Interstate Highway Numbering Nonsense

[SEWIGuy]

It would be entirely west of I-77 so there would actually be no numbers left. But since I-95 is near there, a duplicate of the ones you listed is justifiable.

I-3 would be fine too.

[kphoger]

... CA-210. This is one of the few instances I can think of where a 3di does not meet its parent in a strict technical sense.

Technically, I-585 no longer meets its parent.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Nor do any of the x78s.

[Quillz]

... CA-210. This is one of the few instances I can think of where a 3di does not meet its parent in a strict technical sense.

Technically, I-585 no longer meets its parent.

Neat, never knew about this one. Wiki says it happened in 1995 when its parent was realigned.

[SeriesE]

I-580 (California) is really 4 different highways with one number

[MultiMillionMiler]

As long as you don't have to get off at an exit to stay on the same highway, it's fine with me. I can't stand that I-76/I-80 right-of-way-switch in Ohio.

[kramie13]

Interstate 82 in Oregon and Washington.  It's *north* of I-84!  It should be a north-south route.  I-9, perhaps?

[SEWIGuy]

Interstate 82 in Oregon and Washington.  It's *north* of I-84!  It should be a north-south route.  I-9, perhaps?

Obviously the reason it is north of I-84 is because I-84 was renumbered from I-80N in the late 70s.  Long after I-82 was numbered.

But a n/s interstate would have worked too.

[MultiMillionMiler]

What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.

[SEWIGuy]

What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.

But it's already an interstate. Why would you remove the designation?

[kirbykart]

What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.

It's already an interstate, and a good one at that. The fastest route between Seattle and a big chunk of the US is via this Interstate.

[Bruce]

Interstate 82 in Oregon and Washington.  It's *north* of I-84!  It should be a north-south route.  I-9, perhaps?

It's an NW-SE route that connects to an east-west corridor (Seattle to Boise/SLC). No one here would refer to Seattle-SLC as "heading south".

This is like the fourth time I've explained this in the past month. Great example of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.

[Amaury]

What a route connects to isn't really relevant. What's relevant is how long a route runs in one way. That, at least in part, is the deciding factor on whether a route is west to east (even number) or south to north (odd number). If a route has a total of 50 miles and 35 of those miles run west to east and only 15 of those miles run south to north, it is a west to east route (I'm not including northwest, northeast, southwest, or southeast directionality in this example). Interstate 82 runs for a total of 143.58 miles, according to Wikipedia; however, there's nothing that says how many of those miles run west/east and how many of those miles run south/north. And for the diagonal sections where it runs northwest or southeast, do they run more west/east or do they run more south/north. There's nothing anywhere, for any route, that I can find that breaks down these miles. For example, out of Interstate 90's (hypothetical) 10 miles, 2 run south and north and 8 run west and east. The routing map on the Wikipedia article for Interstate 82 doesn't help since it's hard to tell which way it runs more in.

Washington State Route 17 primarily connects to several west to east corridors:

• Washington State Route 26
• Washington State Route 170
• Washington State Route 262
• Interstate 90
• Washington State Route 282
• Washington State Route 28
• US Route 2
• Washington State Route 172
• Washington State Route 174

If we use that logic, then Washington State Route 17 should be a west to east route (even number), but it's not. It's properly a south to north route (odd number). So, the logic is flawed. However, for a more similar/comparable example to the Interstate 82 scenario, Interstate 15, which is a south to north route, connects to several west to east interstate corridors, such as Interstate 90, Interstate 84, and Interstate 80. And it's a south to north route, as indicated by its odd number.

Also, a lot of people use Interstate 82 simply to travel between Ellensburg and Yakima, or areas near Yakima. And Yakima is south of Ellensburg, and vice-versa, Ellensburg is north of Yakima.

[MultiMillionMiler]

What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.

But it's already an interstate. Why would you remove the designation?

Because it violated the numbering convention, and apparently it is cheaper to not have routes as interstates. This is hindsight though, I am saying it should never have been one to begin with.

[Bruce]

Washington State Route 17 primarily connects to several west to east corridors:

If we use that logic, then Washington State Route 17 should be a west to east route (even number), but it's not. It's properly a south to north route (odd number). So, the logic is flawed.

Complete misunderstanding of the logic. I-82 is a component of a LONGER corridor in the SAME direction. SR 17 is not, those are just intersecting routes.

An actual example would be SR 522, which runs SW-NE but is an even number. Why? Because it forms part of a longer east-west corridor that connects Seattle to Stevens Pass via US 2. You just can't look at numbers in isolation.

