I'll go ahead and start with some of the obvious, most of us know these:
I-238 CA. No parent exists, parent would be out of grid if it ever existed and connected.
I-180 WY. Substandard surface road.
I-180 IL. Services the middle of nowhere, almost no traffic.
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists. (80N) (?)
I-710 is pretty up there in California because of the unbuilt portion. The 710 topic is one of the more popular ones on the Pacific Southwest board.
I-494/694, only because there's no reason the Twin Cities Interstate beltway needs two numbers. They even share the same reference marker measurement, FFS.
I-894, or I-41 (which should be a 3di)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 21, 2018, 09:31:24 PM
I-494/694, only because there's no reason the Twin Cities Interstate beltway needs two numbers. They even share the same reference marker measurement, FFS.
If using the beltway to bypass I-35W or I-35E thru the city, you have to use both I-494 and I-694.
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
It looks like I-480N is numbered as such because it’s a north branch of I-480. Sort of like the western I-84, which was originally I-80N since it was a north branch of I-80 at Echo. Either way, it’s a suffixed Interstate, which isn’t allowed unless your name is 35 or 69.
Also, I-210 in CA, because CA 210 is up to interstate standards yet isn’t part of the interstate.
I-395 (MD)-Glorified Exit Ramp
I-175 and I-375 (FL)- See above
The NJ portion of I-287, since I-87 doesn't enter NJ
I-384: A stub of what might have been
I-587 (NY): Not even connected to its parent
I-595 (MD): So roasted it isn't even signed and 97% of people don't know it exists
Quote from: roadguy2 on April 21, 2018, 11:59:17 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
It looks like I-480N is numbered as such because it's a north branch of I-480. Sort of like the western I-84, which was originally I-80N since it was a north branch of I-80 at Echo. Either way, it's a suffixed Interstate, which isn't allowed unless your name is 35 or 69.
Also, I-210 in CA, because CA 210 is up to interstate standards yet isn't part of the interstate.
With California all the routes numbers are legislatively defined. The legislature views US, Interstate, or State routes as the same thing...which is problematic when it comes to junk like CA 238/I-238.
I-865 in Indy...A glorified ramp, and formerly signed as part of I-465 but not part of the I-465 Beltway
I-265 in Louisville...Why isn't it a Single Route yet? Whats the hold up, approving the I-Shield for the new road that now connects the 2 I-265s?
Aside from the ones mentioned previously for derision, a few unsigned CA Interstates deserve mention: I-305, the lack of signage which is certainly deserved (who needs a spur Interstate ending at a railroad underpass), but more because it's a complicating factor in the ongoing mess that's the Biz 80/CA 51/US 50 Sacramento can of worms. Also I-905, because like I-/CA 210, its lack of I-signage is simply a matter of a lackadaisical "why bother" attitude pervading Caltrans in recent decades. And finally that still-on-the-Federal-books portion of I-210 currently state-designated and signed as CA 57 that is a oft-cited reason that CA 210 hasn't become I-210 -- as I've suggested before, that portion should become "hidden" I-510, keeping it tucked into the FHWA logs and freeing up the I-number for the eastward extension (and allowing Caltrans to remove all that greenout CA 210 indicators from surface-street BGS's in the Claremont/Upland area, revealing the I-210 shields that have been there since at least 2002!).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 22, 2018, 12:07:50 AM
I-395 (MD)-Glorified Exit Ramp
I-175 and I-375 (FL)- See above
The NJ portion of I-287, since I-87 doesn't enter NJ
I-384: A stub of what might have been
I-587 (NY): Not even connected to its parent
I-595 (MD): So roasted it isn't even signed and 97% of people don't know it exists
(Bolded for emphasis)
Saw what you did there...
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 21, 2018, 09:31:24 PM
I-494/694, only because there's no reason the Twin Cities Interstate beltway needs two numbers. They even share the same reference marker measurement, FFS.
and 694 has that idiotic duplex
I-480N? Never heard of it.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2018, 10:24:49 PM
I-480N? Never heard of it.
I was going to say...
I thought only I-184 had the honor of being a suffixed 3di as I-180N (and might have just been I-180!) before I-80N became I-84.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2018, 10:24:49 PM
I-480N? Never heard of it.
It's in the Cleveland area and pretty much the same thing I-865 is to I-465 in Indy.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2018, 10:24:49 PM
I-480N? Never heard of it.
Here's a photo of it from another user on these forums:
(https://i.imgur.com/9BXQLgv.png)
And Wikpedia has some info on it too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_480N_(Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_480N_(Ohio))
(add the last parentheses, forum won't make it part of the link for some reason)
Even has its own exit and is on OSM. Lovely.
Are there any other 3-di's that run multiplexed like I-271 and I-480 do? I can't seem to think of any other one's that do.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 23, 2018, 12:07:02 AM
Are there any other 3-di's that run multiplexed like I-271 and I-480 do? I can't seem to think of any other one's that do.
According to Google, I-840/785 in the Piedmont Triad of NC. I think, although I probably am not right, that I-795/587 in NC will briefly be multiplexed.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2018, 10:24:49 PM
I-480N? Never heard of it.
This makes me feel better about saying I had never heard of it either. I was sitting here debating whether I wanted to admit it or not.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 22, 2018, 10:08:34 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 21, 2018, 09:31:24 PM
I-494/694, only because there's no reason the Twin Cities Interstate beltway needs two numbers. They even share the same reference marker measurement, FFS.
and 694 has that idiotic duplex
To play devil's advocate, the current setup makes it a foolproof bypass for I-94 because it has a different number than the longer, even-more-traffic-choked I-404. I've long felt that 494 and 694 have different functions and I have never considered them to be one route.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2018, 03:12:30 AM
To play devil's advocate, the current setup makes it a foolproof bypass for I-94 because it has a different number than the longer, even-more-traffic-choked I-404.
It's so bad that sometimes it's like you can't even find it, it's not there. :bigass:
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2018, 03:12:30 AMI've long felt that 494 and 694 have different functions and I have never considered them to be one route.
