News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Interstate 2

Started by Strider, July 18, 2013, 11:38:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 03:52:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 01:37:15 PM

I cringe every time I see those old shields.

what's wrong with them?  I actually think they look great.

Oh I don't like the arrows on the shields. It's a weird problem I have since Texas until this year was the only state that didn't put the exit number on the gore sign and instead put it as a separate tab; it somehow reminds me of that and looks a little lazy to me, IMO.

Texas is far from the only state to do that.  Iowa until very recently, also put the number on a separate tab on top of the sign.

I know Texas is not the only state that does it, but in my travels and looking through pictures it seamed to be the only state that did it exclusively. Missouri does it some, and I can think of some specific situations where it exists in other states, like the eastbound I-10 exit for Bussiness Route 90 in New Orleans, and the western junction of I-10 and I-17 in Phoenix on the westbound lanes on I-10 exit to I-17.


NE2

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 24, 2013, 12:49:07 PM
Ohio once had US-40 routed on I-70 just to get people to use the freeway, and then they moved it back.  I don't recall them getting a special waiver above and beyond the standard AASHO procedures.

This was probably done before they became ASSHOles about it.
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".

Alps

Quote from: TheStranger on July 24, 2013, 12:37:46 PM
Quote from: vtk on July 24, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.

Of course, as with all AASHTO rules, they are made to be broken (US 377!), right!?

In all seriousness though, didn't NCDOT successfully move US 117 back to its original route after I-795 was designated?
I don't know if FHWA recognizes that 117 was moved back. But I agree with the stupidity of the rule. It was only enacted after the I-system was in place, or else we'd be missing a whole lot more of our highway network.

NE2

I don't think FHWA cares about U.S. Route numbering, except for the purpose of inventorying NHS routes.

(And now I need to change my North Carolina trivia question from "AASHTO did not approve moving this route off I-795, but NCDOT did it anyway.")
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".

vtk

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 24, 2013, 12:49:07 PM
Quote from: vtk on July 24, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.

Ohio once had US-40 routed on I-70 just to get people to use the freeway, and then they moved it back.  I don't recall them getting a special waiver above and beyond the standard AASHO procedures.

That was in the 60s. I'm sure this rule is not that old.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 12:59:37 PM
But in Texas, bannered routes are state highways. So it isn't a local road per se.

By 'local' I didn't mean not a state highway – I meant not a freeway or road built specifically for long-distance travel.  I don't know how the actual rule is worded, but that's the general intention as I understand it.

Personally, I'd prefer to see US 83 stay on the freeway, and Business US 83 becomes Business I-2.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

stormwatch7721

I remember seeing I-2 pictures on here but I can't find them now.

ethanhopkin14


stormwatch7721


apjung

#58
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 03:52:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 01:37:15 PM

I cringe every time I see those old shields.

what's wrong with them?  I actually think they look great.

Oh I don't like the arrows on the shields. It's a weird problem I have since Texas until this year was the only state that didn't put the exit number on the gore sign and instead put it as a separate tab; it somehow reminds me of that and looks a little lazy to me, IMO.

Texas is far from the only state to do that.  Iowa until very recently, also put the number on a separate tab on top of the sign.

The only place in Louisiana I can think of that puts the exit sign with a tab is here at I-10 Westbound at US 90 Business in New Orleans.
http://goo.gl/maps/7e3Dz

pctech

I-69C? Is TXDOT splitting their segments of I-69 into different routes?

1995hoo

"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.

Avalanchez71

#61
Is the first Central split? Now to think of it my state has a central split, US 70.  However, we sign it as US 70 and not US 70C!

kkt

Quote from: Rover_0 on July 24, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83.  I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide.  I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.

I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.

The rule makes sense.  The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed.  Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 24, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83.  I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide.  I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.

I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.

The rule makes sense.  The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed.  Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.

I honestly don't see it from a road geek point of view, but instead from an information overload point of view. That's why I hate long distance cosigning; it is too cluttered. I don't give a crap about the historic route, I just want one route to be I-2 and another to be US 83.  Besides, if you routed US 83 back on the business route, even the stupidest motorist knows that the interstate is the quick, through direct route and the US highway is the route with the traffic lights, driveways and people crossing the road.

silverback1065

anyone else think they should have made i-69e south of i-2, i-2 and not i-69e?

Bobby5280

From the aesthetic point of view, with I-69 being the NAFTA route, my guess is the powers that be wanted I-69 numbered routes going to the border crossings at Laredo and Brownsville.

