AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...  (Read 14156 times)

Flint1979

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6756
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:09 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2021, 09:28:41 PM »

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I donít like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.


Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue.  Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way.  (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)

Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.

I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.
The thing with 196 is it's not a spur to anywhere, it's an Interstate to Interstate connection. If it were a spur to Grand Rapids it'd be an I-x94. Originally though I-96 was suppose to be I-94 and the current I-94 was suppose to be I-92.
Logged

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4426
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Cincinnati, OH/Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 09:08:49 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2021, 09:57:09 PM »

I donít care about the odd-even 3di rules for my fictional interstates anymore. All I have now are routes that are/part of a beltway or bypass (275 and 696 are two examples) get an even first digit and the rest get whatever number thatís available. 196 can go either way, as it have an interstate at both ends, but is a long spur in respect to the I-94 network that goes to a city I-94 doesnít serve at the same time.
Logged
My Fictional Highways

Fundamental Theorem of AARoads - Let "y" represent the elevation above sea level in a certain area. If "Δy" between the highest and lowest values of y equals to 0, it's Illinois.

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1894
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: April 15, 2022, 06:12:23 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #52 on: March 09, 2021, 11:04:57 AM »

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I donít like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.


Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue.  Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way.  (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)

Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.

I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.
The thing with 196 is it's not a spur to anywhere, it's an Interstate to Interstate connection. If it were a spur to Grand Rapids it'd be an I-x94. Originally though I-96 was suppose to be I-94 and the current I-94 was suppose to be I-92.

This one is weird.  I am no fan of renumbering for the sake of gird lines, however, really I-96 should swing back to I-94 and not I-196.
Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3100
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 11:41:20 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #53 on: March 09, 2021, 12:10:16 PM »

Think Milwaukee used 794 and 894 because Chicago took most of the lower numbers at the time. 494 and 694 was planned at one point, and cancelled. I-90 between I-290 and I-90 used to be I-194, and I-190 used to be I-594. Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.

The other rationale was the general guidance (but not rule!) to number auxiliary interstates with increasing first digits from west to east.  (Think I-90 across NY or I-40 across TN.)  With Milwaukee being near the end of the line for I-94's trek thru the state, someone figured they should pick higher numbers for Milwaukee's 3di's under that guideline.  It does have the added benefit of making them distinct from the 3di's in the next metro.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3431
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: May 25, 2022, 10:55:55 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #54 on: March 09, 2021, 12:46:22 PM »

The 794 and 894 numbers were used in Wisconsin because the other numbers in the Chicago area were already used. There was an IL 194 from the present-day Interstate 290/IL 53 interchange to the Interstate 94 interchange (now part of 90). Interstate 294 has used its existing route from the get-go. IL 394 has existed since it was first designated. There was to have been an Interstate 494 along Lake Shore Drive (later changed to Interstate 694, though never built), later the 494 designation was moved to the unbuilt Crosstown Expressway. IL 594 was the spur to O'Hare Airport (now Interstate 190). There has never been an Interstate/IL 994 proposed, not that such a designation was ever necessary.
Logged

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4426
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Cincinnati, OH/Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 09:08:49 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #55 on: March 09, 2021, 01:00:16 PM »

Think Milwaukee used 794 and 894 because Chicago took most of the lower numbers at the time. 494 and 694 was planned at one point, and cancelled. I-90 between I-290 and I-90 used to be I-194, and I-190 used to be I-594. Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.

The other rationale was the general guidance (but not rule!) to number auxiliary interstates with increasing first digits from west to east.  (Think I-90 across NY or I-40 across TN.)  With Milwaukee being near the end of the line for I-94's trek thru the state, someone figured they should pick higher numbers for Milwaukee's 3di's under that guideline.  It does have the added benefit of making them distinct from the 3di's in the next metro.
Ohio's 3di seems to be in order from when it was constructed. For example with the x75s in the state, I-275 came first in the early 60s, then I-475 in the late 60s. I-675 didn't come along until the 80s. The same pattern can be seen with the x70s too, though the x80s are in order from west to east. What is interesting is that ODOT changed I-290 to 490 despite there not being another 290 planned anywhere else in the state.
Logged
My Fictional Highways

Fundamental Theorem of AARoads - Let "y" represent the elevation above sea level in a certain area. If "Δy" between the highest and lowest values of y equals to 0, it's Illinois.

