Least Favorite Interstate Segment in Your State.

[CoreySamson]

Texas:
Of the parts I've been on, I-10 between Anahuac and the Ford Center in Beaumont is kind of a drag.

Boy you are swooping way down there using Anahuac as a point on the Freeway.  I do think you are not far from right that I-10 is pretty bad there. For me anything on I-10 from I-69 in Houston to the Pearl River is bad.

My choice for the worst in Louisiana would be The I-10 bridge in Lake Charles. It used to be the portion of I-20 from Texas to Pines Road in Shreveport, but they FINALLY fixed that.

Whoops probably should've said Turtle Bayou, or more specifically, Exit 812. For some reason, I like the way they moved the trees away from that intersection, otherwise, I would've said the Trinity River Bridge. But after that going east, blech.

[ari-s-drives]

I-238, a connector from I-580 to I-880 in the East Bay.

• it shouldn't be signed as an interstate, or if it needs to be it should be numbered as either I-180 or I-480
• it passes through ugly suburbia
• you're always in the wrong lane

[kphoger]

It should be numbered CA-238.

Is that still the consensus on this forum?

[Bickendan]

I-5 between Ashland and Medford, somehow more tedious than between Eugene and Albany.

However, I-5 between Salmon Creek and Longview, ironically, is a worse slog, despite objectively more scenic.

[sparker]

I-238, a connector from I-580 to I-880 in the East Bay.

• it shouldn't be signed as an interstate, or if it needs to be it should be numbered as either I-180 or I-480
• it passes through ugly suburbia
• you're always in the wrong lane

Face it -- the routes to which it connects (580, 880) pass through equally dismal suburbia.  But the only valid reason why it's an Interstate at all is the "no-truck" status of I-580 through the City of Oakland; which means that I-580 truck traffic (and there's a lot!) must use the I-238 freeway to get to & from I-880, the main N-S commercial artery in the East Bay.   Nevertheless, in full agreement about changing the number -- especially since Hayward seems insistent about pursuing a relinquishment of CA 238 within their city, and the signage of that route in the city of Fremont is all but nonexistent -- the concept of 238 as a continuous route has functionally vanished, so the number itself has little local lore to bolster its existence.  And it's been over 30 years since CA 480 in S.F. has been gone, courtesy of the '89 quake -- enough time to consider reinstating that number over current I-238.  But it's Caltrans -- and entreaties to such effect most often are simply ignored; they just don't feel it's worth their time or manpower. 

As far as being in the "wrong" lane -- it all depends upon whether it's being used as a "shunt" from 580 to SB I-880 or, alternately, the "default" that sends the main WB traffic lanes to NB I-880 (the main commercial traffic conduit).  It's a short freeway, so knowing where you're going and where you have to be to do so is vital.  I'll walk that back a bit -- it, like every artery in the region at peak times, can be a PITA re lane-changing during those times; 2+2 freeways are particularly problematic in that respect.   But it's the sheer volume of heavy truck traffic on I-238 that is the main culprit here -- blame the I-580 Oakland truck restrictions for that situation.       

[kphoger]

Thinking back to my Illinois days, I think my least favorite would have to be the Eisenhower between the Hillside Strangler and Des Plaines during rush hour.

[GaryV]

...  And it's been over 30 years since CA 480 in S.F. has been gone, courtesy of the '89 quake -- enough time to consider reinstating that number over current I-238 ...       

And what does that do for the general public, who doesn't care whether a number "fits the grid" or "connects to a parent"?

[Roadgeekteen]

...  And it's been over 30 years since CA 480 in S.F. has been gone, courtesy of the '89 quake -- enough time to consider reinstating that number over current I-238 ...       

And what does that do for the general public, who doesn't care whether a number "fits the grid" or "connects to a parent"?

I'm not that anal about the grid, but I-238 is just so ridiculous that it must change now that I-480 is available. 

[ari-s-drives]

...

