Considering that NIMBYs and environmentalists have all but killed any chance of I-275 ever being built north of Novi, why not renumber I-696 as a continuation of I-275 giving Metro Detroit a true loop bypass route?
Like I-275, I-696 only meets it's parent route on one end. At least with extending I-275 eastward, it would still have the opportunity to meet it's parent route a second time.
I'm not a fan of change simply to follow obscure rules. It's been I-275 for 50+ years; any change would simply confuse people worse than leaving it as it is.
SM-G950U
I'd be okay with truncating it to I-96, the multiplex has always been weird in terms of signage.
I don't think of I-275 and I-696 as a single loop route; I-696 is an E-W route in the immediate northern suburbs from I-94 to I-96, and while I-275 can get you back to I-75 via 96 and 23, it also functions as a N-S route to DTW and local highway in Livonia/Farmington etc. The other thing is that using I-75 to I-275 north to I-696 east to I-75 north as a loop route is pretty inefficient unless you're going to, say, the Royal Oak area- up to Auburn Hills you'd take Telegraph, for example.
Keep 696 as is. Eliminate the 96/275 duplex. It is an unnecessary co-designation (I feel the same way about the 84-380 duplex in Pennsylvania).
What would changing the numbers do to make it a true loop bypass if it isn't one already? Both I-275 and I-696 end at an Interstate at both ends making the even number acceptable. Even though I-196 on the western side of the state has an odd number also ending at an Interstate on both ends that is another story which involves flipping what was suppose to be I-196 to Muskegon around with I-96 which was suppose to follow I-196's routing back to I-94 so the number was just flip flopped. I-196 is not a spur route to anywhere other than to I-94, it starts in Grand Rapids so it is not a spur to Grand Rapids.
Quote from: dkblake on February 21, 2021, 10:00:40 PM
I don't think of I-275 and I-696 as a single loop route; I-696 is an E-W route in the immediate northern suburbs from I-94 to I-96, and while I-275 can get you back to I-75 via 96 and 23, it also functions as a N-S route to DTW and local highway in Livonia/Farmington etc. The other thing is that using I-75 to I-275 north to I-696 east to I-75 north as a loop route is pretty inefficient unless you're going to, say, the Royal Oak area- up to Auburn Hills you'd take Telegraph, for example.
Really if you are coming from say Monroe and going to Auburn Hills or even Royal Oak it would be better to just stay on I-75 and follow it through Detroit than to take I-275 or Telegraph or the Southfield. Any route you take it's going to take at least an hour to drive from Monroe to Royal Oak all of which is through Metro Detroit.
Someone educate me, where was it suppose to end up originally?
At I-75 near Clarkston.
M-5 north is in the original ROW.
Quote from: tigerwings on February 23, 2021, 05:17:16 PM
At I-75 near Clarkston.
M-5 north is in the original ROW.
But they didn't preserve any ROW north of Pontiac Trail?
Quote from: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 05:22:18 PM
Quote from: tigerwings on February 23, 2021, 05:17:16 PM
At I-75 near Clarkston.
M-5 north is in the original ROW.
But they didn't preserve any ROW north of Pontiac Trail?
There never was anything north of Pontiac Trail. Development pretty much put a stop to it. Just like M-10 can't go any further or else it would run right into a shopping plaza after Orchard Lake.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 09:39:04 PM
Quote from: I-39 on February 23, 2021, 05:22:18 PM
Quote from: tigerwings on February 23, 2021, 05:17:16 PM
At I-75 near Clarkston.
M-5 north is in the original ROW.
But they didn't preserve any ROW north of Pontiac Trail?
There never was anything north of Pontiac Trail. Development pretty much put a stop to it. Just like M-10 can't go any further or else it would run right into a shopping plaza after Orchard Lake.
I see. I wasn't sure if this was another IL-53 type situation.
Not only that, but too many environmental issues shutdown I-275 north of its current terminus. Outside the M-5 ROW, look at central Oakland County on a map. Lakes, everywhere, swampy land, bogs, etc. I had always maintained that Michigan should have followed Wisconsin or Ohio's lead on a N-S route thru there. Make Haggerty Rd, Union Lake Rd, and other roads state highways. Then you can you make whatever is needed locally for the trunk line. Freeway, blvd, 5 lane road, 2 lane road, the state would maintain the routing.
Upthread, a few posters mentioned eliminating the I-96/I-275 overlap. This is 21st Century hindsight. I-275 was built first. I-96 changed its routing to the Jeffries freeway corridor that now exist. If you look at a map, the eastern M-5 freeway thru Farmington was supposed to be I-96. But, there was too much development in the way, so I-96 was shifted to its current alignment where it meets I-275 (and M-14) at the interchange in western Livonia. The giant interchange with I-96/I-275/I-696/M-5 was designed for I-275 to continue north (as M-5 does now). I-275 was eventually killed in central Oakland county long after everything was shifted around. Local nomenclature and the state of MI still refers to the entire route as I-275, not I-96 or a multiplexed route.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 24, 2021, 01:58:33 PM
Not only that, but too many environmental issues shutdown I-275 north of its current terminus. Outside the M-5 ROW, look at central Oakland County on a map. Lakes, everywhere, swampy land, bogs, etc. I had always maintained that Michigan should have followed Wisconsin or Ohio's lead on a N-S route thru there. Make Haggerty Rd, Union Lake Rd, and other roads state highways. Then you can you make whatever is needed locally for the trunk line. Freeway, blvd, 5 lane road, 2 lane road, the state would maintain the routing.
Yeah, looking at a map, it seems like a more extreme version (terrain wise) of the IL-53 extension in Lake/McHenry County, Illinois. There would be so many bridge crossings needed of lakes it probably wouldn't be practical anymore.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 04:42:51 PM
Quote from: dkblake on February 21, 2021, 10:00:40 PM
I don't think of I-275 and I-696 as a single loop route; I-696 is an E-W route in the immediate northern suburbs from I-94 to I-96, and while I-275 can get you back to I-75 via 96 and 23, it also functions as a N-S route to DTW and local highway in Livonia/Farmington etc. The other thing is that using I-75 to I-275 north to I-696 east to I-75 north as a loop route is pretty inefficient unless you're going to, say, the Royal Oak area- up to Auburn Hills you'd take Telegraph, for example.
Really if you are coming from say Monroe and going to Auburn Hills or even Royal Oak it would be better to just stay on I-75 and follow it through Detroit than to take I-275 or Telegraph or the Southfield. Any route you take it's going to take at least an hour to drive from Monroe to Royal Oak all of which is through Metro Detroit.
Totally agree. What I was getting at is that the OP idea for renumbering I-696 to I-275 would imply that the current I-275 to I-696 drive would create a unified, sensible beltway around Detroit, and there's really no scenario in which you would actually drive that full I-275 loop from I-75 Exit 20 back to I-75 Exit 61 unless (1) I-75 through Detroit was literally closed and (2) you live in Royal Oak.
Also very much disagree that the I-275 duplex should be removed. I-275 is the "through" N-S route up to 696 and I-96 uses it to shift E-W corridors to go to Lansing.
Quote from: dkblake on February 24, 2021, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 04:42:51 PM
Quote from: dkblake on February 21, 2021, 10:00:40 PM
I don't think of I-275 and I-696 as a single loop route; I-696 is an E-W route in the immediate northern suburbs from I-94 to I-96, and while I-275 can get you back to I-75 via 96 and 23, it also functions as a N-S route to DTW and local highway in Livonia/Farmington etc. The other thing is that using I-75 to I-275 north to I-696 east to I-75 north as a loop route is pretty inefficient unless you're going to, say, the Royal Oak area- up to Auburn Hills you'd take Telegraph, for example.
Really if you are coming from say Monroe and going to Auburn Hills or even Royal Oak it would be better to just stay on I-75 and follow it through Detroit than to take I-275 or Telegraph or the Southfield. Any route you take it's going to take at least an hour to drive from Monroe to Royal Oak all of which is through Metro Detroit.
Totally agree. What I was getting at is that the OP idea for renumbering I-696 to I-275 would imply that the current I-275 to I-696 drive would create a unified, sensible beltway around Detroit, and there's really no scenario in which you would actually drive that full I-275 loop from I-75 Exit 20 back to I-75 Exit 61 unless (1) I-75 through Detroit was literally closed and (2) you live in Royal Oak.
