The original Interstate system plan

Started by Voyager, December 03, 2024, 05:03:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Voyager

Some interesting differences than what got built - namely the suffixed routes that were very common everywhere (guess only 35 is the sole survivor of those...well now 69 too).

AARoads Forum Original


Max Rockatansky

California went off the deep end trying to change it as much as possible before stabilizing circa 1958:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/11/establishing-numbering-conventions-of.html?m=1

Roadgeekteen

Nothing at all for SW Florida? I know the region was a lot less populated back then but good foresight adding I-75 to Miami.
My username has been outdated since August 2023 but I'm too lazy to change it

TheStranger

#3
Interesting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
Chris Sampang

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.

May have saved the city. If you look at GSV in Cairo it's one of the most depressing places in the country.
My username has been outdated since August 2023 but I'm too lazy to change it

PNWRoadgeek

Oregon looks basically the same, besides I-84 leaving the Oregon-Washington border behind a little bit later than it does now.
Applying for new Grand Alan.

froggie

What the OP posted was actually the 4th rendition of what was recommended and approved.

kurumi

My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/therealkurumi.bsky.social

mgk920

Quote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.


The mid 1950s was before the riots there. and it was a more important place then.

Mike

vdeane

Quote from: kurumi on December 03, 2024, 11:51:21 PMThe Aug 14, 1957 map is online:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_August_14,_1957.jpg
(I-31, I-67, long I-82 OR, long I-84 PA)


And a second I-82 in NJ and PA.  I guess number duplication has always been with us.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

TheStranger

Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 12:42:06 PMAnd a second I-82 in NJ and PA.  I guess number duplication has always been with us.

IIRC, the split US 2 and US 422 also date to the beginnings of the US highway system.
Chris Sampang

Voyager

Quote from: froggie on December 03, 2024, 10:42:36 PMWhat the OP posted was actually the 4th rendition of what was recommended and approved.

How many renditions were there? I was assuming this was the final one.
AARoads Forum Original

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

vdeane

Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 02:22:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 12:42:06 PMAnd a second I-82 in NJ and PA.  I guess number duplication has always been with us.

IIRC, the split US 2 and US 422 also date to the beginnings of the US highway system.
The US route system always had more disorder than the interstates, however (to the point where I have a hard time seeing the parent/child relationship 2dus and 3dus routes are supposed to have).  But now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

TheStranger

Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 07:57:54 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 02:22:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 12:42:06 PMAnd a second I-82 in NJ and PA.  I guess number duplication has always been with us.

IIRC, the split US 2 and US 422 also date to the beginnings of the US highway system.
The US route system always had more disorder than the interstates, however (to the point where I have a hard time seeing the parent/child relationship 2dus and 3dus routes are supposed to have).  But now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.

I also even feel the usage of suffixed routes in the US system was much more consistent (loops that return to parent) than the plethora of suffixed spurs the Interstates used to have.

US 6N is the only suffixed spur left in the US system and it wasn't nearly as long as, say, the former I-80N!
Chris Sampang

hotdogPi

Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 08:16:45 PMUS 6N is the only suffixed spur left in the US system and it wasn't nearly as long as, say, the former I-80N!

9W
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US 13, 50
MA 22, 35, 40, 53, 107, 109, 126, 141, 159
NH 27, 78, 111A(E); CA 90; NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A, 7; CT 32, 320; VT 2A, 5A; PA 3, 51, 60, WA 202; QC 162, 165, 263; 🇬🇧A100, A3211, A3213, A3215, A4222; 🇫🇷95 D316

Lowest untraveled: 36

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: hotdogPi on December 04, 2024, 08:19:52 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 08:16:45 PMUS 6N is the only suffixed spur left in the US system and it wasn't nearly as long as, say, the former I-80N!

9W
9W isn't a spur as it begins and ends at 9. There are several other E and W alternates left.
My username has been outdated since August 2023 but I'm too lazy to change it

TheStranger

QuoteBut now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.

To further respond to this thought:

If the US route system's most egregious grid divegence is US 11...


IMO having I-43 and I-57 share the same direct north south trajectory but as two separate numbers (when IIRC 57 was once proposed to continue up 43) messed up the number assignments west of Chicago. This is how I-49 is entirely west of I-39!

(Not to mention the issues of using major numbers for intrastate 45 and short 30, especially when California had suggested using 30 instead of the eventual I-40 for the US 66 corridor)
Chris Sampang

Quillz

#18
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 03, 2024, 07:17:35 PMOregon looks basically the same, besides I-84 leaving the Oregon-Washington border behind a little bit later than it does now.
I seem to recall seeing a proposal at one point that had I-82 and I-84 sharing a long concurrency. I-82 instead began in Portland, I-84 began in Yakima, then I-82 followed the modern I-84 corridor through Utah and I-84 used the modern I-86 corridor to Pocatello. There was a map posted here at some point demonstrating it.

