News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Most Unnecessary Interstate

Started by theroadwayone, October 02, 2017, 01:03:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

CYoder

Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2017, 01:13:05 PM
The first configuration (per Topo maps) also had a left ramp from 81 NB curling around to the left ramp from 81 SB to 381.

I see it now.  NB loop present on the 1960 Wallace topo, and gone in the 1968 revision.


capt.ron

Quote from: MCRoads on October 03, 2017, 08:37:42 AM
No one has mentioned I-27 yet... it might not be totally useless as a road, but it could probably be signed as a state route, or, at most, a US route.
Agree 100%! A US highway would be sufficient (US 87). Now, if they extend the southern terminus down to I-20, or even I-10 for that matter, then I-27 would make sense.

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: capt.ron on November 28, 2017, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on October 03, 2017, 08:37:42 AM
No one has mentioned I-27 yet... it might not be totally useless as a road, but it could probably be signed as a state route, or, at most, a US route.
Agree 100%! A US highway would be sufficient (US 87). Now, if they extend the southern terminus down to I-20, or even I-10 for that matter, then I-27 would make sense.
I think that it should be I-140.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

Flint1979

US 87 does break from I-27 in between exits 61 and 77 and again between exits 88 and 110 so you'd have to move US 87's allignment to stay on I-27's allignment. It should therefore be US 87 or an I-x40 odd number.

Beltway

Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2017, 01:13:05 PM
The first configuration (per Topo maps) also had a left ramp from 81 NB curling around to the left ramp from 81 SB to 381.

I can see why they later removed that loop ramp.  Unlike a higher speed left exit, traffic would exit from the left lane and have to slow down to about 25 mph to use that loop ramp.  Safety issues.  Plus the reverse movement was not present; that would have required at least one more overpass.

Quote
I checked the CTB minutes and found no discussion on options for where the Bristol Interstate Spur would run - only that the public meeting had occurred and the option that was built was approved - to tie into existing Commonwealth Ave, which prevented it from being a freeway any further than it already is because although Euclid Ave didn't come along until the mid 1960s, Commonwealth Ave and the piece that still exists northwest of where VA 381 changes to I-381 was already there.

VDOT or the VTRC library would most likely have a study document from the late 1950s that presented the planning and preliminary engineering for the Bristol Interstate Spur.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sparker

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 28, 2017, 06:03:57 PM
Quote from: capt.ron on November 28, 2017, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on October 03, 2017, 08:37:42 AM
No one has mentioned I-27 yet... it might not be totally useless as a road, but it could probably be signed as a state route, or, at most, a US route.
Agree 100%! A US highway would be sufficient (US 87). Now, if they extend the southern terminus down to I-20, or even I-10 for that matter, then I-27 would make sense.
I think that it should be I-140.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 28, 2017, 08:47:41 PM
US 87 does break from I-27 in between exits 61 and 77 and again between exits 88 and 110 so you'd have to move US 87's allignment to stay on I-27's allignment. It should therefore be US 87 or an I-x40 odd number.

Since now that serious discussions about extending I-27 south to San Angelo and Laredo have commenced, courtesy of TxDOT, its status as a functional "spur" of I-40 might not be all that permanent.  This marks the first time a state agency rather than a locally-based interest group has expressed interest in developing the Port-to-Plains corridor (see the appropriate thread in Mid-South for details), so after decades of inaction, something may actually be happening on this particular front!

Jim

Apologies for waking up an old thread, but I drove I-180 in Illinois today, just because I had the opportunity.  Nothing at either end, and no evidence of civilization near any of its exits.  And almost no traffic.
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, skiing, weather, sports)

paulthemapguy

Quote from: Jim on July 26, 2018, 01:42:05 PM
Apologies for waking up an old thread, but I drove I-180 in Illinois today, just because I had the opportunity.  Nothing at either end, and no evidence of civilization near any of its exits.  And almost no traffic.

Thank you for reminding us of the correct answer to this thread.
I'll take that highway every October to get to an apple orchard west of Lacon.  It's impressively barren and inexplicable.

Are you still in the area?
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

Hurricane Rex

Since I didn't exist when this thread is at it's height, I'm putting my input.

Most 2dis should stay interstates however some should be a 3di instead (west I-86 to I-115 for example). There are some exceptions.

3di's on the other hand are more ahhh.

I-180 in both Wyoming and Illinois need to go. The Wyoming one can stay if it is ever upgraded to a freeway.
I-315 in Montana is pretty pointless as it's also US 89 and I-15Bus.
I-705 in Washnington is really a glorified C/D lanes to downtown, and feels substandard. Really should be SR 7.

LG-TP260

ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

Flint1979

Quote from: Jim on July 26, 2018, 01:42:05 PM
Apologies for waking up an old thread, but I drove I-180 in Illinois today, just because I had the opportunity.  Nothing at either end, and no evidence of civilization near any of its exits.  And almost no traffic.
Well I remember about 10 years ago taking a trip to Iowa and was on I-80 approaching I-180 and got sick. At that time I didn't know much about I-180 and decided to get off and take that to see if there was an exit anywhere because I really did know I was in the middle of nowhere I knew that much so I get on I-180 and I'm driving for a minute and I'm thinking wow there is no traffic at all on this highway, come up to the first exit US-6 and I'm thinking I'm turning around and going back to I-80. Well it's not far into the middle of nowhere because Princeton is right there and it is by no means a big town at all but probably around 7,500 people being at least a serviceable town for that area. Get back on I-80 and come up to exit 56 and there was a Walmart right there so at least I was fine. I wanted to ride that thing to the end and if I wasn't sick I probably wouldn't of got on it at all but I haven't been to the southern end of it yet I think I'd die laughing at how small of a place Hennepin, Illinois is and it has an Interstate serving it. Well I do know the reason I-180 was built but still.

