Incorrect 3di designations

[Mergingtraffic]

Any 3di's where the designation is labeled incorrectly?

I-495 in NYC...should be labeled as a spur as it ends at the end of LI.
I-395 in CT should be labeled as a connector as it connects to I-90.
I-195 in RI should be a connector as it connects to I-495.

I know there are more...

[agentsteel53]

I have noticed that every 3di in New York City has an even-number prefix, and the vast majority of them are not loops!

I wonder why they did that. I think it just adds to the confusion - goodness knows I have trouble keeping 278 and 287 straight in my head; if one were 378 it would be a lot more sensible.  

that said, I think they once intended to connect 495 back to 95 across the Long Island Sound. 

[Riverside Frwy]

It's probably some underground political scheme by NYSDOT.

[TheStranger]

Had I-78 been completed through Manhattan to continue to the current-day I-295 Clearview Expressway routing, and I-278 completed west of US 1/9, all the even numberings would have made sense:

I-278: from I-78 in Springfield east through Staten Island and northwest to I-95/I-78 in the Bronx
I-678: from I-78 (now I-878) at JFK International to I-95/I-78 in the Bronx
I-878: well, honestly...yeah, that one is a little harder to justify.

I-478, had it been completed at least to I-78 as the Westway, would have actually had a justifiable usage of an even 3di #.  Having said that, the completed portion doesn't fit at all.  (For that matter, I think of I-278 as being a better candidate for an extended I-87, rather than an actual loop route of 78 which it isn't, and never really was either.)

The 495 interstate designation only applied from the NJTP to I-78 (now I-295) IIRC (the rest originally being either NY 24 or NY 495), though as noted that route was to have connected back to I-95 in Connecticut had bridge plans been acted upon.

doofy103: As for your other two examples, "odd number as a spur" sometimes simply means any freeway that spurs away from its parent without returning to it, regardless of whether the other terminus is an interstate or not.  I-355 in Illinois and I-505 in California are prime examples of this, as was I-580 in California before its 1984 extension to San Rafael.

[Riverside Frwy]

Well, look at Interstate California 605.It begins at Interstate 405 near Seal Beach, then heads North ending at Interstate 210.It only meets its parent route interstate 5 half-way through the route.

[Bickendan]

Better than I-105, thanks to Norwalk. I-605 is technically the parent route there...

[njroadhorse]

I-195's designation won't make much sense once the PA Turnpike/95 interchange is complete, since it will loop around Trenton to meet I-95.

[froggie]

Considering it'll still continue east from Trenton to end at the Jersey Shore, an odd 3di still makes sense for I-195.

[Ian]

I-390 in New York has its both ends at interstates, so that could cound as incorrect I guess.

The new I-376 including the extenstion could count as one since both of its ends are too at interstates. The part of I-376 even before the extension had the same story aswell.

[Revive 755]

doofy103: As for your other two examples, "odd number as a spur" sometimes simply means any freeway that spurs away from its parent without returning to it, regardless of whether the other terminus is an interstate or not.  I-355 in Illinois and I-505 in California are prime examples of this, as was I-580 in California before its 1984 extension to San Rafael.

I think I-355 is more of a bypass than a spur, especially since it was extended down to I-80.  It should have been either I-455 or as I-490, unless the designation is brought up to the current end of the IL 53 freeway which would make the route a spur.

As for I-505 in California, that state can't follow the rules anyway, but I see it as a bypass of Sacramento for I-5 traffic bound to the Bay Area.  However, since all the other even I-x05's are taken,  I don't have much of a problem with it - though it would be easy to replace with a new I-480 or an extension of I-680.

Other improper 3di's:
* I-980 in California:  Maybe if it went farther up CA 24 instead of just making it between I-880 and I-580.

* I-170 in Missouri:  Since it first appeared between I-270 and I-70 and was later brought down to US 40/I-64, it should have always had an even first digit.

* I-335 in Kansas:  Kind of functions like an I-35 loop via Topeka.

* I-135 in Kansas:  This one does act like a spur, but it's length is almost begging for a two digit designation.  Maybe if the designation made it north of I-70.

