I've always wondered why Interstate 82 is designated as west-east, as is evident by its even number, yet runs more south-north. Besides the numbering, my understanding of routes is that however more miles one direction has than the other is the determining factor. So, if a highway runs west-east for 10 miles and south-north for 3 miles, it is a west-east route, since there are more west-east miles than south-north miles. Like I-90 has sections that run south-north, but it mostly runs west-east. There are even sections of Washington State Route 20 East where you're heading west for a bit and vice-versa! This seems to mostly be in Pend Oreille County. (There are some highways that don't make sense at all, like Montana Highway 206, which clearly runs south-north and is designated as such, yet has an even number, but that's for another discussion.) Anyway, from reading both Wikipedia and a response from WSDOT to a post asking a long time ago, I learned that Interstate 82 used to only be in the Tri-Cities area, where it is west-east. It was gradually extended to the junction with Interstate 90 here in Ellensburg and to the junction with Interstate 84 in Oregon. They just never changed the numbering to something like Interstate 83 to reflect that it ended up becoming more of a south-north route, though from what WSDOT told me, they have done things like that in the past, and it is pretty expensive to replace or put up new signs.
One of the ways, and maybe the cheapest, that I could see this being "fixed" would be to re-shorten I-82 to just be between Exit 37, where US 97 currently separates from the concurrency with it and US 12, and Exit 113, where US 395 currently joins I-82. So from the junction with I-90 until Exit 37, it would just be US 97 by itself and between Exit 113 and the junction with I-84, it would just be US 395 by itself. But the more logical fix would be to just renumber it to an odd number and replace signs.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Quote from: Amaury on September 22, 2022, 05:05:13 AM
I learned that Interstate 82 used to only be in the Tri-Cities area, where it is west-east. It was gradually extended to the junction with Interstate 90 here in Ellensburg and to the junction with Interstate 84 in Oregon.
I-82 was always planned as a connector between I-90 in Ellensburg and I-80N (now I-84) somewhere near Pendleton. This held true through the routing debate that took it closer to the Tri-Cities and resulted in the creation of I-182 as well.
As I-82 fits into the network as part of a longer connection between Seattle and Boise/SLC, an even number is entirely appropriate. Truncating it would not make much sense, especially if it is isolated from the rest of the Interstate network on paper.
The numbering made more sense when I-84 was originally numbered as I-80N. I do think it fits somewhat better as a south-north route, but if anything, it's really more diagonal in nature given its southern terminus compared to western terminus. Always been a bit of an odd interstate in that way. I've seen some threads in the past here saying it should be renumbered to I-7 or I-9. I suppose these have some merit but I think I-82 works fine as it is.
QuoteThey just never changed the numbering to something like Interstate 83 to reflect that it ended up becoming more of a south-north route
It would never be renumbered to I-83. I-83 is already in use and even if it wasn't, it would be near the East Coast. The only realistic numbers that would work at this point are 7 or 9. 11 is now taken and it has some future extension plans, but those would almost certainly stay within Nevada.
Keep in mind even from the very start, there were exceptions. There are just some routes, especially US highways, that run more diagonal and are hard to really assign a number, because it could be either even or odd.
Quote from: Bruce on September 22, 2022, 06:22:22 AMAs I-82 fits into the network as part of a longer connection between Seattle and Boise/SLC, an even number is entirely appropriate. Truncating it would not make much sense, especially if it is isolated from the rest of the Interstate network on paper.
I mean, the road itself wouldn't be truncated, just the I-82 designation between Ellensburg and Exit 37 and between Exit 113 and the Interstate 84 junction. But that is also why I mentioned that the more logical "fix," if one were to occur, would be to change it to an odd number.
Although I did pick some random points on Google Maps that I thought made sense, and I get 69.8 point miles of south-north and 73.3 miles of west-east, which means it would be a west-east route, but I don't know what the official points are. But these aren't official points, and there doesn't seem to be a website that says how many miles a highway travels in a certain direction. For example, there's no official website that says out of the 143.58 miles–which my numbers above don't equal to due to the differing points–that Interstate 82 runs, according to Wikipedia, X miles are south-north and Y miles are west-east.
(https://i.imgur.com/9wzrkSn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/9x0NG26.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Oloj48u.png)
The bigger issue with me comes from the fact that Ellensburg is north of Yakima, or vice-versa, Yakima is south of Ellensburg. And we do drive in those directions, yet you're driving on a west-east freeway. Similarly, two of the elevations between Ellensburg and Yakima are called
North Umtanum Ridge and
South Umtanum Ridge.
