News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Interstate 82 in Washington and Oregon

Started by Amaury, September 22, 2022, 05:05:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

CtrlAltDel

Quote from: US 89 on September 25, 2022, 12:11:19 PM
I never see anybody complaining about the directionality of I-24 or I-71, even though you could make a solid argument that those are more misnumbered than 82 is

What would that argument be?
Interstates clinched: 4, 57, 275 (IN-KY-OH), 465 (IN), 640 (TN), 985
State Interstates clinched: I-26 (TN), I-75 (GA), I-75 (KY), I-75 (TN), I-81 (WV), I-95 (NH)


davewiecking

#26
New rule. Any interstate that's sufficiently diagonal that you can't tell if it's NS or EW should be divisible by 3 (see I-24, I-81). Obviously, therefor, I-82 and I-84 should be swapped. (And then new I-82 and I-86 should be swapped to keep their proper places in the grid, although I'm open to using one number for the Pocatello to Portland road, with a major concurrency with I-82 in the middle.)

Editing to add for clarity: I-84 should run diagonally from Echo Junction to Ellensburg. I-86 would be the short stretch west of Pocatello. I-82 would run from Pendleton to Portland.

roadman65

I-26 is diagonal and it don't fit in this😮


BTW I-82 is not as bad as the 17 mile long intrastate and intracounty I-97 in MD.  So at least I-82 is long enough to be a proper interstate, I-97 is not and should be an x95 instead.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SkyPesos

Quote from: davewiecking on September 25, 2022, 12:53:40 PM
New rule. Any interstate that's sufficiently diagonal that you can't tell if it's NS or EW should be divisible by 3 (see I-24, I-81). Obviously, therefor, I-82 and I-84 should be swapped. (And then new I-82 and I-86 should be swapped to keep their proper places in the grid, although I'm open to using one number for the Pocatello to Portland road, with a major concurrency with I-82 in the middle.)

Editing to add for clarity: I-84 should run diagonally from Echo Junction to Ellensburg. I-86 would be the short stretch west of Pocatello. I-82 would run from Pendleton to Portland.
Alright, I-71 is I-69E then.

Rothman

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

sp_redelectric

Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 24, 2022, 10:24:55 PM
I-82 should be I-7/9/11/13 so that one of the I-84s can become 82.

What if U.S. 97 is upgraded and becomes I-7 or I-9?

Alps

Quote from: sp_redelectric on October 22, 2022, 12:02:36 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 24, 2022, 10:24:55 PM
I-82 should be I-7/9/11/13 so that one of the I-84s can become 82.

What if U.S. 97 is upgraded and becomes I-7 or I-9?
Fictional please.

triplemultiplex

Quote from: US 89 on September 25, 2022, 12:11:19 PM
I would be curious to know how many of the people who take issue with I-82's number have ever actually been on it. I can see how someone who's never been up there might look at it as a vertical line between 82 and 90 and wonder why it's not a N/S odd number. But as someone who's been up there and clinched it both ways, I see it as an east-west route - just one that connects Seattle to Boise and onwards instead of Spokane. 82 is solidly a diagonal route, but it serves that diagonal in more of an east-west capacity than a north-south one.

I've driven it and I think it should have been an N-S number.
This is because it means there would have been less route duplication.  One of the I-88's could have been 82 instead.  It makes more sense to me from a wide view of the interstates as a system to try and avoid number duplication unless it is absolutely necessary.

What's done is done and we're stuck with it.  82 isn't the number I'd have gone with, but it wasn't up to me so now it's a quirk that's fun to fictionalize about.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

MultiMillionMiler

I'll have to add this interstate to my list of nonsense numbering.  Forget even the east-west/north-south issue, the entire thing is north of I-84. Total violation of the numbering scheme! I didn't even know there was an I-82 until seeing this thread (the only I-82 I heard of before this was the proposed one connecting Hartford and Providence in New England).

Bruce

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 10:26:53 AM
I'll have to add this interstate to my list of nonsense numbering.  Forget even the east-west/north-south issue, the entire thing is north of I-84. Total violation of the numbering scheme! I didn't even know there was an I-82 until seeing this thread (the only I-82 I heard of before this was the proposed one connecting Hartford and Providence in New England).

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 10:31:42 AM
I see people comparing it to I-24, but I-24 is much more of an east west road than I-82. I-82 is going completely vertical, if not a little in the eastern direction at one point, not much west. Haven't been on I-82 but have been on I-24, false equivalency.

