Looking into some of the early proposals for Interstate numbering, some of them are bizarre - almost as if the states didn't want 3dis!
- I-3: San Jose - San Fransisco (I-280)
- I-3: El Toro - San Fernando (I-405) - second I-3 proposal, after first one and I-9 were rejected
- I-9: El Toro - San Fernando (I-405)
- I-12: I-5 - I-10 in Los Angeles (I-210)
- I-13: I-405 - I-10 in Los Angeles (I-605)
- I-14: I-5 - I-10 in Los Angeles (I-210) - number used after the shuffle of longer distance numbers in AZ and CA
- I-67 Benton Harbour - Grand Rapids (now I-196)
- I-73 Detroit western bypass (I-275)
- I-68 Northern section of DC Beltway
- I-98 Detroit northern bypass (I-296)
Any more odd numbers?
I-63 in DC. I don't think the 3DI numbering had been determined yet.
Compared to what the standards became, they are strange. But at the time, they probably sounded reasonable.
They're probably less strange than, for example, I-80N & I-80S or I-80 & I-80S, which existed, the 35's in Texas, which now do exist, or two I-76's without any real reasonable connection between the two.
Quote from: english si on October 21, 2013, 09:31:40 AM
Looking into some of the early proposals for Interstate numbering, some of them are bizarre - almost as if the states didn't want 3dis!
- I-3: San Jose - San Fransisco (I-280)
- I-3: El Toro - San Fernando (I-405) - second I-3 proposal, after first one and I-9 were rejected
- I-9: El Toro - San Fernando (I-405)
- I-12: I-5 - I-10 in Los Angeles (I-210)
- I-13: I-405 - I-10 in Los Angeles (I-605)
- I-14: I-5 - I-10 in Los Angeles (I-210) - number used after the shuffle of longer distance numbers in AZ and CA
- I-67 Benton Harbour - Grand Rapids (now I-196)
- I-73 Detroit western bypass (I-275)
- I-68 Northern section of DC Beltway
- I-98 Detroit northern bypass (I-296)
Any more odd numbers?
I get the impression that the California authorities didn't get the concept of 3dis versus 2dis yet. It was early in the interstate numbering process so perhaps these proposals are understandable in that light.
Doesn't seem any worse than I-49 "south" between New Orleans and Lafayette. :meh:
Quote from: english si on October 21, 2013, 09:31:40 AM
- I-98 Detroit northern bypass (I-296)
I don't like to nitpick, but this is I-696. That's important because I-296 does exist, unsigned, in Grand Rapids.
For your enjoyment, there's the 1957 plan (http://roadfan.com/5758int.html), before 3dis existed. What jumps out as wastes of a number:
- I-31 from Fargo north to the Canadian border (now I-29)
- a different I-67 from yours: Elkhart to Kalamazoo (roughly US 131)
- I-77 from Detroit to Port Huron (now I-94)
- I-78 from Norwalk, OH to Youngstown (what has been built is mostly I-76)
- I-79 from Cleveland to Canton (now I-77)
I thought I-68 was just for US 50 (now secret I-595) east of DC! Was the northern Beltway segment a part of its extension as originally proposed?
Before the bizarre I-81E, I believe the current I-380 in Pennsylvania was originally suggested as I-82.
Now don't get me wrong–I loathe and hate I-99 and hope that Bud Shuster burns in porkbarrel hell for all eternity–but... All of these short early 2DI proposals put the "I-99 is too short to be a 2DI" argument into a slightly different perspective.
Quote from: Henry on October 21, 2013, 02:56:36 PM
I thought I-68 was just for US 50 (now secret I-595) east of DC! Was the northern Beltway segment a part of its extension as originally proposed?
That was the only proposed I-68 that I have ever heard of (officially). It would have made about as much sense as I-97.
I think I read on a roadfan/roadgeek site somewhere that I-68 should run from Morgantown, W.Va. along its present route to Hancock, Md., then east along I-70 to Frederick, then replacing I-270 between Frederick and North Bethesda, then multiplexed with I-495 (and I-95) around to present-day U.S. 50, then east to Annapolis or possibly beyond to Queenstown or even Ocean City.
There are a lot of driveways and at-grade signalized intersections along U.S. 50 between Queenstown and OC - and even though U.S. 50/U.S. 301 is shown on most maps as freeway between Md. 2/Md. 450 in Arnold and Queenstown, it is really more of an expressway, with a westbound at-grade intersection at Md. 648 and several sharp right-off/right-on access points that don't exactly meet Interstate standards.