Also very much disagree that the I-275 duplex should be removed. I-275 is the "through" N-S route up to 696 and I-96 uses it to shift E-W corridors to go to Lansing.
The only way that I-275 to I-696 to get to or from Royal Oak, Madison Heights, Hazel Park, Warren and around that area would be a benefit would be if you were coming from like Ann Arbor. Then again I'm not sure how many people actually know that the best way from west of Ann Arbor to downtown Detroit is to take M-14 to I-96 rather than stay on I-94. But any of the cities along I-275 then I-275 to I-696 would be the best way. And yeah like that project that had I-75 at the Rouge River shut down for a couple of years that was a disaster along Fort Street I went through that area a few times and finally decided to start using I-94 to the Southfield to bypass the I-75 closure.
Quote from: dkblake on February 24, 2021, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 04:42:51 PM
Quote from: dkblake on February 21, 2021, 10:00:40 PM
I don't think of I-275 and I-696 as a single loop route; I-696 is an E-W route in the immediate northern suburbs from I-94 to I-96, and while I-275 can get you back to I-75 via 96 and 23, it also functions as a N-S route to DTW and local highway in Livonia/Farmington etc. The other thing is that using I-75 to I-275 north to I-696 east to I-75 north as a loop route is pretty inefficient unless you're going to, say, the Royal Oak area- up to Auburn Hills you'd take Telegraph, for example.
Really if you are coming from say Monroe and going to Auburn Hills or even Royal Oak it would be better to just stay on I-75 and follow it through Detroit than to take I-275 or Telegraph or the Southfield. Any route you take it's going to take at least an hour to drive from Monroe to Royal Oak all of which is through Metro Detroit.
Totally agree. What I was getting at is that the OP idea for renumbering I-696 to I-275 would imply that the current I-275 to I-696 drive would create a unified, sensible beltway around Detroit, and there's really no scenario in which you would actually drive that full I-275 loop from I-75 Exit 20 back to I-75 Exit 61 unless (1) I-75 through Detroit was literally closed and (2) you live in Royal Oak.
Also very much disagree that the I-275 duplex should be removed. I-275 is the "through" N-S route up to 696 and I-96 uses it to shift E-W corridors to go to Lansing.
My point is, most circular belt 3dis around major cities are rarely, if ever traveled in their entirety despite having the same route number on all sides of the city.
I don't expect too many drivers to regionally bypass Detroit by driving both I-275 and I-696 to get back to I-75 ‐‐ From Toledo, I'd beeline US-23 as the true Detroit Bypass, or even I-275/I-96/US-23 if I wanted to avoid Ann Arbor as well or if I was coming from the East Side of Toledo (I-280)
I'd rather see one Interstate number ring around Detroit instead of two routes that should be odd-numbered 3dis as they are currently, in effect, spurs off their parent routes and would give more reason for the I-96/I-275 duplex.
I wasn't one that said that I-275 should be removed between the I-96/M-14 interchange and the I-696/I-96/M-5 interchange. I think it should be kept but I don't think it should be built to I-75. I think that at one time they should have built a N-S state highway between there and I-75 near Davisburg. They started with M-5 going north but that only went as far as Pontiac Trail with the road going up to Richardson roughly on the same line as 17 Mile Road. Oakland County has a ton of lakes though so routing through there would have been tough. They could have gone a bit more west giving relief to US-23 which is heavily traveled. Toledo to Flint traffic will use US-23 unless there is a stop in Metro Detroit for anyone as I-75 is 25 miles longer and takes you through the thick of Metro Detroit.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 24, 2021, 07:41:29 PM
Quote from: dkblake on February 24, 2021, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 04:42:51 PM
Quote from: dkblake on February 21, 2021, 10:00:40 PM
I don't think of I-275 and I-696 as a single loop route; I-696 is an E-W route in the immediate northern suburbs from I-94 to I-96, and while I-275 can get you back to I-75 via 96 and 23, it also functions as a N-S route to DTW and local highway in Livonia/Farmington etc. The other thing is that using I-75 to I-275 north to I-696 east to I-75 north as a loop route is pretty inefficient unless you're going to, say, the Royal Oak area- up to Auburn Hills you'd take Telegraph, for example.
Really if you are coming from say Monroe and going to Auburn Hills or even Royal Oak it would be better to just stay on I-75 and follow it through Detroit than to take I-275 or Telegraph or the Southfield. Any route you take it's going to take at least an hour to drive from Monroe to Royal Oak all of which is through Metro Detroit.
Totally agree. What I was getting at is that the OP idea for renumbering I-696 to I-275 would imply that the current I-275 to I-696 drive would create a unified, sensible beltway around Detroit, and there's really no scenario in which you would actually drive that full I-275 loop from I-75 Exit 20 back to I-75 Exit 61 unless (1) I-75 through Detroit was literally closed and (2) you live in Royal Oak.
Also very much disagree that the I-275 duplex should be removed. I-275 is the "through" N-S route up to 696 and I-96 uses it to shift E-W corridors to go to Lansing.
The only way that I-275 to I-696 to get to or from Royal Oak, Madison Heights, Hazel Park, Warren and around that area would be a benefit would be if you were coming from like Ann Arbor. Then again I'm not sure how many people actually know that the best way from west of Ann Arbor to downtown Detroit is to take M-14 to I-96 rather than stay on I-94. But any of the cities along I-275 then I-275 to I-696 would be the best way. And yeah like that project that had I-75 at the Rouge River shut down for a couple of years that was a disaster along Fort Street I went through that area a few times and finally decided to start using I-94 to the Southfield to bypass the I-75 closure.
True, but who stays on any beltway for the entire length or most of it? People who like to get dizzy going in circles? :)
Forget development, did they actually think they could get 275 built over the lakes all the way to Clarkston?
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
Quote from: I-39 on February 24, 2021, 02:26:44 PM
Yeah, looking at a map, it seems like a more extreme version (terrain wise) of the IL-53 extension in Lake/McHenry County, Illinois. There would be so many bridge crossings needed of lakes it probably wouldn't be practical anymore.
Right, and just like IL-53, there is no good alternative to a cancelled I-275 in the area. I never understood that; if you cannot build the full freeway ok you live with that. But, the region in western Oakland bit off their nose to spite their face. Only two lane winding roads that tax the infrastructure to the limit. The congestion is many times worse than if a route were built somehow thru the area. Lake county and Oakland county painted themselves into a corner they cannot escape from.
I remember when M-5 was being built between I-96 and Pontiac Trail, MDOT maps showed it as being built as a freeway. I had a bowling tournament in Clarkston a few days after M-5 was opened to traffic, so I decided to go home that way, and wow what a disappointment that it wasn't a freeway...apart from basically the long exit ramps to and from I-96. I can't figure out how MDOT could get that wrong on their own map.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
Forget development, did they actually think they could get 275 built over the lakes all the way to Clarkston?
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
They could have with some careful planning but it would have been pretty curvy. I don't think taking I-96 to US-23 to get back to I-75 is that bad. It's like 45 miles from the north end of I-275 back to I-75 taking that way so not awful. It's about 18 miles on a straight line from the north end of I-275 to where it was suppose to end but with some curves it would be over 25 miles most likely. So all in all at least there is a connection to I-75 without having to take I-696 back to I-75.
I made that mistake once I wasn't old enough to drive my dad was driving but I was giving him the directions. This was back in about 1993-1994 when I-75 was completely closed in downtown Detroit for construction. At the time I didn't really know how exactly to connect back to I-75 so I told him to take I-96 all the way out to I-275 and take I-275 to I-696 to get back to I-75. Wasn't even thinking of using I-96 to US-23. So that's the route we took. Honestly I just wanted him to spend more time riding around Detroit because I was only about 14 years old at the time and thought it was fun and I thought taking US-23 would be boring.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2021, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: dkblake on February 24, 2021, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 04:42:51 PM
Quote from: dkblake on February 21, 2021, 10:00:40 PM
I don't think of I-275 and I-696 as a single loop route; I-696 is an E-W route in the immediate northern suburbs from I-94 to I-96, and while I-275 can get you back to I-75 via 96 and 23, it also functions as a N-S route to DTW and local highway in Livonia/Farmington etc. The other thing is that using I-75 to I-275 north to I-696 east to I-75 north as a loop route is pretty inefficient unless you're going to, say, the Royal Oak area- up to Auburn Hills you'd take Telegraph, for example.
