Which 3DIs get roasted the most/least?

[index]

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) (?)

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[MNHighwayMan]

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.

[SSOWorld]

I-894, or I-41 (which should be a 3di)

[Beltway]

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.

[US 89]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[ilpt4u]

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?

[sparker]

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!). 

[SectorZ]

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...

[texaskdog]

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

[hbelkins]

I-480N? Never heard of it.

[Bickendan]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[index]

I-480N? Never heard of it.

Here's a photo of it from another user on these forums:





And Wikpedia has some info on it too:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_480N_(Ohio)


(add the last parentheses, forum won't make it part of the link for some reason)

[Bickendan]

Even has its own exit and is on OSM. Lovely.

[Flint1979]

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.

[index]

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.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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-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.

[MNHighwayMan]

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.

I'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.

[Beltway]

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.

[texaskdog]

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.

[LM117]

I 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.

[hotdogPi]

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.