Interstate 11

[Grzrd]

Since we already have I-26 and I-2 that spur off, why not?

Yeah but I-2 is not technically a spur, at least it has a bigger idea.  But it is not a violation.

why is I-2 a violation?  as far as I can tell, it is south of I-4.

I-2 has a "spur" going from I-69C westward similar to the I-26 "spur" going from I-81 to the Virginia state line.

[NE2]

I-26 ends at US 11W (and sillily the exit numbers begin there).

holy crap I-10 is a spur to Santa Monica

[Grzrd]

I-26 ends at US 11W (and sillily the exit numbers begin there).

Why sillily? I posted "to"*, not "ending at".  Doesn't I-26 go in the direction of the Virginia state line from I-81 to US 11W? I didn't bother identifying the current western terminus of I-2, either.

*

to 
/to͞o/
Preposition
Expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location): "my first visit to Africa".

[agentsteel53]

holy crap I-10 is a spur to Santa Monica

I-5 is a spur to Tijuana.

[Grzrd]

I-2 is not technically a spur ... But it is not a violation.

why is I-2 a violation?

I-2 has a "spur" going from I-69C westward

I-5 is a spur to Tijuana.

But it is not a violation.

[Scott5114]

If not ending at another interstate highway was a "violation", half the routes in the system would be "violations". Like I-44 Wichita Falls, I-55 Chicago, I-39 Wausau, I-43 Green Bay, I-27 Lubbock, I-37 Corpus Christi...

I-2 and I-69C/I-69E are in violation for collectively not connecting to the rest of the Interstate system, but that will be remedied at some point.

[swbrotha100]

Speaking of I-69, where are all the complaints of "violation" of everything south (and west) of I-65?

[ethanhopkin14]

Speaking of I-69, where are all the complaints of "violation" of everything south (and west) of I-65?

Ehhh, I have been okay with it for years.

[Grzrd]

If Interstate 11 never extends to Reno, I think it should at least extend down the US 95 corridor in Las Vegas so at least a portion of it will not violate the grid!!

Since we already have I-26 and I-2 that spur off, why not?

Yeah but I-2 is not technically a spur ... But it is not a violation.

why is I-2 a violation?  as far as I can tell, it is south of I-4.

I-2 has a "spur" going from I-69C westward

I-5 is a spur to Tijuana.

But it is not a violation.

If not ending at another interstate highway was a "violation", half the routes in the system would be "violations".

Who's on I-1?

[NE2]

I-26 ends at US 11W (and sillily the exit numbers begin there).

Why sillily?

Because the freeway begins at the state line, and now the interchange there has no exit number.

I posted "to"*, not "ending at".  Doesn't I-26 go in the direction of the Virginia state line from I-81 to US 11W? I didn't bother identifying the current western terminus of I-2, either.

*

to 
/to͞o/
Preposition
Expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location): "my first visit to Africa".

What a shitty-ass definition. You don't say you're going to Africa if you're taking a trip from Paris to Gibraltar. And you don't say a highway goes to the state line if it actually ends at a major crossing several miles from the border.

[Grzrd]

Why sillily?

Because the freeway begins at the state line, and now the interchange there has no exit number.

US 11W is a logical, not silly, terminus.  To argue otherwise is, well, silly.

[NE2]

It's silly to have the exit numbers begin at US 11W rather than the state line...

[Brandon]

It's silly to have the exit numbers begin at US 11W rather than the state line...

Depends on where the start of the interstate is considered to be.

It's a bit ridiculous anyway as I-26 should be an odd, not even numbered interstate.

[NE2]

Exit numbers don't have to begin where the Interstate begins. In this case it's silly not to begin them where the freeway begins at the state line.

[Henry]

Exit numbers don't have to begin where the Interstate begins. In this case it's silly not to begin them where the freeway begins at the state line.

I-17 is the prime example, as there is no mile/exit 0/1 anywhere (in fact, IIRC, they both begin at 194).

[Grzrd]

Exit numbers don't have to begin where the Interstate begins. In this case it's silly not to begin them where the freeway begins at the state line.

