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

How come there is no Interstate 1, 2, 3, ....31, 32, 33, 34, etc ?

Started by Roadman66, October 21, 2011, 05:10:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadman66



agentsteel53

live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Roadman66


Hot Rod Hootenanny

As much as any of us asking why isn't there a roadman 01, 02, 04,....etc.  :poke:
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Scott5114

To actually answer the question without being a smartass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system
There are no interstates with those numbers simply because at the points in the grid that those numbers would occur, there is no current need for an Interstate designation. Should a need arise those numbers would be free to be assigned to the new highway.

Others: when someone has a valid (if somewhat "obvious" to us) question, actually be a decent person and answer the damned question instead of poking fun. This is a warning for the community–moderator action may occur in the future if another thread turns out like this one.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Quillz

Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico all technically have an "Interstate 1," but they aren't really signed as such. A real Interstate 1 might become real if significant portions of US-101 are ever upgraded to interstate standards.

The other numbers that don't yet exist follow the same logic: If older highways were ever upgraded to interstate standards, those numbers are available for use.

hbelkins

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 21, 2011, 06:16:18 PM
Others: when someone has a valid (if somewhat "obvious" to us) question, actually be a decent person and answer the damned question instead of poking fun. This is a warning for the community–moderator action may occur in the future if another thread turns out like this one.

I think we've all grown weary of the 13-year-old's incessant silly questions and hypotheticals, and this was a reaction to that.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Scott5114

Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2011, 11:02:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 21, 2011, 06:16:18 PM
Others: when someone has a valid (if somewhat "obvious" to us) question, actually be a decent person and answer the damned question instead of poking fun. This is a warning for the community–moderator action may occur in the future if another thread turns out like this one.

I think we've all grown weary of the 13-year-old's incessant silly questions and hypotheticals, and this was a reaction to that.

That is a completely different user.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

agentsteel53

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 21, 2011, 11:40:39 PM

That is a completely different user.
it is two users who appear to have the same modus operandi.  I am comfortable not differentiating them until they demonstrate the ability to be differentiable.

as far as I can tell, they're both [redacted. Can we be a little less vituperative, please?] a fungible commodity.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Scott5114

uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

oscar

Quote from: Quillz on October 21, 2011, 06:53:17 PM
Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico all technically have an "Interstate 1," but they aren't really signed as such.

They have Interstates H-1, A-1, and PRI-1 respectively.  Hawaii signs H-1 as such (usually omitting the hyphen), treating the "H" as part of the route number.  Ditto H-2 and H-3.  A-1 through A-4, and PRI-1 through PRI-3, are all unsigned.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

ctsignguy

Quote from: Roadman66 on October 21, 2011, 05:10:21 PM
:confused:

Part of the answer is as was suggested above.....there were enough gaps left for additional highways to be built and numbered as needed.   Also, for the North-South part, '5' is the number for the longer highways (although I-45 is a notable exception) and when the grid was laid out back in the 105-s, the major roads were labelled as 'x5' routes and the rest filled in from there. Now, the big weakness of the original numbering set-up was a scarcity of numbers on the East side thus resulting in the atrociously placed I-99 between I-81 and I-79 in Pennsy (the only way this might fly would be if I-99 was extended south all along US 220 to its end point in the N Carolina and ended at I-95....or just east of there..

As for Interstate 5x routes, too many US 5x routes run amuck everywhere any I-5x routes may run, and as Fed policy generally forbids like numbered US and Interstate routes in the same State, that takes a few highway numbers off the board.
http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/<br /><br />Maintaining an interest in Fine Highway Signs since 1958....

formulanone

Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).

I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)

Michael in Philly

I don't see why everyone gets so worked up about I-99.  238, though, is completely anomalous.  As is I(ntracounty)-97.
RIP Dad 1924-2012.

ethanman62187

I like all of this. I like va sr 28 to be an interstate highway.

1995hoo

Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 22, 2011, 01:27:12 PM
I'm thinking that this belongs in fictional highways.

I'm thinking you're wrong. It was a question about the existing system and why certain numbers are omitted in that system, rather than a question about where a certain-numbered route (say, I-31) would be located if it were constructed or a suggestion like "I think VA-28 should be I-366." In other words, there's no discussion of fictional highways in this thread, at least not so far.
"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.

