Mainline Interstates That Terminate Into 3dis

[sparker]

Since the whole idea of deploying additional freeways in dense urban areas is now both politically infeasible as well as virtually impossible from an economic standpoint, it would be expected that unless new Interstate corridors utilized existing facilities that weren't expected to be removed or the subject of efforts to do so, there would be more instances of these more rural corridors terminating at beltways than following the original "yellow book" plan into city centers; with the upshot that more 3di's will likely be pressed into service as 2di terminus points if and when new intercity/interregional Interstate corridors are planned and deployed. 

I could think of a Fictional Highways re-numbering to connect I-22 to I-55, and that one's so new, it makes me wonder why they didn't number it that way in the first place, unless it's a case of "Worship the Mighty I-69!"

In this case, planning and official designation of I-269 came before I-22.  We knew it was going to be I-269 two decades before I-22 came about.

Well, actually they're about as old as each other, as I think my first correspondence about renumbering US 78 to I-22 with Senator Shelby's office was written about 1997 or 1998.  Although I-69 was legislated in 1998, indeed I-22 wasn't legislated into existence in 2004.
.
I think most of us expected Tennessee to be willing to upgrade US 72 at least to I-240.  If 22 ended there, it still would be ending at a 3di though!  I think part of the "Bridges of Memphis" solution should be to route I-22 along I-269 and I-69 towards Tunica, and build a new bridge and connector route sweeping across the river and northward to end at I-40.  Then traffic coming from I-30 & I-40 points west could completely bypass Memphis to the south on such an extended I-22...  Then building a new I-55 bridge a thousand feet south of the current bridge could proceed without making Memphis a permanent traffic jam.

Up until his political demise circa 2001-02, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) was the "designated ball-carrier" for the I-22-over-US-78 concept.  However, there was no love lost (although both were Republicans) between Lott and then-Senator Bill Frist (R-TN); Frist saw no reason to champion a I-22 incursion into TN along Lamar Ave, considering that corridor to have limited benefit for his own state (besides simply wanting to stick it to Lott!).  Matters were at an impasse up to Lott's scandal, and as of the end of 2001 the project was on hold.  But enough Alabama-based interests were able to intervene and get Sen. Shelby involved by early 2003; he essentially assumed Lott's previous "spearheading" role and was able to get both an amended corridor definition (HPC #45) with the I-22 designation attached into the 2004 USDOT authorizing legislation.  So as of March '04 the project was "back in business", so to speak -- although it took another 13 years to achieve completion -- and that only because of the I-269 construction "dovetailing" into the upgrading of the older/original US 78 freeway across northern MS.  To this day, there has been no revival of interest in extending I-22 into TN; its western terminus at I-269 is, at least in official circles, considered adequate.  Also, there is little to speak of in the way of trailblazer signage for I-22 at the various I-269 interchanges in either MS or TN; it seems to be the proverbial "red-headed stepchild" of the region.       

[ari-s-drives]

I'm pretty sure that I-80 was intended to terminate at I-280 in San Francisco and did effectively terminate at I-480/SR 480 for a while.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

I'm pretty sure that I-80 was intended to terminate at I-280 in San Francisco and did effectively terminate at I-480/SR 480 for a while.

Well, I think it ended at US 101...

[sparker]

I'm pretty sure that I-80 was intended to terminate at I-280 in San Francisco and did effectively terminate at I-480/SR 480 for a while.

Well, I think it ended at US 101...

That's been a questionable issue for some time.  Technically CASR 80 extends to US 101, but the chargeable portion of I-80 ended either at (a) the former I/CA-480 interchange or (b) the 5th Street left exit (the original end of the Bay Bridge before the Skyway was cut in in the early '50's) after the Central Freeway's Interstate status was, along with the I-480 stub, rescinded circa 1965.  Nevertheless, the section between either of the two cited endpoints and the US 101 interchange has always been signed, via both trailblazer and reassurance shields, as I-80.  It's one of those "if it looks like a duck" scenarios.  Since the original I-480 interchange at the west end of the Bay Bridge/I-80 was also supposed to be the access to southward I-280 after that route's realignment over former CA 82 and CA 87 back in '65, it would have functioned as a mutual official terminus for both Interstates, although the section west from there likely would have been, like today, CASR-80 signed as I-80; it's unlikely that green CA 80 spades would have been deployed -- although "TO" banners may well have topped the I-80 shields in that section (with "TO" US 101 in the other).

[ethanhopkin14]

I'm pretty sure that I-80 was intended to terminate at I-280 in San Francisco and did effectively terminate at I-480/SR 480 for a while.

Well, I think it ended at US 101...

