RIP MO 360?

[US71]

MO 360 in Springfield may be replaced by I-244

http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/oto-considers-changing-names-of-busy-highways/d/story/6ZCPcr8Nrkysk6iW5G0fGQ

[Revive 755]

They can't just sign an 'emergency detour' I-44 along the two freeways, as many other states have begun doing?

Drifting into fictional territory, I'd rather have the MO 360/US 60 and US 65 freeways as odd I-x44's, so the designations can be extended as the respective corridors get upgraded further east and south.

[US71]

They can't just sign an 'emergency detour' I-44 along the two freeways, as many other states have begun doing?

Drifting into fictional territory, I'd rather have the MO 360/US 60 and US 65 freeways as odd I-x44's, so the designations can be extended as the respective corridors get upgraded further east and south.

It's already posted as an emergency detour (or was).  I'm inclined to agree with an odd number: I've been secretly wishing for I-144 ever since 360 opened to traffic

[NE2]

Having a road called an Interstate sounds a little more pretentious.

Fixed for them.

[Scott5114]

I wish they wouldn't use the 244 number. Springfield is only a couple of hours out from Tulsa. Why not use 644 if you have to have an even number?

They can't just sign an 'emergency detour' I-44 along the two freeways, as many other states have begun doing?

Drifting into fictional territory, I'd rather have the MO 360/US 60 and US 65 freeways as odd I-x44's, so the designations can be extended as the respective corridors get upgraded further east and south.

It's already posted as an emergency detour (or was).  I'm inclined to agree with an odd number: I've been secretly wishing for I-144 ever since 360 opened to traffic

According to the article, part of the rationale for the interstate designation here is to have one highway designation along the two freeways to function as a Springfield bypass. Having two designations would go against that (although I agree, an x44 spur along US-65 down to Branson is something I'd like to see).

A problem with one even x44 designation is that there would be a TOTSO at the (recently reconfigured) 60/65 interchange.

[M86]

I have wondered when this would happen... And it needs to.

I agree with Scott, the I-244 designation is too close to Tulsa.
And yes, to the x44 spur to Branson.  Branson attracts more traffic than one would think.

[Molandfreak]

Good. That's one off my bucket list of freeway state routes whose sole purpose is to connect a U.S. route that continues on the same ROW to an interstate. Now turn U.S. 80-TX 557 into an x20 or x30.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

According to the article, part of the rationale for the interstate designation here is to have one highway designation along the two freeways to function as a Springfield bypass.

But I-44 does that already. It skirts the edge of the city same as the other freeways.

This is pursing an interstate designation for the sake of the designation. Just extend MO 360 along US 60 and 65 as a redundant multiplex if there is a real need to have a continuous designation along the route.

[Henry]

I wish they wouldn't use the 244 number. Springfield is only a couple of hours out from Tulsa. Why not use 644 if you have to have an even number?

That, or even 844?

There has been precedence with duplicate routes so close to each other. The Mid-Atlantic region alone is an I-295 hell, with those existing in the following places (in north-to-south order):

New York (more specifically, The Bronx-Queens)
Trenton, NJ-Wilmington, DE (via Camden, NJ)
Washington, DC (Baltimore, MD does not count)
Richmond-Petersburg, VA

And when Fayetteville, NC (a Southeastern city) gets its loop completed, it'll just add to the pileup there.

[Revive 755]

I wish they wouldn't use the 244 number. Springfield is only a couple of hours out from Tulsa. Why not use 644 if you have to have an even number?

I thought Oklahoma or someone was trying for an interstate designation for the Creek Turnpike which could become I-644?  Maybe I-444 should be used for Springfield?

[Scott5114]

According to the article, part of the rationale for the interstate designation here is to have one highway designation along the two freeways to function as a Springfield bypass.

But I-44 does that already. It skirts the edge of the city same as the other freeways.

This is pursing an interstate designation for the sake of the designation. Just extend MO 360 along US 60 and 65 as a redundant multiplex if there is a real need to have a continuous designation along the route.

In the article, it is stated that a continuous designation is desired to serve as a bypass of I-44 in the event that there is some kind of incident on I-44.

I don't know what the problem is with requesting a designation for an existing interstate-grade facility. Highway designations are to aid navigation, and designating a freeway as an Interstate helps highlight it as such for motorists, thereby directing them to the highest-grade facilities available. If MoDOT decides that it is in the state of Missouri's best interest to spend money on new signs, let them.

I wish they wouldn't use the 244 number. Springfield is only a couple of hours out from Tulsa. Why not use 644 if you have to have an even number?

I thought Oklahoma or someone was trying for an interstate designation for the Creek Turnpike which could become I-644?  Maybe I-444 should be used for Springfield?

There is, of course, an I-444 in Tulsa, although it is unsigned, so it wouldn't cause any confusion. My personal preference is for I-644 or up, since I prefer Interstate route number duplication to be avoided when possible, though I recognize there is no policy grounds for this.

I am not aware of OTA or ODOT pursuing Interstate designations of any kind at this time. My guess is that the "also, Creek Turnpike = I-644?" misconception is something that somehow got out of Fictional Highways.

[M86]

This is pursing an interstate designation for the sake of the designation. Just extend MO 360 along US 60 and 65 as a redundant multiplex if there is a real need to have a continuous designation along the route.

Not necessarily... When you look at it from an economic development point of view, an Interstate designation can help... even if it is a spur/loop.

