I mean, I-96 is a short one state interstate with two children. It's got a I-196, but then goes to its one and only even designation is not starting with "2." Not even "4." It has the first and only number even is "6."
It doesn't bother me like some people get upset over a duplicate I-87 and the hated I-99, but seems odd that 696 was chosen.
I believe 296 exists as a secret designation. Or it did exist and doesn't anymore.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 29, 2021, 10:25:12 AM
I mean, I-96 is a short one state interstate with two children. It's got a I-196, but then goes to its one and only even designation is not starting with "2." Not even "4." It has the first and only number even is "6."
It doesn't bother me like some people get upset over a duplicate I-87 and the hated I-99, but seems odd that 696 was chosen.
Both exist. I-296 is an approved but hidden designation along US-131 in Grand Rapids and I-496 is signed in Lansing.
I-496 exists and is signed in Lansing
I-296 also exists as a part of US 131 between I-96 and I-196, though it's unsigned.
Two answer the broader point, the 3di numbering scheme for I-96's child routes follows the recommendation of FHWA at the time where the first digit for auxiliary interstates increases west to east and south to north. Not every state followed this recommendation and there's no rule stating they have to, but it is the reason metro Detroit would have probably wound up with I-696 regardless of what was going on in Grand Rapids and Lansing. It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
This guidance is on full displace in New York with I-90 children increasing from 190 in Buffalo to 890 in Schenectady. (990 came a little later so that's why it's the one outlier.)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
I thought Milwaukee have I-794 and 894 because Chicago took everything before it (494 and 694 got cancelled (one of them was for a LSD interstate), 194 is now the lone I-90 portion of the Kennedy, and 594 is current I-190), and to avoid confusion in numbers with Chicago.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 11:13:24 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
I thought Milwaukee have I-794 and 894 because Chicago took everything before it (494 and 694 got cancelled (one of them was for a LSD interstate), 194 is now the lone I-90 portion of the Kennedy, and 594 is current I-190), and to avoid confusion in numbers with Chicago.
Different states so that wouldn't apply.
In fact, the only unused even 3di left is I-896. But I don't see a need for it anywhere.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 11:13:24 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
I thought Milwaukee have I-794 and 894 because Chicago took everything before it (494 and 694 got cancelled (one of them was for a LSD interstate), 194 is now the lone I-90 portion of the Kennedy, and 594 is current I-190), and to avoid confusion in numbers with Chicago.
Different states so that wouldn't apply.
Both I-494 and I-694 were to be used for the never-built LSD freeway. I-494 came first, but then the also never-built Crosstown Expressway came along and took that number, so LSD got I-694 instead. Let's not forget that I-294 is the Tri-State Tollway's middle part, and IL 394 exists in the south suburbs. Even though Chicago and Milwaukee are in neighboring states, the scheme works so that each city has one unique designation for all of its I-x94s.
There already is an I-296 and I-496. Most people wouldn't know about I-296 which is unsigned in Grand Rapids but I-496 is a pretty well known highway in the Lansing area. I-96 has 4 child routes.
Quote from: Henry on December 29, 2021, 12:27:18 PM
In fact, the only unused even 3di left is I-896. But I don't see a need for it anywhere.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 11:13:24 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
I thought Milwaukee have I-794 and 894 because Chicago took everything before it (494 and 694 got cancelled (one of them was for a LSD interstate), 194 is now the lone I-90 portion of the Kennedy, and 594 is current I-190), and to avoid confusion in numbers with Chicago.
Different states so that wouldn't apply.
Both I-494 and I-694 were to be used for the never-built LSD freeway. I-494 came first, but then the also never-built Crosstown Expressway came along and took that number, so LSD got I-694 instead. Let's not forget that I-294 is the Tri-State Tollway's middle part, and IL 394 exists in the south suburbs. Even though Chicago and Milwaukee are in neighboring states, the scheme works so that each city has one unique designation for all of its I-x94s.
I agree. In all honesty Michigan really doesn't need any more Interstate highways.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
Two answer the broader point, the 3di numbering scheme for I-96's child routes follows the recommendation of FHWA at the time where the first digit for auxiliary interstates increases west to east and south to north. Not every state followed this recommendation and there's no rule stating they have to, but it is the reason metro Detroit would have probably wound up with I-696 regardless of what was going on in Grand Rapids and Lansing. It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
This guidance is on full displace in New York with I-90 children increasing from 190 in Buffalo to 890 in Schenectady. (990 came a little later so that's why it's the one outlier.)
This would probably be the exact reason. I-69 doesn't have any child routes in Michigan, I-94 just has one, I-75 has 4 and I-96 has 4. Both I-75 and I-96 do have them in that order that you mentioned. I-275, then 375, then 475, then 675 and I-96 the only other Interstate with multiple child routes in the state follows the same pattern. It actually makes sense to use them in that order. I honestly never really realized that before either.
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 29, 2021, 12:50:57 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 29, 2021, 12:27:18 PM
In fact, the only unused even 3di left is I-896. But I don't see a need for it anywhere.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 11:13:24 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
I thought Milwaukee have I-794 and 894 because Chicago took everything before it (494 and 694 got cancelled (one of them was for a LSD interstate), 194 is now the lone I-90 portion of the Kennedy, and 594 is current I-190), and to avoid confusion in numbers with Chicago.
Different states so that wouldn't apply.
Both I-494 and I-694 were to be used for the never-built LSD freeway. I-494 came first, but then the also never-built Crosstown Expressway came along and took that number, so LSD got I-694 instead. Let's not forget that I-294 is the Tri-State Tollway's middle part, and IL 394 exists in the south suburbs. Even though Chicago and Milwaukee are in neighboring states, the scheme works so that each city has one unique designation for all of its I-x94s.
I agree. In all honesty Michigan really doesn't need any more Interstate highways.
i would say they need to fill in their gaps that's it.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/I-296.html. There's some debate if I-296 was signed when the freeway was constructed. If it was, the signage only lasted a few years then was removed. But, it still exist (on paper).
I-94's child route is really kind of pointless since the entire highway is concurrent with M-66 which is a long north-south state highway in the Lower Peninsula.
If they are going to sign that one than they should sign I-296 as well. I-196 acts more as an even numbered 3di rather than an odd numbered one, just make all of I-196 into I-296 and remove the part on US-131. I guess it's worth keeping in mind too that I-196 was originally supposed to go to Muskegon and I-96 was supposed to run on I-196's current routing back to I-94 in Benton Harbor.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 29, 2021, 04:06:50 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/I-296.html. There's some debate if I-296 was signed when the freeway was constructed. If it was, the signage only lasted a few years then was removed. But, it still exist (on paper).
I-296 was definitely signed - I remember it from the late '60s and thru the '70s.
Here is a Fox 17 news report (https://www.fox17online.com/news/local-news/nearly-130-000-vehicles-drive-on-i-296-every-day-and-drivers-dont-even-know-it) about I-296 from 2019.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 11:13:24 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
I thought Milwaukee have I-794 and 894 because Chicago took everything before it (494 and 694 got cancelled (one of them was for a LSD interstate), 194 is now the lone I-90 portion of the Kennedy, and 594 is current I-190), and to avoid confusion in numbers with Chicago.
Different states so that wouldn't apply.
Yes, but in theory, it would be nice to not duplicate 3di numbers used in a nearby city in another state on a route. Another example is Charlotte using 485 for their beltway instead of 285 (not used in NC back then) to avoid unnecessary duplication with Atlanta's beltway. This seemed like the case between Milwaukee and Chicago too.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 11:13:24 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
I thought Milwaukee have I-794 and 894 because Chicago took everything before it (494 and 694 got cancelled (one of them was for a LSD interstate), 194 is now the lone I-90 portion of the Kennedy, and 594 is current I-190), and to avoid confusion in numbers with Chicago.
