AARoads Forum

Based on the "which states get roasted the most" thread here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21943).

Roasted on this forum, not by the general public.

In numerical order, these are the complaints I have seen:
2: Too short, although it's temporary. I have a problem with it not connecting to the rest of the system, but that might only be me.
4: May be more north-south than east-west (if it's not, it's close). I've also seen complaints about heavy traffic.
5: Heavy traffic.
8: No criticism.
10: Some people believe 10 and 12 should be switched. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
12: Some people believe 10 and 12 should be switched. This is a bigger problem for 12, as it's the entire length of 12 and only a small part of 10.
14: Very short and almost useless compared to others, but it's likely temporary.
15: No criticism. I don't read the Pacific Southwest board often, so I might be missing some claims that CA 15 should become I-15.
16: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem. I've also seen complaints that it's boring.
17:  Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem. Also, the mile markers don't start at 0, but this isn't a problem either, even though it does lead to questions asked.
19: Too short. However, the metric signage actually seems to be a net positive, as it's interesting.
20: No criticism except for one person (excluding FritzOwl) saying that since it doesn't get near the West Coast, it shouldn't be an x0. The 20/59 overlap is 59's problem, not 20's. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
22: Under construction; no criticism.
24: The occasional complaint about being diagonal, and "why doesn't it go to St. Louis" in Fictional. There was also a thread about Paducah, KY vs. Evansville, IN and the wrong city winning (Evansville is much larger, but they built it through Paducah instead).
25: No criticism. It's entirely overlapped with US routes, but that's the fault of the US routes, not the Interstate.
26: "Number should be odd", despite that no odd numbers are available.
27: Intrastate. "Should be extended" is a common Fictional idea.
29: The only complaint that I've seen is that it and 49 have two different numbers.
30: Too short for an x0. This is a common complaint.
35: 35W/35E splits. Some people say they shouldn't exist.
37: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem.
39: Long overlap with I-90. Some people have a problem with it, but nowhere near the level of 20/59.
40: No criticism; extending 40 west in California seems to be a suggestion and not a problem. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
41: A huge debate about whether it's okay to have an I-41/US 41 overlap, with people on both sides of the debate.
42: Under construction. No criticism, unlike I-87 in North Carolina.
43: No criticism, as far as I'm aware.
44: Tolls in Oklahoma? Sudden end in Wichita Falls, TX? These are both minor criticisms, but I've seen both.
45: Intrastate for an x5. This is a major criticism.
49: The gaps in I-49, which will be filled eventually.
55: 57 is more direct. Other than that, no problems.
57: Control city of Memphis from Chicago. Also, future I-57 not yet connecting to current I-57.
59: The 20/59 overlap, which leads many people to want the two standalone sections to have different numbers.
64: Direction confusion in Hampton Roads.
65: No criticism.
66: No criticism except possibly heavy traffic.
68: No criticism.
69: Too many gaps and disconnected segments.
70: Breezewood, a major problem. Some road quality problems in Pennsylvania. Ending in Utah instead of California doesn't seem to be a problem.
71: No criticism, despite being almost perfectly diagonal.
72: No criticism as far as I'm aware, although it's a bit short.
73: In North Carolina only, despite it being legislated all the way to Michigan.
74 (west): No criticism, unless you're looking as all of I-74 as a single route with disconnected segments. The number duplication is the fault of the eastern I-74.
74 (east): Too many disconnected segments in North Carolina that will never connect to Ohio. Also, I-74/US 74 overlap.
75: No criticism. 75 and 85 cross, but that's an issue with 85.
76 (west): Duplicated number.
76 (east): Surekill Expressway, and suggestions that the ACE should be part of I-76. Breezewood is an issue with I-70, not I-76.
77: No criticism.
78: Surface road in New York and for a few blocks in New Jersey.
79: No criticism.
80: Long 80/90 overlap, but that's it.
81: Too many trucks. Also, the whole Syracuse debate.
82: Major roast: Many people think that I-82 should have an odd number instead of an even number.
83: Too short, and bad pavement quality.
84 (west): Duplicated number.
84 (east): Duplicated number.
85: More east-west than north-south, especially for an x5.
86 (west): Way too short; should be a 3di (or just US 30). Also, duplicated number.
86 (east): Duplicated number, as well as gaps that are being fixed.
87 (north): No criticism. Even though the number is duplicated, the other one is viewed is illegitimate.
87 (south): Another major roast. Should be an even number that isn't a duplicate. Some even say that it shouldn't have been designated at all, given I-95 to US 58.
88 (west): Duplicate number.
88 (east): There have been a few complaints that it's mostly useless, along a corridor that doesn't need an Interstate. Also a duplicate number.
89: No criticism.
90: Long 80/90 overlap. The Skyway not being signed as I-90 is not a problem with I-90 itself, it's the relevant DOT.
91: No criticism.
93: Franconia Notch is substandard.
94: Too many overlaps in Wisconsin.
95: Too much traffic.
96: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem.
97: Intracounty. Way too short. Should be a 3di.
99: Congressionally legislated, and out of grid. Doesn't officially connect to either end in Pennsylvania. Has a gap.

My top 10 list would be I-87 (S), I-99, I-74 (E), I-86 (W), I-69, I-41, I-97, I-82, I-45, and I-14.

I think people roast 94 more because it spends a significant time going N/S, then goes out of grid in Chicago before turning back north and east. The 41 and 43 overlaps aren't 94's fault, since 43 was only extended to 90 in the 1980s and obviously 41 is new.

I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's out of the grid south of Indianapolis.

83 and 78 get roasted alot for substandard portions in PA
76 (east) gets roasted for indirect connections with other important highways (like US 219, I-99/US 220, and I-81)

Nexus 6P

57 led to 43 led to 39 because IDiOT decided not to play ball

For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2018, 11:23:09 PM
For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d.

Really, I-17 and 19 should be combined as one route, or else 19 should be a 3di (but we all know how AZ feels about 3dis).

Quote from: roadguy2 on April 21, 2018, 11:52:55 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2018, 11:23:09 PM
For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d.

Really, I-17 and 19 should be combined as one route, or else 19 should be a 3di (but we all know how AZ feels about 3dis).

I'd probably lean towards I-17, I believe the mileage is based off the border with Mexican anyways.  It would be a good excuse to get rid of the Kilometer post miles on I-19 and line them up with I-17.

This is a very interesting idea for a thread.  :nod:


There are several major categories that will get an interstate onto the "most roasted" end of the spectrum. These include:

A) Interstates that fail to comply with the grid. Examples are I-99, I-82 (used to work, but not anymore, after I-80N became I-84), I-87 (NC-VA), etc.

B) Interstates that are too short in length for 2di standards - the main example of this is Interstate 97 (and to a lesser extent than I-97, Interstate 86 (ID) as well), but there are other interstates that are temporarily in this category - mainly interstates that are still largely in their youth and have not had much of their length completed yet, such as I-14 in Texas.

C) I-x5 or I-x0 interstates that do not meet the expected standards for those kinds of interstates (major ones that travel a long distance). The two primary offenders in this category are I-45 and I-30. While yes, both Houston and Dallas (and their metro areas) are very, very large and significant U.S. cities, they're not relatively (on a nationwide scale) that far apart, and for the most part (with the short section from Houston to Galveston being the exception), the distance between these two cities is all I-45 knows - this is problematic, of course, since I-45 is an I-x5 interstate, which is usually expected to travel much farther than I-45 actually does. Interstate 30 has much more significance than Interstate 45 when it comes to cross-country transportation and travel, it's just that sometimes, its length does raise eyebrows (for it to be an I-x0), and that is why it is in this category. Interstate 30 is pivotal for a lot of cross-country traffic, as well as a lot of traffic that is traversing across just the South. Interstate 30 is vital for long-distance east-west traffic switching from I-40 to I-20, and vice versa. While I-30's significance regarding transportation on a national level cannot be denied, its length is what leaves us with questions, given its numbering. The truth is that (especially when compared to interstates like I-10, I-80, and I-90) Interstate 30 just really isn't that long for an I-x0. Interstate 30 only goes through two states - Texas and Arkansas; it just goes from I-20 near Fort Worth, Texas, to Little Rock, Arkansas. This is what makes I-30 and I-45 the oddballs among the I-x5 and I-x0 interstates, and as a result, they are sometimes criticized by us roadgeeks for the reason of them not meeting the expected standards for those kinds of interstates.

D) Interstates that have duplicated numbers. Examples are I-76, I-84, I-88 - and in more recent history, we have additional entries such as I-74 (listed as chances are that the two parts of I-74 (one in the Midwest, one in the South) will never really be connected, despite the fact that technically in theory it is one single interstate), I-86, and I-87.

E) Interstates that have significant instances of being substandard. This includes the famous "Breezewood," and other breezewood-like gaps, such as the incomplete interchange between I-99 and I-70/I-76 (Penn Turnpike) - which I call "Breezewood II". It also includes things like the short stretch of Interstate 78 that is very substandard near New York City, the occasional at-grade intersections on interstates such as I-20 and I-40 in western Texas, that stretch of I-93 in New Hampshire in Franconia Notch (though I personally actually have zero problems with this one - I find this stretch of I-93 to be interesting and unique, and there was definitely some decent reasons for the opposition against it being able to be a full interstate - the scenery is absolutely beautiful, too!), and more.

