AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Central States => Topic started by: US71 on November 13, 2013, 10:04:52 PM

Title: RIP MO 360?
Post by: US71 on November 13, 2013, 10:04:52 PM
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

Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Revive 755 on November 13, 2013, 10:31:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: US71 on November 13, 2013, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 13, 2013, 10:31:29 PM
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 ;)
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: NE2 on November 13, 2013, 11:32:55 PM
QuoteHaving a road called an Interstate sounds a little more pretentious.
Fixed for them.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Scott5114 on November 14, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
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?

Quote from: US71 on November 13, 2013, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 13, 2013, 10:31:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: M86 on November 14, 2013, 01:38:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Molandfreak on November 14, 2013, 09:30:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on November 14, 2013, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Henry on November 14, 2013, 03:12:57 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Revive 755 on November 14, 2013, 09:14:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Scott5114 on November 14, 2013, 10:20:18 PM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on November 14, 2013, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
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.

Quote from: Revive 755 on November 14, 2013, 09:14:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2013, 01:13:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: M86 on November 15, 2013, 01:57:43 AM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on November 14, 2013, 01:36:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Brandon on November 15, 2013, 04:41:29 PM
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).
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: hotdogPi on November 15, 2013, 05:23:24 PM
This I-644 (or whatever) is actually 2 different freeways. We shouldn't combine it into one number.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: TheStranger on November 15, 2013, 05:28:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 15, 2013, 05:23:24 PM
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).

Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: NE2 on November 15, 2013, 05:58:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: TheStranger on November 15, 2013, 06:41:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 15, 2013, 05:58:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: froggie on November 15, 2013, 06:45:04 PM
QuoteThis 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).
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: andy3175 on November 15, 2013, 10:59:08 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 15, 2013, 06:45:04 PM
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
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Scott5114 on November 16, 2013, 03:40:33 AM
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?
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: english si on November 16, 2013, 06:54:00 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 15, 2013, 06:45:04 PMsuch 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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: hotdogPi on November 16, 2013, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: english si on November 16, 2013, 06:54:00 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 15, 2013, 06:45:04 PMsuch 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.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Molandfreak on November 16, 2013, 04:03:24 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 16, 2013, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: english si on November 16, 2013, 06:54:00 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 15, 2013, 06:45:04 PMsuch 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.
Title: do us all a favor and FUCK OFF!
Post by: NE2 on November 16, 2013, 04:05:03 PM
MO 360: I-60?
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: english si on November 16, 2013, 04:14:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 16, 2013, 02:29:45 PMI gave a reason, though.
Quote from: 1 on November 15, 2013, 05:23:24 PM
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).
Quote from: NE2 on November 16, 2013, 04:05:03 PMMO 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...
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: M86 on November 17, 2013, 01:12:56 AM
Random thought:  Des Moines seems to have/have had this same sort of issue.  US 65 & IA 5 form a partial loop around Des Moines, paralleling I-235... I think the city of Des Moines was trying to pursue an Interstate designation for that partial loop that is Interstand-standard.  I'm not sure what ever happened with that.

I think an Interstate designation would be most helpful for Branson traffic.

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

I agree, a panacea it is not.  I was only suggesting that an "I" designation holds some merit when it comes to economic development.

Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: bugo on November 17, 2013, 09:00:07 AM
There's no reason for any of US 65 in Missouri to be an interstate.  It would just add confusion.  However, the James River Freeway should have a single number, whether MO 360 or I-144.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Scott5114 on November 18, 2013, 02:29:32 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 17, 2013, 09:00:07 AM
There's no reason for any of US 65 in Missouri to be an interstate.  It would just add confusion.  However, the James River Freeway should have a single number, whether MO 360 or I-144.

I don't see how an Interstate spur to Branson would be any more confusing than the I-540 spur to Northwest Arkansas is.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: bugo on November 18, 2013, 02:40:21 AM
I-540 IS confusing.  To go from Texarkana to Kansas City, you take US 71 to i-540 to US 71 to I-49 to US 71.  It should all be US 71 until I-49 is signed.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: M86 on November 18, 2013, 04:31:58 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 18, 2013, 02:40:21 AM
I-540 IS confusing.  To go from Texarkana to Kansas City, you take US 71 to i-540 to US 71 to I-49 to US 71.  It should all be US 71 until I-49 is signed.

I-540 has served it's purpose.  And eventually it will be I-49.  Did AHTD make a lot of mistakes?  Yes, but eventually, they'll hopefully be fixed.

