[TheStranger]

Then there are examples like I-205 in California. It technically could have been an x80 3di, but it makes perfect sense to be the 205 since it takes you "to I-5"

I feel the same about 580. It could have reasonably been numbered 380, 780 or 980, but it connects both the 5 and the 80.

When 205 was first proposed, it would have not touched an x80 route at all, as 580 then was I-5W (and the current I-5 between Vernalis through Sacramento to Dunnigan was proposed, though never signed, as I-5).

[Brandon]

Then there are examples like I-205 in California. It technically could have been an x80 3di, but it makes perfect sense to be the 205 since it takes you "to I-5"

I feel the same about 580. It could have reasonably been numbered 380, 780 or 980, but it connects both the 5 and the 80.

When 205 was first proposed, it would have not touched an x80 route at all, as 580 then was I-5W (and the current I-5 between Vernalis through Sacramento to Dunnigan was proposed, though never signed, as I-5).

That's one thing that I've always questioned.  Why, with the sheer number of 3di interstates that the Bay Area has, did not CalTrans use a throwaway 2di such as I-3 or I-58 (or some other such number) to free up interstate numbers (I-x80 and I-x05) for use in other places, instead creating monstrosities such as I-238?  I-5W would've been a perfect I-3.

[TheStranger]

Then there are examples like I-205 in California. It technically could have been an x80 3di, but it makes perfect sense to be the 205 since it takes you "to I-5"

I feel the same about 580. It could have reasonably been numbered 380, 780 or 980, but it connects both the 5 and the 80.

When 205 was first proposed, it would have not touched an x80 route at all, as 580 then was I-5W (and the current I-5 between Vernalis through Sacramento to Dunnigan was proposed, though never signed, as I-5).

That's one thing that I've always questioned.  Why, with the sheer number of 3di interstates that the Bay Area has, did not CalTrans use a throwaway 2di such as I-3 or I-58 (or some other such number) to free up interstate numbers (I-x80 and I-x05) for use in other places, instead creating monstrosities such as I-238?  I-5W would've been a perfect I-3.

In the early days of interstate submissions and proposals, US 101 between downtown Los Angeles and Route 37 in Marin WAS submitted and rejected (notwithstanding portions that were briefly considered parts of other routes, i.e. the never-signed 105 along the Santa Ana Freeway and the never-signed 480/101 concurrency on SF's Doyle Drive).  I feel like that would have made a major difference in available numbers (hypothetically, 280 - and the later 880 - likely would have been numbered in relation to its role as a US 101 reliever, not as a child route of 80).

IIRC, from what else I've seen at Cahighways, many 3dis in the LA area were proposed as 2dis initially for similar reasons, i.e. 210 was originally proposed I-12/I-14 in 1957, 405 as I-9 in 1957 and I-3 in 1958, 605 as I-13 in 1957.  280 was proposed as I-3 and 680 as..I-5!  (This was also when there were some trial proposals to use I-76 for what is now 80, in order to avoid route duplication; 40 was considered as I-30 under the same rationale.)

Many years before this, seems AASHO thought about it briefly when the relatively short US 48 (approximately along portions of Route 238, I-580, and all of I-205) existed.  Not sure how long 48 was signed before US 50 was awkwardly extended to loop through Stockton and take over that alignment.

I-5W being transformed into essentially 3 numbers (205, 580, 505) in 1964 absolutely ate into how many available 3di numbers Northern California has had since.  The refusal to have 480 available as an Interstate number after the Embarcadero Freeway project was halted at Broadway didn't help matters.

---

Looking at the original (pre-1964) 3di proposals for California, it seems on first glance that a west-to-east/north-to-south pattern occurred initially:

I-80: 280 westernmost (Junipero Serra Boulevard corridor), followed by 480 (Doyle Drive/Lombard Street gap/Embarcadero Freeway), then 680 in the inland Bay Area, and 880 in Sacramento's Natomas and Del Paso Heights districts.

I-5: 205 northernmost, 405 next (Sylmar), then 605 (Norwalk), and 805 (Sorrento Valley).

I-10: 210 was the only one at the time.

[vtk]

Why ... did not CalTrans use a throwaway 2di such as I-3 or I-58 (or some other such number) to free up interstate numbers (I-x80 and I-x05) for use in other places, instead creating monstrosities such as I-238?

A "throwaway 2di" might be just as much a monstrosity as the "orphan" I-238, depending on whom you ask.

[hbelkins]

A "throwaway 2di" might be just as much a monstrosity as the "orphan" I-238, depending on whom you ask.

It seems to work for I-97.

[vtk]

A "throwaway 2di" might be just as much a monstrosity as the "orphan" I-238, depending on whom you ask.

It seems to work for I-97.

Which one gets "fixed" more often in the Fictional Highways board?

[FreewayDan]

Why did Oregon choose I-405 for their downtown route, instead of 605 or 805, so it would be less likely to be confused with Seattle's I-405?

I thought the same thing for I-215 in Las Vegas.  Why didn't NvDOT went with I-415 so that no one would confuse it with I-215 back in SoCal?

[Duke87]

A "throwaway 2di" might be just as much a monstrosity as the "orphan" I-238, depending on whom you ask.

It seems to work for I-97.

Which one gets "fixed" more often in the Fictional Highways board?

Worth pointing out, though, that I-580 is the ninth-longest 3di in the country. If you converted it to I-58, it would be longer than six other already existing 2dis (I-2, I-19, I-66, I-73, western I-86, and I-97). You could then turn I-238 into I-258. Only one digit off for both roads!