I-69 Ohio River Bridge

[SkyPesos]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       

Even it's like several decades in the future, isn't it theoretically possible that the two sections could connect by rerouting down existing 87 down the GSP in NJ, and routing the new 87 along US 13 in VA, MD, DE, then a fixed Cape May-Lewes crossing as the last piece of the puzzle? I guess that was AASHTO's thought for assigning 87 instead of 89?

But yea, the chance of them connecting is very unlikely, and AASHTO should've rejected NC's claim and assigned it I-46.

If anyone thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell that the two sections of I-87 will be connected in any of our lifetimes, I've got plans for a new cross-S.F. Bay Bridge called the "Smartbarton" for which I'm searching for investors!  DM me if you're interested! 

Ask FritzOwl. He may be interested 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       

Even it's like several decades in the future, isn't it theoretically possible that the two sections could connect by rerouting down existing 87 down the GSP in NJ, and routing the new 87 along US 13 in VA, MD, DE, then a fixed Cape May-Lewes crossing as the last piece of the puzzle? I guess that was AASHTO's thought for assigning 87 instead of 89?

But yea, the chance of them connecting is very unlikely, and AASHTO should've rejected NC's claim and assigned it I-46.

If anyone thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell that the two sections of I-87 will be connected in any of our lifetimes, I've got plans for a new cross-S.F. Bay Bridge called the "Smartbarton" for which I'm searching for investors!  DM me if you're interested! 

Ask FritzOwl. He may be interested 

Only if it comes with a pre-approved Interstate designation, preferably a new 2di!

[hbelkins]

Kentucky has been seeing all sorts of interstates designated with numbering conflicts with existing state routes. KY 69 is in the same general area of the state as I-69, but there's been no move to renumber it. We now have I-165 signed, but there have been no issues with KY 165, which is in the northeastern/north-central part of the state.

If North Carolina had no issues with I-74 and US 74 being in the same state, why would they have had to renumber a state highway?

[sparker]

Kentucky has been seeing all sorts of interstates designated with numbering conflicts with existing state routes. KY 69 is in the same general area of the state as I-69, but there's been no move to renumber it. We now have I-165 signed, but there have been no issues with KY 165, which is in the northeastern/north-central part of the state.

If North Carolina had no issues with I-74 and US 74 being in the same state, why would they have had to renumber a state highway?

You'd have to ask NCDOT; that's the explanation they gave back in 2016 when the designation was submitted to AASHTO.  As said before, it was likely a knee-jerk reaction foisted upon them by state legislators or local officials regarding addresses (someone likely told someone else that the usual practice with state highway conflicts or other issues was to simply renumber the route, as they did when they elected to swap out NC 136 with NC 3 so as to put the latter "historic" number nearer Dale Earnhardt's hometown of Kannapolis).  But to date, they haven't done a thing with NC 87, a major cross-state diagonal -- but then, signage for I-87 is currently only limited to the qualifying short section immediately east of Raleigh.  Maybe NCDOT simply overreacts at times -- but their "rules" seem to mimic the English language -- for every rule there's any number of exceptions! 

But what is interesting is that their original choice was a 2nd I-44 rather than selecting a new number from the available pool between 42 and 62.  Maybe the repeating-integer "44" just appealed to them (like an athlete selecting a jersey number) -- but its choice indicates that their shift to an odd-numbered designation only came about after that one was rejected because it was duplicative when other designations were available.  It may come down to pure obstinacy within NC political and/or agency circles; not unprecedented by any means. 

[SkyPesos]

And dear NCDOT, how about I-42 and NC 42?

hypocrites

[sparker]

And dear NCDOT, how about I-42 and NC 42?

hypocrites

That -- and, like more than a few states, they've just given up on maintaining any sort of system or convention with their state highways.  But to be totally fair, I-42 was foisted upon them by AASHTO after they had submitted, first, I-50 and, later I-36 for the US 70 corridor (the latter, of course, "violating" the grid -- not that it means much of anything anymore!).  By that time AASHTO was likely royally pissed off at the agency and picked the first even number north of I-40 just to put the matter to rest; the fact that NC 42 actually crosses that corridor didn't seem to figure into the decision at all.   Nevertheless, NCDOT accepted the decision and rather quickly posted "Future I-42 Corridor" signage along the existing route.