Really if you are coming from say Monroe and going to Auburn Hills or even Royal Oak it would be better to just stay on I-75 and follow it through Detroit than to take I-275 or Telegraph or the Southfield. Any route you take it's going to take at least an hour to drive from Monroe to Royal Oak all of which is through Metro Detroit.
Totally agree. What I was getting at is that the OP idea for renumbering I-696 to I-275 would imply that the current I-275 to I-696 drive would create a unified, sensible beltway around Detroit, and there's really no scenario in which you would actually drive that full I-275 loop from I-75 Exit 20 back to I-75 Exit 61 unless (1) I-75 through Detroit was literally closed and (2) you live in Royal Oak.
Also very much disagree that the I-275 duplex should be removed. I-275 is the "through" N-S route up to 696 and I-96 uses it to shift E-W corridors to go to Lansing.
My point is, most circular belt 3dis around major cities are rarely, if ever traveled in their entirety despite having the same route number on all sides of the city.
I don't expect too many drivers to regionally bypass Detroit by driving both I-275 and I-696 to get back to I-75 ‐‐ From Toledo, I'd beeline US-23 as the true Detroit Bypass, or even I-275/I-96/US-23 if I wanted to avoid Ann Arbor as well or if I was coming from the East Side of Toledo (I-280)
I'd rather see one Interstate number ring around Detroit instead of two routes that should be odd-numbered 3dis as they are currently, in effect, spurs off their parent routes and would give more reason for the I-96/I-275 duplex.
For the amount of time it would take you to bypass Ann Arbor you could already be well past Ann Arbor by the time it took you to take I-75 to I-275 to I-96 back to US-23. You'd probably be more interested in bypassing the Ann Arbor-Brighton stretch of US-23 though since that's the busiest stretch of 23 between Flint and Toledo but with the flex lane in there it helps, still hate that the flex lane is only open during certain hours though as US-23 should be eight lanes between I-96 and I-94, three lanes in other places. South of Ann Arbor though four lanes is ok.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2021, 08:56:01 PM
I'd rather see one Interstate number ring around Detroit instead of two routes that should be odd-numbered 3dis as they are currently, in effect, spurs off their parent routes and would give more reason for the I-96/I-275 duplex.
Is your ring going to go across into Canada in order to meet up at the other end?
Another point is that an even numbered 3di doesn't need to meet up with its parent at both ends. It only needs to meet up with another interstate at the end that is not its parent. I-275 (75 to 96) and I-696 (96 to 94) both meet that definition.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
There's just one thing wrong with that proposal, and that is, another I-275 already exists in Cincinnati.
As for the Detroit one, I have no problem with its route, pointless concurrency aside.
Quote from: Henry on February 25, 2021, 09:43:59 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
There's just one thing wrong with that proposal, and that is, another I-275 already exists in Cincinnati.
As for the Detroit one, I have no problem with its route, pointless concurrency aside.
I think that the concurrency continues because many people consider I-96 from Novi to the west to be different than the Jeffries Freeway I-96 from Livonia to Detroit.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2021, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: dkblake on February 24, 2021, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 04:42:51 PM
Quote from: dkblake on February 21, 2021, 10:00:40 PM
I don't think of I-275 and I-696 as a single loop route; I-696 is an E-W route in the immediate northern suburbs from I-94 to I-96, and while I-275 can get you back to I-75 via 96 and 23, it also functions as a N-S route to DTW and local highway in Livonia/Farmington etc. The other thing is that using I-75 to I-275 north to I-696 east to I-75 north as a loop route is pretty inefficient unless you're going to, say, the Royal Oak area- up to Auburn Hills you'd take Telegraph, for example.
Really if you are coming from say Monroe and going to Auburn Hills or even Royal Oak it would be better to just stay on I-75 and follow it through Detroit than to take I-275 or Telegraph or the Southfield. Any route you take it's going to take at least an hour to drive from Monroe to Royal Oak all of which is through Metro Detroit.
Totally agree. What I was getting at is that the OP idea for renumbering I-696 to I-275 would imply that the current I-275 to I-696 drive would create a unified, sensible beltway around Detroit, and there's really no scenario in which you would actually drive that full I-275 loop from I-75 Exit 20 back to I-75 Exit 61 unless (1) I-75 through Detroit was literally closed and (2) you live in Royal Oak.
Also very much disagree that the I-275 duplex should be removed. I-275 is the "through" N-S route up to 696 and I-96 uses it to shift E-W corridors to go to Lansing.
My point is, most circular belt 3dis around major cities are rarely, if ever traveled in their entirety despite having the same route number on all sides of the city.
I don't expect too many drivers to regionally bypass Detroit by driving both I-275 and I-696 to get back to I-75 ‐‐ From Toledo, I'd beeline US-23 as the true Detroit Bypass, or even I-275/I-96/US-23 if I wanted to avoid Ann Arbor as well or if I was coming from the East Side of Toledo (I-280)
I'd rather see one Interstate number ring around Detroit instead of two routes that should be odd-numbered 3dis as they are currently, in effect, spurs off their parent routes and would give more reason for the I-96/I-275 duplex.
Neither I-275 or I-696 are spurs, I-196 on the western side of the state isn't even a spur. All three of these routes start at an Interstate and end at an Interstate which means it should have an even numbered 3di.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
That doesn't make any sense at all to do that.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 25, 2021, 01:28:03 PM
Neither I-275 or I-696 are spurs, I-196 on the western side of the state isn't even a spur. All three of these routes start at an Interstate and end at an Interstate which means it should have an even numbered 3di.
275 and 696 should keep their even numbers, being parts of a Detroit beltway. 196, on the other hand, seems to be a medium-distance connector; see I-155 (IL), I-135 and I-335 (KS), I-195 and I-395 (MA/RI and MA/CT), I-380 (IA), etc.
Quote from: 1 on February 25, 2021, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 25, 2021, 01:28:03 PM
Neither I-275 or I-696 are spurs, I-196 on the western side of the state isn't even a spur. All three of these routes start at an Interstate and end at an Interstate which means it should have an even numbered 3di.
275 and 696 should keep their even numbers, being parts of a Detroit beltway. 196, on the other hand, seems to be a medium-distance connector; see I-155 (IL), I-135 and I-335 (KS), I-195 and I-395 (MA/RI and MA/CT), I-380 (IA), etc.
Some of those other one's are even number 3di worthy. I-196 really isn't a spur though it's original purpose was to go to Muskegon but it switched highways with I-96 which was suppose to follow I-196's current routing to end at I-94. It makes sense the way they have it now because I-96 would just go to GR and make a dip to the south again not really making any sense but originally it would have been a spur to Muskegon.
I-275 and I-696 serve their purpose fine but they are both prone to very heavy traffic so even though you are bypassing Detroit you're still stuck in Detroit's traffic. Even if you stay on I-75 though you can bypass downtown Detroit by taking the Southfield to the Ford to the Lodge to the Davison.
The I-96 / I-196 switch was made because the road to Muskegon was finished long before the cross-town Grand Rapids road. The road changed numbers on the east side of GR for no apparent reason. So they fixed it.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 25, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore. And I-610 is a full beltway around Houston.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 25, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
495 would have been a very bad choice, and I believe 295 is the most common 3di number – if someone is traveling along I-95 in either direction through several states, 695 is less ambiguous than 295.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 21, 2021, 09:16:36 PM
Considering that NIMBYs and environmentalists have all but killed any chance of I-275 ever being built north of Novi, why not renumber I-696 as a continuation of I-275 giving Metro Detroit a true loop bypass route?
Like I-275, I-696 only meets it's parent route on one end. At least with extending I-275 eastward, it would still have the opportunity to meet it's parent route a second time.
