AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northwest => Topic started by: Tarkus on February 24, 2009, 09:09:09 PM

Title: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Tarkus on February 24, 2009, 09:09:09 PM
Well, as someone who has driven Interstate 82 in Oregon/Washington a fair amount, I've kind of wondered about this for some time now.  Interstate 82 made sense when I-84 was still I-80N until the 1980s, but now, it doesn't make much sense and violates the numbering conventions.

I know some roadgeeks have suggested extending it south eventually, but even in its current state, at both its termini, it's heading north-south. 

So, I'm curious to know what everyone thinks.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: DrZoidberg on February 24, 2009, 09:13:53 PM
I'd be in favor of renumbering it as either an I-X84 or even an I-90 3-di.  I've never heard of plans to extend it south.  What would those plans entail?

I suppose, if they ever wanted to expand, they COULD multiplex it with I-84 through Boise and axe I-86 altogether.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: DrZoidberg on February 24, 2009, 09:19:17 PM
Quote
I suppose, if they ever wanted to expand, they COULD multiplex it with I-84 through Boise and axe I-86 altogether.

Though I should add this would be quite pointless....
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: flaroads on February 24, 2009, 11:15:12 PM
...Or multiplex Interstate 86 with Interstate 84 and switch it from 82 to 86. Then Interstate 182 could become 186. That would make a little more sense and keep it within the "grid" per say. And if an I-x84 or and I-x90 were used it would create a problem for existing I-182 (as in what would that become?). Just a thought.

 
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: DrZoidberg on February 24, 2009, 11:58:00 PM
Quote
And if an I-x84 or and I-x90 were used it would create a problem for existing I-182 (as in what would that become?). Just a thought.

I'm guessing it could become either unsigned (sign it as US 12) or perhaps I-190 or an odd 3-di off the existing 3-di.

If I-82 became a 3-di, would it be an odd or even?  It doesn't return to its parent, which makes me think odd...
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Sykotyk on February 25, 2009, 12:09:40 PM
For that many miles, for a non x5 or x0 route, no need to multiplex it.

Just relabel I-82 as I-86. Nobody in traveling will confuse the two segments. Akin to Illinois and New York both having I-88.

But, mostly, I'd be in favor of it being a 3di. Just as I would when US395 gets fully upgraded to freeway standards in the distant future.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: exit322 on February 25, 2009, 01:40:18 PM
It's been around long enough, and isn't that egregious a penalty, that I-82 wouldn't really even be a problem to keep.

If worried about it, put I-84 on the I-82 alignment and change I-84 west of that to the "new" I-82.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: DrZoidberg on February 25, 2009, 09:06:24 PM
I always thought I-82 would be better signed as a north-south route.  I-11 anybody?
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: corco on February 25, 2009, 10:21:51 PM
Running any route concurrent between I-86 and the I-82 split would be a ridiculously long and pointless concurrency that I'm adamantly against.

I'd say just leave it as is. It's not a huge deal and at this point the confusion caused by resigning it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

If US-395 from Pasco to Spokane and US-97 from Bend or Weed CA to Biggs are ever both fully upgraded to interstate standards and up for interstate designation then the debate can be opened and I-82 should be eliminated altogether for an I-11, but for now it's not worth the trouble
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Tarkus on February 26, 2009, 01:18:12 AM
It would have made a little more sense if the FHWA/AASHTO had decided to make I-80N into I-82 instead of I-84 originally, and then turned I-86 into I-84 and I-82 into I-86.  My guess is that they didn't because of the serious mindbender that moving I-82 could have done.

An I-7 designation would make the most sense, I think.   The freeway is 143 miles long, and about 80 of it is north-south.

