Which 2dis get roasted the most/least?

[hotdogPi]

Based on the "which states get roasted the most" thread here.

Roasted on this forum, not by the general public.

In numerical order, these are the complaints I have seen:
2: Too short, although it's temporary. I have a problem with it not connecting to the rest of the system, but that might only be me.
4: May be more north-south than east-west (if it's not, it's close). I've also seen complaints about heavy traffic.
5: Heavy traffic.
8: No criticism.
10: Some people believe 10 and 12 should be switched. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
12: Some people believe 10 and 12 should be switched. This is a bigger problem for 12, as it's the entire length of 12 and only a small part of 10.
14: Very short and almost useless compared to others, but it's likely temporary.
15: No criticism. I don't read the Pacific Southwest board often, so I might be missing some claims that CA 15 should become I-15.
16: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem. I've also seen complaints that it's boring.
17:  Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem. Also, the mile markers don't start at 0, but this isn't a problem either, even though it does lead to questions asked.
19: Too short. However, the metric signage actually seems to be a net positive, as it's interesting.
20: No criticism except for one person (excluding FritzOwl) saying that since it doesn't get near the West Coast, it shouldn't be an x0. The 20/59 overlap is 59's problem, not 20's. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
22: Under construction; no criticism.
24: The occasional complaint about being diagonal, and "why doesn't it go to St. Louis" in Fictional. There was also a thread about Paducah, KY vs. Evansville, IN and the wrong city winning (Evansville is much larger, but they built it through Paducah instead).
25: No criticism. It's entirely overlapped with US routes, but that's the fault of the US routes, not the Interstate.
26: "Number should be odd", despite that no odd numbers are available.
27: Intrastate. "Should be extended" is a common Fictional idea.
29: The only complaint that I've seen is that it and 49 have two different numbers.
30: Too short for an x0. This is a common complaint.
35: 35W/35E splits. Some people say they shouldn't exist.
37: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem.
39: Long overlap with I-90. Some people have a problem with it, but nowhere near the level of 20/59.
40: No criticism; extending 40 west in California seems to be a suggestion and not a problem. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
41: A huge debate about whether it's okay to have an I-41/US 41 overlap, with people on both sides of the debate.
42: Under construction. No criticism, unlike I-87 in North Carolina.
43: No criticism, as far as I'm aware.
44: Tolls in Oklahoma? Sudden end in Wichita Falls, TX? These are both minor criticisms, but I've seen both.
45: Intrastate for an x5. This is a major criticism.
49: The gaps in I-49, which will be filled eventually.
55: 57 is more direct. Other than that, no problems.
57: Control city of Memphis from Chicago. Also, future I-57 not yet connecting to current I-57.
59: The 20/59 overlap, which leads many people to want the two standalone sections to have different numbers.
64: Direction confusion in Hampton Roads.
65: No criticism.
66: No criticism except possibly heavy traffic.
68: No criticism.
69: Too many gaps and disconnected segments.
70: Breezewood, a major problem. Some road quality problems in Pennsylvania. Ending in Utah instead of California doesn't seem to be a problem.
71: No criticism, despite being almost perfectly diagonal.
72: No criticism as far as I'm aware, although it's a bit short.
73: In North Carolina only, despite it being legislated all the way to Michigan.
74 (west): No criticism, unless you're looking as all of I-74 as a single route with disconnected segments. The number duplication is the fault of the eastern I-74.
74 (east): Too many disconnected segments in North Carolina that will never connect to Ohio. Also, I-74/US 74 overlap.
75: No criticism. 75 and 85 cross, but that's an issue with 85.
76 (west): Duplicated number.
76 (east): Surekill Expressway, and suggestions that the ACE should be part of I-76. Breezewood is an issue with I-70, not I-76.
77: No criticism.
78: Surface road in New York and for a few blocks in New Jersey.
79: No criticism.
80: Long 80/90 overlap, but that's it.
81: Too many trucks. Also, the whole Syracuse debate.
82: Major roast: Many people think that I-82 should have an odd number instead of an even number.
83: Too short, and bad pavement quality.
84 (west): Duplicated number.
84 (east): Duplicated number.
85: More east-west than north-south, especially for an x5.
86 (west): Way too short; should be a 3di (or just US 30). Also, duplicated number.
86 (east): Duplicated number, as well as gaps that are being fixed.
87 (north): No criticism. Even though the number is duplicated, the other one is viewed is illegitimate.
87 (south): Another major roast. Should be an even number that isn't a duplicate. Some even say that it shouldn't have been designated at all, given I-95 to US 58.
88 (west): Duplicate number.
88 (east): There have been a few complaints that it's mostly useless, along a corridor that doesn't need an Interstate. Also a duplicate number.
89: No criticism.
90: Long 80/90 overlap. The Skyway not being signed as I-90 is not a problem with I-90 itself, it's the relevant DOT.
91: No criticism.
93: Franconia Notch is substandard.
94: Too many overlaps in Wisconsin.
95: Too much traffic.
96: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem.
97: Intracounty. Way too short. Should be a 3di.
99: Congressionally legislated, and out of grid. Doesn't officially connect to either end in Pennsylvania. Has a gap.