F) Interstates that have significant gaps in them. The most notorious incident of this is the Interstate 95 gap in New Jersey - this is because I-95 is (and has been for a long time) an already-completed interstate, but nevertheless, there is a very small section of it that just doesn't seem to exist. Technically, you can take limited-access highway (that is even signed as other interstates - I-295 and I-195) from one end of the gap to the other, it just isn't "I-95." Also, some of these gaps are interconnected with an aforementioned category (being substandard) - these instances include Breezewood, Breezewood II (see above category), and more. But by far, most of the offenders in this category are interstates that are very new (or very newly extended, even if their original route has been around for a long time) and are still being built. This includes many of the highest offenders on the roasting list, such as I-49 (mainly because of that section through the mountains of Arkansas between I-30 and I-40 - most of the rest of it has actually been built already), I-69, I-74, I-73, and more.

G) Interstates that are numbered east-west but should be numbered north-south, and vice versa. This most notably includes Interstate 82 (should be a north-south interstate such as I-7) and Interstate 87 (NC-VA), which should have been Interstate 46. Also what would fit in this category is all the diagonal interstates who are not truly, 100% accepted into either the north-south or east-west labels, due to their highly diagonal nature, such as I-24, I-26, I-4, I-85, and more.

H) Interstates that actually share pavement (have a concurrency/multiplex) with a US Highway that has the exact same number. This mainly includes the I-41/US 41 case in Wisconsin, and the I-74/US 74 case in North Carolina.

There may be other categories I am failing to think of and mention, so people are free to fill any gaps there may be in my own categorization.

---

Quote from: 1 on April 21, 2018, 10:52:00 AM
24: The occasional complaint about being diagonal, and "why doesn't it go to St. Louis" in Fictional. There was also a thread about Paducah, KY vs. Evansville, IN and the wrong city winning (Evansville is much larger, but they built it through Paducah instead).

While Evansville is definitely much larger than Paducah, I don't think it would have been a good idea to route I-24 over there, or else it would be even more north-south than it already is (with it being a diagonal interstate). If Interstate 24 went to Evansville, then such a long section of it would be so north-south, that I-24 would immediately shoot up to towards the top of the "roasted interstates" list. These days, I-169 and I-69 (FUTURE) would do just what this theoretically routed I-24 could do, except better, since both of them are actually north-south.

Quote from: roadguy2 on April 21, 2018, 11:52:55 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2018, 11:23:09 PM
For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d.

Really, I-17 and 19 should be combined as one route, or else 19 should be a 3di (but we all know how AZ feels about 3dis).

It would make a lot of sense to combine I-17 and I-19 (with a concurrency along I-10). If Interstate 19 were used as the designation for this unified route, then the I-17 designation could be freed up for the newly sprouting I-11 corridor from Phoenix to Las Vegas (with all or most of it being east of I-15), which has an almost impossible chance of being extended past I-15 to Reno or somewhere where it would then fit in the grid correctly. What's done is done, and I-17 and I-19 are their separate selves, but we can't help but wonder how things would change if they were done this way instead (which would probably be for the better).

However, the idea that I-17 should be a 3di makes no sense to me. I mean, on a larger scale, I-17 isn't too long, but in actuality, it's not really that short. For example, Interstate 17 is almost as long as Interstate 16, and I-16 certainly doesn't need to be a 3di. Arizona is a pretty big state, so looking at a map of it, I-17 looks a lot shorter and smaller than it actually is. If on atlases, on each respective page for each respective state, states are scaled to take up around a full page, this means that just by looking at your atlas, Interstate 16 in Georgia looks much longer than Interstate 17 in Arizona, because Arizona is a far larger state than Georgia. However, in actuality, they are nearly the same length. I definitely do not think it would be a good idea if I-17 had rather had a 3di designation. However, even with that said, I am someone who is perfectly fine with I-476 (the longest 3di), and I am even a supporter of an I-210 that connects Houston and Austin, and that ends on I-10 on both sides (which would be one hell of a long 3di) - so regarding that, in this case, maybe it is true that a duplicate I-12 would be more preferred in the end (but in this case, neither one gives you a true win).  :D  :-D  :paranoid:

I would love to know how no one ever complains about the fact that the segment of I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee  gets an odd number even though it is an east-west route. Granted it's more NE-SW, but it bears no real relationship to the N-S segment. I highly doubt that someone from Beloit takes I-43 the whole way to Green Bay, largely because the stadium is off of 41. I would call the Beloit-Milwaukee section of I-43 I-92.

Quote from: DandyDan on April 22, 2018, 03:58:06 AM
I would love to know how no one ever complains about the fact that the segment of I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee  gets an odd number even though it is an east-west route. Granted it's more NE-SW, but it bears no real relationship to the N-S segment. I highly doubt that someone from Beloit takes I-43 the whole way to Green Bay, largely because the stadium is off of 41. I would call the Beloit-Milwaukee section of I-43 I-92.

WisDOT sent it down to allow it to become a 65 zone back when the sacred shield was required for the 65 in 1996.  It was also offering IDOT the chance to use it for US-51 south of Rockford.  IDOT - because IDOT - labeled it 39 instead.

If we want duplicate numbers gone, we need to get them to allow NSEW numbers. I-88 in IL could be I-80N. The only reason 88 exists in IL is due to the 65mph speed limit law. 88 East also provides a 25 mile longer, but viable shunpike route for the NY state Thruway, using 88 and 86. It also allows for a connection to I-81 to get to 476 and Philadelphia without using the thruway except for the start from Albany.

Quote from: DandyDan on April 22, 2018, 03:58:06 AM
I would love to know how no one ever complains about the fact that the segment of I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee  gets an odd number even though it is an east-west route. Granted it's more NE-SW, but it bears no real relationship to the N-S segment. I highly doubt that someone from Beloit takes I-43 the whole way to Green Bay, largely because the stadium is off of 41. I would call the Beloit-Milwaukee section of I-43 I-92.

If that was me traveling between Beloit and Green Bay the route I would use would be to take I-90 west (or north as it runs in this area) to SR-26 and follow that all the way to US-41/I-41 and continue on that way to Green Bay. Going through Milwaukee to me would be just adding more traffic and it's about 18 miles further to take that route.

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 22, 2018, 01:09:26 AM
There are several major categories that will get an interstate onto the "most roasted" end of the spectrum. These include:

[...]

C) I-x5 or I-x0 interstates that do not meet the expected standards for those kinds of interstates (major ones that travel a long distance).

You mention I-30 and I-45, but I would also place I-85 in this category. At less than 700 miles, it just doesn’t seem major enough for me.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 22, 2018, 11:36:57 AM
If we want duplicate numbers gone, we need to get them to allow NSEW numbers.

I prefer the repeats to the number direction combos. Although, what’s worse is that now we have both.

I personally am not against numbering oddities such as I-99. A perfect grid would be, well... perfect, and I don't think it's attainable even though it would be nice.

What DOES really bother me is north-south interstates running east-west and vice-versa. I-94 north of Chicago is one of the worst of all time, because (1) it runs north south (2) both ends are multiplexed with I-90 and (3) it makes several 90 degree turns, which I am also against.

Quote from: roadguy2 on April 21, 2018, 11:52:55 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2018, 11:23:09 PM
For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d.

Really, I-17 and 19 should be combined as one route, or else 19 should be a 3di (but we all know how AZ feels about 3dis).

Actually, both I-17 and I-19 should become part of a rerouted I-15. We just have a small gap to fill, and don't forget to redesignate existing I-15 south of Utah  ;-)

So...you would re-number I-94 just for that very short stretch of its overall east-west route?  Seems unnecessary to me.

Quote from: Rothman on April 23, 2018, 12:20:54 PM
So...you would re-number I-94 just for that very short stretch of its overall east-west route?  Seems unnecessary to me.

Not at all - I would completely eliminate I-94 west of Chicago. Existing I-94 west of Tomah, WI (from the current I-90/I-94 split) becomes I-90, and I-90 becomes I-80. The section of I-94 between Chicago and Tomah can be renumbered with appropriate numbers  :sombrero:

We're deep in fictional territory now, but anyways...

Heh.  To each their own.

72 debate over extending across MO . Consensus is US 36 expressway is adequate for now.
88 replacing 290 . I would extend to Iowa to fix Quad Cities numbering. Maybe it would appease Iowa

Quote from: 3467 on April 23, 2018, 01:23:18 PM
72 debate over extending across MO . Consensus is US 36 expressway is adequate for now.
88 replacing 290 . I would extend to Iowa to fix Quad Cities numbering. Maybe it would appease Iowa

Extending Interstate 72 to somewhere like St. Joseph, Missouri would be a great idea. Not only would it facilitate transportation for the northern half of the state, but it would make I-72 more significant. If I-72 would be criticized for anything, it would probably be its short length and lack of significance to a large extent. If I-72 was extended, this would also be incredible news for traffic going places like from Chicago to Kansas City and vice versa.

Quote from: 1 on April 21, 2018, 10:52:00 AM
66: No criticism except possibly heavy traffic.

I-66 gets roasted about how the HOT system inside the Beltway was implemented, and before that about how it's dramatically underbuilt due to community opposition to it being built in the first place.

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2018, 06:09:41 PM
I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's a disjointed mess south of Indianapolis.

Fixed that one for you  :-P
I-69 has got to be one of the most unnecessary interstste corridors in the country... we do not need more cross country interstates in addition to the I-X0's and I-X5's.

