Interstate Highways Versus non-Interstate freeways

[GaryV]

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.

Two options here:

  1.  Do exactly that.  The northern terminus of I-896 (or whatever you want to number it) would be at I-96 on the north side of Grand Rapids.

  2.  Count Cadillac as a major city.  Then you could terminate the Interstate there–similar to the southern terminus of I-27 or the western terminus of I-44.

Of the two, I'd prefer #1, because I can't stomach a town of less than 12k population being considered a major city worthy of an I- terminus.  But that's just me.

With #1, you're saying that the northern 2/3 of the freeway isn't "as good" as the southern 1/3 because it doesn't go anywhere "big". When in reality, it's probably higher quality.

My feeling is that US-131 as a whole works just fine for most people. Those who can see on the map that it's a freeway that goes where they want to go. And those who eschew maps entirely in favor of GPS routings.

[kphoger]

With #1, you're saying that the northern 2/3 of the freeway isn't "as good" as the southern 1/3 because it doesn't go anywhere "big". When in reality, it's probably higher quality.

No, it's because it isn't as "interstate" as the southern 1/3.  Going north on it will lead a person out of the Interstate network.  Quality didn't factor into my thoughts.

[SkyPesos]

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

I-39 north of Portage (really Rockford after removing the concurrencies) shouldn't be an interstate as it falls in this reason?

[GaryV]

With #1, you're saying that the northern 2/3 of the freeway isn't "as good" as the southern 1/3 because it doesn't go anywhere "big". When in reality, it's probably higher quality.

No, it's because it isn't as "interstate" as the southern 1/3.  Going north on it will lead a person out of the Interstate network.  Quality didn't factor into my thoughts.

I thought the whole point of slapping up Interstate signs was so people would know that it was a freeway with quality standards. That they avoid just as good US highway freeways because they don't have that fancy RWB shield.

[kphoger]

I thought the whole point of slapping up Interstate signs was so people would know that it was a freeway with quality standards. That they avoid just as good US highway freeways because they don't have that fancy RWB shield.

I've always thought the existence of that phenomenon was either a misconception or blown way out of proportion.  However, I've read enough anecdotal stories on here about people they personally know, that I'm starting to consider thinking about beginning to come around to possibility of the validity of that argument.

[kphoger]

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

I-39 north of Portage (really Rockford after removing the concurrencies) shouldn't be an interstate as it falls in this reason?

Wausau has more than 30k people, and it has since I-39 was designated.

Kind of right on the line, in my opinion.

[webny99]

I actually really enjoy interstate-quality roads that aren't interstates. I don't necessarily think they need interstate shields, but it's always a pleasant surprise to find that such roads exist when I travel out of state.

(OK, well there are a few in NY, like NY 531, the southern half of NY 481, and parts of NY 17 (a "future interstate"), but they're pretty rare.)

[ethanhopkin14]

I actually really enjoy interstate-quality roads that aren't interstates. I don't necessarily think they need interstate shields, but it's always a pleasant surprise to find that such roads exist when I travel out of state.

(OK, well there are a few in NY, like NY 531, the southern half of NY 481, and parts of NY 17 (a "future interstate"), but they're pretty rare.)

I like them too, with a caveat.  I think of them more like sleeping in a not so safe looking motel (one step up from seedy).  I don't have to sleep with one eye open, but I do wake up to every bump in the night. 

With a US or state highway that is a freeway, I feel relaxed, but I am on high alert because the freeway could very easily disappear and most times with no warning.  With an interstate, I don't have to worry about a great freeway with a rando driveway out of nowhere. 

[Dirt Roads]

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.

Two options here:

  1.  Do exactly that.  The northern terminus of I-896 (or whatever you want to number it) would be at I-96 on the north side of Grand Rapids.

  2.  Count Cadillac as a major city.  Then you could terminate the Interstate there–similar to the southern terminus of I-27 or the western terminus of I-44.

Of the two, I'd prefer #1, because I can't stomach a town of less than 12k population being considered a major city worthy of an I- terminus.  But that's just me.

With #1, you're saying that the northern 2/3 of the freeway isn't "as good" as the southern 1/3 because it doesn't go anywhere "big". When in reality, it's probably higher quality.

My feeling is that US-131 as a whole works just fine for most people. Those who can see on the map that it's a freeway that goes where they want to go. And those who eschew maps entirely in favor of GPS routings.

No, it's because it isn't as "interstate" as the southern 1/3.  Going north on it will lead a person out of the Interstate network.  Quality didn't factor into my thoughts.