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2056
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:02:26 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #56 on: March 09, 2021, 01:15:28 PM »

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I donít like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.


Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue.  Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way.  (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)

Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.

I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.
The thing with 196 is it's not a spur to anywhere, it's an Interstate to Interstate connection. If it were a spur to Grand Rapids it'd be an I-x94. Originally though I-96 was suppose to be I-94 and the current I-94 was suppose to be I-92.

I-196 isn't a bypass or through route either. This is why I said we should get rid of 3DI parsing entirely and make anything that is not a main 2DI is a 3DI branch. The current 3DI concept has been made almost meaningless due to the many exceptions. 3DI parsing does nothing more than cause endless pedantic arguments like we see here and 99% of drivers don't care as long as it gets them where they're going. I like branches because branches can rejoin the main or another line; the convoluted royal family trees of Europe are the easiest example. The only 3DI problem then would be the 3DI highways which don't reach their parent like the I-X78 highways around NYC. (I-105 comes off I-605 which connects to I-5, so the entire I-5 line is still connected.) Another word besides branch (e.g., braid) is fine too; I just think the entire spur, bypass, through route 3DI debate should be 86'ed. You've already shown that some people will argue it even when my main point was that I didn't care what word was used.

Just accept that the 3DI definitions are guidance at this point. No more. No less.
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6756
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:09 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #57 on: March 09, 2021, 03:03:04 PM »

I-196 is there to link Benton Harbor, South Haven, Holland and Grand Rapids together. It also has a major N-S US highway on over half it's route. Other than connections to Canada Michigan really isn't a through routed state anyway.
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2813
  • Notice: US-2 is not an interstate worthy corridor

  • Last Login: Today at 09:29:40 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #58 on: March 09, 2021, 03:31:08 PM »

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I donít like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.


Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue.  Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way.  (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)

Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.

I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.
The thing with 196 is it's not a spur to anywhere, it's an Interstate to Interstate connection. If it were a spur to Grand Rapids it'd be an I-x94. Originally though I-96 was suppose to be I-94 and the current I-94 was suppose to be I-92.

I-196 isn't a bypass or through route either. This is why I said we should get rid of 3DI parsing entirely and make anything that is not a main 2DI is a 3DI branch. The current 3DI concept has been made almost meaningless due to the many exceptions. 3DI parsing does nothing more than cause endless pedantic arguments like we see here and 99% of drivers don't care as long as it gets them where they're going. I like branches because branches can rejoin the main or another line; the convoluted royal family trees of Europe are the easiest example. The only 3DI problem then would be the 3DI highways which don't reach their parent like the I-X78 highways around NYC. (I-105 comes off I-605 which connects to I-5, so the entire I-5 line is still connected.) Another word besides branch (e.g., braid) is fine too; I just think the entire spur, bypass, through route 3DI debate should be 86'ed. You've already shown that some people will argue it even when my main point was that I didn't care what word was used.

Just accept that the 3DI definitions are guidance at this point. No more. No less.


Exactly.  Which is why the whole I-238 issue was never that big of a deal to me.  It was the number of the highway before and it just got a different color shield.

In a world where people navigate by their phones, the whole debate around grids, spurs, etc. are just not very important.
Logged

wanderer2575

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1543
  • Location: Farmington Hills, MI
  • Last Login: Today at 01:33:12 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #59 on: March 09, 2021, 03:36:22 PM »

The I-96 / I-196 switch was made because the road to Muskegon was finished long before the cross-town Grand Rapids road.  The road changed numbers on the east side of GR for no apparent reason.  So they fixed it.

