News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

The (Somewhat) Great Interstate 82 Debate

Started by Tarkus, February 24, 2009, 09:09:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tarkus

Well, as someone who has driven Interstate 82 in Oregon/Washington a fair amount, I've kind of wondered about this for some time now.  Interstate 82 made sense when I-84 was still I-80N until the 1980s, but now, it doesn't make much sense and violates the numbering conventions.

I know some roadgeeks have suggested extending it south eventually, but even in its current state, at both its termini, it's heading north-south. 

So, I'm curious to know what everyone thinks.

-Alex (Tarkus)


DrZoidberg

I'd be in favor of renumbering it as either an I-X84 or even an I-90 3-di.  I've never heard of plans to extend it south.  What would those plans entail?

I suppose, if they ever wanted to expand, they COULD multiplex it with I-84 through Boise and axe I-86 altogether.
"By the way...I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar."

DrZoidberg

QuoteI suppose, if they ever wanted to expand, they COULD multiplex it with I-84 through Boise and axe I-86 altogether.

Though I should add this would be quite pointless....
"By the way...I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar."

FLRoads

...Or multiplex Interstate 86 with Interstate 84 and switch it from 82 to 86. Then Interstate 182 could become 186. That would make a little more sense and keep it within the "grid" per say. And if an I-x84 or and I-x90 were used it would create a problem for existing I-182 (as in what would that become?). Just a thought.


DrZoidberg

QuoteAnd if an I-x84 or and I-x90 were used it would create a problem for existing I-182 (as in what would that become?). Just a thought.

I'm guessing it could become either unsigned (sign it as US 12) or perhaps I-190 or an odd 3-di off the existing 3-di.

If I-82 became a 3-di, would it be an odd or even?  It doesn't return to its parent, which makes me think odd...
"By the way...I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar."

Sykotyk

For that many miles, for a non x5 or x0 route, no need to multiplex it.

Just relabel I-82 as I-86. Nobody in traveling will confuse the two segments. Akin to Illinois and New York both having I-88.

But, mostly, I'd be in favor of it being a 3di. Just as I would when US395 gets fully upgraded to freeway standards in the distant future.

Sykotyk

exit322

It's been around long enough, and isn't that egregious a penalty, that I-82 wouldn't really even be a problem to keep.

If worried about it, put I-84 on the I-82 alignment and change I-84 west of that to the "new" I-82.

DrZoidberg

I always thought I-82 would be better signed as a north-south route.  I-11 anybody?
"By the way...I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar."

corco

Running any route concurrent between I-86 and the I-82 split would be a ridiculously long and pointless concurrency that I'm adamantly against.

I'd say just leave it as is. It's not a huge deal and at this point the confusion caused by resigning it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

If US-395 from Pasco to Spokane and US-97 from Bend or Weed CA to Biggs are ever both fully upgraded to interstate standards and up for interstate designation then the debate can be opened and I-82 should be eliminated altogether for an I-11, but for now it's not worth the trouble

Tarkus

It would have made a little more sense if the FHWA/AASHTO had decided to make I-80N into I-82 instead of I-84 originally, and then turned I-86 into I-84 and I-82 into I-86.  My guess is that they didn't because of the serious mindbender that moving I-82 could have done.

An I-7 designation would make the most sense, I think.   The freeway is 143 miles long, and about 80 of it is north-south.

-Alex (Tarkus)



Alps

No one has suggested I-88 yet.  You have them in NY and IL.  This would be the first 88 to cross a state line, still a thousand miles from the next one, and creates three instances of the same route which is just awesome.  But I like having an 82 around.  I'd rather swap IL 88 with 82 if anything had to be done.

Voyager

I feel really bad for the 8x numbers, they're always being split up by different states!
Back From The Dead | AARoads Forum Original

Tarkus

I think part of the problem is that when they started doling the Interstate numbers out, they concentrated the 8X numbers in the most populated east-west belt across the entire country, whereas other parts of the 2di range, like around the 5X-6X area, are barely used.  They kinda screwed up there, methinks.

