News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

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

Started by Lyon Wonder, February 08, 2015, 09:13:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

NE2

The original intent was socialism. Defense was tacked on to make it more palatable to the hawks.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".


1995hoo

Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet?  Okay, here goes.

I-238

:drops mic, walks off:

hbelkins had already listed it.

I had thought of it but didn't mention it because I've never been out there and so I don't know whether it's a situation where it merits an Interstate number, just not the one it has, or whether it's an overall waste of a number.




Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
QuoteI-564 in Norfolk (yes, it serves the naval base, but why does it need an Interstate number to do that?)

As I mentioned above with I-781, this serves a valid purpose of the original intention for the Interstates.  Nevermind that it's the biggest naval base in the world (in terms of ships and personnel)...

Sure, I recognize the "defense" aspect of the system. Doesn't change my general feeling that an Interstate number isn't really "needed" on that road. That's not an insult to the naval base so much as it is my general feeling on particularly short Interstate stubs that don't promote some sort of thru movement.

I haven't been through the Watertown area since I-781 opened (most recent trip through there was January 2006 on the way home from Mont-Tremblant and Ottawa), but I gather from what others have said and from looking at a map that it's a bit of a different animal than I-564 due to serving as a sort of bypass around Watertown.

I'm sure if someone wanted to take the time, we could come up with plenty of defense facilities served by freeways that aren't designated as Interstates, after all (although I suppose Texas has expressed an interest in designating US-190 as an Interstate to serve Fort Hood).
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

english si

Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.

Here's a list:
OR I-105 (OR126)
MT I-115 (I-15BL, I-90BL)
TN I-124 (US27)
SC I-126 (US76)
NE-IA I-129 (US20, US75)
AR FI130 (I-49)
MO-TN I-155 (US412)
IL I-172 (IL110)
WY I-180 (US85, US87Bus, I-25 BL)
WA I-182 (US12)
SD I-190 (US16)
MI I-194 (MI66)
OK I-235 (US77)
CO I-270 (US36)
OH I-277 (US224)
NC FI852 (US52)
CA I-305 (I-80BL)
MT I-315 (US89, I-15BL)
TX I-345 (US75)
TX I-369 (US59)
IA I-380 (US218)
NH I-393 (US4, US202)
NC I-495 (including future section) (US64)
LA I-510 (LA47)
NV I-515 (US93, US95)
AR I-530 (US65)
AR FI555 (US63)
AL I-565 (US72 Alt)
NV I-580 (US395)
VA I-581 (US220)
SC I-585 (US176)
NY I-587 (NY28)
MD I-595 (US50)
NY I-790 (NY5)
IN I-865 (US52)
NY I-878 (NY878)
WY I-894 (Future I-41)
LA I-910 (US90 Bus)

Edit: added future routes

kkt

Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:58:24 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2015, 11:43:58 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet?  Okay, here goes.

I-238

:drops mic, walks off:

Not needing a number is different from needing its number changed.
Just going with the OP here.  A 3di that shouldn't have an interstate designation.  I think 238 fits this.  It could easily just stay CA-238.

Not really.

1. I-238 is built to interstate standards and carries a lot of out-of-area traffic, especially trucks as I-580 does not allow trucks through Oakland.  Interstate status makes it clearer that it's a good through route.  CA 238 is a surface street boulevard.

2. If you follow CA 238 north to its end you don't end up on I-238.  To get on I-238 you must turn and go a couple of blocks on other streets to get to the freeway entrance.  Likewise if you follow I-238 to its east end if you don't take an exit you end up on I-580, not CA 238.

3.  I-238's upgrade to interstate standards was built with interstate funds.

I-238 should have an interstate number, just not that one.  I-480 is the obvious choice, now that it's been decades since the Embarcadero Freeway was open.

1995hoo

Quote from: english si on February 09, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.

....

Are there any situations in which the non-Interstate designation denotes a class of roads on which certain classes of trucks might be prohibited? If so, could a desire or need to allow trucks be a reason for posting the Interstate number? I suppose the alternate solution to that is to change the regulations on trucks, but I have no idea whether that's realistic or practical.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

TheStranger

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 09, 2015, 12:51:06 PM
Quote from: english si on February 09, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.

....