Face it -- the routes to which it connects (580, 880) pass through equally dismal suburbia.  But the only valid reason why it's an Interstate at all is the "no-truck" status of I-580 through the City of Oakland; which means that I-580 truck traffic (and there's a lot!) must use the I-238 freeway to get to & from I-880, the main N-S commercial artery in the East Bay.   Nevertheless, in full agreement about changing the number -- especially since Hayward seems insistent about pursuing a relinquishment of CA 238 within their city, and the signage of that route in the city of Fremont is all but nonexistent -- the concept of 238 as a continuous route has functionally vanished, so the number itself has little local lore to bolster its existence.  And it's been over 30 years since CA 480 in S.F. has been gone, courtesy of the '89 quake -- enough time to consider reinstating that number over current I-238.  But it's Caltrans -- and entreaties to such effect most often are simply ignored; they just don't feel it's worth their time or manpower. 

As far as being in the "wrong" lane -- it all depends upon whether it's being used as a "shunt" from 580 to SB I-880 or, alternately, the "default" that sends the main WB traffic lanes to NB I-880 (the main commercial traffic conduit).  It's a short freeway, so knowing where you're going and where you have to be to do so is vital.  I'll walk that back a bit -- it, like every artery in the region at peak times, can be a PITA re lane-changing during those times; 2+2 freeways are particularly problematic in that respect.   But it's the sheer volume of heavy truck traffic on I-238 that is the main culprit here -- blame the I-580 Oakland truck restrictions for that situation.       

I had completely forgotten about the commercial ban in Oakland and I can't imagine what it would be like to have trucks on 580, esp. in the hilly bits near 13 

On the ground, it does feel like it was designed to be a shunt rather than a default (part of this may be budget constraints) because it forces trucks going westbound to get in the left lanes as their only option and for trucks coming eastbound from 238 to get back to the right once they are back on 580.

There could absolutely be a thread about that freeway, especially with the crazies who want a fourth bay crossing (238 to 380) less than five miles north of 92 for a better drive to SFO!

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Those "crazies" have included, at times, the mayor's office of San Francisco, the Alameda County board of supervisors, and others.  Basic cost/benefit issues have pretty much sunk these efforts after their periodic resurfacing.  A crossing departing S.F. at or near its southern limits would cross the Bay at its widest point -- and to make it even more difficult, more than one navigation channel to cross (it narrows down to a single channel just north of the San Mateo/CA 92 bridge).  One of the more controversial questions deals with landfall on the east end -- transportation planners (of the non-urbanist variety, of course) have always expressed a preference for a "double duty" crossing, splitting somewhere near Alameda Airport, with one branch crossing the City of Alameda near the old N.A.S. in order to access the greatest number of freeways (I-880, I-980/CA 24, etc.) and one curving south to San Leandro as an extension of (you guessed it) I-238.  In short -- "if we're going to overspend on this crossing, let's damn well make sure we make it easy to use to get the most toll money out of it!".  But the principal backers for this have always come from S.F., which has parties who have continually bristled at having only one eastward egress point.  Every decade it seems to resurface; and like clockwork gets shut down within a year or two -- even the most recent iteration, which contained a "relief" BART corridor in a "bridge/tunnel" format. 

As far as the lane assignations on current I-238 are concerned, it is an ongoing problem -- but trucks occupying the left lane has been endemic since those pre-1985 days where 238 was just another state-signed freeway.  Unless a shitload of adjacent property is acquired and the corridor expanded to something like 4+4 (or even 3+3 with slip lanes) -- with some form of "braiding", the problem will persist.  And there's also the matter of I-880 capacity -- is it worth increasing the capacity/efficiency of I-238 if the end result is increased congestion on I-880 north of the interchange?  That freeway was originally built as LRN 228 back in the late '50's as a connector to the old SSR 17/Nimitz Freeway construction effort but for the same reason as today -- pre I-580 (or even I-5W!) there was a similar truck ban on US 50/MacArthur Blvd. (since it curved through east Oakland and San Leandro like a snake through both commercial and residential neighborhoods, that's hardly surprising), so the Division of Highways saw fit to expedite truck traffic coming in from the Valley (and from L.A.) via US 50 by "shunting" it over to the new SSR 17/Nimitz facility.  Originally it was supposed to be signed as an extension of SSR 9, which historically ended at US 50 in Castro Valley, but that plan was dropped early on and it remained an unsigned route until the 1964 renumbering.  It was a "typical" CA freeway ca. 1957 -- 4 total lanes on as narrow a ROW as possible.  And once I-580 was completed through east Oakland, it was presumed by Caltrans that car traffic would simply stay on 580 while the 238 connector would be, in effect, dedicated "truck lanes".  Of course, in time commuter patterns overwhelmed that configuration, and the direct ramps from WB 238 to SB 17 (now I-880) were built in the late '70's, making that freeway not only the truck route originally envisioned but a full-function connector between the two semi-parallel freeways.  But also remember that until the mid-70's and the Hayward freeway revolt, a CA 238 freeway paralleling CA 17/I-880 was well in process; it was designed and ROW purchased until a successful lawsuit stopping the project occurred.  CA 17/I-880 remained as the sole N-S high-capacity conduit south of San Lorenzo.  Thus in ensuing years more and more traffic funneled onto the 238 freeway as a now "double-ended shunt".  And one final note -- upgrading the eastern portion of I-238 is problematic since the BART Pleasanton/Livermore line was deployed in its median.   At this point the route number is the least of its problems -- it's simply carrying much more traffic than was originally intended, and the prospects for measures to effectively relieve this problem aren't terribly promising at this time.       

