News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

North Spokane Corridor - US 395 in Spokane, WA

Started by ctroadgeek, May 24, 2009, 02:18:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jakeroot

Quote from: Henry on May 21, 2024, 11:24:10 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on May 21, 2024, 10:46:26 PMAdding more fuel to the urban legend that Interstates were designed for planes to land and take off.
AFAIK, this is not going to be an Interstate anytime soon, although it would make a good I-x90 spur route.

I think he's just alluding to the idea that people associate freeways with interstates, and associate interstates with the idiotic "every x-number of miles must have a straight section for planes to emergency-land" urban legend that has perpetuated for decades. Ergo, people see this video and associate one with the other.

As an aside...agreed it would make a good spur, though it would have to be dual-signed with US-395.


The Ghostbuster

I think the Interstate 190 spur in Rapid City, SD will always be the furthest west 3di of Interstate 90 in the entire country. Giving the NSC an Interstate designation seems unnecessary to me.

pderocco

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2024, 07:30:40 PMI think the Interstate 190 spur in Rapid City, SD will always be the furthest west 3di of Interstate 90 in the entire country. Giving the NSC an Interstate designation seems unnecessary to me.
They should have signed I-115 in Butte as I-115/I-190, just to be fair.

Bickendan

Quote from: pderocco on May 22, 2024, 10:36:39 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2024, 07:30:40 PMI think the Interstate 190 spur in Rapid City, SD will always be the furthest west 3di of Interstate 90 in the entire country. Giving the NSC an Interstate designation seems unnecessary to me.
They should have signed I-115 in Butte as I-115/I-190, just to be fair.
There would be endless griping in General if it were dual signed I-115 and 190 (along with 15B and 90B).
To them, I say either dual sign it or sign it as I-238 :bigass:

Bruce

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2024, 07:30:40 PMI think the Interstate 190 spur in Rapid City, SD will always be the furthest west 3di of Interstate 90 in the entire country. Giving the NSC an Interstate designation seems unnecessary to me.

WA 18 could have become an I-x90 if the feds had kicked in some money for it. The route is pretty important for freight bypassing Seattle and the Eastside to reach the Port of Tacoma, and re-using the old proposed number (I-605) would have reopened old wounds.

There's also the freeway sections of US 395 between the Tri-Cities and Ritzville that have been slowly been upgraded since the 1990s. If there was a push to complete the final grade separations, then it could also be an I-x90.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

xonhulu

Quote from: Bruce on May 23, 2024, 02:30:16 AMThere's also the freeway sections of US 395 between the Tri-Cities and Ritzville that have been slowly been upgraded since the 1990s. If there was a push to complete the final grade separations, then it could also be an I-x90.

Easier to extend the already existing I-182 up the 395 freeway, if it needs interstate status.

But imo, it's fine as just US 395.  I doubt the lack of an interstate designation will keep anyone from using it.  Same with the North Spokane Corridor.

pderocco

Quote from: Bruce on May 23, 2024, 02:30:16 AMThere's also the freeway sections of US 395 between the Tri-Cities and Ritzville that have been slowly been upgraded since the 1990s. If there was a push to complete the final grade separations, then it could also be an I-x90.
They could also call it I-182, which already exists.

Bruce

Quote from: xonhulu on May 23, 2024, 10:52:11 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 23, 2024, 02:30:16 AMThere's also the freeway sections of US 395 between the Tri-Cities and Ritzville that have been slowly been upgraded since the 1990s. If there was a push to complete the final grade separations, then it could also be an I-x90.

Easier to extend the already existing I-182 up the 395 freeway, if it needs interstate status.

But imo, it's fine as just US 395.  I doubt the lack of an interstate designation will keep anyone from using it.  Same with the North Spokane Corridor.
Quote from: pderocco on May 24, 2024, 12:42:07 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 23, 2024, 02:30:16 AMThere's also the freeway sections of US 395 between the Tri-Cities and Ritzville that have been slowly been upgraded since the 1990s. If there was a push to complete the final grade separations, then it could also be an I-x90.
They could also call it I-182, which already exists.

I-182 serves a different purpose, so it would be ill-suited to be extended all the way up.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

xonhulu

Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2024, 03:35:46 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on May 23, 2024, 10:52:11 PMEasier to extend the already existing I-182 up the 395 freeway, if it needs interstate status.

