Interstate numbers that will likely never be used

[JoePCool14]

In case anyone wants to see Colorado's MILE 419.99 who hasn't yet, here it is back in 2012:

https://goo.gl/maps/iY456fqJ3DWh6rz48

[SkyPesos]

In case anyone wants to see Colorado's MILE 419.99 who hasn't yet, here it is back in 2012:

https://goo.gl/maps/iY456fqJ3DWh6rz48

Looks like MILE 68.99 is still here in the most recent GSV view:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3980296,-108.1198542,3a,15y,83.28h,85.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slLuDAwWioJM_5TdfmYq7ZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[roadman65]

I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.

I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. 

I-9 is a possibility in California.

Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.

Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.

The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."

82 drives me nuts. It's a north-south route!

It's also north of I-84.

IMO I-82 should be used for western I-84 and I-82 becomes I-7 or I-9.

[Henry]

I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.

I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. 

I-9 is a possibility in California.

Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.

Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.

The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."

82 drives me nuts. It's a north-south route!

It's also north of I-84.

To be fair, though, the highway that is now I-84 was originally signed as I-80N, so I-82 fit in the grid back then. If I were to complain about the number change, it would be that I-82 should've been extended south and east through ID and UT.

[MikieTimT]

46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62. Too close to similar US routes.

One of these numbers will have to be used for the Enid OK—Springdale AR interstate that was signed into law since this thread was created.

I'm betting on I-50.  And it'll continue on to Nashville.  But none of us will see it.

[I-55]

I-6 is a possibility for that Freer-Corpus Christi route in Texas, even more so if the entire SH 44 route from US 83 (which could be future I-27) to CC is upgraded in the future.

I-34 or 36 could be routed on a future upgrade of US 74. Never doubt NC's ability to add new Interstates. 

I-9 is a possibility in California.

Just curious where 9 could fit in California. I thought if CA 99 was an interstate it'd be 7.

Could be 7 or 9. Either number fits.

The CA 99 corridor would probably be I-7. I saw someone post here one time, "They need to renumber the western I-84 as I-82 and I-82 as either I-7 or I-9, since it mostly runs north-south."

82 drives me nuts. It's a north-south route!

It's also north of I-84.

To be fair, though, the highway that is now I-84 was originally signed as I-80N, so I-82 fit in the grid back then. If I were to complain about the number change, it would be that I-82 should've been extended south and east through ID and UT.

And I would keep the 84 numbering since x4's are next in line behind x0's (I-44,64,84w,94) as long distance east-west interstates. For odds, 9's would follow the x5s (I-29,49,69) though a similar argument could be made for the x7s (I-57,77).

[mgk920]

Interstate 420
Interstate 666

sign theft may be an issue with them

Though 420 was once proposed for Atlanta.

There aren't many WI 69 signs posted along that highway, either.



Mike