Are there any situations in which the non-Interstate designation denotes a class of roads on which certain classes of trucks might be prohibited? If so, could a desire or need to allow trucks be a reason for posting the Interstate number?

If I'm not mistaken, this was the specific rationale for North Carolina's I-795 (though the concurrency with US 117 has since been removed).

(edit to fix minor typo)
Chris Sampang

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

1995hoo

Quote from: TheStranger on February 09, 2015, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 09, 2015, 12:51:06 PM
Quote from: english si on February 09, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.

....

Are there any situations in which the non-Interstate designation denotes a class of roads on which certain classes of trucks might be prohibited? If so, could a desire or need to allow trucks be a reason for posting the Interstate number?

If I'm not mistaken, this was the specific rational for North Carolina's I-795 (though the concurrency with US 117 has since been removed).

I believe that's true and I noted it in an earlier post, though in passing. I wonder if there are any others?
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

kkt


kphoger

Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:58:24 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2015, 11:43:58 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet?  Okay, here goes.

I-238

:drops mic, walks off:

Not needing a number is different from needing its number changed.
Just going with the OP here.  A 3di that shouldn't have an interstate designation.  I think 238 fits this.  It could easily just stay CA-238.

Not really.

1. I-238 is built to interstate standards and carries a lot of out-of-area traffic, especially trucks as I-580 does not allow trucks through Oakland.  Interstate status makes it clearer that it's a good through route.  CA 238 is a surface street boulevard.

2. If you follow CA 238 north to its end you don't end up on I-238.  To get on I-238 you must turn and go a couple of blocks on other streets to get to the freeway entrance.  Likewise if you follow I-238 to its east end if you don't take an exit you end up on I-580, not CA 238.

3.  I-238's upgrade to interstate standards was built with interstate funds.

I-238 should have an interstate number, just not that one.  I-480 is the obvious choice, now that it's been decades since the Embarcadero Freeway was open.


I-238's number should be "TO-580". Eliminate the unnecessary 3di altogether. Perfect example of a glorified system of exit ramps. Just as Texas doesn't sign 345, California shouldn't sign 238.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kphoger

Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 01:34:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:27:00 PM
My nomination:  H*.*

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


No. I was harking back to the good old days of DOS. H*.* meaning anything beginning with H. The H- highways are not useful for interstate traffic.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

corco


kkt

Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:36:52 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
Not really.

1. I-238 is built to interstate standards and carries a lot of out-of-area traffic, especially trucks as I-580 does not allow trucks through Oakland.  Interstate status makes it clearer that it's a good through route.  CA 238 is a surface street boulevard.

2. If you follow CA 238 north to its end you don't end up on I-238.  To get on I-238 you must turn and go a couple of blocks on other streets to get to the freeway entrance.  Likewise if you follow I-238 to its east end if you don't take an exit you end up on I-580, not CA 238.

3.  I-238's upgrade to interstate standards was built with interstate funds.

I-238 should have an interstate number, just not that one.  I-480 is the obvious choice, now that it's been decades since the Embarcadero Freeway was open.
I-238's number should be "TO-580". Eliminate the unnecessary 3di altogether. Perfect example of a glorified system of exit ramps. Just as Texas doesn't sign 345, California shouldn't sign 238.

Why do roads have numbers?  So you know where to turn and can concisely describe your location if you're stalled or there's an accident.  "To 580" is not unique, and the exits off of it would be a issue with panicky drivers on a fuzzy cellphone.

Should all the shortest interstates on Kurumi's list also be eliminated?  I-238 is too long to even be on the list...

http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/long3di.html

TheStranger

Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 01:34:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:27:00 PM
My nomination:  H*.*

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


No. I was harking back to the good old days of DOS. H*.* meaning anything beginning with H. The H- highways are not useful for interstate traffic.

The Hawaii freeways received the Interstate shields due to the funding used to build those roads (and if I'm not mistaken, all of them pass near active military bases).
Chris Sampang

kphoger

Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

JakeFromNewEngland

I-291 in CT doesn't really need a designation. If it was ever completed as a full beltway then of course, but it's really just a connector between I-91 and I-84. You could get away with signing it as CT 218.

DTComposer

Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 02:14:18 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument then that the I-H* routes shouldn't be signed because they don't serve Interstate traffic?