I thought the whole point of slapping up Interstate signs was so people would know that it was a freeway with quality standards. That they avoid just as good US highway freeways because they don't have that fancy RWB shield.

But you both point out something that fits in my rant.  US-131 to Cadillac doesn't truly qualify for Interstate status in the AASHTO world (or mine), but US-31 from Holland to Ludington does.  But it is doubtful that MDOT would request something as expensive as to upgrade US-31.  Nor is US-31 quite as important in Michigan politics as the roads spiraling out from Lansing or Grand Rapids.  But it seems reasonable that both US-31 and US-131 deserve some sort of signage that lets a driver know that you've got a freeway all the way to Ludington or Cadillac.  Or in the European signage convention, that you're subject to freeway rules and regulations.  One technique that would not require changing the trailblazers would be to display International freeway/motorway symbols beside each control city served by the freeway.  Which would indeed be much more expensive than upgrading U.S. route trailblazers and shields.

[Roadgeekteen]

I like when highways that are up to standards are interstates, but it's not a big deal if they are not as most people just use GPS nowadays.

[ethanhopkin14]

I hate it when an interstate terminates in the middle of a flowing freeway.  Pony up the money to make the few parts interstate standards and extend the interstate down the freeway until the freeway stops and be done with it. 

[epzik8]

In Maryland, our US and state freeways (e.g. US 29; MD 32, 100 and 200) are distinct enough in appearance from our interstates, at least if you have a keen eye. Technically though, MD 200 is an extension of I-370.

[ztonyg]

I hate it when an interstate terminates in the middle of a flowing freeway.  Pony up the money to make the few parts interstate standards and extend the interstate down the freeway until the freeway stops and be done with it.

I agree. The most glaring examples at the top of my head of this are CA 15 (which should be I-15), CA 60 (should be I-410 at least from I-10 to I-215 and then should be CA 410 from I-215 back to I-10 until it's fully upgraded), CA 99 (should already be some sort of interstate such as I-7 or I-9), CA 210 (should all be I-210 at this point),  M-14 (the mainline flows directly to/from I-96 and should be either I-896 or I-294), IL 255 (should be I-255 or the whole thing should be renumbered to I-555 or at the very least the exit numbers should not reset at the I to IL changeover), IL 53 / IL 53S (should be extensions of I-355), US 23 freeway in MI / OH (should be a long I-475 which links up with the I-475 in Flint). The disconnected E/W segment in OH could be I-875 or an extension of I-280, the disconnected segment near Flint should be I-875). Heck they could just make I-75 / US 23 near Flint a full interchange as well as I-75 / I-475 S of Flint a full interchange or even simply separate the I-75 and I-475 mainlines there to make the route fully continuous without building any extra roadway.

[Bickendan]

1.  To be an Interstate, it should connect to the rest of the Interstate network.  Isolated freeway segments shouldn't be designated as Interstates.

2.  An Interstate that is still in the process of filling in the gaps shouldn't be designated as an Interstate at all–except perhaps from one end to the beginning of the first gap.

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

4.  Freeways that don't meet current Interstate standards shouldn't be designated as Interstates (grandfathered ones excepted).  Just because something is a freeway, that doesn't mean it meets all the expectations that come with the blue and red shield.

5.  I have no problem with Interstate-quality freeways being mere state routes or US routes.  I also have no problem with downgrading all Interstates to state routes or US routes.  For most people, either the road goes where you want or it doesn't, you'll take it if it does, and you won't if it doesn't–no matter what color the shield is.  For truckers, they already have their own maps and dispatch and whatnot.

WY I-180 can stay. IL I-180, however...

[Hobart]

I hate it when an interstate terminates in the middle of a flowing freeway.  Pony up the money to make the few parts interstate standards and extend the interstate down the freeway until the freeway stops and be done with it.

I agree. The most glaring examples at the top of my head of this are CA 15 (which should be I-15), CA 60 (should be I-410 at least from I-10 to I-215 and then should be CA 410 from I-215 back to I-10 until it's fully upgraded), CA 99 (should already be some sort of interstate such as I-7 or I-9), CA 210 (should all be I-210 at this point),  M-14 (the mainline flows directly to/from I-96 and should be either I-896 or I-294), IL 255 (should be I-255 or the whole thing should be renumbered to I-555 or at the very least the exit numbers should not reset at the I to IL changeover), IL 53 / IL 53S (should be extensions of I-355), US 23 freeway in MI / OH (should be a long I-475 which links up with the I-475 in Flint). The disconnected E/W segment in OH could be I-875 or an extension of I-280, the disconnected segment near Flint should be I-875). Heck they could just make I-75 / US 23 near Flint a full interchange as well as I-75 / I-475 S of Flint a full interchange or even simply separate the I-75 and I-475 mainlines there to make the route fully continuous without building any extra roadway.

