Which 3DIs get roasted the most/least?

[texaskdog]

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

[kurumi]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

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?!

[Beltway]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[index]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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 2di

FTFY.  Not everyone here may know that I-684 was once part of I-87.

[Eth]

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).

[Beltway]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[froggie]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Jmiles32]

For a 3DI that doesn't actually exist, I-366 seems to get roasted a lot

In a seriousness however, in VA I think I-381 takes the roast crown.

[MNHighwayMan]

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.

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.

[froggie]

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.

[TheCatalyst31]

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.