If one really wants to push the idea of a "true loop bypass route" and insists that an even-numbered 3di has to meet its parent route twice, the only one that makes sense is to eliminate both I-275 and I-696 and re-designate both of them as a single I-x94. But that would be crazy at this point in time. Like JREwing78, I'm not in favor of route number changes solely for the purpose of satisfying some obscure principle that is of no consequence.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 24, 2021, 01:58:33 PM
Not only that, but too many environmental issues shutdown I-275 north of its current terminus. Outside the M-5 ROW, look at central Oakland County on a map. Lakes, everywhere, swampy land, bogs, etc. I had always maintained that Michigan should have followed Wisconsin or Ohio's lead on a N-S route thru there. Make Haggerty Rd, Union Lake Rd, and other roads state highways. Then you can you make whatever is needed locally for the trunk line. Freeway, blvd, 5 lane road, 2 lane road, the state would maintain the routing.
Good topic/discussion in this thread. :thumbsup:
I had always wondered about what alignment I-275's northern section might have taken. I have one map in my collection that shows a portion of a proposed route for I-275 north of I-96/696. Scanned a section of it for the I-275 Michigan page on interstate-guide (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-275-mi/):
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/maps/i-275-mi-1974.jpg) (https://www.interstate-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/maps/i-275-mi-1974.jpg)
1974 AAA Map
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 25, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don't like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 23, 2021, 02:50:35 PM
Keep 696 as is. Eliminate the 96/275 duplex. It is an unnecessary co-designation (I feel the same way about the 84-380 duplex in Pennsylvania).
Well, that's only because I-380 was originally I-81E so it ran to I-81, and I-84 was supposed to head southwesterly from the 84-380 intersection directly towards a point between Dupont and Wilkes-Barre. 84 should have extended 10 more miles west in the Green Run valley to end at an intersection with 81 and 476 south of the airport. Hmmm, let's not tell the Penn Turnpike folks, they might try to build that and charge $20 tolls. (Then again, that could really help to be able to bypass the heavy Scranton traffic around the 81-84-380-6 interchange.)
.
But, yes, eliminate the I-275 duplex. Just plaster a TO over any southbound 275 SOUTH signs along the current duplex, and minimize the amount of sign removal to northbound. Or place a TO and an M-5 shield over northbound 275's.
Sounds like a massive waste of time to get rid of the concurrency with I-96. MDOT needs to focus on rebuilding the highways at this point. They vary by region as far as being good or bad btw. The region I'm in is below average at best, Flint, the Tri-Cities and Thumb all have below average quality roads just for that region alone. The Metro region needs to focus more on I-94 than anything else at this point.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 05, 2021, 04:53:44 PM
Sounds like a massive waste of time to get rid of the concurrency with I-96. MDOT needs to focus on rebuilding the highways at this point. They vary by region as far as being good or bad btw. The region I'm in is below average at best, Flint, the Tri-Cities and Thumb all have below average quality roads just for that region alone. The Metro region needs to focus more on I-94 than anything else at this point.
Guess what? I-275 south of I-96/M-14 is scheduled for work this year.
Quote from: GaryV on March 05, 2021, 04:57:22 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 05, 2021, 04:53:44 PM
Sounds like a massive waste of time to get rid of the concurrency with I-96. MDOT needs to focus on rebuilding the highways at this point. They vary by region as far as being good or bad btw. The region I'm in is below average at best, Flint, the Tri-Cities and Thumb all have below average quality roads just for that region alone. The Metro region needs to focus more on I-94 than anything else at this point.
Guess what? I-275 south of I-96/M-14 is scheduled for work this year.
Nothing for US-23 probably though. Around here this will be year two of the I-75 construction in Saginaw County between MM 148 and 150 and the M-46 interchange is finally being rebuilt. The roundabouts are already in place and the new bridge over I-75 is already done they just have to finish demolishing the old bridge and the circles. What an outdated interchange that was before they started rebuilding it last year. I also can't stand the M-25/US-10 interchange either those interchanges with the circle on and off ramps and left lane entrance and exits have to go.
Quote from: GaryV on March 05, 2021, 04:57:22 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 05, 2021, 04:53:44 PM
Sounds like a massive waste of time to get rid of the concurrency with I-96. MDOT needs to focus on rebuilding the highways at this point. They vary by region as far as being good or bad btw. The region I'm in is below average at best, Flint, the Tri-Cities and Thumb all have below average quality roads just for that region alone. The Metro region needs to focus more on I-94 than anything else at this point.
Guess what? I-275 south of I-96/M-14 is scheduled for work this year.
Don't get too excited yet. I can't find the article (of course) but I read somewhere this will be a three- or four-year project:
2021: Repairs on the concrete pavement between Northline Road and Will Carleton Road.
2022: Reconstruction of southbound I-275 between 5 Mile Road and Northline Road.
2023: Reconstruction of northbound I-275 between Northline Road and I-96/M-14.
2024: Reconstruction of northbound I-275 between I-96/M-14 and 5 Mile Road.
So once again it seems the section with the least amount of need will see work done first, unless what I read is incorrect. If not, have fun dodging the potholes, especially between 5 Mile Road and M-153, for the next few years.
Quote from: Alex on March 05, 2021, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 24, 2021, 01:58:33 PM
Not only that, but too many environmental issues shutdown I-275 north of its current terminus. Outside the M-5 ROW, look at central Oakland County on a map. Lakes, everywhere, swampy land, bogs, etc. I had always maintained that Michigan should have followed Wisconsin or Ohio's lead on a N-S route thru there. Make Haggerty Rd, Union Lake Rd, and other roads state highways. Then you can you make whatever is needed locally for the trunk line. Freeway, blvd, 5 lane road, 2 lane road, the state would maintain the routing.
Good topic/discussion in this thread. :thumbsup:
I had always wondered about what alignment I-275's northern section might have taken. I have one map in my collection that shows a portion of a proposed route for I-275 north of I-96/696. Scanned a section of it for the I-275 Michigan page on interstate-guide (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-275-mi/):
1974 AAA Map
Thanks for sharing the map. Another interesting thing on the map is that it shows I-96 following Grand River, instead of its concurrency with I-275.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 25, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don't like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.
Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue. Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way. (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)
Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.
Quote from: Papa Emeritus on March 08, 2021, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: Alex on March 05, 2021, 12:23:46 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on February 24, 2021, 01:58:33 PM
Not only that, but too many environmental issues shutdown I-275 north of its current terminus. Outside the M-5 ROW, look at central Oakland County on a map. Lakes, everywhere, swampy land, bogs, etc. I had always maintained that Michigan should have followed Wisconsin or Ohio's lead on a N-S route thru there. Make Haggerty Rd, Union Lake Rd, and other roads state highways. Then you can you make whatever is needed locally for the trunk line. Freeway, blvd, 5 lane road, 2 lane road, the state would maintain the routing.
Good topic/discussion in this thread. :thumbsup:
I had always wondered about what alignment I-275's northern section might have taken. I have one map in my collection that shows a portion of a proposed route for I-275 north of I-96/696. Scanned a section of it for the I-275 Michigan page on interstate-guide (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-275-mi/):
1974 AAA Map
Thanks for sharing the map. Another interesting thing on the map is that it shows I-96 following Grand River, instead of its concurrency with I-275.
That was the original plan but they were altered because of the impact it would have had on the businesses and the community around it. The route it follows now running concurrent with I-275 and then running through Livonia is on part of a railroad right of way and Schoolcraft Road.
I don't see the need to sign I-275 up to I-75 at this time due to the proliferation of the sheeple that just use GPS. I suppose that renumbering now will just add ton in expenses at the cost to the taxpayer.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 25, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don't like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.
Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue. Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way. (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)
Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.
I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue. Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way. (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)
Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.
Think Milwaukee used 794 and 894 because Chicago took most of the lower numbers at the time. 494 and 694 was planned at one point, and cancelled. I-90 between I-290 and I-90 used to be I-194, and I-190 used to be I-594. Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 08, 2021, 06:50:32 PM
Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.
There's an I-394 in all but name (it's IL 394).
Quote from: skluth on March 08, 2021, 05:54:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 25, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don't like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.
Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue. Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way. (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)
Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.
I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.
The thing with 196 is it's not a spur to anywhere, it's an Interstate to Interstate connection. If it were a spur to Grand Rapids it'd be an I-x94. Originally though I-96 was suppose to be I-94 and the current I-94 was suppose to be I-92.
