I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?
Albuquerque.
Orlando.
Side note: Did you mean "adverse" or "averse"? They both work here, but they have different meanings.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 05, 2019, 09:12:48 PM
I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?
I actually asked ADOT why that was. The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds. I suppose now it really doesn't matter given that the Loop Freeways were completely State funded.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 05, 2019, 09:12:48 PM
I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?
Arizona is pretty meh about pursuing Interstate status instead of keeping new freeways as state routes. For Phoenix in particular, new freeways were built without using Federal highway funds, which meant less bureaucracy. Pursuing Interstate status would inflict some of the bureaucracy that was avoided by forgoing Federal funds.
For the cities 1 mentioned, the Albuquerque area has at most one freeway that might qualify for 3di status, and it's not very long. Orlando has a lot of freeways, but they are mostly toll roads, and like Phoenix they might've been built without Federal funds. Toll funding can also complicate getting Interstate status.
Although St. Louis has plenty of 3 digits within its two state metro area, still both MO 370 and MO 364 both are freeways and do connect to the system and do not have such designations. MO 370 especially, being its part of a bypass of the City of St. Louis for I-70.
Lakeland, FL has the infamous Polk Parkway that is a loop that begins and ends at I-4 and is not a 3 digit.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI actually asked ADOT why that was. The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.
There's a bit of truth in this. ADOT requested mileage for six supplemental Interstate routes in Phoenix and three in Tucson from the 1968 mileage addition. Only two were approved...one in each city. One became today's I-10 along the Papago Freeway between I-17 (Exit 143) and AZ 51/AZ 202. The other was the cancelled I-710 in Tucson (today's South Kino Pkwy).
Quote from: OscarToll funding can also complicate getting Interstate status.
Used to be the case, but no longer. Under current Federal law (and going back at least to MAP-21), toll roads that meet Interstate standards can be added as non-chargeable Interstate.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2019, 10:07:20 PM
....
Lakeland, FL has the infamous Polk Parkway that is a loop that begins and ends at I-4 and is not a 3 digit.
The east side of that is–or at least was the last time I was through there–a two-lane road with a toll plaza in the middle of the two-lane section. That part of the road wasn't remotely close to legitimate Interstate standards.
Wisconsin. WI 172 (east of I-41), WI 441, and US45 (Richfield to West Bend) could be 3DIs.
* Perhaps Tulsa, OK? It has I-244, but I-444 is unsigned, and it wouldn't be too hard to have another even x44 as a southern bypass.
* Dallas, TX? It has I-635, but I-345 is unsigned, TX 12 could easily be an x35, and I think many states would have had the US 80 freeway switched to a 3di when I-20 was relocated to the south.
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2019, 10:11:50 PM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI actually asked ADOT why that was. The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.
There's a bit of truth in this. ADOT requested mileage for six supplemental Interstate routes in Phoenix and three in Tucson from the 1968 mileage addition. Only two were approved...one in each city. One became today's I-10 along the Papago Freeway between I-17 (Exit 143) and AZ 51/AZ 202. The other was the cancelled I-710 in Tucson (today's South Kino Pkwy).
That is really interesting. I always wondered why I-10 crossed I-17 in downtown Phoenix, and then immediately met it again at its southern terminus, making the shape of a small rectangle together.
Salt Lake City has I-215, but has never pursued any further Interstate designations, despite the existence of other interstate-standard freeways like the east half of SR-201. The southeast quadrant of 215 was originally I-415, perhaps due to uncertainty over the final routing of that section; the two were later combined into one 215 designation.
Quote from: 1 on January 05, 2019, 09:22:17 PM
Albuquerque.
That’s only because they’ve never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on. NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn’t even connect to I-25 for a very long time — it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.
Some larger TX cities seem to be curiously 3di averse; metro Austin being one and El Paso the other. The first seems to take either a contrarian or, at best, a "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude toward Interstates in general, preferring their nascent network of toll facilities, whereas the latter does have the short and unremarked I-110 as a border connector, but has shown little interest in deploying a bypass (presumably around the north side of town). And the TX cities that do have the rare 3di seem to be quite contented with their singular loops or arcs built during the chargeable era; adding to that doesn't seem to be in the cards, regardless of levels of development and/or growth. Even the one relatively obvious place to put a 3di spur (Beaumont-Port Arthur) has yet to do so. Not counting the two spurs stemming from the I-69 family tree (169, 369), the fact that there are only the four regularly signed loops/bypasses, all part of the original Yellow Book plans, attests to a general statewide indifference to the concept.
Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 05, 2019, 09:22:17 PM
Albuquerque.
That's only because they've never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on. NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn't even connect to I-25 for a very long time – it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.
Besides that, it seems NMDOT doesn't know what 3dis are. They have never even planned one, probably the only state DOT to have never planned a 3di (besides the Alaska DOT&PF).
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on January 06, 2019, 01:09:08 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 05, 2019, 09:22:17 PM
Albuquerque.
That's only because they've never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on. NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn't even connect to I-25 for a very long time – it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.
Besides that, it seems NMDOT doesn't know what 3dis are. They have never even planned one, probably the only state DOT to have never planned a 3di (besides the Alaska DOT&PF).
The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces. The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards.
