Why not an I-296 or I-496

[Molandfreak]

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.

[JREwing78]

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.

[Ryctor2018]

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.

[Molandfreak]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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?

[Flint1979]

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.

[Molandfreak]

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.

[Terry Shea]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Molandfreak]

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.

[ftballfan]

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)

[Terry Shea]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Terry Shea]

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.

[wanderer2575]

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.

[Terry Shea]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[JREwing78]

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

[Terry Shea]

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.

[Flint1979]

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

[kurumi]

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."

[SkyPesos]

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)?

[Terry Shea]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[skluth]

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 with cardinal directions for I-64 on much of the South Side.