Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Henry]

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.

There's just one thing wrong with that proposal, and that is, another I-275 already exists in Cincinnati.

As for the Detroit one, I have no problem with its route, pointless concurrency aside.

[GaryV]

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.

There's just one thing wrong with that proposal, and that is, another I-275 already exists in Cincinnati.

As for the Detroit one, I have no problem with its route, pointless concurrency aside.

I think that the concurrency continues because many people consider I-96 from Novi to the west to be different than the Jeffries Freeway I-96 from Livonia to Detroit.

[SkyPesos]

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.

I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.

[Flint1979]

I don't think of I-275 and I-696 as a single loop route; I-696 is an E-W route in the immediate northern suburbs from I-94 to I-96, and while I-275 can get you back to I-75 via 96 and 23, it also functions as a N-S route to DTW and local highway in Livonia/Farmington etc. The other thing is that using I-75 to I-275 north to I-696 east to I-75 north as a loop route is pretty inefficient unless you're going to, say, the Royal Oak area- up to Auburn Hills you'd take Telegraph, for example.

Really if you are coming from say Monroe and going to Auburn Hills or even Royal Oak it would be better to just stay on I-75 and follow it through Detroit than to take I-275 or Telegraph or the Southfield. Any route you take it's going to take at least an hour to drive from Monroe to Royal Oak all of which is through Metro Detroit.

Totally agree. What I was getting at is that the OP idea for renumbering I-696 to I-275 would imply that the current I-275 to I-696 drive would create a unified, sensible beltway around Detroit, and there's really no scenario in which you would actually drive that full I-275 loop from I-75 Exit 20 back to I-75 Exit 61 unless (1) I-75 through Detroit was literally closed and (2) you live in Royal Oak.

Also very much disagree that the I-275 duplex should be removed. I-275 is the "through" N-S route up to 696 and I-96 uses it to shift E-W corridors to go to Lansing.

My point is, most circular belt 3dis around major cities are rarely, if ever traveled in their entirety despite having the same route number on all sides of the city.

I don't expect too many drivers to regionally bypass Detroit by driving both I-275 and I-696 to get back to I-75 ‐‐ From Toledo, I'd beeline US-23 as the true Detroit Bypass, or even I-275/I-96/US-23 if I wanted to avoid Ann Arbor as well or if I was coming from the East Side of Toledo (I-280)

I'd rather see one Interstate number ring around Detroit instead of two routes that should be odd-numbered 3dis as they are currently, in effect, spurs off their parent routes and would give more reason for the I-96/I-275 duplex.

Neither I-275 or I-696 are spurs, I-196 on the western side of the state isn't even a spur. All three of these routes start at an Interstate and end at an Interstate which means it should have an even numbered 3di.

[Flint1979]

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.

That doesn't make any sense at all to do that.

[1]

Neither I-275 or I-696 are spurs, I-196 on the western side of the state isn't even a spur. All three of these routes start at an Interstate and end at an Interstate which means it should have an even numbered 3di.

275 and 696 should keep their even numbers, being parts of a Detroit beltway. 196, on the other hand, seems to be a medium-distance connector; see I-155 (IL), I-135 and I-335 (KS), I-195 and I-395 (MA/RI and MA/CT), I-380 (IA), etc.

[Flint1979]

Neither I-275 or I-696 are spurs, I-196 on the western side of the state isn't even a spur. All three of these routes start at an Interstate and end at an Interstate which means it should have an even numbered 3di.

275 and 696 should keep their even numbers, being parts of a Detroit beltway. 196, on the other hand, seems to be a medium-distance connector; see I-155 (IL), I-135 and I-335 (KS), I-195 and I-395 (MA/RI and MA/CT), I-380 (IA), etc.

Some of those other one's are even number 3di worthy. I-196 really isn't a spur though it's original purpose was to go to Muskegon but it switched highways with I-96 which was suppose to follow I-196's current routing to end at I-94. It makes sense the way they have it now because I-96 would just go to GR and make a dip to the south again not really making any sense but originally it would have been a spur to Muskegon.

I-275 and I-696 serve their purpose fine but they are both prone to very heavy traffic so even though you are bypassing Detroit you're still stuck in Detroit's traffic. Even if you stay on I-75 though you can bypass downtown Detroit by taking the Southfield to the Ford to the Lodge to the Davison.