If hypothetically the Phoenix area freeways can become 3dis, here is how I would number them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317 (replaces I-17 south of I-10 and concurrent with freeway portion of US 60 from Phoenix to Apache Junction)
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 06, 2019, 02:29:40 PM
If hypothetically the Phoenix area freeways can become 3dis, here is how I would number them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317 (replaces I-17 south of I-10 and concurrent with freeway portion of US 60 from Phoenix to Apache Junction)
303 and 143 have a ways to go to meet Interstate standards. I'm not sure where the US 60 interchange is at but that would obviously need to be replaced along with all the at-grade intersections east of there. 143 would need a real interchange with I-10 instead of the dinky stop light/partial interchange it has now.
Also doesn't ADOT have a policy about one highway ending in the middle of another? Wouldn't that be a detriment to signing US 60 on the Red Mountain Freeway as really anything other than what it is? I think ADOT put a more useful system in place with the Loop Freeways, considering the early snub for Federal funding on 3Ds it's no wonder they aren't interested.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces. The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards.
There’s also the US 84/285 freeway in Santa Fe, but it’s an at-grade expressway between the freeway section and the I-25 interchange, and I’d bet it isn’t interstate standard anyway. Took me forever to figure out the exit numbers on that; they’re based on a N/S US 84 with milepost zero at the US 60 junction in Fort Sumner.
Durham, NC with the Durham Freeway (NC 147) but it's planned to become I-885 in the near future.
Also all of the U.S. 421 freeway extending from I-40 and crossing I-77 in the middle to end up Wilkesboro. It's not fully up to interstate standards though and would require wider shoulders, but that's about it.
Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 03:55:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces. The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards.
There's also the US 84/285 freeway in Santa Fe, but it's an at-grade expressway between the freeway section and the I-25 interchange, and I'd bet it isn't interstate standard anyway. Took me forever to figure out the exit numbers on that; they're based on a N/S US 84 with milepost zero at the US 60 junction in Fort Sumner.
Completely forgot that one was even a thing.
Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
I-695 was to be constructed in & adjacent to Boston (aka the Inner Belt); but such never became reality. As a matter of fact, there's no 3di whatsoever inside I-495 in eastern MA.
Quote from: dvferyance on January 06, 2019, 04:47:49 PM
Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Would you switch the I-76 and I-376 designations, to send I-76 into the city? Same with I-79 and I-279? With a short Multiplex of I-76 and I-79 to get back to the current I-79 SE of Downtown?
Seems a bit silly to me.
Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 01:20:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 05, 2019, 09:22:17 PM
Albuquerque.
That's only because they've never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on. NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn't even connect to I-25 for a very long time – it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.
Based on Page A19 of https://books.google.com/books?id=1442AQAAMAAJ&dq=albuquerque%20metronet&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q=albuquerque%20metronet&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=1442AQAAMAAJ&dq=albuquerque%20metronet&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q=albuquerque%20metronet&f=false), it looks like Albuquerque did several studies for a beltway though.
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 06, 2019, 09:09:46 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 06, 2019, 04:47:49 PM
Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Would you switch the I-76 and I-376 designations, to send I-76 into the city? Same with I-79 and I-279? With a short Multiplex of I-76 and I-79 to get back to the current I-79 SE of Downtown?
Seems a bit silly to me.
Corrected:
Amusingly enough, at one point I-70 covered I-79 between today's I-70 and I-376, then I-376 east to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and finally down the turnpike to join up with I-70S (the current I-70).
I-376 between I-279 and the Turnpike was part of I-76 at one point, and all of I-279 and the portion of I-376 that used to be part of I-279 also were once part of I-79.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 06, 2019, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 06, 2019, 09:09:46 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 06, 2019, 04:47:49 PM
Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Would you switch the I-76 and I-376 designations, to send I-76 into the city? Same with I-79 and I-279? With a short Multiplex of I-76 and I-79 to get back to the current I-79 SE of Downtown?
Seems a bit silly to me.
Amusingly enough, at one point I-70 had a branch route (I-70N) that covered I-79 between today's I-70 and I-376, then I-376 east to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and finally down the turnpike to join up with I-70S (the current I-70).
I-376 between I-279 and the Turnpike was part of I-76 at one point, and all of I-279 and the portion of I-376 that used to be part of I-279 also were once part of I-79.
There was never a I-70N in western PA; before the 1961 southern extension of I-79 into WV, mainline I-70 was to utilize present I-79 north of Washington to present I-376, then east over I-376 to the PA Turnpike, which was I-80S coming in from Ohio. At that time I-79 and I-279 were reversed, with I-79 coming in to town and terminating at I-70, while I-279 was the western bypass. I-70S was the current I-70 east of Washington to the Turnpike at New Stanton. Of course, that partially changed in '61; I-79 was to multiplex with I-70 from central Pittsburgh down to Washington and then strike out on its extended course south from there paralleling US 19 into WV. The configuration further changed in '64 with the commissioning of I-76; at that time I-70 was rerouted over former I-70S; I-79 became the sole occupant of the Washington-Pittsburgh segment, and I-76 was designated over former I-70 (the Penn-Lincoln Parkway) from downtown Pittsburgh east to the Turnpike at Monroeville; I-80N was truncated back to that point, with I-76 taking over its former route east of there. The 79/279 "swap" came later, as did the rerouting of I-76 onto the Turnpike west of Monroeville, commensurate with the designation of I-376 over the former I-76 route into downtown -- as well as the full deletion of I-80S in PA and OH.