I don't care about the odd-even 3di rules for my fictional interstates anymore. All I have now are routes that are/part of a beltway or bypass (275 and 696 are two examples) get an even first digit and the rest get whatever number that's available. 196 can go either way, as it have an interstate at both ends, but is a long spur in respect to the I-94 network that goes to a city I-94 doesn't serve at the same time.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 08, 2021, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 08, 2021, 05:54:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 25, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don't like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.
Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue. Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way. (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)
Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.
I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.
The thing with 196 is it's not a spur to anywhere, it's an Interstate to Interstate connection. If it were a spur to Grand Rapids it'd be an I-x94. Originally though I-96 was suppose to be I-94 and the current I-94 was suppose to be I-92.
This one is weird. I am no fan of renumbering for the sake of gird lines, however, really I-96 should swing back to I-94 and not I-196.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 08, 2021, 06:50:32 PM
Think Milwaukee used 794 and 894 because Chicago took most of the lower numbers at the time. 494 and 694 was planned at one point, and cancelled. I-90 between I-290 and I-90 used to be I-194, and I-190 used to be I-594. Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.
The other rationale was the general guidance (but not rule!) to number auxiliary interstates with increasing first digits from west to east. (Think I-90 across NY or I-40 across TN.) With Milwaukee being near the end of the line for I-94's trek thru the state, someone figured they should pick higher numbers for Milwaukee's 3di's under that guideline. It does have the added benefit of making them distinct from the 3di's in the next metro.
The 794 and 894 numbers were used in Wisconsin because the other numbers in the Chicago area were already used. There was an IL 194 from the present-day Interstate 290/IL 53 interchange to the Interstate 94 interchange (now part of 90). Interstate 294 has used its existing route from the get-go. IL 394 has existed since it was first designated. There was to have been an Interstate 494 along Lake Shore Drive (later changed to Interstate 694, though never built), later the 494 designation was moved to the unbuilt Crosstown Expressway. IL 594 was the spur to O'Hare Airport (now Interstate 190). There has never been an Interstate/IL 994 proposed, not that such a designation was ever necessary.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 09, 2021, 12:10:16 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 08, 2021, 06:50:32 PM
Think Milwaukee used 794 and 894 because Chicago took most of the lower numbers at the time. 494 and 694 was planned at one point, and cancelled. I-90 between I-290 and I-90 used to be I-194, and I-190 used to be I-594. Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.
The other rationale was the general guidance (but not rule!) to number auxiliary interstates with increasing first digits from west to east. (Think I-90 across NY or I-40 across TN.) With Milwaukee being near the end of the line for I-94's trek thru the state, someone figured they should pick higher numbers for Milwaukee's 3di's under that guideline. It does have the added benefit of making them distinct from the 3di's in the next metro.
Ohio's 3di seems to be in order from when it was constructed. For example with the x75s in the state, I-275 came first in the early 60s, then I-475 in the late 60s. I-675 didn't come along until the 80s. The same pattern can be seen with the x70s too, though the x80s are in order from west to east. What is interesting is that ODOT changed I-290 to 490 despite there not being another 290 planned anywhere else in the state.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 08, 2021, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 08, 2021, 05:54:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 25, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don't like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.
Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue. Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way. (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)
Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.
I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.
The thing with 196 is it's not a spur to anywhere, it's an Interstate to Interstate connection. If it were a spur to Grand Rapids it'd be an I-x94. Originally though I-96 was suppose to be I-94 and the current I-94 was suppose to be I-92.
I-196 isn't a bypass or through route either. This is why I said we should get rid of 3DI parsing entirely and make anything that is not a main 2DI is a 3DI branch. The current 3DI concept has been made almost meaningless due to the many exceptions. 3DI parsing does nothing more than cause endless pedantic arguments like we see here and 99% of drivers don't care as long as it gets them where they're going. I like branches because branches can rejoin the main or another line; the convoluted royal family trees of Europe are the easiest example. The only 3DI problem then would be the 3DI highways which don't reach their parent like the I-X78 highways around NYC. (I-105 comes off I-605 which connects to I-5, so the entire I-5 line is still connected.) Another word besides branch (e.g., braid) is fine too; I just think the entire spur, bypass, through route 3DI debate should be 86'ed. You've already shown that some people will argue it even when my main point was that I didn't care what word was used.
Just accept that the 3DI definitions are guidance at this point. No more. No less.
I-196 is there to link Benton Harbor, South Haven, Holland and Grand Rapids together. It also has a major N-S US highway on over half it's route. Other than connections to Canada Michigan really isn't a through routed state anyway.
Quote from: skluth on March 09, 2021, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 08, 2021, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 08, 2021, 05:54:18 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 08, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 05, 2021, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 04, 2021, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 25, 2021, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
I doubt Cincinnati would give up their 275 just to get Toledo one that they don't need. The next even 3di available if you would renumber Cincinnati's 275 are 671 and 875, and I don't like numbering full beltways with a first digit higher than a 2xx or 4xx.
I-695 is a full beltway around Baltimore.
With the exception of using the 2xx and 4xx on two other full or partial beltways in or near a state. DC has 495, and neighboring Virginia and Delaware have lengthy 295s, so in that case, the next lowest option is 695. What I mean is that I don't like using a 6xx on a beltway and the 2xx/4xx on shorter/less important routes.
Interesting because I have never really thought this was an issue. Milwaukee has a I-894 and never thought that a higher first digit means the route isn't as important in some way. (Even though it isn't a full beltway.)
Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what we *like* versus what actually aids navigation.
I like having "1" as the first digit of long interstate spurs like I-196 and I-155, so I find I-476 a bit annoying. But that's a preference. I think people get too hung up on unimportant things like perfect grids and the entire bypass/through route vs spur debate rather than whether drivers will care. I grew up in Green Bay, so I never thought I-794 or I-894 was any more or less significant than any other 3DI.
The thing with 196 is it's not a spur to anywhere, it's an Interstate to Interstate connection. If it were a spur to Grand Rapids it'd be an I-x94. Originally though I-96 was suppose to be I-94 and the current I-94 was suppose to be I-92.
I-196 isn't a bypass or through route either. This is why I said we should get rid of 3DI parsing entirely and make anything that is not a main 2DI is a 3DI branch. The current 3DI concept has been made almost meaningless due to the many exceptions. 3DI parsing does nothing more than cause endless pedantic arguments like we see here and 99% of drivers don't care as long as it gets them where they're going. I like branches because branches can rejoin the main or another line; the convoluted royal family trees of Europe are the easiest example. The only 3DI problem then would be the 3DI highways which don't reach their parent like the I-X78 highways around NYC. (I-105 comes off I-605 which connects to I-5, so the entire I-5 line is still connected.) Another word besides branch (e.g., braid) is fine too; I just think the entire spur, bypass, through route 3DI debate should be 86'ed. You've already shown that some people will argue it even when my main point was that I didn't care what word was used.
Just accept that the 3DI definitions are guidance at this point. No more. No less.
Exactly. Which is why the whole I-238 issue was never that big of a deal to me. It was the number of the highway before and it just got a different color shield.
In a world where people navigate by their phones, the whole debate around grids, spurs, etc. are just not very important.
Quote from: GaryV on February 25, 2021, 05:08:17 PM
The I-96 / I-196 switch was made because the road to Muskegon was finished long before the cross-town Grand Rapids road. The road changed numbers on the east side of GR for no apparent reason. So they fixed it.
This is how it originally looked. The freeway changed route numbers just west of East Belt Line Road.
(1962 Cities Service state map, Grand Rapids insert)
(https://i.imgur.com/AJC3YYG.jpg)
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 09, 2021, 01:00:16 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 09, 2021, 12:10:16 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 08, 2021, 06:50:32 PM
Think Milwaukee used 794 and 894 because Chicago took most of the lower numbers at the time. 494 and 694 was planned at one point, and cancelled. I-90 between I-290 and I-90 used to be I-194, and I-190 used to be I-594. Not sure if there was also a canceled I-394 in Chicago though.
The other rationale was the general guidance (but not rule!) to number auxiliary interstates with increasing first digits from west to east. (Think I-90 across NY or I-40 across TN.) With Milwaukee being near the end of the line for I-94's trek thru the state, someone figured they should pick higher numbers for Milwaukee's 3di's under that guideline. It does have the added benefit of making them distinct from the 3di's in the next metro.
