Interesting article about Interstate Naming Standards; comments even moreso

[1995hoo]

The real I-87 fits that list because the entire route is within New York State.

[Erroneous "correction"  reverted.] The NC-VA I-87 is newer than the NY I-87, but both are very much real interstate highways.

Misplace your sense of humor again?

[Roadsguy]

Subsequently, the rest of the road was added to the interstate system, and this was done by extending I-495 rather than changing the number for simplicity's sake. Thus creating the nonconformance with convention that currently exists.

Was the Long Island Sound crossing proposed at that point? That might have been a factor in keeping the same number since it would ultimately end at I-95 again rather than simply being a spur out into Long Island like NY 481 and NY 690 are from Syracuse.

[froggie]

^ No, Duke's more or less correct.  Authorized mileage for an Interstate extension east of the Clearview didn't exist prior to 1968, and the extension was not approved as part of the 1968 Interstate mileage expansion.

Keep in mind that the LIE was originally designated as a NY 24 relocation.  It wasn't given the 495 number until the early 1960s.  And the Interstate extension east of the Clearview wasn't approved until 1984, by which point FHWA was allowing states to add logical Interstate corridors that met standards as "non-chargeable Interstate" (i.e. they would not receive any additional Federal funding for maintenance).

[sparker]

Since E-W Interstate numbers ending in "4" seem, at least historically, to denote longer-distance and/or regionally vital corridors (e.g. 44, 64, 94)

I-14 TX-GA, I-74 IA-NC

I-4   

I-4 "lucked out" when it came to its utility, being the main artery through one of the fastest developing areas of the last half century.  Its overall volume dwarfs many longer Interstate trunks as a result (serving the Disney "empire" certainly doesn't hurt!).

Re I-14: like so much about the English language, it's an exception to the basic rule.  With I-74, the original (western) section had plenty of regional utility; the eastern one not so much except for that segment shared with its US numerical twin.  I suppose if one is located in the Piedmont and has a hankering to get to the Wilmington-Myrtle Beach seashore, it comes in pretty handy -- but otherwise, it seems to be more important as a project than as an actual facility in the field. 

[sprjus4]

The real I-87 fits that list because the entire route is within New York State.

[Erroneous "correction"  reverted.] The NC-VA I-87 is newer than the NY I-87, but both are very much real interstate highways.

Misplace your sense of humor again?

How is NC-VA I-87 not a real interstate highway?

Are all of the newer interstate highways not apart of the original '56 and '68 system not real? I-49? I-69 extended? I-11? I-42? I-73? I-74 extended? I-14? I-68? I-86? I-40 extended? All of the 3-d routes added?

[Duke87]

Misplace your sense of humor again?

How is NC-VA I-87 not a real interstate highway?

The assertion that it isn't is not meant literally. It is a joke, based on numerous things about the designation that a lot of roadgeeks dislike, including but not limited to:
- odd number given to a road that runs more E-W than N-S
- number 87 applied to a road which will be mostly east of I-95 (i.e. out of order placement)
- the fact that the legislated routing is circuitous and won't actually get anyone from Raleigh to Norfolk faster than existing roads do.
- the fact that the routing was determined politicians instead of transportation planners.
- general assertions that the project is unnecessary "pork"
- unnecessary reuse of an interstate number that has already been long used elsewhere, with no intention of the two ever connecting

[sprjus4]

- number 87 applied to a road which will be mostly east of I-95 (i.e. out of order placement)

To be fair, the southern terminus is west of I-95, and east of I-85, and technically it would fit the grid.

I-69 has similar issues with the fact its northern end fits the grid generally, however the number "69" is way out of place in Texas per the grid.

Another example, I-99 isn't even consistent with the grid.

- the fact that the routing was determined politicians instead of transportation planners.

Pretty much any newer interstate highway from the 90s forward was determined in this same way.



With the exception of some roadgeeks looking at the fine details such as grid placement, north-south as opposed to east-west, etc., there's really nothing that distinguishes this highway from the rest of the interstate system, asides from age, in anyone else's eyes.

[1995hoo]

Dude, seriously, can't you take a joke?

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

The real I-87 fits that list because the entire route is within New York State.

That was not a real AAroads post.
[Erroneous "correction"  reverted.] The NC-VA I-87 is newer than the NY I-87, but both are very much real interstate highways.

Misplace your sense of humor again?

How is NC-VA I-87 not a real interstate highway?

Are all of the newer interstate highways not apart of the original '56 and '68 system not real? I-49? I-69 extended? I-11? I-42? I-73? I-74 extended? I-14? I-68? I-86? I-40 extended? All of the 3-d routes added?