MoDOT should pitch SR 360, and designate an I-244 along SR 360, US 60, US 65 to loop around the city. This would probably make a good bypass route for Springfield, Missouri (or turn I-44 into a bypass route).
Seriously though, why... it already serves as a bypass with no signage. And I don't think this belongs in the fictional board
Meh, to suggest a new designation definitely puts this in fictional territory.
Quote from: Rothman on April 03, 2017, 12:18:29 PM
Meh, to suggest a new designation definitely puts this in fictional territory.
This was in the fictional area. A mod moved it for some reason.
There once was an Interstate 244 in Saint Louis, but I'm sure you all knew that. As for whether there should be a 244 around Springfield, what's wrong with just keeping the corridor MO 360/US 60/US 65?
Quote from: Brandon on April 03, 2017, 12:58:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 03, 2017, 12:18:29 PM
Meh, to suggest a new designation definitely puts this in fictional territory.
This was in the fictional area. A mod moved it for some reason.
There was talk a couple of years ago about designating it as I-244. I can't find the local article, but there is a page on Interstate-Guide. https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-244_mo.html
Edit: Also, back in 2014, a project to upgrade the US60, US65, and MO360 loop to Interstate standards was listed as one of the projects that MODOT would have done if Amendment 7 (0.75% sales tax, IIRC) had passed. I don't think that list is online anymore, but I still have the PDF if anyone wants it.
The current route designations are probably fine as is. US-60 is a significant East-West route across Missouri. Having a short Interstate designation trump it could lead to some driver confusion. If I was going to assign an Interstate designation to any additional road in the Springfield area it would be to US-65 from I-44 down to Branson, if that route can ever get fully upgraded to Interstate standards. There's still some drive ways and at grade intersections to eliminate.
Long term there is still some desire to upgrade US-60 between Springfield and Sikeston to freeway or Interstate standards. The corridor is all 4-laned now, nearly all divided with some freeway exits and frontage roads in various places. If I recall correctly this corridor was along a proposed extension of I-66 from Kentucky, but I think that whole effort is pretty much dead now. If the corridor is fully upgraded to Interstate quality some time in the distant future I don't know what number designation it would carry. If Missouri has to upgrade it mostly on its own dime piece by piece it will probably stay designated as US-60.
There was an effort in 2013 to create I-244 at Springfield. Here's the previous thread on it (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10896.msg259121#msg259121).
I doubt an Interstate 244 (or any other number) will be designated in the Springfield area. This will probably go the same way as those folks in Green Bay who wanted the US 41 corridor between Milwaukee and Green Bay designated as an extension of Interstate 55 (instead of Interstate 41).
Extending the I-55 designation North to Green Bay is a pretty extreme thing. It's quite a bit different than just assigning a 3 digit Interstate designation to a freeway around one city. If I-55 was going to be extended North to Green Bay I'd have it eat up I-43. The I-41 thing there doesn't make much sense, especially the overlap with I-94 down to the Illinois border.
It would have a pretty bad TOTSO at the southeast corner.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 08:14:26 AM
It would have a pretty bad TOTSO at the southeast corner.
What's bad about a flyover?
I'd much rather see a 3d odd I-44
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 03, 2017, 03:21:37 PM
There once was an Interstate 244 in Saint Louis, but I'm sure you all knew that. As for whether there should be a 244 around Springfield, what's wrong with just keeping the corridor MO 360/US 60/US 65?
Quote from: US71 on April 05, 2017, 11:35:32 AM
I'd much rather see a 3d odd I-44
There's no real reason to designate an Interstate loop over these existing routes; it would have little navigational purpose, and even less developmental rationale (the area's pretty much fully developed as it is; a 3di won't change matters much). If any of these routes ever get Interstate designations, it'll likely be due to new trunk or spur routes along US 60, US 65, or both -- well into the future if at all!
Quote from: NE2 on April 05, 2017, 09:39:14 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 08:14:26 AM
It would have a pretty bad TOTSO at the southeast corner.
