What pisses you off the worst:The I-69 mess in Texas or the I-73-74 clusterfuck?

[Revive 755]

I-238. 

I-238 should have been an option; I find it much more irritating the California was allowed to break the numbering rules, yet Missouri wasn't allowed to bend them to have MO 370 signed as I-370.

Though lately I might go with the whole I-41 business in Illinois and Wisconsin.

IL - 24, 39, 41 (a whole fucking mile!), 55, 57, 64, 70, 72, 74, 80, 88, 90, 94
Not to mention Illinois made a play for I-37 (now I-155) and I-53 (now I-355).  That would've made 15.  I'm shocked IDOT didn't try to extend I-44 eastward into the state!

I though I-53 was an earlier plan for I-155 and the Peoria to I-180 corridor, see http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i180.html#180il

Illinois was trying to get the I-66 corridor shifted into the southern half of the state.  I'm sure the number of 2di's would have been greater if more of the supplemental freeway system had been finished.

[hbelkins]

I-238. 

I-238 should have been an option; I find it much more irritating the California was allowed to break the numbering rules, yet Missouri wasn't allowed to bend them to have MO 370 signed as I-370.

Why would that have required bending the rules?

[Revive 755]

^ Because AASHTO considered MO 370 more of a bypass and wanted it numbered as I-870, per Kurumi's site (and at least the number change bit backed up through one of the Post Dispatch's traffic columns awhile back).

[billtm]

I believe that suffixed Interstates should be only used when you have two routes that get you to the same place, and neither clearly is more or less of a bypass than the other.

People from the USDOT, FHWA, and AASHTO should seriously give congress a briefing on the Interstate highway system.

Where exactly is I-73 supposed to go? If its eventual route is completely off grid...

[Alex4897]

I wouldn't say either piss me off.  Sure they're both anomalies, but where's the fun in having a perfect numbering system?

[on_wisconsin]

Sure they're both anomalies, but where's the fun in having a perfect numbering system?

Cannot agree more with this statement. People take the grid like its supposed to be some set in stone commandment, rather then just a government created guide from the early to middle decades of the last century. (which it actually is)

[RG407]

I picked the I-69 trio, but it was a tough call.  The deciding factor was I-2.  I hate I-2.

[DandyDan]

I could truly care less.  The fact of the matter is, they are all just roads, or at least hypothetical roads at this point.  Of course, I-74 is totally out of place in North Carolina, but really, it's just a number.  It's not like the Interstate highway grid is a religion.

[rickmastfan67]

IL - 24, 39, 41 (a whole fucking mile!), 55, 57, 64, 70, 72, 74, 80, 88, 90, 94
Not to mention Illinois made a play for I-37 (now I-155) and I-53 (now I-355).  That would've made 15.  I'm shocked IDOT didn't try to extend I-44 eastward into the state!

I thought I heard they were going to attempt to get I-44 in IL when they finished I-70's ultimate reroute by adding more ramps at the I-70 bridge.

[kkt]

No. 1 is Wyoming I-180, because it creates the mistaken impression that people will be driving on, you know, an interstate.

Then I-69, because the mess was completely preventable.  Sure, there's substandard things about freeways that are more dangerous or delaying, but they would take real money to fix.  I-69 suffixed routes are just cussedness.

Then I-73/74.  I'm not sure what question N.C. was asking, but I-73/74 is the wrong answer.

I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

[TheStranger]

I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

[vdeane]

If I were California, I would have renumbered CA 180 and any other route that could become a 3di just in case.

[roadman65]

Why are we so off topic here?  Its just a survey between two situations that seems to have drifted to be either attacking the OP for only picking two scenarios out of many that piss off us road geeks, or to bring up the other cases of road geek indigestion.

[kkt]

I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

Yeah, but the only x80 number that was available was I-180, and CA-180 was established in 1934 according to CAhighways. 