Other than a long concurrency and reusing 84, this always felt like a better idea. And would have avoided the suffix routing.

Quillz

Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 08:16:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 07:57:54 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 02:22:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 12:42:06 PMAnd a second I-82 in NJ and PA.  I guess number duplication has always been with us.

IIRC, the split US 2 and US 422 also date to the beginnings of the US highway system.
The US route system always had more disorder than the interstates, however (to the point where I have a hard time seeing the parent/child relationship 2dus and 3dus routes are supposed to have).  But now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.

I also even feel the usage of suffixed routes in the US system was much more consistent (loops that return to parent) than the plethora of suffixed spurs the Interstates used to have.

US 6N is the only suffixed spur left in the US system and it wasn't nearly as long as, say, the former I-80N!
I think the relation of trunks and branches was it was supposed to fill in gaps. Good examples farther west you go. There's a lot of land between US-95 and US-99, so in between, you were "supposed" to have the x95 branches. US-395 is the best example of this. And then the trunk suffixes (95A, 95B, etc.) were "supposed" to work like interstate auxiliaries, just short loops or spurs.

Just my speculation. But if it was applied consistently this way, I think it could have worked. And why I will die on the hill that US-199 should exist in place of US-101. (And real world 199, 299, 399 would be bumped up accordingly).

Granted, I also feel US-97 should have replaced US-395 south of Susanville.

PNWRoadgeek

Quote from: Quillz on December 05, 2024, 05:25:20 PM
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 03, 2024, 07:17:35 PMOregon looks basically the same, besides I-84 leaving the Oregon-Washington border behind a little bit later than it does now.
I seem to recall seeing a proposal at one point that had I-82 and I-84 sharing a long concurrency. I-82 instead began in Portland, I-84 began in Yakima, then I-82 followed the modern I-84 corridor through Utah and I-84 used the modern I-86 corridor to Pocatello. There was a map posted here at some point demonstrating it.

Other than a long concurrency and reusing 84, this always felt like a better idea. And would have avoided the suffix routing.
I agree, we wouldn't have the weird numbering of I-82 and the duplicate numbering of I-84. Also, there's just as much traffic that's using I-84 to I-82 to go to Seattle than using I-84 to get to Portland. The only problem would be the extended concurrency, like you said.
Applying for new Grand Alan.

Henry

No I-27, I-72 or eastern I-88 to be found here (my guess is that they wouldn't be added to the system until 1968, the system's first expansion).

Also, even in the east there were 2-lane Interstates to be designated. Not surprisingly, the majority was concentrated on the less-populated areas in the central part of the country and out west.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Quillz

Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 05, 2024, 07:35:09 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 05, 2024, 05:25:20 PM
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 03, 2024, 07:17:35 PMOregon looks basically the same, besides I-84 leaving the Oregon-Washington border behind a little bit later than it does now.
I seem to recall seeing a proposal at one point that had I-82 and I-84 sharing a long concurrency. I-82 instead began in Portland, I-84 began in Yakima, then I-82 followed the modern I-84 corridor through Utah and I-84 used the modern I-86 corridor to Pocatello. There was a map posted here at some point demonstrating it.

Other than a long concurrency and reusing 84, this always felt like a better idea. And would have avoided the suffix routing.
I agree, we wouldn't have the weird numbering of I-82 and the duplicate numbering of I-84. Also, there's just as much traffic that's using I-84 to I-82 to go to Seattle than using I-84 to get to Portland. The only problem would be the extended concurrency, like you said.
I think concurrencies are fine. Here it makes sense. 

RobbieL2415

Where the heck is the original alignment of I-84E (I-82E) to Providence?

Also, I-80S in southern PA?

TheCatalyst31

Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 09:29:55 PM
QuoteBut now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.

To further respond to this thought:

If the US route system's most egregious grid divegence is US 11...


IMO having I-43 and I-57 share the same direct north south trajectory but as two separate numbers (when IIRC 57 was once proposed to continue up 43) messed up the number assignments west of Chicago. This is how I-49 is entirely west of I-39!

(Not to mention the issues of using major numbers for intrastate 45 and short 30, especially when California had suggested using 30 instead of the eventual I-40 for the US 66 corridor)


I-45 being west of the northern half of I-35 was inevitably going to cause problems with the grid. There was no reason for the northern states to skip numbers under 45, since it's far enough away and Texas wasn't going to use them all. Make that I-39 from the start and the grid probably ends up much neater.

That and there should have been a Milwaukee-Green Bay interstate earlier on like Wisconsin wanted. If that highway opened earlier Illinois wouldn't have as much grounds to complain about extending 55 or 57 north to the border. (Hell, if 55 got extended there's a case for making I-41 a very long 3di.)



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.