Would the argument then be that the majority of all 3dis shouldn't be signed as such? I-405 in California, for example, while functioning as a bypass/alternate to I-5 in L.A., doesn't really serve any Interstate purpose.

Beyond that (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), but the 139(a) Non-Chargeable Interstates don't necessarily receive Federal funding, right? So the shields aren't always a signifier of where the funding came from, but rather the route's functionality within the system?

hotdogPi

Quote from: DTComposer on February 09, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 02:14:18 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument then that the I-H* routes shouldn't be signed because they don't serve Interstate traffic?

Would the argument then be that the majority of all 3dis shouldn't be signed as such? I-405 in California, for example, while functioning as a bypass/alternate to I-5 in L.A., doesn't really serve any Interstate purpose.

Beyond that (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), but the 139(a) Non-Chargeable Interstates don't necessarily receive Federal funding, right? So the shields aren't always a signifier of where the funding came from, but rather the route's functionality within the system?

Most 3dis do serve "Interstate" traffic (by connecting to Interstates that go into another state). The exceptions are Alaska/Hawaii and the I-2 area.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

froggie

QuoteIA I-380 (US218)

IA 27 in this case, not US 218 (which is separate from I-380 between Cedar Rapids and Waterloo).  It should also be noted that the IA 27 designation came MUCH LATER than I-380 did.

DTComposer

Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2015, 02:33:07 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on February 09, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 02:14:18 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument then that the I-H* routes shouldn't be signed because they don't serve Interstate traffic?

Would the argument then be that the majority of all 3dis shouldn't be signed as such? I-405 in California, for example, while functioning as a bypass/alternate to I-5 in L.A., doesn't really serve any Interstate purpose.

Beyond that (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), but the 139(a) Non-Chargeable Interstates don't necessarily receive Federal funding, right? So the shields aren't always a signifier of where the funding came from, but rather the route's functionality within the system?

Most 3dis do serve "Interstate" traffic (by connecting to Interstates that go into another state). The exceptions are Alaska/Hawaii and the I-2 area.

But then, so do most state and U.S. routes, so would you then argue for the FritzOwl Interstate numbering scheme?

My point was more this: people driving into California from another state don't use I-405 for its stated Interstate purpose (an I-5 bypass/alternate), though they may use it to get to their destination in the region, the same way they might use CA-57, or CA-91, or any number of other non-Interstate freeways in the region. So from that standpoint, I-405 shouldn't have an Interstate designation, whereas a route like I-580 or I-505, which allow long-haul traffic to more easily connect to the Bay Area from I-5 (or vice-versa), do justify their Interstate designation.

kphoger

Quote from: DTComposer on February 09, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 02:14:18 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument then that the I-H* routes shouldn't be signed because they don't serve Interstate traffic?

Would the argument then be that the majority of all 3dis shouldn't be signed as such? I-405 in California, for example, while functioning as a bypass/alternate to I-5 in L.A., doesn't really serve any Interstate purpose.

Beyond that (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), but the 139(a) Non-Chargeable Interstates don't necessarily receive Federal funding, right? So the shields aren't always a signifier of where the funding came from, but rather the route's functionality within the system?

Yes, an Interstate should connect to an interstate highway network in order to carry a blue shield. That's kind of the point. If I-405 serves as an alternate or bypass route to I-5, then it obviously does serve any interstate traffic wishing to bypass that area. Or, alternatively, it serves commercial traffic making deliveries to the area from other states. Etc.

And you may be right about non-chargeable Interstates and funding. My point is that many (apparently not all) of the highways suggested received funding from that source, so we shouldn't consider it a deal breaker for the purposes of this thread.

Hawaii's Interstates should be unsigned, just like the freeway portions of Alaska's and PR's Interstates.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

GaryV

Quote from: english si on February 09, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.

Here's a list:
Need to add I-296 (US-131) - and it's not even signed.

hbelkins

Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet?  Okay, here goes.

I-238

:drops mic, walks off:

Ahem...

Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2015, 10:56:05 AM
For routes I haven't driven, the obvious ones are I-180 Wyoming and I-238 California.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Molandfreak

Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 03:50:35 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.
What's the point? Hawaii doesn't deserve to sign Interstates that they built to standards? and who suggested signing I-A1 on the Richardson?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.