* I-635 in Texas

* The canceled I-335 around Minneapolis, MN

* I-280 in San Francisco:  Granted this one is due to a cancellation.

[TheStranger]

I-390 in New York has its both ends at interstates, so that could cound as incorrect I guess.

It was more logical when NY 17 wasn't an interstate...it however never comes close to returning to the parent route (I-90, or I-490 if you're thinking north terminus) so it is reminiscent of examples such as California's I-580...

The new I-376 including the extenstion could count as one since both of its ends are too at interstates. The part of I-376 even before the extension had the same story aswell.

A very minority opinion here - but this is where I wish loop-suffixes were still in vogue, as the segment south of I-76 entering Pittsburgh should be an "I-76S" - not that that'll ever happen.

Well, look at Interstate California 605.It begins at Interstate 405 near Seal Beach, then heads North ending at Interstate 210.It only meets its parent route interstate 5 half-way through the route.

I actually think - if we're basing the numbering on simply "does the route attempt to serve as a loop, or return to its parent" - that I-605 would have made a better odd-digit route, ESPECIALLY since at one point it was slated to be extended to Route 1, making the even number incorrect!  (I-310 perhaps?  After all, north terminus is I-310)  As that southern extension is never going to occur, 605 is technically correct, but certainly not the only option that could have been used.

As for I-505 in California, that state can't follow the rules anyway, but I see it as a bypass of Sacramento for I-5 traffic bound to the Bay Area.  However, since all the other even I-x05's are taken,  I don't have much of a problem with it - though it would be easy to replace with a new I-480 or an extension of I-680.

The interchanges for 505 and 680 are about 15 miles apart, and California has always been very reluctant to have any long concurrencies within the freeway system - though I've thought that 505 being replaced with an extended 680 would free up another number.

505 and 580 seem to have gotten their #s from their previous designation as I-5W in any case.

Other improper 3di's:
* I-980 in California:  Maybe if it went farther up CA 24 instead of just making it between I-880 and I-580.

980 was an actual Interstate-to-non-interstate spur from about 1981 to 1984, when today's I-880 was still just Route 17.  (If you extended it to cover all of Route 24 - including the unbuilt bypass of Concord - then the designation would be more apt, indeed.)

* I-635 in Texas

Agreed.  The pre-1974 routing was accurately an even-digit 3di, the extension to DFW however doesn't fit.  (Routes in a similar vein - where continual extensions are slated to create a violation - include I-520 and I-540 in the Carolinas.)

* I-280 in San Francisco:  Granted this one is due to a cancellation.

Keep in mind 280's original routing was not the road to Pac Bell Park (which is in the right of way of what would have been the connection to I-80), but rather a downtown SF bypass along Route 1 to the Presidio, of which only the northernmost and southernmost SF segments were constructed.  So its designation was bizarre enough on several levels, before the 1968 route switch in SF to the Southern Freeway:

1. On BOTH termini, the designation was justified as "even" due to sharing a terminus with another even 3di!  In San Jose, 280 "transforms" into 680 much like 494 and 694 run into each other in the Twin Cities.  In the planned north terminus - the SF Presidio - 280 would have ended at US 101 at today's Route 1/US 101 junction...while 480 would have begun where 280 ended, following 101 east to Van Ness Avenue!   (So 480 would have been more appropriate as a spur route - AND IIRC, was originally submitted as I-380 at one point.)

2. 280 serves not as a bypass or loop for 80 in any case, but as an alternative to US 101.  In the pre-1968 plans, 280 would have started AND ended at US 101 each time - and I-80 would have ended at its own child route in Golden Gate Park!  The controversy surrounding the completion of a freeway through the Sunset district and through Golden Gate Park ultimately created the changes in '68.

[Brandon]

I think I-355 is more of a bypass than a spur, especially since it was extended down to I-80.  It should have been either I-455 or as I-490, unless the designation is brought up to the current end of the IL 53 freeway which would make the route a spur.