This is how it originally looked.  The freeway changed route numbers just west of East Belt Line Road.

(1962 Cities Service state map, Grand Rapids insert)

Logged

thenetwork

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2856
  • Age: 2018
  • Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Last Login: Today at 10:40:31 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #60 on: March 09, 2021, 06:22:41 PM »

Think Milwaukee used 794 and 894 because Chicago took most of the lower numbers at the time. 494 and 694 was planned at one point, and cancelled. I-90 between I-290 and I-90 used to be I-194, and I-190 used to be I-594. Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.

The other rationale was the general guidance (but not rule!) to number auxiliary interstates with increasing first digits from west to east.  (Think I-90 across NY or I-40 across TN.)  With Milwaukee being near the end of the line for I-94's trek thru the state, someone figured they should pick higher numbers for Milwaukee's 3di's under that guideline.  It does have the added benefit of making them distinct from the 3di's in the next metro.
Ohio's 3di seems to be in order from when it was constructed. For example with the x75s in the state, I-275 came first in the early 60s, then I-475 in the late 60s. I-675 didn't come along until the 80s. The same pattern can be seen with the x70s too, though the x80s are in order from west to east. What is interesting is that ODOT changed I-290 to 490 despite there not being another 290 planned anywhere else in the state.

I want to think they abandoned using I-290 in Cleveland for the potential confusion of the SR-2/I-90 duplex which started just a few miles away at Dead Man's Curve.  Also the SR-2/I-90 duplex on the west side of town starting in Rocky River.
Logged

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1487
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 06:41:01 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #61 on: March 09, 2021, 08:24:47 PM »

Keep 696 as is. Eliminate the 96/275 duplex. It is an unnecessary co-designation (I feel the same way about the 84-380 duplex in Pennsylvania).
Not as unnecessary as that I-41 duplex down to the Illinois state line.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1894
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: April 15, 2022, 06:12:23 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #62 on: March 10, 2021, 12:29:25 PM »

Keep 696 as is. Eliminate the 96/275 duplex. It is an unnecessary co-designation (I feel the same way about the 84-380 duplex in Pennsylvania).
Not as unnecessary as that I-41 duplex down to the Illinois state line.

Are there still I-41/US 41 signs hanging around?
Logged

ztonyg

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 165
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 08:20:25 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #63 on: September 20, 2021, 01:13:23 AM »

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
There's just one thing wrong with that proposal, and that is, another I-275 already exists in Cincinnati.

As for the Detroit one, I have no problem with its route, pointless concurrency aside.

I think that the concurrency continues because many people consider I-96 from Novi to the west to be different than the Jeffries Freeway I-96 from Livonia to Detroit.

Honestly, if interstate standards didn't mean anything I'd do the following.

Renumber I-696 from the I-275/696/M-5 interchange to M-10 as I-96 (with I-696 continuing from M-10 to I-94).
Renumber the M-10 freeway from I-696 to Jefferson Ave. as I-96 (with Northwestern Highway north of I-696 reverting back to M-4).
Renumber the M-14 freeway and the I-96 Jeffries freeway to I-294. Prior to the re-route of I-96 this (or at least the portion 

In this scenario I-275 would lose its concurrency with I-96 and I-96 would still have a direct freeway route to Downtown. Looking at maps (and when the routes were built) the I-696/M-10 routing always seemed to make the most sense for I-96's continuation into Detroit and the routing of I-96 along the I-275 and M-14 freeways seemed convoluted. I'm not sure why MDOT never considered this. 
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6756
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:09 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #64 on: September 20, 2021, 05:46:53 AM »

Forget development, did they actually think they could get 275 built over the lakes all the way to Clarkston?

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
There is already another I-275 in Ohio so that wouldn't work.
Logged

Ryctor2018

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 148
  • Location: Illinois
  • Last Login: May 25, 2022, 06:51:49 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #65 on: September 20, 2021, 08:37:46 PM »

Quote
Honestly, if interstate standards didn't mean anything I'd do the following.

