3DI’s that shouldn’t have an interstate designation?

[NE2]

I-190: I-90✈
WIS 119: I-94✈

This way, there won't be a limit to the amount of airport spurs a state can have.

Nah, make them all I-980.

[TheCatalyst31]

I would add I-110 in LA.  They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb.  If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.

Louisiana has an I-110, so that maaaybe isn't the best way to describe the one in CA.  And that situation actually makes a lot of sense; the Harbor Freeway has 2-3x the traffic of the Arroyo Seco Parkway, and the latter isn't at Interstate standards and won't be anytime soon (unless you believe the land of No 710 will approve a major highway project).

[cpzilliacus]

Any 3di that is not signed. If you aren't going to sign it, don't designate it.

*cough* I-595 in Maryland *cough*

Agreed.

[cpzilliacus]

I-370 in Maryland (although now a little more important with the completion of MD 200) is a glorified connector to a Metro station, although I do appreciate its function.

I-370 should be decommissioned and its length signed as Md. 200. 

Even better, transfer maintenance responsibility for I-370 and unsigned Md. 200A (the old part of I-370 from the site of the Md. 200 interchange to the Shady Grove rail station) from the Maryland State Highway Administration to the Maryland Transportation Authority.

[TheStranger]

I would add I-110 in LA.  They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb.  If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.

110 north of 101 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway) is a historic route in a tight corridor where upgrading to interstate standards would be extremely disruptive.

A freeway where one portion is a state route and one is an Interstate is not uncommon in California and like 110 generally was created in the 1980s (880/17, 980/24). 

[cpzilliacus]

I would add I-110 in LA.  They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb.  If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.

110 north of 101 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway) is a historic route in a tight corridor where upgrading to interstate standards would be extremely disruptive.

A freeway where one portion is a state route and one is an Interstate is not uncommon in California and like 110 generally was created in the 1980s (880/17, 980/24).

I have no problem with the corridor being signed as Ca. 110 north of downtown Los Angeles and I-110 south of there, though if we go back in time far enough, it was all posted as Ca. 11.

Ca. 110 is a "dead end" freeway parkway that only indirectly connects to I-210.

I-110 links downtown L.A. with I-105, I-405 and the Port of Los Angeles and thus has regional and even national importance (and yes, I know that many of the trucks headed east from the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach toward I-10, I-15 and I-40 prefer I-710).

[TheStranger]

I would add I-110 in LA.  They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb.  If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.

110 north of 101 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway) is a historic route in a tight corridor where upgrading to interstate standards would be extremely disruptive.

A freeway where one portion is a state route and one is an Interstate is not uncommon in California and like 110 generally was created in the 1980s (880/17, 980/24).

I have no problem with the corridor being signed as Ca. 110 north of downtown Los Angeles and I-110 south of there, though if we go back in time far enough, it was all posted as Ca. 11.

Even further back, the I-110/Harbor Freeway portion was US 6 and the Route 110/Arroyo Seco Parkway portion was US 66 (with 6 overlapping the latter to Avenue 26).  As a single-designation route from north to south, it only existed as such from 1964-1981.

[roadman65]

IMO, basically any interstate less than a mile long that has no identity of its own.

It was spoken on this forum before but some interstates like I-175 and I-375 are just glorified exit ramps for I-275.

[kkt]

IMO, basically any interstate less than a mile long that has no identity of its own.

It was spoken on this forum before but some interstates like I-175 and I-375 are just glorified exit ramps for I-275.

It comes down to what the interstate shield is supposed to mean.  If interstate funding paid for its construction, some people think there ought to be a sign saying so.

[yakra]

My nomination:  H*.*

They should say "intrastate"  at the top of the shield.

So that would be just I-H-201, right?  The others being one-digit?

I-H2: Not to be confused with IH 2!

Is there something wrong with a J-Shaped Route?

No. Nothing at all.

I know I'm late jumping in here, but vtk's suggestion was pretty much how they were originally signed along with being signed I-465. INDOT changed it to prevent an intersection of 3 I-465s in the northwest corner.

TX Loop 224 is designated, but a quick check of GMSV suggests, not signed, that way. The I-865-equivalent "tail" is just signed as US59.
TX Loop 323's "tail" is also signed as TO Loop 323, and TO US271/TX155. That's no fun, is it.

Nah, make them all I-980.

AUGH! MY EYES! I cannot unsee that... I could have remained blissfully ignorant. No thanks to you...

[I94RoadRunner]

How about I-585 in SC .....? I just clinched this "interstate" 3 days ago road tripping back from Florida and it is the most substandard interstate I have seen aside from I-180 in Wyoming. Not to mention that it was orphaned by its parent when the bypass of I-85 in Spartanburg got built .....

[OracleUsr]

Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.

Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.

[I94RoadRunner]

Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.

Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.

I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.

The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.

[rickmastfan67]

Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.

Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.

I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.

The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.

The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0

[I94RoadRunner]

Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.

Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.

I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.

The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.

The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0

It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....

[NE2]

This one-mile sign for I-85 makes it clear that they're planning to rebuild the interchange.

[I94RoadRunner]

This one-mile sign for I-85 makes it clear that they're planning to rebuild the interchange.

Yep, it is on the books SPUI. Any idea what configuration is planned there .....? I have my idea which I will post on another thread .....

[rickmastfan67]

Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.

Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.

I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.

The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.

The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0

It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....

There is on the ramps at least since Oct. '12.
http://goo.gl/maps/3JcxL

[I94RoadRunner]

Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.

Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.

I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.

The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.

The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0

It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....

Interesting. There were no reassurance shields that I remember ....

Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.

Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.

I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.

The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.

The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0

It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....

There is on the ramps at least since Oct. '12.
http://goo.gl/maps/3JcxL

Looks like this must be southbound. I went northbound B.L. I-85 and looped back on I-85 to US 176 'To I-585'.

I bet this is due to the new ramp that was recently rebuilt for B.L. I-85 south to northbound US 176 and I guess I-585 according to this photo .....

Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.

Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.

I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.

The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.

The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0

It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....

There is on the ramps at least since Oct. '12.
http://goo.gl/maps/3JcxL

I went northbound and there was not an exit for BL I-85 north to northbound US 176/I-585 so had no idea what the southbound signs were showing. I will bet that I-585 being extended north had something to do with the new BL I-85 south to US 176 ramp being rebuilt .....?