My top 10 list would be I-87 (S), I-99, I-74 (E), I-86 (W), I-69, I-41, I-97, I-82, I-45, and I-14.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I think people roast 94 more because it spends a significant time going N/S, then goes out of grid in Chicago before turning back north and east. The 41 and 43 overlaps aren't 94's fault, since 43 was only extended to 90 in the 1980s and obviously 41 is new.

[Flint1979]

I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's out of the grid south of Indianapolis.

[sbeaver44]

83 and 78 get roasted alot for substandard portions in PA
76 (east) gets roasted for indirect connections with other important highways (like US 219, I-99/US 220, and I-81)

Nexus 6P

[SSOWorld]

57 led to 43 led to 39 because IDiOT decided not to play ball

[Max Rockatansky]

For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d. 

[US 89]

For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d.

Really, I-17 and 19 should be combined as one route, or else 19 should be a 3di (but we all know how AZ feels about 3dis).

[Max Rockatansky]

For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d.

Really, I-17 and 19 should be combined as one route, or else 19 should be a 3di (but we all know how AZ feels about 3dis).

I'd probably lean towards I-17, I believe the mileage is based off the border with Mexican anyways.  It would be a good excuse to get rid of the Kilometer post miles on I-19 and line them up with I-17.

[adventurernumber1]

This is a very interesting idea for a thread. 


There are several major categories that will get an interstate onto the "most roasted" end of the spectrum. These include:

A) Interstates that fail to comply with the grid. Examples are I-99, I-82 (used to work, but not anymore, after I-80N became I-84), I-87 (NC-VA), etc.

B) Interstates that are too short in length for 2di standards - the main example of this is Interstate 97 (and to a lesser extent than I-97, Interstate 86 (ID) as well), but there are other interstates that are temporarily in this category - mainly interstates that are still largely in their youth and have not had much of their length completed yet, such as I-14 in Texas.

C) I-x5 or I-x0 interstates that do not meet the expected standards for those kinds of interstates (major ones that travel a long distance). The two primary offenders in this category are I-45 and I-30. While yes, both Houston and Dallas (and their metro areas) are very, very large and significant U.S. cities, they're not relatively (on a nationwide scale) that far apart, and for the most part (with the short section from Houston to Galveston being the exception), the distance between these two cities is all I-45 knows - this is problematic, of course, since I-45 is an I-x5 interstate, which is usually expected to travel much farther than I-45 actually does. Interstate 30 has much more significance than Interstate 45 when it comes to cross-country transportation and travel, it's just that sometimes, its length does raise eyebrows (for it to be an I-x0), and that is why it is in this category. Interstate 30 is pivotal for a lot of cross-country traffic, as well as a lot of traffic that is traversing across just the South. Interstate 30 is vital for long-distance east-west traffic switching from I-40 to I-20, and vice versa. While I-30's significance regarding transportation on a national level cannot be denied, its length is what leaves us with questions, given its numbering. The truth is that (especially when compared to interstates like I-10, I-80, and I-90) Interstate 30 just really isn't that long for an I-x0. Interstate 30 only goes through two states - Texas and Arkansas; it just goes from I-20 near Fort Worth, Texas, to Little Rock, Arkansas. This is what makes I-30 and I-45 the oddballs among the I-x5 and I-x0 interstates, and as a result, they are sometimes criticized by us roadgeeks for the reason of them not meeting the expected standards for those kinds of interstates.

