How come there is no Interstate 1, 2, 3, ....31, 32, 33, 34, etc ?

[Brandon]

Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).

I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)

This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.

In the unlikely chance that all 2di are used up, I think what will happen is the US route numbers will continue to exist, but just function like interstates.

Back in the days of the amended NMSL, when 65-mph speed limits were normally permitted only on rural Interstates, there was at least a legitimate reason for that practice. Nowadays, not so much (see also Maryland's decision not to post the I-595 designation on a portion of US-50).

It does continue to surprise me, however, that a fair number of people still tend to regard non-Interstates as somehow substandard or as an undesirable routing. I'm sure most of us can think of non-Interstates we've travelled that were better roads than some Interstates we've driven. But if there's evidence that drivers tend to opt for Interstates (and I don't know if there is), then I could certainly see a practical reason for this sort of re-numbering.

Doesn't surprise me at all:  People know, even if they're on the other side of the country from home, that the Interstate marker means freeway.  (Unless they're in Cheyenne, or on the New Jersey side of the Holland Tunnel.)

Incidentally, the "amended NMSL" is cited in the thread I started on what-the-f***-US-51-is-doing-on-an-Illinois-Tollway:  someone theorized that Illinois wanted to make the freeway from Rockford to Bloomington US 51 but needed an Interstate designation for the sake of the 65-m.p.h. limit.

Not theorized, that's why I-39 (and I-88 W) exist.  Otherwise, they'd have been US-51 and IL-5.  It was in how the NMSL was amended in the 1980s for 65 mph.  That was restricted to interstates only.

[Michael in Philly]

^^Sorry, I was quoting (or paraphrasing) from memory.

[Scott5114]

This is also the reason for I-335's existence. Before that NMSL amendment, KTA was perfectly content with that section of the turnpike being branded as only the Turnpike.

[Quillz]

This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.

Wasted? What other good candidates are there for a future I-22 designation? And there is also always the possibility of a split designation, like I-76 and I-84.

What's the point of holding on to the numbers for future use if they are never used? Odds are we really won't see any true new-terrain interstate construction (I-69 being the exception); instead we will see reconstruction of existing roads.

I don't like split designations, either.

Personally, I never saw the need to move away from suffixed routes. I don't think many people really would have confused I-80 for I-80N. Had suffixed routes been given some more guidelines (perhaps cap their length to around 500 miles or so), perhaps they could have still been around today.

[1995hoo]

This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.

Wasted? What other good candidates are there for a future I-22 designation? And there is also always the possibility of a split designation, like I-76 and I-84.

What's the point of holding on to the numbers for future use if they are never used? Odds are we really won't see any true new-terrain interstate construction (I-69 being the exception); instead we will see reconstruction of existing roads.

I don't like split designations, either.

Personally, I never saw the need to move away from suffixed routes. I don't think many people really would have confused I-80 for I-80N. Had suffixed routes been given some more guidelines (perhaps cap their length to around 500 miles or so), perhaps they could have still been around today.

I used to think about suffixed routes a fair bit due to the way the Capital Beltway here in the DC area is numbered. Everyone knows how the planned I-95 through the District was deleted in the 1970s and was re-routed onto the eastern half of the Beltway. For many years that eastern half was numbered solely as I-95 and the western half was solely I-495. Apparently a lot of people found this confusing for whatever reason and the eastern side was eventually signed with both numbers, but I always thought it might have made more sense to make an exception to the "no suffixes" rule and sign it as I-95W and I-95E, with the idea being that it underscores to the unfamiliar motorist that both directions go to the same place,* such that if you're in the wrong lane you need not bomb across five lanes of traffic to get to the "correct" half of the Beltway. (Of course, I also recognize that here in the DC area there are some legitimate reasons for wanting the eastern side of the Beltway to be the primary thru route due to a fairly twisty section in Maryland and another narrower section just west of there, and suffixed numbers would take away from the idea of the eastern side being the "preferred" long-distance route. That's a valid point.)

In the same vein, that line of thought then led me to ponder the notion that the New Jersey Turnpike's northern end, where it splits into the Eastern and Western Spurs, could quite logically be signed as I-95E and I-95W, again under the same principle of reassuring the unfamiliar motorist that both routes will indeed get you to the GW Bridge regardless of whether one route is "preferred."

Hmm, as I chew on this a few other thoughts are crossing my mind, but I want to develop them more fully in my head before I try to describe them here.


*While I suppose it's true that if you go the other way around I-495 you'll find your way back, the motorist unfamiliar with the area doesn't necessarily know that the distances are roughly the same and might think there's an important reason why he needs to use the eastern half, setting aside temporary factors like road construction in Virginia or seasonal factors like Christmas-shopping traffic near Tysons Corner. In other words, I'm positing that while the even-numbered 3di does denote a loop route, the presence of the 2di number on a portion of the 3di loop changes the situation.