At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!   

[SkyPesos]

At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!

Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.

[Scott5114]

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

More to the point, it's confusing to non-roadgeeks from outside the area. It's too easy to misinterpret "I-35W" as being a weird way to sign "I-35 westbound" and think they should be looking for "I-35S" to go south.

[sprjus4]

At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!

Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.

I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.

[SkyPesos]

At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!

Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.

I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.

Yea that's what I was asking, was 69 chosen to extend south because of it's existing section with a border crossing to Canada, instead of another interstate like 71, which doesn't have a border crossing at the north, though doesn't require new construction to get southwest to the KY-TN border at least.

[NWI_Irish96]

At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!

Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.

I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.

Yea that's what I was asking, was 69 chosen to extend south because of it's existing section with a border crossing to Canada, instead of another interstate like 71, which doesn't have a border crossing at the north, though doesn't require new construction to get southwest to the KY-TN border at least.

Yes, the number 69 was chosen to incorporate the already existing section as a Canada to Mexico route.

[hbelkins]

At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!

Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.

I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.

Yea that's what I was asking, was 69 chosen to extend south because of it's existing section with a border crossing to Canada, instead of another interstate like 71, which doesn't have a border crossing at the north, though doesn't require new construction to get southwest to the KY-TN border at least.

Yes, the number 69 was chosen to incorporate the already existing section as a Canada to Mexico route.

It was originally touted as the "NAFTA Superhighway;" a continuous route between our two neighbors.

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

More to the point, it's confusing to non-roadgeeks from outside the area. It's too easy to misinterpret "I-35W" as being a weird way to sign "I-35 westbound" and think they should be looking for "I-35S" to go south.

I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E." It makes me want to give them a brief history on the numbering of the split routes. If one of my reporter friends ever makes that mistake again, I may straighten them out on it.

[sparker]

At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!

Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.

I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.

Yea that's what I was asking, was 69 chosen to extend south because of it's existing section with a border crossing to Canada, instead of another interstate like 71, which doesn't have a border crossing at the north, though doesn't require new construction to get southwest to the KY-TN border at least.

Yes, the number 69 was chosen to incorporate the already existing section as a Canada to Mexico route.

It was originally touted as the "NAFTA Superhighway;" a continuous route between our two neighbors.

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

More to the point, it's confusing to non-roadgeeks from outside the area. It's too easy to misinterpret "I-35W" as being a weird way to sign "I-35 westbound" and think they should be looking for "I-35S" to go south.

I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E." It makes me want to give them a brief history on the numbering of the split routes. If one of my reporter friends ever makes that mistake again, I may straighten them out on it.

My cousin-in-law, who worked as a field crew supervisor for CA's DOH back in the "good old days", always referred to US 99E as "99 East" and, of course 99W as "99 West"; apparently this was the DOH lexicon, at least in District 3, where he worked.  I suppose since if & when they were bannered (like on the original multiplex with I-80 and US 40 from Sacramento to Roseville), the split/suffixed 99's were "NORTH" and "SOUTH" on the banners, so the route differentiation and the direction of travel weren't likely to be confused. 

[CtrlAltDel]

I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E."

I don't know about that. This seems like persnicketiness for the sake of persnicketiness, given that the E stands for east.

[Avalanchez71]

Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

The I-69 will cost nearly 1 Billion dollars to run it across from IN into KY and over the Ohio River to meet up with the current signed I-69 with estimates of 35 years of maintenance (yeah right).  It is time to Breezewood now and save 1 Billion dollars.


Central Alternative 1B is the lowest-cost option. Construction has been separated into Sections 1 and 2. The total estimated construction costs are $237 million for Section 1 and $975 million for Section 2 (year of expenditure). This total cost includes roadway and bridge operations and maintenance for 35 years following completion of construction.

[sprjus4]

Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

The I-69 will cost nearly 1 Billion dollars to run it across from IN into KY and over the Ohio River to meet up with the current signed I-69 with estimates of 35 years of maintenance (yeah right).  It is time to Breezewood now and save 1 Billion dollars.