Read the rest of the thread. The numbering discrepancy is a result of renumbering I-80N to I-84. The overall corridor is east-west, and due to the way geography works it makes more sense to think of Ellensburg-Yakima-Tri-Cities as an east-west corridor. It is not "completely vertical", but a gradual sweeping curve for much of the route.

MultiMillionMiler

The whole "N-S" lettering of the same interstate is even more dumb in my opinion. I read they were going to originally do that in Pennsylvania with the Christopher Columbus Highway and the Penn Turnpike, which would have been beyond insane. It should just be I-86 or I-88.

kkt

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 10:26:53 AM
I'll have to add this interstate to my list of nonsense numbering.  Forget even the east-west/north-south issue, the entire thing is north of I-84. Total violation of the numbering scheme! I didn't even know there was an I-82 until seeing this thread (the only I-82 I heard of before this was the proposed one connecting Hartford and Providence in New England).

The numbering schemes are guidelines, not laws.  They exist to help a highway agency that's proposing a new route to think up a number for it.  They are not a rolled up newspaper to use to swat the planners of some route that's out of grid if there's no alternative other than massive renumbering.  The duplication of interstate numbers in the eastern and western states actually bothers me more than I-82 or I-99 etc. being out of grid, but even the duplication of numbers isn't keeping me up nights.

I-82 could have had an odd number and that would have been okay, but I think an even number is a better choice based on the overall corridor served and it having an even number before.

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 03:37:51 PM
The whole "N-S" lettering of the same interstate is even more dumb in my opinion. I read they were going to originally do that in Pennsylvania with the Christopher Columbus Highway and the Penn Turnpike, which would have been beyond insane. It should just be I-86 or I-88.

That's why they got rid of them!  Until Texas came along with its eastern, western, and central forks of I-69.

MultiMillionMiler

Well duplication should only be allowed of auxiliary interstates. Having two I-84s almost at the same Latitude makes it look like there's some gap even though there isn't. The duplication wasn't an issue for me either thoughsince the states are so far apart, and neither was the odd/even issue, it was simply how the layout was a direct violation of numbering guidelines. There are just far too many violations of these guidelines, it's like they aren't even trying to follow them. I mean when they put I-99 west of I-81, they literally put a number that could barely fit east of I-95, wets of I-81. They could have extended I-83, made it an x80, or x76, left it as route 15, where on earth did they yet 99 from. Likewise if CA 99 becoming an interstate was so troublesome and tedious, why do they go through the trouble with I-99 where it wouldn't even make sense to begin with. It's backward and hypocritical!

hotdogPi

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 03:57:09 PM
Likewise if CA 99 becoming an interstate was so troublesome and tedious, why do they go through the trouble with I-99 where it wouldn't even make sense to begin with. It's backward and hypocritical!

Other than an isolated contractor goof, who is suggesting I-99 for CA 99?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

MultiMillionMiler

That would be even worse, as at least I-238 doesn't have a place to begin with so wherever you put it, it is never "out of place", But putting I-99 right next to I-5 (the lowest odd number) would literally be trolling. There was really someone lobbying for that?

kkt

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 03:57:09 PM
Well duplication should only be allowed of auxiliary interstates. Having two I-84s almost at the same Latitude makes it look like there's some gap even though there isn't. The duplication wasn't an issue for me either thoughsince the states are so far apart, and neither was the odd/even issue, it was simply how the layout was a direct violation of numbering guidelines. There are just far too many violations of these guidelines, it's like they aren't even trying to follow them. I mean when they put I-99 west of I-81, they literally put a number that could barely fit east of I-95, wets of I-81. They could have extended I-83, made it an x80, or x76, left it as route 15, where on earth did they yet 99 from. Likewise if CA 99 becoming an interstate was so troublesome and tedious, why do they go through the trouble with I-99 where it wouldn't even make sense to begin with. It's backward and hypocritical!

For I-99, you can blame them for wanting a 2di number, but once they decided that there wasn't any available in grid.  Numbering it I-99 isn't that bad.


I don't think anyone has seriously suggested changing CA 99 to I-99.  Upgrading the road to interstate specs, yes; some have suggested I-7 or I-9, but no one suggested changing it to I-99.

MultiMillionMiler

And they didn't realize this ahead of time? Isn't I-95 a much older route? 15 is a 2 digit number, but they could have left it as a noninterstate. What was wrong with I-83?