Different states so that wouldn't apply.
I can see his point. He's probably thinking that they'll be too close to each other which would cause confusion and I agree it would. I even think you could be in like Ann Arbor and say I-475 and people would think of the one in Toledo before the one in Flint as the one in Flint wouldn't even really be on anyone's route coming from like Ann Arbor except for maybe if you were going to Mount Morris.
Because I-196 and I-96 were swapped in the 1960s. I-196 used to go to Muskegon.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 05:22:09 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 11:13:24 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
I thought Milwaukee have I-794 and 894 because Chicago took everything before it (494 and 694 got cancelled (one of them was for a LSD interstate), 194 is now the lone I-90 portion of the Kennedy, and 594 is current I-190), and to avoid confusion in numbers with Chicago.
Different states so that wouldn't apply.
Yes, but in theory, it would be nice to not duplicate 3di numbers used in a nearby city in another state on a route. Another example is Charlotte using 485 for their beltway instead of 285 (not used in NC back then) to avoid unnecessary duplication with Atlanta's beltway. This seemed like the case between Milwaukee and Chicago too.
If that were the reason for NC using 485 instead of 285, then they would have continued to avoid using 285 (but they didn't). Charlotte and the Piedmont Triad are both far enough away from Atlanta, as well as in different media markets than Atlanta (so no ambiguity on TV/radio traffic reports)
Quote from: ran4sh on December 29, 2021, 06:31:15 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 05:22:09 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2021, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 29, 2021, 11:13:24 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
I thought Milwaukee have I-794 and 894 because Chicago took everything before it (494 and 694 got cancelled (one of them was for a LSD interstate), 194 is now the lone I-90 portion of the Kennedy, and 594 is current I-190), and to avoid confusion in numbers with Chicago.
Different states so that wouldn't apply.
Yes, but in theory, it would be nice to not duplicate 3di numbers used in a nearby city in another state on a route. Another example is Charlotte using 485 for their beltway instead of 285 (not used in NC back then) to avoid unnecessary duplication with Atlanta's beltway. This seemed like the case between Milwaukee and Chicago too.
If that were the reason for NC using 485 instead of 285, then they would have continued to avoid using 285 (but they didn't). Charlotte and the Piedmont Triad are both far enough away from Atlanta, as well as in different media markets than Atlanta (so no ambiguity on TV/radio traffic reports)
Atlanta and Charlotte are about 250 miles from each other. Someone halfway in between is 125 miles from each one so using I-285 in Charlotte would confuse people with Atlanta's I-285. Like people around Greenville and Anderson. The I-285 in North Carolina is about 300 miles away from Atlanta's I-285.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
Two answer the broader point, the 3di numbering scheme for I-96's child routes follows the recommendation of FHWA at the time where the first digit for auxiliary interstates increases west to east and south to north. Not every state followed this recommendation and there's no rule stating they have to, but it is the reason metro Detroit would have probably wound up with I-696 regardless of what was going on in Grand Rapids and Lansing. It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
So this got me thinking: where could I-396 and I-596 (or even I-796) be, if they were used? My guess is that I-396 could be used for M-6. I-596 could be used in Livingston County if ever a freeway were needed there. The only plausible use for I-796 that I can think of might be the Davison, if it got connected to I-96 somehow.
Quote from: 23skidoo on December 29, 2021, 08:54:46 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 29, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
Two answer the broader point, the 3di numbering scheme for I-96's child routes follows the recommendation of FHWA at the time where the first digit for auxiliary interstates increases west to east and south to north. Not every state followed this recommendation and there's no rule stating they have to, but it is the reason metro Detroit would have probably wound up with I-696 regardless of what was going on in Grand Rapids and Lansing. It's the same reason Milwaukee has I-794 and I-894.
So this got me thinking: where could I-396 and I-596 (or even I-796) be, if they were used? My guess is that I-396 could be used for M-6. I-596 could be used in Livingston County if ever a freeway were needed there. The only plausible use for I-796 that I can think of might be the Davison, if it got connected to I-96 somehow.
There's a few threads in the fictional section on using the remaining 3di numbers of a 2di.
I-296 was signed until 1980. It still exists but is an unsigned route which is part of US-131.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/I-296.html
I-496 runs through the heart of Lansing.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/MichHwys250-696.html
There was a lot of speculation before M-6 was completed that the unsigned I-296 designation would be removed from US-131 and given to M-6, which would make perfect sense since it does indeed connect I-196 TO 96. But MDOT quickly squelched this by basically saying that the people in Michigan were too stupid to deal with another x-96 and would become confused and never get to where they're trying to go. I find that quite laughable since the Lansing area has 2 interchanges and a multiplex between I-96 and I-69, along with both a BUS 96 and a BUS 69, and to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases of dyslexic sex maniacs getting lost in the moment! :)
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 30, 2021, 01:45:53 AM
There was a lot of speculation before M-6 was completed that the unsigned I-296 designation would be removed from US-131 and given to M-6, which would make perfect sense since it does indeed connect I-196 TO 96. But MDOT quickly squelched this by basically saying that the people in Michigan were too stupid to deal with another x-96 and would become confused and never get to where they're trying to go. I find that quite laughable since the Lansing area has 2 interchanges and a multiplex between I-96 and I-69, along with both a BUS 96 and a BUS 69, and to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases of dyslexic sex maniacs getting lost in the moment! :)
Michigan is not like my state of Illinois or North Carolina, where any limited access route more than 2 miles long is an interstate. Michigan is more like Ohio or Wisconsin. Freeways can be U.S. Routes or even state routes. People want to go where they need to. The type of route does not matter. If Michigan were North Carolina, then all of US-131 would be an interstate. Then, US-31, US-127, M-14, and a bunch of other routes I do not feel like listing. Heck, if Michigan were Illinois, US-131 would have been rammed all the way to Mackinac Island as a 2di (probably I-67) before naming it I-296!
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 30, 2021, 01:45:53 AM
There was a lot of speculation before M-6 was completed that the unsigned I-296 designation would be removed from US-131 and given to M-6, which would make perfect sense since it does indeed connect I-196 TO 96. But MDOT quickly squelched this by basically saying that the people in Michigan were too stupid to deal with another x-96 and would become confused and never get to where they're trying to go. I find that quite laughable since the Lansing area has 2 interchanges and a multiplex between I-96 and I-69, along with both a BUS 96 and a BUS 69, and to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases of dyslexic sex maniacs getting lost in the moment! :)
Michigan is not like my state of Illinois or North Carolina, where any limited access route more than 2 miles long is an interstate. Michigan is more like Ohio or Wisconsin. Freeways can be U.S. Routes or even state routes. People want to go where they need to. The type of route does not matter. If Michigan were North Carolina, then all of US-131 would be an interstate. Then, US-31, US-127, M-14, and a bunch of other routes I do not feel like listing. Heck, if Michigan were Illinois, US-131 would have been rammed all the way to Mackinac Island as a 2di (probably I-67) before naming it I-296!
Illinois and North Carolina both have non-interstate freeways way more than two miles long. If Wisconsin wasn't interested in pursuing any new interstates, they wouldn't have gotten I-39 or I-41.
The only difference is that Wisconsin actually waited to pursue the designations until after they were established freeways the whole way. NC has grand plans to build out their network sometime in the future, and considering that, most of their newer designations would make a lot more sense if they had done that same thing.