I'd go with an I-290 extension past its northern terminus, it's maybe not pure to a loop but it makes more sense than extending I-355 north, and having I-290 end at the same interchange where I-355 continues.

[hobsini2]

Here's my 2 cents.

Not every freeway or tollway needs to be an Interstate. However, there should be some kind of quick demarcation to let the driver know that a non-Interstate highway number is a freeway or tollway at that junction. Maybe use the Vienna Convention sign for Motorway if you are not going to spell out Freeway on the sign. Or use an color inversion for US and state highways that are freeways and tollways.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg/45px-Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg.png

The other thing that I would do is if the non-Interstate highway is a freeway or tollway for a long distance, don't use a "local" control city without also using one that is farther away. What I mean by this is this:
US 151 for most of its routing between Dubuque and Fond du Lac is an expressway with some freeway segments. The I-39/90/94 junction with 151 currently uses Madison and Sun Prairie as the control cities. Why not add Fond du Lac on the northbound side? Putting a city that is over 50 miles away, IMO, would give the impression that this road is at the very least an expressway until I get at least to that city.

[thspfc]

Here's my 2 cents.

Not every freeway or tollway needs to be an Interstate. However, there should be some kind of quick demarcation to let the driver know that a non-Interstate highway number is a freeway or tollway at that junction. Maybe use the Vienna Convention sign for Motorway if you are not going to spell out Freeway on the sign. Or use an color inversion for US and state highways that are freeways and tollways.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg/45px-Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg.png

The other thing that I would do is if the non-Interstate highway is a freeway or tollway for a long distance, don't use a "local" control city without also using one that is farther away. What I mean by this is this:
US 151 for most of its routing between Dubuque and Fond du Lac is an expressway with some freeway segments. The I-39/90/94 junction with 151 currently uses Madison and Sun Prairie as the control cities. Why not add Fond du Lac on the northbound side? Putting a city that is over 50 miles away, IMO, would give the impression that this road is at the very least an expressway until I get at least to that city.

If WISDOT was installing those signs now I think they would go with Fond du Lac, but when those signs were installed, Sun Prairie was still an exburb of about 20k people. So with it being an independent city yet much closer than Fond du Lac, it made sense to sign it. Now, suburban development has almost completely closed the gap, making Sun Prairie a suburb. WISDOT doesn't typically sign suburbs as major highway control cities.

[hobsini2]

Here's my 2 cents.

Not every freeway or tollway needs to be an Interstate. However, there should be some kind of quick demarcation to let the driver know that a non-Interstate highway number is a freeway or tollway at that junction. Maybe use the Vienna Convention sign for Motorway if you are not going to spell out Freeway on the sign. Or use an color inversion for US and state highways that are freeways and tollways.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg/45px-Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg.png

The other thing that I would do is if the non-Interstate highway is a freeway or tollway for a long distance, don't use a "local" control city without also using one that is farther away. What I mean by this is this:
US 151 for most of its routing between Dubuque and Fond du Lac is an expressway with some freeway segments. The I-39/90/94 junction with 151 currently uses Madison and Sun Prairie as the control cities. Why not add Fond du Lac on the northbound side? Putting a city that is over 50 miles away, IMO, would give the impression that this road is at the very least an expressway until I get at least to that city.

If WISDOT was installing those signs now I think they would go with Fond du Lac, but when those signs were installed, Sun Prairie was still an exburb of about 20k people. So with it being an independent city yet much closer than Fond du Lac, it made sense to sign it. Now, suburban development has almost completely closed the gap, making Sun Prairie a suburb. WISDOT doesn't typically sign suburbs as major highway control cities.

I remember when 151 was just a divided highway between Madison and Sun Prairie with not much development. Do you consider Waukesha a suburb of Milwaukee now? I do. I wouldn't have said that back in 1983.

[Crash_It]

. It's the same case with the part of US 41 north of the Edens spur. It's effectively an extension of the Edens Expressway. Why doesn't it have a number?

It doesn't have a number because it doesn't need one. It only continues that way for about 3 miles or so. Would be a waste to sign 3 miles of freeway as an interstate. Not every freeway needs to be an interstate. We need more of these here in IL.

