News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Cities adverse to 3dis

Started by Roadgeekteen, January 05, 2019, 09:12:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadgeekteen

I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5


hotdogPi

Albuquerque.
Orlando.

Side note: Did you mean "adverse" or "averse"? They both work here, but they have different meanings.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 05, 2019, 09:12:48 PM
I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?

I actually asked ADOT why that was.  The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.  I suppose now it really doesn't matter given that the Loop Freeways were completely State funded.


oscar

#3
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 05, 2019, 09:12:48 PM
I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?

Arizona is pretty meh about pursuing Interstate status instead of keeping new freeways as state routes. For Phoenix in particular, new freeways were built without using Federal highway funds, which meant less bureaucracy. Pursuing Interstate status would inflict some of the bureaucracy that was avoided by forgoing Federal funds.

For the cities 1 mentioned, the Albuquerque area has at most one freeway that might qualify for 3di status, and it's not very long. Orlando has a lot of freeways, but they are mostly toll roads, and like Phoenix they might've been built without Federal funds. Toll funding can also complicate getting Interstate status.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

roadman65

Although St. Louis has plenty of 3 digits within its two state metro area, still both MO 370 and MO 364 both are freeways and do connect to the system and do not have such designations.  MO 370 especially, being its part of a bypass of the City of St. Louis for I-70.

Lakeland, FL has the infamous Polk Parkway that is a loop that begins and ends at I-4 and is not a 3 digit.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

froggie

Quote from: Max RockatanskyI actually asked ADOT why that was.  The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.

There's a bit of truth in this.  ADOT requested mileage for six supplemental Interstate routes in Phoenix and three in Tucson from the 1968 mileage addition.  Only two were approved...one in each city.  One became today's I-10 along the Papago Freeway between I-17 (Exit 143) and AZ 51/AZ 202.  The other was the cancelled I-710 in Tucson (today's South Kino Pkwy).

Quote from: OscarToll funding can also complicate getting Interstate status.

Used to be the case, but no longer.  Under current Federal law (and going back at least to MAP-21), toll roads that meet Interstate standards can be added as non-chargeable Interstate.

1995hoo

Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2019, 10:07:20 PM
....

Lakeland, FL has the infamous Polk Parkway that is a loop that begins and ends at I-4 and is not a 3 digit.

The east side of that is–or at least was the last time I was through there–a two-lane road with a toll plaza in the middle of the two-lane section. That part of the road wasn't remotely close to legitimate Interstate standards.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Big John

Wisconsin.  WI 172 (east of I-41), WI 441, and US45 (Richfield to West Bend) could be 3DIs.

Revive 755

* Perhaps Tulsa, OK?  It has I-244, but I-444 is unsigned, and it wouldn't be too hard to have another even x44 as a southern bypass.

* Dallas, TX?  It has I-635, but I-345 is unsigned, TX 12 could easily be an x35, and I think many states would have had the US 80 freeway switched to a 3di when I-20 was relocated to the south.

adventurernumber1

Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2019, 10:11:50 PM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI actually asked ADOT why that was.  The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.

There's a bit of truth in this.  ADOT requested mileage for six supplemental Interstate routes in Phoenix and three in Tucson from the 1968 mileage addition.  Only two were approved...one in each city.  One became today's I-10 along the Papago Freeway between I-17 (Exit 143) and AZ 51/AZ 202.  The other was the cancelled I-710 in Tucson (today's South Kino Pkwy).

That is really interesting. I always wondered why I-10 crossed I-17 in downtown Phoenix, and then immediately met it again at its southern terminus, making the shape of a small rectangle together.
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

US 89

#10
Salt Lake City has I-215, but has never pursued any further Interstate designations, despite the existence of other interstate-standard freeways like the east half of SR-201. The southeast quadrant of 215 was originally I-415, perhaps due to uncertainty over the final routing of that section; the two were later combined into one 215 designation.