MATraveler128

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 04:23:04 PM
And they didn't realize this ahead of time? Isn't I-95 a much older route? 15 is a 2 digit number, but they could have left it as a noninterstate. What was wrong with I-83?

Because the original portion of I-99 wouldn't connect to I-83. I-83 would've had to hard hook west and then hard hook to the northeast.

Further west along the US 219 corridor, I-67 was once proposed which would have been a much worse grid foul than the existing I-99.
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56

MultiMillionMiler

In that case they should have left it as Route 15 the entire length. It is also in 2 pieces, so the stupid 2 miles in NYS would make it impossible for the Garden State Parkway to ever become I-99, because 1 mile of that is also technically in NY. I would have preferred 67 over the highest possible odd number. At least 67 is somewhere in the middle, whereas 99 would arguably be in the Atlantic Ocean in some states
LOL

Bruce

Fictional Highways is 15 miles that way ->

Bruce

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 06:47:37 PM
Yeah this is getting too off topic sorry.
I still think I-82 is an abomination.
Either follow the numbering guidelines or just have totally random routes, since any organized system is destined to fail.

For someone who "didn't even know there was an I-82", you're quick to make sweeping generalizations. A slightly incorrect number is not an abomination, and no one really cares to address it (and for good reason, it functionally does not matter). Renumbering I-82, especially to an odd number, would cause disruption and cost millions for zero gain.

MultiMillionMiler

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the entire system somewhere, if it costs millions and millions and jumping through dozens of government hoops, to change the number of a highway.

Bruce

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 07:19:31 PM
I think there is a fundamental flaw in the entire system somewhere, if it costs millions and millions and jumping through dozens of government hoops, to change the number of a highway.

Signs don't grow on trees, and neither do the people and vehicles needed to change every last one of them.

MultiMillionMiler


Scott5114

Jake Bear will sell you a fancy 24-inch Interstate shield for $199. Now, his are a bit more expensive than highway-grade signs, since they're made of steel rather than aluminum and are meant to be used as home decor items, but let's use that as a baseline since I have the number right here.

Now, let's look at a typical interchange signing plan. Fortunately, the MUTCD has one we can use as reference:


That has five shields in it. You'll have to sign the other direction, too, of course. And include two shields on the mainline interstate for reassurance. That's 12 shields per interchange.

I-82 has 35 interchanges in Washington state, so you'll need 420 shields. At a cost of $199 per shield, you're looking at $83,580 in materials.

Now, suppose it takes 15 minutes to install a shield. You can't send just one guy in a truck out there to do it; that's unsafe, he needs a partner to hold the ladder and make sure nobody steals the truck while they're working. So each shield takes 30 man-minutes to install. 30 minutes times 420 shields equals 12,600 minutes, or 210 hours. They will also have to be paid for their time traveling between shields. I-82 in Washington is 137 miles long, and let's suppose they average 60 the whole way, so that's 4½ hours more labor we need to tack on (2¼ hours per person), for a total of 214½ hours. Suppose WSDOT employees make an hourly wage of $20/hour. That's $4,290 in labor.

$83,580 + $4,290 = $87,870 paid by WSDOT. Not millions, but it's a good down payment on a house. It is kind of hard to justify spending $87,870 in taxpayer money on a project whose only benefit would be compliance with an arbitrary executive-branch policy that was never enacted by Congress, however. This also elides over the fact that someone has to plan and program this project, which is labor that must also be paid. And the DOT public relations team must spend time explaining the change to the general public, which is labor that must also be paid.

WSDOT is not the only one who bears the cost of a highway renumber, however. Oregon DOT does too, of course, but also so do all the business owners along the route who now have to buy new advertising materials. And all of the mapping services that must update their maps. And all of the users of those mapping services that must now obtain new versions of the map (sure, Google Maps updates are free, but Google Maps doesn't have the data commercial drivers need to make route decisions; they must pay for other mapping services that do).

There's no way to know what the total cost on the private side is because it is broken up across so many shareholders. But it's clear that highway renumbering is not free. Even if you just take into account the costs the government bears, it starts to get difficult to explain how the people will get $87,000 of benefit from spending $87,000 to renumber a road. This is why highway renumbering is basically never done anymore except as a companion to real improvement of a corridor (like adding an Interstate number when a road is upgraded to freeway).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.