Plans to upgrade US 131 further north have been cancelled, and the only way it would make sense to have an interstate there is if it connected to I-75 at some point. That area is losing people and traffic. Bottom line is that there's no evidence any state has something against new interstate designations if they make sense, there's just a lack of demand here.
There are few areas in Michigan where a US highway designation isn't on the fastest route between two points (US-24 south of Trenton and US-12 west of Sturgis are two notable exceptions). While other places east of the Mississippi maintain US highway designations on routes that have long since been bypassed by Interstates, Michigan was quite aggressive about removing redundant US routes along its Interstates. Sometimes they were replaced by posted state highways, and sometimes they reverted to unsigned state highway or county routes.
No local refers to the section of I-496 in Lansing between Trowbridge Rd and I-96 as I-496. It's referred to as US-127, even though I-496 technically is the primary routing on the multiplexed section (and given the larger reassurance signage typical of such multiplexes in Michigan). But if you asked a local which one is the primary route, they would say it was US-127. The way the roadway is configured, it feels like I-496 hops on and off US-127, not the other way around.
MDOT (wisely) noticed a similar issue with the I-296 designation on the tiny section it shares with US-131 in Grand Rapids - and since it didn't need to be posted for continuity reasons, they chose to hide it. To the local, there's no "missing" designation - no apparent change in roadway that would signal the part north of I-196 is any different than the section south of I-196.
To the US-127 driver, the exit numbers on the multiplex with I-496 make little sense. Northbound you go from exit 73 to exit 11 to exit 9 to exit 8 to exit 76. It's not readily apparent why the exit numbers seemingly bounce around - that I-496 is the main route designation. Southbound following US-127, the I-496 mileposts make even less sense - you go from exit 75 to exit 11 to exit 73.
Granted, the I-496 mileposts were in place decades before MDOT saw fit to post exit numbers (and mileposts) on US-127, but one wonders if it would've made more sense for MDOT just to hide the I-496 mileposts on the multiplexed section and use the US-127 ones for consistency. Had US-127 gotten a I-73 designation, there's no question the mileposts on the multiplex would be based on the I-73 designation and not I-496's. But the apparent conflict of a US highway designation taking precedence over a Interstate designation means Jolly Rd, which some would post as Exit 74, instead is Exit 11.
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 30, 2021, 03:50:51 PM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 30, 2021, 01:45:53 AM
There was a lot of speculation before M-6 was completed that the unsigned I-296 designation would be removed from US-131 and given to M-6, which would make perfect sense since it does indeed connect I-196 TO 96. But MDOT quickly squelched this by basically saying that the people in Michigan were too stupid to deal with another x-96 and would become confused and never get to where they're trying to go. I find that quite laughable since the Lansing area has 2 interchanges and a multiplex between I-96 and I-69, along with both a BUS 96 and a BUS 69, and to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases of dyslexic sex maniacs getting lost in the moment! :)
Michigan is not like my state of Illinois or North Carolina, where any limited access route more than 2 miles long is an interstate. Michigan is more like Ohio or Wisconsin. Freeways can be U.S. Routes or even state routes. People want to go where they need to. The type of route does not matter. If Michigan were North Carolina, then all of US-131 would be an interstate. Then, US-31, US-127, M-14, and a bunch of other routes I do not feel like listing. Heck, if Michigan were Illinois, US-131 would have been rammed all the way to Mackinac Island as a 2di (probably I-67) before naming it I-296!
Illinois and North Carolina both have non-interstate freeways way more than two miles long. If Wisconsin wasn't interested in pursuing any new interstates, they wouldn't have gotten I-39 or I-41.
The only difference is that Wisconsin actually waited to pursue the designations until after they were established freeways the whole way. NC has grand plans to build out their network sometime in the future, and considering that, most of their newer designations would make a lot more sense if they had done that same thing.
Plans to upgrade US 131 further north have been cancelled, and the only way it would make sense to have an interstate there is if it connected to I-75 at some point. That area is losing people and traffic. Bottom line is that there's no evidence any state has something against new interstate designations if they make sense, there's just a lack of demand here.
My response was sarcasm. I realize that Illinois and North Carolina have U.S. and state route freeways longer than two miles. My point is that freeways of long distance in the state of Michigan are not interstates. Also, back to the title of this thread: I-296 does not need to be signed. In Michigan the shield is not as important to highway officials as other states DOT's are. US-131 is perfectly reasonable as a route number. But, if Michigan had a DOT like Illinois, not only would US-131 be an interstate, it would be completed. On at least one end. Probably into Indiana, maybe farther north into the northern peninsula.
Really only US-20 west of Rockford US-51, IL-336 and IL-255 are the few IL rural freeways. I tend to agree with Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and other states that you build the route as needed. Don't worry if a freeway isn't signed as an interstate. Build rural expressways and 5 lane routes if the vpd demands it. The public will adapt.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 30, 2021, 03:50:51 PM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 30, 2021, 01:45:53 AM
There was a lot of speculation before M-6 was completed that the unsigned I-296 designation would be removed from US-131 and given to M-6, which would make perfect sense since it does indeed connect I-196 TO 96. But MDOT quickly squelched this by basically saying that the people in Michigan were too stupid to deal with another x-96 and would become confused and never get to where they're trying to go. I find that quite laughable since the Lansing area has 2 interchanges and a multiplex between I-96 and I-69, along with both a BUS 96 and a BUS 69, and to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases of dyslexic sex maniacs getting lost in the moment! :)
Michigan is not like my state of Illinois or North Carolina, where any limited access route more than 2 miles long is an interstate. Michigan is more like Ohio or Wisconsin. Freeways can be U.S. Routes or even state routes. People want to go where they need to. The type of route does not matter. If Michigan were North Carolina, then all of US-131 would be an interstate. Then, US-31, US-127, M-14, and a bunch of other routes I do not feel like listing. Heck, if Michigan were Illinois, US-131 would have been rammed all the way to Mackinac Island as a 2di (probably I-67) before naming it I-296!
Illinois and North Carolina both have non-interstate freeways way more than two miles long. If Wisconsin wasn't interested in pursuing any new interstates, they wouldn't have gotten I-39 or I-41.
The only difference is that Wisconsin actually waited to pursue the designations until after they were established freeways the whole way. NC has grand plans to build out their network sometime in the future, and considering that, most of their newer designations would make a lot more sense if they had done that same thing.
Plans to upgrade US 131 further north have been cancelled, and the only way it would make sense to have an interstate there is if it connected to I-75 at some point. That area is losing people and traffic. Bottom line is that there's no evidence any state has something against new interstate designations if they make sense, there's just a lack of demand here.
My response was sarcasm. I realize that Illinois and North Carolina have U.S. and state route freeways longer than two miles. My point is that freeways of long distance in the state of Michigan are not interstates. Also, back to the title of this thread: I-296 does not need to be signed. In Michigan the shield is not as important to highway officials as other states DOT's are. US-131 is perfectly reasonable as a route number. But, if Michigan had a DOT like Illinois, not only would US-131 be an interstate, it would be completed. On at least one end. Probably into Indiana, maybe farther north into the northern peninsula.
Really only US-20 west of Rockford US-51, IL-336 and IL-255 are the few IL rural freeways. I tend to agree with Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and other states that you build the route as needed. Don't worry if a freeway isn't signed as an interstate. Build rural expressways and 5 lane routes if the vpd demands it. The public will adapt.