Perhaps in the long run I-2 could run concurrent with I-69E for a few miles and then swallow up the TX-550 toll road and then maybe be extended along the Brownsville-Port Isabel highway (TX-48) to TX-100, stopping just short of South Padre Island.

The I-2 numbering kind of annoys me a little. It might have made more sense giving it a 3 digit number like I-669. But then again I don't know where else in the contiguous 48 states an I-2 route could exist. The existing route is around 48 miles long, which makes it longer than I-97 and the Interstate routes in Hawaii.

Chances are probably very slim I-2 would be extended to Laredo. About 120 miles of upgrades to US-83 (and bypasses around Los Lomas, Rio Grande City, Escobares, Roma Creek and Zapata) would be in order. If that ever happened the route would be around 170 miles in length, making it longer than I-4 in Florida (132 miles). I-2 would even be longer than I-27 (124 miles).

vtk

Quote from: silverback1065 on July 25, 2013, 01:47:22 PM
anyone else think they should have made i-69e south of i-2, i-2 and not i-69e?

I hadn't thought of that, but I think AASHTO's hands were tied on that matter.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: vtk on July 25, 2013, 02:06:41 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 25, 2013, 01:47:22 PM
anyone else think they should have made i-69e south of i-2, i-2 and not i-69e?

I hadn't thought of that, but I think AASHTO's hands were tied on that matter.

Yeah, their hands were tied, since, by law, I-69 I-69E has to connect to Mexico.

texaskdog

Padre is where they need the freeway. Very tediuos travel east once you leave 77.

roadman65

That would make sense to have I-2 go to Padre Island.  Hey if Myrtle Beach can get two interstates, at least this popular tourist spot should at least get at least one!
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Bobby5280

The beach theme would make sense for an Eastern terminus to I-2.

I-4 ends at Daytona Beach, so why not have I-2 end at South Padre Island?

Then there's the hurricane evacuation route purpose I-2 could serve for South Padre Island. Perhaps that might give more justification to extend I-2 farther Northwest toward Laredo. Then there's the growing population in that area to consider.

Finally, an I-2 route extension along the Port of Brownsville might pull heavy trucks off TX-100 headed toward S. Padre. I don't know if that's a big problem, but it might make travel easier for those still taking TX-100 to S. Padre.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2013, 02:55:46 PM
The beach theme would make sense for an Eastern terminus to I-2.

I-4 ends at Daytona Beach, so why not have I-2 end at South Padre Island?

Then there's the hurricane evacuation route purpose I-2 could serve for South Padre Island. Perhaps that might give more justification to extend I-2 farther Northwest toward Laredo. Then there's the growing population in that area to consider.

Finally, an I-2 route extension along the Port of Brownsville might pull heavy trucks off TX-100 headed toward S. Padre. I don't know if that's a big problem, but it might make travel easier for those still taking TX-100 to S. Padre.

I am in agreeance! Let's extend I-2 to South Padre!! 

NE2

The 69E-2 interchange is set up with 69E as the through route.
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".

kkt

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 25, 2013, 12:21:04 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 24, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83.  I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide.  I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.

I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.

The rule makes sense.  The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed.  Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.

I honestly don't see it from a road geek point of view, but instead from an information overload point of view. That's why I hate long distance cosigning; it is too cluttered. I don't give a crap about the historic route, I just want one route to be I-2 and another to be US 83.  Besides, if you routed US 83 back on the business route, even the stupidest motorist knows that the interstate is the quick, through direct route and the US highway is the route with the traffic lights, driveways and people crossing the road.

Co-signing is often the clearest way to sign a situation.  For instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them, which leaves motorists wondering at every reassurance sign whether they missed the turn for the route they intended to follow.  Or, if they have actually missed the turn, it lets them keep driving another 100 miles before they figure out there's a problem.

In this case, how about truncating US 83 where I-2 begins?

If you leave old 83 signed as US 83, it will confuse people into following it who don't realize there's a freeway paralleling it now.

agentsteel53

Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 04:05:17 PMFor instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them

really?  I can't think of an example of this other than I-10 being invisible on the I-5 segment of the East LA interchange.  that one took me a while to get used to: that there's, effectively, two I-10s.  before I learned the LA freeway system (and the relative locations of San Bernardino and Santa Monica) I would get onto the wrong one every so often.

there are definitely gaps in California routes ...try following 39 or 84 from beginning to end, for example - but that isn't the problem described here.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com



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.