[crispy93]

I-84 in Connecticut, between Exits 44 & 53 in Hartford.  Exits and entrances on the left and right.  Curves.   Lane drops galore.  Exits overbuilt for roads that were never built.  Posted speed limit of 50, but with an actual motorist speed of 75-80.  That is, when its not at a standstill due to rush hour.

I don't live in CT, but I-84 between Danbury and Hartford is one of my least favorite roads. I always end up in a pack of vehicles going 3 mph under the speed limit. Oh good, a lane opened up! Oh, it's a 10 foot long climbing lane for trucks.

[Scott5114]

The I-238 issue should have been solved by ending I-580 at the I-238 junction, and having I-238 and the remainder of I-580 be an x05. Both I-580 and the 238 number have TOTSOs at that junction, so it would have made a lot more sense than having the two routes "bump".

[crispy93]

New York:

* I-84 east of the Hudson USED to be tough with a 55 mph limit but thankfully it's 65 now
* I find the Thruway very boring
* 684 is boring yet filled with crazies going back to Long Island
* I could rant about 278 for hours. The Staten Island Expressway is pretty normal, design-wise. Could probably be 55 mph instead of 50. Pavement's always in rough condition, some interchanges have stop entrances on blind curves, some overpasses (Atlantic Ave, and the former truck restriction on the 278/Grand Central duplex through Astoria) require trucks to leave the highway and re-enter. I-278 even had a truck route on Astoria Blvd. No shoulders, narrow lanes, tight curves, a drawbridge in the Bronx. Certain places have 278 leave the mainline for the through movement (split with the Grand Central, split with the Battery Tunnel). The view of the skyline, especially from the Triboro Bridge, is beautiful especially at sunset when the city starts lighting up.

[wanderer2575]

I-75 from Bay City to Grayling, or maybe to Gaylord. There's nothing to see, and you just want to get to your destination. Why'd they have to put Up North so far north?

This is about mine too I think. Although I would go Bay City to exit 202. North of that it starts getting better.

I came here to nominate this and you both beat me to it.  The stretch between West Branch and Bay City is only about 50 miles, but somehow it always seems to take FOR-E-VER to get through.  It's like being stuck in the doldrums at sea near the equator.  I actually find myself getting nervous and restless behind the wheel, wondering if I've somehow been pulled into some kind of vortex where time has stopped and I will never get to my destination.

[ftballfan]

I-75 from Bay City to Grayling, or maybe to Gaylord. There's nothing to see, and you just want to get to your destination. Why'd they have to put Up North so far north?

This is about mine too I think. Although I would go Bay City to exit 202. North of that it starts getting better.

I came here to nominate this and you both beat me to it.  The stretch between West Branch and Bay City is only about 50 miles, but somehow it always seems to take FOR-E-VER to get through.  It's like being stuck in the doldrums at sea near the equator.  I actually find myself getting nervous and restless behind the wheel, wondering if I've somehow been pulled into some kind of vortex where time has stopped and I will never get to my destination.

The one saving grace is that I-75 has a 75 mph speed limit through there!

[Couleurs]

Colorado: I-70 east of Limon to Kansas.