I've always liked the Rochester- (or Pittsburgh-) type of situation where the 2dis stay well away from the urban core, which is instead served by 3dis. It makes sense for the 3dis to serve the local and commuter traffic, while long-distance traffic stays on a consistent route, thereby maintaining higher speeds and avoiding typical peak-hour congestion. It also keeps that traffic out of the city, instead of dumping it on urban freeways that are already at capacity.
Imagine, for example, if I-90 went right through downtown Rochester, how much more inconvenient it would be to get from Buffalo to Syracuse. The current setup is a win-win for both long-distance traffic and commuters. I-90 in Buffalo, on the other hand, is a lose-lose for both long distance traffic and commuters.
Quote from: webny99 on January 07, 2019, 10:52:16 AM
I've always liked the Rochester- (or Pittsburgh-) type of situation where the 2dis stay well away from the urban core, which is instead served by 3dis. It makes sense for the 3dis to serve the local and commuter traffic, while long-distance traffic stays on a consistent route, thereby maintaining higher speeds and avoiding typical peak-hour congestion. It also keeps that traffic out of the city, instead of dumping it on urban freeways that are already at capacity.
Imagine, for example, if I-90 went right through downtown Rochester, how much more inconvenient it would be to get from Buffalo to Syracuse. The current setup is a win-win for both long-distance traffic and commuters. I-90 in Buffalo, on the other hand, is a lose-lose for both long distance traffic and commuters.
I think it really depends too on geography more than anything else:
Rochester is not on the direct east-west trajectory between the Buffalo area and Albany, but a bit further north. A similar but somewhat differently handled situation is I-10 in Louisiana, where I-610 is the direct route and I-10 dips into the New Orleans CBD - but one could also then argue that I-12 itself is the bypass east-west corridor and I-10 already is diverging to get into the New Orleans area in the first place.
In California, I-5 following former US 99 and US 101 in Los Angeles is the most as-the-crow-flies route through that metro area, even if that skirts downtown Los Angeles somewhat. (I-405 is also not noticeably much of a bypass either). I-15 through Ontario instead of Riverside/San Bernardino and I-80 in Natomas rather than downtown and midtown Sacramento are the two examples of the mainline interstate on a bypass in California, and both were not the originally planned designations.
The toll roads in NJ. The portions that do have Interstate designations are all 2dis. Atlantic City could use an interstate of some sort. Yes, I know the ACE would need to be upgraded to meet interstate specs.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 07, 2019, 05:33:01 PM
The toll roads in NJ. The portions that do have Interstate designations are all 2dis. Atlantic City could use an interstate of some sort. Yes, I know the ACE would need to be upgraded to meet interstate specs.
Why a 3di for the ACE? Why not just continue I-76 to Atlantic City?
The NJTP should be an x95 south of Exit 6, but I could understand why not - having a 295/695 or 895 split at the Southern NJ border could be confusing
Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2019, 10:07:20 PM
….
Lakeland, FL has the infamous Polk Parkway that is a loop that begins and ends at I-4 and is not a 3 digit.
The east side of that is—or at least was the last time I was through there—a two-lane road with a toll plaza in the middle of the two-lane section. That part of the road wasn't remotely close to legitimate Interstate standards.
[/quote]
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 10:12:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2019, 10:07:20 PM
….
Lakeland, FL has the infamous Polk Parkway that is a loop that begins and ends at I-4 and is not a 3 digit.
The east side of that is—or at least was the last time I was through there—a two-lane road with a toll plaza in the middle of the two-lane section. That part of the road wasn't remotely close to legitimate Interstate standards.
It still is, but assuming that FDOT soon will upgrade that portion as with both Lakeland and Auburdale building warehouses galore near the road, it should be at least on the four lane divided part and proposed for the two lane part.
Mopac (loop 1) with 360/290 on the south and 45 on the north should be an x35
Quote from: webny99 on January 07, 2019, 10:52:16 AM
I've always liked the Rochester- (or Pittsburgh-) type of situation where the 2dis stay well away from the urban core, which is instead served by 3dis. It makes sense for the 3dis to serve the local and commuter traffic, while long-distance traffic stays on a consistent route, thereby maintaining higher speeds and avoiding typical peak-hour congestion. It also keeps that traffic out of the city, instead of dumping it on urban freeways that are already at capacity.
Imagine, for example, if I-90 went right through downtown Rochester, how much more inconvenient it would be to get from Buffalo to Syracuse. The current setup is a win-win for both long-distance traffic and commuters. I-90 in Buffalo, on the other hand, is a lose-lose for both long distance traffic and commuters.
Keep in mind originally I-79 was to go through Pittsburgh and I-76 for a bit used I-376 when I-80S had a revision to just be the eastern end of the Ohio Turnpike and the western end of the PA Turnpike. I-279 was to be where I-79 is now.
Even Cleveland, OH had early plans for I-80 to leave the OH Turnpike and use what is today I-480.