I wonder how much of that is simply because we grew up and learned the two number split system. It's true that they have somewhat different functions, but I think if it had been one number from the beginning we'd be calling a hypothetical proposal to split it silly.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2018, 03:12:30 AM
To play devil's advocate, the current setup makes it a foolproof bypass for I-94 because it has a different number than the longer, even-more-traffic-choked I-404. I've long felt that 494 and 694 have different functions and I have never considered them to be one route.
But as I pointed out as a bypass of I-35 the motorist has to use both routes. Not a good numbering scheme.
The reason for the stupid duplex of course was 694 being completed before 94, to avoid the confusion of the route just changing numbers. Why the 2 different numbers i don't know.
Quote from: index on April 23, 2018, 12:55:24 AMI think, although I probably am not right, that I-795/587 in NC will briefly be multiplexed.
Actually, they will indeed be multiplexed. It's the only way that I-795 can still connect with it's parent, similar to how I-785 uses I-840 to connect with I-85 in Greensboro. NCDOT has also confirmed the future I-795/I-587 overlap.
Least roasted: I-295 in Massachusetts/Rhode Island. It ends at an Interstate at both ends, connects to its parent, isn't unused or too congested, isn't too long or short, is numbered correctly, doesn't exit itself (looking at you, I-293), isn't overlapped with other routes for most or all of its length, and hasn't had any proposals to renumber or extend it in Fictional.
One potential to be roasted, at least in terms of direction cardinals, will likely be the I-295 extension (take-over of old I-95) in NJ & PA... particularly the PA stretch. The latter is clearly a north-south road but it will be resigned as an east-west route (so it doesn't clash with the opposite NJ north-south orientation).
At present, only engineers/DOTs/roadgeeks (including those on this site) are aware of such. The general public will become more aware later this year when the PA stretch is fully resigned/redesignated.
Quote from: 1 on April 23, 2018, 08:45:23 AM
Least roasted: I-295 in Massachusetts/Rhode Island. It ends at an Interstate at both ends, actually connects to its parent at both ends, isn't unused or too congested, isn't too long or short, is numbered correctly, doesn't exit itself (looking at you, I-293), isn't overlapped with other routes for most or all of its length, and hasn't had any proposals to renumber or extend it in Fictional.
Clarified it for you.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2018, 03:12:30 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2018, 10:24:49 PM
I-480N? Never heard of it.
This makes me feel better about saying I had never heard of it either. I was sitting here debating whether I wanted to admit it or not.
I-480N was only revealed when ODOT installed the blue 2/10-mile reference markers. Prior to that, the route only existed for referring the I-480 spur on paper.
Had the US-422 freeway that would have paralleled OH-14/Broadway toward downtown Cleveland ever been completed, I-480N would not be around as US-422 would've been the true signed route along that stretch.
Quote from: 1 on April 23, 2018, 08:45:23 AM
Least roasted: I-295 in Massachusetts/Rhode Island. It ends at an Interstate at both ends, connects to its parent, isn't unused or too congested, isn't too long or short, is numbered correctly, doesn't exit itself (looking at you, I-293), isn't overlapped with other routes for most or all of its length, and hasn't had any proposals to renumber or extend it in Fictional.
Does it need roasting over the fact that its eastern loop was canceled? Should have been a full beltway.
Least likely to be roasted: any full single-number beltway that avoids TOTSO's or multiplexes on, not necessarily with intersecting routes. Not too many of those; I'd cite I-270/OH, I-495/VA/MD, I-295/FL, I-610/TX, I-485/NC. If not for the MPX with I-29, I-435/KS/MO would qualify, as would I-285/GA, except for the combination TOTSO/MPX with I-85 in its SW corner. Same goes for I-275/OH/KY/IN vis-a-vis I-74. Also, arcs/partial beltways that terminate at their parent at both ends and thus serve as an alternative route: all iterations of I-405, I-205/OR/WA, I-805, I-294, all I-475 iterations, I-490/NY, I-840/TN, I-235/IA, I-459, I-895/MD, and I-275/FL. All these simply do their job of providing a somewhat different route than the parent, whether through or around an urban area. I'd mention I-610/LA, except for the fact that quite a few folks want it to be the I-10 mainline. And I-215/CA would fit the classic "arc" description except for that nasty TOTSO drop to 1 lane NB in Riverside. There are probably others I've overlooked or simply missed -- but I avoided citing anything that might provoke controversy, such as belts with dubious Interstate status like I-695/MD -- or 3di's that have been the focus of local controversy, such as I-481, which may or may not eventually be part of the I-81 mainline.
Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2018, 01:37:13 PM
Least likely to be roasted: any full single-number beltway that avoids TOTSO's or multiplexes on, not necessarily with intersecting routes. Not too many of those; I'd cite I-270/OH, I-495/VA/MD...
I-495 VA/MD (with a tiny piece in DC) gets some grief for its duplex with I-95, and suggestions that I-495 be removed from that duplex. I really like that duplex, since it helps guide (or give directions for) different kinds of travelers, such as long-distance travelers who usually should follow the I-95 signs, or travelers within D.C.'s suburbs who can follow the I-495 signs between places on the duplex and other I-495 destinations.
Quote from: oscar on April 23, 2018, 01:47:02 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2018, 01:37:13 PM
Least likely to be roasted: any full single-number beltway that avoids TOTSO's or multiplexes on, not necessarily with intersecting routes. Not too many of those; I'd cite I-270/OH, I-495/VA/MD...
I-495 VA/MD (with a tiny piece in DC) gets some grief for its duplex with I-95, and suggestions that I-495 be removed from that duplex. I really like that duplex, since it helps guide (or give directions for) different kinds of travelers, such as long-distance travelers who usually should follow the I-95 signs, or travelers within D.C.'s suburbs who can follow the I-495 signs between places on the duplex and other I-495 destinations.
My thought was that I-495 was there first as one of the "class of '56"; it certainly fulfills its function as a beltway/bypass regardless of whether I-95 signs are tacked on to its eastern half. Any controversy stems from other events affecting other routes; the beltway simply bears the brunt of subsequent decisions.
Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2018, 01:37:13 PMI-285/GA, except for the combination TOTSO/MPX with I-85 in its SW corner.
It does neither of those things. I-85 runs in I-285's median for about 1¼ miles, but that's it.
Rough roastability rankings (from a roadgeek perspective, not the general public) for Georgia's 3dis:
1. I-520 — returns to its parent despite having an odd first digit, though that's entirely South Carolina's fault
2. I-516 — fairly short, multiplexes with about a half-dozen other routes
3. I-475 — it's the through route, so why not just make it I-75?
4. I-285 — a "bypass" that does nothing of the sort anymore, way too much traffic
5. I-575 — the entire thing is also signed as GA 5
6. I-985 — nearly the entire thing is also signed as US 23
7. I-675 — pretty good overall, decent length, appropriate capacity; some might say it should use an odd number since it doesn't return to its parent, though I think it's fine since it ends at another Interstate
8. I-185 — nothing at all wrong with this one
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2018, 03:12:30 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2018, 10:24:49 PM
I-480N? Never heard of it.
This makes me feel better about saying I had never heard of it either. I was sitting here debating whether I wanted to admit it or not.
Huh. I had thought more people knew about that one. Guess I was wrong.
I knew about it. Apple Maps shows it as if it's fully signed.
Quote from: Eth on April 23, 2018, 02:44:05 PM
Rough roastability rankings (from a roadgeek perspective, not the general public) for Georgia's 3dis:
1. I-520 — returns to its parent despite having an odd first digit, though that's entirely South Carolina's fault
I'm not so sure this one is particularly "roastable" if one takes into consideration that 3di's are assigned to each individual state. In this case we have I-520 (GA) and I-520 (SC), both odd numbered spurs that just happen to meet each other at the state line to form a functionally single bypass route. Officially they are 2 separate routes that for ease of navigation operate as one.
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 23, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
It doesn't? :confused:
Oh, so TXDOT does consider there to be a gap in 35. I don't agree with that approach, but whatever.
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 06:57:32 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2018, 03:12:30 AM
To play devil's advocate, the current setup makes it a foolproof bypass for I-94 because it has a different number than the longer, even-more-traffic-choked I-404. I've long felt that 494 and 694 have different functions and I have never considered them to be one route.
But as I pointed out as a bypass of I-35 the motorist has to use both routes. Not a good numbering scheme.
Not a big issue because there's far more I-94 traffic trying to bypass the cores than I-35 traffic.
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 23, 2018, 08:45:23 AM
Least roasted: I-295 in Massachusetts/Rhode Island. It ends at an Interstate at both ends, connects to its parent, isn't unused or too congested, isn't too long or short, is numbered correctly, doesn't exit itself (looking at you, I-293), isn't overlapped with other routes for most or all of its length, and hasn't had any proposals to renumber or extend it in Fictional.
Does it need roasting over the fact that its eastern loop was canceled? Should have been a full beltway.
The cancelled eastern loop was to be a separate route number... I-
895.
I-238 Because some members have mentioned that it was going to be part of the Southern Crossing with I-380 and I-238 was going to be renamed I-380 if that Happened.
I-305 Sacramento is the most roasted freeway too due to I-305 never being signed to the public and most Sacramento area Residents refer to I-305 as simply the West end of US-50 and former western section of Business 80.
Also I-280 due to this freeway's original intent to connect to I-80 and CA-480 in San Francisco plus CA-480 was going to connect to Presidio Parkway/Doyle Drive at one point though.
Quote from: froggie on April 23, 2018, 04:50:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 06:57:32 AM
But as I pointed out as a bypass of I-35 the motorist has to use both routes. Not a good numbering scheme.
Not a big issue because there's far more I-94 traffic trying to bypass the cores than I-35 traffic.
I-35 is still a long-distance Interstate route. Having one beltway number would help.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 23, 2018, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 23, 2018, 08:45:23 AM
Least roasted: I-295 in Massachusetts/Rhode Island. It ends at an Interstate at both ends, connects to its parent, isn't unused or too congested, isn't too long or short, is numbered correctly, doesn't exit itself (looking at you, I-293), isn't overlapped with other routes for most or all of its length, and hasn't had any proposals to renumber or extend it in Fictional.
Does it need roasting over the fact that its eastern loop was canceled? Should have been a full beltway.
The cancelled eastern loop was to be a separate route number... I-895.
I know. Also roastable...
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2018, 11:11:13 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 21, 2018, 09:31:24 PM
I-494/694, only because there's no reason the Twin Cities Interstate beltway needs two numbers. They even share the same reference marker measurement, FFS.
If using the beltway to bypass I-35W or I-35E thru the city, you have to use both I-494 and I-694.
But the entire length does have an I-X
94 number... so continuity for traffic bypassing I-35E and I-35W probably isn't the top priority.
I now see that Froggie has said as much :)
Quote from: SectorZ on April 22, 2018, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 22, 2018, 12:07:50 AM
I-595 (MD): So roasted it isn't even signed and 97% of people don't know it exists
(Bolded for emphasis)
Saw what you did there...
Guess this one is over my head... unless it has something to do with proximity to I-97, then I'm (admittedly) confused. :hmmm:
Quote from: webny99 on April 23, 2018, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 21, 2018, 11:11:13 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 21, 2018, 09:31:24 PM
I-494/694, only because there's no reason the Twin Cities Interstate beltway needs two numbers. They even share the same reference marker measurement, FFS.
If using the beltway to bypass I-35W or I-35E thru the city, you have to use both I-494 and I-694.
But the entire length does have an I-X94 number... so continuity for traffic bypassing I-35E and I-35W probably isn't the top priority.
I now see that Froggie has said as much :)
It doesn't have to be a "top priority" to be important.
So instead of signing the southerly NB I-35E exit --
I-494 to I-35E Duluth
It would say --
I-494 to I-694 to I-35E Duluth
Overly complicated, IMHO.
Of course I-35E doesn't go to Duluth, so that is another 3DI complication. Suffixed routes are 3DI, in effect.