-Alex (Tarkus)


Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Alps on February 26, 2009, 07:02:39 PM
No one has suggested I-88 yet.  You have them in NY and IL.  This would be the first 88 to cross a state line, still a thousand miles from the next one, and creates three instances of the same route which is just awesome.  But I like having an 82 around.  I'd rather swap IL 88 with 82 if anything had to be done.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: V'Ger on February 28, 2009, 03:51:34 PM
I feel really bad for the 8x numbers, they're always being split up by different states!
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Tarkus on February 28, 2009, 04:21:11 PM
I think part of the problem is that when they started doling the Interstate numbers out, they concentrated the 8X numbers in the most populated east-west belt across the entire country, whereas other parts of the 2di range, like around the 5X-6X area, are barely used.  They kinda screwed up there, methinks.

Of course, what also could help is if the FHWA decided to adopt Hexadecimal. :sombrero:

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: V'Ger on February 28, 2009, 04:22:05 PM
"Honey, you need to get off at #F00F00!"
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: mightyace on February 28, 2009, 05:36:41 PM
I think part of the problem is that when they started doling the Interstate numbers out, they concentrated the 8X numbers in the most populated east-west belt across the entire country, whereas other parts of the 2di range, like around the 5X-6X area, are barely used.  They kinda screwed up there, methinks.

Of course, what also could help is if the FHWA decided to adopt Hexadecimal. :sombrero:

-Alex (Tarkus)

I think that the reason they did that is that they didn't want the same US and I numbers in the same area.  Since US E-W numbers increase N-S and I numbers increase S-N there would be potential overlap in the 5x and 6x area. 

Of course, with things like I-39, I-43 and the proposed I-41 in Wisconsin, you have that now anyway. :no:
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Sykotyk on February 28, 2009, 11:00:26 PM
That's why there's no I-50 and I-60.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: ComputerGuy on March 21, 2009, 06:02:07 PM
Hmm.. Washington State Route 82!
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Fcexpress80 on April 24, 2009, 02:23:58 AM
See my other posts on the subject of I-82.  It should have been redesignated I-88 when I-86 and I-84 were redesignated.  My vote is to rename it I-9 with a freeway extension north from I-90 in Ellensburg to US-2/97 in Wenatchee over Colockum Pass/Ridge.  I-7 would be the Central Oregon "Volcano" Interstate and I-11 would be the Boise/Reno/Las Vegas corridor.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: florida on April 25, 2009, 01:50:09 PM
If it's renamed a 3-di (I-390; I-384), then it would be no problem to renumber I-182 to an I-190 or I-184. (See I-270/370; 275 and 175/375; even 795 spurring off 695 in Baltimore.)
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Sykotyk on April 25, 2009, 09:55:43 PM
I love when you're given directions from Portland to Pasco and are told "go east on I-84 and then north on I-82".

Sykotyk
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: DrZoidberg on April 25, 2009, 11:25:25 PM
Quote
I love when you're given directions from Portland to Pasco and are told "go east on I-84 and then north on I-82".

Reminds me of Wisconsin, specifically I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago, where traffic reports refer to I-94 north or southbound.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Revive 755 on April 27, 2009, 10:39:01 PM
Quote from: Tarkus
Of course, what also could help is if the FHWA decided to adopt Hexadecimal.

Why stop with hexadecimal?  Let's go to Base 36, with '0' having a forward slash added to distinguish it from "O".
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: leifvanderwall on August 17, 2009, 10:47:28 AM
If you would ask me I-82 is definitely in the wrong place... in the country that is. To me, I-82 is much better served in New Jersey, Penn., and Ohio taking over the US 422 route and part of the Atlantic City Expressway. I also have I-82 starting from Chicago and ending at the Quad Cities taking over  I-88 and I-290. The I-82 in Washington should be I-186. See my postings on "if You Controlled the Highway System" in Fictional Roads to view my proposals for a new I-82.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Bickendan on August 17, 2009, 02:45:31 PM
What about WA I-182? ;)

Also, having two I-82s wouldn't be an issue -- see I-88, 84, 76...

For the time being, I-82 where it is (even north of I-84) isn't an issue (aside for there being an unrelated OR 82 in the same region in Oregon).