Of course, what also could help is if the FHWA decided to adopt Hexadecimal. :sombrero:

-Alex (Tarkus)

Voyager

Back From The Dead | AARoads Forum Original

mightyace

Quote from: Tarkus on February 28, 2009, 04:21:11 PM
I think part of the problem is that when they started doling the Interstate numbers out, they concentrated the 8X numbers in the most populated east-west belt across the entire country, whereas other parts of the 2di range, like around the 5X-6X area, are barely used.  They kinda screwed up there, methinks.

Of course, what also could help is if the FHWA decided to adopt Hexadecimal. :sombrero:

-Alex (Tarkus)

I think that the reason they did that is that they didn't want the same US and I numbers in the same area.  Since US E-W numbers increase N-S and I numbers increase S-N there would be potential overlap in the 5x and 6x area. 

Of course, with things like I-39, I-43 and the proposed I-41 in Wisconsin, you have that now anyway. :no:
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

Sykotyk

That's why there's no I-50 and I-60.

Sykotyk

ComputerGuy


Fcexpress80

See my other posts on the subject of I-82.  It should have been redesignated I-88 when I-86 and I-84 were redesignated.  My vote is to rename it I-9 with a freeway extension north from I-90 in Ellensburg to US-2/97 in Wenatchee over Colockum Pass/Ridge.  I-7 would be the Central Oregon "Volcano" Interstate and I-11 would be the Boise/Reno/Las Vegas corridor.

florida

If it's renamed a 3-di (I-390; I-384), then it would be no problem to renumber I-182 to an I-190 or I-184. (See I-270/370; 275 and 175/375; even 795 spurring off 695 in Baltimore.)
So many roads...so little time.

Sykotyk

I love when you're given directions from Portland to Pasco and are told "go east on I-84 and then north on I-82".

Sykotyk

DrZoidberg

QuoteI love when you're given directions from Portland to Pasco and are told "go east on I-84 and then north on I-82".

Reminds me of Wisconsin, specifically I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago, where traffic reports refer to I-94 north or southbound.
"By the way...I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar."

Revive 755

Quote from: TarkusOf course, what also could help is if the FHWA decided to adopt Hexadecimal.

Why stop with hexadecimal?  Let's go to Base 36, with '0' having a forward slash added to distinguish it from "O".

leifvanderwall

#22
If you would ask me I-82 is definitely in the wrong place... in the country that is. To me, I-82 is much better served in New Jersey, Penn., and Ohio taking over the US 422 route and part of the Atlantic City Expressway. I also have I-82 starting from Chicago and ending at the Quad Cities taking over  I-88 and I-290. The I-82 in Washington should be I-186. See my postings on "if You Controlled the Highway System" in Fictional Roads to view my proposals for a new I-82.

Bickendan

What about WA I-182? ;)

Also, having two I-82s wouldn't be an issue -- see I-88, 84, 76...

For the time being, I-82 where it is (even north of I-84) isn't an issue (aside for there being an unrelated OR 82 in the same region in Oregon).

The one 'proposal' correcting this mess I've seen that I like is the 'I-7' idea. I-7'd start in Weed, head along US 97 to Klamath Falls, Bend and Redmond before arcing northeast through the Blues to I-82 at I-84, follow I-82 to the US 395 split south of the TriCities, then follow the US 395 corridor toward Spokane, while an I-x90 would take I-82 from I-90 to I-182 and along I-182 to I-7. The remaining portion of I-82, bypassing the TriCities between US 395 and I-182 would become I-407 (WA 207 already exists and WA doesn't duplicate route numbers).

xonhulu

Want a crazy suggestion?

I-80 is way too far south for its number in NV/CA, so put I-80 on current I-84 and renumber the current CA/NV/UT I-80 as I-52, I-54, I-56, I-58, I-60 or I-62.  Then the freeway south of I-82 has a smaller number and all is good.  Of course, you had to spend millions renumbering I-80 as well as every I-x80 in CA....

Seriously, I-84 should have been I-82, but since it wasn't then I'd go with the odd number for I-82.  I'm not sure an I-x90 or I-x84 would be appropriate for what functions like a mainline interstate, not a spur. 



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.