Quote from: webny99 on April 23, 2018, 09:16:48 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2018, 06:09:41 PM
I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's a disjointed mess south of Indianapolis.

Fixed that one for you  :-P
I-69 has got to be one of the most unnecessary interstste corridors in the country... we do not need more cross country interstates in addition to the I-X0's and I-X5's.

I-69 should have always been extended to i-24, via the entire pennyrile parkway. it makes sense to connect Indianapolis to the southern united states that way. Yes, it duplicates i-65, but it does serve to connect the three major cities, Evansville (third most populated city in the state), Indianapolis (the most populated), and Fort Wayne (the second most populated), plus Fort Campbell Kentucky, and Craine Naval Weapons station, via a route that would be compatable with military convoy traffic, in the defense highway terms. At least, i-69 should have connected to i-64 at Evansville to begin with, and have a 3di going into town to meet the US41 bridges.

Quote from: webny99 on April 23, 2018, 09:16:48 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2018, 06:09:41 PM
I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's a disjointed mess south of Indianapolis.

Fixed that one for you  :-P
I-69 has got to be one of the most unnecessary interstste corridors in the country... we do not need more cross country interstates in addition to the I-X0's and I-X5's.

The original I-69 was fine the way it was. I was thinking about it last night, about 4 years ago I drove to Houston and the Texarkana to Houston route isn't going to get you to Houston any faster making it an Interstate highway. US-59 is already 70-75 mph so I'm going to make it to Houston in the same amount of time on US-59 as I would an Interstate it's not needed. I-69 should not be a cross country Interstate at all. Between Indianapolis and Port Huron though it functions pretty good and is actually a quicker way to Port Huron from the Battle Creek area vs. taking I-94 through Detroit so it pretty much acts as a bypass of Detroit too and doesn't come within 50-60 miles of Detroit at any point. The interchange near Marshall and Battle Creek is 100 miles west of Detroit. So maybe I-69 should become an I-x94 highway between Marshall/Battle Creek and Port Huron lol it would be the longest 3-di if that was the case and then you wouldn't have to worry about the east-west stretch of it either.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 23, 2018, 10:42:30 PM

Quote from: webny99 on April 23, 2018, 09:16:48 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2018, 06:09:41 PM
I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's a disjointed mess south of Indianapolis.

Fixed that one for you  :-P
I-69 has got to be one of the most unnecessary interstste corridors in the country... we do not need more cross country interstates in addition to the I-X0's and I-X5's.

I-69 should have always been extended to i-24, via the entire pennyrile parkway. it makes sense to connect Indianapolis to the southern united states that way. Yes, it duplicates i-65, but it does serve to connect the three major cities, Evansville (third most populated city in the state), Indianapolis (the most populated), and Fort Wayne (the second most populated), plus Fort Campbell Kentucky, and Craine Naval Weapons station, via a route that would be compatable with military convoy traffic, in the defense highway terms. At least, i-69 should have connected to i-64 at Evansville to begin with, and have a 3di going into town to meet the US41 bridges.

I wasn't trying to make the argument that I-69 is not necessary - it certainly serves a vital purpose especially in Indiana and Michigan. But other segments of the corridor (to the south) should really have different numbers, to avoid creating false impressions of continuity.

Quote from: 1 on April 21, 2018, 10:52:00 AM
Based on the "which states get roasted the most" thread here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21943).

Roasted on this forum, not by the general public.

In numerical order, these are the complaints I have seen:

65: No criticism.

Plenty of criticism in Indiana for not having the entire length of 65 with 6+ lanes by now.  65 really needs to be 6+ lanes from its north end all the way to the south side of Nashville at least.

Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:25:53 AM
Plenty of criticism in Indiana for not having the entire length of 65 with 6+ lanes by now.  65 really needs to be 6+ lanes from its north end all the way to the south side of Nashville at least.

260 miles.  At today's prices for 6-lane Interstate widening of $25 to $30 million per mile, that is $6.5 to $7.8 billion dollars.

Other corridors need widening also, such as I-70.  The money needs to be spread around.

I-97 because its the shortest 2di in the interstate system.

I-7 or I-9 proposal this interstate was going to take the spot of CA-99 from the CA-51,US-50 and I-305 interchange in Sacramento to South end of San Joaquin Valley. It's been in talks for years. Plus the proposed plan to bridge multiple gaps of CA-65 came into play.

Well If I-7 or I-9 were to exist then it would make Fresno get its first interstate. Note Fresno is one of the largest cities in the country without an interstate along with Bakersfield.

I-70 gets roasted because of the east end in Baltimore is at a park and Ride and originally going to extend to Atlantic City to take US-40's spot.

Quote from: bing101 on April 24, 2018, 10:36:50 AM
I-70 gets roasted because of the east end in Baltimore is at a park and Ride and originally going to extend to Atlantic City to take US-40's spot.

:confused:  I've never heard of any actual plan to extend I-70 east of Baltimore proper, let alone Atlantic City.  For the most part, US 40 already parallels with I-95 between Baltimore and Wilmington, DE.  To my knowledge, it was only planned to extend & end at I-95 in the city (Baltimore).

If it hasn't been roasted yet, then I'll start -- I41 for being entirely a concurrency south of the 94/694 interchange. Seriously, does it need to be concurrent all the way down to Illinois?

The same I say. But then I found some sense for I-41 to extend down to the IL border: I-94 "East" (South) of Milwaukee runs at an almost perfectly right angle from what is signed (i.e. North-South and signed East-West), so it may be necessary to throw another route to show what direction actually goes.

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 26, 2018, 06:04:23 PM
The same I say. But then I found some sense for I-41 to extend down to the IL border: I-94 "East" (South) of Milwaukee runs at an almost perfectly right angle from what is signed (i.e. North-South and signed East-West), so it may be necessary to throw another route to show what direction actually goes.

Most people traveling through that area are going to know it runs north and south for that segment. It runs like that due to Lake Michigan being in the way it also runs north and south on the Michigan side but only for about 30 miles.

Interstate 22's only fault is that it ends before memphis, and thus ends before it runs out of mile markers from US78. It doesn't start or end at 0 at the western end over at i-269.

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2018, 06:09:41 PM
I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's out of the grid south of Indianapolis.

Yes, it really should've been I-98 between Lansing & Port Huron. But then you have another intrastate Interstate (damn those glaciers for forming the Great Lakes!  :biggrin:)  And from Indy south it should've been I-63, at least to Memphis.

Quote from: SSR_317 on April 28, 2018, 06:24:16 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2018, 06:09:41 PM
I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's out of the grid south of Indianapolis.

Yes, it really should've been I-98 between Lansing & Port Huron. But then you have another intrastate Interstate (damn those glaciers for forming the Great Lakes!  :biggrin:)  And from Indy south it should've been I-63, at least to Memphis.

It's only 120 miles between Lansing and Port Huron so that would make for a pretty short Interstate (certainly not the shortest 2-di though).

But if that was I-98, what would all the US 2 interstate fetishists put down for that corridor? Maybe just leave it alone? :bigass:

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 28, 2018, 07:36:55 PM
But if that was I-98, what would all the US 2 interstate fetishists put down for that corridor? Maybe just leave it alone? :bigass:

Yes, should be left alone since most of the route of US 2 is VERY rural in nature and making it an Interstate could likely not be justified there. That is, of course, unless there is a MASSIVE population shift north due to the effects of climate change.

For US-2 in Michigan I would say that there isn't enough population in the U.P. to justify an east-west Interstate. Duluth is a bigger city but quite aways from the U.P. and there isn't much in between. The largest city in the U.P. is Marquette with about 21,000 people and only two other cities with a population of over 10,000 (Sault Ste. Marie and Escanaba). Sault Ste. Marie already has I-75 and Escanaba really has no need to be connected to the Interstate. For east-west travel US-2 and M-28 do fine for the U.P.

Quote from: 1 on April 21, 2018, 10:52:00 AM
Roasted on this forum, not by the general public.

74 (west): No criticism, unless you're looking as all of I-74 as a single route with disconnected segments. The number duplication is the fault of the eastern I-74.
74 (east): Too many disconnected segments in North Carolina that will never connect to Ohio. Also, I-74/US 74 overlap.

Oh, I can roast Interstate 74:

-Starts in the Quad Cities, where signs guide through traffic to use other Interstates.
-Crosses a state line in the Quad Cities after 4 miles, causing exit numbers to repeat 4 miles away.  Could be very confusing.
-Forces drivers to take TWO cloverleaves within 10 miles to stay on it.  One will be a loop ramp regardless of which direction of travel.
-Has another short single lane segment in Bloomington, IL.
-Runs diagonally.
-Starts switching highways again in Indianapolis by hopping on and off the beltway.
-Lacks any interesting scenery in eastern Indiana.
-Takes another single lane westbound in the Cincinnati area.
-Disappears in Cincinnati after changing roads about 400 times between Cincinnati and Davenport.
-Mentioned on southbound US 52 near Huntington, WV as the future "I-73/74" corridor not long before US 52 drops to a two lane road that squiggles its way through the mountains.  And there was NO evidence that's going to change anytime soon.
-Magically reappears near Mt. Airy, but not far away, the signs for I-74 disappear again.
-Suddenly shows up again off I-40.
-Has a useless concurrency with I-73 for a while and both Interstate designations "end" long before the actual road does.  If it HAS to be an Interstate, I-73 is the better number.  That's because it...
-...Runs on a north/south segment through Asheboro and the area west of the Sandhills.
-Appears unnecessarily in a segment near Laurinberg where it's entirely overlapped with the US Route of the same number.

