Interstate Highway Numbering Nonsense

[MultiMillionMiler]

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?

4. I-295 in New Jersey: Just...what the hell is this?? Never in my life anywhere in the country have I seen an interstate begin as 3/4 of a beltway around a city, and then, just start sliding southwest all the way back down to Delaware..the path it takes is the dumbest route I have ever seen on one interstate. A complete beltway makes sense. A highway going northeast to southwest makes sense, but a combination of the two with the same number? Just..why??? Forget even the silliness of the I-95 gap when it could have just ran along the Jersey Turnpike, but seriously what is the logic of I-295. Start out heading east over the Delaware bridge on a road signed "north", then northeast on a road designated "north" curve west into PA while still signed "north" and then curve 180 degrees south, now going the opposite direction, that now says you are heading west? Talk about confusion. This is half a numbering issue and half a routing issue, because if they just designated I-95 like they should have, or made the beltway something else, ot wouldn't take a weird shape, but it's both.

5. Kentucky Route 620, I just discovered this one on the map, and this isn't a numbering issue so maybe I should start a thread on it, but the spiral shape of this one even beats I-295 in NJ. It's literally a lowercase letter e, what on earth is the logic of numbering it all the same thing? (Maybe it is a numbering issue since it could be a beltway but they should have numbered the central leg something else). Just an extremely odd path of a route.

[kirbykart]

All of these have been beaten to death here, in response to I-99, I think it's too long to be a 3di spur, and even if it were, it would have to be I-380 because 280 signifies a loop route that connects to its parent again or another interstate.  And in Texas, the I-69 thing is weird but eventually I-69 (currently in multiple parts) will serve the Corpus Christi-Detroit corridor.

[kirbykart]

They don't follow the even-odd convention for direction, and like I said, even first digit 3dis don't necessarily have to reconnect to their parent interstate, just any other interstate will work (depending on the state. Some states like Illinois don't think this counts and will give such a spur an odd first digit.)

[Henry]

All of these have been beaten to death here, in response to I-99, I think it's too long to be a 3di spur, and even if it were, it would have to be I-380 because 280 signifies a loop route that connects to its parent again or another interstate.

I-380 is already used in PA, so the next available 3di would be I-580.

As for the subject, I nominate I-73 and I-74 as nonsense numbering. I get that Congress wanted to connect the Ohio Valley to the Southeast, but the three strikes against the corridor are as follows:

1. I-73 is too far east of I-77, and I-74 is too far south of I-40
2. Both routes are multiplexed in central NC, with one of the numbers randomly disappearing for no reason at all
3. Neither one will connect to the Midwest, since the WV portion is not even a freeway

We already know about I-99 and I-238, but these two are just as bad.

[kphoger]

As for the suffixed I-69 heresies...

I seem to remember someone saying that 69E, 69C, and 69W were originally just placeholders in the initial plans, but that nobody bothered to change the numbers to anything else.  Is that true?

[MultiMillionMiler]

If they were placeholders, that would imply either all 3 segments are proposed individual highways, or one of them will be and they haven't decided which one, but even the furthest east segment wouldn't make sense as I-69. I doubt they could be 3 branches of the same highway, given the distance between them.

[kphoger]

OK, so it was |sparker| that I remember saying that.  Please see below for a compilation of posts from other threads on this topic.

Back in 2010, I (via my consulting entity) submitted a paper to the Alliance for I-69 Texas suggesting just that except for designating US 281 as I-169.  Their response was that they were inclined to follow the original "placeholder" designations of "Central" & "East" as the signed designations (a) because it followed the "letter of the law" as laid out in the HPC 18 legislative description, and (b) so as not to confuse the legislators tasked with pushing the various funding bills through Congress.  Obviously they followed suit with the "69W" designation to Laredo using the same rationale. 

My take on this is the Alliance used the "69" number as a virtual trademark -- to the extent that each aspect of the corridor was to retain some sort of reference to 69.  Frankly, I was shocked to see that they had selected I-2 for the US 83 connector; I had expected it would be I-569 or something similar.  But since no suffix was previously suggested for the Freer-Corpus added segment, I wouldn't be surprised if, when funding is sought for any activity on that segment, that it comes with a I-6 designation to match I-2 to the south as a "cross-trident" connector.