Ohio's 3di seems to be in order from when it was constructed. For example with the x75s in the state, I-275 came first in the early 60s, then I-475 in the late 60s. I-675 didn't come along until the 80s. The same pattern can be seen with the x70s too, though the x80s are in order from west to east. What is interesting is that ODOT changed I-290 to 490 despite there not being another 290 planned anywhere else in the state.
I want to think they abandoned using I-290 in Cleveland for the potential confusion of the SR-2/I-90 duplex which started just a few miles away at Dead Man's Curve. Also the SR-2/I-90 duplex on the west side of town starting in Rocky River.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 23, 2021, 02:50:35 PM
Keep 696 as is. Eliminate the 96/275 duplex. It is an unnecessary co-designation (I feel the same way about the 84-380 duplex in Pennsylvania).
Not as unnecessary as that I-41 duplex down to the Illinois state line.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 09, 2021, 08:24:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 23, 2021, 02:50:35 PM
Keep 696 as is. Eliminate the 96/275 duplex. It is an unnecessary co-designation (I feel the same way about the 84-380 duplex in Pennsylvania).
Not as unnecessary as that I-41 duplex down to the Illinois state line.
Are there still I-41/US 41 signs hanging around?
Quote from: GaryV on February 25, 2021, 09:47:01 AM
Quote from: Henry on February 25, 2021, 09:43:59 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
There's just one thing wrong with that proposal, and that is, another I-275 already exists in Cincinnati.
As for the Detroit one, I have no problem with its route, pointless concurrency aside.
I think that the concurrency continues because many people consider I-96 from Novi to the west to be different than the Jeffries Freeway I-96 from Livonia to Detroit.
Honestly, if interstate standards didn't mean anything I'd do the following.
Renumber I-696 from the I-275/696/M-5 interchange to M-10 as I-96 (with I-696 continuing from M-10 to I-94).
Renumber the M-10 freeway from I-696 to Jefferson Ave. as I-96 (with Northwestern Highway north of I-696 reverting back to M-4).
Renumber the M-14 freeway and the I-96 Jeffries freeway to I-294. Prior to the re-route of I-96 this (or at least the portion
In this scenario I-275 would lose its concurrency with I-96 and I-96 would still have a direct freeway route to Downtown. Looking at maps (and when the routes were built) the I-696/M-10 routing always seemed to make the most sense for I-96's continuation into Detroit and the routing of I-96 along the I-275 and M-14 freeways seemed convoluted. I'm not sure why MDOT never considered this.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 24, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
Forget development, did they actually think they could get 275 built over the lakes all the way to Clarkston?
And you guys have it all wrong.. 275 should obviously be extended 24 miles south along I-75 so it could then subsume 280.
There is already another I-275 in Ohio so that wouldn't work.
QuoteHonestly, if interstate standards didn't mean anything I'd do the following.
Renumber I-696 from the I-275/696/M-5 interchange to M-10 as I-96 (with I-696 continuing from M-10 to I-94).
Renumber the M-10 freeway from I-696 to Jefferson Ave. as I-96 (with Northwestern Highway north of I-696 reverting back to M-4).
Renumber the M-14 freeway and the I-96 Jeffries freeway to I-294. Prior to the re-route of I-96 this (or at least the portion
In this scenario I-275 would lose its concurrency with I-96 and I-96 would still have a direct freeway route to Downtown. Looking at maps (and when the routes were built) the I-696/M-10 routing always seemed to make the most sense for I-96's continuation into Detroit and the routing of I-96 along the I-275 and M-14 freeways seemed convoluted. I'm not sure why MDOT never considered this.
There are a lot of big problems with these changes. First, Michigan has never been enamored with all freeways being interstates in the state. I tend to agree; if it ain't broke axiom. M-14, M-10, U.S. 127, U.S. 23 are all fine routes as signed. No need to be like North Carolina or Illinois throwing up I-shields everywhere.
Secondly, many of those routes you want renumbered are not interstate standard, and for good reason. M-14 thru Ann Arbor is narrow and has no left shoulders over the Huron river. There's even a stop sign at the Barton Drive exit. This should have been fixed ages ago. But for its own reasons, not necessarily to make M-14 an interstate. The same can be said for the John C. Lodge Fwy.
Next, I-96 was supposed to follow M-5's route through Farmington. The route was cancelled because of NIMBY's. It never was supposed to follow I-696 - M-10. However, the current route is probably a better route as it is an interstate freeway serving the western suburbs and an alternate to I-94. Connecting it to I-275 is convoluted, but routing I-96 over the Lodge Fwy is problematic for the reasons above.
Finally, I-275 was built as a Detroit bypass. Keeping that route, combined with I-696 around the Oakland & Macomb suburbs basically accomplishes this. The main issue is not retaining the M-275 routing over the M-5 routing that exist today. I would have used that number to continue north over an upgraded Union Lake road and other western Oakland county routes. That way a state highway goes n-s thru the region, without tearing up the various lakes it passes around. M-10, Northwestern highway could have even continued NW to connect to it (the state cancelled it shortly after I-275 was cancelled as well).
Oh for crying out loud, shouldn't this all be moved to fictional highways?
Yall omg I was semi-joking about extending 275 into Ohio.
Quote from: Terry Shea on September 20, 2021, 11:14:55 PM
Oh for crying out loud, shouldn't this all be moved to fictional highways?
No, because the discussion is about highways that exist, or were planned to be constructed. No one's making up imaginary routes, or suggesting freeways that haven't been proposed or planned at some point.
.
Renumbering of existing freeways around Detroit has historical precedent, viz. I-96.
Quote from: sturmde on September 21, 2021, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on September 20, 2021, 11:14:55 PM
Oh for crying out loud, shouldn't this all be moved to fictional highways?
No, because the discussion is about highways that exist, or were planned to be constructed. No one's making up imaginary routes, or suggesting freeways that haven't been proposed or planned at some point.
.
Renumbering of existing freeways around Detroit has historical precedent, viz. I-96.
Nah. People are coming up with their own ideas on this thread. Solid fictional territory.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 21, 2021, 09:16:36 PM
Considering that NIMBYs and environmentalists have all but killed any chance of I-275 ever being built north of Novi, why not renumber I-696 as a continuation of I-275 giving Metro Detroit a true loop bypass route?
Like I-275, I-696 only meets it's parent route on one end. At least with extending I-275 eastward, it would still have the opportunity to meet it's parent route a second time.
I would think most people by-passing Detroit want to wind up well north of the metro and therefore it seems extending I-275 along I-96 west from Farmington to Brighton and then up US-23 to Flint make sense. Granted it is more concurrencies that MDOT is not overly fond of, but it matches up I-275 with Flint as the control city on the BGS coming up from Toledo. Leave I-696 as the northern leg of the by-pass.
Re: Cincinnati
What about I-274 or does that not work because I-74 dead ends at I-75?
Quote from: Rothman on September 21, 2021, 09:19:54 AM
Quote from: sturmde on September 21, 2021, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on September 20, 2021, 11:14:55 PM
Oh for crying out loud, shouldn't this all be moved to fictional highways?
No, because the discussion is about highways that exist, or were planned to be constructed. No one's making up imaginary routes, or suggesting freeways that haven't been proposed or planned at some point.
.
Renumbering of existing freeways around Detroit has historical precedent, viz. I-96.
Nah. People are coming up with their own ideas on this thread. Solid fictional territory.
Haha! I agree. Fictional! I do think that the roads in western Oakland county should be improved. Guys argue about the same thing about Illinois Route 53. The freeway may never be built, but the corridor should have some improvements.
Quote from: hockeyjohn on September 21, 2021, 09:30:00 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 21, 2021, 09:16:36 PM
Considering that NIMBYs and environmentalists have all but killed any chance of I-275 ever being built north of Novi, why not renumber I-696 as a continuation of I-275 giving Metro Detroit a true loop bypass route?
Like I-275, I-696 only meets it's parent route on one end. At least with extending I-275 eastward, it would still have the opportunity to meet it's parent route a second time.
I would think most people by-passing Detroit want to wind up well north of the metro and therefore it seems extending I-275 along I-96 west from Farmington to Brighton and then up US-23 to Flint make sense. Granted it is more concurrencies that MDOT is not overly fond of, but it matches up I-275 with Flint as the control city on the BGS coming up from Toledo. Leave I-696 as the northern leg of the by-pass.