[flowmotion]

Maybe use the Vienna Convention sign for Motorway if you are not going to spell out Freeway on the sign. Or use an color inversion for US and state highways that are freeways and tollways.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg/45px-Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg.png

Was about to suggest the same thing. Would probably need a US MUTCD adaption (square and green?).

[SeriesE]

Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.)  The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.

Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.

So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?

Texas? They're more of a go big or go home type. They managed to get gobs of 2dis for even relatively minor/intrastate routes like I-2, I-27, I-30, I-35E/W (one of them should've became a 3di), I-37, I-45, I-69, I-69W/C/E

[CoreySamson]

Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.)  The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.

Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.

So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?

Texas? They're more of a go big or go home type. They managed to get gobs of 2dis for even relatively minor/intrastate routes like I-2, I-27, I-30, I-35E/W (one of them should've became a 3di), I-37, I-45, I-69, I-69W/C/E

You're forgetting the sheer number of freeways and population Texas actually has. Here is a breakdown I did a few months back comparing Texas to North Carolina in terms of interstates. As you can see, Texas is actually pretty reasonable (at least, when compared to NC) with designating interstates.

NC - where the state motto is "Stick an Interstate shield on anything more than three lanes."

You must have NC confused with Texas.

Outside of I-69, I-14, and I-27 which were congressionally designated, that is false. Texas has dozens of state highway freeways all over the state that have never been considered for interstate designation. Look in virtually any metropolitan area.

False? You did not count I-2, I-69C, I-69E, I-69W (Yes, even though these are a part of I-69, they're separate roads going to different cities therefore I treat them as separate interstates) future I-169, I-369. Nice try, though.

Counterpoint: while Texas may have stuck interstate shields in just as many, if not more, places than NC has, I would argue that this is simply because Texas is a bigger state than NC. Let's compare the two states by comparing their ratios of routes that are interstates or future interstates to their other freeways that are not being planned as interstates (as a requiem, these routes must be able to access an interstate by only driving on limited-access roads, so that we don't count random 1 mile freeway sections in small towns far away from any interstate):

Beltway 8   TX 99   Fort Bend Tollway   TX 249   Westpark Tollway   
US 290    US 90   Spur 330   TX 146   TX 225
NASA Road 1   TX 288   FM 1764   TX 73   US 96/69/287
TX 6   TX 35/US 181   TX 358   TX 286   TX 151 (San Antonio)
Loop 1604   US 281   Wurzbach Pkwy   TX 130   TX 45
Mopac Expy   TX 71   US 183 (TX 183A)   Loop 363   US 67
US 175   US 80   George Bush Turnpike   US 75   Spur 366
TX 121   Dallas North Tollway   TX 183   TX 114   TX 97
TX 360   Chisholm Trail Parkway   US 287   US 84   Loop 322
TX 191   Loop 250   Loop 289   Spur 327   US 62
TX 375   TX 601   US 277   TX 19

54 freeways, in total, that as far as I've heard, are not being planned for interstate designations, versus 26 planned and existing interstates (including suffixed routes) in Texas. To be fair here, routes that have disjointed freeway sections (such as US 190) count as one route, routes that were once planned out to become an interstate but are not now (Loop 151, Texarkana) do not count, non interstate freeways that have not been built yet (Loop 335, Amarillo) do not count, future potential additions to an interstate route (US 87 near Big Spring) do not count, and super-2s do not count, otherwise these would pad Texas's non-interstate count.


Now for NC:

US 74   US 321   US 25   Billy Graham Pkwy   US 421
US 52   Joseph M Bryan Blvd   US 220   BL I-85   US 64
US 501   NC 147   US 1   NC 87   NC 24
BL I-95   US 264   US 29   US 17

NC, on the other hand, has 19 non interstate freeway routes (and business Interstates, at that!) to go with 19 interstates and future interstates.

Now for the final total of non interstate routes to future and present interstate routes looks like this:

NC: 1:1
TX: 2.08:1

In order for Texas to be on the same level with North Carolina in terms of interstates versus non-interstates, it would have to apply for 9 new interstates, which is absolutely absurd. And even if you restrict this to simply just comparing how many interstates each state has been building or designating lately, you'll see that both states have either built or designated 9 new interstates (or extensions to current interstates) each, meaning that NC has designated more interstates per capita than Texas has. My conclusion is that NC is crazier at designating interstates than Texas is. With that I rest my case.

[SeriesE]

Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.)  The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.

Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.

So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?