But imo, it's fine as just US 395.  I doubt the lack of an interstate designation will keep anyone from using it.  Same with the North Spokane Corridor.
I-182 serves a different purpose, so it would be ill-suited to be extended all the way up.

Agreed, which is why I said just leave it as solely US 395.  It & the NSC will function just fine without the blue & red shield.

mrsman

This is a very interesting project.  While I don't know what the future will hold, it does seem to me that it would make sense to redirect both US 2 and US 395 thru traffic onto the NSC when completed.  The signage at present does indicate for traffic to use Division Street in order to access I-90 and Spokane City Center.  Certainly, with the completion of the highway, it would make sense to direct all I-90 and City Center traffic onto the new highway.

I also agree that there is no need for interstate signage here.  Route continuity for 395 is probably more important for regional traffic flow.  It is interesting that the road is known as "Future 395" as I'm not used to seeing "future" for a redirected highway, only a brand new highway.

Alps

Quote from: mrsman on May 27, 2024, 12:59:49 PMThis is a very interesting project.  While I don't know what the future will hold, it does seem to me that it would make sense to redirect both US 2 and US 395 thru traffic onto the NSC when completed.  The signage at present does indicate for traffic to use Division Street in order to access I-90 and Spokane City Center.  Certainly, with the completion of the highway, it would make sense to direct all I-90 and City Center traffic onto the new highway.

I also agree that there is no need for interstate signage here.  Route continuity for 395 is probably more important for regional traffic flow.  It is interesting that the road is known as "Future 395" as I'm not used to seeing "future" for a redirected highway, only a brand new highway.
It is a brand new highway. "Future" will go away once it actually links up.

pderocco

Quote from: mrsman on May 27, 2024, 12:59:49 PMI also agree that there is no need for interstate signage here.  Route continuity for 395 is probably more important for regional traffic flow.  It is interesting that the road is known as "Future 395" as I'm not used to seeing "future" for a redirected highway, only a brand new highway.
Here's another use for "future": https://maps.app.goo.gl/WQqSx44UerPpqJPp7. I wouldn't be surprised if there were others on this corridor, and perhaps on US-75 or US-220 in PA saying Future I-99, or maybe US-83 in Texas as it is slowly consumed by I-2. 

74/171FAN

Quote from: pderocco on May 29, 2024, 03:01:40 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 27, 2024, 12:59:49 PMI also agree that there is no need for interstate signage here.  Route continuity for 395 is probably more important for regional traffic flow.  It is interesting that the road is known as "Future 395" as I'm not used to seeing "future" for a redirected highway, only a brand new highway.
Here's another use for "future": https://maps.app.goo.gl/WQqSx44UerPpqJPp7. I wouldn't be surprised if there were others on this corridor, and perhaps on US-75 or US-220 in PA saying Future I-99, or maybe US-83 in Texas as it is slowly consumed by I-2. 

There are no current Future I-99 Corridor Signs on US 220 in PA between I-80 and US 15 in Williamsport or on US 15 north of Williamsport (unless I missed something I am unaware of).
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

mrsman

Quote from: pderocco on May 29, 2024, 03:01:40 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 27, 2024, 12:59:49 PMI also agree that there is no need for interstate signage here.  Route continuity for 395 is probably more important for regional traffic flow.  It is interesting that the road is known as "Future 395" as I'm not used to seeing "future" for a redirected highway, only a brand new highway.
Here's another use for "future": https://maps.app.goo.gl/WQqSx44UerPpqJPp7. I wouldn't be surprised if there were others on this corridor, and perhaps on US-75 or US-220 in PA saying Future I-99, or maybe US-83 in Texas as it is slowly consumed by I-2. 

I think this goes to my point.  I-69 does not at all exist in this area, so this corridor is part of a future I-69 corridor, notwithstanding that I-69 has been in existence northeast of Indianapolis for a long time (and bits and pieces to the southwest of Indianapolis are being created or adapted). 

In the case of Spokane, it seems somewhat confusing because there already is a 395 in the area along Division Street.  Even though it is temporary, I think it may be confusing to have two parallel routes with the same number.

stevashe

Quote from: mrsman on May 29, 2024, 02:31:02 PMIn the case of Spokane, it seems somewhat confusing because there already is a 395 in the area along Division Street.  Even though it is temporary, I think it may be confusing to have two parallel routes with the same number.


