Regional Boards > Southeast

Anybody know why I-910 was never signed?

<< < (7/7)

froggie:

--- Quote ---What do you mean by that?  What's the difference between I-510 with I-910 or I-310, or even I-10 itself?
--- End quote ---

Meaning it was designated, and FUNDED, as part of the 42,500 mile Interstate highway system.  It's mileage that is "charged" against that maximum mileage limit.  I-310 IIRC is also "chargable" Interstate, as it came about due to the cancellation of I-410 and the original I-310 (which itself came from the cancellation of I-420 in Monroe), so that cancelled mileage was applied to I-310 instead.

I-910 is considered "non-chargable Interstate" in that it wasn't built with Interstate highway funds, but was funded via other means and was requested to be added to the Interstate system as such (as I-49 of course).



--- Quote ---Both of AR I-540's termini are illogical (north end far more than south end.)
--- End quote ---

Not from FHWA's standpoint.  Both US 62 (to the north) and US 71 (to the south) are on the National Highway System (NHS), and FHWA considers an intersecting NHS route to be a "logical terminus".


--- Quote ---So is I-26 west's.
--- End quote ---

It was logical back when it was I-181 (US 11W is on NHS).  But remember that it was Congress, not FHWA, that mandated I-26 west of I-81.


--- Quote ---And none of the NC I-73/74 routing makes any sense. Not to mention I-69 MS's southern end.  Seems their criteria are arbitrarily enforced.
--- End quote ---

I-69, I-73, and I-74 are all cases of Congressional legislation designating the routes, and so segments are designated as Interstate as they are completed.  Because it is Congressionally mandated, FHWA is forced to comply.

mightyace:

--- Quote from: froggie on June 11, 2009, 06:59:08 AM ---I-69, I-73, and I-74 are all cases of Congressional legislation designating the routes, and so segments are designated as Interstate as they are completed.  Because it is Congressionally mandated, FHWA is forced to comply.

--- End quote ---

The infamous I-99 in Pennsylvania and the I-376 extension there also fit into that category. :pan: :banghead:

cjk374:
Think about this expense I don't think anyone thought of--the state DOTD (Dept. of Total Destruction) :-D will have to renumber all existing exits on the current I-49, because the new milepost 0 will be in New Orleans instead of where it is now in Lafayette.  This will cost lots of $$$ changing all of those signs and mileposts. :-o  THIS is why they need to label the Lafayette-New Orleans stretch as I-6 IMHO.

Alps:

--- Quote from: cjk374 on November 27, 2009, 05:31:17 PM ---Think about this expense I don't think anyone thought of--the state DOTD (Dept. of Total Destruction) :-D will have to renumber all existing exits on the current I-49, because the new milepost 0 will be in New Orleans instead of where it is now in Lafayette.  This will cost lots of $$$ changing all of those signs and mileposts. :-o  THIS is why they need to label the Lafayette-New Orleans stretch as I-6 IMHO.

--- End quote ---
This is why I think NJDOT should just extend I-295 around to PA (or even as 895) rather than push I-195 around the same way once the I-95/I-276 connection is complete.  There will be a lot of renumbering to do along I-195 as a result that could have been avoided.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page