An Interstate spur to Branson is needed... The amount of out-of-town guests warrants it alone... and it warrants an Interstate designation for the James River Freeway, for traffic coming from the west.  And I can't see making the whole segment MO 360... What about US 60 and US 160?

Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: bugo on November 18, 2013, 05:00:27 AM
It should have been I-49 from the start.  Motorists have gotten used to I-540 and it will be confusing when it becomes I-49. 

Why does Branson need an interstate?  Is it that much better if you say "take I-344 to MO 76" than saying "take US 65 to MO 76"?  I'm not sure that US 65 is even up to interstate standards.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: US71 on November 18, 2013, 09:27:21 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 18, 2013, 02:40:21 AM
I-540 IS confusing.  To go from Texarkana to Kansas City, you take US 71 to i-540 to US 71 to I-49 to US 71.  It should all be US 71 until I-49 is signed.

It was supposed to be in Arkansas, but all the little "tourist traps" complained no would know AR 471 was old US 71 and they were afraid of losing business, so AHTD named the new highway I-540. Of course, most of the tourist traps suffered anyway.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Revive 755 on November 18, 2013, 09:01:24 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 18, 2013, 05:00:27 AM
Why does Branson need an interstate?  Is it that much better if you say "take I-344 to MO 76" than saying "take US 65 to MO 76"?  I'm not sure that US 65 is even up to interstate standards.

US 65 is not a full freeway between Ozark and Branson; it still has many at grade access points.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Brandon on November 19, 2013, 10:41:44 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 18, 2013, 09:01:24 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 18, 2013, 05:00:27 AM
Why does Branson need an interstate?  Is it that much better if you say "take I-344 to MO 76" than saying "take US 65 to MO 76"?  I'm not sure that US 65 is even up to interstate standards.

US 65 is not a full freeway between Ozark and Branson; it still has many at grade access points.

Which may be just fine.  Not every road needs to be a full freeway or even an interstate.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: route29 on December 07, 2013, 10:21:47 PM
For railfans, I-844 has a nice ring to it.


iPad - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: US71 on December 08, 2013, 10:54:13 AM
Quote from: route29 on December 07, 2013, 10:21:47 PM
For railfans, I-844 has a nice ring to it.



Yes, it does :)
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: 707 on December 12, 2013, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 15, 2013, 04:41:29 PM
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).

Luckily for you, the state of Arizona and to an extent, myself, agree with you. AZ 101, AZ 202, AZ 303 and AZ 51 are all Interstate style highways, but are still Arizona State Routes. Come to think of it, why have Interstates at all? For example, wouldn't it have been better if I-5 remained US 99 north of LA?
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: US71 on December 13, 2013, 08:47:44 AM
FWIW,  I-540 north of Alma, AR was supposed to be US 71 (I'm assuming before they even though of I-49).
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: Henry on December 13, 2013, 11:46:56 AM
Quote from: 707 on December 12, 2013, 11:12:24 PM
For example, wouldn't it have been better if I-5 remained US 99 north of LA?
Maybe, but I-5 does not go through Bakersfield or Fresno.
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: I94RoadRunner on October 02, 2014, 12:09:44 AM
Quote from: US71 on November 18, 2013, 09:27:21 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 18, 2013, 02:40:21 AM
I-540 IS confusing.  To go from Texarkana to Kansas City, you take US 71 to i-540 to US 71 to I-49 to US 71.  It should all be US 71 until I-49 is signed.

It was supposed to be in Arkansas, but all the little "tourist traps" complained no would know AR 471 was old US 71 and they were afraid of losing business, so AHTD named the new highway I-540. Of course, most of the tourist traps suffered anyway.

Of course I-540 has now been resigned between I-40 and Bella Vista as I-49. Now the Bella Vista bypass needs to get finished to close the annoying gap .....
Title: Re: RIP MO 360?
Post by: I94RoadRunner on October 02, 2014, 12:12:39 AM
Quote from: M86 on November 17, 2013, 01:12:56 AM
Random thought:  Des Moines seems to have/have had this same sort of issue.  US 65 & IA 5 form a partial loop around Des Moines, paralleling I-235... I think the city of Des Moines was trying to pursue an Interstate designation for that partial loop that is Interstand-standard.  I'm not sure what ever happened with that.

I think an Interstate designation would be most helpful for Branson traffic.

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

I agree, a panacea it is not.  I was only suggesting that an "I" designation holds some merit when it comes to economic development.



Apparently this loop has been discussed oddly enough as a new I-335. I wonder why it would not be an even number .....?