Since the Carters Valley Road interchange is the only non-numbered freeway interchange at issue, there really isn't a need for a number.  In this locally-specific case it is logical to not begin the exit numbers at the Carters Valley Road interchange and to begin them on I-26. This is especially true when one considers the March 2007 exit renumbering from I-181 to I-26. Putting a number at a non-"logical terminus" interchange (admittedly interstate grade) only a few miles miles from the beginning of the interstate can certainly be seen as possibly confusing the public, especially since the change was from Interstate 181 to Interstate 26. Logic would also support what NE2 has suggested; however, it does not necessarily follow that the alternative currently in place is silly.

What a shitty-ass definition. You don't say you're going to Africa if you're taking a trip from Paris to Gibraltar.

Then why do I laugh all of the way to the bank when you gratuitously curse instead of laughing to the bank? Here's a good deal on some light reading if you are considering invoking Godwin's Law again.

you don't say a highway goes to the state line if it actually ends at a major crossing several miles from the border.

Yawn 2.0. See Reply #202 in this very thread.......

[Brandon]

And you don't say a highway goes to the state line if it actually ends at a major crossing several miles from the border.

Sure you do, your local DOT does it all the time with control cities.

I'll give I-80 as an example.  It goes to Chicago and New York City, yet never enters neither.  Ditto with I-294 in Illinois.  It goes to Wisconsin and Indiana, but stops short of both - in the case of Wisconsin, about 30 miles short.

[ethanhopkin14]

And you don't say a highway goes to the state line if it actually ends at a major crossing several miles from the border.

Sure you do, your local DOT does it all the time with control cities.

I'll give I-80 as an example.  It goes to Chicago and New York City, yet never enters neither.  Ditto with I-294 in Illinois.  It goes to Wisconsin and Indiana, but stops short of both - in the case of Wisconsin, about 30 miles short.

Don't forget Cleveland on that I-80 trip!!

The reverse of this argument is I-37 in San Antonio. After it ends the mile markers continue down US 281. Same can be said about I-45 in Dallas, when I-345 starts the mile markers from I-45 continue, and even the exit numbers continue. The. When US 75 Central Expressway starts, the exit numbers start at 0, but the mile posts still continue from I-45.

[swbrotha100]

Exit numbers don't have to begin where the Interstate begins. In this case it's silly not to begin them where the freeway begins at the state line.

I-17 is the prime example, as there is no mile/exit 0/1 anywhere (in fact, IIRC, they both begin at 194).

In the case of I-17, it inherited its mileposts (and exit numbers) from when it used to be AZ 69.

[agentsteel53]

In the case of I-17, it inherited its mileposts (and exit numbers) from when it used to be AZ 69.

furthermore, the Arizona mileage scheme is in place.  AZ 69 didn't go all the way down to number 0 either. 

[NE2]

What the fuck is going on here? Did Obama decide to redefine 'to' when I was sleeping?

[Brandon]

What the fuck is going on here? Did Obama decide to redefine 'to' when I was sleeping?

Yes, you missed it.  It was a Senate bill, passed unanimously by the House and signed by Obama.  It's already been upheld by the SCOTUS as well.

[The High Plains Traveler]

What the fuck is going on here? Did Obama decide to redefine 'to' when I was sleeping?

Yes, you missed it.  It was a Senate bill, passed unanimously by the House and signed by Obama.  It's already been upheld by the SCOTUS as well.

The definition of pi would not be passed unanimously by the House.

[Grzrd]

The definition of pi would not be passed unanimously by the House.

Certainly "poo" would eventually be passed unanimously by the House, no?

[The High Plains Traveler]

The definition of pi would not be passed unanimously by the House.

Certainly "poo" would eventually be passed unanimously by the House, no?

There would be poo, and then there would be poo. Since you have the Hastert rule, it could not be brought up. It would not be unanimous. It would not be cool, either. There is the remote chance of a discharge petition, in which case there could be a lot of poo at one time.