Which 2dis get roasted the most/least?

[Flint1979]

With all the conversation around I-94 south of Milwaukee, I'm surprised there's not a proposal in Fictional Highways to build an 80 mile floating bridge across Lake Michigan to connect up with I-96 near Muskegon.

Right? I mean, if US-10 can technically be a continuous route due to a ferry, why can't I-94?

Because a ferry wouldn't be up to interstate standards. There aren't very many standards when it comes to a US highway.

[Roadgeekteen]

Ok sorry if this is considered bumping but I just had to come and defend interstate 69. I don't know too much about the route go to Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi etc. but I know that the stretch to Texas is actually quite important. But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston. No, interstate 69 will be serving the very important purpose of connecting Houston with Corpus Christi in the Rio Grande Valley. Currently in before the advent of I 69, the only way to get to the valley from Houston was to either go to San Antonio and then head south, are use US 59/77/281 which, while they may have had four lane divided sections  with  70 mph speed limits, also had  numerous stretches that went through small towns with speed trap cops, red lights, and driveways and businesses. Plus, this is a route that contains a lot of truck traffic.  Now the argument could be made that this route could be given a different number than 69, and I could agree with that. But then I think should be part of a much larger remembering of the entire grid.

The route is fine, the part south of Memphis should be I-47.

[OCGuy81]

With all the conversation around I-94 south of Milwaukee, I'm surprised there's not a proposal in Fictional Highways to build an 80 mile floating bridge across Lake Michigan to connect up with I-96 near Muskegon.

Right? I mean, if US-10 can technically be a continuous route due to a ferry, why can't I-94?

Because a ferry wouldn't be up to interstate standards. There aren't very many standards when it comes to a US highway.

I realize that. Just my attempt at humor. Ha ha ha.

[NWI_Irish96]

Wasn't I-4 measured out when designating a number to be slightly more E-W than N-S?

I don't know about when it was designated, but I measured it a while ago, and it is a bit more E-W than N-S. It measures, at least according to the Google Maps measuring tool, 82.26 miles N-S, and anywhere between 83.09 and 84.03 miles E-W, depending on how you deal with the curvature of the earth.

Moreover, even it it were the other way around, I would still probably prefer the even number given that it connects two odd numbered routes.

Yeah, I'm the same way. I think of I-4 as an E-W route because it connects two N-S routes. Similarly, I think of I-82 as a N-S route because it connects two E-W routers.

[Avalanchez71]

The routing for I-69 in TX looks pretty important, apart from 69C, which imo is too close to 69E.

US-281 (I-69C) and US-77 (I-69E) are both very important major trucking corridors. Same with I-35, obviously. All three are major routes from the north down to the three major border crossings - Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville.

Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

The sections in LA, AR, MS seem useless to me, as 369/30/40 is more direct between Tenaha and Memphis.

There's not much of a difference in distance... if I were coming from South Texas, I would much rather take I-69 all the way to Memphis and not deal with the hell that I-30 and I-40 can be.

But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston.

That's a pretty important connection...

[sprjus4]

Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

The entire I-69 route including its spokes were congressional mandated.

[Avalanchez71]

Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

The entire I-69 route including its spokes were congressional mandated.

++

I am aware of that.  I was asking if it is so important than why was it not part of the original plan or the 1968 update plan?

[Roadgeekteen]

Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

The entire I-69 route including its spokes were congressional mandated.

++

I am aware of that.  I was asking if it is so important than why was it not part of the original plan or the 1968 update plan?

The corridor was probably not as important back then.

[CtrlAltDel]

Wasn't I-4 measured out when designating a number to be slightly more E-W than N-S?

I don't know about when it was designated, but I measured it a while ago, and it is a bit more E-W than N-S. It measures, at least according to the Google Maps measuring tool, 82.26 miles N-S, and anywhere between 83.09 and 84.03 miles E-W, depending on how you deal with the curvature of the earth.

Moreover, even it it were the other way around, I would still probably prefer the even number given that it connects two odd numbered routes.

Yeah, I'm the same way. I think of I-4 as an E-W route because it connects two N-S routes. Similarly, I think of I-82 as a N-S route because it connects two E-W routers.