I guess the Alliance didn't trust their selected Congressional critters to do anything except walk & talk a straight line between point A (concept) and point B (funding & construction).

It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified).  I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say.   In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!

Back circa late 2010 or early 2011 I submitted an analysis to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, in which I stated that the suffixed branches within the I-69 cluster were simply placeholders, since they were spelled out rather than stated as a single suffixed number (i.e. I-69 East vis-à-vis I-69E), and as such, could be changed quite easily by a simple alteration of the HPC 18/20 language.  I suggested that I-69 itself replace I-69 East down to the border at Brownsville; that the segment along US 59 from Laredo to Victoria should become I-6, and that I-69 Central become I-169, which would then shunt east over US 83 to the main I-69 trunk at Harlingen (no I-2 in sight for this proposal).  Also: the segment from Tenaha north to Texarkana should be I-47.  Part of the rationale I expressed to the Alliance was that the suffixed numbers violated FHWA and AASHTO guidelines -- and although the legislated aspect of the corridor designations did in fact allow them to ignore those guidelines, it might be more appropriate from a regional standpoint to consider better-fitting alternative designations. 

The response was that while my ideas had merit, the Congresspersons on board the proposal didn't want to "rock the boat" by substituting numbers that late in the game, that all their documentation referred to the branches as some form of the original "69" proposal -- besides, it had become recognized as a sort of "trademark" for the proposal in general and that the internal preference was for some iteration of "69" to be applied to all corridors covered by the original legislation (obviously that didn't apply to the I-2 corridor, as it was addressed separately and later). 

And that was the end of that!  However, when I-2 was designated a couple of years later, I was as surprised as anyone -- fully expecting US 83 to be I-169 or I-569, etc. to "keep it in the family", so to speak.  I guess the Laredo-bound ambitions of that corridor had a bit to do with the choice. 

Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about.  Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).   

Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following:  I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen.  Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!).  Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation.  I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers.  That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made.  Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box! 

At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless.  But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I!  But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).

... the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   

[SkyPesos]

I-180 WY: It's a surface arterial, and is US 85 not enough of a designation for it?

IL I-180 also gets beaten to death here, but that's more because the whole road is useless, not just a bad numbering.

[kphoger]

I-180 WY: It's a surface arterial, and is US 85 not enough of a designation for it?

This is because 180 was already approved to be an Interstate before it was decided to no longer be a freeway.  See below.

It was given Interstate status because it was designated as part of the system and Interstate Construction funding was used in its construction.  Don't forget that, until about 10 years ago, the Interstates were just as much a funding category as they were a system category.

Nov. 1967 – Wyoming requested Interstate status for the corridor
Feb. 1968 – FHWA received Wyoming's request
Jun. 1970 – AASHO added I-180 to the Interstate system
Dec. 1970 – FHWA rejected Wyoming's concept proposal due to cost
Feb. 1971 – Wyoming submitted a new concept proposal, no longer a freeway
Mar. 1971 – FHWA approved Wyoming's new concept proposal

As you can see, I-180 was already on the books when its plans changed from its being grade-separated to an at-grade facility.

Also–and this is important–Interstate 80 east of that point wasn't even completed yet at the time, and wouldn't be until 1977.

Hmmm ok that makes some sense. I'm just going to say it should be unsigned and that would eliminate the average person (non-roadgeek) from thinking it's an interstate.

It IS an Interstate, and it has been since 1970.

[MATraveler128]

I-587 in New York. It's parent doesn't even acknowledge its existence. Not up to Interstate standards and also doesn't actually connect with I-87. FWIW Kingston doesn't need a spur Interstate to begin with.

[MultiMillionMiler]

It seems like whenever a state has only one 3di to a primary interstate, they always make it begin with 5, just like Reno/Carson City. Took forever to even find 587 in NY on a map, yep, that's really stupid. I know NJ has I-287, but I'd almost argue that's a primary one because it's so long.

[kphoger]

It seems like whenever a state has only one 3di to a primary interstate, they always make it begin with 5 ...

Not.

Looking at the states around me here...
KS:  470 (670 came later), 235 (others came later)
OK:  235, 240
NE:  129
CO:  425 (rejected), 225 (later), 270 (470 was proposed later)
MO:  ummmm, I'm too lazy to untangle all those 3di

[SkyPesos]

It seems like whenever a state has only one 3di to a primary interstate, they always make it begin with 5, just like Reno/Carson City. Took forever to even find 587 in NY on a map, yep, that's really stupid. I know NJ has I-287, but I'd almost argue that's a primary one because it's so long.

