Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SkyPesos]

I think they wanted I-11 north of Reno because they wanted it to be coast-to-coast.

Check that again.

[Scott5114]

I mean, if "too many mountains" was a real issue, the part of I-11 that exists now wouldn't be there...

[Max Rockatansky]

Even that car commercial says "Welcome to Highway 93" so it should be. I think they wanted I-11 north of Reno because they wanted it to be coat-to-cost. Probably too many mountains near Idaho/Oregon to weave that through. I mean they did with I-70 in Denver, but look at that truck disaster..

Since you’re new here I went and FIFY.

[Roadgeekteen]

I just joined this site, and given that it is all about roads, there are probably threads on this already but would like to start off by mentioning the most hilarious interstate designations that don't conform to numbering standards:

1. CA I-238, I understand they ran out of numbers, but couldn't they have picked a better number? Since it connects I 580 and I 880, wouldn't a number that combines the two make more sense, such as I-588 or something? Or better yet just leave it as a state route? I find it odd that there are so many long distance highways that aren't designated interstates, such as CA 99 or the 101 freeway, yet little 2 mile connectors get upgraded! Just a very weird and random number

2. PA I-99, why wasn't this just made I-280, since it branches off from I-80, (I guess there are enough 280s in the country) or even a 76 based route, no clue where they got the 99 from. Given 99 is the highest possible number, shouldn't it be the furthest east north-south road? I know it would be hard to insert a new interstate east of 95, because in places like Florida or CT, it runs right along the shore, but maybe some major road east of 95 in another state could qualify for the designation, such as the Garden Parkway in NJ, or the new route being planned to follow DE 1 all the way to Norfolk VA?

3. I-69 in Texas, I don't even know where to begin with this, 3 incompleted tiny highway fragments, hundreds of miles apart, with one piece being west if I-35 (if you thought I-99 was an abomination..), and not even connecting to the rest of the system? Nothing makes sense about this one. Any other non-conforming highway numbering that are abominations?

These examples are essential parts of roadgeek lore, they have been discussed since this forums creation and probably on MTR before then.

[kphoger]

I just joined this site, and given that it is all about roads, there are probably threads on this already but would like to start off by mentioning the most hilarious interstate designations that don't conform to numbering standards:

1. CA I-238, I understand they ran out of numbers, but couldn't they have picked a better number? Since it connects I 580 and I 880, wouldn't a number that combines the two make more sense, such as I-588 or something? Or better yet just leave it as a state route? I find it odd that there are so many long distance highways that aren't designated interstates, such as CA 99 or the 101 freeway, yet little 2 mile connectors get upgraded! Just a very weird and random number

2. PA I-99, why wasn't this just made I-280, since it branches off from I-80, (I guess there are enough 280s in the country) or even a 76 based route, no clue where they got the 99 from. Given 99 is the highest possible number, shouldn't it be the furthest east north-south road? I know it would be hard to insert a new interstate east of 95, because in places like Florida or CT, it runs right along the shore, but maybe some major road east of 95 in another state could qualify for the designation, such as the Garden Parkway in NJ, or the new route being planned to follow DE 1 all the way to Norfolk VA?

3. I-69 in Texas, I don't even know where to begin with this, 3 incompleted tiny highway fragments, hundreds of miles apart, with one piece being west if I-35 (if you thought I-99 was an abomination..), and not even connecting to the rest of the system? Nothing makes sense about this one. Any other non-conforming highway numbering that are abominations?

These examples are essential parts of roadgeek lore, they have been discussed since this forums creation and probably on MTR before then.

Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011?  I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.

[vdeane]

I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ.  I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.

[ski-man]

Not sure if this should be part of this discussion, but over the past 10 years in Pittsburgh they made some changes to Interstate designations that now do not follow the "rules". I-376 used to just go from the Turnpike/I-76 in Monroeville to Downtown Pittsburgh, and I-279 used to loop to and from I-79 to Downtown and back. All was good. Then they extended freeway status to the new Pittsburgh Airport terminal and then extended even further back up to I-76 close to the Ohio border and even further up to I-80. They then changed the designation of southern portion of the I-279 half loop to I-376 and extended that designation onto the new freeway all the way to I-80.

So now I-279, with an even number, is basically a spur into downtown Pittsburgh and I-376 is now a partial loop and more but has the odd number designation. Being from Pittsburgh originally, it is something I think about every time I head back and visit. Not sure the reasoning behind this, if anyone does and would share that would be great. 