You're framing it as if MDOT has something against pursuing other interstate designations, though. There's no evidence of that. The reason why Illinois did pursue other (sometimes redundant) interstate designations is probably so that they could raise the speed limit on those roads. It made more sense to put up red, white, and blue shields on every spur to nowhere then.
Do you know how Forgottonia got its name? They didn't get a four-lane road for the same reason northern Michigan doesn't have every US highway four-laned. It's a shrinking area where passing lanes are good enough for the times these roads do have a high amount of traffic. Illinois didn't complete every freeway or expressway they ever planned, and neither did Michigan for the same reasons. It's not a case of more ambition for the interstate designations, Illinois just has more people, and more people use its roads because most people don't have to drive around a big lake to get through there.
Would Interstate 296 have had more legitimacy (and thus still be signposted) if its southern terminus had been, not at Interstate 196, but at Interstate 94 in Kalamazoo?
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 31, 2021, 12:25:43 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 30, 2021, 03:50:51 PM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 30, 2021, 01:45:53 AM
There was a lot of speculation before M-6 was completed that the unsigned I-296 designation would be removed from US-131 and given to M-6, which would make perfect sense since it does indeed connect I-196 TO 96. But MDOT quickly squelched this by basically saying that the people in Michigan were too stupid to deal with another x-96 and would become confused and never get to where they're trying to go. I find that quite laughable since the Lansing area has 2 interchanges and a multiplex between I-96 and I-69, along with both a BUS 96 and a BUS 69, and to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases of dyslexic sex maniacs getting lost in the moment! :)
Michigan is not like my state of Illinois or North Carolina, where any limited access route more than 2 miles long is an interstate. Michigan is more like Ohio or Wisconsin. Freeways can be U.S. Routes or even state routes. People want to go where they need to. The type of route does not matter. If Michigan were North Carolina, then all of US-131 would be an interstate. Then, US-31, US-127, M-14, and a bunch of other routes I do not feel like listing. Heck, if Michigan were Illinois, US-131 would have been rammed all the way to Mackinac Island as a 2di (probably I-67) before naming it I-296!
Illinois and North Carolina both have non-interstate freeways way more than two miles long. If Wisconsin wasn't interested in pursuing any new interstates, they wouldn't have gotten I-39 or I-41.
The only difference is that Wisconsin actually waited to pursue the designations until after they were established freeways the whole way. NC has grand plans to build out their network sometime in the future, and considering that, most of their newer designations would make a lot more sense if they had done that same thing.
Plans to upgrade US 131 further north have been cancelled, and the only way it would make sense to have an interstate there is if it connected to I-75 at some point. That area is losing people and traffic. Bottom line is that there's no evidence any state has something against new interstate designations if they make sense, there's just a lack of demand here.
My response was sarcasm. I realize that Illinois and North Carolina have U.S. and state route freeways longer than two miles. My point is that freeways of long distance in the state of Michigan are not interstates. Also, back to the title of this thread: I-296 does not need to be signed. In Michigan the shield is not as important to highway officials as other states DOT's are. US-131 is perfectly reasonable as a route number. But, if Michigan had a DOT like Illinois, not only would US-131 be an interstate, it would be completed. On at least one end. Probably into Indiana, maybe farther north into the northern peninsula.
Really only US-20 west of Rockford US-51, IL-336 and IL-255 are the few IL rural freeways. I tend to agree with Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and other states that you build the route as needed. Don't worry if a freeway isn't signed as an interstate. Build rural expressways and 5 lane routes if the vpd demands it. The public will adapt.
You're framing it as if MDOT has something against pursuing other interstate designations, though. There's no evidence of that. The reason why Illinois did pursue other (sometimes redundant) interstate designations is probably so that they could raise the speed limit on those roads. It made more sense to put up red, white, and blue shields on every spur to nowhere then.
Do you know how Forgottonia got its name? They didn't get a four-lane road for the same reason northern Michigan doesn't have every US highway four-laned. It's a shrinking area where passing lanes are good enough for the times these roads do have a high amount of traffic. Illinois didn't complete every freeway or expressway they ever planned, and neither did Michigan for the same reasons. It's not a case of more ambition for the interstate designations, Illinois just has more people, and more people use its roads because most people don't have to drive around a big lake to get through there.
Michigan has speed limits of 70 and 75 mph on non Interstate freeways so the route being an Interstate has nothing to do with the speed limit. US-10, US-127, US-131 are all 70-75 mph and US-23 is 70 mph. Michigan has made no indication that they are even interested in new Interstate's, they haven't built a brand new Interstate in 30 years.
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2021, 10:33:12 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 31, 2021, 12:25:43 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 30, 2021, 03:50:51 PM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 30, 2021, 01:45:53 AM
There was a lot of speculation before M-6 was completed that the unsigned I-296 designation would be removed from US-131 and given to M-6, which would make perfect sense since it does indeed connect I-196 TO 96. But MDOT quickly squelched this by basically saying that the people in Michigan were too stupid to deal with another x-96 and would become confused and never get to where they're trying to go. I find that quite laughable since the Lansing area has 2 interchanges and a multiplex between I-96 and I-69, along with both a BUS 96 and a BUS 69, and to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases of dyslexic sex maniacs getting lost in the moment! :)
Michigan is not like my state of Illinois or North Carolina, where any limited access route more than 2 miles long is an interstate. Michigan is more like Ohio or Wisconsin. Freeways can be U.S. Routes or even state routes. People want to go where they need to. The type of route does not matter. If Michigan were North Carolina, then all of US-131 would be an interstate. Then, US-31, US-127, M-14, and a bunch of other routes I do not feel like listing. Heck, if Michigan were Illinois, US-131 would have been rammed all the way to Mackinac Island as a 2di (probably I-67) before naming it I-296!
Illinois and North Carolina both have non-interstate freeways way more than two miles long. If Wisconsin wasn't interested in pursuing any new interstates, they wouldn't have gotten I-39 or I-41.
The only difference is that Wisconsin actually waited to pursue the designations until after they were established freeways the whole way. NC has grand plans to build out their network sometime in the future, and considering that, most of their newer designations would make a lot more sense if they had done that same thing.
Plans to upgrade US 131 further north have been cancelled, and the only way it would make sense to have an interstate there is if it connected to I-75 at some point. That area is losing people and traffic. Bottom line is that there's no evidence any state has something against new interstate designations if they make sense, there's just a lack of demand here.
My response was sarcasm. I realize that Illinois and North Carolina have U.S. and state route freeways longer than two miles. My point is that freeways of long distance in the state of Michigan are not interstates. Also, back to the title of this thread: I-296 does not need to be signed. In Michigan the shield is not as important to highway officials as other states DOT's are. US-131 is perfectly reasonable as a route number. But, if Michigan had a DOT like Illinois, not only would US-131 be an interstate, it would be completed. On at least one end. Probably into Indiana, maybe farther north into the northern peninsula.
Really only US-20 west of Rockford US-51, IL-336 and IL-255 are the few IL rural freeways. I tend to agree with Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and other states that you build the route as needed. Don't worry if a freeway isn't signed as an interstate. Build rural expressways and 5 lane routes if the vpd demands it. The public will adapt.
You're framing it as if MDOT has something against pursuing other interstate designations, though. There's no evidence of that. The reason why Illinois did pursue other (sometimes redundant) interstate designations is probably so that they could raise the speed limit on those roads. It made more sense to put up red, white, and blue shields on every spur to nowhere then.
Do you know how Forgottonia got its name? They didn't get a four-lane road for the same reason northern Michigan doesn't have every US highway four-laned. It's a shrinking area where passing lanes are good enough for the times these roads do have a high amount of traffic. Illinois didn't complete every freeway or expressway they ever planned, and neither did Michigan for the same reasons. It's not a case of more ambition for the interstate designations, Illinois just has more people, and more people use its roads because most people don't have to drive around a big lake to get through there.
