AARoads Forum

A bit of a stupid question, but let's say that New York suddenly didn't want I-87 anymore, would they get approval to replace it with State Route 749 or something? Also, do you think that any 2 digit interstates will someday not exist?

I haven't heard of any, outside of the ones that were suffixed that were changed to other non-suffixed ones, or any that were moved away from initial/incompatible routings (I-80 in Sacramento, I-40 in NC, I-20 in/near Dallas and Fort Worth) and onto newer, permanent routes.

With as much push as there is for new and extended interstates, I doubt that there would be much effort to downgrade or get rid of current designations.

I could see a specific number going away (196 becoming part of a longer 67 though that's not a 2di it's the only example I can think of right now), but I can't imagine a scenario in which any significant length of interstate becomes something other than an interstate.

Possibly I-19 if I-11 is sent down to the Mexican border.

It has happened before:

The original eastern I-86, which was created when the ill-fated I-84 to Providence was being proposed, ran from East Hartford to Sturbridge. Once it was determined that I-84 would never reach Providence, I-86 was decommissioned as a result, and I-84 now occupies the East Hartford-Sturbridge route, with the immediate branch to the east becoming I-384.

(Of course, I-86 would reappear a decade later, as a new route connecting Erie to Binghamton, with several disconnected segments along the way.)

If the Wikipedia page for the list of interstates in North Dakota is anything to be trusted, I-31 existed from Fargo to Canada for about a year before it got absorbed by I-29. I imagine decommissioning could occur as routes are fused together, but I-31 is the only one that comes to my mind.

Quote from: Hobart on December 02, 2022, 11:07:58 AM
If the Wikipedia page for the list of interstates in North Dakota is anything to be trusted, I-31 existed from Fargo to Canada for about a year before it got absorbed by I-29.

That is correct, though I don't think anything was actually built and signed as I-31 before it became part of I-29.  North of Fargo was approved as part of the system in 1956 while Sioux Falls to Fargo was not.  But Sioux Falls to Fargo got added by the end of the 1950s.

Quote from: Henry on December 02, 2022, 10:52:10 AM
It has happened before:

The original eastern I-86, which was created when the ill-fated I-84 to Providence was being proposed, ran from East Hartford to Sturbridge. Once it was determined that I-84 would never reach Providence, I-86 was decommissioned as a result, and I-84 now occupies the East Hartford-Sturbridge route, with the immediate branch to the east becoming I-384.

(Of course, I-86 would reappear a decade later, as a new route connecting Erie to Binghamton, with several disconnected segments along the way.)

Perhaps something similar could happen to these incomplete interstates like I-74 in North Carolina.

Quote from: Henry on December 02, 2022, 10:52:10 AM
It has happened before:

The original eastern I-86, which was created when the ill-fated I-84 to Providence was being proposed, ran from East Hartford to Sturbridge. Once it was determined that I-84 would never reach Providence, I-86 was decommissioned as a result, and I-84 now occupies the East Hartford-Sturbridge route, with the immediate branch to the east becoming I-384.

(Of course, I-86 would reappear a decade later, as a new route connecting Erie to Binghamton, with several disconnected segments along the way.)

Does that really count, though? I-86 remained an Interstate, it just got a different number. There have been other instances of that around the country over the years, perhaps most obviously with the replacement of suffixed route numbers. In other words, the number "I-86" was decommissioned, but the Interstate designation applicable to that road was not. I thought the OP was inquiring about the total downgrading of an Interstate highway to a different class of road–to use that example, perhaps if the old I-84 had been designated CT-84 instead of I-384.

To answer the original question, I could perhaps foresee a scenario in which a portion of a 2di might be decommissioned as an Interstate, most likely if the route is relocated to a new alignment and the state doesn't think it's necessary to keep the old one as an Interstate. (Hypothetically, I-93 through Franconia Notch could be the sort of segment where that sort of thing could be worthwhile if we assume, for discussion purposes, that there were a viable alternative alignment that would allow for compliance with Interstate standards, recognizing of course that if such an option existed it probably would have been done in the first place.) But it seems unlikely that a full 2di would be decommissioned unless federal highway funding laws change big time.

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 02, 2022, 11:37:41 AM

Quote from: Henry on December 02, 2022, 10:52:10 AM
It has happened before:

The original eastern I-86, which was created when the ill-fated I-84 to Providence was being proposed, ran from East Hartford to Sturbridge. Once it was determined that I-84 would never reach Providence, I-86 was decommissioned as a result, and I-84 now occupies the East Hartford-Sturbridge route, with the immediate branch to the east becoming I-384.

(Of course, I-86 would reappear a decade later, as a new route connecting Erie to Binghamton, with several disconnected segments along the way.)

Does that really count, though? I-86 remained an Interstate, it just got a different number. There have been other instances of that around the country over the years, perhaps most obviously with the replacement of suffixed route numbers. In other words, the number "I-86" was decommissioned, but the Interstate designation applicable to that road was not. I thought the OP was inquiring about the total downgrading of an Interstate highway to a different class of road–to use that example, perhaps if the old I-84 had been designated CT-84 instead of I-384.

I-86 is still partially applicable here, specifically because what is now CT 3 between I-91 and CT 2 was built to become part of I-491, which was renumbered I-86 in the late 1960s, then eliminated altogether when the remainder of the road up to I-84/384 (as well as what had previously been planned out to Providence) was dropped.

The segment of I-84 in Willimantic, CT gets a little closer -- it was signed I-84, open to traffic, and now it's just US 6. As far as the city is concerned, I-84 doesn't have a new nearby alignment, it's just gone. But in the big picture, I-84 still exists, and Willimantic's section is an interesting footnote.

In terms just of chargeable Interstates, we have seen examples of number changes (elimination of suffixed Interstates), relocations (I-40 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina), and hidden designations (California I-305).  However, I know of no examples of a finished Interstate corridor being dropped from the books altogether even now that the Interstate Maintenance funding category has been more or less closed out.  I'd question whether it was even possible for a state to do so without having to repay previously expended IC and IM funds to the federal government.

Wasn't the eastern part of I-70 -- the short segment inside I-695 that actually enters the Baltimore city limits -- removed as part of I-70? Doesn't it now carry some other official designation?

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2022, 12:45:10 PM
Wasn't the eastern part of I-70 -- the short segment inside I-695 that actually enters the Baltimore city limits -- removed as part of I-70? Doesn't it now carry some other official designation?

Star Memorial Highway

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2022, 12:45:10 PM
Wasn't the eastern part of I-70 -- the short segment inside I-695 that actually enters the Baltimore city limits -- removed as part of I-70? Doesn't it now carry some other official designation?

Unsigned MD 570

I-12 and I-99 would be good candidates for decomissioning.

Quote from: therocket on December 02, 2022, 12:58:01 PM
I-12 and I-99 would be good candidates for decomissioning.

I-97 and that bogus I-87 in North Carolina too

Quote from: kurumi on December 02, 2022, 12:17:31 PM
The segment of I-84 in Willimantic, CT gets a little closer -- it was signed I-84, open to traffic, and now it's just US 6. As far as the city is concerned, I-84 doesn't have a new nearby alignment, it's just gone. But in the big picture, I-84 still exists, and Willimantic's section is an interesting footnote.

^This.

The signed portions of old I-84 to Providence definitely count.

Quote from: skluth on December 02, 2022, 01:25:49 PM
...and that bogus I-87 in North Carolina too

There's already a bunch of traffic between Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill (pop 2.08M) and Tidewater/Hampton Roads (1.85M).  But with the current route structure, only a small percentage of that traffic uses US-64 -to- US-17 as a through route (I never have used that as a through route).  It seems like everyone (including myself) is underestimating the potential of a 2DI connecting the two.  But since the route is perceived to mostly benefit folks in Virginia, I doubt that NCDOT will push to construct the remainder of I-87 as quickly as they pushed through I-485 around Charlotte and I-540/NC-540 around Raleigh (which only benefited North Carolina).

The flip side of this is that I do think that NCDOT would have pushed to complete the I-495 link between Raleigh -and- Rocky Mount, since that corridor was very important to the region.  It's not such a big deal now given the future 2DI designation, since that portion of the route has been 70MPH and *just not quite Interstate standards* since 2006.  But it does seem confusing with only a little piece of the route actually posted, part of which is on the Beltline.