How to resolve -- one city would have I-35 and the other would have I-33 or I-39 (and I-39 was unused back then). The simplest for local and thru traffic would have been I-35 thru St. Paul and I-33 thru Minneapolis.
While I see your point, people in the Twin Cities don't seem to think of the two as a beltway. They're separate routes, serving separate corridors, that just happen to have a beltway-type function when you look at the area as a whole.
And it's not really signed as a bypass of I-35E or I-35W, at least from what I've seen. Nor does it really need to be... (that's probably a separate argument though :))
Quote from: webny99 on April 23, 2018, 09:54:56 PM
While I see your point, people in the Twin Cities don't seem to think of the two as a beltway. They're separate routes, serving separate corridors, that just happen to have a beltway-type function when you look at the area as a whole.
And it's not really signed as a bypass of I-35E or I-35W, at least from what I've seen. Nor does it really need to be... (that's probably a separate argument though :))
But it -is- a beltway, and there are a number of circumferential route pairings that use both 494 and 694.
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 09:46:50 PM
It doesn't have to be a "top priority" to be important.
So instead of signing the southerly NB I-35E exit --
I-494 to I-35E Duluth
It would say --
I-494 to I-694 to I-35E Duluth
Overly complicated, IMHO.
Of course I-35E doesn't go to Duluth, so that is another 3DI complication. Suffixed routes are 3DI, in effect.
How to resolve -- one city would have I-35 and the other would have I-33 or I-39 (and I-39 was unused back then). The simplest for local and thru traffic would have been I-35 thru St. Paul and I-33 thru Minneapolis.
Nobody goes that way, though, unless there's particularly bad construction or traffic on I-35E. The beltway is several miles longer and takes longer, to boot, even though you're no longer going through downtown St. Paul. (I prefer I-35W as the 35 through route, anyway, when, for example I'm going from Des Moines to Duluth. That's probably going to change though, with a few new I-35W projects in the works soon.)
The point is, I-494/694 do not make very good bypass routes for I-35 thru traffic.
There are signs on 35E advertising 494/694 as the bypass; none such on I-35W because I think MnDOT implies that 35E is the continuation of 35 (and by legal definition, it is).
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 23, 2018, 10:20:39 PM
There are signs on 35E advertising 494/694 as the bypass; none such on I-35W because I think MnDOT implies that 35E is the continuation of 35 (and by legal definition, it is).
Even though the St Paul stretch does not meet true interstate standards
Connecticut 3dis, in decreasing order of roastability:
295/595/whatever: I don't think CT 8 is ever going to be an interstate, unfortunately. Waterbury would like another one, though, and has been talking this one up.
284: it really did exist for about 7 years: unsigned, and just a long exit ramp. The name of the East Hartford mayor in office when it was cancelled: Dagon. How Lovecraftian.
484: a product of its time. Let's cap a river and run a freeway through the park.
291: the most controversial 3di in the state. The only built segment was not even part of the original plan.
384: to Providence? Really? Manchester's consolation prize for the I-84 cancellation.
SR 501: interstatehood was briefly considered. Never saw a number in play. Overlooked only because it's so obscure
491: briefly very controversial as the last segment of I-86; killed by freeway revolt in East Hartford. The number was reused for the SW quadrant of I-291, which was also killed. So two headshots for 491. However, 491 was the only auxiliary interstate shown in the Yellow Book for Hartford. So some respect there. Despite local impact, it was a well-placed route and would have relieved a lot of Hartford thru traffic.
684: yes, it cuts through without an interchange in CT, but: a) it's CT's oldest constructed 3di; b) it used to be part of a 3di
691: the interchange at 91/15 is underpowered, but that's about it. Fine otherwise.
395: it goes somewhere, it's complete, it has mileage-based exit numbers. Only complaints: it could use widening in some areas and won't get it; and it was apparently going to be called I-290 until about a week before it was designated.
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 08:57:06 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 23, 2018, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 23, 2018, 08:45:23 AM
Least roasted: I-295 in Massachusetts/Rhode Island. It ends at an Interstate at both ends, connects to its parent, isn't unused or too congested, isn't too long or short, is numbered correctly, doesn't exit itself (looking at you, I-293), isn't overlapped with other routes for most or all of its length, and hasn't had any proposals to renumber or extend it in Fictional.
Does it need roasting over the fact that its eastern loop was canceled? Should have been a full beltway.
The cancelled eastern loop was to be a separate route number... I-895.
I know. Also roastable...
Even more roastable: It would have produced a nice freeway connection to/from Newport for traffic from/to CT and points south/west on I-95. Instead, we're stuck with 14 miles of a 2-lane RI 138 from I-95 in Wyoming to US 1 in South Kingstown straight through the heart of the URI campus.
Surprised no one mentioned I-495 in DE as roasted, since it is the through route for I-95 near Wilmington a la I-475 near Macon.
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I'll go ahead and start with some of the obvious, most of us know these:
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
ODOT decommissioned I-480?! When did that happen?!
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2018, 10:06:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 09:46:50 PM
How to resolve -- one city would have I-35 and the other would have I-33 or I-39 (and I-39 was unused back then). The simplest for local and thru traffic would have been I-35 thru St. Paul and I-33 thru Minneapolis.
Nobody goes that way, though, unless there's particularly bad construction or traffic on I-35E. The beltway is several miles longer and takes longer, to boot, even though you're no longer going through downtown St. Paul. (I prefer I-35W as the 35 through route, anyway, when, for example I'm going from Des Moines to Duluth. That's probably going to change though, with a few new I-35W projects in the works soon.)
The point is, I-494/694 do not make very good bypass routes for I-35 thru traffic.
That is the point, though, that during peak traffic periods such as rush hours, some traffic may want to bypass the city on the beltway.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 23, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
I-635 has an interchange with I-35E.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 23, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
I-635 has an interchange with I-35E.
His argument is that 35E and 35 are separate routes. That's why he says 635 and 35 don't meet.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 23, 2018, 11:12:14 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I'll go ahead and start with some of the obvious, most of us know these:
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
ODOT decommissioned I-480?! When did that happen?!