I don't think it's any more confusing than any of the other more commonly used banners. There are plenty of examples of parallel "Business" "Alt" and "Truck" routes with the same number that work just fine.

pderocco

Quote from: mrsman on May 29, 2024, 02:31:02 PM
Quote from: pderocco on May 29, 2024, 03:01:40 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 27, 2024, 12:59:49 PMI also agree that there is no need for interstate signage here.  Route continuity for 395 is probably more important for regional traffic flow.  It is interesting that the road is known as "Future 395" as I'm not used to seeing "future" for a redirected highway, only a brand new highway.
Here's another use for "future": https://maps.app.goo.gl/WQqSx44UerPpqJPp7. I wouldn't be surprised if there were others on this corridor, and perhaps on US-75 or US-220 in PA saying Future I-99, or maybe US-83 in Texas as it is slowly consumed by I-2. 

I think this goes to my point.  I-69 does not at all exist in this area, so this corridor is part of a future I-69 corridor, notwithstanding that I-69 has been in existence northeast of Indianapolis for a long time (and bits and pieces to the southwest of Indianapolis are being created or adapted). 
The N Spokane Corridor is an existing route number that will be moved to a brand new road. The other is an existing route number that will be extended onto an existing road.

Given that there's a flyover from this onto US-2 EB, I would think they'd reroute both US-395 and US-2 onto it, and just call both old roads business routes. I drove up Division/Ruby Sts a year or so ago, and it took a long time. Long haul truckers on US-2 will certainly take this new freeway, even if it isn't called US-2.

Seems that business routes are much more popular than A designations. Calling them US-395A and US-2A, or even WA-395A and WA-2A, seems so 1950s, so east coast.

ClassicHasClass

Spitballing here, though, wouldn't drivers perceive a qualitative difference between a business and ALT route? ALT might imply more that it's more likely to be a through route, or at least faster than a BUSINESS banner - conversely, using the BUSINESS banner might be *intended* to force through traffic onto the new mainline.

vdeane

Quote from: pderocco on May 29, 2024, 09:50:27 PMSeems that business routes are much more popular than A designations. Calling them US-395A and US-2A, or even WA-395A and WA-2A, seems so 1950s, so east coast.
IMO that's unfortunate.  I much prefer doing the latter over bannered routes (in fact, if I had my way, both bannered routes and the green "business loop"/"business spur" interstates would go).  Actually, if I were signing it, I'd make the new route an interstate and leave both US 2 and US 395 where they are, but that doesn't seem to be how western states like to do things.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

pderocco

I agree about banners; they make the signage harder to read. And business spurs only seem to be for the purpose of encouraging people to take those roads in order to find lots of businesses (restaurants, gas stations, motels, etc.) to choose from. But business loops at least provide a path through lots of businesses that eventually rejoins the parent road, without requiring retracing one's steps, so they are probably worth signing.

Of course, we may be approaching a time when we don't need to even bother with route numbers at all, just names that can provide unique street addresses. People can find anything with a smart phone or a car nav system.

Alt routes can also serve another function: indicating historic routes. That may not be true everywhere, but it certainly was where I grew up (Massachusetts), where every A route was a former alignment of the parent route. That may be of little interest to many people, though.

KelleyCook

Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 29, 2024, 07:07:41 AMThere are no current Future I-99 Corridor Signs on US 220 in PA between I-80 and US 15 in Williamsport or on US 15 north of Williamsport (unless I missed something I am unaware of).

I for one would be happy if they were to place Future US 220 signs on I-99.

vdeane

Quote from: pderocco on May 31, 2024, 03:13:46 AMBut business loops at least provide a path through lots of businesses that eventually rejoins the parent road, without requiring retracing one's steps, so they are probably worth signing.
That actually partly fuels the dislike for me; I have a pet peeve regarding gaps in the routes I drive.  Especially when I first clinch something, but even after.  When I get off for a stop, I want to get back on at the exact same place.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

pderocco

Quote from: vdeane on May 31, 2024, 12:13:49 PM
Quote from: pderocco on May 31, 2024, 03:13:46 AMBut business loops at least provide a path through lots of businesses that eventually rejoins the parent road, without requiring retracing one's steps, so they are probably worth signing.
That actually partly fuels the dislike for me; I have a pet peeve regarding gaps in the routes I drive.  Especially when I first clinch something, but even after.  When I get off for a stop, I want to get back on at the exact same place.
When I'm on a clinching trip, and want to clinch, say, an Interstate and its business routes, I just drive to the downstream end of the business route, double back along it, then drive that bit of Interstate an extra time, which typically takes only a few extra minutes.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.