[SEWIGuy]

Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011?  I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.

I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ.  I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

[kphoger]

Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011?  I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.

I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ.  I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

Ah, thanks!  I knew that the 69 corridor(s) existed in official documents as far back as the 90s, but I didn't realize the whole "shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" business did.

[Mr_Northside]

So now I-279, with an even number, is basically a spur into downtown Pittsburgh and I-376 is now a partial loop and more but has the odd number designation. Being from Pittsburgh originally, it is something I think about every time I head back and visit. Not sure the reasoning behind this, if anyone does and would share that would be great. 

I suppose I-376 is a wildcard in that is both a partial loop, but also a spur to I-80 and the Sharon/Hermitage/Farrell area (by way of New Castle)

I believe the primary motivation was to have an interstate service Pittsburgh International Airport.  Given that those various highways were all crapped together into a contiguous roadway over the decades, extending the I-376 route probably seemed the simplest and most logical way to go. 
I'm guessing that they reasoned the amount of people that know what the first digit of a 3DI is supposed to denote about the route was far outweighed by the confusion of creating a new route number.  (IE:  Even though I-279 is now just a spur and not a loop, it would be even worse for the general public to renumber it to an odd-digit-79 simply because of that fact)

[vdeane]

Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011?  I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.

I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ.  I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

A couple of posts about the federal corridor designation is a lot less than actual construction and inclusion in the FAQ.  Per the second link, actual interstate numbers hadn't even been finalized (indeed, this forum was already well underway by the time the first 69 suffix signs appeared).  And I did say "a bit new", not "wasn't even conceived of by the most hopeful backer of the corridor".

[SEWIGuy]

Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011?  I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.

I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ.  I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

A couple of posts about the federal corridor designation is a lot less than actual construction and inclusion in the FAQ.  Per the second link, actual interstate numbers hadn't even been finalized (indeed, this forum was already well underway by the time the first 69 suffix signs appeared).  And I did say "a bit new", not "wasn't even conceived of by the most hopeful backer of the corridor".

Look, you were wrong. It was discussed on MTR, including the trident. No harm in admitting that.

[Takumi]

Confirmed, there is an I-87 in NC, was this intended to be connected to the I 87 going from Canada to NYC, or totally separate?

Totally separate. I-87 from Raleigh to Rocky Mount was originally going to be I-495 before common sense gave out.

[vdeane]

Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011?  I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.

I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ.  I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

A couple of posts about the federal corridor designation is a lot less than actual construction and inclusion in the FAQ.  Per the second link, actual interstate numbers hadn't even been finalized (indeed, this forum was already well underway by the time the first 69 suffix signs appeared).  And I did say "a bit new", not "wasn't even conceived of by the most hopeful backer of the corridor".

Look, you were wrong. It was discussed on MTR, including the trident. No harm in admitting that.

I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR".  I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013.  kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not.  Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!

Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there.  I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era.  I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...

[kphoger]

I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR".  I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013.  kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not.  Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!

Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there.  I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era.  I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...

To be fair, I also said "I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum".  And the plain fact is that it was.

Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East".  And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.

[SEWIGuy]

I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR".  I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013.  kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not.  Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!

Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there.  I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era.  I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...

To be fair, I also said "I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum".  And the plain fact is that it was.

Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East".  And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.

Exactly. vdeane doesn't need to split hairs over all of this.

[texaskdog]

So I wonder why Nevada chose 580 as the only 3di of 80? Just because it was in the middle?

I-580 was originally approved as I-380, but AASHTO changed the number to 580 shortly thereafter at Nevada's request in order to be consistent with the numbering of the recently added I-515.

Dear Mr. Stafseth:

As you probably know, an Interstate Spur to Route I-80 was recently approved for the Reno area here in Nevada and the FHWA tentatively assigned the route number I-380 subject to your concurrence.

We are hereby requesting that this number be changed to I-580.  This change will be consistent with our Spur Number I-515 in Southern Nevada.

Enclosed are six applications for this route number change.  An early approval of I-580 by the Route Numbering Sub-Committee will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,
George B. Westenhoefer, P.E.
Chief Planning Survey Engineer

Dear Mr. Westenhoefer:

We are in receipt of your letter of August 31, 1978, asking for a route number change of I-380 to I-580.

This request has been placed on the Route Numbering Committee's agenda, which will be meeting on October 28th, 1978.