As far as Rochester goes its because the Thruway was built outside most cities it served. The Thruway precedes the interstate system with I-90 getting lucky from the PA/ NY Line and its eastern terminus (its original one pre Ted Williams Tunnel) where it was applied to existing toll facilities minus the free I-90 in Albany of course.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 07, 2019, 05:33:01 PMThe toll roads in NJ. The portions that do have Interstate designations are all 2dis. Atlantic City could use an interstate of some sort. Yes, I know the ACE would need to be upgraded to meet interstate specs.
While many have mentioned designating the ACE as an extension of I-76; you're probably one of the first to suggest a 3di for such.
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 07, 2019, 10:26:23 PMThe NJTP should be an x95 south of Exit 6, but I could understand why not - having a 295/695 or 895 split at the Southern NJ border could be confusing.
How is such any different/confusing than the I-95/295/495 spilt in Wilmington, DE?
Quote from: texaskdog on January 07, 2019, 11:44:29 PM
Mopac (loop 1) with 360/290 on the south and 45 on the north should be an x35
Austin isn't as much averse to 3di's as TxDOT is averse to building one for them. Hence all the toll roads.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 05, 2019, 09:12:48 PM
I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?
Sacramento has only one that is unsigned (I-305) and got rid of the former I-880. Stockton, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Visalia, and Bakersfield all have no 3dis at all. Modesto sort of has a 3di, but no 2di. Merced, Fresno, Madera, Visalia, and Bakersfield's 2di are all on the far west side of the county from where the cities are located.
Santa Cruz, Monterey, Salinas, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, and Santa Barbara, and (San Buena)Ventura have no 2dis anywhere in their respective counties, much less 3dis.
San Jose is served ONLY by 3dis.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2019, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 03:55:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2019, 01:15:52 PM
The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces. The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards.
There's also the US 84/285 freeway in Santa Fe, but it's an at-grade expressway between the freeway section and the I-25 interchange, and I'd bet it isn't interstate standard anyway. Took me forever to figure out the exit numbers on that; they're based on a N/S US 84 with milepost zero at the US 60 junction in Fort Sumner.
Completely forgot that one was even a thing.
Don't forget the NM 599 expressway around Santa Fe.
Seattle, given that there's only two (I-405 and I-705, the latter doesn't really count).
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 05, 2019, 11:16:47 PM
* Perhaps Tulsa, OK? It has I-244, but I-444 is unsigned, and it wouldn't be too hard to have another even x44 as a southern bypass.
The Creek Turnpike was actually added to the Interstate System by a federal transportation bill, but the Oklahoma Transportation Commission has never pursued an Interstate designation for it, so it's never been numbered as such. I supposed that would make it a 0di. When it was decided to finally give it a number of some kind, it got a meat cleaver and the number 364.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 03:59:32 PM
Durham, NC with the Durham Freeway (NC 147) but it's planned to become I-885 in the near future.
Also all of the U.S. 421 freeway extending from I-40 and crossing I-77 in the middle to end up Wilkesboro. It's not fully up to interstate standards though and would require wider shoulders, but that's about it.
Adding on to this, formerly the Piedmont Triad. Going away from this trend with the lack of 3DIs, though, with the introduction of 285 and the slow progression of I-785 and I-840, which still don't play too big a role in the area's network, IIRC, although they'll eventually do that.
The Miami/Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale/blah blah blah there's a lot of these cities area, although it has I-595 and I-195, don't have their 3DIs servicing the metro area as a whole, focusing on more localized routes. So they could count as 3DI-averse, I guess. Most of the stuff they've got is state highways, in that regard it's similar to Phoenix.
Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.
Detroit really doesn't have many 3-di's.
I-75 has I-275 and I-375.
I-94 has none.
I-96 only has I-696.
I-94's bypass is really I-69 though for long distance travel, they meet near Marshall and end together in Port Huron.
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
the 3d freeways in Pittsburgh shouldn't even be allowed to be interstates, they're hot garbage
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 13, 2019, 09:45:18 AM
Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.
Historically, they've had a few, most notably BS-696 along the Lodge. However, there is BS-375 Downtown between the end of the Chrysler and the end of the Lodge, along Jefferson.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 13, 2019, 09:45:18 AM
Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.
Just I-75's in Pontiac, I-375's unsigned downtown and formerly I-96's and I-696's.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 14, 2019, 05:11:17 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 13, 2019, 09:45:18 AM
Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.
Just I-75's in Pontiac, I-375's unsigned downtown and formerly I-96's and I-696's.
Everyone forgetting when I-696 Business was on the Lodge Freeway?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 14, 2019, 05:39:12 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 14, 2019, 05:11:17 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 13, 2019, 09:45:18 AM
Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.
Just I-75's in Pontiac, I-375's unsigned downtown and formerly I-96's and I-696's.
Everyone forgetting when I-696 Business was on the Lodge Freeway?
I know of it but I think it was decommissioned by the time I was born. Crazy that they would have a business route on the Lodge.
Corpus Christi, TX.
Has Interstate 37 running to downtown, but also has two major freeways through the area, TX-286 / U.S. 181 and TX-358, none of which are signed as interstates. Both connect to I-37.
Another one in the area, TX-44, once it's fully upgraded to Robstown, it would also connect to Interstate 69.