There's no reason to extend I-275 along there when there is already a number for that highway that's why MDOT doesn't like concurrencies much. Besides if you wanted to bypass Detroit and get north of the metro area you'd already be on US-23 coming out of Ohio.
I'm surprised that the I-75/US-23 concurrency is as long as it is when US-23 could split off at exit 164 and have M-13 end at the north end of the connector and US-23 take over M-13's routing which is US-23's old route anyway. The connector at exit 188 could be just a connector before both highways split in opposite directions. It would put the Turkey Roost back on US-23 too.
Quote from: TempoNick on September 21, 2021, 11:08:26 AM
Re: Cincinnati
What about I-274 or does that not work because I-74 dead ends at I-75?
Yea, doesn't work. It's a reason why I-95 have so many 3di, because most E-W interstates that intersect it either end at or near it.
Another question regarding I-275 in Michigan:
When I-275 first opened in the 70s, there was no control city listed on the signs at the I-75 interchange in Monroe. -- just I-275 NORTH. The first mention of Flint was near I-94's junction.
Over the years, Flint was added as a control city for the I-75 NB signs.
Meanwhile, on the other end of I-275, Flint was never seen on any overheads at it's northern terminus with I-696. Only on a supplemental sign.
So why not use Livonia as the main control city for I-275 North instead of Flint? The last few exits on the I-275 segment which is duplexed with I-96 are all Livonia exits and is one of the largest suburbs in Detroit.
Or at least list the cc's as Livonia - Flint or Livonia/Metro Airport.
They list Livonia as a control city for M-14 East from both I-94 and US-23...
Quote from: thenetwork on September 22, 2021, 07:08:28 PM
Another question regarding I-275 in Michigan:
When I-275 first opened in the 70s, there was no control city listed on the signs at the I-75 interchange in Monroe. -- just I-275 NORTH. The first mention of Flint was near I-94's junction.
Over the years, Flint was added as a control city for the I-75 NB signs.
Meanwhile, on the other end of I-275, Flint was never seen on any overheads at it's northern terminus with I-696. Only on a supplemental sign.
So why not use Livonia as the main control city for I-275 North instead of Flint? The last few exits on the I-275 segment which is duplexed with I-96 are all Livonia exits and is one of the largest suburbs in Detroit.
Or at least list the cc's as Livonia - Flint or Livonia/Metro Airport.
They list Livonia as a control city for M-14 East from both I-94 and US-23...
It really should be Plymouth and Livonia which is what it is at the eastern end of the M-14/US-23 concurrency.
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 22, 2021, 07:27:34 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 22, 2021, 07:08:28 PM
Another question regarding I-275 in Michigan:
When I-275 first opened in the 70s, there was no control city listed on the signs at the I-75 interchange in Monroe. -- just I-275 NORTH. The first mention of Flint was near I-94's junction.
Over the years, Flint was added as a control city for the I-75 NB signs.
Meanwhile, on the other end of I-275, Flint was never seen on any overheads at it's northern terminus with I-696. Only on a supplemental sign.
So why not use Livonia as the main control city for I-275 North instead of Flint? The last few exits on the I-275 segment which is duplexed with I-96 are all Livonia exits and is one of the largest suburbs in Detroit.
Or at least list the cc's as Livonia - Flint or Livonia/Metro Airport.
They list Livonia as a control city for M-14 East from both I-94 and US-23...
It really should be Plymouth and Livonia which is what it is at the eastern end of the M-14/US-23 concurrency.
Google streetview (and a recent trip to Michigan) has Plymouth as the control city for the east U.S, 23/M-14 interchange. The exits east of that along M-14 has Detroit as the control. As for I-275, I suspect that Flint is the control city, not a Detroit suburb because: for routing thru traffic from southeastern Michigan between Toledo and Detroit. Because, until recently MDOT still had ideas for the corridor north of the current end of I-275. Once M-5 was completed in the early 2000 did that line of thinking conclude. Third, because Michigan considers I-275 ending in Novi, not Livonia. That would be a better control. Especially with the large shopping area nearby. But, MDOT does not work that way.
I-696 has a control city of Port Huron, even though the freeway ends nearly 50 miles before that city. But, MDOT considers I-696 as a bypass of Detroit for traffic heading east. I think MDOT thinks of I-275 the same way.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on September 23, 2021, 05:42:00 PM
I-696 has a control city of Port Huron, even though the freeway ends nearly 50 miles before that city. But, MDOT considers I-696 as a bypass of Detroit for traffic heading east. I think MDOT thinks of I-275 the same way.
And Lansing for wb, which is well over 50 miles from the west end of I-696.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on September 23, 2021, 05:42:00 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 22, 2021, 07:27:34 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 22, 2021, 07:08:28 PM
Another question regarding I-275 in Michigan:
When I-275 first opened in the 70s, there was no control city listed on the signs at the I-75 interchange in Monroe. -- just I-275 NORTH. The first mention of Flint was near I-94's junction.
Over the years, Flint was added as a control city for the I-75 NB signs.
Meanwhile, on the other end of I-275, Flint was never seen on any overheads at it's northern terminus with I-696. Only on a supplemental sign.
So why not use Livonia as the main control city for I-275 North instead of Flint? The last few exits on the I-275 segment which is duplexed with I-96 are all Livonia exits and is one of the largest suburbs in Detroit.
Or at least list the cc's as Livonia - Flint or Livonia/Metro Airport.
They list Livonia as a control city for M-14 East from both I-94 and US-23...
It really should be Plymouth and Livonia which is what it is at the eastern end of the M-14/US-23 concurrency.
Google streetview (and a recent trip to Michigan) has Plymouth as the control city for the east U.S, 23/M-14 interchange. The exits east of that along M-14 has Detroit as the control. As for I-275, I suspect that Flint is the control city, not a Detroit suburb because: for routing thru traffic from southeastern Michigan between Toledo and Detroit. Because, until recently MDOT still had ideas for the corridor north of the current end of I-275. Once M-5 was completed in the early 2000 did that line of thinking conclude. Third, because Michigan considers I-275 ending in Novi, not Livonia. That would be a better control. Especially with the large shopping area nearby. But, MDOT does not work that way.
I-696 has a control city of Port Huron, even though the freeway ends nearly 50 miles before that city. But, MDOT considers I-696 as a bypass of Detroit for traffic heading east. I think MDOT thinks of I-275 the same way.
It has Livonia too going from SB US-23 to EB M-14. https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3236256,-83.699859,3a,55.9y,92.25h,109.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdmRSR0g5CcVsBo5AZX_idQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
One rule of control cities is that the control city doesn't have to be reached before the control city is switched to the next control city so having Detroit as a control city for EB M-14 is fine as that ends right into I-96 EB going toward downtown.
MDOT hasn't had plans to extend I-275 north of it's northern terminus for years. At the time the Interstate highway system was being planned there wasn't much development out that way but the lakes caused an issue too. Flint is just an outdated control city still on the list that's why it's used and you can get to Flint via I-96 to US-23. It's too bad that I-275 wasn't fully built because it could really be useful today as an alternate to I-75 and US-23. Novi doesn't really need to be the control city just because that's where it ends and according to FHWA it ends at the M-14/I-96 interchange. I believe that MDOT considers it to end at the I-696/I-96/M-5 interchange because that was originally part of I-275 and I-96 was suppose to follow the Grand River Avenue corridor into Detroit but instead got shifted to the I-275 freeway then onto the Jeffries Freeway along Schoolcraft Road.
As Gary said I-696 also has Lansing on it's west end with the same distance to Lansing. This is fine though because the through traffic is generally headed in that direction anyway. It doesn't really need to reach Lansing and Port Huron in that case. I think Michigan's control cities are ok.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on September 23, 2021, 05:42:00 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 22, 2021, 07:27:34 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 22, 2021, 07:08:28 PM
Another question regarding I-275 in Michigan:
When I-275 first opened in the 70s, there was no control city listed on the signs at the I-75 interchange in Monroe. -- just I-275 NORTH. The first mention of Flint was near I-94's junction.
Over the years, Flint was added as a control city for the I-75 NB signs.