In Connecticut, what's now I-84 between Hartford and I-90 was originally proposed to be I-86, with I-84 continuing due east to Providence. It certainly would have been short enough to be a 3-digit interstate.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 21, 2013, 03:00:29 PM
Before the bizarre I-81E, I believe the current I-380 in Pennsylvania was originally suggested as I-82.
I have a 1964 Rand McNally atlas that shows this as I-81S. Bizarrer.
Quote from: dgolub on October 23, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
In Connecticut, what's now I-84 between Hartford and I-90 was originally proposed to be I-86, with I-84 continuing due east to Providence. It certainly would have been short enough to be a 3-digit interstate.
I-84N would have worked just fine.
Quote from: dgolub on October 23, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
In Connecticut, what's now I-84 between Hartford and I-90 was originally proposed to be I-86, with I-84 continuing due east to Providence. It certainly would have been short enough to be a 3-digit interstate.
Not merely proposed to be I-86; it was signed as such for several years.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 24, 2013, 06:02:13 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 23, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
In Connecticut, what's now I-84 between Hartford and I-90 was originally proposed to be I-86, with I-84 continuing due east to Providence. It certainly would have been short enough to be a 3-digit interstate.
Not merely proposed to be I-86; it was signed as such for several years.
Yep, in the AA Shield gallery, there is a piccy of Conn I-84, I-86, US 44 and CONN 15 on the same assembly
(also note the avitar.....)
Quote from: briantroutman on October 21, 2013, 03:00:29 PMBefore the bizarre I-81E, I believe the current I-380 in Pennsylvania was originally suggested as I-82.
Yes, but I-84 was to run across the north of PA (US6 corridor) and I-80 was to take the turnpike. I-78 was I-80N, with Philly being I-80S. I-82 was Scranton to I-95 near New York - a perfectly acceptable 2di route.
However, by that time, PA wanted a more southerly free route across the state than the I-84 route, so I-80 took over much of the I-82 route, and I-84 was curtailed at Scranton. The leftover bit of I-82 was too long for a 3di, compared with the existing ones (which were city routes), so it was to be a suffixed route. That's not that silly.
I-86 in CT was silly. I don't know why they changed from the original (when they wanted a Hartford-Providence interstate) plan of I-84 being left and the other interstate being I-82 - I guess duplicates, but then I-84N, rather than I-86, would have made more sense if they were still in the numbering phase that didn't have 2 I-76s.
IL's I-37 plan was pretty horrific.
Quote from: Steve on October 24, 2013, 12:37:42 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 23, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
In Connecticut, what's now I-84 between Hartford and I-90 was originally proposed to be I-86, with I-84 continuing due east to Providence. It certainly would have been short enough to be a 3-digit interstate.
I-84N would have worked just fine.
If memory serves, nearly every suffixed Interstate (except for the two I-35E/Ws in TX and MN) was changed to either another 2di or 3di sometime in the early 1980s as part of a Federal mandate(?).
Had I-84N indeed been selected instead of I-86 for the Wilbur Cross Expressway east of Hartford during the 70s; it
still would've had to change again numberwise regardless of whether the Hartford-Providence branch of I-84 was built or not.
I'm still a bit baffled as towards why the FHWA is allowing suffixed 2dis again (I-69E/C/W) but that's another topic for another thread after nearly 3 decades of discouraging such numbering practices.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 24, 2013, 12:44:46 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 24, 2013, 12:37:42 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 23, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
In Connecticut, what's now I-84 between Hartford and I-90 was originally proposed to be I-86, with I-84 continuing due east to Providence. It certainly would have been short enough to be a 3-digit interstate.
I-84N would have worked just fine.
If memory serves, nearly every suffixed Interstate (except for the two I-35E/Ws in TX and MN) was changed to either another 2di or 3di sometime in the early 1980s as part of a Federal mandate(?).
The other one that survived after 1980 was I-15E in San Bernardino/Riverside (a portion of which was former I-15 north of I-10), which became I-215 in 1982.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 23, 2013, 08:21:51 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 21, 2013, 02:56:36 PM
I thought I-68 was just for US 50 (now secret I-595) east of DC! Was the northern Beltway segment a part of its extension as originally proposed?
That was the only proposed I-68 that I have ever heard of (officially). It would have made about as much sense as I-97.