Kulerage

Interstate 495 in Maine. Completely unsigned and has exits solely at its termini. The freeway can stay though.

bing101

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_515

I-515 in Las Vegas needs to go away because its co-signed with US-93 and US-95 plus I-11.

Business 80 Sacramento needs to go because its officially CA-51.


paulthemapguy

Quote from: bing101 on July 27, 2018, 12:33:43 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_515

I-515 in Las Vegas needs to go away because its co-signed with US-93 and US-95 plus I-11.

There's a good chance it will be deleted.  And in a similar vein, I-894 is completely co-signed with I-41 at this point, too.  I personally think I-41 shouldn't exist south of I-43, but I'm split on whether I-41 should have a southern terminus at the Zoo Interchange or at I-94 near Milwaukee's airport.
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

US 89

Quote from: bing101 on July 27, 2018, 12:33:43 AM
I-515 in Las Vegas needs to go away because its co-signed with US-93 and US-95 plus I-11.

Not that I disagree, but none of I-11 is co-signed with I-515. At this point, I-11 begins where I-515 ends, which is at the Wagonwheel Drive interchange. Discussion in the Pacific Southwest board suggests that when the Boulder City Bypass is complete, I-11 will be extended up to the I-215 interchange, replacing that part of 515. Yes, that means three interstates will end at the same interchange (11, 215, 515).

The reason 515 is being kept at this point is that there is still debate over how to route I-11 through Las Vegas. While US 95 seems the obvious choice, there has been talk of routing it on the existing western bypass of I-215 and CC 215 (with freeway upgrades where needed), or building a completely new eastern bypass. I see no reason why I-11 shouldn't just follow US 95, which won't require any new freeway construction and is more direct anyway. In which case, I-11 should just be extended up the rest of 515 at this point.

sparker

NDOT is probably waiting to see how the results of Project Neon (the revamp of the 15/515/93/95 downtown interchange and approaches) pan out before making a recommendation as to the final I-11 alignment.  My guess is that if there are any significant improvements regarding traffic flow and congestion patterns after about a year or so of use (that would push any assessment out to mid-2020), barring any other developments concerning the 215 loop (such as a definitive plan for a connecting freeway to US 95 north from the loop's NW corner), I-11 will indeed be designated right down US 95 and subsequently signed all the way out to the end of the freeway NW of town (and I-515 will be consigned to the dustbin). 

mrcmc888

I don't know just what WDOT were smoking when they designated a four lane road in Cheyenne I-180. It's never been Interstate standard at all...hell, it's hardly expressway standard.  Upgrade it, or more practically, redesignate it.

roadman65

I am sure many agree that I-99 is  :bigass: but that being obvious and as former user Blawpe aka Interstateng would call out the moderators on that one for me necroposting  :sombrero:

However, is really I-180 in IL needed or better yet I-180 in Cheyenne?  The later is not even freeway and concurs with another interstate's Business Loop, but the former is not even to a population center.

I-380 in Iowa is iffy as that is just another excuse to sign a local highway as interstate, but I am not from Iowa so I cannot say what regional importance that one has.

I-587 in NY.  Its not even connected to another freeway (directly anyway) and mostly is a four lane uninterrupted part of NY 28 that just happens to have no median breaks or side streets.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

bing101

Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: catsynth on October 02, 2017, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 01:05:16 AM
I-180 (Wyoming)
I-238
I-97


I-238 is actually quite useful, despite its infamous number.  It is a major trucking route for traffic coming from I-5 coming to the Bay Area - all trucks must exit I-580 onto I-238 and take I-880 N to SF/Oakland or S to San Jose and the bridge crossings.

The number is specifically why I consider it unnecessary. I'm of the opinion just leaving it as CA-238 would have been better, although I'm aware of the history and why it was given the badge.

Same reason I think I-97 is unnecessary. Would have been perfectly fine as either a 3di (perhaps something like 995?) or just an I-83 extension. A useful 2-digit number was now wasted.

I-238 has been rumored to be part of the I-380 gap in the Bay Area due to the Southern Crossing from San Bruno to Castro Valley.

roadfro

Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2018, 04:35:01 PM
NDOT is probably waiting to see how the results of Project Neon (the revamp of the 15/515/93/95 downtown interchange and approaches) pan out before making a recommendation as to the final I-11 alignment.  My guess is that if there are any significant improvements regarding traffic flow and congestion patterns after about a year or so of use (that would push any assessment out to mid-2020), barring any other developments concerning the 215 loop (such as a definitive plan for a connecting freeway to US 95 north from the loop's NW corner), I-11 will indeed be designated right down US 95 and subsequently signed all the way out to the end of the freeway NW of town (and I-515 will be consigned to the dustbin).
I don't think Project Neon won't really have any baring on the future path of I-11. Project Neon won't be significantly changing any major traffic flows, but is expected to de-clog existing congestion on I-15 south of the Spaghetti Bowl.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.