I-74 has now been fully roasted.

Except it was to end at I-95 in Baltimore, not go to Atlantic City.

I don't have a problem with the I-41/US-41 overlap however I do think it's bit unnecessary to sign them both together. There are already signs that say for US-41 follow I-41 that already does the job quite well.

Quote from: bing101 on April 30, 2018, 12:45:30 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 25, 2018, 10:01:48 AM

Quote from: bing101 on April 24, 2018, 10:36:50 AM
I-70 gets roasted because of the east end in Baltimore is at a park and Ride and originally going to extend to Atlantic City to take US-40's spot.

:confused:  I've never heard of any actual plan to extend I-70 east of Baltimore proper, let alone Atlantic City.  For the most part, US 40 already parallels with I-95 between Baltimore and Wilmington, DE.  To my knowledge, it was only planned to extend & end at I-95 in the city (Baltimore).

I swore I saw a video where one of the roadgeeks talked about extending I-70 beyond park and ride though.

As you may have surmised from this forum, lots of roadgeeks believe absolutely insane things.

Quote from: bing101 on April 30, 2018, 12:45:30 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 25, 2018, 10:01:48 AM

Quote from: bing101 on April 24, 2018, 10:36:50 AM
I-70 gets roasted because of the east end in Baltimore is at a park and Ride and originally going to extend to Atlantic City to take US-40's spot.

:confused:  I've never heard of any actual plan to extend I-70 east of Baltimore proper, let alone Atlantic City.  For the most part, US 40 already parallels with I-95 between Baltimore and Wilmington, DE.  To my knowledge, it was only planned to extend & end at I-95 in the city (Baltimore).

I swore I saw a video where one of the roadgeeks talked about extending I-70 beyond park and ride though.

Link to the video, please.

Quote from: DandyDan on April 22, 2018, 03:58:06 AM
I would love to know how no one ever complains about the fact that the segment of I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee  gets an odd number even though it is an east-west route. Granted it's more NE-SW, but it bears no real relationship to the N-S segment. I highly doubt that someone from Beloit takes I-43 the whole way to Green Bay, largely because the stadium is off of 41. I would call the Beloit-Milwaukee section of I-43 I-92.

That's the one thing I don't like about I-43. I honestly wish the designation got changed, too.

There were actually two proposed routes that could've been called I-92 as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Highway_(New_England) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Highway_(New_England))

Anyway, is that segment too short to be considered a 2di? It seems unusual to make it a 3di, as the only 3dis in Wisconsin are short routes that go through Milwaukee.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 01:44:10 AM

Quote from: DandyDan on April 22, 2018, 03:58:06 AM
I would love to know how no one ever complains about the fact that the segment of I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee  gets an odd number even though it is an east-west route. Granted it's more NE-SW, but it bears no real relationship to the N-S segment. I highly doubt that someone from Beloit takes I-43 the whole way to Green Bay, largely because the stadium is off of 41. I would call the Beloit-Milwaukee section of I-43 I-92.

That's the one thing I don't like about I-43. I honestly wish the designation got changed, too.

There were actually two proposed routes that could've been called I-92 as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Highway_(New_England) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Highway_(New_England))

Anyway, is that segment too short to be considered a 2di? It seems unusual to make it a 3di, as the only 3dis in Wisconsin are short routes that go through Milwaukee.

It's 61 miles and right now there are five 2-di's shorter, it's roughly the same length as the western I-86 and I-19. Out of the five 2-di's that are shorter than that segment of I-43 four of them have come into existence since 2013. I-97 is only 17.5 miles long. As a 3-di it'd be about the same length as I-285 around Atlanta and I-275 in the Tampa Bay area. It kind of makes sense to be I-43 though since it goes in a somewhat north-south routing and I-43 only exists in Wisconsin.

How is I-95 in CT between NY and Bridgeport not on the 'most roasted' list?

25 mile delays EVERY single day on an interstate that is so hysterically outdated makes for quite possibly the worst place to drive in the entire country.  Backups on weekends are becoming a regular occurance, as well.

Come to think of it, virtually other road in the state belongs on the Most Roasted list (especially CT15 and the bulk of I84).

I-65 has a particularly dangerous stretch just south of Cullman, AL, especially around MP 293/MP 294. Seems like a major accident that causes huge delays is a fairly regular occurrence around there for some reason...

Sorry for the bump, had to give my take.
People hate 39 moreso because of its overlap with US-51 than its overlap with 90. This to me is stupid. As was said in the OP's post, I-25 is overlapped with US routes its entire length, and no one cares. Why is 39 a problem then? It's a 300+ mile corridor that runs straight north-south and is freeway. There is not one thing about I-39 that makes it not worthy of being an Interstate.
As for I-41, I like to call myself the world's most passionate I-41 defender.
For I-90, I have no issue with the long 80 overlap.
I-94 is the only one in WI where I can understand the criticism. I would have it end in Milwaukee, with I-41 continuing into Illinois. The portions of 94 in Indiana and Michigan then become I-92.

Quote from: thspfc on August 01, 2020, 10:14:36 AM
Sorry for the bump, had to give my take.
People hate 39 moreso because of its overlap with US-51 than its overlap with 90. This to me is stupid. As was said in the OP's post, I-25 is overlapped with US routes its entire length, and no one cares. Why is 39 a problem then? It's a 300+ mile corridor that runs straight north-south and is freeway. There is not one thing about I-39 that makes it not worthy of being an Interstate.
As for I-41, I like to call myself the world's most passionate I-41 defender.
For I-90, I have no issue with the long 80 overlap.
I-94 is the only one in WI where I can understand the criticism. I would have it end in Milwaukee, with I-41 continuing into Illinois. The portions of 94 in Indiana and Michigan then become I-92.

Well the only issue I could see with that is that I-41 has only existed for a short time and wasn't there when I-94 was routed south of Milwaukee. Lake Michigan being in the way caused it to have to shift around the lake the way it does so I can see why the number is carried over to the other side of the lake. In all honesty though it picks up about 100 miles south of where it left off on the other side of the lake entering Milwaukee. It would have been pointless to go that much further north with it. The Great Lakes has indeed effected the way roads are routed though.

I-80 most roasted interstate in Northern California due to traffic on the Bay Bridge toll plaza.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on May 03, 2018, 01:44:10 AM

Quote from: DandyDan on April 22, 2018, 03:58:06 AM
I would love to know how no one ever complains about the fact that the segment of I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee  gets an odd number even though it is an east-west route. Granted it's more NE-SW, but it bears no real relationship to the N-S segment. I highly doubt that someone from Beloit takes I-43 the whole way to Green Bay, largely because the stadium is off of 41. I would call the Beloit-Milwaukee section of I-43 I-92.

That's the one thing I don't like about I-43. I honestly wish the designation got changed, too.

There were actually two proposed routes that could've been called I-92 as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Highway_(New_England) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Highway_(New_England))

as the only 3dis in Wisconsin are short routes that go through Milwaukee.

And the 12 feet of I-535 in superior. It's one of the reasons why I make the case for I-441.

Quote from: bing101 on August 01, 2020, 07:28:16 PM
I-80 most roasted interstate in Northern California due to traffic on the Bay Bridge toll plaza.

If only it was just the toll plaza!  I-80 is a generally miserable experience from San Francisco at least past Vacaville.

As a Texan, I take pride in having the shortest I-x0 and I-x5 (the latter intrastate) in our state.  TO me it kinda shows how important and large the state is.  I am not one of the group that demands I-45 go to Tulsa.  If they decided to extend it tomorrow, I will be right there taking pictures of the first shields at the ceremony because I love new interstates, but it doesn't make any difference to me because I like the fact we have an I-x5 completely inside our state boundaries.  Besides, I-30 gets a little bit of a pass because it is part of the link from NC and TN I-40 to western I-10 so it is a major route despite it's length, and just like it does, I-45 defaults onto I-35 for long range traffic.

What really drives me crazy is unceremonious ends to interstates

Interstates terminate for one of 3 reasons always

1. They terminate into other interstates, either in T fashion or they default onto a similarly routed even or odd interstate.

2. They end because of a natural or political boundary (an ocean or national border)

3. Arbitrary. This one, excluding 3dis, should be eliminated. 

The system is faulty if there are "dead ends" to interstates.  I-27, I-44, and I-72 are violators.  The should be connected to another interstate at it's end.  I-64 used to be like this, but right minds decided it needed to default onto I-70 and all was right in the world.

^

Both I-27 and I-44 end at cities with over 100,000 population, so to some extent they are logical termini, it's not like they end at some small town.

I-44 originally ended in Oklahoma City, it was extended southwest along the existing H.E. Bailey Turnpike towards Lawton and Wichita Falls in 1982.

I agree ultimately they should be extended, but they aren't necessarily useless interstates even now.

Quote from: bing101 on August 01, 2020, 07:28:16 PM
I-80 most roasted interstate in Northern California due to traffic on the Bay Bridge toll plaza.

I disagree with that assessment. That honor would go to I-238, because where the hell is I-38?

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2020, 10:26:53 AM
^

Both I-27 and I-44 end at cities with over 100,000 population, so to some extent they are logical termini, it's not like they end at some small town.