Another way to "fix" this could be renaming Interstate 82 to Interstate 190, an auxiliary route of Interstate 90–like what Interstate 182 is right now to Interstate 82–and renaming Interstate 182 to Interstate 82, but that would most definitely not work, as I think, similar to spur routes, auxiliary routes must be short. If they're long, they're not auxiliary (or spur) routes.
The Pasco to Ritzville US 395 freeway could be made part of the interstate system. Then I-82 could terminate south of I-182, just west of Kennewick and where US 395 cuts to the Tri-Cities; that new interstate could continue to I-84 and I-82 terminate there. Or maybe you want I-84N and S, with I-82 becoming I-84N, following Texas that is determined to reintroduce E, W and now C.
I think changng with the US 395 or US 12 routings or/and numbering in the area has more potential for modification. The US 12 expressway to Walla Walla could be argued to get a I-182 concurrency once phase 8 work is done (10 years?).
Years ago I saw a map online which showed I-82 was proposed to go to Seattle instead of ending at Ellensburg. Sounds strange given I-90 is a transcontinental route number and it did wind up being the number which wound up going to Seattle. Does anyone know the background on the I-82 to Seattle proposal?
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on September 24, 2022, 09:42:05 AM
Years ago I saw a map online which showed I-82 was proposed to go to Seattle instead of ending at Ellensburg. Sounds strange given I-90 is a transcontinental route number and it did wind up being the number which wound up going to Seattle. Does anyone know the background on the I-82 to Seattle proposal?
Rick
There are no documents in the Oregon or Washington AASHO files with this proposal. I-82 was originally supposed to go to Portland OR
The Aug 1957 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Interstate_Highway_plan_August_14%2C_1957.jpg) and June 1958 (https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3701p.ct003465/?r=-0.016,0.073,1.127,0.533,0) maps do not suggest this was a thing either. Prelim map from June 1958 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Interstate_Highway_plan_June_27%2C_1958.jpg) also does not show it.
However, the memo from AASHO to the states 6/2/58 explicitly says 82 is to be dual marked with 90 into Seattle. I did not find another document to undo that description. I have not located any map that shows it.
To see this memo, first access the AASHO database search page (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default), then use this link - https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=c5877049-37e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Quote from: nexus73 on September 24, 2022, 09:42:05 AM
Years ago I saw a map online which showed I-82 was proposed to go to Seattle instead of ending at Ellensburg. Sounds strange given I-90 is a transcontinental route number and it did wind up being the number which wound up going to Seattle. Does anyone know the background on the I-82 to Seattle proposal?
Rick
In 1959, the Washington State Highway Commission petitioned the BPR (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll1/id/3285) to add the western half of US 410 (from Aberdeen to Yakima) to the Interstate system, likely as an extension of I-82. It was rejected, but would've fit some definition of serving the Seattle(-Tacoma) region.
Also found some interesting tidbits in the I-705 application packet from 1978, which includes correspondence about renumbering I-80N and I-82. One of the proposals:
(https://i.imgur.com/GkUoqFQ.jpeg)
Quote from: nexus73 on September 24, 2022, 09:42:05 AMYears ago I saw a map online which showed I-82 was proposed to go to Seattle instead of ending at Ellensburg. Sounds strange given I-90 is a transcontinental route number and it did wind up being the number which wound up going to Seattle. Does anyone know the background on the I-82 to Seattle proposal?
Rick
I wonder if that means Interstate 90's western terminus would have originally been in Ellensburg instead of Seattle and Interstate 82 would have continued past Exit 110. The physical roads themselves would have been the same, just the routing designations would have been different. Then Interstate 82 being a west-east route, based on the even number, would have made more sense.
Quote from: Amaury on September 24, 2022, 05:24:43 AM
I mean, the road itself wouldn't be truncated, just the I-82 designation between Ellensburg and Exit 37 and between Exit 113 and the Interstate 84 junction. But that is also why I mentioned that the more logical "fix," if one were to occur, would be to change it to an odd number.
Doing this would create an interstate that is completely isolated. As it would not directly connect to I-90 or I-84 anymore. Simply to create more of a west-east interstate. This completely defeats the purpose. I-82 is diagonal and thus doesn't perfectly fit as either an even or odd number. But it serves an important purpose of getting traffic from Boise to Seattle. It almost seems more like those diagonal US highways where the numbers didn't really fit at all (such as US-62) but still served as important regional corridors.