I could get behind that.

[OCGuy81]

Wasn't I-4 measured out when designating a number to be slightly more E-W than N-S?

I don't know about when it was designated, but I measured it a while ago, and it is a bit more E-W than N-S. It measures, at least according to the Google Maps measuring tool, 82.26 miles N-S, and anywhere between 83.09 and 84.03 miles E-W, depending on how you deal with the curvature of the earth.

Moreover, even it it were the other way around, I would still probably prefer the even number given that it connects two odd numbered routes.

Yeah, I'm the same way. I think of I-4 as an E-W route because it connects two N-S routes. Similarly, I think of I-82 as a N-S route because it connects two E-W routers.

I could get behind that.

Same. That's pretty solid logic.

[achilles765]

Ok sorry if this is considered bumping but I just had to come and defend interstate 69. I don't know too much about the route go to Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi etc. but I know that the stretch to Texas is actually quite important. But not for the connection from Texarkana to Houston. No, interstate 69 will be serving the very important purpose of connecting Houston with Corpus Christi in the Rio Grande Valley. Currently in before the advent of I 69, the only way to get to the valley from Houston was to either go to San Antonio and then head south, are use US 59/77/281 which, while they may have had four lane divided sections  with  70 mph speed limits, also had  numerous stretches that went through small towns with speed trap cops, red lights, and driveways and businesses. Plus, this is a route that contains a lot of truck traffic.  Now the argument could be made that this route could be given a different number than 69, and I could agree with that. But then I think should be part of a much larger remembering of the entire grid.

The route is fine, the part south of Memphis should be I-47.

I would be fine with that. Then we would be similar to San Antonio. Sa: IH 10; IH 35; IH 37. Houston: IH 10; IH 45; IH 47

[achilles765]

Why did they not request interstate mileage heretofore with a proper number?

The entire I-69 route including its spokes were congressional mandated.

++

I am aware of that.  I was asking if it is so important than why was it not part of the original plan or the 1968 update plan?

The traffic counts have been exploded along with the populations along those routes. Frankly I'm rather shocked that there was never any plan for any interstate Court or whatsoever into the Rio Grande Valley. And again my husband, who grew up down there said that back when he was growing up in the 80s and early 90s the whole region was basically just a bunch of little small towns. Now it's grown into a little mini/megalopolis of smaller cities that are all right along what is probably our most important border. 

[Avalanchez71]

How about A1?

[gr8daynegb]

Based on the "which states get roasted the most" thread here.

Roasted on this forum, not by the general public.