I-44 originally ended in Oklahoma City, it was extended southwest along the existing H.E. Bailey Turnpike towards Lawton and Wichita Falls in 1982.

I agree ultimately they should be extended, but they aren't necessarily useless interstates even now.

Lubbock is a small town, sorry to break it to ya.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 10:36:15 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2020, 10:26:53 AM
^

Both I-27 and I-44 end at cities with over 100,000 population, so to some extent they are logical termini, it's not like they end at some small town.

I-44 originally ended in Oklahoma City, it was extended southwest along the existing H.E. Bailey Turnpike towards Lawton and Wichita Falls in 1982.

I agree ultimately they should be extended, but they aren't necessarily useless interstates even now.

Lubbock is a small town, sorry to break it to ya.

Lubbock city population is around 260,000.
Metropolitan population is over 320,000.

11th most populous city in Texas, 84th largest in the United States.

That's not a small town.

Here's a question - is Midland-Odessa a "small town" ?

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2020, 12:40:50 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 10:36:15 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2020, 10:26:53 AM
^

Both I-27 and I-44 end at cities with over 100,000 population, so to some extent they are logical termini, it's not like they end at some small town.

I-44 originally ended in Oklahoma City, it was extended southwest along the existing H.E. Bailey Turnpike towards Lawton and Wichita Falls in 1982.

I agree ultimately they should be extended, but they aren't necessarily useless interstates even now.

Lubbock is a small town, sorry to break it to ya.

Metropolitan population is over 300,000.

That's not a small town.

By Texas standards, it's small.  Corpus Christi has that many people in it's city limits and it's considered a small town.  Austin, in the 1970s had that many people in it's city limits and was always called a sleepy little college town.  When you have a state with 5 of the most populous cities in the country in it, you do tend to say towns with 300,000 in the metro are small.  Besides, it still shouldn't end there even if Lubbock had a million people in it, when 98 miles gets you a connection to I-20.  By that logic I-10 and I-45 should stop in downtown Houston.  No need to extend, the city has over 2 million people in it.  End it like I-27 and be done with it. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 09:09:07 AM
The system is faulty if there are "dead ends" to interstates.  I-27, I-44, and I-72 are violators.  The should be connected to another interstate at it's end.  I-64 used to be like this, but right minds decided it needed to default onto I-70 and all was right in the world.

What about the northern terminus of I-35?

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 18, 2020, 03:27:34 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 09:09:07 AM
The system is faulty if there are "dead ends" to interstates.  I-27, I-44, and I-72 are violators.  The should be connected to another interstate at it's end.  I-64 used to be like this, but right minds decided it needed to default onto I-70 and all was right in the world.

What about the northern terminus of I-35?

What about it.  I have said since I was a kid it needs to go to the Canadian Border. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 03:30:36 PM
What about it.

I was wondering if you'd consider it an "arbitrary" terminus to an interstate or not. I didn't think there'd be any confusion on that. I apologize for the ambiguity.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 18, 2020, 03:33:20 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 18, 2020, 03:27:34 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 09:09:07 AM
The system is faulty if there are "dead ends" to interstates.  I-27, I-44, and I-72 are violators.  The should be connected to another interstate at it's end.  I-64 used to be like this, but right minds decided it needed to default onto I-70 and all was right in the world.

What about the northern terminus of I-35?

What about it.  I have said since I was a kid it needs to go to the Canadian Border.

I was wondering if you'd consider it an "arbitrary" terminus to an interstate or not.

Yes, that is very arbitrary. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 12:53:45 PM
By Texas standards, it's small.  Corpus Christi has that many people in it's city limits and it's considered a small town.  Austin, in the 1970s had that many people in it's city limits and was always called a sleepy little college town.  When you have a state with 5 of the most populous cities in the country in it, you do tend to say towns with 300,000 in the metro are small.  Besides, it still shouldn't end there even if Lubbock had a million people in it, when 98 miles gets you a connection to I-20.  By that logic I-10 and I-45 should stop in downtown Houston.  No need to extend, the city has over 2 million people in it.  End it like I-27 and be done with it.

300,000 may not be "large" by Texas standards, but it's still sizable and not a "small town" by any technical standards.

I agree the interstates should ultimately extend further, but in current form, they still serve a purpose.

And for the record, I-45 terminates in the Houston and Dallas metropolitan areas. It doesn't extend beyond either. Yes, it goes south to Galveston, but that's still apart of the whole metro.

Should I-64 extend beyond Hampton Roads, VA? Should the future I-87 corridor between Raleigh / Durham and Hampton Roads extend beyond both cities? Should I-37 extend beyond Corpus Christi? Should I-26 extend beyond Kingsport? Should I-20 extend beyond Florence?

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2020, 04:24:45 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 12:53:45 PM
By Texas standards, it's small.  Corpus Christi has that many people in it's city limits and it's considered a small town.  Austin, in the 1970s had that many people in it's city limits and was always called a sleepy little college town.  When you have a state with 5 of the most populous cities in the country in it, you do tend to say towns with 300,000 in the metro are small.  Besides, it still shouldn't end there even if Lubbock had a million people in it, when 98 miles gets you a connection to I-20.  By that logic I-10 and I-45 should stop in downtown Houston.  No need to extend, the city has over 2 million people in it.  End it like I-27 and be done with it.

300,000 may not be "large" by Texas standards, but it's still sizable and not a "small town" by any technical standards.

I agree the interstates should ultimately extend further, but in current form, they still serve a purpose.

And for the record, I-45 terminates in the Houston and Dallas metropolitan areas. It doesn't extend beyond either. Yes, it goes south to Galveston, but that's still apart of the whole metro.

Should I-64 extend beyond Hampton Roads, VA? Should the future I-87 corridor between Raleigh / Durham and Hampton Roads extend beyond both cities?

I-45 terminates in Galveston because there is an ocean.  I-45 terminates at I-30 defaulting to I-35E for northern traffic, so it serves it's purpose that way.  Now, if I-45 went through the downtown Dallas area made it to the north side of town and ended in Plano on Central Expressway I would say that's not right either. 

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2020, 04:24:45 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 18, 2020, 12:53:45 PM
By Texas standards, it's small.  Corpus Christi has that many people in it's city limits and it's considered a small town.  Austin, in the 1970s had that many people in it's city limits and was always called a sleepy little college town.  When you have a state with 5 of the most populous cities in the country in it, you do tend to say towns with 300,000 in the metro are small.  Besides, it still shouldn't end there even if Lubbock had a million people in it, when 98 miles gets you a connection to I-20.  By that logic I-10 and I-45 should stop in downtown Houston.  No need to extend, the city has over 2 million people in it.  End it like I-27 and be done with it.

300,000 may not be "large" by Texas standards, but it's still sizable and not a "small town" by any technical standards.

It's also telling that Lubbock is the largest metropolitan area in the entire pink area below.

Regional importance, anyone?

(https://i.imgur.com/2W38Nva.jpg)

I’ve been through Lubbock once, and my opinion is that it feels smaller than it is. It felt very dead the one time I drove through. Granted that was on a Saturday morning in summer, but if you had asked me to guess the population right after that, I would probably have guessed something around 200k - about 33% too small.

Quote from: kphoger on August 18, 2020, 04:55:40 PM
It's also telling that Lubbock is the largest metropolitan area in the entire pink area below.

Regional importance, anyone?
[img snipped]

That's a bit misleading, because much of the pink area is closer to El Paso, DFW, Austin, and/or San Antonio.

Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2020, 06:53:07 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 18, 2020, 04:55:40 PM
It's also telling that Lubbock is the largest metropolitan area in the entire pink area below.

Regional importance, anyone?
[img snipped]

That's a bit misleading, because much of the pink area is closer to El Paso, DFW, Austin, and/or San Antonio.

I excluded all counties covered by other MSAs, and I could actually have made the pink area bigger, especially at the southeastern end.  If I have more time at some point and remember to do so, I'd like to extend the map to include other states, showing just how large a region has Lubbock as its most populous MSA.

Quote from: Henry on August 18, 2020, 10:35:14 AM

Quote from: bing101 on August 01, 2020, 07:28:16 PM
I-80 most roasted interstate in Northern California due to traffic on the Bay Bridge toll plaza.

I disagree with that assessment. That honor would go to I-238, because where the hell is I-38?

I thought the thread was about two digit interstates.

I didn't even realize 41 followed 94 all the way to the IL line. I don't like how the designation ends abruptly at IL and continues on a freeway. If you're gonna make an interstate, truncate it to I-894 (which 41 entirely overlaps anyway, so just end 41 at the 94 interchange by MKE).

^

It was supposedly extended along I-94 to the border in order to indicate North-South since I-94's directional markers are East-West on the due north-south interstate.

Also probably to not have to re-number the exits since I-41 and US-41 would share mileage from MM 0.

Quote from: kkt on August 20, 2020, 12:42:02 AM

Quote from: Henry on August 18, 2020, 10:35:14 AM

Quote from: bing101 on August 01, 2020, 07:28:16 PM
I-80 most roasted interstate in Northern California due to traffic on the Bay Bridge toll plaza.

I disagree with that assessment. That honor would go to I-238, because where the hell is I-38?

I thought the thread was about two digit interstates.

In that case, I take it back. I-80 may be the most roasted 2di in Northern CA, but in the state as a whole, I'd say either I-5 or I-10 in L.A. is the most roasted one in the entire state.