I think I read on a roadfan/roadgeek site somewhere that I-68 should run from Morgantown, W.Va. along its present route to Hancock, Md., then east along I-70 to Frederick, then replacing I-270 between Frederick and North Bethesda, then multiplexed with I-495 (and I-95) around to present-day U.S. 50, then east to Annapolis or possibly beyond to Queenstown or even Ocean City.
There are a lot of driveways and at-grade signalized intersections along U.S. 50 between Queenstown and OC - and even though U.S. 50/U.S. 301 is shown on most maps as freeway between Md. 2/Md. 450 in Arnold and Queenstown, it is really more of an expressway, with a westbound at-grade intersection at Md. 648 and several sharp right-off/right-on access points that don't exactly meet Interstate standards.
I lived in the Annapolis area in the early- and mid-1980s, when I-97 was proposed, then under construction. During my college years, I collected some EIS documents for that corridor and learned through one of my correspondences with SHA that I-68 was once proposed for what is now hidden I-595 (U.S. 50 and 301), with the same limits. I don't have the letter handy, but I think it was in the context of asking about the once-proposed 3dis I-197 and I-297.
Quote from: akotchi on October 24, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
I lived in the Annapolis area in the early- and mid-1980s, when I-97 was proposed, then under construction. During my college years, I collected some EIS documents for that corridor and learned through one of my correspondences with SHA that I-68 was once proposed for what is now hidden I-595 (U.S. 50 and 301), with the same limits. I don't have the letter handy, but I think it was in the context of asking about the once-proposed 3dis I-197 and I-297.
I saw I-68 on a few official SHA documents. I recall I-297 being proposed for (what is still) Md. 3 between Bowie and Gambrills (and there was a horrific multi-fatal wreck on southbound Md. 3 between I-97 and Md. 175 just recently). Where was I-197 supposed to go? Was that the proposed connection between Md. 3/I-297 and Md. 200 (ICC)?
Can't recall where the map I've seen is located, but I-197 was intended for what is now 50/301/hidden-595 between 97 and MD 70/Rowe Blvd. In a nutshell, the hidden I-595 replaced it.
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2013, 06:43:15 PM
Can't recall where the map I've seen is located, but I-197 was intended for what is now 50/301/hidden-595 between 97 and MD 70/Rowe Blvd. In a nutshell, the hidden I-595 replaced it.
I don't recall any proposals for I-197 (and it would have provided
plenty of opportunity for motorist confusion, since Md. 197 runs from U.S. 301 in Bowie roughly north (through an interchange with U.S. 50) to Md. 198 in Laurel).
I-190 was originally supposed to be designated I-90N, with I-290 originally supposed to be designated I-190.
There was some of the early 3-DIs in LA that were sequential numbers starting at 102. Kurumi has a lot of the details.
I-98 would have been a more logical number for I-69 East of Lansing.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2013, 08:14:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2013, 06:43:15 PM
Can't recall where the map I've seen is located, but I-197 was intended for what is now 50/301/hidden-595 between 97 and MD 70/Rowe Blvd. In a nutshell, the hidden I-595 replaced it.
I don't recall any proposals for I-197 (and it would have provided plenty of opportunity for motorist confusion, since Md. 197 runs from U.S. 301 in Bowie roughly north (through an interchange with U.S. 50) to Md. 198 in Laurel).
197 and 297 were both proposed as x97s.
I-197: http://web.archive.org/web/20040208011509/http://nwindianahwys.homestead.com/i97_1982.html
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20040208011509im_%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fnwindianahwys.homestead.com%2Ffiles%2Fi97197297md1982.JPG&hash=63f6df562f6d33013c0c86753d35a008c3f80221)
renumbered as part of I-68: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fhighwayhistory%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Fbowie.gif&hash=3caaae38e8ed9ca7c5c2dde590558800e3216a81)
Quote from: ctsignguy on October 24, 2013, 08:14:53 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 24, 2013, 06:02:13 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 23, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
In Connecticut, what's now I-84 between Hartford and I-90 was originally proposed to be I-86, with I-84 continuing due east to Providence. It certainly would have been short enough to be a 3-digit interstate.
Not merely proposed to be I-86; it was signed as such for several years.
Yep, in the AA Shield gallery, there is a piccy of Conn I-84, I-86, US 44 and CONN 15 on the same assembly
(also note the avitar.....)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CT/CT19610861i1.jpg)
And as far as strange numbering is concerned, what about the original plans to designate the last few miles of I-79 in Erie as I-179?