IDOT disagrees with you as does the ISTHA.  Both agree with I-355, as well as I-155, being spur routes as they do not return to their parent interstate.  Ever wonder why I-280 is multiplexed with I-74, or why I-294 is multiplexed with I-80?  It is because Illinois would otherwise consider them spur routes if they did not meet back up with their parents (I-80 and I-94, respectively).  Every even 3di meets its parent in Illinois - I-255 (goes past to I-270 for the loop), I-270, I-280, I-290, I-294, & I-474.  The odd 3dis that meet other interstates, but never return to their parents are, I-155 (meets I-74) & I-355 (meets I-80, I-88 & I-290).  Were I-180 ever to be extended to Peoria, it would meet I-74, but according to how things are done in Illinois, it would retain its number.  It's an odd quirk here.

[Duke87]

I have noticed that every 3di in New York City has an even-number prefix, and the vast majority of them are not loops!

I wonder why they did that. I think it just adds to the confusion - goodness knows I have trouble keeping 278 and 287 straight in my head; if one were 378 it would be a lot more sensible.

In practice, that's a non-issue, since people in New York City tend to refer to highways by name, not by number. Say "take I-278" when giving someone directions and they'll look at you funny. Say "take the BQE" and they'll understand. You could renumber it I-963721.74 and the only people who would notice would be the out-of-towners and the roadgeeks.


...hey, how has I-238 not been mentioned yet?

[OracleUsr]

Duke:  It's the same in Raleigh, NC.  I told a friend when I was living there to take "50" (i.e., NC 50) to my house.  He had no idea what I was talking about until I said "Creedmoor Road", even though it's the same road.

[Riverside Frwy]

Well, look at Interstate California 605.It begins at Interstate 405 near Seal Beach, then heads North ending at Interstate 210.It only meets its parent route interstate 5 half-way through the route.

I actually think - if we're basing the numbering on simply "does the route attempt to serve as a loop, or return to its parent" - that I-605 would have made a better odd-digit route, ESPECIALLY since at one point it was slated to be extended to Route 1, making the even number incorrect!  (I-310 perhaps?  After all, north terminus is I-310)  As that southern extension is never going to occur, 605 is technically correct, but certainly not the only option that could have been used.

I don't know, I've always been irritated by I-605 anyway.After all, the numbers 305 and 705 are still open for cryin' out loud.

[vdeane]

...hey, how has I-238 not been mentioned yet?

It's so notorious it goes without saying!

[SSOWorld]

Well, look at Interstate California 605.It begins at Interstate 405 near Seal Beach, then heads North ending at Interstate 210.It only meets its parent route interstate 5 half-way through the route.

I actually think - if we're basing the numbering on simply "does the route attempt to serve as a loop, or return to its parent" - that I-605 would have made a better odd-digit route, ESPECIALLY since at one point it was slated to be extended to Route 1, making the even number incorrect!  (I-310 perhaps?  After all, north terminus is I-310)  As that southern extension is never going to occur, 605 is technically correct, but certainly not the only option that could have been used.

I don't know, I've always been irritated by I-605 anyway.After all, the numbers 305 and 705 are still open for cryin' out loud.

Isn't 305 in Sacramento?

EDIT: yep - it is -- http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table2.htm - halfway down the page.

[ctsignguy]

Any 3di's where the designation is labeled incorrectly?

I-495 in NYC...should be labeled as a spur as it ends at the end of LI.
I-395 in CT should be labeled as a connector as it connects to I-90.
I-195 in RI should be a connector as it connects to I-495.

I know there are more...

Back in the Connecticut Turnpike days, when the route was unnumbered then numbered CONN 52, i imagine I-395 was picked mostly to show its relationship as it were, to I-95...given the map now, it almost makes more sense to decommission I-395, and then extend I-290 south to Flanders CT where it would end on I-95...

[TheStranger]

Isn't 305 in Sacramento?

EDIT: yep - it is -- http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table2.htm - halfway down the page.

Funny thing is, not only has it never been signed, it isn't even officially a route number in use by California! I suspect the reason for having this hidden Interstate designation over what is officially (in Califorina's books) US 50 has to do with the fact that much of the segment of today's Business 80 between former Route 275 in West Sacramento and E Street in midtown Sacramento was built specifically for I-80 in the 1960s, and not for previous routes such as US 99E - though the freeway from E Street to US 50 was signed as US 99E for a few years!