In numerical order, these are the complaints I have seen:
2: Too short, although it's temporary. I have a problem with it not connecting to the rest of the system, but that might only be me.
4: May be more north-south than east-west (if it's not, it's close). I've also seen complaints about heavy traffic.
5: Heavy traffic.
8: No criticism.
10: Some people believe 10 and 12 should be switched. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
12: Some people believe 10 and 12 should be switched. This is a bigger problem for 12, as it's the entire length of 12 and only a small part of 10.
14: Very short and almost useless compared to others, but it's likely temporary.
15: No criticism. I don't read the Pacific Southwest board often, so I might be missing some claims that CA 15 should become I-15.
16: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem. I've also seen complaints that it's boring.
17:  Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem. Also, the mile markers don't start at 0, but this isn't a problem either, even though it does lead to questions asked.
19: Too short. However, the metric signage actually seems to be a net positive, as it's interesting.
20: No criticism except for one person (excluding FritzOwl) saying that since it doesn't get near the West Coast, it shouldn't be an x0. The 20/59 overlap is 59's problem, not 20's. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
22: Under construction; no criticism.
24: The occasional complaint about being diagonal, and "why doesn't it go to St. Louis" in Fictional. There was also a thread about Paducah, KY vs. Evansville, IN and the wrong city winning (Evansville is much larger, but they built it through Paducah instead).
25: No criticism. It's entirely overlapped with US routes, but that's the fault of the US routes, not the Interstate.
26: "Number should be odd", despite that no odd numbers are available.
27: Intrastate. "Should be extended" is a common Fictional idea.
29: The only complaint that I've seen is that it and 49 have two different numbers.
30: Too short for an x0. This is a common complaint.
35: 35W/35E splits. Some people say they shouldn't exist.
37: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem.
39: Long overlap with I-90. Some people have a problem with it, but nowhere near the level of 20/59.
40: No criticism; extending 40 west in California seems to be a suggestion and not a problem. There are also at-grades in Texas making it not Interstate-standard, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone.
41: A huge debate about whether it's okay to have an I-41/US 41 overlap, with people on both sides of the debate.
42: Under construction. No criticism, unlike I-87 in North Carolina.
43: No criticism, as far as I'm aware.
44: Tolls in Oklahoma? Sudden end in Wichita Falls, TX? These are both minor criticisms, but I've seen both.
45: Intrastate for an x5. This is a major criticism.
49: The gaps in I-49, which will be filled eventually.
55: 57 is more direct. Other than that, no problems.
57: Control city of Memphis from Chicago. Also, future I-57 not yet connecting to current I-57.
59: The 20/59 overlap, which leads many people to want the two standalone sections to have different numbers.
64: Direction confusion in Hampton Roads.
65: No criticism.
66: No criticism except possibly heavy traffic.
68: No criticism.
69: Too many gaps and disconnected segments.
70: Breezewood, a major problem. Some road quality problems in Pennsylvania. Ending in Utah instead of California doesn't seem to be a problem.
71: No criticism, despite being almost perfectly diagonal.
72: No criticism as far as I'm aware, although it's a bit short.
73: In North Carolina only, despite it being legislated all the way to Michigan.
74 (west): No criticism, unless you're looking as all of I-74 as a single route with disconnected segments. The number duplication is the fault of the eastern I-74.
74 (east): Too many disconnected segments in North Carolina that will never connect to Ohio. Also, I-74/US 74 overlap.
75: No criticism. 75 and 85 cross, but that's an issue with 85.
76 (west): Duplicated number.
76 (east): Surekill Expressway, and suggestions that the ACE should be part of I-76. Breezewood is an issue with I-70, not I-76.
77: No criticism.
78: Surface road in New York and for a few blocks in New Jersey.
79: No criticism.
80: Long 80/90 overlap, but that's it.
81: Too many trucks. Also, the whole Syracuse debate.
82: Major roast: Many people think that I-82 should have an odd number instead of an even number.
83: Too short, and bad pavement quality.
84 (west): Duplicated number.
84 (east): Duplicated number.
85: More east-west than north-south, especially for an x5.
86 (west): Way too short; should be a 3di (or just US 30). Also, duplicated number.
86 (east): Duplicated number, as well as gaps that are being fixed.
87 (north): No criticism. Even though the number is duplicated, the other one is viewed is illegitimate.
87 (south): Another major roast. Should be an even number that isn't a duplicate. Some even say that it shouldn't have been designated at all, given I-95 to US 58.
88 (west): Duplicate number.
88 (east): There have been a few complaints that it's mostly useless, along a corridor that doesn't need an Interstate. Also a duplicate number.
89: No criticism.
90: Long 80/90 overlap. The Skyway not being signed as I-90 is not a problem with I-90 itself, it's the relevant DOT.
91: No criticism.
93: Franconia Notch is substandard.
94: Too many overlaps in Wisconsin.
95: Too much traffic.
96: Intrastate, but this doesn't seem to be a problem.
97: Intracounty. Way too short. Should be a 3di.
99: Congressionally legislated, and out of grid. Doesn't officially connect to either end in Pennsylvania. Has a gap.

My top 10 list would be I-87 (S), I-99, I-74 (E), I-86 (W), I-69, I-41, I-97, I-82, I-45, and I-14.

Just thinking on the WI interstates of 39, 41, 43.......their roasting reasons more or less that 39 is only independent of another US highway for like 5ish miles and 41 and 43 are basically Wisconsin only interstates.

Don't have issues with 90 or 94 in the state or their numbering.  If any 2-digit interstate ever got placed with WI-29 from Green bay to Eau Claire that one will be added to roasting list within the state lol