Regional Boards > Northwest

The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate

<< < (2/8) > >>

Sykotyk:
For that many miles, for a non x5 or x0 route, no need to multiplex it.

Just relabel I-82 as I-86. Nobody in traveling will confuse the two segments. Akin to Illinois and New York both having I-88.

But, mostly, I'd be in favor of it being a 3di. Just as I would when US395 gets fully upgraded to freeway standards in the distant future.

Sykotyk

exit322:
It's been around long enough, and isn't that egregious a penalty, that I-82 wouldn't really even be a problem to keep.

If worried about it, put I-84 on the I-82 alignment and change I-84 west of that to the "new" I-82.

DrZoidberg:
I always thought I-82 would be better signed as a north-south route.  I-11 anybody?

corco:
Running any route concurrent between I-86 and the I-82 split would be a ridiculously long and pointless concurrency that I'm adamantly against.

I'd say just leave it as is. It's not a huge deal and at this point the confusion caused by resigning it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

If US-395 from Pasco to Spokane and US-97 from Bend or Weed CA to Biggs are ever both fully upgraded to interstate standards and up for interstate designation then the debate can be opened and I-82 should be eliminated altogether for an I-11, but for now it's not worth the trouble

Tarkus:
It would have made a little more sense if the FHWA/AASHTO had decided to make I-80N into I-82 instead of I-84 originally, and then turned I-86 into I-84 and I-82 into I-86.  My guess is that they didn't because of the serious mindbender that moving I-82 could have done.

An I-7 designation would make the most sense, I think.   The freeway is 143 miles long, and about 80 of it is north-south.

-Alex (Tarkus)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page