AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate  (Read 24099 times)

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 41
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #25 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.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

xonhulu

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1370
  • Location: Salem, OR
  • Last Login: August 01, 2022, 08:07:07 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #26 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.
Logged

Hellfighter

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1209
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Livonia, Detroit, MI
  • Last Login: July 30, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #27 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
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2844
  • Last Login: Today at 03:18:02 AM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #28 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:
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 41
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #29 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!
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4506
  • Last Login: August 07, 2022, 01:39:01 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #30 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...
Logged
Chris Sampang

xonhulu

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1370
  • Location: Salem, OR
  • Last Login: August 01, 2022, 08:07:07 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #31 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.
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 41
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #32 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.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4506
  • Last Login: August 07, 2022, 01:39:01 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #33 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).

Logged
Chris Sampang

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 41
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2009, 11:44:26 AM »


Any photos of this?


alas no, but my 1947 Rand McNally map shows it as 178.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

xonhulu

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1370
  • Location: Salem, OR
  • Last Login: August 01, 2022, 08:07:07 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #35 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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4506
  • Last Login: August 07, 2022, 01:39:01 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #36 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.
Logged
Chris Sampang

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4506
  • Last Login: August 07, 2022, 01:39:01 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #37 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...
Logged
Chris Sampang

xonhulu

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1370
  • Location: Salem, OR
  • Last Login: August 01, 2022, 08:07:07 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #38 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!
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4506
  • Last Login: August 07, 2022, 01:39:01 PM
Re: The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate
« Reply #39 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...)
Logged
Chris Sampang

 


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.