[roadman65]

To actually answer the question without being a smartass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system
There are no interstates with those numbers simply because at the points in the grid that those numbers would occur, there is no current need for an Interstate designation. Should a need arise those numbers would be free to be assigned to the new highway.

Others: when someone has a valid (if somewhat "obvious" to us) question, actually be a decent person and answer the damned question instead of poking fun. This is a warning for the community–moderator action may occur in the future if another thread turns out like this one.

True we need to be more "sensible" when answering questions, but look at the bright side of the sarcastic remarks.  If they had not been made, he would have asked more questions like how come there is no NY 17D, 17E, 17F, etc. or even ask why US 9W is instead of NY 9W.  Obviously that would be next considering he wanted to know why there were missing letters on streets in Brooklyn and then this. 

Even though these guys were silly in responses, they did have a point themselves about some people not wording their questions properly.

[CoolAngrybirdsrio4]

There is Interstate 2 Planned in Texas.

[oscar]

There is Interstate 2 Planned in Texas.

Not "planned" anymore.  It's there already.

[Big John]

There is a new I-2 in Texas

[ET21]

There is Interstate 2 Planned in Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2]

[billtm]

More like Intrastate 2 !

[tidecat]

We'll see more interstate designations get used - Texas and North Carolina have been rather aggressive about building freeways, and are at places in the grid where free numbers are plentiful.

It is probably nothing more than envy, but there's also a connotation that a 2di is "major" and a 3di is not.  Some places are already pushing for 2-digit numbers before the 3-digit signs go up (looking at you Owensboro, KY).

[hotdogPi]

We'll see more interstate designations get used - Texas and North Carolina have been rather aggressive about building freeways, and are at places in the grid where free numbers are plentiful.

And they still built I-74...

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

(Unless they're in Cheyenne, or on the New Jersey side of the Holland Tunnel.)

Or Breezewood.

[vdeane]

We'll see more interstate designations get used - Texas and North Carolina have been rather aggressive about building freeways, and are at places in the grid where free numbers are plentiful.

And they still built I-74...

And I-69W/C/E

[bing101]

I-2 Does exist in Texas


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2


But for I-1 that could not exist unless Caltrans decides to convert all of CA-1 or all of US-101 to meet interstate standards. However that could never happen.


I-7 and I-9 has been talked about among roadgeeks for CA-99 but there is no concrete evidence about this change.




I-1 does exist as I-H1 in Oahu.

[vdeane]

I-1 does exist as I-H1 in Oahu.

I honestly would not count the prefixed interstates in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico as part of the grid system.

[roadman65]

 If you did then you would have to 2's.  I-H2 and I-2.

[Scott5114]

An I-1 could theoretically exist in Washington and/or Oregon with no input from Caltrans needed.

[billtm]

An I-1 could theoretically exist in Washington and/or Oregon with no input from Caltrans needed.

Or Alaska...

[roadman65]

Now with I-41 being applied to part of US 41 where freeway in WI, now if Caltran wanted to apply the name I-1 to all freeway parts of CA 1, I am sure it will be done by AASHTO.

Whenever something new comes out, a precedent is set, such as I-99 being signed into law setting the way for the feds to bring back suffix routes that were once banned.

[kkt]

But for I-1 that could not exist unless Caltrans decides to convert all of CA-1 or all of US-101 to meet interstate standards. However that could never happen.

You're right, CalTrans wouldn't renumber CA-1.  But they might renumber US-101 from L.A. to somewhere in the S.F. Bay Area as I-3.  There's only a few spots left in that part of 101 that don't meet interstate standards.

[TheStranger]

But for I-1 that could not exist unless Caltrans decides to convert all of CA-1 or all of US-101 to meet interstate standards. However that could never happen.

You're right, CalTrans wouldn't renumber CA-1.  But they might renumber US-101 from L.A. to somewhere in the S.F. Bay Area as I-3.  There's only a few spots left in that part of 101 that don't meet interstate standards.

Surprisingly more spots than one would think of immediately: while there are indeed no stoplights between South Van Ness Avenue/Duboce Avenue in SF and the south terminus, the Prunedale stretch still has quite a few at-grades.  I THINK there's work right now to close the freeway gap between Ventura and Santa Barbara though.

[Henry]

For the most part, the way the grid is set up allows for numbered routes that fit the grid nicely, with wide spaces between the primary ones (those that end in 0 and 5). While it's true that not everything needs an Interstate, it would be fun to ponder what various places that currently do not have a direct connection to the system could use one someday. Which is why fictional freeways have become very popular in the roadgeek world. Sadly, there most likely will never be an I-50 or I-60, because they would conflict with US routes of the same number; however, if they could get away with having I-41/US 41 and I-74/US 74, then maybe the aforementioned two routes may have a chance, however little it may be.

[US 41]

They don't exist because they were never built. What kind of question is this?