8 should be 10, easy one, come on now

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 28, 2018, 10:14:53 PM
For US-2 in Michigan I would say that there isn't enough population in the U.P. to justify an east-west Interstate. Duluth is a bigger city but quite aways from the U.P. and there isn't much in between. The largest city in the U.P. is Marquette with about 21,000 people and only two other cities with a population of over 10,000 (Sault Ste. Marie and Escanaba). Sault Ste. Marie already has I-75 and Escanaba really has no need to be connected to the Interstate. For east-west travel US-2 and M-28 do fine for the U.P.

I would like M-28 to become US 2 and US 2 to become US 8 east of Norway but they definitely don't need to be freeways

Quote from: texaskdog on August 21, 2020, 10:41:35 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 28, 2018, 10:14:53 PM
For US-2 in Michigan I would say that there isn't enough population in the U.P. to justify an east-west Interstate. Duluth is a bigger city but quite aways from the U.P. and there isn't much in between. The largest city in the U.P. is Marquette with about 21,000 people and only two other cities with a population of over 10,000 (Sault Ste. Marie and Escanaba). Sault Ste. Marie already has I-75 and Escanaba really has no need to be connected to the Interstate. For east-west travel US-2 and M-28 do fine for the U.P.

I would like M-28 to become US 2 and US 2 to become US 8 east of Norway but they definitely don't need to be freeways

Then what does US-2 west of Norway become?

I heard I-405 in CA gets called the four or five being that the road is at a stand still most of the time.

Then I-99 to be joked about being its the Bud Schuster Highway, the man who created the number and had Congress declare it a bill that Bill Clinton signed into law.

94 has a north-south section through Minneapolis, which some outlets refer to as N/S and others as E/W. Given this section is only about 7 miles long, it seems silly that anyone bothers to differentiate.

I-40 between Raleigh and Wilmington is north-south, yet signed east-west due to its overall alignment west of Raleigh.

Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 11:16:27 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on August 21, 2020, 10:41:35 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 28, 2018, 10:14:53 PM
For US-2 in Michigan I would say that there isn't enough population in the U.P. to justify an east-west Interstate. Duluth is a bigger city but quite aways from the U.P. and there isn't much in between. The largest city in the U.P. is Marquette with about 21,000 people and only two other cities with a population of over 10,000 (Sault Ste. Marie and Escanaba). Sault Ste. Marie already has I-75 and Escanaba really has no need to be connected to the Interstate. For east-west travel US-2 and M-28 do fine for the U.P.

I would like M-28 to become US 2 and US 2 to become US 8 east of Norway but they definitely don't need to be freeways

Then what does US-2 west of Norway become?

US-102

Quote from: ftballfan on August 21, 2020, 08:43:38 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 11:16:27 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on August 21, 2020, 10:41:35 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 28, 2018, 10:14:53 PM
For US-2 in Michigan I would say that there isn't enough population in the U.P. to justify an east-west Interstate. Duluth is a bigger city but quite aways from the U.P. and there isn't much in between. The largest city in the U.P. is Marquette with about 21,000 people and only two other cities with a population of over 10,000 (Sault Ste. Marie and Escanaba). Sault Ste. Marie already has I-75 and Escanaba really has no need to be connected to the Interstate. For east-west travel US-2 and M-28 do fine for the U.P.

I would like M-28 to become US 2 and US 2 to become US 8 east of Norway but they definitely don't need to be freeways

Then what does US-2 west of Norway become?

US-102

I was thinking if that happened with US-2 taking over M-28 and US-8 taking over US-2 east of Norway that US-141 would stay put and the rest of it west of Crystal Falls either a new state highway number or western extension of M-69.

Quote from: Flint1979 on August 22, 2020, 10:12:58 AM

Quote from: ftballfan on August 21, 2020, 08:43:38 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 11:16:27 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on August 21, 2020, 10:41:35 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 28, 2018, 10:14:53 PM
For US-2 in Michigan I would say that there isn't enough population in the U.P. to justify an east-west Interstate. Duluth is a bigger city but quite aways from the U.P. and there isn't much in between. The largest city in the U.P. is Marquette with about 21,000 people and only two other cities with a population of over 10,000 (Sault Ste. Marie and Escanaba). Sault Ste. Marie already has I-75 and Escanaba really has no need to be connected to the Interstate. For east-west travel US-2 and M-28 do fine for the U.P.

I would like M-28 to become US 2 and US 2 to become US 8 east of Norway but they definitely don't need to be freeways

Then what does US-2 west of Norway become?

US-102

I was thinking if that happened with US-2 taking over M-28 and US-8 taking over US-2 east of Norway that US-141 would stay put and the rest of it west of Crystal Falls either a new state highway number or western extension of M-69.

Yeah I would reroute US-2 onto M-28 through Bruce Crossing and Marquette to I-75, then extend M-69 to Wakefield via current US-2, then US-8 takes over the remainder of US-2, ending at St. Ignace. The tiny bit of current US-2 between Norway and Iron Mtn becomes M-202.

Ok sorry if this is considered bumping but I just had to come and defend interstate 69. I don't know too much about the route go to Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi etc. but I know that the stretch to Texas is actually quite important. But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston. No, interstate 69 will be serving the very important purpose of connecting Houston with Corpus Christi in the Rio Grande Valley. Currently in before the advent of I 69, the only way to get to the valley from Houston was to either go to San Antonio and then head south, are use US 59/77/281 which, while they may have had four lane divided sections  with  70 mph speed limits, also had  numerous stretches that went through small towns with speed trap cops, red lights, and driveways and businesses. Plus, this is a route that contains a lot of truck traffic.  Now the argument could be made that this route could be given a different number than 69, and I could agree with that. But then I think should be part of a much larger remembering of the entire grid.

Quote from: achilles765 on May 20, 2021, 03:53:15 AM
Ok sorry if this is considered bumping but I just had to come and defend interstate 69. I don’t know too much about the route go to Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi etc. but I know that the stretch to Texas is actually quite important. But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston. No, interstate 69 will be serving the very important purpose of connecting Houston with Corpus Christi in the Rio Grande Valley. Currently in before the advent of I 69, the only way to get to the valley from Houston was to either go to San Antonio and then head south, are use US 59/77/281 which, while they may have had four lane divided sections  with  70 mph speed limits, also had  numerous stretches that went through small towns with speed trap cops, red lights, and driveways and businesses. Plus, this is a route that contains a lot of truck traffic.  Now the argument could be made that this route could be given a different number than 69, and I could agree with that. But then I think should be part of a much larger remembering of the entire grid.

The routing for I-69 in TX looks pretty important, apart from 69C, which imo is too close to 69E. The numbering is debatable though. The sections in LA, AR, MS seem useless to me, as 369/30/40 is more direct between Tenaha and Memphis. Memphis to Dyersburg is... ehh, as I-55/155 is not that much longer, and it doesn't seem like US 51 will get upgraded anytime soon. North of Dyersburg, it's quite important, as a relief route of sorts to I-55/57/70 to Indiana, and I-40/65/71 to Ohio from Memphis. In Indiana, it's there for the Indianapolis-Bloomington-Evansville connection. North of Indy, that's the original section of I-69.

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 10:08:15 AM
The routing for I-69 in TX looks pretty important, apart from 69C, which imo is too close to 69E.

US-281 (I-69C) and US-77 (I-69E) are both very important major trucking corridors. Same with I-35, obviously. All three are major routes from the north down to the three major border crossings - Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville.

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 10:08:15 AM
The sections in LA, AR, MS seem useless to me, as 369/30/40 is more direct between Tenaha and Memphis.

There's not much of a difference in distance... if I were coming from South Texas, I would much rather take I-69 all the way to Memphis and not deal with the hell that I-30 and I-40 can be.

Quote from: achilles765 on May 20, 2021, 03:53:15 AM
But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston.

That's a pretty important connection...

A few that come to mind.

94:  Maybe this needs to end in Milwaukee.  It's got a very long N-S stretch through Chicago.  Maybe 55 could be extended along the current 94 corridor to Milwaukee?

69: Lots of criticism here, but nobody's mentioned the mess in the Rio Grande Valley yet with the three branches? 

4: Agree it shouldn't be an E-W route.  I'd argue it's better off a 3-di of 75 or 95.

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 10:39:11 AM
94:  Maybe this needs to end in Milwaukee.  It's got a very long N-S stretch through Chicago.  Maybe 55 could be extended along the current 94 corridor to Milwaukee?

If I-94 ends in Milwaukee, I think that an I-65 extension over the other two to cover Chicago-Milwaukee would be better, as it covers the section of the I-94 between I-80/I-294/IL 394 and I-57, which would replace I-94 in IL all under a single number, instead of splitting it between two or three numbers. I-294 would be I-265, I think this is far enough from Louisville's variant for reducing confusion between the two. Could also take I-65 up either current I-41 or I-43 to Green Bay under this scenario.
And Lake Station-Port Huron could be I-92, like what part of it was designated on the first interstates plan.

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 10:48:28 AM

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 10:39:11 AM
94:  Maybe this needs to end in Milwaukee.  It's got a very long N-S stretch through Chicago.  Maybe 55 could be extended along the current 94 corridor to Milwaukee?