Michigan has speed limits of 70 and 75 mph on non Interstate freeways so the route being an Interstate has nothing to do with the speed limit. US-10, US-127, US-131 are all 70-75 mph and US-23 is 70 mph. Michigan has made no indication that they are even interested in new Interstate's, they haven't built a brand new Interstate in 30 years.
What? I'm talking about the national maximum speed law. Of course a state can set any speed limit on any road they please nowadays. This wasn't the case when Illinois built those freeways; they had to be interstates in order to legally raise the limit to 65.
MDOT studied I-73 and determined it wasn't needed. They were interested in it at one point. It's just inaccurate to say that they are against any new interstate designations. It's accurate to say that they don't think they need any more of them.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 31, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Would Interstate 296 have had more legitimacy (and thus still be signposted) if its southern terminus had been, not at Interstate 196, but at Interstate 94 in Kalamazoo?
It had legitimacy because it was a planned part of the original interstate system, connecting I-96 and I-196 before present day I-196 was completed and before I-96 and I-196 swapped routes. The I-296/US-131 freeway's northern terminus ended at present day I-96, which was I-196 then, and followed present day I-96 easterly to Plainfield Ave. north. I believe there was a brief time when the I-296 stretch was signed solely as I-296, before getting the concurrent designation with US-131 and M-37.
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 01, 2022, 12:26:23 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2021, 10:33:12 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 31, 2021, 12:25:43 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 30, 2021, 03:50:51 PM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 30, 2021, 01:45:53 AM
There was a lot of speculation before M-6 was completed that the unsigned I-296 designation would be removed from US-131 and given to M-6, which would make perfect sense since it does indeed connect I-196 TO 96. But MDOT quickly squelched this by basically saying that the people in Michigan were too stupid to deal with another x-96 and would become confused and never get to where they're trying to go. I find that quite laughable since the Lansing area has 2 interchanges and a multiplex between I-96 and I-69, along with both a BUS 96 and a BUS 69, and to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases of dyslexic sex maniacs getting lost in the moment! :)
Michigan is not like my state of Illinois or North Carolina, where any limited access route more than 2 miles long is an interstate. Michigan is more like Ohio or Wisconsin. Freeways can be U.S. Routes or even state routes. People want to go where they need to. The type of route does not matter. If Michigan were North Carolina, then all of US-131 would be an interstate. Then, US-31, US-127, M-14, and a bunch of other routes I do not feel like listing. Heck, if Michigan were Illinois, US-131 would have been rammed all the way to Mackinac Island as a 2di (probably I-67) before naming it I-296!
Illinois and North Carolina both have non-interstate freeways way more than two miles long. If Wisconsin wasn't interested in pursuing any new interstates, they wouldn't have gotten I-39 or I-41.
The only difference is that Wisconsin actually waited to pursue the designations until after they were established freeways the whole way. NC has grand plans to build out their network sometime in the future, and considering that, most of their newer designations would make a lot more sense if they had done that same thing.
Plans to upgrade US 131 further north have been cancelled, and the only way it would make sense to have an interstate there is if it connected to I-75 at some point. That area is losing people and traffic. Bottom line is that there's no evidence any state has something against new interstate designations if they make sense, there's just a lack of demand here.
My response was sarcasm. I realize that Illinois and North Carolina have U.S. and state route freeways longer than two miles. My point is that freeways of long distance in the state of Michigan are not interstates. Also, back to the title of this thread: I-296 does not need to be signed. In Michigan the shield is not as important to highway officials as other states DOT's are. US-131 is perfectly reasonable as a route number. But, if Michigan had a DOT like Illinois, not only would US-131 be an interstate, it would be completed. On at least one end. Probably into Indiana, maybe farther north into the northern peninsula.
Really only US-20 west of Rockford US-51, IL-336 and IL-255 are the few IL rural freeways. I tend to agree with Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and other states that you build the route as needed. Don't worry if a freeway isn't signed as an interstate. Build rural expressways and 5 lane routes if the vpd demands it. The public will adapt.
You're framing it as if MDOT has something against pursuing other interstate designations, though. There's no evidence of that. The reason why Illinois did pursue other (sometimes redundant) interstate designations is probably so that they could raise the speed limit on those roads. It made more sense to put up red, white, and blue shields on every spur to nowhere then.
Do you know how Forgottonia got its name? They didn't get a four-lane road for the same reason northern Michigan doesn't have every US highway four-laned. It's a shrinking area where passing lanes are good enough for the times these roads do have a high amount of traffic. Illinois didn't complete every freeway or expressway they ever planned, and neither did Michigan for the same reasons. It's not a case of more ambition for the interstate designations, Illinois just has more people, and more people use its roads because most people don't have to drive around a big lake to get through there.
Michigan has speed limits of 70 and 75 mph on non Interstate freeways so the route being an Interstate has nothing to do with the speed limit. US-10, US-127, US-131 are all 70-75 mph and US-23 is 70 mph. Michigan has made no indication that they are even interested in new Interstate's, they haven't built a brand new Interstate in 30 years.
What? I'm talking about the national maximum speed law. Of course a state can set any speed limit on any road they please nowadays. This wasn't the case when Illinois built those freeways; they had to be interstates in order to legally raise the limit to 65.
MDOT studied I-73 and determined it wasn't needed. They were interested in it at one point. It's just inaccurate to say that they are against any new interstate designations. It's accurate to say that they don't think they need any more of them.
Oh it's indeed accurate to say that they are against any new Interstate's which they are. There are no plans to build any new Interstate's in Michigan or even change a US highway to an Interstate and I don't see that changing at all. Michigan is a state where you can get around pretty much just fine the way it is. I-73 has been dead for over 20 years in Michigan, they aren't going back to that.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 01, 2022, 07:26:59 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 01, 2022, 12:26:23 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2021, 10:33:12 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 31, 2021, 12:25:43 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 30, 2021, 03:50:51 PM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on December 30, 2021, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 30, 2021, 01:45:53 AM
There was a lot of speculation before M-6 was completed that the unsigned I-296 designation would be removed from US-131 and given to M-6, which would make perfect sense since it does indeed connect I-196 TO 96. But MDOT quickly squelched this by basically saying that the people in Michigan were too stupid to deal with another x-96 and would become confused and never get to where they're trying to go. I find that quite laughable since the Lansing area has 2 interchanges and a multiplex between I-96 and I-69, along with both a BUS 96 and a BUS 69, and to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases of dyslexic sex maniacs getting lost in the moment! :)
Michigan is not like my state of Illinois or North Carolina, where any limited access route more than 2 miles long is an interstate. Michigan is more like Ohio or Wisconsin. Freeways can be U.S. Routes or even state routes. People want to go where they need to. The type of route does not matter. If Michigan were North Carolina, then all of US-131 would be an interstate. Then, US-31, US-127, M-14, and a bunch of other routes I do not feel like listing. Heck, if Michigan were Illinois, US-131 would have been rammed all the way to Mackinac Island as a 2di (probably I-67) before naming it I-296!
Illinois and North Carolina both have non-interstate freeways way more than two miles long. If Wisconsin wasn't interested in pursuing any new interstates, they wouldn't have gotten I-39 or I-41.
The only difference is that Wisconsin actually waited to pursue the designations until after they were established freeways the whole way. NC has grand plans to build out their network sometime in the future, and considering that, most of their newer designations would make a lot more sense if they had done that same thing.