Texas? They're more of a go big or go home type. They managed to get gobs of 2dis for even relatively minor/intrastate routes like I-2, I-27, I-30, I-35E/W (one of them should've became a 3di), I-37, I-45, I-69, I-69W/C/E

You're forgetting the sheer number of freeways and population Texas actually has. Here is a breakdown I did a few months back comparing Texas to North Carolina in terms of interstates. As you can see, Texas is actually pretty reasonable (at least, when compared to NC) with designating interstates.

NC - where the state motto is "Stick an Interstate shield on anything more than three lanes."

You must have NC confused with Texas.

Outside of I-69, I-14, and I-27 which were congressionally designated, that is false. Texas has dozens of state highway freeways all over the state that have never been considered for interstate designation. Look in virtually any metropolitan area.

False? You did not count I-2, I-69C, I-69E, I-69W (Yes, even though these are a part of I-69, they're separate roads going to different cities therefore I treat them as separate interstates) future I-169, I-369. Nice try, though.

Counterpoint: while Texas may have stuck interstate shields in just as many, if not more, places than NC has, I would argue that this is simply because Texas is a bigger state than NC. Let's compare the two states by comparing their ratios of routes that are interstates or future interstates to their other freeways that are not being planned as interstates (as a requiem, these routes must be able to access an interstate by only driving on limited-access roads, so that we don't count random 1 mile freeway sections in small towns far away from any interstate):

Beltway 8   TX 99   Fort Bend Tollway   TX 249   Westpark Tollway   
US 290    US 90   Spur 330   TX 146   TX 225
NASA Road 1   TX 288   FM 1764   TX 73   US 96/69/287
TX 6   TX 35/US 181   TX 358   TX 286   TX 151 (San Antonio)
Loop 1604   US 281   Wurzbach Pkwy   TX 130   TX 45
Mopac Expy   TX 71   US 183 (TX 183A)   Loop 363   US 67
US 175   US 80   George Bush Turnpike   US 75   Spur 366
TX 121   Dallas North Tollway   TX 183   TX 114   TX 97
TX 360   Chisholm Trail Parkway   US 287   US 84   Loop 322
TX 191   Loop 250   Loop 289   Spur 327   US 62
TX 375   TX 601   US 277   TX 19

54 freeways, in total, that as far as I've heard, are not being planned for interstate designations, versus 26 planned and existing interstates (including suffixed routes) in Texas. To be fair here, routes that have disjointed freeway sections (such as US 190) count as one route, routes that were once planned out to become an interstate but are not now (Loop 151, Texarkana) do not count, non interstate freeways that have not been built yet (Loop 335, Amarillo) do not count, future potential additions to an interstate route (US 87 near Big Spring) do not count, and super-2s do not count, otherwise these would pad Texas's non-interstate count.


Now for NC:

US 74   US 321   US 25   Billy Graham Pkwy   US 421
US 52   Joseph M Bryan Blvd   US 220   BL I-85   US 64
US 501   NC 147   US 1   NC 87   NC 24
BL I-95   US 264   US 29   US 17

NC, on the other hand, has 19 non interstate freeway routes (and business Interstates, at that!) to go with 19 interstates and future interstates.

Now for the final total of non interstate routes to future and present interstate routes looks like this:

NC: 1:1
TX: 2.08:1

In order for Texas to be on the same level with North Carolina in terms of interstates versus non-interstates, it would have to apply for 9 new interstates, which is absolutely absurd. And even if you restrict this to simply just comparing how many interstates each state has been building or designating lately, you'll see that both states have either built or designated 9 new interstates (or extensions to current interstates) each, meaning that NC has designated more interstates per capita than Texas has. My conclusion is that NC is crazier at designating interstates than Texas is. With that I rest my case.

I was referring to 2dis. If they Texas can get a corridor numbered as a 2di (they have 18 2dis if counting each suffixed route separately), they'll renumber it ("go big" ). Otherwise it's more likely to stay as a state or US route ("go home" ).

[ChimpOnTheWheel]

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.

Two options here:

  1.  Do exactly that.  The northern terminus of I-296 (or whatever you want to number it) would be at I-96 on the north side of Grand Rapids.

  2.  Count Cadillac as a major city.  Then you could terminate the Interstate there–similar to the southern terminus of I-27 or the western terminus of I-44.

Of the two, I'd prefer #1, because I can't stomach a town of less than 12k population being considered a major city worthy of an I- terminus.  But that's just me.

Would prefer to call it I-296 since that's what it's technically called (unsigned since the 70s) in some old route logs (between I-196 and I-96). Sign it up again, but this time between I-94 and I-96.