Does the portion of the former I-95 in the Boston area that follows the Tobin Bridge and the US 1 expressway/Jersey freeway count?

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 02, 2022, 04:13:01 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 02, 2022, 01:25:49 PM
...and that bogus I-87 in North Carolina too

There's already a bunch of traffic between Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill (pop 2.08M) and Tidewater/Hampton Roads (1.85M).  But with the current route structure, only a small percentage of that traffic uses US-64 -to- US-17 as a through route (I never have used that as a through route).  It seems like everyone (including myself) is underestimating the potential of a 2DI connecting the two.  But since the route is perceived to mostly benefit folks in Virginia, I doubt that NCDOT will push to construct the remainder of I-87 as quickly as they pushed through I-485 around Charlotte and I-540/NC-540 around Raleigh (which only benefited North Carolina).

The flip side of this is that I do think that NCDOT would have pushed to complete the I-495 link between Raleigh -and- Rocky Mount, since that corridor was very important to the region.  It's not such a big deal now given the future 2DI designation, since that portion of the route has been 70MPH and *just not quite Interstate standards* since 2006.  But it does seem confusing with only a little piece of the route actually posted, part of which is on the Beltline.

It's not the traffic. It's the number. It really should be something like I-56 as it's mostly an east-west interstate. Plus, it's a bit confusing with another I-87 in NY. It could run either to Tidewater or the Outer Banks as both are mostly four lanes at this point. But my contention with all those highways is the number itself. I have no problems with the freeways themselves (except the Breezewood-light gap at Bedford between the Turnpike and I-99).

I can't see any mainline 2di completely losing Interstate status, because every state/county/municipality affected would cry foul over the loss of the "critical" element that will "spur economic development."

The I-84 Willimantic segment that kurumi mentioned is a little different in that it's a short segment that never connected to another freeway on either end.

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on December 02, 2022, 08:16:48 AM
Possibly I-19 if I-11 is sent down to the Mexican border.

That would just be a renumber not a decommissioning.

Maybe they'll give up on the I-69 trident and then decommission I-2 . . .

If the most famous US highway ever (66) can be decommissioned, it stands to reason a future interstate will follow suit in the coming decades.

In the short term, the only instance I can immediately cite is the relinquishing of the I-40 segment inside the I-240 loop to the city of Memphis following the Overton Park mess.

Coming soon: I-81 in Syracuse NY

To me, the unqualified term "decommission" implies a complete and total removal of a highway number from the network in its current form. Moving the highway designation to a different physical road doesn't count (that's a realignment), and neither does the removal of a portion of the highway (that's a truncation).

Using that definition, it's hard to see where a two-digit Interstate highway designation realistically has a chance of being removed. Plenty of 2-digit US routes have be decom'd over the years, but those are an entirely different animal, since most of those were due to being replaced by Interstate highways. That situation would only apply to the Interstates if a higher class of road were introduced above them, which seems unlikely.

I suppose conditions could develop where one of the shorter single-state routes could be given the axe, like I-97. If the financial well-being or transportation strategy of North Carolina changes, I could see unbuilt projects there getting cancelled, and that could then lead to things like I-73, I-74, I-42, etc. getting decommissioned since it would be impossible for them to fulfill the function they were designed to fill as part of the system.

Plenty of railroads over the years have gone from double track to single track in order to cut down on costs.  Could something like that apply to an Interstate?

Quote from: US 89 on December 02, 2022, 08:46:33 PM
Coming soon: I-81 in Syracuse NY

It's moving, not being decommissioned.

Quote from: kphoger on December 02, 2022, 10:15:37 PM
Plenty of railroads over the years have gone from double track to single track in order to cut down on costs.  Could something like that apply to an Interstate?

A common tactic of the Class I railroads back in the 1980s was to evaluate the capital improvement budget and back into the track mileage that could be maintained.  At the onset, the original version of CSX had more than 23,000 track miles to maintain and the Engineering Department determined (or perhaps decided) that they could only afford to maintain 18,000 track miles.  It didn't take long to shed off that much.

Probably not, the simplest explanation being it would be more disruptive than decommissioning a 3DI.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 02, 2022, 09:12:06 PM
To me, the unqualified term "decommission" implies a complete and total removal of a highway number from the network in its current form. Moving the highway designation to a different physical road doesn't count (that's a realignment), and neither does the removal of a portion of the highway (that's a truncation).

Using that definition, it's hard to see where a two-digit Interstate highway designation realistically has a chance of being removed. Plenty of 2-digit US routes have be decom'd over the years, but those are an entirely different animal, since most of those were due to being replaced by Interstate highways. That situation would only apply to the Interstates if a higher class of road were introduced above them, which seems unlikely.

Again, I offer I-86 CT.  Not all of it was a "renumbering".  What is now CT 3 was built to become Interstate.

Quote from: kphoger on December 02, 2022, 10:15:37 PM
Plenty of railroads over the years have gone from double track to single track in order to cut down on costs.  Could something like that apply to an Interstate?

Depends on if the Federal law (implemented ca. late '60s) that mandated constructing the Interstates as minimum 4 lanes still applies or not.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 02, 2022, 09:12:06 PM
To me, the unqualified term "decommission" implies a complete and total removal of a highway number from the network in its current form. Moving the highway designation to a different physical road doesn't count (that's a realignment), and neither does the removal of a portion of the highway (that's a truncation).

Using that definition, it's hard to see where a two-digit Interstate highway designation realistically has a chance of being removed. Plenty of 2-digit US routes have be decom'd over the years, but those are an entirely different animal, since most of those were due to being replaced by Interstate highways. That situation would only apply to the Interstates if a higher class of road were introduced above them, which seems unlikely.

I suppose conditions could develop where one of the shorter single-state routes could be given the axe, like I-97. If the financial well-being or transportation strategy of North Carolina changes, I could see unbuilt projects there getting cancelled, and that could then lead to things like I-73, I-74, I-42, etc. getting decommissioned since it would be impossible for them to fulfill the function they were designed to fill as part of the system.

Realistically I think the situations in your last paragraph are the only circumstances in the short term that would cause a decommissioning.

Longer term...

...oceans continue to rise, Mississippi River switches course, New Orleans is unlivable. I-10 rerouted over I-12.
...Hawaii declares independence. The Hawaiian interstates are no longer part of the system.
...Mexico gets its revenge and re-takes Texas.  Goodbye I-2.
...earth is swallowed by the Sun when it enters red giant phase. No more system.

Quote from: Rothman on December 02, 2022, 10:32:02 PM

Quote from: US 89 on December 02, 2022, 08:46:33 PM
Coming soon: I-81 in Syracuse NY

It's moving, not being decommissioned.

People were using I-40 in Memphis as an example, so...

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 03, 2022, 06:40:01 AM
...earth is swallowed by the Sun when it enters red giant phase. No more system.

Who would remain to decommission them?   :hmmm:

Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2022, 10:13:19 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 03, 2022, 06:40:01 AM
...earth is swallowed by the Sun when it enters red giant phase. No more system.

Who would remain to decommission them?   :hmmm:

HM Emperor Musk of Mars.

So Mars would remain unaffected?

Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2022, 12:27:26 PM
So Mars would remain unaffected?

For a few thousand years, at least.  (Or million?  I don't know how fast red giants expand.)

Quote from: Evan_Th on December 05, 2022, 12:39:37 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2022, 12:27:26 PM
So Mars would remain unaffected?

For a few thousand years, at least.  (Or million?  I don't know how fast red giants expand.)

One of the more interesting things I've read recently is that Betelgeuse was considered orange or even yellow (https://www.iflscience.com/betelgeuse-was-yellow-not-red-as-recently-as-roman-times-65208) a couple thousand years ago. While stellar color is directly correlated with star surface temperature (https://sciencenotes.org/the-colors-of-the-stars-from-hottest-to-coldest/) I don't know if it changed color because of expansion (which would cool the star because the heat is disbursed) or some other some other factor. But that's less than 2000 years.

Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2022, 12:27:26 PM
So Mars would remain unaffected?

No, it would probably  get destroyed  (https://goo.gl/maps/GeVxJEhU5hq7YxyDA) like the rest of the Earth.

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 02, 2022, 12:52:32 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2022, 12:45:10 PM
Wasn't the eastern part of I-70 -- the short segment inside I-695 that actually enters the Baltimore city limits -- removed as part of I-70? Doesn't it now carry some other official designation?