The one 'proposal' correcting this mess I've seen that I like is the 'I-7' idea. I-7'd start in Weed, head along US 97 to Klamath Falls, Bend and Redmond before arcing northeast through the Blues to I-82 at I-84, follow I-82 to the US 395 split south of the TriCities, then follow the US 395 corridor toward Spokane, while an I-x90 would take I-82 from I-90 to I-182 and along I-182 to I-7. The remaining portion of I-82, bypassing the TriCities between US 395 and I-182 would become I-407 (WA 207 already exists and WA doesn't duplicate route numbers).
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: xonhulu on August 20, 2009, 08:53:56 PM
Want a crazy suggestion?

I-80 is way too far south for its number in NV/CA, so put I-80 on current I-84 and renumber the current CA/NV/UT I-80 as I-52, I-54, I-56, I-58, I-60 or I-62.  Then the freeway south of I-82 has a smaller number and all is good.  Of course, you had to spend millions renumbering I-80 as well as every I-x80 in CA....

Seriously, I-84 should have been I-82, but since it wasn't then I'd go with the odd number for I-82.  I'm not sure an I-x90 or I-x84 would be appropriate for what functions like a mainline interstate, not a spur. 
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2009, 09:03:01 PM
I-84 was I-82 in the 1947 plan.

I-580 should be I-58, which would make I-80 a good candidate to be I-62, or even I-60.  Hell, if I-30 got a primary number, then I-60 would be okay.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: xonhulu on August 20, 2009, 10:22:10 PM
Since US 60 no longer makes it to CA and isn't in NV or UT, I-60 would've been a good choice.  And I like your I-58 idea for I-580.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Hellfighter on August 20, 2009, 10:23:44 PM
I'd do some rearraging...

I-84 become I-82

I-86 becomes I-84

I-82 becomes I-86
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: Bickendan on September 03, 2009, 03:38:43 AM
Quote from: xonhulu
Since US 60 no longer makes it to CA and isn't in NV or UT, I-60 would've been a good choice.  And I like your I-58 idea for I-580.
US 60 lives on as CA 60.
And CA 58 challenges I-580 for the 58 designation, even if I-40 grabs the freeway portion of CA 58.

Solution: Renumber I-580 to I-38  :evilgrin:
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2009, 04:11:16 AM
the solution is just to finally build I-40 to I-5.  That is a terrible corridor; I have driven it far too many times.

58 is an extraneous number in any case ... before 1964, the western segment of 58 was the continuation of state route 178, and the eastern was US-466.  US-466 became state route 46 west of 99, so I cannot see why 178 was switched to 58 between Bakersfield and Santa Margarita, and 466 became 46 only halfway ... I'd have called the 58 alignment from Bakersfield to Barstow CA-46 (at least, until I-40 came along) and left 178 well enough alone!
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on October 14, 2009, 05:15:57 PM
the solution is just to finally build I-40 to I-5.  That is a terrible corridor; I have driven it far too many times.

58 is an extraneous number in any case ... before 1964, the western segment of 58 was the continuation of state route 178, and the eastern was US-466.  US-466 became state route 46 west of 99, so I cannot see why 178 was switched to 58 between Bakersfield and Santa Margarita, and 466 became 46 only halfway ... I'd have called the 58 alignment from Bakersfield to Barstow CA-46 (at least, until I-40 came along) and left 178 well enough alone!

My guess for why 46 was only used for the segment of 466 between Route 99 and Route 41...has to do with the old multiplex with 99 between downtown Bakersfield (including today's Route 204) and Famoso; the 58 number (coincidentally?) was the pre-1964 legislative route number for the Bakersfield-Barstow portion of 466.

Not sure if 178 was ever signed that far west of Bakersfield though...
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: xonhulu on October 14, 2009, 05:42:12 PM
I'd do some rearraging...