Also, a lot of people use Interstate 82 simply to travel between Ellensburg and Yakima, or areas near Yakima. And Yakima is south of Ellensburg, and vice-versa, Ellensburg is north of Yakima.

2016 AADT shows that the busiest section north of Selah gets 18,000 daily average vehicles, while the least busiest section between Yakima and I-182 gets 17,000 (and the busiest is well over 30,000). The busiest section is the section that runs more E-W than N-S.

[jp the roadgeek]

What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.

But it's already an interstate. Why would you remove the designation?

Because it violated the numbering convention, and apparently it is cheaper to not have routes as interstates. This is hindsight though, I am saying it should never have been one to begin with.

If you want to keep it an East-west designation, make the useless western I-86 a 3di and give it to existing I-82.  Then you can give I-82 to either I-88 in IL or I-86 in PA-NY

[MultiMillionMiler]

That would be OK too. But all this talk is tempting me on starting a fictional thread on how to feasibly connect the two I-84s in the west and east coast. Give me time to plan this out and what routes to renumber along the way, so I can see if it's feasible or not, thanks.

[kphoger]

Because it violated the numbering convention, and apparently it is cheaper to not have routes as interstates. This is hindsight though, I am saying it should never have been one to begin with.

So many things wrong with that...

1.  The same people who came up with the numbering convention are the ones who renumbered it.  It's their system, so let them do what they want with it.

2.  Violating the numbering convention doesn't affect any driver in any way.  There is no real reason to remove the Interstate designation other than your personal feelings about it.

3.  When the route became an Interstate, it didn't violate any numbering conventions.  So how would it be cheaper to remove the designation now?

4.  Numbering is no reason for a route to not have become an Interstate.  Besides which, see #3 above.

[Scott5114]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.msg2536188#msg2536188

[Amaury]

No one here would refer to Seattle-SLC as "heading south".

That is not totally incorrect, according to the route: https://goo.gl/maps/92TmPobC1HerJAih9

If you're going from Boise, Idaho, to Seattle, Washington, you are heading northwest. Vice-versa, if you're heading from Seattle, Washington, to Boise, Idaho, you are heading southeast. It would definitely, however, be incorrect to say that if you are going from Ellensburg to Yakima, you are heading east, or vice-versa.

Complete misunderstanding of the logic. I-82 is a component of a LONGER corridor in the SAME direction. SR 17 is not, those are just intersecting routes.

An actual example would be SR 522, which runs SW-NE but is an even number. Why? Because it forms part of a longer east-west corridor that connects Seattle to Stevens Pass via US 2. You just can't look at numbers in isolation.

WA 17 still connects to them, just as I-82 connects to I-90 and I-84. But that is also why I provided the I-15 example, which is more comparable. I have no issues with WA 522, as it's much more clear which way it runs (west to east) compared to I-82. I consider WA 522 akin to WA 18 in that regard, as it's also diagonal, but it's clear what the directionality is. I don't expect a route to run perfectly in one direction–in fact, that would be impossible for something like I-90. There are some that do, but it's mostly ones that are really short. I-90 has sections that run south and north. For example, you are technically heading north on I-90 eastbound after crossing the Vantage Bridge here in Washington. Likewise, you are heading south before crossing the Vantage Bridge on I-90 westbound. I was following I-90 on Google Maps across the county yesterday, and there's a section that runs south/north for a significant time in, I think, Illinois. Then as you get closer to New York, there's another section like that as I-90 moves back up closer to the Canadian border. In either case, just because it's not a straight horizontal line across the county, it's clear that it's a west to east route.

I-82 is even-numbered and designated accordingly as west and east. That is correct and matches with even-numbered routes being west and east and odd-numbered routes being south and north. It's the actual routing that I'm questioning. (Honestly, I'm surprised WSDOT didn't do to I-82 what they did with US 101 on the north and east sections of the peninsula. I guess the south/north sections are just not as long as the west and east and reversed south and north sections of US 101.) But at least the even-numbering and directionality match and make sense for I-82. Montana is worse, where several of its highways don't even make sense. For example, Montana Highway 286 is clearly a south to north route and is even designated as such, yet has an even number, which is used for west to east routes. Makes no sense. Similarly, Montana Secondary Highway 471, which isn't even signed, is clearly a west to east route, but has an odd number, which is used for south to north routes. Washington only has one highway like this: WA 548. Even number, but designated as south to north. (Note that I haven't driven this particular highway yet, it's just from what I've read on Wikipedia and seen on Google Maps.)