Quote from: 1 on January 05, 2019, 09:22:17 PM
Albuquerque.

That’s only because they’ve never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on.  NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn’t even connect to I-25 for a very long time — it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.

sparker

Some larger TX cities seem to be curiously 3di averse; metro Austin being one and El Paso the other.  The first seems to take either a contrarian or, at best, a "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude toward Interstates in general, preferring their nascent network of toll facilities, whereas the latter does have the short and unremarked I-110 as a border connector, but has shown little interest in deploying a bypass (presumably around the north side of town).  And the TX cities that do have the rare 3di seem to be quite contented with their singular loops or arcs built during the chargeable era; adding to that doesn't seem to be in the cards, regardless of levels of development and/or growth.  Even the one relatively obvious place to put a 3di spur (Beaumont-Port Arthur) has yet to do so.  Not counting the two spurs stemming from the I-69 family tree (169, 369), the fact that there are only the four regularly signed loops/bypasses, all part of the original Yellow Book plans, attests to a general statewide indifference to the concept.

CNGL-Leudimin

Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 05, 2019, 09:22:17 PM
Albuquerque.

That's only because they've never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on.  NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn't even connect to I-25 for a very long time – it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.

Besides that, it seems NMDOT doesn't know what 3dis are. They have never even planned one, probably the only state DOT to have never planned a 3di (besides the Alaska DOT&PF).
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on January 06, 2019, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 05, 2019, 09:22:17 PM
Albuquerque.

That's only because they've never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on.  NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn't even connect to I-25 for a very long time – it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.

Besides that, it seems NMDOT doesn't know what 3dis are. They have never even planned one, probably the only state DOT to have never planned a 3di (besides the Alaska DOT&PF).

The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces.  The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards. 

Pink Jazz

#14
If hypothetically the Phoenix area freeways can become 3dis, here is how I would number them:

       
  • Loop 101 - Interstate 410
  • Loop 202 - Interstate 610
  • Loop 303 - Interstate 217
  • SR 51 - Interstate 510
  • SR 143 - Interstate 110
  • US 60 - Interstate 317 (replaces I-17 south of I-10 and concurrent with freeway portion of US 60 from Phoenix to Apache Junction)

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 06, 2019, 02:29:40 PM
If hypothetically the Phoenix area freeways can become 3dis, here is how I would number them:

       
  • Loop 101 - Interstate 410
  • Loop 202 - Interstate 610
  • Loop 303 - Interstate 217
  • SR 51 - Interstate 510
  • SR 143 - Interstate 110
  • US 60 - Interstate 317 (replaces I-17 south of I-10 and concurrent with freeway portion of US 60 from Phoenix to Apache Junction)

303 and 143 have a ways to go to meet Interstate standards.  I'm not sure where the US 60 interchange is at but that would obviously need to be replaced along with all the at-grade intersections east of there.  143 would need a real interchange with I-10 instead of the dinky stop light/partial interchange it has now. 

Also doesn't ADOT have a policy about one highway ending in the middle of another?  Wouldn't that be a detriment to signing US 60 on the Red Mountain Freeway as really anything other than what it is?  I think ADOT put a more useful system in place with the Loop Freeways, considering the early snub for Federal funding on 3Ds it's no wonder they aren't interested. 

US 89

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces.  The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards.

There’s also the US 84/285 freeway in Santa Fe, but it’s an at-grade expressway between the freeway section and the I-25 interchange, and I’d bet it isn’t interstate standard anyway. Took me forever to figure out the exit numbers on that; they’re based on a N/S US 84 with milepost zero at the US 60 junction in Fort Sumner.

sprjus4

#17
Durham, NC with the Durham Freeway (NC 147) but it's planned to become I-885 in the near future.
Also all of the U.S. 421 freeway extending from I-40 and crossing I-77 in the middle to end up Wilkesboro. It's not fully up to interstate standards though and would require wider shoulders, but that's about it.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 03:55:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces.  The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards.