Plans to upgrade US 131 further north have been cancelled, and the only way it would make sense to have an interstate there is if it connected to I-75 at some point. That area is losing people and traffic. Bottom line is that there's no evidence any state has something against new interstate designations if they make sense, there's just a lack of demand here.
My response was sarcasm. I realize that Illinois and North Carolina have U.S. and state route freeways longer than two miles. My point is that freeways of long distance in the state of Michigan are not interstates. Also, back to the title of this thread: I-296 does not need to be signed. In Michigan the shield is not as important to highway officials as other states DOT's are. US-131 is perfectly reasonable as a route number. But, if Michigan had a DOT like Illinois, not only would US-131 be an interstate, it would be completed. On at least one end. Probably into Indiana, maybe farther north into the northern peninsula.
Really only US-20 west of Rockford US-51, IL-336 and IL-255 are the few IL rural freeways. I tend to agree with Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and other states that you build the route as needed. Don't worry if a freeway isn't signed as an interstate. Build rural expressways and 5 lane routes if the vpd demands it. The public will adapt.
You're framing it as if MDOT has something against pursuing other interstate designations, though. There's no evidence of that. The reason why Illinois did pursue other (sometimes redundant) interstate designations is probably so that they could raise the speed limit on those roads. It made more sense to put up red, white, and blue shields on every spur to nowhere then.
Do you know how Forgottonia got its name? They didn't get a four-lane road for the same reason northern Michigan doesn't have every US highway four-laned. It's a shrinking area where passing lanes are good enough for the times these roads do have a high amount of traffic. Illinois didn't complete every freeway or expressway they ever planned, and neither did Michigan for the same reasons. It's not a case of more ambition for the interstate designations, Illinois just has more people, and more people use its roads because most people don't have to drive around a big lake to get through there.
Michigan has speed limits of 70 and 75 mph on non Interstate freeways so the route being an Interstate has nothing to do with the speed limit. US-10, US-127, US-131 are all 70-75 mph and US-23 is 70 mph. Michigan has made no indication that they are even interested in new Interstate's, they haven't built a brand new Interstate in 30 years.
What? I'm talking about the national maximum speed law. Of course a state can set any speed limit on any road they please nowadays. This wasn't the case when Illinois built those freeways; they had to be interstates in order to legally raise the limit to 65.
MDOT studied I-73 and determined it wasn't needed. They were interested in it at one point. It's just inaccurate to say that they are against any new interstate designations. It's accurate to say that they don't think they need any more of them.
Oh it's indeed accurate to say that they are against any new Interstate's which they are. There are no plans to build any new Interstate's in Michigan or even change a US highway to an Interstate and I don't see that changing at all. Michigan is a state where you can get around pretty much just fine the way it is. I-73 has been dead for over 20 years in Michigan, they aren't going back to that.
Because it's not needed. Not because they are against adding anything to the system. That's like saying North Dakota is against any new interstates because they don't plan to upgrade US 2.
There is a very small portion of I-296 that isn't concurrent with US-131, but it's just the very long ramps from EB I-96 to SB US-131 and NB US-131 to WB I-96. The NB > WB ramp also provides access to EB I-96 and M-37. Both of those exits are unnumbered, but they could be numbered as:
Exit 3A: I-96 EB (EB I-96 is Exit 89A on SB 131; the long ramp is Exit 89 on NB 131)
Exit 3B: M-37 / Alpine Ave
Speaking of M-37, the exit to it (and M-44) from EB I-196 is Exit 38 to match I-96 when it easily could be Exit 81 as the off-ramp leaves before I-196 merges into I-96 (and with the recent reconfiguring in that area; I-96 and I-196 have separate off-ramps to M-37 that merge off the mainline)
Quote from: ftballfan on January 01, 2022, 11:57:19 PM
There is a very small portion of I-296 that isn't concurrent with US-131, but it's just the very long ramps from EB I-96 to SB US-131 and NB US-131 to WB I-96. The NB > WB ramp also provides access to EB I-96 and M-37. Both of those exits are unnumbered, but they could be numbered as:
Exit 3A: I-96 EB (EB I-96 is Exit 89A on SB 131; the long ramp is Exit 89 on NB 131)
Exit 3B: M-37 / Alpine Ave
Speaking of M-37, the exit to it (and M-44) from EB I-196 is Exit 38 to match I-96 when it easily could be Exit 81 as the off-ramp leaves before I-196 merges into I-96 (and with the recent reconfiguring in that area; I-96 and I-196 have separate off-ramps to M-37 that merge off the mainline)
I would argue that the long exit ramps for I-96 are part of US-131 since they use US-131 numbering (exit 89). The exit from I-196 to M-37/44 could not be given exit 81 since the freeway has no mile marker 81. It would have to be 80 or possibly even 79 since the ramp starts so far back now. What I'd like to know is why there's only 1 through lane from I-196 to I-96 now. They just widened the rest of it to 3 lanes each way, but made it a 1 lane squeeze where it joins I-96.
Quote from: Terry Shea on January 02, 2022, 03:32:41 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on January 01, 2022, 11:57:19 PM
There is a very small portion of I-296 that isn't concurrent with US-131, but it's just the very long ramps from EB I-96 to SB US-131 and NB US-131 to WB I-96. The NB > WB ramp also provides access to EB I-96 and M-37. Both of those exits are unnumbered, but they could be numbered as:
Exit 3A: I-96 EB (EB I-96 is Exit 89A on SB 131; the long ramp is Exit 89 on NB 131)
Exit 3B: M-37 / Alpine Ave
Speaking of M-37, the exit to it (and M-44) from EB I-196 is Exit 38 to match I-96 when it easily could be Exit 81 as the off-ramp leaves before I-196 merges into I-96 (and with the recent reconfiguring in that area; I-96 and I-196 have separate off-ramps to M-37 that merge off the mainline)
I would argue that the long exit ramps for I-96 are part of US-131 since they use US-131 numbering (exit 89). The exit from I-196 to M-37/44 could not be given exit 81 since the freeway has no mile marker 81. It would have to be 80 or possibly even 79 since the ramp starts so far back now. What I'd like to know is why there's only 1 through lane from I-196 to I-96 now. They just widened the rest of it to 3 lanes each way, but made it a 1 lane squeeze where it joins I-96.
Exit 79 is Fuller Avenue so you couldn't use that one either. Did they really use 38 for an exit? That would be on I-96 mainline and not I-196 so I'm not even sure there. The sign for it is on the Maryland Avenue overpass. They could get away with using exit 81 though since the mileage of the highway is closer to 81 than 80 at the end.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 03, 2022, 07:23:06 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on January 02, 2022, 03:32:41 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on January 01, 2022, 11:57:19 PM
There is a very small portion of I-296 that isn't concurrent with US-131, but it's just the very long ramps from EB I-96 to SB US-131 and NB US-131 to WB I-96. The NB > WB ramp also provides access to EB I-96 and M-37. Both of those exits are unnumbered, but they could be numbered as:
Exit 3A: I-96 EB (EB I-96 is Exit 89A on SB 131; the long ramp is Exit 89 on NB 131)
Exit 3B: M-37 / Alpine Ave
Speaking of M-37, the exit to it (and M-44) from EB I-196 is Exit 38 to match I-96 when it easily could be Exit 81 as the off-ramp leaves before I-196 merges into I-96 (and with the recent reconfiguring in that area; I-96 and I-196 have separate off-ramps to M-37 that merge off the mainline)
I would argue that the long exit ramps for I-96 are part of US-131 since they use US-131 numbering (exit 89). The exit from I-196 to M-37/44 could not be given exit 81 since the freeway has no mile marker 81. It would have to be 80 or possibly even 79 since the ramp starts so far back now. What I'd like to know is why there's only 1 through lane from I-196 to I-96 now. They just widened the rest of it to 3 lanes each way, but made it a 1 lane squeeze where it joins I-96.
