Which 2dis get roasted the most/least?

[Flint1979]

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?

[roadman65]

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.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[sprjus4]

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

[ftballfan]

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

[Flint1979]

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.

[thspfc]

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.

[achilles765]

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.

[SkyPesos]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

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.

But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston.

That's a pretty important connection...

[OCGuy81]

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.

[SkyPesos]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[WillWeaverRVA]

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.

[OCGuy81]

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

[SkyPesos]

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.

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?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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).

[kphoger]

The routing for I-69 in TX looks pretty important ... The numbering is debatable poopy though.

FTFY

[FrCorySticha]

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.

[OCGuy81]

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?

[SkyPesos]

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.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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).

[CtrlAltDel]

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.

[texaskdog]

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

[kkt]

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.