Quote from: Amaury on September 24, 2022, 06:48:45 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 24, 2022, 09:42:05 AMYears ago I saw a map online which showed I-82 was proposed to go to Seattle instead of ending at Ellensburg. Sounds strange given I-90 is a transcontinental route number and it did wind up being the number which wound up going to Seattle. Does anyone know the background on the I-82 to Seattle proposal?
Rick
I wonder if that means Interstate 90's western terminus would have originally been in Ellensburg instead of Seattle and Interstate 82 would have continued past Exit 110. The physical roads themselves would have been the same, just the routing designations would have been different. Then Interstate 82 being a west-east route, based on the even number, would have made more sense.
Not likely. Given how interstates are numbered, seems far more likely there would have been an 82/90 concurrency between Seattle and Ellensburg. This was not uncommon in the US highway days, when routes would have extensions just to ensure they officially reached a destination. For example, US-26 used to travel concurrent on US-101 just to ensure it officially reached Astoria. It had no unique mileage, it just borrowed US-101 roadway. Same thing with US-199 once extending slightly farther on US-101 just to properly terminate in Crescent City. It's likely in the early days of the interstates, such extensions like this were considered, but then discarded. Because motorists would likely just associate one number with one route, and I-82 doesn't need to physically reach Seattle in order to get motorists there.
Interstates that end in x0 are intended to be major, cross-country roads. Having I-90 terminate in Ellensburg solely to ensure I-82 reached Seattle instead wouldn't have made any sense. Seattle is a major national city, Ellensburg is not. It's somewhat akin to when Interstate 15 used to terminate in San Bernardino. It made sense, but that southern extension to San Diego made a lot more sense, because San Diego is a much bigger destination than San Bernardino.
Quote from: Bruce on September 24, 2022, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 24, 2022, 09:42:05 AM
Years ago I saw a map online which showed I-82 was proposed to go to Seattle instead of ending at Ellensburg. Sounds strange given I-90 is a transcontinental route number and it did wind up being the number which wound up going to Seattle. Does anyone know the background on the I-82 to Seattle proposal?
Rick
In 1959, the Washington State Highway Commission petitioned the BPR (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll1/id/3285) to add the western half of US 410 (from Aberdeen to Yakima) to the Interstate system, likely as an extension of I-82. It was rejected, but would've fit some definition of serving the Seattle(-Tacoma) region.
Also found some interesting tidbits in the I-705 application packet from 1978, which includes correspondence about renumbering I-80N and I-82. One of the proposals:
(https://i.imgur.com/GkUoqFQ.jpeg)
This is interesting! Never knew this was planned. This actually makes a lot more sense and kind of wish it happened. There are numerous split interstates these days (76, 84, 86, 87, 88) and these "implied concurrencies" don't seem to cause any issues or confusion. Since renumbering was going to happen anyway due to 80N going away, I think this should have happened instead.
I like the idea that I-82 could go to SLC and I-86 could go to Portland, eliminating the fake I-84
I-82 should be I-7/9/11/13 so that one of the I-84s can become 82.
The fact that I-82 connects two east-west corridors is not a sufficient condition for giving it an even number.
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.
The fact that I-82 connects two east-west corridors is not a sufficient condition for giving it an even number.
I-82 is part of a longer NW-SE corridor that ultimately feeds into the rest of the system via E-W corridors.
Also, a renumbering this late in the game is a pointless waste of money, metal, and effort.
Quote from: Quillz on September 24, 2022, 09:19:29 PMNot likely. Given how interstates are numbered, seems far more likely there would have been an 82/90 concurrency between Seattle and Ellensburg. This was not uncommon in the US highway days, when routes would have extensions just to ensure they officially reached a destination. For example, US-26 used to travel concurrent on US-101 just to ensure it officially reached Astoria. It had no unique mileage, it just borrowed US-101 roadway. Same thing with US-199 once extending slightly farther on US-101 just to properly terminate in Crescent City. It's likely in the early days of the interstates, such extensions like this were considered, but then discarded. Because motorists would likely just associate one number with one route, and I-82 doesn't need to physically reach Seattle in order to get motorists there.