D) Interstates that have duplicated numbers. Examples are I-76, I-84, I-88 - and in more recent history, we have additional entries such as I-74 (listed as chances are that the two parts of I-74 (one in the Midwest, one in the South) will never really be connected, despite the fact that technically in theory it is one single interstate), I-86, and I-87.

E) Interstates that have significant instances of being substandard. This includes the famous "Breezewood," and other breezewood-like gaps, such as the incomplete interchange between I-99 and I-70/I-76 (Penn Turnpike) - which I call "Breezewood II". It also includes things like the short stretch of Interstate 78 that is very substandard near New York City, the occasional at-grade intersections on interstates such as I-20 and I-40 in western Texas, that stretch of I-93 in New Hampshire in Franconia Notch (though I personally actually have zero problems with this one - I find this stretch of I-93 to be interesting and unique, and there was definitely some decent reasons for the opposition against it being able to be a full interstate - the scenery is absolutely beautiful, too!), and more.

F) Interstates that have significant gaps in them. The most notorious incident of this is the Interstate 95 gap in New Jersey - this is because I-95 is (and has been for a long time) an already-completed interstate, but nevertheless, there is a very small section of it that just doesn't seem to exist. Technically, you can take limited-access highway (that is even signed as other interstates - I-295 and I-195) from one end of the gap to the other, it just isn't "I-95." Also, some of these gaps are interconnected with an aforementioned category (being substandard) - these instances include Breezewood, Breezewood II (see above category), and more. But by far, most of the offenders in this category are interstates that are very new (or very newly extended, even if their original route has been around for a long time) and are still being built. This includes many of the highest offenders on the roasting list, such as I-49 (mainly because of that section through the mountains of Arkansas between I-30 and I-40 - most of the rest of it has actually been built already), I-69, I-74, I-73, and more.

G) Interstates that are numbered east-west but should be numbered north-south, and vice versa. This most notably includes Interstate 82 (should be a north-south interstate such as I-7) and Interstate 87 (NC-VA), which should have been Interstate 46. Also what would fit in this category is all the diagonal interstates who are not truly, 100% accepted into either the north-south or east-west labels, due to their highly diagonal nature, such as I-24, I-26, I-4, I-85, and more.

H) Interstates that actually share pavement (have a concurrency/multiplex) with a US Highway that has the exact same number. This mainly includes the I-41/US 41 case in Wisconsin, and the I-74/US 74 case in North Carolina.

There may be other categories I am failing to think of and mention, so people are free to fill any gaps there may be in my own categorization.

24: The occasional complaint about being diagonal, and "why doesn't it go to St. Louis" in Fictional. There was also a thread about Paducah, KY vs. Evansville, IN and the wrong city winning (Evansville is much larger, but they built it through Paducah instead).

While Evansville is definitely much larger than Paducah, I don't think it would have been a good idea to route I-24 over there, or else it would be even more north-south than it already is (with it being a diagonal interstate). If Interstate 24 went to Evansville, then such a long section of it would be so north-south, that I-24 would immediately shoot up to towards the top of the "roasted interstates" list. These days, I-169 and I-69 (FUTURE) would do just what this theoretically routed I-24 could do, except better, since both of them are actually north-south.

For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d.

Really, I-17 and 19 should be combined as one route, or else 19 should be a 3di (but we all know how AZ feels about 3dis).

It would make a lot of sense to combine I-17 and I-19 (with a concurrency along I-10). If Interstate 19 were used as the designation for this unified route, then the I-17 designation could be freed up for the newly sprouting I-11 corridor from Phoenix to Las Vegas (with all or most of it being east of I-15), which has an almost impossible chance of being extended past I-15 to Reno or somewhere where it would then fit in the grid correctly. What's done is done, and I-17 and I-19 are their separate selves, but we can't help but wonder how things would change if they were done this way instead (which would probably be for the better).

However, the idea that I-17 should be a 3di makes no sense to me. I mean, on a larger scale, I-17 isn't too long, but in actuality, it's not really that short. For example, Interstate 17 is almost as long as Interstate 16, and I-16 certainly doesn't need to be a 3di. Arizona is a pretty big state, so looking at a map of it, I-17 looks a lot shorter and smaller than it actually is. If on atlases, on each respective page for each respective state, states are scaled to take up around a full page, this means that just by looking at your atlas, Interstate 16 in Georgia looks much longer than Interstate 17 in Arizona, because Arizona is a far larger state than Georgia. However, in actuality, they are nearly the same length. I definitely do not think it would be a good idea if I-17 had rather had a 3di designation. However, even with that said, I am someone who is perfectly fine with I-476 (the longest 3di), and I am even a supporter of an I-210 that connects Houston and Austin, and that ends on I-10 on both sides (which would be one hell of a long 3di) - so regarding that, in this case, maybe it is true that a duplicate I-12 would be more preferred in the end (but in this case, neither one gives you a true win).     

