Was I-80 originally intended as a "backbone" for the interstate system?

Started by SkyPesos, September 04, 2021, 11:03:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SkyPesos

Besides the I-69 suffixes in south Texas, I thought I-80 used to have the weirdest and most absurd set of long-distance suffixes. I made a map to visualize this:

Blue - I-80 mainline
Red - I-80N to Portland
Purple - I-80S to Denver
Green - I-80S to Philadelphia
And a few others I left of as they're current 3di of I-80.

The mainline I-80 already goes through some of the US's largest metro areas, like the Bay Area, Chicago and NYC, while the branches cover medium-large metros that aren't even that close to I-80's mainline (Denver, Philadelphia, Portland). Denver is already covered by another x0: I-70. Philadelphia is also in I-70's path if it doesn't jump southeast to DC and Baltimore. Portland is even more absurd, as it's more than 500 miles between I-80 in San Francisco and I-80N in Portland. And I guess that if I-70's extension west of Denver was part of the initial interstates plan, it would be the one going to San Francisco, and I-80's mainline going to Portland. Some suffixes make sense, like I-35E/W in DFW and Twin Cities, and former I-70 N/S in DC and Baltimore, as both cities are in the same metro area (or CSA for DC/Baltimore's case). But I don't think there's any other interstate in the original system that have this many branches to serve as many cities that's out of the way from the mainline as possible. I'm not saying those physical connections aren't needed, but questioning the way they are numbered as branches of I-80 like it was intended for I-80 to be a backbone for E-W traffic in the entire system.


SEWIGuy


bwana39

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 04, 2021, 11:03:00 PM


The mainline I-80 already goes through some of the US's largest metro areas, like the Bay Area, Chicago and NYC, while the branches cover medium-large metros that aren't even that close to I-80's mainline (Denver, Philadelphia, Portland). Denver is already covered by another x0: I-70. Philadelphia is also in I-70's path if it doesn't jump southeast to DC and Baltimore. Portland is even more absurd, as it's more than 500 miles between I-80 in San Francisco and I-80N in Portland. And I guess that if I-70's extension west of Denver was part of the initial interstates plan, it would be the one going to San Francisco, and I-80's mainline going to Portland. Some suffixes make sense, like I-35E/W in DFW and Twin Cities, and former I-70 N/S in DC and Baltimore, as both cities are in the same metro area (or CSA for DC/Baltimore's case). But I don't think there's any other interstate in the original system that have this many branches to serve as many cities that's out of the way from the mainline as possible. I'm not saying those physical connections aren't needed, but questioning the way they are numbered as branches of I-80 like it was intended for I-80 to be a backbone for E-W traffic in the entire system.

This whole thing seems to reek of the presumed superiority of the North. You could argue the same for I-10 or I-40. Admittedly I-40 is subsumed by I-15 before it reaches Los Angeles, but Functionally it goes the distance.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

SkyPesos

Quote from: bwana39 on September 04, 2021, 11:31:35 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 04, 2021, 11:03:00 PM


The mainline I-80 already goes through some of the US's largest metro areas, like the Bay Area, Chicago and NYC, while the branches cover medium-large metros that aren't even that close to I-80's mainline (Denver, Philadelphia, Portland). Denver is already covered by another x0: I-70. Philadelphia is also in I-70's path if it doesn't jump southeast to DC and Baltimore. Portland is even more absurd, as it's more than 500 miles between I-80 in San Francisco and I-80N in Portland. And I guess that if I-70's extension west of Denver was part of the initial interstates plan, it would be the one going to San Francisco, and I-80's mainline going to Portland. Some suffixes make sense, like I-35E/W in DFW and Twin Cities, and former I-70 N/S in DC and Baltimore, as both cities are in the same metro area (or CSA for DC/Baltimore's case). But I don't think there's any other interstate in the original system that have this many branches to serve as many cities that's out of the way from the mainline as possible. I'm not saying those physical connections aren't needed, but questioning the way they are numbered as branches of I-80 like it was intended for I-80 to be a backbone for E-W traffic in the entire system.

This whole thing seems to reek of the presumed superiority of the North. You could argue the same for I-10 or I-40. Admittedly I-40 is subsumed by I-15 before it reaches Los Angeles, but Functionally it goes the distance.
In the 1950s, the north had a much higher population than the south, which is where I got that idea from. Of course it’s much different nowadays.

I-40 (or any other interstate for this matter) could have a ton of suffixes too like I-80 did. For example, I-24 was originally planned as just a Nashville-Chatanooga interstate. It  could’ve been called I-40S if the I-80 mentality was used here.

bing101

Not exactly though it's just the most notable in the same way one can argue US-40, US-66 and US-50 are the backbones of the US route system or I-5, I-35, I-75 and I-95 are the backbones of North- South routes.
One can also argue I-90 and I-10 as candidates for being backbones of the interstate system too.

Quillz

If you look at its full extent, I-80 seems somewhat centrally located. I think a lot of this is due to their not being I-50 or I-60. Had there been, I think I-80 very well would have started in Portland instead of San Francisco, and instead I-50 or I-60 would have covered it. Or perhaps I-70 would have had a totally different alignment and what is today I-70 would have been 50 or 60.