That's been a questionable issue for some time.  Technically CASR 80 extends to US 101, but the chargeable portion of I-80 ended either at (a) the former I/CA-480 interchange or (b) the 5th Street left exit (the original end of the Bay Bridge before the Skyway was cut in in the early '50's) after the Central Freeway's Interstate status was, along with the I-480 stub, rescinded circa 1965.  Nevertheless, the section between either of the two cited endpoints and the US 101 interchange has always been signed, via both trailblazer and reassurance shields, as I-80.  It's one of those "if it looks like a duck" scenarios.  Since the original I-480 interchange at the west end of the Bay Bridge/I-80 was also supposed to be the access to southward I-280 after that route's realignment over former CA 82 and CA 87 back in '65, it would have functioned as a mutual official terminus for both Interstates, although the section west from there likely would have been, like today, CASR-80 signed as I-80; it's unlikely that green CA 80 spades would have been deployed -- although "TO" banners may well have topped the I-80 shields in that section (with "TO" US 101 in the other).

Interstate 345 approves of this message.

[sparker]

I'm pretty sure that I-80 was intended to terminate at I-280 in San Francisco and did effectively terminate at I-480/SR 480 for a while.

Well, I think it ended at US 101...

That's been a questionable issue for some time.  Technically CASR 80 extends to US 101, but the chargeable portion of I-80 ended either at (a) the former I/CA-480 interchange or (b) the 5th Street left exit (the original end of the Bay Bridge before the Skyway was cut in in the early '50's) after the Central Freeway's Interstate status was, along with the I-480 stub, rescinded circa 1965.  Nevertheless, the section between either of the two cited endpoints and the US 101 interchange has always been signed, via both trailblazer and reassurance shields, as I-80.  It's one of those "if it looks like a duck" scenarios.  Since the original I-480 interchange at the west end of the Bay Bridge/I-80 was also supposed to be the access to southward I-280 after that route's realignment over former CA 82 and CA 87 back in '65, it would have functioned as a mutual official terminus for both Interstates, although the section west from there likely would have been, like today, CASR-80 signed as I-80; it's unlikely that green CA 80 spades would have been deployed -- although "TO" banners may well have topped the I-80 shields in that section (with "TO" US 101 in the other).

Interstate 345 approves of this message.

I-345 vs. the questionable I-80 "stub" is pretty much apples vs. oranges.  The former is actually an Interstate route -- albeit unsigned -- that functions as an extension of I-45 north of that route's terminus at I-30; it's on the FHWA's Interstate "log sheet".  IIRC, I-80's defined western terminus is the west end of the Bay Bridge, which makes the Skyway from there to US 101 simply a state-owned freeway; it's not on that same log.  But I-345 is interesting in that it exists at all; why TxDOT didn't simply apply for that section of freeway to be the northernmost section of I-45 (and either sign it or not) is, at least to me, a mystery.  The only other instance I can think of that such a configuration occurred or was planned was the I-79/I-179 continuum at Erie, PA; originally, the "stub" of the I-79 facility located north of I-90 and south of Erie was to be designated as I-179, but that concept only lasted for a couple of years until someone thought it was just plain silly and arranged to have it redesignated as the continuation of I-79.  Now -- whether that would have had any bearing on the folks pressing for I-345's teardown is simply conjecture at this point.

Had an idea -- one that would make the aforementioned Dallas "teardown" parties gnash their teeth -- TxDOT pursues I-45 up US 75 to the state line, subsuming I-345 in the process.  Then they could ask that the Woodall/TX 366 freeway be the new I-345 as an access route from I-35E to the new northern section of I-45.  Would like to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" if and when that would occur!   

[ethanhopkin14]

I'm pretty sure that I-80 was intended to terminate at I-280 in San Francisco and did effectively terminate at I-480/SR 480 for a while.

Well, I think it ended at US 101...

That's been a questionable issue for some time.  Technically CASR 80 extends to US 101, but the chargeable portion of I-80 ended either at (a) the former I/CA-480 interchange or (b) the 5th Street left exit (the original end of the Bay Bridge before the Skyway was cut in in the early '50's) after the Central Freeway's Interstate status was, along with the I-480 stub, rescinded circa 1965.  Nevertheless, the section between either of the two cited endpoints and the US 101 interchange has always been signed, via both trailblazer and reassurance shields, as I-80.  It's one of those "if it looks like a duck" scenarios.  Since the original I-480 interchange at the west end of the Bay Bridge/I-80 was also supposed to be the access to southward I-280 after that route's realignment over former CA 82 and CA 87 back in '65, it would have functioned as a mutual official terminus for both Interstates, although the section west from there likely would have been, like today, CASR-80 signed as I-80; it's unlikely that green CA 80 spades would have been deployed -- although "TO" banners may well have topped the I-80 shields in that section (with "TO" US 101 in the other).

Interstate 345 approves of this message.