I thought it was an auxiliary of 80N.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 24, 2018, 01:11:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 23, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
I-635 has an interchange with I-35E.
His argument is that 35E and 35 are separate routes. That's why he says 635 and 35 don't meet.
So a suffixed route can't generate a 3DI?
Conceptually no different from MD I-270 generating I-370, or NJ I-295 generating I-195.
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2018, 06:19:00 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 24, 2018, 01:11:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 23, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
I-635 has an interchange with I-35E.
His argument is that 35E and 35 are separate routes. That's why he says 635 and 35 don't meet.
So a suffixed route can't generate a 3DI?
Conceptually no different from MD I-270 generating I-370, or NJ I-295 generating I-195.
It can, but it wouldn't be in the "roasted least" category if it does, as a few people have problems with it. That alone wouldn't put it in the "roasted most" category, though.
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 06:20:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2018, 06:19:00 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 24, 2018, 01:11:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 23, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
I-635 has an interchange with I-35E.
His argument is that 35E and 35 are separate routes. That's why he says 635 and 35 don't meet.
So a suffixed route can't generate a 3DI?
Conceptually no different from MD I-270 generating I-370, or NJ I-295 generating I-195.
It can, but it wouldn't be in the "roasted least" category if it does, as a few people have problems with it. That alone wouldn't put it in the "roasted most" category, though.
My complaint about I-635 is that it is a loop route and has the numbering of a loop route, but does not go far enough to be a bypass of I-35 or I-35E.
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2018, 06:56:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 06:20:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2018, 06:19:00 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 24, 2018, 01:11:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 23, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
I-635 has an interchange with I-35E.
His argument is that 35E and 35 are separate routes. That's why he says 635 and 35 don't meet.
So a suffixed route can't generate a 3DI?
Conceptually no different from MD I-270 generating I-370, or NJ I-295 generating I-195.
It can, but it wouldn't be in the "roasted least" category if it does, as a few people have problems with it. That alone wouldn't put it in the "roasted most" category, though.
My complaint about I-635 is that it is a loop route and has the numbering of a loop route, but does not go far enough to be a bypass of I-35 or I-35E.
Heh. My bet is that it used to, before the Texas sprawl.
Quote from: kurumi on April 23, 2018, 10:55:09 PM684: yes, it cuts through without an interchange in CT, but: a) it's CT's oldest constructed 3di; b) it used to be part of a 2di
FTFY. Not everyone here may know that I-684 was once part of I-87.
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2018, 07:38:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2018, 06:56:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 06:20:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2018, 06:19:00 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 24, 2018, 01:11:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 23, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
I-635 has an interchange with I-35E.
His argument is that 35E and 35 are separate routes. That's why he says 635 and 35 don't meet.
So a suffixed route can't generate a 3DI?
Conceptually no different from MD I-270 generating I-370, or NJ I-295 generating I-195.
It can, but it wouldn't be in the "roasted least" category if it does, as a few people have problems with it. That alone wouldn't put it in the "roasted most" category, though.
My complaint about I-635 is that it is a loop route and has the numbering of a loop route, but does not go far enough to be a bypass of I-35 or I-35E.
Heh. My bet is that it used to, before the Texas sprawl.
Probably more of a reference to neither end being at a member of the I-35 family (instead, I-20 and TX 121).
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2018, 07:38:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2018, 06:56:10 AM
My complaint about I-635 is that it is a loop route and has the numbering of a loop route, but does not go far enough to be a bypass of I-35 or I-35E.
Heh. My bet is that it used to, before the Texas sprawl.
Looks like it did before the new I-20 was built -- https://tinyurl.com/y9n7gs3d
Per Wiki --
From the highway's opening in the 1960s through 1971, I-20 originally went through the heart of the Metroplex via the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike. This old route is now signed I-30 (Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike), US 80 (former stretch between I-635 and Terrell) and Texas Spur 557 (bypass around Terrell).
I drove thru there in October 1971, and I am pretty sure that the turnpike was signed as I-20.
Most of the southeast quadrant of the loop is now I-20.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 24, 2018, 01:11:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 12:15:29 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 23, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: index on April 21, 2018, 09:01:59 PM
I-480N OH. Auxiliary of an Interstate that no longer exists.
And conversely, I-635 TX doesn't actually connect to I-35.
I-635 has an interchange with I-35E.
His argument is that 35E and 35 are separate routes. That's why he says 635 and 35 don't meet.
I would say since 35E keeps I-35's mile markers that it is the the route that is considered I-35. They are branch routes, to me they both are considered part of I-35. I'm too tired to look it up but I think 35W is the shorter route and it has it's own mile markers. And they both end up at I-35 mainline no matter which one you take.
The thing I see with I-635 is that it interchanges with I-35E but doesn't start or end at it on either end. In fact the western end ends at a state highway SH-121. The other end just merges into I-20 which is fine since it's another Interstate but I just justify it ending at a state highway.
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 11:14:05 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2018, 10:06:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 09:46:50 PM
How to resolve -- one city would have I-35 and the other would have I-33 or I-39 (and I-39 was unused back then). The simplest for local and thru traffic would have been I-35 thru St. Paul and I-33 thru Minneapolis.
Nobody goes that way, though, unless there's particularly bad construction or traffic on I-35E. The beltway is several miles longer and takes longer, to boot, even though you're no longer going through downtown St. Paul. (I prefer I-35W as the 35 through route, anyway, when, for example I'm going from Des Moines to Duluth. That's probably going to change though, with a few new I-35W projects in the works soon.)
The point is, I-494/694 do not make very good bypass routes for I-35 thru traffic.
That is the point, though, that during peak traffic periods such as rush hours, some traffic may want to bypass the city on the beltway.
I'll grant that you're not familiar with the Twin Cities area and thus don't know the local intricacies. Suffice it to say, the current set up is not a big issue. That I-35E through southern St. Paul has (legal) truck and speed limit restrictions is a far bigger issue for the area than the Beltline (as it's locally called by a few, but not in common parlance) having two (technically five) different numbers.
Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2018, 10:49:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 11:14:05 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2018, 10:06:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 09:46:50 PM
How to resolve -- one city would have I-35 and the other would have I-33 or I-39 (and I-39 was unused back then). The simplest for local and thru traffic would have been I-35 thru St. Paul and I-33 thru Minneapolis.
Nobody goes that way, though, unless there's particularly bad construction or traffic on I-35E. The beltway is several miles longer and takes longer, to boot, even though you're no longer going through downtown St. Paul. (I prefer I-35W as the 35 through route, anyway, when, for example I'm going from Des Moines to Duluth. That's probably going to change though, with a few new I-35W projects in the works soon.)
The point is, I-494/694 do not make very good bypass routes for I-35 thru traffic.
That is the point, though, that during peak traffic periods such as rush hours, some traffic may want to bypass the city on the beltway.
I'll grant that you're not familiar with the Twin Cities area and thus don't know the local intricacies. Suffice it to say, the current set up is not a big issue. That I-35E through southern St. Paul has (legal) truck and speed limit restrictions is a far bigger issue for the area than the Beltline (as it's locally called by a few, but not in common parlance) having two (technically five) different numbers.
No, I don't have much local knowledge about the area. My comments started in response to MNHighwayMan's comment early in this thread, "I-494/694, only because there's no reason the Twin Cities Interstate beltway needs two numbers. They even share the same reference marker measurement, FFS."
He said later, "It's true that they have somewhat different functions, but I think if it had been one number from the beginning we'd be calling a hypothetical proposal to split it silly."
I have wondered about this in the past.
Given that the scheme has been in place for over 50 years, there won't likely be any local effort to change it. Nevertheless, having a single number on an Interstate beltway seems to be the usual practice in other places.
The thing that I can't stand about I-35E (Minnesota) is that it has a 45 mph speed limit that is strictly enforced in St. Paul.
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2018, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2018, 10:49:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 11:14:05 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2018, 10:06:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 09:46:50 PM
How to resolve -- one city would have I-35 and the other would have I-33 or I-39 (and I-39 was unused back then). The simplest for local and thru traffic would have been I-35 thru St. Paul and I-33 thru Minneapolis.
Nobody goes that way, though, unless there's particularly bad construction or traffic on I-35E. The beltway is several miles longer and takes longer, to boot, even though you're no longer going through downtown St. Paul. (I prefer I-35W as the 35 through route, anyway, when, for example I'm going from Des Moines to Duluth. That's probably going to change though, with a few new I-35W projects in the works soon.)
The point is, I-494/694 do not make very good bypass routes for I-35 thru traffic.
That is the point, though, that during peak traffic periods such as rush hours, some traffic may want to bypass the city on the beltway.
I'll grant that you're not familiar with the Twin Cities area and thus don't know the local intricacies. Suffice it to say, the current set up is not a big issue. That I-35E through southern St. Paul has (legal) truck and speed limit restrictions is a far bigger issue for the area than the Beltline (as it's locally called by a few, but not in common parlance) having two (technically five) different numbers.
No, I don't have much local knowledge about the area. My comments started in response to MNHighwayMan's comment early in this thread, "I-494/694, only because there's no reason the Twin Cities Interstate beltway needs two numbers. They even share the same reference marker measurement, FFS."
He said later, "It's true that they have somewhat different functions, but I think if it had been one number from the beginning we'd be calling a hypothetical proposal to split it silly."
I have wondered about this in the past.
Given that the scheme has been in place for over 50 years, there won't likely be any local effort to change it. Nevertheless, having a single number on an Interstate beltway seems to be the usual practice in other places.
I'm familiar with the Twin Cities having been up there numerous times over the years. The setup they have right now doesn't present a major problem. The only thing would be the stupid multiplex that I-694 has with it's parent I-94 and the 45 mph speed limit on I-35E in St. Paul. The only time I've approached the Twin Cities from the south I was on US-52 coming from Rochester otherwise the only other way I've entered the Twin Cities is from I-94 WB. I knew some people that lived in Hudson, WI, Stillwater, MN and have a friend that lives in Apple Valley, MN and a cousin that lives in Minneapolis.
For a 3DI that doesn't actually exist, I-366 seems to get roasted a lot :-D
In a seriousness however, in VA I think I-381 takes the roast crown.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 05:05:22 PM
The thing that I can't stand about I-35E (Minnesota) is that it has a 45 mph speed limit that is strictly enforced in St. Paul.
:-D :-D :-D
Sorry, but in my experience that just isn't true. A number of times I've crused through that section doing 60+ and was getting passed myself.
Edit: it's also important to note that the 45 MPH speed limit (and truck restriction) is partly the reason the I-35E freeway through St. Paul exists at all. Yes, it's dumb, but it's one concession the state of Minnesota had to make in order to get all the NIMBYs to finally allow construction of the freeway to proceed.
Concur. Except during rush hour congestion, traffic typically ignores the 45 limit and I've never seen it enforced whenever I've driven it.
To further clarify what MNHighwayMan said on why the limit exists, it's the result of a legal settlement that allowed construction to finish. To change the limit would require revisiting that settlement...likely a non-starter for the adjacent neighborhoods.
I-172 has to be up there for most roasted. It exists to serve a city of 40k people and doesn't even do that especially well (signs tell you to take IL-57 to downtown Quincy instead), it splits off of I-72 about six miles from the latter's western terminus, and much like its parent people are constantly proposing to extend it without success. And it sure doesn't help that I-72 is pretty roasted in its own right.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 24, 2018, 07:54:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 05:05:22 PM
The thing that I can't stand about I-35E (Minnesota) is that it has a 45 mph speed limit that is strictly enforced in St. Paul.
:-D :-D :-D
Sorry, but in my experience that just isn't true. A number of times I've crused through that section doing 60+ and was getting passed myself.
Edit: it's also important to note that the 45 MPH speed limit (and truck restriction) is partly the reason the I-35E freeway through St. Paul exists at all. Yes, it's dumb, but it's one concession the state of Minnesota had to make in order to get all the NIMBYs to finally allow construction of the freeway to proceed.