[GaryV]

The I-96 / I-196 switch was made because the road to Muskegon was finished long before the cross-town Grand Rapids road.  The road changed numbers on the east side of GR for no apparent reason.  So they fixed it.

[dvferyance]

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.

I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.

I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore. And I-610 is a full beltway around Houston.

[1]

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.

I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.

I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.

495 would have been a very bad choice, and I believe 295 is the most common 3di number — if someone is traveling along I-95 in either direction through several states, 695 is less ambiguous than 295.

[wanderer2575]

Considering that NIMBYs and environmentalists have all but killed any chance of I-275 ever being built north of Novi, why not renumber I-696 as a continuation of I-275 giving Metro Detroit a true loop bypass route?

Like I-275, I-696 only meets it's parent route on one end.  At least with extending I-275 eastward, it would still have the opportunity to meet it's parent route a second time.

If one really wants to push the idea of a "true loop bypass route" and insists that an even-numbered 3di has to meet its parent route twice, the only one that makes sense is to eliminate both I-275 and I-696 and re-designate both of them as a single I-x94.  But that would be crazy at this point in time.  Like JREwing78, I'm not in favor of route number changes solely for the purpose of satisfying some obscure principle that is of no consequence.

[Alex]

Not only that, but too many environmental issues shutdown I-275 north of its current terminus. Outside the M-5 ROW, look at central Oakland County on a map. Lakes, everywhere, swampy land, bogs, etc. I had always maintained that Michigan should have followed Wisconsin or Ohio's lead on a N-S route thru there. Make Haggerty Rd, Union Lake Rd, and other roads state highways. Then you can you make whatever is needed locally for the trunk line. Freeway, blvd, 5 lane road, 2 lane road, the state would maintain the routing.

Good topic/discussion in this thread. 
I had always wondered about what alignment I-275's northern section might have taken. I have one map in my collection that shows a portion of a proposed route for I-275 north of I-96/696. Scanned a section of it for the I-275 Michigan page on interstate-guide:



1974 AAA Map

[SkyPesos]

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.

I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.

I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.

With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don’t like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.

[sturmde]

Keep 696 as is. Eliminate the 96/275 duplex. It is an unnecessary co-designation (I feel the same way about the 84-380 duplex in Pennsylvania).

Well, that's only because I-380 was originally I-81E so it ran to I-81, and I-84 was supposed to head southwesterly from the 84-380 intersection directly towards a point between Dupont and Wilkes-Barre.  84 should have extended 10 more miles west in the Green Run valley to end at an intersection with 81 and 476 south of the airport.  Hmmm, let's not tell the Penn Turnpike folks, they might try to build that and charge $20 tolls.  (Then again, that could really help to be able to bypass the heavy Scranton traffic around the 81-84-380-6 interchange.)
.
But, yes, eliminate the I-275 duplex.  Just plaster a TO over any southbound 275 SOUTH signs along the current duplex, and minimize the amount of sign removal to northbound.  Or place a TO and an M-5 shield over northbound 275's.

[Flint1979]

Sounds like a massive waste of time to get rid of the concurrency with I-96. MDOT needs to focus on rebuilding the highways at this point. They vary by region as far as being good or bad btw. The region I'm in is below average at best, Flint, the Tri-Cities and Thumb all have below average quality roads just for that region alone. The Metro region needs to focus more on I-94 than anything else at this point.

[GaryV]

Sounds like a massive waste of time to get rid of the concurrency with I-96. MDOT needs to focus on rebuilding the highways at this point. They vary by region as far as being good or bad btw. The region I'm in is below average at best, Flint, the Tri-Cities and Thumb all have below average quality roads just for that region alone. The Metro region needs to focus more on I-94 than anything else at this point.

Guess what?  I-275 south of I-96/M-14 is scheduled for work this year.

[Flint1979]

Sounds like a massive waste of time to get rid of the concurrency with I-96. MDOT needs to focus on rebuilding the highways at this point. They vary by region as far as being good or bad btw. The region I'm in is below average at best, Flint, the Tri-Cities and Thumb all have below average quality roads just for that region alone. The Metro region needs to focus more on I-94 than anything else at this point.

Guess what?  I-275 south of I-96/M-14 is scheduled for work this year.