Meanwhile, on the other end of I-275, Flint was never seen on any overheads at it's northern terminus with I-696. Only on a supplemental sign.
So why not use Livonia as the main control city for I-275 North instead of Flint? The last few exits on the I-275 segment which is duplexed with I-96 are all Livonia exits and is one of the largest suburbs in Detroit.
Or at least list the cc's as Livonia - Flint or Livonia/Metro Airport.
They list Livonia as a control city for M-14 East from both I-94 and US-23...
It really should be Plymouth and Livonia which is what it is at the eastern end of the M-14/US-23 concurrency.
As for I-275, I suspect that Flint is the control city, not a Detroit suburb because: for routing thru traffic from southeastern Michigan between Toledo and Detroit. Because, until recently MDOT still had ideas for the corridor north of the current end of I-275. Once M-5 was completed in the early 2000 did that line of thinking conclude. Third, because Michigan considers I-275 ending in Novi, not Livonia. That would be a better control. Especially with the large shopping area nearby. But, MDOT does not work that way.
Who knows what MDOT thinks or how it works. Apparently MDOT doesn't even know what MDOT is thinking, planning or doing sometimes. I say this because the early maps all showed M-5 as being freeway clear up to Pontiac Trail.
There are seven different regions of MDOT and I think they vary by region. The Metro region seems to be ok but the Bay region seems to lack a little.
Why not consolidate i_275 and I-696 as one continuous route. Drop one number and make it the other.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 14, 2021, 08:05:35 AM
Why not consolidate i_275 and I-696 as one continuous route. Drop one number and make it the other.
No way would that fly especially today. There is no reason to do such a change.
It would make things simpler. Plus MichDOT loves to petition AASHTO for US routes to be changed. Red, White, and Blue shields are no different than Black and White.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 14, 2021, 08:05:35 AM
Why not consolidate i_275 and I-696 as one continuous route. Drop one number and make it the other.
Read page 1 of the thread for the answer to this question, since it was created...to answer this question :)
Quote from: roadman65 on December 14, 2021, 08:51:44 AM
It would make things simpler. Plus MichDOT loves to petition AASHTO for US routes to be changed. Red, White, and Blue shields are no different than Black and White.
As others have said, it's unnecessary. Plus, they are two different freeways; I-275 was truncated after much of I-696 was already constructed. The freeways serve two different alignments. I-275 was always supposed to be a bypass of Detroit. I-696 (the Reuther Fwy) is a suburban commuter. If I-275 were placed on I-696's alignment, most folks would not use it to bypass Detroit to I-75 (its parent). Motorists would continue to use US-23 or I-275->I-96->US-23. Or M-5 north of I-275 to M-59 (which would be more likely in a fictional scenario).
Quote from: roadman65 on December 14, 2021, 08:51:44 AM
It would make things simpler. Plus MichDOT loves to petition AASHTO for US routes to be changed. Red, White, and Blue shields are no different than Black and White.
Well for one thing they are two different freeways and for another it really doesn't do much in the way of bypassing Detroit. If you wanted to bypass Detroit and you were on I-75 in Ohio and your destination is anywhere from northern Oakland County and points north you'd take US-23 to bypass Detroit. Even if you were in Monroe and wanted to get to Flint you'd take I-75 to I-275 to I-96 to US-23 it's a rather simple route or better yet take M-50 west to US-23 north but taking M-50 you would be on a two lane highway for about 15 miles before you get to US-23 in Dundee.
Actually the red white and blue shields let you know that it's an Interstate which will (except for at least one exception) always be a freeway. With a US highway there aren't very many standards, it could be a freeway, it could be a two lane highway, it could be an undivided highway or just about anything really. I think the difference between a state route and US highway though is that a US highway runs on a more important corridor most of the time and state highways aren't quite as important. I'd argue though that US highways that have been downgraded to state highways (not really any difference) are just as important as the current US highways.
Yet for an even bigger bypass route of Detroit, if you were on I-94 in the western part of the state you could take I-69 to Port Huron and completely bypass Detroit. You'd go around the outskirts of Lansing and through Flint though but that isn't much of a problem.
I think everyone here has some good ideas for what should be of I-275. I do agree that the control city could be changed. Novi or Farmington could work, but since NB joins and runs with 96 WB I would make Lansing the control city for all of I-275. I know many would disagree with me and I can see why. I just think it would follow some standard as a bypass to the west ending up on the Lansing direction. Best I can compare that situation to would be I-675 North with the control city of Columbus on I-75 south of Dayton.
I can also see why this would be confusing for a non-local following I-275 heading for Flint. The only other sign you have on 275 north is a smaller guide sign telling you "Flint - Follow 96 West" and then have nothing else until you reach US-23. Maybe if that sign was an overhead that included US-23 North... then I can see it being less confusing. I wouldn't be opposed to going as far as to having Flint & Lansing as a NB 275 control city.
As for the section of 275 being joined with 96 for a short 6 to 7 miles. It does not bother me too much and I would be ok with leaving it just because many of us are so used to calling that section 275 and not 275/96 when coming from the east. I think it is just something we are all used to. This makes me think of the short section of I-90 east of Cleveland where I-90 drops a little south of the SR-2 Lakeland Freeway and you see I-271 on the overheads with I-90, but 271 does not start for another 3 to 4 miles.
Someone compared the 275/96 section with 380/84 section in Scranton. I thought that was a very good comparison and I drove that section for the first time a couple of years ago. Again... if it was my call, I would also leave 380 on that section just because I could see most of the overheads (if changed) having a TO 380 Mt Pocono anyway from the short section of SB I-81 to the 380/84 split.
(By the way, the Scranton to Binghamton drive is a pretty scenic drive if you get the chance.)
If I was going to rearrange anything at the I-96/275/696/M-5 interchange, I would have M-5 terminate at the interchange as in years past, and sign M-275 on the section of M-5 that continues north. It at least would reinforce the 275 designation on the N-S corridor. Honestly, though, the residents of metro Detroit would prefer it just be left alone as is.
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 15, 2021, 07:12:33 PM
If I was going to rearrange anything at the I-96/275/696/M-5 interchange, I would have M-5 terminate at the interchange as in years past, and sign M-275 on the section of M-5 that continues north. It at least would reinforce the 275 designation on the N-S corridor. Honestly, though, the residents of metro Detroit would prefer it just be left alone as is.
MDOT actually did this (on paper) but changed their minds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_275_(Michigan)
I actually think it would have been better to continue M-275 as a through route regardless of roadway design. That way even if the freeway was cancelled a surface arterial or boulevard would suffice. There are few continuous N-S routes in western Oakland Co.
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 14, 2021, 01:56:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 14, 2021, 08:51:44 AM
It would make things simpler. Plus MichDOT loves to petition AASHTO for US routes to be changed. Red, White, and Blue shields are no different than Black and White.
Yet for an even bigger bypass route of Detroit, if you were on I-94 in the western part of the state you could take I-69 to Port Huron and completely bypass Detroit. You'd go around the outskirts of Lansing and through Flint though but that isn't much of a problem.
Except for the never ending construction!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 21, 2021, 09:35:57 PM
I'd be okay with truncating it to I-96, the multiplex has always been weird in terms of signage.
I found this odd as well. If anything, I-275 should be truncated to I-96 and everything else would be left alone.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 17, 2021, 05:04:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 21, 2021, 09:35:57 PM
I'd be okay with truncating it to I-96, the multiplex has always been weird in terms of signage.
I found this odd as well. If anything, I-275 should be truncated to I-96 and everything else would be left alone.
I-275 was there first (showing my age, here)! I remember when it was built. I-96 was moved to I-275 in the late 1970's. The route was moved from the Farmington cutoff (now M-5) to the present route that exist. I-275 was still planned to continue north from its present terminus when I-96 was moved to be concurrent with I-275. Plus, it's the thru route. The population still calls the northern section I-275, not I-96. Only us roadgeeks care about the routing.
If you reach out to Chris Bessert, he can break down the in-n-out of I-275 around metro Detroit. He has researched the history of this.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 17, 2021, 06:17:46 PM
If you reach out to Chris Bessert, he can break down the in-n-out of I-275 around metro Detroit. He has researched the history of this.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/I-096.html