Unsigned MD 570

I remember it being discussed in the Maryland thread somewhat recently that this change had indeed been made by MDOT SHA at some point, with the 2020 Baltimore County Highway Location Reference (https://roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/2020%20Baltimore%20County.pdf) updated accordingly (I-70 is on page 1, MD 570 on page 119).  No signage changes, however - I-695 still signs "I-70 east, Local Traffic", and the I-70 signage is simply accurate now after previous stating incorrectly that I-70 ended at I-695.

I'll be curious to see whether or not the Baltimore Red Line project (which was the original impetus for decommissioning I-70 inside I-695 so that stretch could be downgraded alongside rail construction) sees any second life with the upcoming administration change in Maryland.

Something that's a little easier to imagine than I-87 being decommissioned might be a combination of depopulation, newer and cheaper ways of transporting goods, and some other factors leading to states with a small population being unwilling or unable to keep portions of their 2DIs up to interstate standards. Because Texas was granted a little leeway to allow a limited amount of at-grade intersections to give ranches along I-40 and I-10 normal access, I'm sure that could happen elsewhere if they make a compelling case to replace overpasses/exits with at-grades, but where does that line end? Stoplights on a full interstate? Would North Dakota be able to unilaterally split up I-94 and just re-extend US 10 across the state if they no longer had the will or money to keep it up to standards?

Quote from: jmacswimmer on December 05, 2022, 01:54:40 PM

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 02, 2022, 12:52:32 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 02, 2022, 12:45:10 PM
Wasn't the eastern part of I-70 -- the short segment inside I-695 that actually enters the Baltimore city limits -- removed as part of I-70? Doesn't it now carry some other official designation?

Unsigned MD 570

I remember it being discussed in the Maryland thread somewhat recently that this change had indeed been made by MDOT SHA at some point, with the 2020 Baltimore County Highway Location Reference (https://roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/2020%20Baltimore%20County.pdf) updated accordingly (I-70 is on page 1, MD 570 on page 119).  No signage changes, however - I-695 still signs "I-70 east, Local Traffic", and the I-70 signage is simply accurate now after previous stating incorrectly that I-70 ended at I-695.

I'll be curious to see whether or not the Baltimore Red Line project (which was the original impetus for decommissioning I-70 inside I-695 so that stretch could be downgraded alongside rail construction) sees any second life with the upcoming administration change in Maryland.

At least there's a definitive answer to what I had meant to ask, whether the former I-70 would continue to be assigned a route number. If the ICC is any indication, transportation projects can and do get brought back from the dead, and the Red Line ought to be one of them.

I honestly doubt it, as the labor to remove all the signs would be deemed unworth it. It also depends on whether it's the entire length or just a small section losing the interstate designation. 2 digit ones would be rarer because they are longer. 3 digit ones however, like I-895 in NYC were downgraded as recently as 2017. I-878 is another example, but I don't even know how Long that was an interstate, if ever. I could see ones like I-78 being truncated before the Holland tunnel, to remove the gap in Jersey city. I-73 and I-74 as mentioned here are also great examples of this. I-97 and I-99 need to go, but I don't know if renumbering to another interstate designation counts as a decommission.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 05, 2022, 07:46:51 PM
I honestly doubt it, as the labor to remove all the signs would be deemed unworth it.

I strongly doubt that the decision to retain or decommission an Interstate would boil down to the cost of paying a couple of dozen guys in work trucks to drive around with a socket set for a day.

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 09:13:11 AM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 05, 2022, 07:46:51 PM
I honestly doubt it, as the labor to remove all the signs would be deemed unworth it.

I strongly doubt that the decision to retain or decommission an Interstate would boil down to the cost of paying a couple of dozen guys in work trucks to drive around with a socket set for a day.

I looked for a specific post but couldn't find it. It basically said "When I-99 was designated, we (or was it State College students?) could have just ninja-replaced the I-99 signs with [forget which 3di] and PennDOT wouldn't have cared, and the ninja replacement would become the new number."

Quote from: 1 on December 06, 2022, 09:21:18 AM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 09:13:11 AM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 05, 2022, 07:46:51 PM
I honestly doubt it, as the labor to remove all the signs would be deemed unworth it.

I strongly doubt that the decision to retain or decommission an Interstate would boil down to the cost of paying a couple of dozen guys in work trucks to drive around with a socket set for a day.

I looked for a specific post but couldn't find it. It basically said "When I-99 was designated, we (or was it State College students?) could have just ninja-replaced the I-99 signs with [forget which 3di] and PennDOT wouldn't have cared, and the ninja replacement would become the new number."

Literally any even x80, but nope I-99 makes more sense!

^Why even x80? Should be odd x80, like I-580. Or you could actually upgrade the entire Williamsport loop to Interstate standards, renumber that I-680, then you have I-180 for such a long 3di as "I-99".

Or you could keep it I-99, because there is nothing wrong with the number.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2022, 11:55:52 AM
Or you could keep it I-99, because there is nothing wrong with the number.

You risk being labeled an anti-gridder.

Quote from: GaryV on December 06, 2022, 11:58:39 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2022, 11:55:52 AM
Or you could keep it I-99, because there is nothing wrong with the number.

You risk being labeled an anti-gridder.

I would wear that label proudly!

Quote from: GaryV on December 06, 2022, 11:58:39 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2022, 11:55:52 AM
Or you could keep it I-99, because there is nothing wrong with the number.

You risk being labeled an anti-gridder.

I'm going to revert back to my standard, long-held thoughts on the matter: The original corridor, from Cumberland to Corning, is definitely deserving of a two-digit number. Even though the portion from Cumberland to Bedford is no longer on the books, the rest (Bedford to Corning) is deserving of 2di status. The only number available that comes close to the grid is 99. In fact, I'm on record as being in favor of I-99 taking over I-390 from I-86 to at least the Thruway, if not all the way to I-490.

There are all sorts of other grid violations that are equally worthy of righteous anger if I-99 bothers someone.

What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 02:11:28 PM
Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

Did the legislation specify that it had to remain I-99 for any period of time?

Quote from: hbelkins on December 06, 2022, 12:10:05 PM

Quote from: GaryV on December 06, 2022, 11:58:39 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2022, 11:55:52 AM
Or you could keep it I-99, because there is nothing wrong with the number.

You risk being labeled an anti-gridder.

I'm going to revert back to my standard, long-held thoughts on the matter: The original corridor, from Cumberland to Corning, is definitely deserving of a two-digit number. Even though the portion from Cumberland to Bedford is no longer on the books, the rest (Bedford to Corning) is deserving of 2di status. The only number available that comes close to the grid is 99. In fact, I'm on record as being in favor of I-99 taking over I-390 from I-86 to at least the Thruway, if not all the way to I-490.

There are all sorts of other grid violations that are equally worthy of righteous anger if I-99 bothers someone.

I-99 should either be designated an x80, x76, or have no interstate number altogether. There is absolutely no excuse for that atrocity. Besides, the tiny stretch in NYS would violate route duplication, as I have a better I-99 planned for Queens and NJ.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 02:06:07 PM
What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

I-99 serves it fine.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 06, 2022, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 02:11:28 PM
Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

Did the legislation specify that it had to remain I-99 for any period of time?

No, but even if it did, they aren't going to change it.  Why would they?

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 06, 2022, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 02:11:28 PM
Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

Did the legislation specify that it had to remain I-99 for any period of time?

The legislation expressly states the corridor is I-99, so the only way to change the number is through another act of Congress that repeals that provision, which is horribly unlikely to happen.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 06, 2022, 02:44:36 PM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 06, 2022, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 02:11:28 PM
Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

Did the legislation specify that it had to remain I-99 for any period of time?

The legislation expressly states the corridor is I-99, so the only way to change the number is through another act of Congress that repeals that provision, which is horribly unlikely to happen.

That's what I was getting at.  It isn't as simple as sending a request letter to AASHTO.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 02:06:07 PM
What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

What does a route's number have to do with how well it serves an area?

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 06, 2022, 02:53:38 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 02:06:07 PM
What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

What does a route's number have to do with how well it serves an area?

It doesn't, and based on his FritzOwl-esque "plan" for I-99, I don't think he really cares.

I-99 is here to stay whether we like the number or not, the only things I wish would happen would be for a freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-70/76 (which is not likely to happen because PTC) and for it to connect to the I-99 piece in NY (which is not likely to happen, period).