[DandyDan]

I would love to know how no one ever complains about the fact that the segment of I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee  gets an odd number even though it is an east-west route. Granted it's more NE-SW, but it bears no real relationship to the N-S segment. I highly doubt that someone from Beloit takes I-43 the whole way to Green Bay, largely because the stadium is off of 41. I would call the Beloit-Milwaukee section of I-43 I-92.

[SSOWorld]

I would love to know how no one ever complains about the fact that the segment of I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee  gets an odd number even though it is an east-west route. Granted it's more NE-SW, but it bears no real relationship to the N-S segment. I highly doubt that someone from Beloit takes I-43 the whole way to Green Bay, largely because the stadium is off of 41. I would call the Beloit-Milwaukee section of I-43 I-92.

WisDOT sent it down to allow it to become a 65 zone back when the sacred shield was required for the 65 in 1996.  It was also offering IDOT the chance to use it for US-51 south of Rockford.  IDOT - because IDOT - labeled it 39 instead.

[SteveG1988]

If we want duplicate numbers gone, we need to get them to allow NSEW numbers. I-88 in IL could be I-80N. The only reason 88 exists in IL is due to the 65mph speed limit law. 88 East also provides a 25 mile longer, but viable shunpike route for the NY state Thruway, using 88 and 86. It also allows for a connection to I-81 to get to 476 and Philadelphia without using the thruway except for the start from Albany.

[Flint1979]

I would love to know how no one ever complains about the fact that the segment of I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee  gets an odd number even though it is an east-west route. Granted it's more NE-SW, but it bears no real relationship to the N-S segment. I highly doubt that someone from Beloit takes I-43 the whole way to Green Bay, largely because the stadium is off of 41. I would call the Beloit-Milwaukee section of I-43 I-92.

If that was me traveling between Beloit and Green Bay the route I would use would be to take I-90 west (or north as it runs in this area) to SR-26 and follow that all the way to US-41/I-41 and continue on that way to Green Bay. Going through Milwaukee to me would be just adding more traffic and it's about 18 miles further to take that route.

[CtrlAltDel]

There are several major categories that will get an interstate onto the "most roasted" end of the spectrum. These include:

[...]

C) I-x5 or I-x0 interstates that do not meet the expected standards for those kinds of interstates (major ones that travel a long distance).

You mention I-30 and I-45, but I would also place I-85 in this category. At less than 700 miles, it just doesn’t seem major enough for me.

If we want duplicate numbers gone, we need to get them to allow NSEW numbers.

I prefer the repeats to the number direction combos. Although, what’s worse is that now we have both.

[webny99]

I personally am not against numbering oddities such as I-99. A perfect grid would be, well... perfect, and I don't think it's attainable even though it would be nice.

What DOES really bother me is north-south interstates running east-west and vice-versa. I-94 north of Chicago is one of the worst of all time, because (1) it runs north south (2) both ends are multiplexed with I-90 and (3) it makes several 90 degree turns, which I am also against.

For some reason I-17 gets burned a lot by people who think it should be 3d.

Really, I-17 and 19 should be combined as one route, or else 19 should be a 3di (but we all know how AZ feels about 3dis).

Actually, both I-17 and I-19 should become part of a rerouted I-15. We just have a small gap to fill, and don't forget to redesignate existing I-15 south of Utah 

[Rothman]

So...you would re-number I-94 just for that very short stretch of its overall east-west route?  Seems unnecessary to me.

[webny99]

So...you would re-number I-94 just for that very short stretch of its overall east-west route?  Seems unnecessary to me.

Not at all - I would completely eliminate I-94 west of Chicago. Existing I-94 west of Tomah, WI (from the current I-90/I-94 split) becomes I-90, and I-90 becomes I-80. The section of I-94 between Chicago and Tomah can be renumbered with appropriate numbers 

We're deep in fictional territory now, but anyways...