What's bad about a flyover?
Not so much the geometry of the interchange itself, but the fact that the route designation has to make such a sharp turn to jump onto another route.
That interchange was once a lot worse, and was upgraded only 4 years or so ago. Unfortunately, that probably precludes redoing it again to make a theoretical I-244 the through route.
My preferred option would be to make US-65 to Branson an I-144 and then make US-60/Route 360 an I-644.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 05:30:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 05, 2017, 09:39:14 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 08:14:26 AM
It would have a pretty bad TOTSO at the southeast corner.
What's bad about a flyover?
Not so much the geometry of the interchange itself, but the fact that the route designation has to make such a sharp turn to jump onto another route.
That interchange was once a lot worse, and was upgraded only 4 years or so ago. Unfortunately, that probably precludes redoing it again to make a theoretical I-244 the through route.
My preferred option would be to make US-65 to Branson an I-144 and then make US-60/Route 360 an I-644.
Still numerous at-grades on 65
An I-144 designation would currently go 13 miles South of the US-60/US-65 interchange, ending at the exit for Route EE. It's another 14 miles to the US-160 exit, where US-65 turns into a freeway again going through Branson. On US-65 between route EE there are 14 at grade street intersections or crossings, 7 driveways connecting to the Northbound lanes and 8 driveways connecting to the Southbound lanes. Some of those intersections could be replaced with exits. Most of the driveways could be cut off by new frontage road segments.
In Branson just South of the Lake Taneycomo Bridge at grade intersections and driveways come back into the picture even though there is a SPUI at Industrial Park Drive.
US-65 could be upgraded to Interstate quality without too many problems down to the Arkansas border if development in Branson grew enough to justify it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 05, 2017, 07:16:41 PM
An I-144 designation would currently go 13 miles South of the US-60/US-65 interchange, ending at the exit for Route EE. It's another 14 miles to the US-160 exit, where US-65 turns into a freeway again going through Branson. On US-65 between route EE there are 14 at grade street intersections or crossings, 7 driveways connecting to the Northbound lanes and 8 driveways connecting to the Southbound lanes. Some of those intersections could be replaced with exits. Most of the driveways could be cut off by new frontage road segments.
In Branson just South of the Lake Taneycomo Bridge at grade intersections and driveways come back into the picture even though there is a SPUI at Industrial Park Drive.
US-65 could be upgraded to Interstate quality without too many problems down to the Arkansas border if development in Branson grew enough to justify it.
But they can't afford to finish I-49, how would they justify Branson?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 05:30:23 PM
That interchange was once a lot worse, and was upgraded only 4 years or so ago. Unfortunately, that probably precludes redoing it again to make a theoretical I-244 the through route.
Like they did when I-70 was rerouted over the Mississippi. Or at both ends of the I-49 overlap with I-44.
Quote from: NE2 on April 05, 2017, 08:50:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 05:30:23 PM
That interchange was once a lot worse, and was upgraded only 4 years or so ago. Unfortunately, that probably precludes redoing it again to make a theoretical I-244 the through route.
Like they did when I-70 was rerouted over the Mississippi. Or at both ends of the I-49 overlap with I-44.
49//44 needs rebuilding at Diamond, IF MoDOT ever has the money.
Quote from: US71 on April 06, 2017, 08:41:42 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 05, 2017, 08:50:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 05:30:23 PM
That interchange was once a lot worse, and was upgraded only 4 years or so ago. Unfortunately, that probably precludes redoing it again to make a theoretical I-244 the through route.
Like they did when I-70 was rerouted over the Mississippi. Or at both ends of the I-49 overlap with I-44.
49//44 needs rebuilding at Diamond, IF MoDOT ever has the money.
Isn't the plan to have 49 eventually follow the MO-249/BL49 (if they ever get the money)?