If I-94 ends in Milwaukee, I think that an I-65 extension over the other two to cover Chicago-Milwaukee would be better, as it covers the section of the Dan Ryan between I-80/I-294/IL 394 and I-57, which would replace I-94 in IL all under a single number, instead of splitting it between two or three numbers. I-294 would be I-265, I think this is far enough from Louisville's variant for reducing confusion between the two. Could also take I-65 up either current I-41 or I-43 to Green Bay under this scenario.
And Lake Station-Port Huron could be I-92, like what part of it was designated on the first interstates plan.

What about I-57 though? I mean it ends at I-94 so wouldn't it be better situated to extend to Milwaukee than I-65? Plus you could extend it even further north and replace I-43 north of Milwaukee. No idea what to do with I-43 southwest of Milwaukee though.

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 10:39:11 AM
4: Agree it shouldn't be an E-W route.  I'd argue it's better off a 3-di of 75 or 95.

The only issue with making I-4 a 3di would be that it would be the longest 3di in the country (it's very slightly longer than I-476). That being said, I don't see any 2-digit numbers that would fit there, as all odd numbers between 75 and 95 are already in use, so it could probably be I-495.

QuoteWhat about I-57 though? I mean it ends at I-94 so wouldn't it be better situated to extend to Milwaukee than I-65? Plus you could extend it even further north and replace I-43 north of Milwaukee. No idea what to do with I-43 southwest of Milwaukee though.

I-43 southwest of Milwaukee could be a 3-di.  Why not give I-39 a 3-di? 239?? :D

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 20, 2021, 11:36:08 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 10:48:28 AM

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 10:39:11 AM
94:  Maybe this needs to end in Milwaukee.  It's got a very long N-S stretch through Chicago.  Maybe 55 could be extended along the current 94 corridor to Milwaukee?

If I-94 ends in Milwaukee, I think that an I-65 extension over the other two to cover Chicago-Milwaukee would be better, as it covers the section of I-94 between I-80/I-294/IL 394 and I-57, which would replace I-94 in IL all under a single number, instead of splitting it between two or three numbers. I-294 would be I-265, I think this is far enough from Louisville's variant for reducing confusion between the two. Could also take I-65 up either current I-41 or I-43 to Green Bay under this scenario.
And Lake Station-Port Huron could be I-92, like what part of it was designated on the first interstates plan.

What about I-57 though? I mean it ends at I-94 so wouldn't it be better situated to extend to Milwaukee than I-65? Plus you could extend it even further north and replace I-43 north of Milwaukee. No idea what to do with I-43 southwest of Milwaukee though.

I-57 could work too; then you'll need a 3di for the section of I-94 between I-80 and I-57. A 3di would also be needed with extending I-65 onto I-94, for the section of I-65 between I-80/94 and I-90, though it'll be much shorter. Also, the x5 thing may be moot nowadays with a border to border I-69, but I still think that an x5 interstate should be preferred over a non-x5 for an extension if possible.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 20, 2021, 11:44:32 AM

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 10:39:11 AM
4: Agree it shouldn't be an E-W route.  I'd argue it's better off a 3-di of 75 or 95.

The only issue with making I-4 a 3di would be that it would be the longest 3di in the country (it's very slightly longer than I-476). That being said, I don't see any 2-digit numbers that would fit there, as all odd numbers between 75 and 95 are already in use, so it could probably be I-495.

Wasn't I-4 measured out when designating a number to be slightly more E-W than N-S?

As I recall reading here somewhere, there were some postmortem discussions about ending 94 in Milwaukee to which Chicago objected as they didn't want to renumber 94 since it was already familiar to city residents (which since Chicago is largely a name-freeway city, I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense unless I'm missing something).

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 10:08:15 AM
The routing for I-69 in TX looks pretty important ... The numbering is debatable poopy though.

FTFY

With all the conversation around I-94 south of Milwaukee, I'm surprised there's not a proposal in Fictional Highways to build an 80 mile floating bridge across Lake Michigan to connect up with I-96 near Muskegon.

Quote from: FrCorySticha on May 20, 2021, 01:02:49 PM
With all the conversation around I-94 south of Milwaukee, I'm surprised there's not a proposal in Fictional Highways to build an 80 mile floating bridge across Lake Michigan to connect up with I-96 near Muskegon.

Right? I mean, if US-10 can technically be a continuous route due to a ferry, why can't I-94?

Quote from: FrCorySticha on May 20, 2021, 01:02:49 PM
With all the conversation around I-94 south of Milwaukee, I'm surprised there's not a proposal in Fictional Highways to build an 80 mile floating bridge across Lake Michigan to connect up with I-96 near Muskegon.

FritzOwl probably have, though we don't get that much info of his plans in the Midwest.

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 01:09:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on May 20, 2021, 01:02:49 PM
With all the conversation around I-94 south of Milwaukee, I'm surprised there's not a proposal in Fictional Highways to build an 80 mile floating bridge across Lake Michigan to connect up with I-96 near Muskegon.

FritzOwl probably have, though we don't get that much info of his plans in the Midwest.

While he bumps the thread on his own, if you ask him for plans for a specific area he'll post them (or make them upon request, whatever he does).

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 11:55:52 AM
Wasn't I-4 measured out when designating a number to be slightly more E-W than N-S?

I don't know about when it was designated, but I measured it a while ago, and it is a bit more E-W than N-S. It measures, at least according to the Google Maps measuring tool, 82.26 miles N-S, and anywhere between 83.09 and 84.03 miles E-W, depending on how you deal with the curvature of the earth.

Moreover, even it it were the other way around, I would still probably prefer the even number given that it connects two odd numbered routes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas  Where do we draw the line?

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 01:07:27 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on May 20, 2021, 01:02:49 PM
With all the conversation around I-94 south of Milwaukee, I'm surprised there's not a proposal in Fictional Highways to build an 80 mile floating bridge across Lake Michigan to connect up with I-96 near Muskegon.

Right? I mean, if US-10 can technically be a continuous route due to a ferry, why can't I-94?

I believe interstate standards require bridge or tunnel crossings rather than ferries.

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 01:07:27 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on May 20, 2021, 01:02:49 PM
With all the conversation around I-94 south of Milwaukee, I'm surprised there's not a proposal in Fictional Highways to build an 80 mile floating bridge across Lake Michigan to connect up with I-96 near Muskegon.

Right? I mean, if US-10 can technically be a continuous route due to a ferry, why can't I-94?

Because a ferry wouldn't be up to interstate standards. There aren't very many standards when it comes to a US highway.

Quote from: achilles765 on May 20, 2021, 03:53:15 AM
Ok sorry if this is considered bumping but I just had to come and defend interstate 69. I don't know too much about the route go to Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi etc. but I know that the stretch to Texas is actually quite important. But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston. No, interstate 69 will be serving the very important purpose of connecting Houston with Corpus Christi in the Rio Grande Valley. Currently in before the advent of I 69, the only way to get to the valley from Houston was to either go to San Antonio and then head south, are use US 59/77/281 which, while they may have had four lane divided sections  with  70 mph speed limits, also had  numerous stretches that went through small towns with speed trap cops, red lights, and driveways and businesses. Plus, this is a route that contains a lot of truck traffic.  Now the argument could be made that this route could be given a different number than 69, and I could agree with that. But then I think should be part of a much larger remembering of the entire grid.

The route is fine, the part south of Memphis should be I-47.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 20, 2021, 05:11:02 PM

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 20, 2021, 01:07:27 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on May 20, 2021, 01:02:49 PM
With all the conversation around I-94 south of Milwaukee, I'm surprised there's not a proposal in Fictional Highways to build an 80 mile floating bridge across Lake Michigan to connect up with I-96 near Muskegon.

Right? I mean, if US-10 can technically be a continuous route due to a ferry, why can't I-94?

Because a ferry wouldn't be up to interstate standards. There aren't very many standards when it comes to a US highway.

I realize that. Just my attempt at humor. Ha ha ha.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 20, 2021, 02:13:39 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 11:55:52 AM
Wasn't I-4 measured out when designating a number to be slightly more E-W than N-S?

I don't know about when it was designated, but I measured it a while ago, and it is a bit more E-W than N-S. It measures, at least according to the Google Maps measuring tool, 82.26 miles N-S, and anywhere between 83.09 and 84.03 miles E-W, depending on how you deal with the curvature of the earth.

Moreover, even it it were the other way around, I would still probably prefer the even number given that it connects two odd numbered routes.

Yeah, I'm the same way. I think of I-4 as an E-W route because it connects two N-S routes. Similarly, I think of I-82 as a N-S route because it connects two E-W routers.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2021, 10:19:15 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 10:08:15 AM
The routing for I-69 in TX looks pretty important, apart from 69C, which imo is too close to 69E.

US-281 (I-69C) and US-77 (I-69E) are both very important major trucking corridors. Same with I-35, obviously. All three are major routes from the north down to the three major border crossings - Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville.

Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 10:08:15 AM
The sections in LA, AR, MS seem useless to me, as 369/30/40 is more direct between Tenaha and Memphis.

There's not much of a difference in distance... if I were coming from South Texas, I would much rather take I-69 all the way to Memphis and not deal with the hell that I-30 and I-40 can be.

Quote from: achilles765 on May 20, 2021, 03:53:15 AM
But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston.

That's a pretty important connection...

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 21, 2021, 08:22:02 AM
Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

The entire I-69 route including its spokes were congressional mandated.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 02:21:01 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 21, 2021, 08:22:02 AM
Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

The entire I-69 route including its spokes were congressional mandated.