I-580 was proposed as I-72 and briefly signed as I-5W before it was finally renumbered as I-580.  US-101 from Los Angeles to San Francisco was proposed as an interstate and would probably have become I-3.  Either of those would have given several possible 3di options for I-238 that would have fit the numbering scheme.

[vtk]

I-94 around Lake Michigan

[TheStranger]

I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

Yeah, but the only x80 number that was available was I-180, and CA-180 was established in 1934 according to CAhighways. 

I-580 was proposed as I-72 and briefly signed as I-5W before it was finally renumbered as I-580.  US-101 from Los Angeles to San Francisco was proposed as an interstate and would probably have become I-3.  Either of those would have given several possible 3di options for I-238 that would have fit the numbering scheme.

Ah, I misread your post originally!

Some thoughts:

- California was VERY willing to renumber pre-1964 state routes 5, 8, 10, and 15 (though not sure all of those combined would have matched 180's total length), and for that matter, the entire pre-1964 west extent of Route 178 became part of Route 58.  Interesting that 180 was retained (though I don't think anyone foresaw that they needed more 3di numbers then).

- I haven't read really much on why 5W became 580/505, only that it happened - though when it occurred, 505 was not built yet.  (That not only solves the usage of two 3dis for what had previously been a single-number branch of a major interstate, but could have given more options for what is now 238)  It wouldn't be the last time (15E) that California would establish a suffixed Interstate loop, either.

[bugo]

I don't mind violations in the grid as they are inevitable in any system other than a section line road grid system, but the two examples I listed are just plain silly. 

[Scott5114]

Of course, it's California policy that disallows I-180 and CA-180 from both existing. Would they really be confused by anyone? Oklahoma has I-44 and SH-44 and nobody seems to get lost.

[TheStranger]

Of course, it's California policy that disallows I-180 and CA-180 from both existing. Would they really be confused by anyone? Oklahoma has I-44 and SH-44 and nobody seems to get lost.

The policy for no duplicates really stems from a reaction to the 1956-1964 set of them due to Interstates and US routes coexisting in the state (40, 80 in particular).  Maybe it's a bit extreme - other states like Illinois never had an issue with geographically disparate routes of the same number - but the route numbers take precedence in common usage over whatever type of route they are.  This is somewhat a side effect of the post-1964 policy, though it does make sense to simply use the numbers alone in reference when they cannot be mistaken for any other route elsewhere in the state.

[WashuOtaku]

I-69 irks me more.  WTF with I-69C?  Not even Tennessee uses that suffix, and they the king of split routes.

[bugo]

Of course, it's California policy that disallows I-180 and CA-180 from both existing. Would they really be confused by anyone? Oklahoma has I-44 and SH-44 and nobody seems to get lost.

Oklahoma has a lot of duplicate numbers...56, 59, 266...

[Arkansastravelguy]

69W/C/E I think is worse. At least 73 and 74 touch the interstate system. We could eliminate 73 and make it 81E and eliminate 74 and make it 77E or 75W... Or 81W, 81C, and 81W. See how ridiculous that sounds? 


iPhone

[Arkansastravelguy]

I meant 95W instead of 75W


iPhone

[vdeane]

69W/C/E I think is worse. At least 73 and 74 touch the interstate system. We could eliminate 73 and make it 81E and eliminate 74 and make it 77E or 75W... Or 81W, 81C, and 81W. See how ridiculous that sounds? 


iPhone

The I-69s will too.  They just got in early because one of the highway bills permitted I-69 and I-11 to have disconnected signed segments if they would be connected within 25 years.

[kkt]

69W/C/E I think is worse. At least 73 and 74 touch the interstate system. We could eliminate 73 and make it 81E and eliminate 74 and make it 77E or 75W... Or 81W, 81C, and 81W. See how ridiculous that sounds? 


iPhone

The I-69s will too.  They just got in early because one of the highway bills permitted I-69 and I-11 to have disconnected signed segments if they would be connected within 25 years.

And if they don't, what happens?  The states have to give all that money back with interest?