There's also the US 84/285 freeway in Santa Fe, but it's an at-grade expressway between the freeway section and the I-25 interchange, and I'd bet it isn't interstate standard anyway. Took me forever to figure out the exit numbers on that; they're based on a N/S US 84 with milepost zero at the US 60 junction in Fort Sumner.

Completely forgot that one was even a thing.   

dvferyance

Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.

PHLBOS

I-695 was to be constructed in & adjacent to Boston (aka the Inner Belt); but such never became reality.  As a matter of fact, there's no 3di whatsoever inside I-495 in eastern MA.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

ilpt4u

Quote from: dvferyance on January 06, 2019, 04:47:49 PM
Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Would you switch the I-76 and I-376 designations, to send I-76 into the city? Same with I-79 and I-279? With a short Multiplex of I-76 and I-79 to get back to the current I-79 SE of Downtown?

Seems a bit silly to me.

Revive 755

Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 05, 2019, 09:22:17 PM
Albuquerque.

That's only because they've never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on.  NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn't even connect to I-25 for a very long time – it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.

Based on Page A19 of https://books.google.com/books?id=1442AQAAMAAJ&dq=albuquerque%20metronet&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q=albuquerque%20metronet&f=false, it looks like Albuquerque did several studies for a beltway though.

TheStranger

#23
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 06, 2019, 09:09:46 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 06, 2019, 04:47:49 PM
Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Would you switch the I-76 and I-376 designations, to send I-76 into the city? Same with I-79 and I-279? With a short Multiplex of I-76 and I-79 to get back to the current I-79 SE of Downtown?

Seems a bit silly to me.

Corrected:
Amusingly enough, at one point I-70   covered I-79 between today's I-70 and I-376, then I-376 east to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and finally down the turnpike to join up with I-70S (the current I-70).

I-376 between I-279 and the Turnpike was part of I-76 at one point, and all of I-279 and the portion of I-376 that used to be part of I-279 also were once part of I-79.
Chris Sampang

sparker

Quote from: TheStranger on January 06, 2019, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 06, 2019, 09:09:46 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 06, 2019, 04:47:49 PM
Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Would you switch the I-76 and I-376 designations, to send I-76 into the city? Same with I-79 and I-279? With a short Multiplex of I-76 and I-79 to get back to the current I-79 SE of Downtown?

Seems a bit silly to me.

Amusingly enough, at one point I-70 had a branch route (I-70N) that covered I-79 between today's I-70 and I-376, then I-376 east to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and finally down the turnpike to join up with I-70S (the current I-70).

I-376 between I-279 and the Turnpike was part of I-76 at one point, and all of I-279 and the portion of I-376 that used to be part of I-279 also were once part of I-79.

There was never a I-70N in western PA; before the 1961 southern extension of I-79 into WV, mainline I-70 was to utilize present I-79 north of Washington to present I-376, then east over I-376 to the PA Turnpike, which was I-80S coming in from Ohio.  At that time I-79 and I-279 were reversed, with I-79 coming in to town and terminating at I-70, while I-279 was the western bypass.  I-70S was the current I-70 east of Washington to the Turnpike at New Stanton.  Of course, that partially changed in '61; I-79 was to multiplex with I-70 from central Pittsburgh down to Washington and then strike out on its extended course south from there paralleling US 19 into WV.  The configuration further changed in '64 with the commissioning of I-76; at that time I-70 was rerouted over former I-70S; I-79 became the sole occupant of the Washington-Pittsburgh segment, and I-76 was designated over former I-70 (the Penn-Lincoln Parkway) from downtown Pittsburgh east to the Turnpike at Monroeville; I-80N was truncated back to that point, with I-76 taking over its former route east of there.  The 79/279 "swap" came later, as did the rerouting of I-76 onto the Turnpike west of Monroeville, commensurate with the designation of I-376 over the former I-76 route into downtown -- as well as the full deletion of I-80S in PA and OH. 



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