OCGuy81

I believe another reason you don't see certain numbers, more in the middle (say 30-60) is to avoid duplication of US highways that were in existence when the Interstate system began being built.  An I-50, for example, would be at the same point on the grid as US 50.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 21, 2011, 11:52:44 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 21, 2011, 11:47:19 PM
[redacted. Can we be a little less vituperative, please?]

I call 'em as I see 'em.

We can only hope you get some new eyewear before you use your phone again.
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

hbelkins

Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 22, 2011, 11:16:58 AM
I don't see why everyone gets so worked up about I-99.  238, though, is completely anomalous.  As is I(ntracounty)-97.

I agree. I-99 doesn't bother me. I-238, on the other hand, annoys the crap out of me. And I-97 really ought to be a 3di.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Quillz

Quote from: formulanone on October 22, 2011, 10:40:22 AM
Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).

I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.

In the unlikely chance that all 2di are used up, I think what will happen is the US route numbers will continue to exist, but just function like interstates.

hbelkins

Quote from: Quillz on October 23, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.

Wasted? What other good candidates are there for a future I-22 designation? And there is also always the possibility of a split designation, like I-76 and I-84.

What's the point of holding on to the numbers for future use if they are never used? Odds are we really won't see any true new-terrain interstate construction (I-69 being the exception); instead we will see reconstruction of existing roads.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

1995hoo

Quote from: Quillz on October 23, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
Quote from: formulanone on October 22, 2011, 10:40:22 AM
Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).

I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.

In the unlikely chance that all 2di are used up, I think what will happen is the US route numbers will continue to exist, but just function like interstates.

Back in the days of the amended NMSL, when 65-mph speed limits were normally permitted only on rural Interstates, there was at least a legitimate reason for that practice. Nowadays, not so much (see also Maryland's decision not to post the I-595 designation on a portion of US-50).

It does continue to surprise me, however, that a fair number of people still tend to regard non-Interstates as somehow substandard or as an undesirable routing. I'm sure most of us can think of non-Interstates we've travelled that were better roads than some Interstates we've driven. But if there's evidence that drivers tend to opt for Interstates (and I don't know if there is), then I could certainly see a practical reason for this sort of re-numbering.
"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.

pianocello

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2011, 03:18:20 PM
It does continue to surprise me, however, that a fair number of people still tend to regard non-Interstates as somehow substandard or as an undesirable routing.

Wait... People actually think about their route? I thought they just plugged it in the GPS or Google.
Davenport, IA -> Valparaiso, IN -> Ames, IA -> Orlando, FL -> Gainesville, FL -> Evansville, IN

Michael in Philly

#24
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2011, 03:18:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 23, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
Quote from: formulanone on October 22, 2011, 10:40:22 AM
Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).

I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.

In the unlikely chance that all 2di are used up, I think what will happen is the US route numbers will continue to exist, but just function like interstates.

Back in the days of the amended NMSL, when 65-mph speed limits were normally permitted only on rural Interstates, there was at least a legitimate reason for that practice. Nowadays, not so much (see also Maryland's decision not to post the I-595 designation on a portion of US-50).

It does continue to surprise me, however, that a fair number of people still tend to regard non-Interstates as somehow substandard or as an undesirable routing. I'm sure most of us can think of non-Interstates we've travelled that were better roads than some Interstates we've driven. But if there's evidence that drivers tend to opt for Interstates (and I don't know if there is), then I could certainly see a practical reason for this sort of re-numbering.

Doesn't surprise me at all:  People know, even if they're on the other side of the country from home, that the Interstate marker means freeway.  (Unless they're in Cheyenne, or on the New Jersey side of the Holland Tunnel.)

Incidentally, the "amended NMSL" is cited in the thread I started on what-the-f***-US-51-is-doing-on-an-Illinois-Tollway:  someone theorized that Illinois wanted to make the freeway from Rockford to Bloomington US 51 but needed an Interstate designation for the sake of the 65-m.p.h. limit.
RIP Dad 1924-2012.



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.