Sincerely,
H. J. Rhodes
Deputy Director

As for why I-515 had been so numbered in the first place, I'm not sure.  It was assigned the number 115 as a placeholder, but Nevada's formal application the next month requested the number 515 with no specific reason given that I can find.

Dear Mr. Bastian:

[...]

The number designation, 115, has been tentatively assigned to this route subject to the concurrence of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Sincerely yours,
Norbert T. Tiemann
Federal Highway Administrator

Dear Mr. Stafseth:

Enclosed are six applications for the addition of Interstate Route I-515 (Spur) in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Approval of this addition by the U.S. Route Numbering Sub-Committee will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,
George B. Westenhoefer
Chief Planning Survey Engineer

Do any of them have regular names?

[kphoger]

H. J. Rhodes

Do any of them have regular names?

Yes.

[froggie]

Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011?  I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.

I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ.  I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

I'm going to go back to this post in my response.  Whether I-69E/C/W was a "settled" thing or not depends on what aspect you're looking at.  The actual Interstate designations waited until those segments were ready for and requested to be added to the Interstate system proper...this is what vdeane makes her reference to.

However, reading through the actual TEA-21 legislation (copied in the 1998 MTR post linked upthread), the legislation makes it pretty clear that I-69C and I-69E were written into Federal law in that act (much as I-99 had been previous to that), so with those two routes it was "settled" in 1998 when TEA-21 was passed.

And I, for one, do recall the occasional thread about it during the late '90s/early '00s timeframe.

[vdeane]

I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR".  I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013.  kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not.  Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!

Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there.  I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era.  I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...

To be fair, I also said "I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum".  And the plain fact is that it was.

Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East".  And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.

Exactly. vdeane doesn't need to split hairs over all of this.

If your issue was with kphoger's comment, then why go after mine instead?

[MultiMillionMiler]

If they build I-3 from Savannah Georgia to Knoxville Tennessee, that will be the top stupidity in the interstate highway system! Way in the wrong place! Maybe I should include this proposal in my OP as this is seriously being considered.
Another I-99 "option that was never fully explored" (thank God) was to connect the DE-SC I-99 to the Pennsylvania one..by having I-99 run concurrently along 76 and 476, that's disgusting lol, I-99 would basically not only start out way in the wrong place, but then turn 135 degrees counterclockwise, run concurrently along the Penn turnpike and somehow connect to DE via 476? This would be more nonsensical than PA I-99 as it is or even having both separately.

[SEWIGuy]

I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR".  I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013.  kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not.  Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!

Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there.  I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era.  I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...

To be fair, I also said "I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum".  And the plain fact is that it was.

Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East".  And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.

Exactly. vdeane doesn't need to split hairs over all of this.

If your issue was with kphoger's comment, then why go after mine instead?

I didn’t “go after”  your post. I quoted it because it was the same topic that kphoger’s was about. Seriously you don’t need to be so sensitive about these things. I wasn’t meaning to call you out or anything. Just provided information to follow your post.

[Quillz]

As brought up in another thread: technically, I-210 in California no longer meets its parent. CA-57 took over the corridor between San Dimas and the I-10 junction, and the rerouted segment along the foothills remains CA-210. This is one of the few instances I can think of where a 3di does not meet its parent in a strict technical sense.

Although it does on paper, since the FHWA definition still considers CA-57 to be "I-210." I'm talking more from a visible standpoint, as far as the actual shields go.

[BlueOutback7]

If they build I-3 from Savannah Georgia to Knoxville Tennessee, that will be the top stupidity in the interstate highway system! Way in the wrong place! Maybe I should include this proposal in my OP as this is seriously being considered.
Another I-99 "option that was never fully explored" (thank God) was to connect the DE-SC I-99 to the Pennsylvania one..by having I-99 run concurrently along 76 and 476, that's disgusting lol, I-99 would basically not only start out way in the wrong place, but then turn 135 degrees counterclockwise, run concurrently along the Penn turnpike and somehow connect to DE via 476? This would be more nonsensical than PA I-99 as it is or even having both separately.

I-3 probably isn’t going to be built. They would have to get it through the Smokies to punch it through Knoxville. But I have to agree that numbering is ridiculous. Any Interstate on this corridor should just run from Savannah to Augusta. If a 2di is used, it would have to be a duplicate number such as a southern I-89, 91, or 93. The way I see it, I-3 was likely a pipe dream anyway.

[MultiMillionMiler]

It would be entirely west of I-77 so there would actually be no numbers left. But since I-95 is near there, a duplicate of the ones you listed is justifiable.