Yep I know all about that highway. A friend of mine from Apple Valley told me about the 45 mph speed limit and said to watch your speed through there. I would indeed use 35E instead of 35W for the thru route anyway.
Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on April 24, 2018, 09:14:16 PM
I-172 has to be up there for most roasted. It exists to serve a city of 40k people and doesn't even do that especially well (signs tell you to take IL-57 to downtown Quincy instead), it splits off of I-72 about six miles from the latter's western terminus, and much like its parent people are constantly proposing to extend it without success. And it sure doesn't help that I-72 is pretty roasted in its own right.
Nobody mentions I-172 because I-180 exists in the same state.
I-490 has a posted 40 mph speed limit, which I believe is the lowest on the entire interstate system*. However, I don't recall anyone particularly roasting it for this reason. Even WITH the 40 mph limit we get truck rollovers at Exit 16 with disturbing frequency :paranoid:
I really enjoy roasting the four-lane segment between Exit 25 and Exit 27. With an AADT of around 70,000, it is an atrocious freight train of vehicles pretty much 24/7. It must be the 3di that most desparately needs a widening... :ded:
even if it's only me that complains about it :D
*I-90 in downtown Cleveland has a curve with a 35 mph advisory speed, but that's not the actual posted limit.
^ I-264 through the Downtown Tunnel/Berkeley Bridge complex in Norfolk, VA is a signed 35 MPH limit.
I-394 has a 40 MPH limit between I-94 and its east end. It probably doesn't need to drop to 40 until closer to the Washington/3rd exit, but it is what it is.
I believe I-H201 has a speed limit of 35 MPH on one segment.
Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2018, 09:41:33 PM
^ I-264 through the Downtown Tunnel/Berkeley Bridge complex in Norfolk, VA is a signed 35 MPH limit.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 24, 2018, 09:42:57 PM
I-394 has a 40 MPH limit between I-94 and its east end.
Quote from: index on April 24, 2018, 10:14:13 PM
I believe I-H201 has a speed limit of 35 MPH on one segment.
I figured as much... I guess wherever I heard that from was either outdated or inaccurate. In any case, I'd much rather roast that four-lane segment than the speed limit :-P
Well then let's talk about the 25 mph curve on I-75 in Detroit where I-75 intersects with itself and I-375. Even though I-75 has to go through an exit ramp it's a thru route so this counts.
It's such a lovely curve too.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3419397,-83.0456865,3a,75y,91.94h,89.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV2QHKjP24-Q8_OL00E7mUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
SB I-75 has a 30 mph curve at the same interchange too.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3462345,-83.044908,3a,75y,154.9h,89.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssOuIjomkr4uSIFNdbXUzzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I-75 also still has a 55 mph speed limit in part of the city of Detroit but so does I-94, I-96, The Lodge, The Southfield and The Davison none of which is enforced everyone does 80+ mph. But I have seen it enforced one time in my life, I was on I-94 near the Harper Woods/Detroit border going westbound and a cop was in the mix with the traffic and everyone was doing about 55 mph, I noticed a car weaving around traffic behind me and blew past me doing at least 80 mph, the cop nailed him. I thought to myself now that was dumb we're moving along here in heavy traffic doing right around the speed limit and here comes an idiot blowing around everyone it was just ironic that a cop saw this because they do not monitor the freeways in the city of Detroit very well at all. It was a Wayne County Sheriff that pulled the car over.
The DC I-395 ramps between the Center Leg and the Southwest Freeway are 35 mph.
CA-480/I-480 San Francisco is still roasted even years after being decommissioned due to the Embarcadero freeway's original intent to connect to I-280 and Presidio Parkway/Doyle Drive.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 11:19:04 PM
I-75 also still has a 55 mph speed limit in part of the city of Detroit but so does I-94, I-96, The Lodge, The Southfield and The Davison none of which is enforced everyone does 80+ mph. But I have seen it enforced one time in my life, I was on I-94 near the Harper Woods/Detroit border going westbound and a cop was in the mix with the traffic and everyone was doing about 55 mph, I noticed a car weaving around traffic behind me and blew past me doing at least 80 mph, the cop nailed him. I thought to myself now that was dumb we're moving along here in heavy traffic doing right around the speed limit and here comes an idiot blowing around everyone it was just ironic that a cop saw this because they do not monitor the freeways in the city of Detroit very well at all. It was a Wayne County Sheriff that pulled the car over.
I-96 is mostly 70 (west of I-94; the Jeffries is much newer than the other Detroit freeways) and I think the Lodge is 70 in northwestern Detroit (I know it's 70 in Southfield)
Quote from: ftballfan on April 26, 2018, 09:06:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 11:19:04 PM
I-75 also still has a 55 mph speed limit in part of the city of Detroit but so does I-94, I-96, The Lodge, The Southfield and The Davison none of which is enforced everyone does 80+ mph. But I have seen it enforced one time in my life, I was on I-94 near the Harper Woods/Detroit border going westbound and a cop was in the mix with the traffic and everyone was doing about 55 mph, I noticed a car weaving around traffic behind me and blew past me doing at least 80 mph, the cop nailed him. I thought to myself now that was dumb we're moving along here in heavy traffic doing right around the speed limit and here comes an idiot blowing around everyone it was just ironic that a cop saw this because they do not monitor the freeways in the city of Detroit very well at all. It was a Wayne County Sheriff that pulled the car over.
I-96 is mostly 70 (west of I-94; the Jeffries is much newer than the other Detroit freeways) and I think the Lodge is 70 in northwestern Detroit (I know it's 70 in Southfield)
Does I-96/Jeffries still have dual speed limits in Detroit? ISTR it was 70 in the I-96 EXPRESS lanes and 55 in the I-96 LOCAL lanes.