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 06, 2022, 03:57:53 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 06, 2022, 02:53:38 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 02:06:07 PM
What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

What does a route's number have to do with how well it serves an area?

It doesn't, and based on his FritzOwl-esque "plan" for I-99, I don't think he really cares.

I-99 is here to stay whether we like the number or not, the only things I wish would happen would be for a freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-70/76 (which is not likely to happen because PTC) and for it to connect to the I-99 piece in NY (which is not likely to happen, period).

I honestly don't mind I-99. I know where it is and that it's there so that's just the route number for it honestly I don't think that there's another route number that could have been used there and still fit the grid.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:06:13 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 06, 2022, 02:53:38 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 02:06:07 PM
What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

What does a route's number have to do with how well it serves an area?

The number doesn't serve the interstate well. It should be east of I-95.

So what? Is the highway going to be any different if it has a different route number? Changing route numbers just for the sake of changing route numbers doesn't make any sense.

It's not even a continuous interstate, and the stretch in NY makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass of NYC that's actually needed (I have these posted in my MMM thread) because of route duplication. It's not like they had no other choice of numbers. Literally any x80 would have sufficed. And there are numbers much closer to fitting the grid, such as 67, 73..etc, so why did they go out of their way to give it such a bizarre number.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:11:43 PM
and the stretch in NY makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass of NYC that's actually needed (I have these posted in my MMM thread) because of route duplication

Numbering doesn't make a physical road impossible to build.

Yeah but what would the new one become then? Decommissioning the PA one is a small price to pay for the actual east coast corridor that's needed. The new one, especially with the Breezy Point-Sandy Hook Bay Bridge, will need much more federal funding. Route 15 is good enough for Pennsylvania. I-99 is a good example of a 2di that should be Decommissioned for the purpose of building better, much more needed interstate highways. The same thing should happen to I-97 in Maryland, and use that to build a new I-97 between I-95 and I-99 in Delaware.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:11:43 PM
It's not even a continous interstate, and the stretch in NY makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass of NYC that's actually needed (I have these posted in my MMM thread) because of route duplication. It's not like they had no other choice of numbers. Literally any x80 would have sufficed. And there are numbers much closer to fitting the grid, such as 67, 73..etc, so why did they go out of their way to give it such a bizarre number.

It could have been a 3di of either I-70, 76, or 80, but Bud Shuster gave it the 99 number because of a streetcar in his hometown of Altoona, PA. The extension into New York came later and it was originally supposed to extend down to I-68 in Cumberland, MD.

I'll defend how MultiMillionMiler is speaking here.  The number "serves the corridor" better because it applies better by the grid; and it "makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass" as a figure of speech in that it makes it harder to assign I-99 to that bypass.

I don't support his actual plans for that I-99 bypass, but that's another question.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:06:13 PM
The number doesn't serve the interstate well.

It serves it just fine.  They're all just numbers anyway.  The number 703 would serve it just as well.  The only purpose of a route number is so people know what road to turn on.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:06:13 PM
It should be east of I-95.

In a perfect world, I suppose.  Oh, well.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:11:43 PM
It's not even a continuous interstate

That's the real problem.

Quote from: Evan_Th on December 06, 2022, 04:26:15 PM
I'll defend how MultiMillionMiler is speaking here ... and it "makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass" as a figure of speech in that it makes it harder to assign I-99 to that bypass.

If it's really a bypass, then shouldn't it be a 3di anyway?

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:43:06 PM
I am connecting my I-99 to blah blah blah blah

Then it isn't just a bypass of NYC.

Quote from: Evan_Th on December 06, 2022, 04:26:15 PM
I'll defend how MultiMillionMiler is speaking here.  The number "serves the corridor" better because it applies better by the grid; and it "makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass" as a figure of speech in that it makes it harder to assign I-99 to that bypass.

I don't support his actual plans for that I-99 bypass, but that's another question.

The grid is an anachronism.  You could put I-7 on a New York bypass and it would be fine.

No, it bypasses almost every major city on the east coast, with the exception of Norfolk Virginia, if that counts. At one point I considered extending my I-99 across long island and up 395 (sound crossing) so this entire route could have one designation, but it would make an unnecessary concurrency with I-495 (which becomes I-80 in my plans). But it would likely benefit NYC the most, since not only would there be a shortcut from Long Island to Jersey, but it would avoid all the city  traffic on the belt parkway, lower manhattan, staten island, GWB, I-278, Newark, Jersey City...etc. You fly through the rockaways, over the bay, and end up at the Garden State parkway south of all the traffic. Definitely worth the decommissioning of the silly I-99 in PA.

Your dream highway could be numbered I-67 with no ill effect.

Please move this conversation to your own fiction thread.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:54:53 PM
I know, I just brought it up because it is an argument of why the PA I-99 should be decommissioned. Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road. That was my main point. This would still apply even if the number was just changed.

So which is it?  You want I-99 to be a 3di instead, or you want its I- status removed entirely?

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 04:55:53 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:54:53 PM
I know, I just brought it up because it is an argument of why the PA I-99 should be decommissioned. Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road. That was my main point. This would still apply even if the number was just changed.

So which is it?  You want I-99 to be a 3di instead, or you want its I- status removed entirely?

Either Or. I think it deserves an interstate designation as it is long enough and will pass through 2 states once completed. 3di would be slightly preferable in my opinion.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:54:53 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 06, 2022, 04:48:42 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:43:06 PM
My I-99 is far too long to be a 3di. Remember, I am connecting my I-99 to the proposed future I-99 corridor from DE to Charleston SC. It will run from the Throgsneck Expressway (I-695) in the Bronx to Charleston, that's many hundreds of miles. The PA I-99 is short enough to be a 3di compared to most other 2di in that state. The completed I-99 would bypass NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C, and if a long island sound crossing is built, I-395, I-290, and I-495 in MA could be connected to this long distance corridor and bypass Boston, Providence, and New Haven as well. There would never be a traffic jam on this route.

You should keep this in fictional please.

I know, I just brought it up because it is an argument of why the PA I-99 should be decommissioned. Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road. That was my main point. This would still apply even if the number was just changed.

1. I-99 is not going to lose it's designation.

2. We have nearly thirty, two digit numbers available. We aren't running out of numbers.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:54:53 PM
Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road.

Whoa, stop the bus!

This almost slipped past me.  Are you saying that you think poor pavement conditions should be reason to decommission an Interstate?  Don't you think that–oh, I don't know–repaving might be a better option?

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:57:15 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 04:55:53 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:54:53 PM
I know, I just brought it up because it is an argument of why the PA I-99 should be decommissioned. Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road. That was my main point. This would still apply even if the number was just changed.

So which is it?  You want I-99 to be a 3di instead, or you want its I- status removed entirely?

Either Or. I think it deserves an interstate designation as it is long enough and will pass through 2 states once completed. 3di would be slightly preferable in my opinion.

How would "avoidance of route duplication" still apply if "the number was just changed"?  If, say, I-99 became I-780 or I-980, are you saying route duplication would still be an issue?

I think I-80 should be decomissioned.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM
Otherwise, it would have to lose its number altogether if no suitable 2di or 3di is available.

Your assertion is that, if there's no "suitable" number available (one that accords with the zeal of your grid fanaticism), then it's preferable for the highway to not be an Interstate at all?

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 05:20:43 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 05:06:38 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:54:53 PM
Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road.

Whoa, stop the bus!

This almost slipped past me.  Are you saying that you think poor pavement conditions should be reason to decommission an Interstate?  Don't you think that–oh, I don't know–repaving might be a better option?

Depends, if it's permanent damage, maybe. If it's just a few months of repaving it can stay as it is.

Permanent damage?  Like what, specifically?

I read the title to this thread and wasn't disappointed because I knew four things would transpire:

1) People would confuse outright decommissioning for realignment or a 3di being absorbed into a longer route. 

2) Everyone would then talk about the numbers that they wish would go away, which is not what this thread is about, which leads to:

3) I-19 bashing

4) I-99 bashing

The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

Also, the only thing the law says is:

QuoteThe portion of the route referred to in subsection (c)(9) is designated as Interstate Route I—99.