Central Alternative 1B is the lowest-cost option. Construction has been separated into Sections 1 and 2. The total estimated construction costs are $237 million for Section 1 and $975 million for Section 2 (year of expenditure). This total cost includes roadway and bridge operations and maintenance for 35 years following completion of construction.

[edwaleni]

Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

The I-69 will cost nearly 1 Billion dollars to run it across from IN into KY and over the Ohio River to meet up with the current signed I-69 with estimates of 35 years of maintenance (yeah right).  It is time to Breezewood now and save 1 Billion dollars.


Central Alternative 1B is the lowest-cost option. Construction has been separated into Sections 1 and 2. The total estimated construction costs are $237 million for Section 1 and $975 million for Section 2 (year of expenditure). This total cost includes roadway and bridge operations and maintenance for 35 years following completion of construction.

Duplicate post. You already stated this in the other I-69 construction thread. Are you of the notion that multiple posts of the same response will get a different result?

[NWI_Irish96]

Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

The I-69 will cost nearly 1 Billion dollars to run it across from IN into KY and over the Ohio River to meet up with the current signed I-69 with estimates of 35 years of maintenance (yeah right).  It is time to Breezewood now and save 1 Billion dollars.


Central Alternative 1B is the lowest-cost option. Construction has been separated into Sections 1 and 2. The total estimated construction costs are $237 million for Section 1 and $975 million for Section 2 (year of expenditure). This total cost includes roadway and bridge operations and maintenance for 35 years following completion of construction.

Duplicate post. You already stated this in the other I-69 construction thread. Are you of the notion that multiple posts of the same response will get a different result?

I have put the troll on ignore. I encourage others to do the same.

[Scott5114]

I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E."

I don't know about that. This seems like persnicketiness for the sake of persnicketiness, given that the E stands for east.

Does it, though? If it's carried in the books as "25E" rather than "25 East", even though the letter may have been chosen because it is the east branch, it isn't an actual abbreviation for "25 East", so the expansion would be wrong.

Oklahoma has an OK-3W/OK-3E split. But it also has an OK-74E that's actually west of OK-74. But that's because Oklahoma does letter spur routes and it's the fifth spur off of OK-74. So if you assume any OK-XXE means "east" and expand it accordingly, you're going to have a bad time.

Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

You are, right now. I'm sending the repo man to your house as we speak.

[silverback1065]

he's starting to sound like a bot now 

[CtrlAltDel]

I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E."

I don't know about that. This seems like persnicketiness for the sake of persnicketiness, given that the E stands for east.

Does it, though? If it's carried in the books as "25E" rather than "25 East", even though the letter may have been chosen because it is the east branch, it isn't an actual abbreviation for "25 East", so the expansion would be wrong.

This is pretty much what I mean by persnicketiness for the sake of persnicketiness.


ETA: That said, just for the record, the 1927 list of US Highways, the first I could find, identifies the highways in question (and all other divided routes) thusly:


Click image for the full list.

So, the "may have been chosen" language that you use, I think, can be strengthened a bit.

[hbelkins]

So, then, where are the commas on the road signs? 

North Carolina used to use dashes between the numbers and letters on some of its 19E (19-E) and 19W (19-W) postings, as well as some of its xxA (xx-A) signage.

[sparker]

So, then, where are the commas on the road signs? 

North Carolina used to use dashes between the numbers and letters on some of its 19E (19-E) and 19W (19-W) postings, as well as some of its xxA (xx-A) signage.

CA, in pre-'64 DOH days, simply appended an "E" or "W" after the "99" on 3-digit wide shields, treating the suffix as just another number.  This was true on both the old enameled shields with the state name above a horizontal line and the later larger enamel or reflectorized shields (1953 and post-1958 issue respectively) with a simple US above the number.  Apparently some states actually placed the suffix below the number (like the old Gousha map symbols); these must have been long gone prior to my cross-country traveling spree in the 1980's, since I never saw examples in the field. 

[NWI_Irish96]

he's starting to sound like a bot now 

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.

[hbelkins]

he's starting to sound like a bot now 

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.

Unless the forum software has changed, it still shows that the poster has posted; the post is just hidden. I've done that a few times and ended up un-ignoring the poster because morbid curiosity would always get the better of me and I'd click to see what they had posted.