At the end of the day, I know nothing will change, and as such, I don't really agree with MMM, either. Having said that, if I had something saying something like out of I-82's 143.58 miles, 78.97 miles run west and east, including NW/SE sections that run more west/east, and 64.61 miles run south and north, including NW/SE sections that run more south/north, then it would be clear to me that it's a west to east route. However, there's nothing like that. We just have the total number of miles. And just looking at the routing on a map, it's not clear at all which way it runs more. Whereas if you look at the routing of something like Interstate 405, or even WA 522, on a map, it's clear which way it runs.

[Bruce]

No one here would refer to Seattle-SLC as "heading south".

That is not totally incorrect, according to the route: https://goo.gl/maps/92TmPobC1HerJAih9

If you're going from Boise, Idaho, to Seattle, Washington, you are heading northwest. Vice-versa, if you're heading from Seattle, Washington, to Boise, Idaho, you are heading southeast. It would definitely, however, be incorrect to say that if you are going from Ellensburg to Yakima, you are heading east, or vice-versa.

Human perception does not match cardinal directions. If you asked Seattle residents at random which direction Boise is in, they'd probably say east far more than southeast.

WA 17 still connects to them, just as I-82 connects to I-90 and I-84. But that is also why I provided the I-15 example, which is more comparable. I have no issues with WA 522, as it's much more clear which way it runs (west to east) compared to I-82. I consider WA 522 akin to WA 18 in that regard, as it's also diagonal, but it's clear what the directionality is.

The second part is literally what I am saying. I-82 is one component of a longer corridor, as is SR 18 (when you include I-90). SR 17 can be considered a component of a longer north-south corridor with the same logic when including US 395 and US 97. The general direction of the corridor matters more than what the shorter route actually does.

I-82 is even-numbered and designated accordingly as west and east. That is correct and matches with even-numbered routes being west and east and odd-numbered routes being south and north. It's the actual routing that I'm questioning. (Honestly, I'm surprised WSDOT didn't do to I-82 what they did with US 101 on the north and east sections of the peninsula. I guess the south/north sections are just not as long as the west and east and reversed south and north sections of US 101.)

Changing the directions of an Interstate mid-route would be far more confusing than the US 101 situation, which is a unique case for good reason. The north-south section of I-82 between Ellensburg and Yakima is far shorter than the east-west section of US 101 atop the Olympia Peninsula.

Washington only has one highway like this: WA 548. Even number, but designated as south to north. (Note that I haven't driven this particular highway yet, it's just from what I've read on Wikipedia and seen on Google Maps.)

Montana's numbering system is not consistent and should not be factored in. Washington has several other examples of "misnumbered" highways, mainly in places where a newer highway is added between existing routes and a suitable number is not available. This is the case for SR 116, SR 194, SR 523, and SR 531 (all added in the 1991 batch). SR 548 is a bit odd since it does have available numbers, but perhaps WSDOT felt that guiding people to Birch Bay (a westerly trip from I-5) is a higher priority.

[MultiMillionMiler]

It can affect drivers. Let's say a driver is on I-84, trying to get to I-82, and their phone is dead and they don't know where to go. Knowing the numbering convention, they might decide to head south thinking they will eventually run into I-82 because it should be south of I-84. So they do that. Not knowing they are going completely the wrong way. That's a reason the numbering should be followed. There's only 99 numbers, so about 50 in each compass direction, it shouldn't be that hard to follow.

[hotdogPi]

It can affect drivers. Let's say a driver is on I-84, trying to get to I-84, and their phone is dead and they don't know where to go. Knowing the numbering convention, they might decide to head south thinking they will eventually run into I-82 because it should be south of I-84. So they do that. Not knowing they are going completely the wrong way. That's a reason the numbering should be followed. There's only 99 numbers, so about 50 in each compass direction, it shouldn't be that hard to follow.

Are you HighwayStar?

[MultiMillionMiler]

Who's HighwayStar?
FritzOwl's twin??

I corrected a typo on my  last post, to get from I-84 to I-82, not to I-84.

[hotdogPi]

Middle of a HighwayStar debate about the grid and how it has to be perfect:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29052.125

(I'm pretty sure you're not actually HighwayStar; you haven't showed any signs of racism unlike his denying that redlining existed or saying that Mount McKinley was the original name of the mountain in Alaska.)