I-84 become I-82

I-86 becomes I-84

I-82 becomes I-86

There is another possibility:

I-84 still begins in Portland, goes east to Hermiston, but then duplexes up to the Tri-Cities with I-82, where it then duplexes US 395 to I-90 at Ritzville.  I-82 meanwhile takes over the remaining portion of current I-84 to Echo Jct.

Not that I'd like to see this; it's just another possibility.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 14, 2009, 07:39:31 PM


Not sure if 178 was ever signed that far west of Bakersfield though...


178 was signed all the way out to US-101 at Santa Margarita.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on October 15, 2009, 11:41:38 AM


Not sure if 178 was ever signed that far west of Bakersfield though...


178 was signed all the way out to US-101 at Santa Margarita.

Any photos of this?

---

On the original topic...if I-82 HAD to be renumbered (something I don't feel is necessary), a third I-88 could do. (Of the current split-segment east-west interstates, 88, 76, and 84 each generally can be easily linked together via other east-west interstates; I-86 being a notable exception).

Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 15, 2009, 11:44:26 AM

Any photos of this?


alas no, but my 1947 Rand McNally map shows it as 178.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: xonhulu on October 15, 2009, 12:07:35 PM
On the original topic...if I-82 HAD to be renumbered (something I don't feel is necessary), a third I-88 could do. (Of the current split-segment east-west interstates, 88, 76, and 84 each generally can be easily linked together via other east-west interstates; I-86 being a notable exception).

I think the new eastern I-86 was unnecessary.  They could've extended I-88 west, and the rest of NY 17 around the Catskills could've been a 3di or just remained NY 17.

To me, the I-82 problem isn't that it's north of I-84 with a smaller number, it's that it should be an odd numbered interstate, as it's more north-south than east-west.  It should be I-7, which preserves the remote, pipe dream, future possibility of extending it through central Oregon.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on October 15, 2009, 02:52:13 PM
On the original topic...if I-82 HAD to be renumbered (something I don't feel is necessary), a third I-88 could do. (Of the current split-segment east-west interstates, 88, 76, and 84 each generally can be easily linked together via other east-west interstates; I-86 being a notable exception).

I think the new eastern I-86 was unnecessary.  They could've extended I-88 west, and the rest of NY 17 around the Catskills could've been a 3di or just remained NY 17.

My guess is that they wanted to replace the NY/PA 17 freeway with one number (I have heard - don't quote me on this, however - that was proposed many decades ago as well, with today's I-390 originally being I-586); in any case, 88 doesn't directly feed into Route 17 in Binghamton.

Quote

To me, the I-82 problem isn't that it's north of I-84 with a smaller number, it's that it should be an odd numbered interstate, as it's more north-south than east-west.  It should be I-7, which preserves the remote, pipe dream, future possibility of extending it through central Oregon.

I was thinking that I-7 would be best for Route 99 in California, with I-9 working better for a US 395-corridor freeway in those environs.  The section northwest of the Tri-Cities is L-shaped and hard to really quantify as a true east-west corridor...if 395 from Spokane southwards was ever upgraded, I could see the remainder being a 3di.

Having said that, I suspect the "east-west" numbering was a result of what Wikipedia says were plans to extend the route west to Tacoma.
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on November 04, 2009, 02:26:31 PM
I'd do some rearraging...

I-84 become I-82

I-86 becomes I-84

I-82 becomes I-86

Copy that, Hellfighter!

Honestly, existing I-86 should become a 3di, which would free up that number for use west of the Mississippi...
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: xonhulu on November 04, 2009, 10:30:21 PM
Honestly, existing I-86 should become a 3di, which would free up that number for use west of the Mississippi...

Better yet, bring back 15W!
Title: Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on November 05, 2009, 01:40:16 AM
Honestly, existing I-86 should become a 3di, which would free up that number for use west of the Mississippi...

Better yet, bring back 15W!

I've always been of the mind that suffixes are best used for loop splits (the three that remained in 1980 certainly were of that variety) rather than odd spurs and stuff; the length of western I-86 isn't unreasonable for a 3di.  (Though it is longer than I-97...)