Quote from: mvak36 on April 06, 2017, 11:29:38 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 06, 2017, 08:41:42 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 05, 2017, 08:50:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 05:30:23 PM
That interchange was once a lot worse, and was upgraded only 4 years or so ago. Unfortunately, that probably precludes redoing it again to make a theoretical I-244 the through route.
Like they did when I-70 was rerouted over the Mississippi. Or at both ends of the I-49 overlap with I-44.
49//44 needs rebuilding at Diamond, IF MoDOT ever has the money.
Isn't the plan to have 49 eventually follow the MO-249/BL49 (if they ever get the money)?
That's what I have heard. I don't see it though. Either new mainline construction or a major interchange is needed there.
Quote from: intelati49 on April 06, 2017, 02:26:22 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on April 06, 2017, 11:29:38 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 06, 2017, 08:41:42 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 05, 2017, 08:50:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 05:30:23 PM
That interchange was once a lot worse, and was upgraded only 4 years or so ago. Unfortunately, that probably precludes redoing it again to make a theoretical I-244 the through route.
Like they did when I-70 was rerouted over the Mississippi. Or at both ends of the I-49 overlap with I-44.
49//44 needs rebuilding at Diamond, IF MoDOT ever has the money.
Isn't the plan to have 49 eventually follow the MO-249/BL49 (if they ever get the money)?
That's what I have heard. I don't see it though. Either new mainline construction or a major interchange is needed there.
Since the north 49/BL49 interchange is currently a simple diamond, it would indeed require a major rebuild to turn the through lanes of I-49 at that point. It might be more effective to simply place a EB>NB flyover at the current east I-44/49 interchange, accompanied by improvement of the SB>WB directional ramp as well rather than engage in a full reroute of I-49 in the short term. If future AADT counts eventually point toward upgrading of MO 249 into a I-249 route, then an interchange upgrade at the current diamond could be done then without having to completely revamp the through lanes of I-49.
The main problem is I-49 Exit 53 in Carthage. It existing diamond interchange needs to be converted at least to a cloverleaf interchange for freeway to freeway operation. The problem is there is a bunch of development right there, including a sewage treatment plant on the NW corner. A more creative design would be needed to connect both freeways.
Quote from: US71But they can't afford to finish I-49, how would they justify Branson?
I guess it all depends on how much traffic goes to Branson. Frankly, I think it's damned pathetic of Missouri to have this much trouble finishing their portion of the Belle Vista bypass. They only have about 4.5 of road to build. The Arkansas portion is about 3 times as long and most of difficult stuff is already built on that one.
They're playing tag on it. Missouri had the money to build it during the Amendment 3 days, but they deferred it because Arkansas wasn't ready and they didn't want to build a road that dead-ended at the state line. Now Arkansas has the money and Missouri doesn't.
This new I-244 would be too close to Tulsa's 244. I'd say number it 644. If Augusta, GA can have their loop interstate, then I don't see why Springfield can't also have one.
Does Springfield really need an Interstate-designated loop? I'm still not convinced it does.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 07, 2017, 05:42:17 PM
Does Springfield really need an Interstate-designated loop? I'm still not convinced it does.
Honestly? Probably not. Route 66 is a big draw, so anything detouring traffic around town would likely be frowned upon.
Quote from: paulthemapguyThis new I-244 would be too close to Tulsa's 244. I'd say number it 644. If Augusta, GA can have their loop interstate, then I don't see why Springfield can't also have one.
Hasn't I-520 in Augusta always been I-520? The odd number designation seems odd now that the highway is an actual loop instead of a spur. But it creates even more problems, particularly for local businesses and their advertising, to just re-number a highway to comply better with Interstate numbering rules.
I just don't agree with Springfield having an even numbered Interstate loop designation. The Southeast corner of the "loop" is really a crossing of two different US highways going in fully perpendicular directions. Eastbound US-60 has a flyover ramp going directly to Northbound US-65. Unfortunately the ramp has only one lane. That's not very good for carrying an Interstate route number's thru traffic through a freeway to freeway interchange. This is why I would find it acceptable for US-60 to have one Interstate route designation and the US-65 freeway to have a different, odd numbered Interstate route designation.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 07, 2017, 10:16:46 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguyThis new I-244 would be too close to Tulsa's 244. I'd say number it 644. If Augusta, GA can have their loop interstate, then I don't see why Springfield can't also have one.