Nothing for US-23 probably though. Around here this will be year two of the I-75 construction in Saginaw County between MM 148 and 150 and the M-46 interchange is finally being rebuilt. The roundabouts are already in place and the new bridge over I-75 is already done they just have to finish demolishing the old bridge and the circles. What an outdated interchange that was before they started rebuilding it last year. I also can't stand the M-25/US-10 interchange either those interchanges with the circle on and off ramps and left lane entrance and exits have to go.

[wanderer2575]

Sounds like a massive waste of time to get rid of the concurrency with I-96. MDOT needs to focus on rebuilding the highways at this point. They vary by region as far as being good or bad btw. The region I'm in is below average at best, Flint, the Tri-Cities and Thumb all have below average quality roads just for that region alone. The Metro region needs to focus more on I-94 than anything else at this point.

Guess what?  I-275 south of I-96/M-14 is scheduled for work this year.

Don't get too excited yet.  I can't find the article (of course) but I read somewhere this will be a three- or four-year project:

2021:  Repairs on the concrete pavement between Northline Road and Will Carleton Road.
2022:  Reconstruction of southbound I-275 between 5 Mile Road and Northline Road.
2023:  Reconstruction of northbound I-275 between Northline Road and I-96/M-14.
2024:  Reconstruction of northbound I-275 between I-96/M-14 and 5 Mile Road.

So once again it seems the section with the least amount of need will see work done first, unless what I read is incorrect.  If not, have fun dodging the potholes, especially between 5 Mile Road and M-153, for the next few years.

[Papa Emeritus]

Not only that, but too many environmental issues shutdown I-275 north of its current terminus. Outside the M-5 ROW, look at central Oakland County on a map. Lakes, everywhere, swampy land, bogs, etc. I had always maintained that Michigan should have followed Wisconsin or Ohio's lead on a N-S route thru there. Make Haggerty Rd, Union Lake Rd, and other roads state highways. Then you can you make whatever is needed locally for the trunk line. Freeway, blvd, 5 lane road, 2 lane road, the state would maintain the routing.

Good topic/discussion in this thread. 
I had always wondered about what alignment I-275's northern section might have taken. I have one map in my collection that shows a portion of a proposed route for I-275 north of I-96/696. Scanned a section of it for the I-275 Michigan page on interstate-guide:

1974 AAA Map

Thanks for sharing the map. Another interesting thing on the map is that it shows I-96 following Grand River, instead of its concurrency with I-275.

[SEWIGuy]

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.

I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.

I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.

With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don’t like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.

Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue.  Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way.  (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)

Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.

[Flint1979]

Not only that, but too many environmental issues shutdown I-275 north of its current terminus. Outside the M-5 ROW, look at central Oakland County on a map. Lakes, everywhere, swampy land, bogs, etc. I had always maintained that Michigan should have followed Wisconsin or Ohio's lead on a N-S route thru there. Make Haggerty Rd, Union Lake Rd, and other roads state highways. Then you can you make whatever is needed locally for the trunk line. Freeway, blvd, 5 lane road, 2 lane road, the state would maintain the routing.

Good topic/discussion in this thread. 
I had always wondered about what alignment I-275's northern section might have taken. I have one map in my collection that shows a portion of a proposed route for I-275 north of I-96/696. Scanned a section of it for the I-275 Michigan page on interstate-guide:

1974 AAA Map

Thanks for sharing the map. Another interesting thing on the map is that it shows I-96 following Grand River, instead of its concurrency with I-275.

That was the original plan but they were altered because of the impact it would have had on the businesses and the community around it. The route it follows now running concurrent with I-275 and then running through Livonia is on part of a railroad right of way and Schoolcraft Road.

[Avalanchez71]

I don't see the need to sign I-275 up to I-75 at this time due to the proliferation of the sheeple that just use GPS.  I suppose that renumbering now will just add ton in expenses at the cost to the taxpayer.

[skluth]

And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.

I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.

I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.

With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don’t like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.

Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue.  Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way.  (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)

Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.

I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.

[SkyPesos]

Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue.  Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way.  (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)

Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.

Think Milwaukee used 794 and 894 because Chicago took most of the lower numbers at the time. 494 and 694 was planned at one point, and cancelled. I-90 between I-290 and I-90 used to be I-194, and I-190 used to be I-594. Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.

[1]

Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.

There's an I-394 in all but name (it's IL 394).