Which little details in US/Interstate highway systems really bother you?

[Max Rockatansky]

The fact that I-17's mileage and exit numbers start at a very high number (194) instead of 0 or 1, like the rest. Sure, it may have been a holdover from the old AZ 69/AZ 79 route, but this makes absolutely no sense. (BTW, it is 146 miles long, with 340 being the last exit number.)

I always thought it had something to do with distance from the state line.  All the loop freeways down in the Valley have sequential exits.  I want to say AZ 87 on the Beeline was mileage based off the limited ramp exits it has also. 

[kurumi]

The fact that I-17's mileage and exit numbers start at a very high number (194) instead of 0 or 1, like the rest. Sure, it may have been a holdover from the old AZ 69/AZ 79 route, but this makes absolutely no sense. (BTW, it is 146 miles long, with 340 being the last exit number.)

I always thought it had something to do with distance from the state line.  All the loop freeways down in the Valley have sequential exits.  I want to say AZ 87 on the Beeline was mileage based off the limited ramp exits it has also. 

Here's the AZDOT milepost map for many highways in the state. It's interesting: https://azdot.gov/docs/business/state-milepost-map.pdf?sfvrsn=0

[Max Rockatansky]

The fact that I-17's mileage and exit numbers start at a very high number (194) instead of 0 or 1, like the rest. Sure, it may have been a holdover from the old AZ 69/AZ 79 route, but this makes absolutely no sense. (BTW, it is 146 miles long, with 340 being the last exit number.)

I always thought it had something to do with distance from the state line.  All the loop freeways down in the Valley have sequential exits.  I want to say AZ 87 on the Beeline was mileage based off the limited ramp exits it has also. 

Here's the AZDOT milepost map for many highways in the state. It's interesting: https://azdot.gov/docs/business/state-milepost-map.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Looks like a large part of Apache in Eastern Maricopa County is still state maintained.  I'm still
Trying to figure out the formula with the north/south mileage points in the middle of the state, they don't make much sense looking at the entire state. 

[dvferyance]

Since I-894 predated both 41 and 43 and is well known to locals as a bypass route, it's not going anywhere no matter how much people here want it to be eliminated.

I don't get why everyone thinks 894 not I-41 is the redundant one. The fact is I-41 is duplexed with I-94 down to the state line then it just dissapears and it will never be extended further. Now other unnecessary duplexes like Us-26 with US-101 in Oregon were eliminated years ago yet this one probably the dumbest of all was created. There is no need for I-41 south of the zoo. You still have US 41 with I-94 to give drivers a north south route so there isn't confusion. When I first heard about I-41 and it's south end at the state line I thought for sure it had to be a misprint. The I-29 duplex with I-35 in KC is another redundant one but at least that one is much much shorter. End I-41 at the zoo problem solved.

[vdeane]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

[Henry]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.

[hbelkins]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.

Well, if you believe certain people, Illinois is the cause of the entire interstate grid system between the midwest and the east coast being screwed up.

[oscar]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.

Not really. You still would have US 41 along the shore, close enough to the Tri-State (especially near the Wisconsin line) to create the same risk of motorist confusion as with I-74/US 74 in North Carolina. I-41 works in Wisconsin because it is concurrent with US 41, just with a different and more colorful route marker. Not so much in Illinois.

As for truncating I-41 within Wisconsin, a little pointless, but no big harm either.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.

Not really. You still would have US 41 along the shore, close enough to the Tri-State (especially near the Wisconsin line) to create the same risk of motorist confusion as with I-74/US 74 in North Carolina. I-41 works in Wisconsin because it is concurrent with US 41, just with a different and more colorful route marker. Not so much in Illinois.

As for truncating I-41 within Wisconsin, a little pointless, but no big harm either.

My dream is to make the Lake Shore Drive I-41 but that is never going to happen.

[Brandon]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.

Not really. You still would have US 41 along the shore, close enough to the Tri-State (especially near the Wisconsin line) to create the same risk of motorist confusion as with I-74/US 74 in North Carolina. I-41 works in Wisconsin because it is concurrent with US 41, just with a different and more colorful route marker. Not so much in Illinois.

As for truncating I-41 within Wisconsin, a little pointless, but no big harm either.

My dream is to make the Lake Shore Drive I-41 but that is never going to happen.

It can't for the same reason the NYC parkways will never be interstates.  However, unlike the NYC parkways, LSD allows buses.

[ilpt4u]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.

I actually kinda like that -- throw back to the old days of the Tri-State when it was "Toll US 41" -- get rid of I-294 now and sign it I-41

I would call that, coming full circle

Of course, the Devil is in the Details...would that Fictional I-41 designation end @ I-80, where the Tri-State turns East along I-80 to its terminus @ I-94/IL 394? Does it end at the end of the Tri-State @ I-94/IL 394? Or do you continue the designation a couple of miles to Indianapolis Blvd/US 41 South just across the border in Indiana, and end up with a (very short) Interstate Triplex of 41/80/94?

[Roadgeekteen]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.

I actually kinda like that -- throw back to the old days of the Tri-State when it was "Toll US 41" -- get rid of I-294 now and sign it I-41

I would call that, coming full circle

I would also extend it to Evansville.

[ilpt4u]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.

I actually kinda like that -- throw back to the old days of the Tri-State when it was "Toll US 41" -- get rid of I-294 now and sign it I-41

I would call that, coming full circle

I would also extend it to Evansville.

Good ideas, but to explore them further, we have departed into Fictional territory at this point

[JasonOfORoads]

States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.