Hasn't I-520 in Augusta always been I-520? The odd number designation seems odd now that the highway is an actual loop instead of a spur. But it creates even more problems, particularly for local businesses and their advertising, to just re-number a highway to comply better with Interstate numbering rules.
I just don't agree with Springfield having an even numbered Interstate loop designation. The Southeast corner of the "loop" is really a crossing of two different US highways going in fully perpendicular directions. Eastbound US-60 has a flyover ramp going directly to Northbound US-65. Unfortunately the ramp has only one lane. That's not very good for carrying an Interstate route number's thru traffic through a freeway to freeway interchange. This is why I would find it acceptable for US-60 to have one Interstate route designation and the US-65 freeway to have a different, odd numbered Interstate route designation.
It should be changed to I-420 as there once was a proposed I-420 in Atlanta. I-220 is already used in Louisiana I like to avoid duplications when possible.
Quote from: dvferyance on April 13, 2017, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 07, 2017, 10:16:46 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguyThis new I-244 would be too close to Tulsa's 244. I'd say number it 644. If Augusta, GA can have their loop interstate, then I don't see why Springfield can't also have one.
Hasn't I-520 in Augusta always been I-520? The odd number designation seems odd now that the highway is an actual loop instead of a spur. But it creates even more problems, particularly for local businesses and their advertising, to just re-number a highway to comply better with Interstate numbering rules.
I just don't agree with Springfield having an even numbered Interstate loop designation. The Southeast corner of the "loop" is really a crossing of two different US highways going in fully perpendicular directions. Eastbound US-60 has a flyover ramp going directly to Northbound US-65. Unfortunately the ramp has only one lane. That's not very good for carrying an Interstate route number's thru traffic through a freeway to freeway interchange. This is why I would find it acceptable for US-60 to have one Interstate route designation and the US-65 freeway to have a different, odd numbered Interstate route designation.
It should be changed to I-420 as there once was a proposed I-420 in Atlanta. I-220 is already used in Louisiana I like to avoid duplications when possible.
Imagine the theft that would happen.
I use the James River Freeway somewhat regularly, my wife's family living in Branson (she grew up there) and we living in Wichita. I'll say that the highway has plenty of traffic, serves a large commercial area of the city, and provides a very useful freeway link to both Branson and Rogersville. I'd say it very much "deserves" an Interstate designation. I'm good with either letting it terminate at 60/65 (odd number) or wrapping it back north to 44 again (even number).
As it is, it's kind of crazy that drivers going from Joplin to Branson have to use four route numbers (44-360-60-65) of three classes (I-, SR-, US-) just to navigate the obvious route around the city.
As for 65 down to Branson, Rand McNally used to show it as all freeway, until I emailed them about it. It could stand to be a freeway, but until that happens, a spur Interstate number would be silly.
No. It isn't a functional loop. The only thing they could do that makes sense is to make MO 360/US 60/US 160 from I-44 to US 65 (and beyond if necessary) as I-144 to reduce confusion. Of course they could just sign MO 360 all the way to US 65 and take care of the problem that way.
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2017, 12:25:17 AM
No. It isn't a functional loop. The only thing they could do that makes sense is to make MO 360/US 60/US 160 from I-44 to US 65 (and beyond if necessary) as I-144 to reduce confusion. Of course they could just sign MO 360 all the way to US 65 and take care of the problem that way.
Extending the 360 designation makes no sense, unless you send US 60 back through town. I-144, I could see.
It makes sense. It gives the entire James River Freeway one single number. The other thing that could be done is to reroute US 60 along I-44 from somewhere to the west to the JRF interchange. US 60 west of I-44 and east of Springfield are really two different corridors with the same number.