That would have also made a west-east route make much more sense, though it would have been a rather pointless concurrency since they would both end at the same place, because when there are concurrencies, they'll eventually branch off on either end (west/east or south/north). For example, instead of both ending at Seattle, Interstate 82 could have branched off where Interstate 90 terminates in the west to go a little farther to, say, somewhere in West Seattle.
Well, since we're getting into fictional territory, it could have gone anywhere. But if the entire purpose of creating an 82/90 concurrency was just so 82 could have a few miles within Seattle, it's still kind of pointless. This is why a lot of US highway concurrencies were eliminated. You didn't need 4+ concurrent highways all going to the same location, just one primary one worked and you'd have natural starting points for the others as you progressed. Given the purpose of I-82, Ellensburg works well as a starting point. There's really just nothing that can be done about I-82. It's diagonal but serves an important purpose. It will always look a bit odd in the overall grid.
Quote from: Quillz on September 25, 2022, 04:53:31 AMThere's really just nothing that can be done about I-82. It's diagonal but serves an important purpose. It will always look a bit odd in the overall grid.
Yeah. Although, interestingly enough, Washington State Route 821 runs virtually parallel to Interstate 82 between Ellensburg and the Selah Firing Center, and it's south-north.
Well that would be to reflect how Washington numbers its state highways. And probably a tacit admission that I-82 is more south-north (at least in that part of the state). They likely have 82x routes reserved if/when they are ever needed.
Quote from: Quillz on September 25, 2022, 04:53:31 AM
Well, since we're getting into fictional territory, it could have gone anywhere. But if the entire purpose of creating an 82/90 concurrency was just so 82 could have a few miles within Seattle, it's still kind of pointless. This is why a lot of US highway concurrencies were eliminated. You didn't need 4+ concurrent highways all going to the same location, just one primary one worked and you'd have natural starting points for the others as you progressed. Given the purpose of I-82, Ellensburg works well as a starting point. There's really just nothing that can be done about I-82. It's diagonal but serves an important purpose. It will always look a bit odd in the overall grid.
Right. Just like I-24 in the SE is another. It runs diagonally as well and could be an odd number. However, it does serve its purpose and allows Seattle to be connected to the middle country.
Quote from: Amaury on September 22, 2022, 05:05:13 AM
Besides the numbering, my understanding of routes is that however more miles one direction has than the other is the determining factor. So, if a highway runs west-east for 10 miles and south-north for 3 miles, it is a west-east route, since there are more west-east miles than south-north miles.
Quote from: Amaury on September 24, 2022, 05:24:43 AM
Although I did pick some random points on Google Maps that I thought made sense, and I get 69.8 point miles of south-north and 73.3 miles of west-east, which means it would be a west-east route, but I don't know what the official points are. But these aren't official points, and there doesn't seem to be a website that says how many miles a highway travels in a certain direction. For example, there's no official website that says out of the 143.58 miles–which my numbers above don't equal to due to the differing points–that Interstate 82 runs, according to Wikipedia, X miles are south-north and Y miles are west-east.
This is not an official thing, as far as I am aware. I don't believe that there is any official listing of which miles of which interstate are officially considered to be north-south or east-west.
That said, I would agree that as a connector between two even numbered routes, I-82 would be better as an odd number.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 25, 2022, 10:10:48 AM
That said, I would agree that as a connector between two even numbered routes, I-82 would be better as an odd number.
The numbers of what it connects shouldn't matter. I-89 is correct as is, even though it only touches 93, 91, and would touch 87 if not for a lake in the way.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 25, 2022, 10:10:48 AM
That said, I would agree that as a connector between two even numbered routes, I-82 would be better as an odd number.
I remember reading on the I-82 Wikipedia page that there was a consideration in the early 2000s to extend it south from I-84 through Eastern Oregon to somewhere in California or Nevada. Had this extension been built, I wonder if it would've kept the I-82 number and been signed north-south like I-69 in Michigan and if it happened it could've connected to I-11 in Las Vegas.
Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_82
Quote from: 1 on September 25, 2022, 10:52:49 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 25, 2022, 10:10:48 AM
That said, I would agree that as a connector between two even numbered routes, I-82 would be better as an odd number.
The numbers of what it connects shouldn't matter. I-89 is correct as is, even though it only touches 93, 91, and would touch 87 if not for a lake in the way.
As a general rule, I wouldn't necessarily agree since I would hold that it's part of the general idea of a grid. That said, details of geography and so on can admittedly change things.
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.