5xx 3di are surprisingly common generally. I checked a while ago, I-70 is the only x0 without a 5xx, and I-25 and 45 the only x5 (but those two only have 1 3di each anyways).

But anyways, Ohio doesn't have any odd first digit 3di at all, so they're out of the question.

[MultiMillionMiler]

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

[dvferyance]

I don't care for the two I-291s in MA and CT one should be I-491. They are too close to have the same number.

[kphoger]

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

[kphoger]

For what it's worth, I like the number 515.  In my opinion, 115 would be too easily confused with 15 because of the double '1'.  (For this reason, I also think I-110 in California should be I-310, I-110 in either Louisiana or Florida–or both–should be I-710, and I-115 in Montana should be I-715.)  The number 515 avoids that confusion while still having two of the same digit in the number, which makes it easy to remember.

[MATraveler128]

For what it's worth, I like the number 515.  In my opinion, 115 would be too easily confused with 15 because of the double '1'.  (For this reason, I also think I-110 in California should be I-310, I-110 in either Louisiana or Florida–or both–should be I-710, and I-115 in Montana should be I-715.)  The number 515 avoids that confusion while still having two of the same digit in the number, which makes it easy to remember.

This confusion is also the reason why I-865 in Indiana wasn't named I-665. At the time of renumbering, INDOT thought that 911 operators would confuse 65 and 665. Although I've never heard confusion with other numbers such as 440, 664, or 990.

[MATraveler128]

I don't care for the two I-291s in MA and CT one should be I-491. They are too close to have the same number.

Agreed, and there are too many 495s in the NorthEast in general, in Maryland, Delaware, Long Island, and Rhode Island. Maybe if they build I-82 from Hartford to Providence, it will get rid of the 291 near there, or the 691.

As for the 495s, in fact, if they ever did in an alternate universe build a bridge over the sound and extend 495, it may end up connecting with the Rhode Island 495 anyway since they would be facing the same general direction.

I think you meant I-495 in Massachusetts. Also there’s a 495 in Maine although it’s unsigned. It exists on the Falmouth Spur.

[MultiMillionMiler]

So there's 5 in total then!!
LOL

As for the 580 matching 515 that makes perfect sense, although I-11 may end up consuming 580 when it's fully built. I read they don't just want to connect Pheonix, Vegas, Carson, and Reno, but also to Portland or Seattle.

[kphoger]

I read they don't just want to connect Pheonix, Vegas, Carson, and Reno, but also to Portland or Seattle.

That probably depends on who "they" are...

[Dirt Roads]

I forgot about those two, at first I thought it was just my maps glitching and numbering them as interstates when they weren't (I have seen I-70 magically pop up in CA, and an I-78 in Rhode Island before) but it turns out I-73 and I-74 are in a million fragments! Speaking of North Carolina, I was just there in June, went to Carowinds and rode Fury325 rollercoaster dozens of time, was so fun, but in terms of highways, is there an I-87 in NC or is that a map glitch as well?

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?

This I-87 is totally separate, intended to run from I-440 in Raleigh -to- I-664 in Chesapeake/Norfolk. 
Before anybody flames out on this one, you should look up the I-87 (North Carolina-Virginia) thread on the Southeast regional board:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.0

Let us know if you need any help understanding what went wrong on the numbering of this one...

[Scott5114]

As for the 580 matching 515 that makes perfect sense, although I-11 may end up consuming 580 when it's fully built. I read they don't just want to connect Pheonix, Vegas, Carson, and Reno, but also to Portland or Seattle.

I-11 may well end up consuming 515 as well if it follows US-95.

[MultiMillionMiler]

I-11 is my favorite proposed project. Those cities obviously need an interstate connection. I would love for CA 99 to become I-7, and maybe even an I-9 could be built to directly connect LA and Carson City.

[Scott5114]

Vegas to Phoenix makes a lot of sense*; Vegas to Carson City and Reno is reasonable; anything north of there considerably less so.

*I've only driven the portion of US-93 from Kingman to Vegas, but that alone seems sensible as an Interstate corridor to me.