I-345 vs. the questionable I-80 "stub" is pretty much apples vs. oranges.  The former is actually an Interstate route -- albeit unsigned -- that functions as an extension of I-45 north of that route's terminus at I-30; it's on the FHWA's Interstate "log sheet".  IIRC, I-80's defined western terminus is the west end of the Bay Bridge, which makes the Skyway from there to US 101 simply a state-owned freeway; it's not on that same log.  But I-345 is interesting in that it exists at all; why TxDOT didn't simply apply for that section of freeway to be the northernmost section of I-45 (and either sign it or not) is, at least to me, a mystery.  The only other instance I can think of that such a configuration occurred or was planned was the I-79/I-179 continuum at Erie, PA; originally, the "stub" of the I-79 facility located north of I-90 and south of Erie was to be designated as I-179, but that concept only lasted for a couple of years until someone thought it was just plain silly and arranged to have it redesignated as the continuation of I-79.  Now -- whether that would have had any bearing on the folks pressing for I-345's teardown is simply conjecture at this point.

Had an idea -- one that would make the aforementioned Dallas "teardown" parties gnash their teeth -- TxDOT pursues I-45 up US 75 to the state line, subsuming I-345 in the process.  Then they could ask that the Woodall/TX 366 freeway be the new I-345 as an access route from I-35E to the new northern section of I-45.  Would like to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" if and when that would occur!   

It was a joke referring to I-345 signed as SOUTH I-45 (congruent to US-101) southbound and NORTH US-75 (congruent to I-80) northbound.  Just in both scenarios, they are completely different numbered highways then the two highways they connect via one stretch of pavement, acting secretly as an extension of both highways depending on which way you are traveling.

[sparker]

I'm pretty sure that I-80 was intended to terminate at I-280 in San Francisco and did effectively terminate at I-480/SR 480 for a while.

Well, I think it ended at US 101...

That's been a questionable issue for some time.  Technically CASR 80 extends to US 101, but the chargeable portion of I-80 ended either at (a) the former I/CA-480 interchange or (b) the 5th Street left exit (the original end of the Bay Bridge before the Skyway was cut in in the early '50's) after the Central Freeway's Interstate status was, along with the I-480 stub, rescinded circa 1965.  Nevertheless, the section between either of the two cited endpoints and the US 101 interchange has always been signed, via both trailblazer and reassurance shields, as I-80.  It's one of those "if it looks like a duck" scenarios.  Since the original I-480 interchange at the west end of the Bay Bridge/I-80 was also supposed to be the access to southward I-280 after that route's realignment over former CA 82 and CA 87 back in '65, it would have functioned as a mutual official terminus for both Interstates, although the section west from there likely would have been, like today, CASR-80 signed as I-80; it's unlikely that green CA 80 spades would have been deployed -- although "TO" banners may well have topped the I-80 shields in that section (with "TO" US 101 in the other).

Interstate 345 approves of this message.

I-345 vs. the questionable I-80 "stub" is pretty much apples vs. oranges.  The former is actually an Interstate route -- albeit unsigned -- that functions as an extension of I-45 north of that route's terminus at I-30; it's on the FHWA's Interstate "log sheet".  IIRC, I-80's defined western terminus is the west end of the Bay Bridge, which makes the Skyway from there to US 101 simply a state-owned freeway; it's not on that same log.  But I-345 is interesting in that it exists at all; why TxDOT didn't simply apply for that section of freeway to be the northernmost section of I-45 (and either sign it or not) is, at least to me, a mystery.  The only other instance I can think of that such a configuration occurred or was planned was the I-79/I-179 continuum at Erie, PA; originally, the "stub" of the I-79 facility located north of I-90 and south of Erie was to be designated as I-179, but that concept only lasted for a couple of years until someone thought it was just plain silly and arranged to have it redesignated as the continuation of I-79.  Now -- whether that would have had any bearing on the folks pressing for I-345's teardown is simply conjecture at this point.

Had an idea -- one that would make the aforementioned Dallas "teardown" parties gnash their teeth -- TxDOT pursues I-45 up US 75 to the state line, subsuming I-345 in the process.  Then they could ask that the Woodall/TX 366 freeway be the new I-345 as an access route from I-35E to the new northern section of I-45.  Would like to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" if and when that would occur!   

It was a joke referring to I-345 signed as SOUTH I-45 (congruent to US-101) southbound and NORTH US-75 (congruent to I-80) northbound.  Just in both scenarios, they are completely different numbered highways then the two highways they connect via one stretch of pavement, acting secretly as an extension of both highways depending on which way you are traveling.

You know, I did not know that!  I've been on I-30 countless times through central Dallas, but never had the need to use I-345, so its signage characteristics remained unknown -- although I knew it was unsigned as I-345.  Of course the scheme described above makes sense -- the whole thing is simply a "bridge" between US 75 and I-45.