That doesn't mean that it has to be signed or publicly referred to as such. It could internally be designated I-99/I-780 and only signed as I-780. Or just US-220. Or whatever. Hell, that doesn't even preclude assigning another I-99 elsewhere–we have two of plenty of other routes.

(Also, given the way that's worded, doesn't that imply that it should be signed with an Interstate shield containing the string "I-99" if you wanted to be 100% compliant with the law?)

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

How does this compare to your feelings about the I-69xyz web in south Texas?

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 06:28:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

How does this compare to your feelings about the I-69xyz web in south Texas?

I-69* is worse than I-99 because not only was the numbering system hijacked by elected officials there, it wasn't even done in a way that makes a whole lot of sense. At least you can say I-99 makes navigation easier by making the freeway route clearly labeled as such. I-69 is just baffling to anyone who doesn't intuitively "get" road numbering. ("Wait, get on I-69E? But I want to go south! Won't going east make me drive into the Gulf?")

I-2 is cool and can stay.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 06:51:47 PM
Yes, if there's no suitable number then it should not join the interstate highway system.

Well, that's retarded.

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 06:55:43 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 06:51:47 PM
Yes, if there's no suitable number then it should not join the interstate highway system.

Well, that's retarded.

Well the solution is to simply not waste numbers on things like I-238. Actually, I-238 would be a much better number for route 15 because at least it would actually be a good distance with that fun number. They should wait until more highways are built before numbering them. It's hard to properly number a grid that's not fully developed yet.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 06:51:47 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 05:55:26 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM
Otherwise, it would have to lose its number altogether if no suitable 2di or 3di is available.

Your assertion is that, if there's no "suitable" number available (one that accords with the zeal of your grid fanaticism), then it's preferable for the highway to not be an Interstate at all?

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 05:20:43 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 05:06:38 PM

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:54:53 PM
Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road.

Whoa, stop the bus!

This almost slipped past me.  Are you saying that you think poor pavement conditions should be reason to decommission an Interstate?  Don't you think that–oh, I don't know–repaving might be a better option?

Depends, if it's permanent damage, maybe. If it's just a few months of repaving it can stay as it is.

Permanent damage?  Like what, specifically?

Yes, if there's no suitable number then it should not join the interstate highway system.

Lol. Honestly that's just dumb.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 04:43:06 PM
There would never be a traffic jam on this route.

[citation needed]

There's a solution here we're not seeing: relegation.

At the end of each year a few interstates are kicked out and some high-performing non-interstates are promoted.

The FHWA can do a press conference and announce something like "As of 12:01 am this morning, former interstates 12 and 41 have become Louisiana route 284 and US Route 41. And we are pleased to announce that US 20 in Iowa is an extension of western Interstate 88; and US 287 in Texas is now I-33. Good day."

In the Caesars sportsbook in Vegas, which is showing this on the big screen, whoops and cheering and swearing fills the room as hundreds of thousands of dollars change hands.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 07:00:28 PM
Well the solution is to simply not waste numbers on things like I-238.

*groan*  You know darned well why the number 238 was chosen, and I think you also know why it needs to be an Interstate.  Give it a rest.

Besides which, the number wasn't "wasted", as there is no better use for it elsewhere–precisely because there isn't an I-38 for it to be a proper child of.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 07:00:28 PM
Actually, I-238 would be a much better number for route 15 because at least it would actually be a good distance with that fun number.

Which Route 15?  What state?  Surely you can't be talking about I-15...

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 07:00:28 PM
They should wait until more highways are built before numbering them.

Who should wait?  And how much longer should they wait?

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 06, 2022, 07:00:28 PM
It's hard to properly number a grid that's not fully developed yet.

No highway network is ever "fully developed".  New highways are built all the time.  Get over it.

Why is anybody still responding to anything this guy posts?  All you're doing is feeding the troll and helping him derail good conversations.

My issue with I-99 is that the corridor makes zero sense.  How many people are driving between Altoona and Painted Post?  Not many, not even just general corridor rather than going to/from those specific destinations or that specific route.  The three pieces (Bedford-State College, western part of the route connecting I-80 to Williamsport on each side, and US 15) don't really fit together - they're more a Frankenstein conglomeration.  On the other hand, a lot of people drive between Rochester and Harrisburg (or at least that corridor); it would make sense as a northern extension of I-83, if only PennDOT had built the Harrisburg-Selinsgrove piece as a freeway.  I-99 as it aspires to be (to say less of what it actually exists as) makes zero sense even ignoring any grid concerns.

Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2022, 09:33:09 PM
My issue with I-99 is that the corridor makes zero sense.  How many people are driving between Altoona and Painted Post?  Not many, not even just general corridor rather than going to/from those specific destinations or that specific route.  The three pieces (Bedford-State College, western part of the route connecting I-80 to Williamsport on each side, and US 15) don't really fit together - they're more a Frankenstein conglomeration.  On the other hand, a lot of people drive between Rochester and Harrisburg (or at least that corridor); it would make sense as a northern extension of I-83, if only PennDOT had built the Harrisburg-Selinsgrove piece as a freeway.  I-99 as it aspires to be (to say less of what it actually exists as) makes zero sense even ignoring any grid concerns.

Heh.  I had a college friend when I lived in DC who was from Rochester.  He used US 15 to get back home.

So, there you go:  It's an important connection between Rochester and our nation's capital. :D

"Cities with Sound Hotels"

I can't decide if this means they are financially stable, or if they do something related to noise.

Quote from: GaryV on December 07, 2022, 08:08:46 AM
"Cities with Sound Hotels"

I can't decide if this means they are financially stable, or if they do something related to noise.

That reminds me of a few years ago when I stayed at the Hilton in Heathrow Airport. Didn't even have to leave the airport. I don't know what they did with the walls, but it was the quietest hotel room I've ever had.

Quote from: Rothman on December 07, 2022, 06:55:16 AM

Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2022, 09:33:09 PM
My issue with I-99 is that the corridor makes zero sense.  How many people are driving between Altoona and Painted Post?  Not many, not even just general corridor rather than going to/from those specific destinations or that specific route.  The three pieces (Bedford-State College, western part of the route connecting I-80 to Williamsport on each side, and US 15) don't really fit together - they're more a Frankenstein conglomeration.  On the other hand, a lot of people drive between Rochester and Harrisburg (or at least that corridor); it would make sense as a northern extension of I-83, if only PennDOT had built the Harrisburg-Selinsgrove piece as a freeway.  I-99 as it aspires to be (to say less of what it actually exists as) makes zero sense even ignoring any grid concerns.

Heh.  I had a college friend when I lived in DC who was from Rochester.  He used US 15 to get back home.

So, there you go:  It's an important connection between Rochester and our nation's capital. :D

The US 15 part is, but I highly doubt your friend went via Altoona.  That's why I think it would make more sense for that part to be an extension of I-83, were the missing freeway link ever to be built.  I would guess there's a lot more traffic taking that route than there is heading to/from Rochester or Binghamton to/from Altoona or even State College.

Quote from: GaryV on December 07, 2022, 08:08:46 AM
"Cities with Sound Hotels"

I can't decide if this means they are financially stable, or if they do something related to noise.

Excuse me, sir, are you lost?

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

I have a fundamental disagreement with this argument, not just with highway numbering, but government in general. The purpose of the executive branch is to carry out the will of the legislative branch. I've mentioned this before. I think the elected officials from a community have a better idea of what needs to be done than a career bureaucrat in Frankfort or DC.

There's something brewing here that's related. Currently, executive branch state agencies can hire lobbyists to advocate before the legislature for their budgets and other requests. There's probably going to be legislation filed to prohibit that practice. The thought is that the legislature -- elected from across the state -- should set the priorities and the funding, and the executive agencies should carry those out. The executive shouldn't say what it wants done and then ask the legislature to approve. The legislature should tell the executive what to do and provide the funding for it.

I hear it in my own agency. Snide comments about "armchair engineers." I've had some discussions with people who seem genuinely surprised that I'd side with the community members who prefer a traffic signal over a J-turn/RCUT at an intersection. I don't want the government to wield the power. I want the people to prevail and the public servants to actually serve the public instead of dictating what the public gets.

I know I've told the story before about the decision to put a traffic light at an intersection on the AA Highway in Lewis County several years ago. Community members kept pushing for a signal because of a large number of wrecks, yet the engineers kept saying the intersection didn't meet warrants. The KYTC secretary at the time overruled the engineers and ordered the installation of a signal.

Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2022, 09:33:09 PM
My issue with I-99 is that the corridor makes zero sense.

Tell that to the ARC. They designated the ADHS corridors.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2022, 01:07:00 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

I have a fundamental disagreement with this argument, not just with highway numbering, but government in general. The purpose of the executive branch is to carry out the will of the legislative branch. I've mentioned this before. I think the elected officials from a community have a better idea of what needs to be done than a career bureaucrat in Frankfort or DC.

There's something brewing here that's related. Currently, executive branch state agencies can hire lobbyists to advocate before the legislature for their budgets and other requests. There's probably going to be legislation filed to prohibit that practice. The thought is that the legislature -- elected from across the state -- should set the priorities and the funding, and the executive agencies should carry those out. The executive shouldn't say what it wants done and then ask the legislature to approve. The legislature should tell the executive what to do and provide the funding for it.

I hear it in my own agency. Snide comments about "armchair engineers." I've had some discussions with people who seem genuinely surprised that I'd side with the community members who prefer a traffic signal over a J-turn/RCUT at an intersection. I don't want the government to wield the power. I want the people to prevail and the public servants to actually serve the public instead of dictating what the public gets.

I know I've told the story before about the decision to put a traffic light at an intersection on the AA Highway in Lewis County several years ago. Community members kept pushing for a signal because of a large number of wrecks, yet the engineers kept saying the intersection didn't meet warrants. The KYTC secretary at the time overruled the engineers and ordered the installation of a signal.

It's a balancing act. The government, with legislative approval, also hires experts in their fields. (ie, traffic engineers) At some point, their professional opinion needs to be respected above those of the local officials, who may have any number of reasons to oppose something suggested by the DOT. But of course, your last paragraph is a good example of when local opinion matters.

But as I said, it's a balancing act.

The problem with listening to the public is that you only her the squeaky wheels.

Engineering expertise helps bust through bias.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2022, 01:07:00 PM
Tell that to the ARC. They designated the ADHS corridors.

Looking at the AHDS map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Development_Highway_System#/media/File:ADHSMap.png) on Wikipedia, I-99 comprises 3-4 different corridors, so if anything, it only proves my point further that I-99 is some weird Frankenstein monster that glues together pieces that individually makes sense into something that overall doesn't.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2022, 01:07:00 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

I have a fundamental disagreement with this argument, not just with highway numbering, but government in general. The purpose of the executive branch is to carry out the will of the legislative branch. I've mentioned this before. I think the elected officials from a community have a better idea of what needs to be done than a career bureaucrat in Frankfort or DC.

There's something brewing here that's related. Currently, executive branch state agencies can hire lobbyists to advocate before the legislature for their budgets and other requests. There's probably going to be legislation filed to prohibit that practice. The thought is that the legislature -- elected from across the state -- should set the priorities and the funding, and the executive agencies should carry those out. The executive shouldn't say what it wants done and then ask the legislature to approve. The legislature should tell the executive what to do and provide the funding for it.

To become a member of Congress, one must:
(1) be at least twenty-five (25) years old;
(2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and
(3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.

Notice how the list does not include (4) know anything at all about transportation or (5) not be a goddamn idiot. The lack of requirements (4) or (5) disqualifies any member of Congress from having anything to do with route numbering in my opinion.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 08, 2022, 04:27:02 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2022, 01:07:00 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

I have a fundamental disagreement with this argument, not just with highway numbering, but government in general. The purpose of the executive branch is to carry out the will of the legislative branch. I've mentioned this before. I think the elected officials from a community have a better idea of what needs to be done than a career bureaucrat in Frankfort or DC.

There's something brewing here that's related. Currently, executive branch state agencies can hire lobbyists to advocate before the legislature for their budgets and other requests. There's probably going to be legislation filed to prohibit that practice. The thought is that the legislature -- elected from across the state -- should set the priorities and the funding, and the executive agencies should carry those out. The executive shouldn't say what it wants done and then ask the legislature to approve. The legislature should tell the executive what to do and provide the funding for it.

To become a member of Congress, one must:
(1) be at least twenty-five (25) years old;
(2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and
(3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.

Notice how the list does not include (4) know anything at all about transportation or (5) not be a goddamn idiot. The lack of requirements (4) or (5) disqualifies any member of Congress from having anything to do with route numbering in my opinion.

This is far from the only example of Congressional overreach. Just about every piece of legislation that contains money for a cabinet department also micromanages the department's use of that money in some way.

But I do think you've hit on the real reason people don't like I-99. I think if FHWA had decided that they wanted I-99 because there were no numbers available that fit into the grid, it would have been less disliked than a Congressman telling the FHWA to make it I-99 because that's what he wanted.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:36:39 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 08, 2022, 04:27:02 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2022, 01:07:00 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

I have a fundamental disagreement with this argument, not just with highway numbering, but government in general. The purpose of the executive branch is to carry out the will of the legislative branch. I've mentioned this before. I think the elected officials from a community have a better idea of what needs to be done than a career bureaucrat in Frankfort or DC.

There's something brewing here that's related. Currently, executive branch state agencies can hire lobbyists to advocate before the legislature for their budgets and other requests. There's probably going to be legislation filed to prohibit that practice. The thought is that the legislature -- elected from across the state -- should set the priorities and the funding, and the executive agencies should carry those out. The executive shouldn't say what it wants done and then ask the legislature to approve. The legislature should tell the executive what to do and provide the funding for it.

To become a member of Congress, one must:
(1) be at least twenty-five (25) years old;
(2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and
(3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.

Notice how the list does not include (4) know anything at all about transportation or (5) not be a goddamn idiot. The lack of requirements (4) or (5) disqualifies any member of Congress from having anything to do with route numbering in my opinion.

This is far from the only example of Congressional overreach. Just about every piece of legislation that contains money for a cabinet department also micromanages the department's use of that money in some way.

But I do think you've hit on the real reason people don't like I-99. I think if FHWA had decided that they wanted I-99 because there were no numbers available that fit into the grid, it would have been less disliked than a Congressman telling the FHWA to make it I-99 because that's what he wanted.

I don't think anyone but the most ardent environmentalists thinks the freeway itself shouldn't exist. I can completely see the need for a freeway along the corridor, even the Frankenstein's monster version up to Rochester. But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 12:48:29 PM
But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2022, 03:40:17 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 12:48:29 PM
But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

Probably because it was there decades before any of us were born, while I-99 is relatively a brand new designation.

Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2022, 03:40:17 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 12:48:29 PM
But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

It's not a violation. It fits the grid in Cleveland  (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5191059,-81.6337894,13.68z?hl=en)if you look close enough. Plus, US highways have been around for 100 years and a lot of them have changed over that time. As we say on occasion where I used to work, "Close enough for government work."

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 05:13:00 PM
It's not a violation. It fits the grid in Cleveland  (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5191059,-81.6337894,13.68z?hl=en)if you look close enough.

Nice catch!

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 08, 2022, 04:42:26 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2022, 03:40:17 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 12:48:29 PM
But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

Probably because it was there decades before any of us were born, while I-99 is relatively a brand new designation.

It was written into law over 30 years ago. It's about time people get over it because IT ISN'T A BIG DEAL!

Nobody's confused cause it doesn't fit a grid. Very few that the designation was written into law. Hell I doubt AASHTO gives it any thought any longer. It's done. Over. Never going to change.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2022, 10:25:54 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 08, 2022, 04:42:26 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2022, 03:40:17 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 12:48:29 PM
But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

Probably because it was there decades before any of us were born, while I-99 is relatively a brand new designation.

It was written into law over 30 years ago. It's about time people get over it because IT ISN'T A BIG DEAL!

Nobody's confused cause it doesn't fit a grid. Very few that the designation was written into law. Hell I doubt AASHTO gives it any thought any longer. It's done. Over. Never going to change.

I think if I were a Congressman I'd sneak in an amendment to a must-pass armed services bill that just says "49 U.S.C. section (whatever) is amended to replace '99' with '76'" just to make a mockery of the whole idea of Congressional route designations. (I mean, it's not like anyone traces down those references before deciding whether to pass or reject an amendment, especially if they happen during a vote-a-rama.)

"Must not be the kind of jerk that would pull a stunt like that" also is not a Constitutional qualification for a Congressman, after all.