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
So the question is, if/when I-7 or I-9 is designated along the CA 99 freeway corridor, will there be some three-digit interstates designated (either that of I-x07 or I-x09) within or near those respective cities along the corridor (Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.).
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 14, 2019, 10:37:30 PM
So the question is, if/when I-7 or I-9 is designated along the CA 99 freeway corridor, will there be some three-digit interstates designated (either that of I-x07 or I-x09) within or near those respective cities along the corridor (Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.).
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
I am aware that I-705 is the last available I-x05 in CA, but I'd reserve that for a new freeway in SoCal (either in San Diego, Los Angeles, or somewhere in between). However, I agree with those points. CA 41 would've made a great I-705, and CA 58 could've used some sort of temporary designation until it was ready to be incorporated into the I-40 corridor.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 14, 2019, 10:37:30 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
So the question is, if/when I-7 or I-9 is designated along the CA 99 freeway corridor, will there be some three-digit interstates designated (either that of I-x07 or I-x09) within or near those respective cities along the corridor (Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.).
Considering that 210/905/15 still have yet to be signed as Interstates in their respective state route sections, years after 15/905 were approved as Interstate in San Diego and 210 was submitted east of 57...
I don't see California having any interest in adding new 3di routes at this point, and the freeways in Fresno all are part of longer state routes (41, 180, 168, and of course 99) that have been in place since the 1930s.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 13, 2019, 10:16:12 PM
Detroit really doesn't have many 3-di's.
I-75 has I-275 and I-375.
I-94 has none.
I-96 only has I-696.
I-94's bypass is really I-69 though for long distance travel, they meet near Marshall and end together in Port Huron.
I remember reading years ago that M-14 was a proposed I-394 I guess that is dead now.
Quote from: dvferyance on January 15, 2019, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 13, 2019, 10:16:12 PM
Detroit really doesn't have many 3-di's.
I-75 has I-275 and I-375.
I-94 has none.
I-96 only has I-696.
I-94's bypass is really I-69 though for long distance travel, they meet near Marshall and end together in Port Huron.
I remember reading years ago that M-14 was a proposed I-394 I guess that is dead now.
Entrance ramps (one with a stop sign) and left exits leave it far short of Interstate standards.
Quote from: dvferyance on January 15, 2019, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 13, 2019, 10:16:12 PM
Detroit really doesn't have many 3-di's.
I-75 has I-275 and I-375.
I-94 has none.
I-96 only has I-696.
I-94's bypass is really I-69 though for long distance travel, they meet near Marshall and end together in Port Huron.
I remember reading years ago that M-14 was a proposed I-394 I guess that is dead now.
I would say so. I've never heard of M-14 being a proposed I-394 before.
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Quote from: TheStranger on January 15, 2019, 01:17:36 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 14, 2019, 10:37:30 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
So the question is, if/when I-7 or I-9 is designated along the CA 99 freeway corridor, will there be some three-digit interstates designated (either that of I-x07 or I-x09) within or near those respective cities along the corridor (Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.).
Considering that 210/905/15 still have yet to be signed as Interstates in their respective state route sections, years after 15/905 were approved as Interstate in San Diego and 210 was submitted east of 57...
I don't see California having any interest in adding new 3di routes at this point, and the freeways in Fresno all are part of longer state routes (41, 180, 168, and of course 99) that have been in place since the 1930s.
i-15 will be signed in san diego after they fix that SR 94 interchange, which is supposed to happen very soon, I think this or next year.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.
From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
Colorado Springs
Portland (I-205 notwithstanding)
Quote from: Mark68 on February 07, 2019, 09:12:35 PM
Colorado Springs
Portland (I-205 notwithstanding)
Portland has 405 and 205. Co Springs just has 25, they have nothing that could be a 3 digit.
Quote from: swhuck on February 07, 2019, 05:52:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.
From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
where is CA 51?
CA 51 is the eastern leg of the I-80 Business Loop in Sacramento, from US 50 north to I-80.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 07, 2019, 09:33:16 PM
Quote from: swhuck on February 07, 2019, 05:52:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.
From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
where is CA 51?
Here you go:
https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/10/california-state-route-51-failed.html
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 07, 2019, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on February 07, 2019, 09:12:35 PM
Colorado Springs
Portland (I-205 notwithstanding)
Portland has 405 and 205. Co Springs just has 25, they have nothing that could be a 3 digit.
There's technically a plan for Powers Blvd (Hwy 21) to be turned into an interstate-grade freeway around/through Colorado Springs and Fountain, but it's largely faded away. Hypothetically, it'd connect to I-25 near the Northgate Blvd interchange (exit 156) and somewhere near Pikes Peak International Raceway (milepost 123, according to Fountain). Only the portion from Woodmen Rd north has a real chance of becoming a freeway right now, and there's been little to no discussion of any extension south past Mesa Ridge Pkwy (Hwy 16).
Although I'd be inclined to say the Springs isn't against the concept of a 3DI–generally, I think they'd like to see Powers turned into a freeway, although the number probably isn't significant–they have turned down most freeway proposals of the last few decades, including US 24 to Manitou, Woodmen Rd, and Constitution Ave. The planned Banning Lewis Parkway has also been downgraded to an arterial, but that didn't really involve public input. A freeway upgrade to US 24 from I-25 to Powers is still on the books, but probably an impossibly low priority. Since it's typically referred to as the MLK Bypass and Fountain Blvd, I suppose it wouldn't be tremendously disruptive if a new freeway got a different number (as an interstate), but new freeways and new numbers aren't really CDOT's thing.