[Brandon]

Why does it need an I-number?  Not every freeway needs one, and a freeway is a freeway is a freeway even without a silly I-number.  Missouri (along with other states) needs to get its act together on its map and just use one color for all freeways, regardless of I-status.

Somehow US-131, US-23, M-14, MO-370, most of Kentucky's Parkways, CA-99, etc all get along fine without the pretentious I-number.  US-220 was fine without being I-99 (as an example).

[hotdogPi]

This I-644 (or whatever) is actually 2 different freeways. We shouldn't combine it into one number.

[TheStranger]

This I-644 (or whatever) is actually 2 different freeways. We shouldn't combine it into one number.

We already have precedent for that with North Carolina's I-795 though (and to some extent with I-277 in Charlotte).

[NE2]

I-795 is barely two different freeways - US 264 is used only to get to the main part. But there are certainly 3-digit Interstates that hop from one freeway to another: I-395 DC, I-470 KS, I-390 NY, I-293 NH. The latter is topologically pretty damn similar to this proposal at Springfield.

[TheStranger]

I-795 is barely two different freeways - US 264 is used only to get to the main part. But there are certainly 3-digit Interstates that hop from one freeway to another: I-395 DC, I-470 KS, I-390 NY, I-293 NH.

It's not even an exception-to-the-rule thing at this point, as there are so many that do (dating from the very beginning) - I-278, I-280 in San Francisco post-1968, I-580 (even before the extension along former Route 17).  Another recent one that is coming up is I-785 in Greensboro, which will begin concurrent with I-840.

[froggie]

This is pursing an interstate designation for the sake of the designation.

Exactly.  Contrary to what M86 suggests, the Interstate shield is not a panacea for economic development.

Furthermore, regarding the argument that this designation is for an alternative to I-44 in the event of an incident on I-44, such an alternative DOES NOT NEED TO BE AN INTERSTATE.  It could very easily be a state-designated route (i.e. extend MO 360) or have alternative/detour signs posted as other states do (such as Pennsylvania or Wisconsin).

[andy3175]

Furthermore, regarding the argument that this designation is for an alternative to I-44 in the event of an incident on I-44, such an alternative DOES NOT NEED TO BE AN INTERSTATE.  It could very easily be a state-designated route (i.e. extend MO 360) or have alternative/detour signs posted as other states do (such as Pennsylvania or Wisconsin).

It may not need to be an Interstate, but what if locals want it to be an Interstate? It seems to me like most funding for replacement signage comes from local and state funds, so the argument that everyone pays for new signs is not valid (not you Froggie but I've heard that concern mentioned elsewhere). Who am I to say whether an Interstate or state route designation is more appropriate? It seems like someone from Springfield, MO, should tell us whether it's needed or not. Right now, the chamber of commerce or some other proponent wants the Interstate designation; who are we or any of us to say what's best for their town. In some places, it makes sense not to number an Interstate. It other places, it does. Otherwise, we'd all be like North Carolina with plenty of planned Interstate highways. Or we'd all be like California with tons of newer freeways, few of which destined to be Interstate highways. The blanket statement of "need" doesn't matter if locals want it, can pay for it, and can get it through legal, approved methods.

Regards,
Andy

[Scott5114]

If you want to get into the "need" thing, we don't need Interstate numbers at all. We could just use state routes and US routes. Actually, we don't need US routes either; we could have everything be state routes like Canada does.

Seriously, if this doesn't "need" to be an Interstate, then what does?

[english si]

such an alternative DOES NOT NEED TO BE AN INTERSTATE.  It could very easily be a state-designated route (i.e. extend MO 360) or have alternative/detour signs posted as other states do (such as Pennsylvania or Wisconsin).

While we all agree that it need not be an Interstate, there's no reason given by the anti-I-shields people why it should not be one.

Shouting is unbecoming, especially if it at a straw man.

[hotdogPi]

such an alternative DOES NOT NEED TO BE AN INTERSTATE.  It could very easily be a state-designated route (i.e. extend MO 360) or have alternative/detour signs posted as other states do (such as Pennsylvania or Wisconsin).

While we all agree that it need not be an Interstate, there's no reason given by the anti-I-shields people why it should not be one.

Shouting is unbecoming, especially if it at a straw man.

I gave a reason, though.

[Molandfreak]

such an alternative DOES NOT NEED TO BE AN INTERSTATE.  It could very easily be a state-designated route (i.e. extend MO 360) or have alternative/detour signs posted as other states do (such as Pennsylvania or Wisconsin).

While we all agree that it need not be an Interstate, there's no reason given by the anti-I-shields people why it should not be one.

Shouting is unbecoming, especially if it at a straw man.

I gave a reason, though.

And Revive 755 gave an answer to that reason: both corridors can become odd x44s in case of freeway extensions (U.S. 65 could already be an interstate down to Ozark).



Would someone who is against this purely for funding purposes, yet would favor extending 360 as an alternative, please tell me how your logic plays out. You still have to change the signs. The only difference is that interstates require FHWA and AASHTO approval.

[NE2]

MO 360: I-60?

[english si]

I gave a reason, though.

This I-644 (or whatever) is actually 2 different freeways. We shouldn't combine it into one number.

You gave a reason why it should not be one. You did not give a reason why it should not carry interstate designations plural.

Also, your reason was rapidly debunked (here's another reason: US60 and US65 will still be signed for E-W and N-S traffic).

MO 360: I-60?

Shirley MO360: I-66?

MO certainly agrees with KY on having I-66 in the state (unless MO is thinking I-224 for the Paducah to I-57 route) and it's on the path...