Exit 79 is Fuller Avenue so you couldn't use that one either. Did they really use 38 for an exit? That would be on I-96 mainline and not I-196 so I'm not even sure there. The sign for it is on the Maryland Avenue overpass. They could get away with using exit 81 though since the mileage of the highway is closer to 81 than 80 at the end.
There are exits for East Beltline M-37/44 off from both I-96 and I-196 . The exit off from I-96 is numbered exit 38 as it always has been. I drove down I-196 last night and there is a mile post about a quarter mile past the East Beltline exit that reads 80.42. I expect that is now the actual freeway terminus, as it is posted right where it starts narrowing down to 1 lane. I didn't notice if the actual exit was numbered or not, but if it is numbered it should be exit 80.
Quote from: Terry Shea on January 03, 2022, 08:17:13 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 03, 2022, 07:23:06 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on January 02, 2022, 03:32:41 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on January 01, 2022, 11:57:19 PM
There is a very small portion of I-296 that isn't concurrent with US-131, but it's just the very long ramps from EB I-96 to SB US-131 and NB US-131 to WB I-96. The NB > WB ramp also provides access to EB I-96 and M-37. Both of those exits are unnumbered, but they could be numbered as:
Exit 3A: I-96 EB (EB I-96 is Exit 89A on SB 131; the long ramp is Exit 89 on NB 131)
Exit 3B: M-37 / Alpine Ave
Speaking of M-37, the exit to it (and M-44) from EB I-196 is Exit 38 to match I-96 when it easily could be Exit 81 as the off-ramp leaves before I-196 merges into I-96 (and with the recent reconfiguring in that area; I-96 and I-196 have separate off-ramps to M-37 that merge off the mainline)
I would argue that the long exit ramps for I-96 are part of US-131 since they use US-131 numbering (exit 89). The exit from I-196 to M-37/44 could not be given exit 81 since the freeway has no mile marker 81. It would have to be 80 or possibly even 79 since the ramp starts so far back now. What I'd like to know is why there's only 1 through lane from I-196 to I-96 now. They just widened the rest of it to 3 lanes each way, but made it a 1 lane squeeze where it joins I-96.
Exit 79 is Fuller Avenue so you couldn't use that one either. Did they really use 38 for an exit? That would be on I-96 mainline and not I-196 so I'm not even sure there. The sign for it is on the Maryland Avenue overpass. They could get away with using exit 81 though since the mileage of the highway is closer to 81 than 80 at the end.
There are exits for East Beltline M-37/44 off from both I-96 and I-196 . The exit off from I-96 is numbered exit 38 as it always has been. I drove down I-196 last night and there is a mile post about a quarter mile past the East Beltline exit that reads 80.42. I expect that is now the actual freeway terminus, as it is posted right where it starts narrowing down to 1 lane. I didn't notice if the actual exit was numbered or not, but if it is numbered it should be exit 80.
The new exit ramp from eastbound I-196 to East Beltline is numbered 38, to match the exit number from eastbound I-96, even though I-196 has not yet terminated at this exit point. This makes sense because the two ramps merge together. Two different numbers for the same ramp(s) could cause confusion with emergency services.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 03, 2022, 10:03:24 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on January 03, 2022, 08:17:13 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 03, 2022, 07:23:06 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on January 02, 2022, 03:32:41 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on January 01, 2022, 11:57:19 PM
There is a very small portion of I-296 that isn't concurrent with US-131, but it's just the very long ramps from EB I-96 to SB US-131 and NB US-131 to WB I-96. The NB > WB ramp also provides access to EB I-96 and M-37. Both of those exits are unnumbered, but they could be numbered as:
Exit 3A: I-96 EB (EB I-96 is Exit 89A on SB 131; the long ramp is Exit 89 on NB 131)
Exit 3B: M-37 / Alpine Ave
Speaking of M-37, the exit to it (and M-44) from EB I-196 is Exit 38 to match I-96 when it easily could be Exit 81 as the off-ramp leaves before I-196 merges into I-96 (and with the recent reconfiguring in that area; I-96 and I-196 have separate off-ramps to M-37 that merge off the mainline)
I would argue that the long exit ramps for I-96 are part of US-131 since they use US-131 numbering (exit 89). The exit from I-196 to M-37/44 could not be given exit 81 since the freeway has no mile marker 81. It would have to be 80 or possibly even 79 since the ramp starts so far back now. What I'd like to know is why there's only 1 through lane from I-196 to I-96 now. They just widened the rest of it to 3 lanes each way, but made it a 1 lane squeeze where it joins I-96.
Exit 79 is Fuller Avenue so you couldn't use that one either. Did they really use 38 for an exit? That would be on I-96 mainline and not I-196 so I'm not even sure there. The sign for it is on the Maryland Avenue overpass. They could get away with using exit 81 though since the mileage of the highway is closer to 81 than 80 at the end.
There are exits for East Beltline M-37/44 off from both I-96 and I-196 . The exit off from I-96 is numbered exit 38 as it always has been. I drove down I-196 last night and there is a mile post about a quarter mile past the East Beltline exit that reads 80.42. I expect that is now the actual freeway terminus, as it is posted right where it starts narrowing down to 1 lane. I didn't notice if the actual exit was numbered or not, but if it is numbered it should be exit 80.
The new exit ramp from eastbound I-196 to East Beltline is numbered 38, to match the exit number from eastbound I-96, even though I-196 has not yet terminated at this exit point. This makes sense because the two ramps merge together. Two different numbers for the same ramp(s) could cause confusion with emergency services.
I think not having 2 different exit numbers could create problems. GPS and maps are often not updated properly or in a timely fashion. They may well send someone past the merge with I-96 looking for the old exit 38, and then who knows where it's going to send someone. It could add a lot of time and confusion.
I wonder if there are any photos of the US 131 freeway back when it was co-signed as Interstate 296? Of course, any such photograph would have had to be taken prior to 1980.
The local Fox affiliate has a picture from the grand opening way back in the day, as well as a video that feels a bit like a Road Guy Rob production:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rBo3OjlxQU
Do you know what year this video was made? The guy from MDOT seems to be a typical MDOT ignoramus, who seems to think that everyone in Michigan and everyone who visits here is stupid and confused just because he and most of the rest of MDOT are.
Quote from: Terry Shea on January 03, 2022, 10:08:00 PM
Do you know what year this video was made? The guy from MDOT seems to be a typical MDOT ignoramus, who seems to think that everyone in Michigan and everyone who visits here is stupid and confused just because he and most of the rest of MDOT are.
2019
I can't speak for Michiganders, but the idea of reducing confusion for motorists has affected other Interstate numbering and signing, including I-129 in Sioux City area and why I-865 is not numbered I-665 (too similar to I-65). (Reducing ambiguity in an emergency situation -- 911 call etc. -- also has some value.)
The 296 segment is interesting, but definitely in the TV style of "keep the viewer entertained enough to watch through the next set of commercials."
Speaking of 911, I'm kind of wondering how potential x11 interstates will be approached, as all of the x11 numbers are hotlines to some services. I highly doubt there will be a I-911 (as 9xx 3di are uncommon to start off), but how about something like I-211 or I-511 (latter is the number for traffic information, also it seems like Nevada loves to use I-5xx interstates for some reason)?