Renumber I-696 from the I-275/696/M-5 interchange to M-10 as I-96 (with I-696 continuing from M-10 to I-94).
Renumber the M-10 freeway from I-696 to Jefferson Ave. as I-96 (with Northwestern Highway north of I-696 reverting back to M-4).
Renumber the M-14 freeway and the I-96 Jeffries freeway to I-294. Prior to the re-route of I-96 this (or at least the portion 

In this scenario I-275 would lose its concurrency with I-96 and I-96 would still have a direct freeway route to Downtown. Looking at maps (and when the routes were built) the I-696/M-10 routing always seemed to make the most sense for I-96's continuation into Detroit and the routing of I-96 along the I-275 and M-14 freeways seemed convoluted. I'm not sure why MDOT never considered this.

There are a lot of big problems with these changes. First, Michigan has never been enamored with all freeways being interstates in the state. I tend to agree; if it ain't broke axiom. M-14, M-10, U.S. 127, U.S. 23 are all fine routes as signed. No need to be like North Carolina or Illinois throwing up I-shields everywhere.
 
Secondly, many of those routes you want renumbered are not interstate standard, and for good reason. M-14 thru Ann Arbor is narrow and has no left shoulders over the Huron river. There's even a stop sign at the Barton Drive exit. This should have been fixed ages ago. But for its own reasons, not necessarily to make M-14 an interstate. The same can be said for the John C. Lodge Fwy.

Next, I-96 was supposed to follow M-5's route through Farmington. The route was cancelled because of NIMBY's. It never was supposed to follow I-696 - M-10. However, the current route is probably a better route as it is an interstate freeway serving the western suburbs and an alternate to I-94. Connecting it to I-275 is convoluted, but routing I-96 over the Lodge Fwy is problematic for the reasons above.

Finally, I-275 was built as a Detroit bypass. Keeping that route, combined with I-696 around the Oakland & Macomb suburbs basically accomplishes this. The main issue is not retaining the M-275 routing over the M-5 routing that exist today. I would have used that number to continue north over an upgraded Union Lake road and other western Oakland county routes. That way a state highway goes n-s thru the region, without tearing up the various lakes it passes around. M-10, Northwestern highway could have even continued NW to connect to it (the state cancelled it shortly after I-275 was cancelled as well).
« Last Edit: September 21, 2021, 07:22:21 PM by Ryctor2018 »
Logged
2DI's traveled: 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 55, 57, 59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96

Terry Shea

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 523
  • Last Login: Today at 01:49:58 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #66 on: September 20, 2021, 11:14:55 PM »

Oh for crying out loud, shouldn't this all be moved to fictional highways?
Logged

kenarmy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 535
  • Location: ya gal's crib.
  • Last Login: May 25, 2022, 12:36:42 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #67 on: September 21, 2021, 12:27:57 AM »

Yall omg I was semi-joking about extending 275 into Ohio.
Logged
Just a reminder that US 6, 49, 50, and 98 are superior to your fave routes :)


EXTEND 206 SO IT CAN MEET ITS PARENT.

sturmde

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 145
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Bangor, Maine, USA
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 05:59:52 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #68 on: September 21, 2021, 08:43:36 AM »

Oh for crying out loud, shouldn't this all be moved to fictional highways?

No, because the discussion is about highways that exist, or were planned to be constructed.  No one's making up imaginary routes, or suggesting freeways that haven't been proposed or planned at some point.
.
Renumbering of existing freeways around Detroit has historical precedent, viz. I-96.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9946
  • Last Login: Today at 09:05:50 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #69 on: September 21, 2021, 09:19:54 AM »

Oh for crying out loud, shouldn't this all be moved to fictional highways?