Quote from: US71 on May 16, 2017, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2017, 12:25:17 AM
No. It isn't a functional loop. The only thing they could do that makes sense is to make MO 360/US 60/US 160 from I-44 to US 65 (and beyond if necessary) as I-144 to reduce confusion. Of course they could just sign MO 360 all the way to US 65 and take care of the problem that way.
Extending the 360 designation makes no sense, unless you send US 60 back through town. I-144, I could see.
MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River. Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number. That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2017, 01:57:13 PM
MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River. Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number. That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.
Why waste the signage?
Quote from: US71 on May 19, 2017, 08:57:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2017, 01:57:13 PM
MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River. Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number. That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.
Why waste the signage?
Because every loop should have a consistent number? Not exactly sure. Except in cases of detours, it doesn't do that. It acts more like a triangle...
Quote from: intelati49 on May 21, 2017, 08:55:21 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 19, 2017, 08:57:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2017, 01:57:13 PM
MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River. Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number. That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.
Why waste the signage?
Because every loop should have a consistent number? Not exactly sure. Except in cases of detours, it doesn't do that. It acts more like a triangle...
360 isn't intended to be a loop, but a spur from I-44 to US 60. Using 360/60/65 as anything beyond an emergency bypass seems a waste to me.
Quote from: US71 on May 21, 2017, 09:11:22 AM
Quote from: intelati49 on May 21, 2017, 08:55:21 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 19, 2017, 08:57:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2017, 01:57:13 PM
MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River. Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number. That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.
Why waste the signage?
Because every loop should have a consistent number? Not exactly sure. Except in cases of detours, it doesn't do that. It acts more like a triangle...
360 isn't intended to be a loop, but a spur from I-44 to US 60. Using 360/60/65 as anything beyond an emergency bypass seems a waste to me.
(Just in case my point isn't clear, I come to the same conclusion. I'm just arguing the opposite point for the sake of discussion)
edit: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/(.png
Quote from: intelati49 on May 21, 2017, 11:21:39 AM
(Just in case my point isn't clear, I come to the same conclusion. I'm just arguing the opposite point for the sake of discussion)
edit: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/(.png
:pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan:
Quote from: US71 on May 21, 2017, 11:46:46 AM
Quote from: intelati49 on May 21, 2017, 11:21:39 AM
(Just in case my point isn't clear, I come to the same conclusion. I'm just arguing the opposite point for the sake of discussion)
edit: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/(.png
:pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan:
Also... (https://xkcd.com/1432/)
Quote from: intelati49 on May 21, 2017, 11:21:39 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 21, 2017, 09:11:22 AM
Quote from: intelati49 on May 21, 2017, 08:55:21 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 19, 2017, 08:57:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2017, 01:57:13 PM
MO-360 could run concurrently with US-60 along James River. Then US-60 would still keep its current (new-ish) routing, but drivers could still follow a single route number. That wouldn't be much better, of course, since current signage already includes "TO" indications.
Why waste the signage?
Because every loop should have a consistent number? Not exactly sure. Except in cases of detours, it doesn't do that. It acts more like a triangle...
360 isn't intended to be a loop, but a spur from I-44 to US 60. Using 360/60/65 as anything beyond an emergency bypass seems a waste to me.
(Just in case my point isn't clear, I come to the same conclusion. I'm just arguing the opposite point for the sake of discussion)
edit: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/(.png
One alternative: designate MO 360 and the part of US 60 from 360 to 65 as I-144 or I-344; the BGS's along the I-44 EB approach to the present 360 interchange would read "I-144 TO US 60 EAST/US 65 SOUTH" with secondary signage listing Branson and Willow Springs as control points. WB would be simple: "I-144 to US 60"; secondary signage would reference Republic and possible Monett. This would give the James River/south Springfield loop a singular Interstate number, ending at a logical distribution point. US 60 signage would remain along the new Interstate route where it is today.