Quote from: ftballfan on April 26, 2018, 09:06:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 11:19:04 PM
I-75 also still has a 55 mph speed limit in part of the city of Detroit but so does I-94, I-96, The Lodge, The Southfield and The Davison none of which is enforced everyone does 80+ mph. But I have seen it enforced one time in my life, I was on I-94 near the Harper Woods/Detroit border going westbound and a cop was in the mix with the traffic and everyone was doing about 55 mph, I noticed a car weaving around traffic behind me and blew past me doing at least 80 mph, the cop nailed him. I thought to myself now that was dumb we're moving along here in heavy traffic doing right around the speed limit and here comes an idiot blowing around everyone it was just ironic that a cop saw this because they do not monitor the freeways in the city of Detroit very well at all. It was a Wayne County Sheriff that pulled the car over.
I-96 is mostly 70 (west of I-94; the Jeffries is much newer than the other Detroit freeways) and I think the Lodge is 70 in northwestern Detroit (I know it's 70 in Southfield)
That's why I said part of the city of Detroit. The area's that are 55 mph in the city of Detroit are mostly within the Grand Blvd. loop. I think I-94 is the only one that keeps 55 mph through the city. The Lodge has a 55 mph sign at the Schaefer overpass. I-96's 70 mph limit starts at I-94 and the stretch that has a 55 mph of course has a min limit of 45 mph only a 10 mph difference. It really doesn't matter because no one goes 55 on any stretch of freeway in the Detroit area unless there's a lot of traffic. The Southfield Freeway to my knowledge has always been 55 mph but that freeway is setup different than most freeways since it's at grade instead of in an urban depressed ditch. And you are correct about the Jeffries it's last gap in the Detroit area was filled in 1977.
Quote from: thenetwork on April 26, 2018, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on April 26, 2018, 09:06:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2018, 11:19:04 PM
I-75 also still has a 55 mph speed limit in part of the city of Detroit but so does I-94, I-96, The Lodge, The Southfield and The Davison none of which is enforced everyone does 80+ mph. But I have seen it enforced one time in my life, I was on I-94 near the Harper Woods/Detroit border going westbound and a cop was in the mix with the traffic and everyone was doing about 55 mph, I noticed a car weaving around traffic behind me and blew past me doing at least 80 mph, the cop nailed him. I thought to myself now that was dumb we're moving along here in heavy traffic doing right around the speed limit and here comes an idiot blowing around everyone it was just ironic that a cop saw this because they do not monitor the freeways in the city of Detroit very well at all. It was a Wayne County Sheriff that pulled the car over.
I-96 is mostly 70 (west of I-94; the Jeffries is much newer than the other Detroit freeways) and I think the Lodge is 70 in northwestern Detroit (I know it's 70 in Southfield)
Does I-96/Jeffries still have dual speed limits in Detroit? ISTR it was 70 in the I-96 EXPRESS lanes and 55 in the I-96 LOCAL lanes.
Yes they have that. It's 70 in the Express and 55 in the Local but trust me no one does 55 on any freeway in Detroit you'll be getting tailgated if you do. The norm is about 80 mph.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 23, 2018, 12:07:02 AM
Are there any other 3-di's that run multiplexed like I-271 and I-480 do? I can't seem to think of any other one's that do.
If the IL 53 Lake County Extension Freeway/Tollway is ever built, there is a pretty good chance that I-290 and I-355 would have a Multiplex in the Schaumburg area of Chicago Suburbs
The route would need to be approved and constructed, before numbering decisions would be finalized. An I-355 designation extension is one of the possibilities
I-290 and I-294 just miss multiplexing...they run on separate, parallel carriageways for a few miles just north of the Hillside Strangler Interchange
Quote from: 1 on April 23, 2018, 08:45:23 AM
Least roasted: I-295 in Massachusetts/Rhode Island. It ends at an Interstate at both ends, connects to its parent, isn't unused or too congested, isn't too long or short, is numbered correctly, doesn't exit itself (looking at you, I-293), isn't overlapped with other routes for most or all of its length, and hasn't had any proposals to renumber or extend it in Fictional.
It bypasses Providence, so it's hardly the 405 or the Tristate Tollway or a 3di bypassing a real city, thus the lack of congestion. Its northern intersection with 95 is a half cloverleaf, and its southern one is not complete and Breezwoods if someone wishes to drive from southbound 295 to northbound on 95, and vice versa. It's northbound control city is Woonsocket, a city that sounds made up by the Family Guy writers. Also, its parent is 95, a fullly roastable 2di that remains every bit as incomplete and split at 69, 73, 74, and 99. Other than that, I'm sure 295 is totally legit :-D
Interstate 676.
No exit numbers, rather short road though so no need for them for the most part.
Does it cross into NJ on the bridge, or is 676 on the NJ side an entirely seperate roadway?
Does 676 continue through the traffic lights in PA to get onto the bridge?
All these are debate topics that 676 brings up.
The answers to those questions depend on which state you ask. NJ considers I-676 to be one continuous route following the bridge with a couple at-grades between the bridge and Vine Street Expressway. PA considers I-676 to follow the Vine Street Expressway to I-95, with I-676 in NJ being a separate interstate that ends in the middle of the bridge. I made sure to clinch both.
I could probably post here that I-630 has a speed limit of 40 MPH at the very end near the junction of I-30.
[Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7344076,-92.2660367,3a,15.2y,110.44h,89.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ96QuDy5P4M8UjAax0LSdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)]
As a life long Central Arkansas citizen can tell you, no one ever drives 40 here.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 21, 2018, 11:11:06 PM
I-894, or I-41 (which should be a 3di)
I-41 outside the 894 stretch is perfectly fine. I don't see how I-41 should be a 3di at all. It's pretty much a separate route that stands out on its own, so it's not like it's an auxillary of I-43. In Milwaukee however I don't see how 894 is necessary. It's merged with I-41 and I-43 all the way through.
The reason I-894 still exists (and will continue to exist) is because of local familiarity, as well as maintaining a marked bypass for I-94.
Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2018, 12:43:22 PM
The answers to those questions depend on which state you ask. NJ considers I-676 to be one continuous route following the bridge with a couple at-grades between the bridge and Vine Street Expressway. PA considers I-676 to follow the Vine Street Expressway to I-95, with I-676 in NJ being a separate interstate that ends in the middle of the bridge. I made sure to clinch both.
i676: pissing contest of where it ends.