I-99 in PA is a good corridor, but how it will connect to I-99 in NYS is a bad corridor. The final completed route will be a zigzagged path. The issue is why it was given that number instead of any other 2 digit number, regardless of what authority signed it into law. Literally any other number between 61 and 99 would have been closer to fitting the grid. I have asked this question a good 10 times now, why did they think that number was the best choice vs any other 2di? One thing I like though is how New York State has the highest 2di and highest 3di due to this routing.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 09, 2022, 05:08:04 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 08, 2022, 10:25:54 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 08, 2022, 04:42:26 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2022, 03:40:17 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 12:48:29 PM
But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

Probably because it was there decades before any of us were born, while I-99 is relatively a brand new designation.

It was written into law over 30 years ago. It's about time people get over it because IT ISN'T A BIG DEAL!

Nobody's confused cause it doesn't fit a grid. Very few that the designation was written into law. Hell I doubt AASHTO gives it any thought any longer. It's done. Over. Never going to change.

I think if I were a Congressman I'd sneak in an amendment to a must-pass armed services bill that just says "49 U.S.C. section (whatever) is amended to replace '99' with '76'" just to make a mockery of the whole idea of Congressional route designations. (I mean, it's not like anyone traces down those references before deciding whether to pass or reject an amendment, especially if they happen during a vote-a-rama.)

"Must not be the kind of jerk that would pull a stunt like that" also is not a Constitutional qualification for a Congressman, after all.

Right now the only Pennsylvanian on the House Ways and Means Committee is from Philly. There are none in the Senate's committee. The makeup of the next Congress will change the members some as the GOP will have control of the House starting next month. So sneaking it through committee may not be too difficult.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2022, 01:07:00 PM
I have a fundamental disagreement with this argument, not just with highway numbering, but government in general. The purpose of the executive branch is to carry out the will of the legislative branch. I've mentioned this before. I think the elected officials from a community have a better idea of what needs to be done than a career bureaucrat in Frankfort or DC.

There's something brewing here that's related. Currently, executive branch state agencies can hire lobbyists to advocate before the legislature for their budgets and other requests. There's probably going to be legislation filed to prohibit that practice. The thought is that the legislature -- elected from across the state -- should set the priorities and the funding, and the executive agencies should carry those out. The executive shouldn't say what it wants done and then ask the legislature to approve. The legislature should tell the executive what to do and provide the funding for it.

I hear it in my own agency. Snide comments about "armchair engineers." I've had some discussions with people who seem genuinely surprised that I'd side with the community members who prefer a traffic signal over a J-turn/RCUT at an intersection. I don't want the government to wield the power. I want the people to prevail and the public servants to actually serve the public instead of dictating what the public gets.

To a point.  But this viewpoint, especially at the local level, can create the NIMBY attitude that blocks projects and improvements.

And just because it's something the local public wants doesn't mean it's a good idea to actually do.

QuoteI know I've told the story before about the decision to put a traffic light at an intersection on the AA Highway in Lewis County several years ago. Community members kept pushing for a signal because of a large number of wrecks, yet the engineers kept saying the intersection didn't meet warrants. The KYTC secretary at the time overruled the engineers and ordered the installation of a signal.

The engineers may not have been wholly wrong here.  Traffic signals, especially on higher-speed arterials like the AA Highway, are not a panacea for crashes.  In fact, there are numerous examples where traffic signal installation INCREASED the crash rate.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 09, 2022, 05:08:04 AM
I think if I were a Congressman I'd sneak in an amendment to a must-pass armed services bill that just says "49 U.S.C. section (whatever) is amended to replace '99' with '76'" just to make a mockery of the whole idea of Congressional route designations. (I mean, it's not like anyone traces down those references before deciding whether to pass or reject an amendment, especially if they happen during a vote-a-rama.)

"Must not be the kind of jerk that would pull a stunt like that" also is not a Constitutional qualification for a Congressman, after all.

This reminds me of missed opportunity here.  Our local congressman, David Price (D-NC 4th) is retiring after 17 terms in Congress (not all consecutive).  But he finishes as Chair of the House Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.  He has always had an open door for his constituents, and being in the transportation industry, I've always wanted a chance to talk to him about many of the topics discussed here on AARoads and elsewhere.  I doubt that the more humble David Price will have any roads named after him during his lifetime, unlike the fellow that Scott5114 is referring to. 

You mean Bud Schuster? :bigass:

If so, I saw the signs along his beloved I-99 referring the road is "The Bud Schuster Byway."

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:45:17 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 06:28:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

How does this compare to your feelings about the I-69xyz web in south Texas?

I-69* is worse than I-99 because not only was the numbering system hijacked by elected officials there, it wasn't even done in a way that makes a whole lot of sense. At least you can say I-99 makes navigation easier by making the freeway route clearly labeled as such. I-69 is just baffling to anyone who doesn't intuitively "get" road numbering. ("Wait, get on I-69E? But I want to go south! Won't going east make me drive into the Gulf?")

I-2 is cool and can stay.

I-69E, the E is in the shield and thus part of the route number.
It's totally different from EAST I-69.

Also, when I-69E appears, there must be another ramp towards I-69C and I-69W.
Drivers will know that the route is being split.

Can it be done? Yes, of course it can.
Should it be done? No, unless it is purely a result of renumbering to fix the broken renumbering system and the road is given another interstate designation.

Quote from: geek11111 on February 17, 2023, 10:43:38 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:45:17 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 06:28:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

How does this compare to your feelings about the I-69xyz web in south Texas?

I-69* is worse than I-99 because not only was the numbering system hijacked by elected officials there, it wasn't even done in a way that makes a whole lot of sense. At least you can say I-99 makes navigation easier by making the freeway route clearly labeled as such. I-69 is just baffling to anyone who doesn't intuitively "get" road numbering. ("Wait, get on I-69E? But I want to go south! Won't going east make me drive into the Gulf?")

I-2 is cool and can stay.

I-69E, the E is in the shield and thus part of the route number.
It's totally different from EAST I-69.

Also, when I-69E appears, there must be another ramp towards I-69C and I-69W.
Drivers will know that the route is being split.

And the award for most useless bump of 2023 goes to...

Aw heck, this guy's back?  I may need to go on another sabbatical.

When the Big One hits, and California drops into the ocean, they'll have to decommission a few...

Quote from: pderocco on February 18, 2023, 12:22:07 AM
When the Big One hits, and California drops into the ocean, they'll have to decommission a few...

If only California drops into the ocean none would have to be decommissioned.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 18, 2023, 12:32:08 AM

Quote from: pderocco on February 18, 2023, 12:22:07 AM
When the Big One hits, and California drops into the ocean, they'll have to decommission a few...

If only California drops into the ocean none would have to be decommissioned.

Not true. We'll have a pre-commissioning decommissioning of I-7 or I-9 :bigass:

Quote from: pderocco on February 18, 2023, 12:22:07 AM
When the Big One hits, and California drops into the ocean, they'll have to decommission a few...

It's a transform plate boundary out there. Ain't shit gonna sink below the ocean.  If anything, earthquakes wrinkle land higher along the San Andreas system of faults.  That's what's going on with all those hills in the West Bay.

If any calamity is going to decom a mainline interstate, it'll be sea level rise drowning something.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:45:17 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 06:28:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

How does this compare to your feelings about the I-69xyz web in south Texas?

I-69* is worse than I-99 because not only was the numbering system hijacked by elected officials there, it wasn't even done in a way that makes a whole lot of sense. At least you can say I-99 makes navigation easier by making the freeway route clearly labeled as such. I-69 is just baffling to anyone who doesn't intuitively "get" road numbering. ("Wait, get on I-69E? But I want to go south! Won't going east make me drive into the Gulf?")

I-2 is cool and can stay.

Totally agree. I am baffled why they didn't pick one to be I-69 and make the rest 3dis of I-69

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 02, 2022, 04:23:17 PM
Does the portion of the former I-95 in the Boston area that follows the Tobin Bridge and the US 1 expressway/Jersey freeway count?

The Tobin and the Northeast Expressway (as far north as Cutler Circle/Route 60) were designated I-95 for a while; but they were never linked to any other part of the Interstate system. At the south, I-95 would have followed the unbuilt Southwest Expressway and part of the Inner Belt. To the north, the Northeast Expressway was supposed to be extended through Lynn and Saugus to meet Route 128. The decision not to build any of those roads was made by Governor Sargent in 1970. It took a few years after that to reroute the I-95 designation around the city of Boston, using Route 128.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that any signs were posted along the Northeast Expressway to indicate that it was I-95. Certainly none of the big green signs had any I-95 designation. At most there might have been a few I-95 shields posted next to the breakdown lane.