Don't forget Wis 30 in Madison (I-39/90/94 to US 151) and Wis 119 in Milwaukee.
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 10, 2019, 01:47:17 PM
Don't forget Wis 30 in Madison (I-39/90/94 to US 151) and Wis 119 in Milwaukee.
I think WIS 30 is actually a stub of the former highway that used to link Madison and Milwaukee before it was replaced with I-94. Since the 1960s (when that segment of I-94 was completed), it's been the shortest 2 digit state highway in Wisconsin. I also don't think either of the state highways you mentioned (as well as 441 and 172) were ever meant to be re-designated as interstates when they were built.
If they were to be re-designated as interstates, then I would make WIS 30 and 119 I-394 and 194 respectively. 441 would become I-441; I'm not sure about 172. That would have to depend on whether Wisconsin would designate 3dis that connect two interstates but don't connect with the original interstate with an odd or even first digit. There's no examples like that in Wisconsin, so this would be new.
Quote from: swhuck on February 07, 2019, 05:52:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.
From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
If the freeway in Stockton becomes an interstate, CA-4 should be moved back to Charter Way.
Quote from: mrsman on February 15, 2019, 03:11:41 PM
Quote from: swhuck on February 07, 2019, 05:52:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.
From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
If the freeway in Stockton becomes an interstate, CA-4 should be moved back to Charter Way.
It's California. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Quote from: swhuck on February 15, 2019, 04:42:46 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 15, 2019, 03:11:41 PM
Quote from: swhuck on February 07, 2019, 05:52:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.
From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
If the freeway in Stockton becomes an interstate, CA-4 should be moved back to Charter Way.
It's California. I wouldn't hold my breath.
The last thing the State Highway system needs is another gapped Route by Interstate like CA 16.
QuoteYup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80.
Related to that, there used to be an 880 postmile on the current I-80 alignment north of downtown just west of the I-5 interchange. I have a picture of it around here somewhere, but I couldn't find it the last time I was on the north end of town.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 06, 2019, 01:18:54 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2019, 10:11:50 PM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI actually asked ADOT why that was. The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.
There's a bit of truth in this. ADOT requested mileage for six supplemental Interstate routes in Phoenix and three in Tucson from the 1968 mileage addition. Only two were approved...one in each city. One became today's I-10 along the Papago Freeway between I-17 (Exit 143) and AZ 51/AZ 202. The other was the cancelled I-710 in Tucson (today's South Kino Pkwy).
That is really interesting. I always wondered why I-10 crossed I-17 in downtown Phoenix, and then immediately met it again at its southern terminus, making the shape of a small rectangle together.
Originally, the current east-west leg of I-17 (south of downtown Phoenix) was planned to be part of I-10, before being moved to its current alignment.
Some of the current freeways in the Phoenix area were planned with different numbers (either AZ x10 or AZ x17). AZ 51 was once planned as I-510, then SR 510, for example.
The best chance of a 3di in Arizona is probably going to be in the Tucson area. There are plans for a highway bypass called the Sonoran Corridor (AZ 410) and a possible freeway extension of AZ 210 to connect to I-10 near Alvernon Way. Could portions of either highway, if built, get an interstate shield? Possibly, but realistically unlikely right now.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 20, 2019, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 06, 2019, 01:18:54 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2019, 10:11:50 PM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI actually asked ADOT why that was. The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.
There's a bit of truth in this. ADOT requested mileage for six supplemental Interstate routes in Phoenix and three in Tucson from the 1968 mileage addition. Only two were approved...one in each city. One became today's I-10 along the Papago Freeway between I-17 (Exit 143) and AZ 51/AZ 202. The other was the cancelled I-710 in Tucson (today's South Kino Pkwy).
That is really interesting. I always wondered why I-10 crossed I-17 in downtown Phoenix, and then immediately met it again at its southern terminus, making the shape of a small rectangle together.
Originally, the current east-west leg of I-17 (south of downtown Phoenix) was planned to be part of I-10, before being moved to its current alignment.
Some of the current freeways in the Phoenix area were planned with different numbers (either AZ x10 or AZ x17). AZ 51 was once planned as I-510, then SR 510, for example.
The best chance of a 3di in Arizona is probably going to be in the Tucson area. There are plans for a highway bypass called the Sonoran Corridor (AZ 410) and a possible freeway extension of AZ 210 to connect to I-10 near Alvernon Way. Could portions of either highway, if built, get an interstate shield? Possibly, but realistically unlikely right now.
don't think az 210 will become an interstate or be connected to 10 on the northside of downtown.
Quote from: swhuck on February 07, 2019, 05:52:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.
From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
I always assumed that the I-7 (or I-9) designation would follow CA 99 North all the way to Sacramento, but I had failed to realize until now just how substandard CA 99 is between Stockton and Sacramento (for interstate standards). It will indeed be interesting to see if that ever changes in the future.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 20, 2019, 06:12:25 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 20, 2019, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 06, 2019, 01:18:54 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2019, 10:11:50 PM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI actually asked ADOT why that was. The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.