SkyPesos

Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2021, 07:14:52 PM
If you look at its full extent, I-80 seems somewhat centrally located. I think a lot of this is due to their not being I-50 or I-60. Had there been, I think I-80 very well would have started in Portland instead of San Francisco, and instead I-50 or I-60 would have covered it. Or perhaps I-70 would have had a totally different alignment and what is today I-70 would have been 50 or 60.
I thought of this a couple of times. If US 60 wasn't so significant in Missouri, it's a possibility that what is now I-70 could be I-60, and shifting the numbers north of there, topping it with I-94 being I-90. A Bay Area-DC I-60 (mostly following US 40) and Portland-NYC I-70 (mostly following US 30 and US 6) could be part of this alternative scenario too.

HighwayStar

Quote from: bwana39 on September 04, 2021, 11:31:35 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 04, 2021, 11:03:00 PM


The mainline I-80 already goes through some of the US's largest metro areas, like the Bay Area, Chicago and NYC, while the branches cover medium-large metros that aren't even that close to I-80's mainline (Denver, Philadelphia, Portland). Denver is already covered by another x0: I-70. Philadelphia is also in I-70's path if it doesn't jump southeast to DC and Baltimore. Portland is even more absurd, as it's more than 500 miles between I-80 in San Francisco and I-80N in Portland. And I guess that if I-70's extension west of Denver was part of the initial interstates plan, it would be the one going to San Francisco, and I-80's mainline going to Portland. Some suffixes make sense, like I-35E/W in DFW and Twin Cities, and former I-70 N/S in DC and Baltimore, as both cities are in the same metro area (or CSA for DC/Baltimore's case). But I don't think there's any other interstate in the original system that have this many branches to serve as many cities that's out of the way from the mainline as possible. I'm not saying those physical connections aren't needed, but questioning the way they are numbered as branches of I-80 like it was intended for I-80 to be a backbone for E-W traffic in the entire system.

This whole thing seems to reek of the presumed superiority of the North. You could argue the same for I-10 or I-40. Admittedly I-40 is subsumed by I-15 before it reaches Los Angeles, but Functionally it goes the distance.

There is no "presumed" about it. At the time of the design, the Northern US contained and overwhelming concentration of the population, wealth, industrial capacity, and decision makers in the US. 
There are those who travel, and those who travel well

bing101

Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2021, 07:14:52 PM
If you look at its full extent, I-80 seems somewhat centrally located. I think a lot of this is due to their not being I-50 or I-60. Had there been, I think I-80 very well would have started in Portland instead of San Francisco, and instead I-50 or I-60 would have covered it. Or perhaps I-70 would have had a totally different alignment and what is today I-70 would have been 50 or 60.
But one would have to remove US-50 if one wants to enter California. Also if I-70 were to go to California it would have ended in the same location as where I-305, US-50 and I-80 meet today in West Sacramento.

skluth

Quote from: HighwayStar on September 26, 2021, 12:23:18 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on September 04, 2021, 11:31:35 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 04, 2021, 11:03:00 PM


The mainline I-80 already goes through some of the US's largest metro areas, like the Bay Area, Chicago and NYC, while the branches cover medium-large metros that aren't even that close to I-80's mainline (Denver, Philadelphia, Portland). Denver is already covered by another x0: I-70. Philadelphia is also in I-70's path if it doesn't jump southeast to DC and Baltimore. Portland is even more absurd, as it's more than 500 miles between I-80 in San Francisco and I-80N in Portland. And I guess that if I-70's extension west of Denver was part of the initial interstates plan, it would be the one going to San Francisco, and I-80's mainline going to Portland. Some suffixes make sense, like I-35E/W in DFW and Twin Cities, and former I-70 N/S in DC and Baltimore, as both cities are in the same metro area (or CSA for DC/Baltimore's case). But I don't think there's any other interstate in the original system that have this many branches to serve as many cities that's out of the way from the mainline as possible. I'm not saying those physical connections aren't needed, but questioning the way they are numbered as branches of I-80 like it was intended for I-80 to be a backbone for E-W traffic in the entire system.

This whole thing seems to reek of the presumed superiority of the North. You could argue the same for I-10 or I-40. Admittedly I-40 is subsumed by I-15 before it reaches Los Angeles, but Functionally it goes the distance.

There is no "presumed" about it. At the time of the design, the Northern US contained and overwhelming concentration of the population, wealth, industrial capacity, and decision makers in the US.

San Francisco is closer to Mexico than Canada, so it's not in the northern half of the US. SF is about 3° latitude or 210 miles further south than NYC. I-80 connects the Eastern North with the Western Middle. If the west end of I-80 were at the same latitude of NYC, it would end near the north end of CA 1.

SMoon

I-80. along with US-20, sort of loosely follow the Lincoln Highway, and the path pf least resistance. I don't think I-80 was put there, I think it evolved there. Even the Oregon/Mormon/California trails run under it in places. Not exactly, but by the time it was being formally mapped, other obstacles may have forced it here or there, but it seemed to be, loosely, paralleling the original cross country routes.

Quillz

I think that's the natural result of evolution. A lot of US routes followed older wagon trails, and the interstates often replaced the US routes directly. It's like how the El Camino Real gradually evolved into modern US-101 in a lot of places.

US20IL64

US-30 mostly follows Lincoln Hwy, not 20.
https://www.lincolnhighwayassoc.org/
Also, US-50 and 40 in West.



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.