West of Limon you can usually start seeing mountains in the distance, so at least you have something to look at while the drive is still boring until Denver. But east of Limon, you don't get that (at least from what I saw the times I drove through)

[bing101]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Ranch#Public_reception

Harris Ranch halfway from Los Angeles and Sacramento on I-5 would have be the most hated section of I-5 on California outside of Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento due to the smell of cow shit.

[Revive 755]

As far as being in the "wrong" lane -- it all depends upon whether it's being used as a "shunt" from 580 to SB I-880 or, alternately, the "default" that sends the main WB traffic lanes to NB I-880 (the main commercial traffic conduit).

Perhaps if trucks are not allowed that part of I-580 should not be an interstate.  Same goes for the restricted sections of I-35E in St. Paul and I-66.

[cl94]

I-90 between the PA line and Utica, easily. Generally flat, no scenery, and aside from 10 or so miles each around Buffalo and Syracuse, pretty rural with only trees and the occasional farm. I will very happily take the extra hour to use US 20 or 390-17-88 when driving between Albany and Buffalo unless I am in a time crunch.

[vdeane]

As far as being in the "wrong" lane -- it all depends upon whether it's being used as a "shunt" from 580 to SB I-880 or, alternately, the "default" that sends the main WB traffic lanes to NB I-880 (the main commercial traffic conduit).

Perhaps if trucks are not allowed that part of I-580 should not be an interstate.  Same goes for the restricted sections of I-35E in St. Paul and I-66.

I've been thinking similarly.  Truncate I-880 to present I-238 and put I-590 on I-238 and former I-880.  I-580 can become CA 238 and I-980 (which would no longer be a connection between two interstates) could be an extension of CA 24.

[nexus73]

Boring stretch: I-5 from Coburg to Albany.

Dangerous stretch: I-5 from SR 38 to Grants Pass.

Since I rarely am on I-84 in Eastern Oregon, that subject will be left for another Oregonian to post about.

Rick

[RobbieL2415]

I-291.  The whole thing.

Too many trucks.
No one keeps right.
No one moves at the speed limit.
Boring, generic design.  And it's CTs newest-designated interstate.

[US 89]

For Utah I'd probably just say I-15 in Salt Lake County south of 215. Generally nondescript suburbia, and full of traffic most of the time.

[sparker]

The I-238 issue should have been solved by ending I-580 at the I-238 junction, and having I-238 and the remainder of I-580 be an x05. Both I-580 and the 238 number have TOTSOs at that junction, so it would have made a lot more sense than having the two routes "bump".

As far as being in the "wrong" lane -- it all depends upon whether it's being used as a "shunt" from 580 to SB I-880 or, alternately, the "default" that sends the main WB traffic lanes to NB I-880 (the main commercial traffic conduit).

Perhaps if trucks are not allowed that part of I-580 should not be an interstate.  Same goes for the restricted sections of I-35E in St. Paul and I-66.

I've been thinking similarly.  Truncate I-880 to present I-238 and put I-590 on I-238 and former I-880.  I-580 can become CA 238 and I-980 (which would no longer be a connection between two interstates) could be an extension of CA 24.

If it weren't for the fact that I-238 is a mess between 580 and 880 signing the whole thing as one number would make some sense.  Nevertheless, the problem with any kind of "downgrade" solution is that the section of I-580 through Oakland, even the part with the truck restrictions, was built with chargeable Interstate funds and would remain on the books as an Interstate.  And most non-commercial traffic does stay on I-580 (which is less of a TOTSO at the 238 "bump" than in previous years, with the three EB left lanes curving to follow the designated route in a directional interchange, similar to the I-10/CA 86 interchange near Indio).  As one who lives in the basic metro area and uses both freeways on a regular basis, I'd safely say that despite the issues raised (which are largely technical) both facilities should retain their signed Interstate status.  But as far as 238 goes -- when (more likely than if) CA 238 is fully relinquished in Hayward, I-238 should be redesignated as I-480. 

Re the concept of a x05:  Since the prevailing commuter traffic pattern near Tracy favors I-205 rather than the I-580 extension down to I-5, I'd simply extend I-205 over I-580 all the way to I-80; with the former I-580 from 205 to 5 becoming I-705.  And the I-238-to-I-480 concept would remain to deal with that particular route. 

[Ben114]

I-91 between exits 21 and 26. Straight and flat the entire way.