++

I am aware of that.  I was asking if it is so important than why was it not part of the original plan or the 1968 update plan?

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 21, 2021, 02:23:17 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 02:21:01 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 21, 2021, 08:22:02 AM
Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

The entire I-69 route including its spokes were congressional mandated.

++

I am aware of that.  I was asking if it is so important than why was it not part of the original plan or the 1968 update plan?

The corridor was probably not as important back then.

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 21, 2021, 07:36:19 AM

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 20, 2021, 02:13:39 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 11:55:52 AM
Wasn't I-4 measured out when designating a number to be slightly more E-W than N-S?

I don't know about when it was designated, but I measured it a while ago, and it is a bit more E-W than N-S. It measures, at least according to the Google Maps measuring tool, 82.26 miles N-S, and anywhere between 83.09 and 84.03 miles E-W, depending on how you deal with the curvature of the earth.

Moreover, even it it were the other way around, I would still probably prefer the even number given that it connects two odd numbered routes.

Yeah, I'm the same way. I think of I-4 as an E-W route because it connects two N-S routes. Similarly, I think of I-82 as a N-S route because it connects two E-W routers.

I could get behind that.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 21, 2021, 05:14:08 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 21, 2021, 07:36:19 AM

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on May 20, 2021, 02:13:39 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 20, 2021, 11:55:52 AM
Wasn't I-4 measured out when designating a number to be slightly more E-W than N-S?

I don't know about when it was designated, but I measured it a while ago, and it is a bit more E-W than N-S. It measures, at least according to the Google Maps measuring tool, 82.26 miles N-S, and anywhere between 83.09 and 84.03 miles E-W, depending on how you deal with the curvature of the earth.

Moreover, even it it were the other way around, I would still probably prefer the even number given that it connects two odd numbered routes.

Yeah, I'm the same way. I think of I-4 as an E-W route because it connects two N-S routes. Similarly, I think of I-82 as a N-S route because it connects two E-W routers.

I could get behind that.

Same. That's pretty solid logic.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2021, 06:20:43 PM

Quote from: achilles765 on May 20, 2021, 03:53:15 AM
Ok sorry if this is considered bumping but I just had to come and defend interstate 69. I don't know too much about the route go to Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi etc. but I know that the stretch to Texas is actually quite important. But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston. No, interstate 69 will be serving the very important purpose of connecting Houston with Corpus Christi in the Rio Grande Valley. Currently in before the advent of I 69, the only way to get to the valley from Houston was to either go to San Antonio and then head south, are use US 59/77/281 which, while they may have had four lane divided sections  with  70 mph speed limits, also had  numerous stretches that went through small towns with speed trap cops, red lights, and driveways and businesses. Plus, this is a route that contains a lot of truck traffic.  Now the argument could be made that this route could be given a different number than 69, and I could agree with that. But then I think should be part of a much larger remembering of the entire grid.

The route is fine, the part south of Memphis should be I-47.

I would be fine with that. Then we would be similar to San Antonio. Sa: IH 10; IH 35; IH 37. Houston: IH 10; IH 45; IH 47

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 21, 2021, 02:23:17 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 02:21:01 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 21, 2021, 08:22:02 AM
Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

The entire I-69 route including its spokes were congressional mandated.

++

I am aware of that.  I was asking if it is so important than why was it not part of the original plan or the 1968 update plan?

The traffic counts have been exploded along with the populations along those routes. Frankly I'm rather shocked that there was never any plan for any interstate Court or whatsoever into the Rio Grande Valley. And again my husband, who grew up down there said that back when he was growing up in the 80s and early 90s the whole region was basically just a bunch of little small towns. Now it's grown into a little mini/megalopolis of smaller cities that are all right along what is probably our most important border. 

How about A1?

Quote from: 1 on April 21, 2018, 10:52:00 AM
Based on the "which states get roasted the most" thread here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21943).

Roasted on this forum, not by the general public.

In numerical order, these are the complaints I have seen:
2: Too short, although it's temporary. I have a problem with it not connecting to the rest of the system, but that might only be me.
4: May be more north-south than east-west (if it's not, it's close). I've also seen complaints about heavy traffic.
5: Heavy traffic.
8: No criticism.
10: Some people believe 10 and 12 should be switched. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
12: Some people believe 10 and 12 should be switched. This is a bigger problem for 12, as it's the entire length of 12 and only a small part of 10.
14: Very short and almost useless compared to others, but it's likely temporary.
15: No criticism. I don't read the Pacific Southwest board often, so I might be missing some claims that CA 15 should become I-15.
16: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem. I've also seen complaints that it's boring.
17:  Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem. Also, the mile markers don't start at 0, but this isn't a problem either, even though it does lead to questions asked.
19: Too short. However, the metric signage actually seems to be a net positive, as it's interesting.
20: No criticism except for one person (excluding FritzOwl) saying that since it doesn't get near the West Coast, it shouldn't be an x0. The 20/59 overlap is 59's problem, not 20's. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
22: Under construction; no criticism.
24: The occasional complaint about being diagonal, and "why doesn't it go to St. Louis" in Fictional. There was also a thread about Paducah, KY vs. Evansville, IN and the wrong city winning (Evansville is much larger, but they built it through Paducah instead).
25: No criticism. It's entirely overlapped with US routes, but that's the fault of the US routes, not the Interstate.
26: "Number should be odd", despite that no odd numbers are available.
27: Intrastate. "Should be extended" is a common Fictional idea.
29: The only complaint that I've seen is that it and 49 have two different numbers.
30: Too short for an x0. This is a common complaint.
35: 35W/35E splits. Some people say they shouldn't exist.
37: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem.
39: Long overlap with I-90. Some people have a problem with it, but nowhere near the level of 20/59.
40: No criticism; extending 40 west in California seems to be a suggestion and not a problem. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
41: A huge debate about whether it's okay to have an I-41/US 41 overlap, with people on both sides of the debate.
42: Under construction. No criticism, unlike I-87 in North Carolina.
43: No criticism, as far as I'm aware.
44: Tolls in Oklahoma? Sudden end in Wichita Falls, TX? These are both minor criticisms, but I've seen both.
45: Intrastate for an x5. This is a major criticism.
49: The gaps in I-49, which will be filled eventually.
55: 57 is more direct. Other than that, no problems.
57: Control city of Memphis from Chicago. Also, future I-57 not yet connecting to current I-57.
59: The 20/59 overlap, which leads many people to want the two standalone sections to have different numbers.
64: Direction confusion in Hampton Roads.
65: No criticism.
66: No criticism except possibly heavy traffic.
68: No criticism.
69: Too many gaps and disconnected segments.
70: Breezewood, a major problem. Some road quality problems in Pennsylvania. Ending in Utah instead of California doesn't seem to be a problem.
71: No criticism, despite being almost perfectly diagonal.
72: No criticism as far as I'm aware, although it's a bit short.
73: In North Carolina only, despite it being legislated all the way to Michigan.
74 (west): No criticism, unless you're looking as all of I-74 as a single route with disconnected segments. The number duplication is the fault of the eastern I-74.
74 (east): Too many disconnected segments in North Carolina that will never connect to Ohio. Also, I-74/US 74 overlap.
75: No criticism. 75 and 85 cross, but that's an issue with 85.
76 (west): Duplicated number.
76 (east): Surekill Expressway, and suggestions that the ACE should be part of I-76. Breezewood is an issue with I-70, not I-76.
77: No criticism.
78: Surface road in New York and for a few blocks in New Jersey.
79: No criticism.
80: Long 80/90 overlap, but that's it.
81: Too many trucks. Also, the whole Syracuse debate.
82: Major roast: Many people think that I-82 should have an odd number instead of an even number.
83: Too short, and bad pavement quality.
84 (west): Duplicated number.
84 (east): Duplicated number.
85: More east-west than north-south, especially for an x5.
86 (west): Way too short; should be a 3di (or just US 30). Also, duplicated number.
86 (east): Duplicated number, as well as gaps that are being fixed.
87 (north): No criticism. Even though the number is duplicated, the other one is viewed is illegitimate.
87 (south): Another major roast. Should be an even number that isn't a duplicate. Some even say that it shouldn't have been designated at all, given I-95 to US 58.
88 (west): Duplicate number.
88 (east): There have been a few complaints that it's mostly useless, along a corridor that doesn't need an Interstate. Also a duplicate number.
89: No criticism.
90: Long 80/90 overlap. The Skyway not being signed as I-90 is not a problem with I-90 itself, it's the relevant DOT.
91: No criticism.
93: Franconia Notch is substandard.
94: Too many overlaps in Wisconsin.
95: Too much traffic.
96: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem.
97: Intracounty. Way too short. Should be a 3di.
99: Congressionally legislated, and out of grid. Doesn't officially connect to either end in Pennsylvania. Has a gap.

My top 10 list would be I-87 (S), I-99, I-74 (E), I-86 (W), I-69, I-41, I-97, I-82, I-45, and I-14.

Just thinking on the WI interstates of 39, 41, 43.......their roasting reasons more or less that 39 is only independent of another US highway for like 5ish miles and 41 and 43 are basically Wisconsin only interstates.

Don't have issues with 90 or 94 in the state or their numbering.  If any 2-digit interstate ever got placed with WI-29 from Green bay to Eau Claire that one will be added to roasting list within the state lol