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 04, 2022, 05:54:00 PM
Speaking of 911, I'm kind of wondering how potential x11 interstates will be approached, as all of the x11 numbers are hotlines to some services. I highly doubt there will be a I-911 (as 9xx 3di are uncommon to start off), but how about something like I-211 or I-511 (latter is the number for traffic information, also it seems like Nevada loves to use I-5xx interstates for some reason)?
I'm not sure what fictional highways from Nevada has to do with Midwest-Great Lakes-Michigan-I-296-I-496.
The 'confusion problem' is an argument for all urban freeways to have both a route number and a proper name. People have no problems confusing x80 children in the Bay area or x64 children in the Tidewater. I doubt even think having two beltways with consecutive numbers trips up anyone in Louisville. And the reason is proper names.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 05, 2022, 09:48:05 AM
The 'confusion problem' is an argument for all urban freeways to have both a route number and a proper name. People have no problems confusing x80 children in the Bay area or x64 children in the Tidewater. I doubt even think having two beltways with consecutive numbers trips up anyone in Louisville. And the reason is proper names.
I don't remember ever using a proper name for any highway in Tidewater other than the crossings (Hi-Rise, CBBT, Midtown). But nobody I knew was confused by 64, 164, 264, 464, and 664. It was far more confusing explaining I-64 east-west directions on the South Side to outsiders. Thankfully, VA doesn't bother (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7588697,-76.3384128,3a,32.9y,115.53h,89.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb0wtlZRWkFjNswQuqFj9tA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) with cardinal directions for I-64 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7569911,-76.3447883,3a,15y,9.03h,91.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skUjVB5OmpA-piWwUu1Q6lQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) on much of the South Side.
Quote from: skluth on January 05, 2022, 12:33:17 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 05, 2022, 09:48:05 AM
The 'confusion problem' is an argument for all urban freeways to have both a route number and a proper name. People have no problems confusing x80 children in the Bay area or x64 children in the Tidewater. I doubt even think having two beltways with consecutive numbers trips up anyone in Louisville. And the reason is proper names.
I don't remember ever using a proper name for any highway in Tidewater other than the crossings (Hi-Rise, CBBT, Midtown). But nobody I knew was confused by 64, 164, 264, 464, and 664. It was far more confusing explaining I-64 east-west directions on the South Side to outsiders. Thankfully, VA doesn't bother (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7588697,-76.3384128,3a,32.9y,115.53h,89.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb0wtlZRWkFjNswQuqFj9tA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) with cardinal directions for I-64 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7569911,-76.3447883,3a,15y,9.03h,91.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skUjVB5OmpA-piWwUu1Q6lQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) on much of the South Side.
The route numbers are not what confuses people. Confused/stubborn people are going to be confused and stubborn. I delivered mail for 33 years, and nearly every day somebody would stop and ask me for directions. Often times it would be on a busy 4 or 5 lane road and they would think nothing of stopping their vehicle in the left hand lane, get out and tie up traffic to ask me for directions. And nearly every time, these people would then start to argue with me saying "that's not what I was told-Iwas told...." Yeah, and that didn't get you there did it! Before that I worked at a gas station on 28th ST and I-96. A truck driver came in and asked me where he was at. I told him he was just outside of Grand Rapids. He said "where's that?" I don't think he knew what state he was in! :)
Quote from: Terry Shea on January 05, 2022, 08:23:29 PM
Quote from: skluth on January 05, 2022, 12:33:17 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 05, 2022, 09:48:05 AM
The 'confusion problem' is an argument for all urban freeways to have both a route number and a proper name. People have no problems confusing x80 children in the Bay area or x64 children in the Tidewater. I doubt even think having two beltways with consecutive numbers trips up anyone in Louisville. And the reason is proper names.
I don't remember ever using a proper name for any highway in Tidewater other than the crossings (Hi-Rise, CBBT, Midtown). But nobody I knew was confused by 64, 164, 264, 464, and 664. It was far more confusing explaining I-64 east-west directions on the South Side to outsiders. Thankfully, VA doesn't bother (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7588697,-76.3384128,3a,32.9y,115.53h,89.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb0wtlZRWkFjNswQuqFj9tA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) with cardinal directions for I-64 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7569911,-76.3447883,3a,15y,9.03h,91.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skUjVB5OmpA-piWwUu1Q6lQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) on much of the South Side.
The route numbers are not what confuses people. Confused/stubborn people are going to be confused and stubborn. I delivered mail for 33 years, and nearly every day somebody would stop and ask me for directions. Often times it would be on a busy 4 or 5 lane road and they would think nothing of stopping their vehicle in the left hand lane, get out and tie up traffic to ask me for directions. And nearly every time, these people would then start to argue with me saying "that's not what I was told-Iwas told...." Yeah, and that didn't get you there did it! Before that I worked at a gas station on 28th ST and I-96. A truck driver came in and asked me where he was at. I told him he was just outside of Grand Rapids. He said "where's that?" I don't think he knew what state he was in! :)
That kind of reminds me of a time a few years ago when I was sitting in my car at the McDonald's on Pierson Road in Flint. Now keep in mind that the area around I-75 and Pierson has a lot of crime around it. This car pulls up next to me and I had my passenger window cracked about a quarter of the way down and he pulled up on my passenger side and was two spots over from me. I heard him say that he was coming back from UofM in Ann Arbor and going to Tawas City, he then asked me what city is this? I told him it's Flint, Michigan and then told him that this isn't the best of areas and I wouldn't be going around asking people anything around here, my best bet for you is to get back on I-75 and get outta here. I'm not sure what he did but I took off after that.
I had a coworker who was asked how to get to Windsor from metro Detroit.
"Well, you get on I-75 South and "
"You mean North."
"No, South"
"Canada is North"
"OK, if you know how to get there, go ahead."
Another time in the breakroom, someone was talking about going to Grand Rapids over the weekend. She was told to take water. "No, that's Flint." "Same difference." She didn't realize that sitting there in Dearborn she was closer to Flint than to Grand Rapids.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 05, 2022, 09:14:31 PM
That kind of reminds me of a time a few years ago when I was sitting in my car at the McDonald's on Pierson Road in Flint. Now keep in mind that the area around I-75 and Pierson has a lot of crime around it. This car pulls up next to me and I had my passenger window cracked about a quarter of the way down and he pulled up on my passenger side and was two spots over from me. I heard him say that he was coming back from UofM in Ann Arbor and going to Tawas City, he then asked me what city is this? I told him it's Flint, Michigan and then told him that this isn't the best of areas and I wouldn't be going around asking people anything around here, my best bet for you is to get back on I-75 and get outta here. I'm not sure what he did but I took off after that.
"Do you know where you are? You're in the jungle, baby! You're gonna die!!"
Quote from: GaryV on January 06, 2022, 08:55:51 AM
I had a coworker who was asked how to get to Windsor from metro Detroit.
"Well, you get on I-75 South and "
"You mean North."
"No, South"
"Canada is North"
"OK, if you know how to get there, go ahead."
Detroit to Windsor... via Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury and Toronto. This would be an interesting trip...
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 06, 2022, 11:22:35 AM
Quote from: GaryV on January 06, 2022, 08:55:51 AM
I had a coworker who was asked how to get to Windsor from metro Detroit.
"Well, you get on I-75 South and "
"You mean North."
"No, South"
"Canada is North"
"OK, if you know how to get there, go ahead."
Detroit to Windsor... via Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury and Toronto. This would be an interesting trip...
Maybe in the summer!