No, because the discussion is about highways that exist, or were planned to be constructed.  No one's making up imaginary routes, or suggesting freeways that haven't been proposed or planned at some point.
.
Renumbering of existing freeways around Detroit has historical precedent, viz. I-96.
Nah.  People are coming up with their own ideas on this thread.  Solid fictional territory.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

hockeyjohn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 76
  • Location: Noblesville, Ind.
  • Last Login: Today at 09:54:17 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #70 on: September 21, 2021, 09:30:00 AM »

Considering that NIMBYs and environmentalists have all but killed any chance of I-275 ever being built north of Novi, why not renumber I-696 as a continuation of I-275 giving Metro Detroit a true loop bypass route?

Like I-275, I-696 only meets it's parent route on one end.  At least with extending I-275 eastward, it would still have the opportunity to meet it's parent route a second time.

I would think most people by-passing Detroit want to wind up well north of the metro and therefore it seems extending I-275 along I-96 west from Farmington to Brighton and then up US-23 to Flint make sense.   Granted it is more concurrencies that MDOT is not overly fond of, but it matches up I-275 with Flint as the control city on the BGS coming up from Toledo.   Leave I-696 as the northern leg of the by-pass.
Logged

TempoNick

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 101
  • Location: Blacklick, Ohio
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:31:01 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #71 on: September 21, 2021, 11:08:26 AM »

Re: Cincinnati

What about I-274 or does that not work because I-74 dead ends at I-75?
Logged

Ryctor2018

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 148
  • Location: Illinois
  • Last Login: May 25, 2022, 06:51:49 PM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #72 on: September 21, 2021, 07:28:16 PM »

Oh for crying out loud, shouldn't this all be moved to fictional highways?

No, because the discussion is about highways that exist, or were planned to be constructed.  No one's making up imaginary routes, or suggesting freeways that haven't been proposed or planned at some point.
.
Renumbering of existing freeways around Detroit has historical precedent, viz. I-96.
Nah.  People are coming up with their own ideas on this thread.  Solid fictional territory.

Haha! I agree. Fictional! I do think that the roads in western Oakland county should be improved. Guys argue about the same thing about Illinois Route 53. The freeway may never be built, but the corridor should have some improvements.
Logged
2DI's traveled: 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 55, 57, 59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96

Flint1979

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6756
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:09 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #73 on: September 21, 2021, 10:11:38 PM »

Considering that NIMBYs and environmentalists have all but killed any chance of I-275 ever being built north of Novi, why not renumber I-696 as a continuation of I-275 giving Metro Detroit a true loop bypass route?

Like I-275, I-696 only meets it's parent route on one end.  At least with extending I-275 eastward, it would still have the opportunity to meet it's parent route a second time.

I would think most people by-passing Detroit want to wind up well north of the metro and therefore it seems extending I-275 along I-96 west from Farmington to Brighton and then up US-23 to Flint make sense.   Granted it is more concurrencies that MDOT is not overly fond of, but it matches up I-275 with Flint as the control city on the BGS coming up from Toledo.   Leave I-696 as the northern leg of the by-pass.
There's no reason to extend I-275 along there when there is already a number for that highway that's why MDOT doesn't like concurrencies much. Besides if you wanted to bypass Detroit and get north of the metro area you'd already be on US-23 coming out of Ohio.

I'm surprised that the I-75/US-23 concurrency is as long as it is when US-23 could split off at exit 164 and have M-13 end at the north end of the connector and US-23 take over M-13's routing which is US-23's old route anyway. The connector at exit 188 could be just a connector before both highways split in opposite directions. It would put the Turkey Roost back on US-23 too.
Logged

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4426
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Cincinnati, OH/Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 09:08:49 AM
Re: I-275: Since It Will Never Go To Pontiac...
« Reply #74 on: September 21, 2021, 11:00:54 PM »

Re: Cincinnati

What about I-274 or does that not work because I-74 dead ends at I-75?
Yea, doesn't work. It's a reason why I-95 have so many 3di, because most E-W interstates that intersect it either end at or near it.
Logged
My Fictional Highways

Fundamental Theorem of AARoads - Let "y" represent the elevation above sea level in a certain area. If "Δy" between the highest and lowest values of y equals to 0, it's Illinois.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.