Also, if you look at the US routes it replaced:
37.81 miles is concurrent with US 97 (N/S)
20.81 miles is concurrent with US 395 (N/S)
71.13 miles is concurrent with US 12 (E/W)
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 - and to boot, both largely follow US routes that go the other direction (US 41 and 45 for I-24, US 42 for I-71). Guessing that's because more people on here have actually been on them.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Thread seems to be derailing.
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?
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.
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.
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, 10:26:53 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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
Fictional Highways is 15 miles that way ->
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.
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.
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.
But millions?
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:
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2r3/images/fig2d_11.gif)
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).
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2022, 08:38:51 PM
$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.
You're missing the $500,000 bribe to the contractors. /s
The real spending shows up when you try to update ancient software. For example, renaming one of our light rail stations was projected to cost $5 million (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sound-transits-university-street-station-is-getting-a-new-name-heres-whats-proposed/) for some reason.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 08:42:53 PM
Is CA-99 already a full freeway? If so, adding the I-7 designation to the freeway stretch shouldn't be as expensive, right?
Irrelevant to this thread.
Don't worry. The renumbering will happen when I-11 is completed through central Oregon from Reno, and I-82 becomes a part of I-11. /s
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2022, 08:38:51 PM
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:
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2r3/images/fig2d_11.gif)
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).
Um...given the actual amounts for ground mounted sign contracts that I've seen...you're a real lousy estimator. :D
$90K for a corridor is ridiculously cheap and actually goes against the argument you're making.
$20 an hour doesn't sound like much, for hazardous roadside work with a fair amount of independence required, especially since the workers are probably unionized and have medical benefits and maybe pensions or at least a matching 401K.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 09:42:27 PM
That would solve the I-82 problem, but personally I would be satisfied if I-11 only went between Pheonix and Reno. I-82 was supposed to be the proposed route from Hartford to Providence in New England anyway, so no need for that extra duplication in Washington State.
I-82 was assigned in 1958, reusing a number originally used for the Portland-Utah freeway now known as I-84.
There's no "supposed to be" here. It's been I-82 in WA/OR for far longer than the New England version, which never really got finished, so clearly it's less important to note.
Quote from: kkt on October 30, 2022, 10:12:23 PM
$20 an hour doesn't sound like much, for hazardous roadside work with a fair amount of independence required, especially since the workers are probably unionized and have medical benefits and maybe pensions or at least a matching 401K.
I agree, and truckers should make six figures as a starting salary. Not joking. Obtaining a commercial driver's license is hard. Road repair workers should make at least $25-30 an hour for the risk of being run over and fixing potholes that eat our cars, potentially saving thousands of lives.
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2022, 09:45:14 PM
Um...given the actual amounts for ground mounted sign contracts that I've seen...you're a real lousy estimator. :D
$90K for a corridor is ridiculously cheap and actually goes against the argument you're making.
Well of course I am, I'm not a professional like you are :P
I mostly just wanted to make the point that renumbering isn't free.
Decided to quickly look at some highway worker salaries, and it seems to be $23.66/hour (https://ofm.wa.gov/state-human-resources/compensation-job-classes/ClassifiedJobListing/SalaryRange/340) for an equipment operator. Field leads can get over $26/hour.
Not bad, especially for more rural areas where cost of living is pretty low.
Quote from: Bruce on October 31, 2022, 12:03:27 AM
Decided to quickly look at some highway worker salaries, and it seems to be $23.66/hour (https://ofm.wa.gov/state-human-resources/compensation-job-classes/ClassifiedJobListing/SalaryRange/340) for an equipment operator. Field leads can get over $26/hour.
Not bad, especially for more rural areas where cost of living is pretty low.
Is that take-home, or fully loaded?
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2022, 08:38:51 PMI-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.
I'm impressed that you know the number of interchanges it has.
Quote from: Amaury on October 31, 2022, 03:25:29 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2022, 08:38:51 PMI-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.
I'm impressed that you know the number of interchanges it has.
I don't think he did before he looked at Wikipedia and/or Google Maps.
Quote from: US 89 on October 31, 2022, 09:32:55 AM
Quote from: Amaury on October 31, 2022, 03:25:29 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 30, 2022, 08:38:51 PMI-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.
I'm impressed that you know the number of interchanges it has.
I don't think he did before he looked at Wikipedia and/or Google Maps.
More like counted the number of points in Travel Mapping, I'd wager.