There's a bit of truth in this. ADOT requested mileage for six supplemental Interstate routes in Phoenix and three in Tucson from the 1968 mileage addition. Only two were approved...one in each city. One became today's I-10 along the Papago Freeway between I-17 (Exit 143) and AZ 51/AZ 202. The other was the cancelled I-710 in Tucson (today's South Kino Pkwy).
That is really interesting. I always wondered why I-10 crossed I-17 in downtown Phoenix, and then immediately met it again at its southern terminus, making the shape of a small rectangle together.
Originally, the current east-west leg of I-17 (south of downtown Phoenix) was planned to be part of I-10, before being moved to its current alignment.
Some of the current freeways in the Phoenix area were planned with different numbers (either AZ x10 or AZ x17). AZ 51 was once planned as I-510, then SR 510, for example.
The best chance of a 3di in Arizona is probably going to be in the Tucson area. There are plans for a highway bypass called the Sonoran Corridor (AZ 410) and a possible freeway extension of AZ 210 to connect to I-10 near Alvernon Way. Could portions of either highway, if built, get an interstate shield? Possibly, but realistically unlikely right now.
don't think az 210 will become an interstate or be connected to 10 on the northside of downtown.
Any freeway plans for AZ 210 are for an extension that is southeast of downtown Tucson.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on February 20, 2019, 07:13:22 PM
Quote from: swhuck on February 07, 2019, 05:52:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.
From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
I always assumed that the I-7 (or I-9) designation would follow CA 99 North all the way to Sacramento, but I had failed to realize until now just how substandard CA 99 is between Stockton and Sacramento (for interstate standards). It will indeed be interesting to see if that ever changes in the future.
Since HPC #54, the 2005 "vehicle" containing the codicil that it's a future Interstate specifies the full CA 99 corridor as far north as Sacramento -- and since in the ensuing 14 years there has been additional population increases along both I-5 and CA 99 between Stockton and Sacramento, as time passes it's increasingly likely that any Interstate deployed along CA 99
will include the stretch between those two cities. When the possibility of such a route was posited back around 2004, it was surmised that the myriad substandard features around eastern Stockton and between Lodi and Elk Grove wouldn't be considered in the corridor and that it would simply turn west in Stockton along the CA 4 freeway to terminate at I-5 to avoid that stretch of CA 99 north from there. But several projects along CA 99 have brought much of that route up to or near Interstate standards; the major obstacles now are narrow bridges through Galt and the over/under grade separation over the UP tracks south of Elk Grove. SB, the underpass is
seriously low at only 14'5" clearance (a leftover from the original 2-lane US 99/LRN 4), while NB the overpass lacks shoulders. But CA 99 has been improved, with Interstate-standard 4' inner and 10' outer paved shoulders north to Galt, where the substandard bridges over several creeks and channels remain -- although the interchanges in town have been revamped. The Galt-Elk Grove section largely resembles the still-substandard CA 99 section farther south between Delano and Goshen.
But eventually all those segments will be addressed if only (at least in the case of the Elk Grove segment) because the population increase in that area and the corresponding traffic counts warrant such action. Once concrete plans for upgrades are in place, there will be no specific obstacles to eventual Interstate signage if and when such is formally sought. The Stockton "shunt" over to I-5 was a stop-gap arrangement proposed by some Interstate conversion backers, primarily from the Fresno area, about 15 years ago to expedite the changeover. Clearly, that didn't happen -- and demographic circumstances since then will likely call for Interstate designation over the full route north to Sacramento.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 10, 2019, 06:27:14 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 10, 2019, 01:47:17 PM
Don't forget Wis 30 in Madison (I-39/90/94 to US 151) and Wis 119 in Milwaukee.
I think WIS 30 is actually a stub of the former highway that used to link Madison and Milwaukee before it was replaced with I-94. Since the 1960s (when that segment of I-94 was completed), it's been the shortest 2 digit state highway in Wisconsin. I also don't think either of the state highways you mentioned (as well as 441 and 172) were ever meant to be re-designated as interstates when they were built.
If they were to be re-designated as interstates, then I would make WIS 30 and 119 I-394 and 194 respectively. 441 would become I-441; I'm not sure about 172. That would have to depend on whether Wisconsin would designate 3dis that connect two interstates but don't connect with the original interstate with an odd or even first digit. There's no examples like that in Wisconsin, so this would be new.
WIS 119 converting to interstate will never happen. Especially since it was rebuilt a few years ago to have a sort of "parkway" feel (even though it's a freeway between I-94 and the airport). For many years, they didn't even sign it, but during the I-94 rebuild, they finally put up WIS 119 signs to aid navagation, since it was already on most maps.
I could see WIS 441 becoming an interstate someday. It was created long before I-41, but always functioned as a sort of 3di of US 41. Wisconsin is not as aggressive as, say, North Carolina or Texas about creating far-fetched interstate highways in their state. They pretty much just want to link some of the bigger metro areas to attract commercial development (I-39 and I-41) or to create convenient links between points in the system (I-43). However, I always thought WIS 29 would work as an Interstate corridor, linking Green Bay and Wausau directly to Minneapolis/St. Paul. Call it I-96.
Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2019, 05:13:37 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on February 20, 2019, 07:13:22 PM
Quote from: swhuck on February 07, 2019, 05:52:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 AM
Quote from: michravera on January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM
Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards? Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.
From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
I always assumed that the I-7 (or I-9) designation would follow CA 99 North all the way to Sacramento, but I had failed to realize until now just how substandard CA 99 is between Stockton and Sacramento (for interstate standards). It will indeed be interesting to see if that ever changes in the future.
Since HPC #54, the 2005 "vehicle" containing the codicil that it's a future Interstate specifies the full CA 99 corridor as far north as Sacramento -- and since in the ensuing 14 years there has been additional population increases along both I-5 and CA 99 between Stockton and Sacramento, as time passes it's increasingly likely that any Interstate deployed along CA 99 will include the stretch between those two cities. When the possibility of such a route was posited back around 2004, it was surmised that the myriad substandard features around eastern Stockton and between Lodi and Elk Grove wouldn't be considered in the corridor and that it would simply turn west in Stockton along the CA 4 freeway to terminate at I-5 to avoid that stretch of CA 99 north from there. But several projects along CA 99 have brought much of that route up to or near Interstate standards; the major obstacles now are narrow bridges through Galt and the over/under grade separation over the UP tracks south of Elk Grove. SB, the underpass is seriously low at only 14'5" clearance (a leftover from the original 2-lane US 99/LRN 4), while NB the overpass lacks shoulders. But CA 99 has been improved, with Interstate-standard 4' inner and 10' outer paved shoulders north to Galt, where the substandard bridges over several creeks and channels remain -- although the interchanges in town have been revamped. The Galt-Elk Grove section largely resembles the still-substandard CA 99 section farther south between Delano and Goshen.
But eventually all those segments will be addressed if only (at least in the case of the Elk Grove segment) because the population increase in that area and the corresponding traffic counts warrant such action. Once concrete plans for upgrades are in place, there will be no specific obstacles to eventual Interstate signage if and when such is formally sought. The Stockton "shunt" over to I-5 was a stop-gap arrangement proposed by some Interstate conversion backers, primarily from the Fresno area, about 15 years ago to expedite the changeover. Clearly, that didn't happen -- and demographic circumstances since then will likely call for Interstate designation over the full route north to Sacramento.
Some of the exits between Galt and Elk Grove more resemble holes in the fence than freeway exits. Some Texas-style short exits to frontage roads might make things work. The problem is that most of the frontage roads at the moment are two-way.
Quote from: FightingIrish on February 24, 2019, 09:29:35 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 10, 2019, 06:27:14 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 10, 2019, 01:47:17 PM
Don't forget Wis 30 in Madison (I-39/90/94 to US 151) and Wis 119 in Milwaukee.
I think WIS 30 is actually a stub of the former highway that used to link Madison and Milwaukee before it was replaced with I-94. Since the 1960s (when that segment of I-94 was completed), it's been the shortest 2 digit state highway in Wisconsin. I also don't think either of the state highways you mentioned (as well as 441 and 172) were ever meant to be re-designated as interstates when they were built.
If they were to be re-designated as interstates, then I would make WIS 30 and 119 I-394 and 194 respectively. 441 would become I-441; I'm not sure about 172. That would have to depend on whether Wisconsin would designate 3dis that connect two interstates but don't connect with the original interstate with an odd or even first digit. There's no examples like that in Wisconsin, so this would be new.
WIS 119 converting to interstate will never happen. Especially since it was rebuilt a few years ago to have a sort of "parkway" feel (even though it's a freeway between I-94 and the airport). For many years, they didn't even sign it, but during the I-94 rebuild, they finally put up WIS 119 signs to aid navagation, since it was already on most maps.
I could see WIS 441 becoming an interstate someday. It was created long before I-41, but always functioned as a sort of 3di of US 41. Wisconsin is not as aggressive as, say, North Carolina or Texas about creating far-fetched interstate highways in their state. They pretty much just want to link some of the bigger metro areas to attract commercial development (I-39 and I-41) or to create convenient links between points in the system (I-43). However, I always thought WIS 29 would work as an Interstate corridor, linking Green Bay and Wausau directly to Minneapolis/St. Paul. Call it I-96.
Manty, yes I am aware that the current 30 corridor was what remains of the old Wis 30 between Milwaukee and Madison. It ran on what is now County T in Dane County.
Also, I would make Wis 172 become I-443 or I-343 since I-43 had existed before I-41 and neither number has ever been in use in Wisconsin.
Fighting Irish, That is true about Wis 119. It does have a parkway feel to it. However, since it goes to the airport directly, it would not be the first interstate 3di to serve that purpose. See I-190 for O'Hare, I-195 for BWI and I-678 for JFK. I do think that many of the freeways and parkways that lead into (or by) an airport should get an interstate spur designation. For example, I also think that Pena Pkwy in Denver, International Pkwy in Dallas, Hardy Toll Road in Houston, FL 60 & 589 in Tampa, Anderson Beachline Expy in Orlando, Airport Expy in Miami would also be candidates of expressways that should get a 3di designation.
I am not one who is a stickler for "interstate standards" if it is a road that is an existing freeway. We have grandfathered roads into the system before. Looking at you Penn Tpk.