[Rothman]

Heh.  To each their own.

[3467]

72 debate over extending across MO . Consensus is US 36 expressway is adequate for now.
88 replacing 290 . I would extend to Iowa to fix Quad Cities numbering. Maybe it would appease Iowa

[adventurernumber1]

72 debate over extending across MO . Consensus is US 36 expressway is adequate for now.
88 replacing 290 . I would extend to Iowa to fix Quad Cities numbering. Maybe it would appease Iowa

Extending Interstate 72 to somewhere like St. Joseph, Missouri would be a great idea. Not only would it facilitate transportation for the northern half of the state, but it would make I-72 more significant. If I-72 would be criticized for anything, it would probably be its short length and lack of significance to a large extent. If I-72 was extended, this would also be incredible news for traffic going places like from Chicago to Kansas City and vice versa.

[WillWeaverRVA]

66: No criticism except possibly heavy traffic.

I-66 gets roasted about how the HOT system inside the Beltway was implemented, and before that about how it's dramatically underbuilt due to community opposition to it being built in the first place.

[webny99]

I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's a disjointed mess south of Indianapolis.

Fixed that one for you 
I-69 has got to be one of the most unnecessary interstste corridors in the country... we do not need more cross country interstates in addition to the I-X0's and I-X5's.

[SteveG1988]

I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's a disjointed mess south of Indianapolis.

Fixed that one for you 
I-69 has got to be one of the most unnecessary interstste corridors in the country... we do not need more cross country interstates in addition to the I-X0's and I-X5's.

I-69 should have always been extended to i-24, via the entire pennyrile parkway. it makes sense to connect Indianapolis to the southern united states that way. Yes, it duplicates i-65, but it does serve to connect the three major cities, Evansville (third most populated city in the state), Indianapolis (the most populated), and Fort Wayne (the second most populated), plus Fort Campbell Kentucky, and Craine Naval Weapons station, via a route that would be compatable with military convoy traffic, in the defense highway terms. At least, i-69 should have connected to i-64 at Evansville to begin with, and have a 3di going into town to meet the US41 bridges.

[Flint1979]

I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's a disjointed mess south of Indianapolis.

Fixed that one for you 
I-69 has got to be one of the most unnecessary interstste corridors in the country... we do not need more cross country interstates in addition to the I-X0's and I-X5's.

The original I-69 was fine the way it was. I was thinking about it last night, about 4 years ago I drove to Houston and the Texarkana to Houston route isn't going to get you to Houston any faster making it an Interstate highway. US-59 is already 70-75 mph so I'm going to make it to Houston in the same amount of time on US-59 as I would an Interstate it's not needed. I-69 should not be a cross country Interstate at all. Between Indianapolis and Port Huron though it functions pretty good and is actually a quicker way to Port Huron from the Battle Creek area vs. taking I-94 through Detroit so it pretty much acts as a bypass of Detroit too and doesn't come within 50-60 miles of Detroit at any point. The interchange near Marshall and Battle Creek is 100 miles west of Detroit. So maybe I-69 should become an I-x94 highway between Marshall/Battle Creek and Port Huron lol it would be the longest 3-di if that was the case and then you wouldn't have to worry about the east-west stretch of it either.

[webny99]

I-69 probably gets roasted due to running east and west between Lansing and Port Huron and then it's a disjointed mess south of Indianapolis.

Fixed that one for you 
I-69 has got to be one of the most unnecessary interstste corridors in the country... we do not need more cross country interstates in addition to the I-X0's and I-X5's.

I-69 should have always been extended to i-24, via the entire pennyrile parkway. it makes sense to connect Indianapolis to the southern united states that way. Yes, it duplicates i-65, but it does serve to connect the three major cities, Evansville (third most populated city in the state), Indianapolis (the most populated), and Fort Wayne (the second most populated), plus Fort Campbell Kentucky, and Craine Naval Weapons station, via a route that would be compatable with military convoy traffic, in the defense highway terms. At least, i-69 should have connected to i-64 at Evansville to begin with, and have a 3di going into town to meet the US41 bridges.

I wasn't trying to make the argument that I-69 is not necessary - it certainly serves a vital purpose especially in Indiana and Michigan. But other segments of the corridor (to the south) should really have different numbers, to avoid creating false impressions of continuity.