Quote from: Pennsylvania Highways (http://www.pahighways.com/IHwys/PDI.html)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pahighways.com%2Fgraphics%2Fmaps%2FI179map.jpg&hash=5c4a9e9d1687558b1f2c67cb98d1784728619e59)
Proposed in 1958 as the current Interstate 79 alignment towards Erie, but would have turned to parallel the PA 99 alignment to end in Kearsarge. Shown on General Drafting and Rand McNally maps from 1962 and 1963 respectively.
In addition, there was an I-177 that was to serve as a spur into Cleveland, back when I-77 was to extend to Detroit. Somehow, this was shelved due to some sort of feud between OH and MI.
My personal favorite was I-59B around Birmingham, which ended up being changed to I-459.
I liked I-99, which was supposed to use Corridor O through western Pennsylvania.
Quote from: national highway 1 on October 25, 2013, 02:59:02 AM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CT/CT19610861i1.jpg)
An old school cutout on a freeway. Nice.
Quote from: bugo on October 25, 2013, 02:01:37 PM
An old school cutout on a freeway. Nice.
they happen. that looks like a 21" cutout, which is barely freeway-spec. I've seen oversized state-named cutouts from the following places:
CA - 27", 36"
CT - 21"
DE - 24"
KY - 30" or so (tough to tell from the photos)
MD - 24"
MI - 24", 36"
NV - 24"
NC - 36"
OR - 24", 36"
PA - 24"
SC - 21"
TX - 20", 24"
UT - 36"
VT - 24"
WV - 22" (tough to tell from the photo, definitely oversize)
probably others out there - and that's not counting the state-named shields that are on white or black squares and also oversized.
Quote from: Henry on October 25, 2013, 12:41:44 PM
back when I-77 was to extend to Detroit...
This is the first I've ever heard of this. Would it have extended along the Ohio Turnpike and I-75? An extended OH 2 freeway?
Quote from: briantroutman on October 25, 2013, 02:22:21 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 25, 2013, 12:41:44 PM
back when I-77 was to extend to Detroit...
This is the first I've ever heard of this. Would it have extended along the Ohio Turnpike and I-75? An extended OH 2 freeway?
That's where I think the problems came in. The two sections, as far as I can tell, were disjointed. The I-77 proposal in Michigan became a part of I-94 (Detroit to Port Huron).
Quote from: briantroutman on October 25, 2013, 12:22:02 PM
And as far as strange numbering is concerned, what about the original plans to designate the last few miles of I-79 in Erie as I-179?
Effectively isn't this what exists today with the unsigned I-345 in Dallas?
Quote from: getemngo on October 21, 2013, 02:26:31 PM
For your enjoyment, there's the 1957 plan (http://roadfan.com/5758int.html), before 3dis existed. What jumps out as wastes of a number:
- I-31 from Fargo north to the Canadian border (now I-29)
I-29 was originally to end in Sioux Falls at I-90. The segment between I-90 and I-94 was later added.[/list]
Quote from: english si on October 24, 2013, 08:29:44 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 21, 2013, 03:00:29 PMBefore the bizarre I-81E, I believe the current I-380 in Pennsylvania was originally suggested as I-82.
Yes, but I-84 was to run across the north of PA (US6 corridor) and I-80 was to take the turnpike. I-78 was I-80N, with Philly being I-80S. I-82 was Scranton to I-95 near New York - a perfectly acceptable 2di route.
However, by that time, PA wanted a more southerly free route across the state than the I-84 route, so I-80 took over much of the I-82 route, and I-84 was curtailed at Scranton. The leftover bit of I-82 was too long for a 3di, compared with the existing ones (which were city routes), so it was to be a suffixed route. That's not that silly.
I-86 in CT was silly. I don't know why they changed from the original (when they wanted a Hartford-Providence interstate) plan of I-84 being left and the other interstate being I-82 - I guess duplicates, but then I-84N, rather than I-86, would have made more sense if they were still in the numbering phase that didn't have 2 I-76s.
IL's I-37 plan was pretty horrific.
Actually, the I-84 to Providence at one point was going to be I-82, and I-84 was (and once again is) the road to Sturbridge. That changed when I-86 was made the new number for the proposed I-491 that was supposed to connect the Putnam Bridge to I-84 near the old movie theaters. I-84 became the (since killed off) Providence route and I-86 took over I-84.