The Federal Register notice for the 2009 MUTCD included a compliance date for the remaining sequential states to convert over to mileage-based numbering.  It was removed from the final version of the 2009 MUTCD.  IMO, this was a serious mistake on FHWA's part.

Agreed. Time to add it back in and stick to it, no matter how loudly the Northeast complains.

[GreenLanternCorps]

US 66 being decommissioned. It's the country's most historic, symbolic, and well-known route, only for it to be nuked from orbit in 1985. Why couldn't they just revitalize it?

As I understand it, the country's modern love affair with 66 turning it into a national icon didn't really start until after the route was axed. California and Illinois had both done away with their sections long before 1985 and the remaining six states had their section unceremoniously wiped in June of 1985.

Ahem...

1927: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_66

1946:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_66_(song)

1960: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_66_(TV_series)

[roadman65]

I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.

Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.

Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.

Not really. You still would have US 41 along the shore, close enough to the Tri-State (especially near the Wisconsin line) to create the same risk of motorist confusion as with I-74/US 74 in North Carolina. I-41 works in Wisconsin because it is concurrent with US 41, just with a different and more colorful route marker. Not so much in Illinois.

As for truncating I-41 within Wisconsin, a little pointless, but no big harm either.

Right now I-74 does that along I-77.  It is cosigned up to the VA State Line and once in Virginia it is dropped.  Of course that is supposed to be temporary as if and when both WV and OH decide they want to build I-74 between Cincy and Bluefield, WB it would be an active route in VA along with I-77.

However, as harmless as that is to me it wastes tax dollars signing a road that does not need to be.  If I-41 ended at another place and was independent of I-94 when it did it would be fine.  Even in FL where US 319 is dangled east of Apalachicola it at least serves a purpose as it allows those from GA to reach the Gulf Coast (as it ends at the Gulf of Mexico) as it would be more of a dangle (so to speak) if it ended where it first meets US 98 as its not really a major place as Apalachicola is.  I-41 ends right south of the WI-IL border at basically nowhere and the US 41 and I-94 split has no significance to any tourist or motorist whatsoever.

Ending at the Zoo is more practical, as it would be just another interstate, though redundant of I-43, going between two of Wisconsin's major cities.

[Beltway]

Right now I-74 does that along I-77.  It is cosigned up to the VA State Line and once in Virginia it is dropped.  Of course that is supposed to be temporary as if and when both WV and OH decide they want to build I-74 between Cincy and Bluefield, WB it would be an active route in VA along with I-77.

That language implies that Virginia decided to "drop" the I-74 designation from I-77. 

My language would infer the reverse, that N.C. added it without logical thinking, which is in fact what happened.

There are no plans in the foreseeable future to build an Interstate-standard route for I-74 in WV and OH.

[jcn]

Looking at all these posts, I agree about I-97.  The fact that I-476 is much longer makes no sense.

I also agree about US 202.  Residing in the Delaware Valley, I find it unusual that US 202 is one of the major routes in that region, yet US 2 comes nowhere near that region.

And someone also mentioned how there's no interstate along the southern part of the NJ Turnpike because it's part of the thru route from New York to Washington DC.  About that, the 95 ramps are opening in less than a year, and the thru route might change as a result.

[jwolfer]

Looking at all these posts, I agree about I-97.  The fact that I-476 is much longer makes no sense.

I also agree about US 202.  Residing in the Delaware Valley, I find it unusual that US 202 is one of the major routes in that region, yet US 2 comes nowhere near that region.

And someone also mentioned how there's no interstate along the southern part of the NJ Turnpike because it's part of the thru route from New York to Washington DC.  About that, the 95 ramps are opening in less than a year, and the thru route might change as a result.

New Jersey doesn't seem at all interested in any new interstate routings of existing roads.. Atlantic City Expressway should be 76 and southern NJTP would be a good 895 or 695

Z981

[sparker]

I also agree about US 202.  Residing in the Delaware Valley, I find it unusual that US 202 is one of the major routes in that region, yet US 2 comes nowhere near that region.

US 202 is indeed an anomaly; it more or less functions as a bucolic alternative to US 1 that seems to skirt the urban areas US 1 squarely addresses.  And as it curiously has its southern terminus not too far from the northern terminus of US 301, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine 202 being supplanted by 301.  But at this point, there's probably a lot of localized rationales why 202 should -- and likely will -- remain where it is (a truckload of address changes in New England alone!). 

I've always wondered if anyone's ever clinched US 202 in one trip?  Apart from its general NE>SW direction, it always seems like a series of "SIU's" rather than a cohesive arterial. 

[fillup420]

Why US 311 still exists. It acts like a long alternate to US 220, and the routing makes no sense at all. the southern freeway portion is now part of I-74, and the northern part doesn't serve any long-distance purpose.

[Roadgeekteen]

Why US 311 still exists. It acts like a long alternate to US 220, and the routing makes no sense at all. the southern freeway portion is now part of I-74, and the northern part doesn't serve any long-distance purpose.

US highways do not have to be a long distance corridor.

[hotdogPi]

Why US 311 still exists. It acts like a long alternate to US 220, and the routing makes no sense at all. the southern freeway portion is now part of I-74, and the northern part doesn't serve any long-distance purpose.

US highways do not have to be a long distance corridor.

US routes do have to be direct, though. (There are a few violations, like US 311 obviously, and US 1 following the coast in Connecticut and Rhode Island instead of a near-straight line from New York City to Portland, ME.)

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Well, if we remove the section redundant to I-74 US 311 would be a direct route. Some might be reluctant to the fact it is far away from its implied parent US 11, but at first it did connect to it, before most of its route was eaten by US 220.