Some maps did show that part of the route as I-95.

At that time, US 1 was still routed via nearby local streets, Broadway in Everett and Malden.

Quote from: SeriesE on February 21, 2023, 12:01:41 PM
I am baffled why they didn't pick one to be I-69 and make the rest 3dis of I-69

This has been explained:

Quote from: sparker on January 05, 2017, 08:46:56 PM
Back in 2010, I (via my consulting entity) submitted a paper to the Alliance for I-69 Texas suggesting just that except for designating US 281 as I-169.  Their response was that they were inclined to follow the original "placeholder" designations of "Central" & "East" as the signed designations (a) because it followed the "letter of the law" as laid out in the HPC 18 legislative description, and (b) so as not to confuse the legislators tasked with pushing the various funding bills through Congress.  Obviously they followed suit with the "69W" designation to Laredo using the same rationale. 

My take on this is the Alliance used the "69" number as a virtual trademark -- to the extent that each aspect of the corridor was to retain some sort of reference to 69.  Frankly, I was shocked to see that they had selected I-2 for the US 83 connector; I had expected it would be I-569 or something similar.  But since no suffix was previously suggested for the Freer-Corpus added segment, I wouldn't be surprised if, when funding is sought for any activity on that segment, that it comes with a I-6 designation to match I-2 to the south as a "cross-trident" connector.

I guess the Alliance didn't trust their selected Congressional critters to do anything except walk & talk a straight line between point A (concept) and point B (funding & construction).

Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2017, 03:31:17 PM
It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified).  I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say.   In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!

Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2017, 08:27:34 PM
Back circa late 2010 or early 2011 I submitted an analysis to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, in which I stated that the suffixed branches within the I-69 cluster were simply placeholders, since they were spelled out rather than stated as a single suffixed number (i.e. I-69 East vis-à-vis I-69E), and as such, could be changed quite easily by a simple alteration of the HPC 18/20 language.  I suggested that I-69 itself replace I-69 East down to the border at Brownsville; that the segment along US 59 from Laredo to Victoria should become I-6, and that I-69 Central become I-169, which would then shunt east over US 83 to the main I-69 trunk at Harlingen (no I-2 in sight for this proposal).  Also: the segment from Tenaha north to Texarkana should be I-47.  Part of the rationale I expressed to the Alliance was that the suffixed numbers violated FHWA and AASHTO guidelines -- and although the legislated aspect of the corridor designations did in fact allow them to ignore those guidelines, it might be more appropriate from a regional standpoint to consider better-fitting alternative designations. 

The response was that while my ideas had merit, the Congresspersons on board the proposal didn't want to "rock the boat" by substituting numbers that late in the game, that all their documentation referred to the branches as some form of the original "69" proposal -- besides, it had become recognized as a sort of "trademark" for the proposal in general and that the internal preference was for some iteration of "69" to be applied to all corridors covered by the original legislation (obviously that didn't apply to the I-2 corridor, as it was addressed separately and later). 

And that was the end of that!  However, when I-2 was designated a couple of years later, I was as surprised as anyone -- fully expecting US 83 to be I-169 or I-569, etc. to "keep it in the family", so to speak.  I guess the Laredo-bound ambitions of that corridor had a bit to do with the choice. 

Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2018, 10:38:07 PM
Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about.  Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).   

Quote from: sparker on May 02, 2019, 09:18:46 PM
Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following:  I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen.  Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!).  Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation.  I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers.  That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made.  Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box!  :sleep:

At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless.  But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I!  But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).

Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2020, 05:29:57 PM
... the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   

Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2022, 01:50:07 PM
No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 12:57:23 PM
Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East".  And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.

Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2022, 04:59:27 PM
The actual Interstate designations waited until those segments were ready for and requested to be added to the Interstate system proper...this is what vdeane makes her reference to.

However, reading through the actual TEA-21 legislation (copied in the 1998 MTR post linked upthread), the legislation makes it pretty clear that I-69C and I-69E were written into Federal law in that act (much as I-99 had been previous to that), so with those two routes it was "settled" in 1998 when TEA-21 was passed.

Someone mentioned the OG I-86 and I-84, but also rememember that originally the highway from Hartford to Providence was going to be I-82.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 19, 2023, 12:44:42 PM

Quote from: pderocco on February 18, 2023, 12:22:07 AM
When the Big One hits, and California drops into the ocean, they'll have to decommission a few...

It's a transform plate boundary out there. Ain't shit gonna sink below the ocean.  If anything, earthquakes wrinkle land higher along the San Andreas system of faults.  That's what's going on with all those hills in the West Bay.

If any calamity is going to decom a mainline interstate, it'll be sea level rise drowning something.

The parts of California most likely to go underwater are the river confluence area around Stockton and the Salton Sink. The most decommission candidate IMO is I-4 should most of Florida either become ocean or revert back to swamp. I-12 along the north edge of Lake Pontchartrain is also a good candidate. 

Quote from: skluth on February 24, 2023, 04:50:49 PM
I-12 along the north edge of Lake Pontchartrain is also a good candidate.

I'd think it would be a bit more likely that I-12 would get decommissioned by having I-10 rerouted over it in the scenario that New Orleans sinks underwater.

Quote from: geek11111 on February 17, 2023, 10:43:38 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:45:17 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2022, 06:28:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

How does this compare to your feelings about the I-69xyz web in south Texas?

I-69* is worse than I-99 because not only was the numbering system hijacked by elected officials there, it wasn't even done in a way that makes a whole lot of sense. At least you can say I-99 makes navigation easier by making the freeway route clearly labeled as such. I-69 is just baffling to anyone who doesn't intuitively "get" road numbering. ("Wait, get on I-69E? But I want to go south! Won't going east make me drive into the Gulf?")

I-2 is cool and can stay.

I-69E, the E is in the shield and thus part of the route number.
It's totally different from EAST I-69.

Also, when I-69E appears, there must be another ramp towards I-69C and I-69W.
Drivers will know that the route is being split.

No shit? You and I know that because we know how these things work, but there are some people with licenses that are still unclear on the concepts of things like what an "exit only" lane is or whether you can go on a flashing yellow arrow.

And the exact example I gave was one that I had to work around from my Kansas family members when trying to give them directions involving I-35W in Fort Worth ("wait, am I supposed to go south or west on I-35?"), so it's not like it's never happened. And yes, they had a map in front of them with I-35 and I-35W shields on it, so they could even see what I was talking about and still had a problem understanding it.

I mean, it makes sense.  The number is 35W, not 35WEST.  Or 69E, not 69EAST.

I haven't referred to the 35 splits as "THIRTY-FIVE EAST" or "THIRTY-FIVE WEST" in years, just to make sure I'm being clear.  It's always "THIRTY-FIVE E" or "THIRTY-FIVE DOUBLE-U".

The problem, however, is when people actually DO interpret the letters to mean what they almost kind of mean.  If someone driving north through Iowa sees a VMS that says "I 35 N CLOSED @ US 20 / USE ALT ROUTE", they would correctly interpret it as "INTERSTATE 35 NORTH".  But later, when they get to Minnesota and see a VMS that says "I 35W CLOSED AT I 494 / USE ALT ROUTE", they might think it doesn't apply to them because they aren't going west.

Right, and there are roads where the letter has nothing to do with the direction, too. Oklahoma 74E is west of Oklahoma 74, it's just the fifth spur route that was designated off of 74. (There's also a 74B, 74C, and 74F, and there were A and D at one point in time.)

But what I'm getting at is we know this stuff because we live and breathe it. People who have never encountered it before until they try driving in Texas the first time might interpret it right the first time, or they might not. But it would be better to eliminate the possibility for any confusion by avoiding directional suffixes entirely.

Quote from: kphoger on December 02, 2022, 10:15:37 PM
Plenty of railroads over the years have gone from double track to single track in order to cut down on costs.  Could something like that apply to an Interstate?

I-180 in Illinois would be a top candidate, and it has been studied, but no real movement to do so. Maintaining additional lanes costs money, but lane removals do too. IDOT just rehabbed the 4-lane IL River bridge, so they are apparently not in a hurry.