AARoads Forum

They exist. They're not changing. Get over it.

I really don't care.  I like order and planning.  I like that we have national highway numbering grids.  But an exception here and there doesn't break the value of the grid.  It can even (for those who care enough to pay attention) serve as a reminder that nothing is perfect and that little exceptions and variances are a part of life.  (I do tend to try to make everything into some sort of lesson.)

There's lots of changes that I'd have made back in the 50s (though a lot would be anachronistic knowledge of future interstates), but its not worth changing road numbers for the niceness of the grid once they exist.

Plus I have no ideological problem with I-97 being short, or CA238(I). I-99 isn't much of a concern of mine either - other numbers bug me more.

The one I really care about there is I-238.  It completely blows up the 3di numbering system.  Just renumber it to (hidden) I-480 and be done with it.

While I-97 is way too short for a 2di, the only reason I feel strongly about it is because there aren't any numbers available for north-south interstates in that part of the country any more.  If it wasn't using up a valuable number, it would be much less problematic.

Similarly, I don't have strong feelings about I-99 because there isn't any closer 2di number available.  The facts that both it's ends are breezewoods and the US 220 upgrade between I-80 and US 15 (and the I-99/I-80 interchange in State College) seems to be dead are far more annoying.

I-99/I-238 are bad but not as much of an abomination as I-69C/I-69W are.

As long as they don't build I-3 on the east coast.

Vote Rama!

You know in a way it is interesting, though, to see an interstate get to be built.  The same with I-74 in NC, even though it gives me gas, I am anxious to see it get built for the sake of seeing a brand new interstate just get built. 

Even I-49 does not bother me. although it is shorter, like NE 2 said via another way than the way its planned in AR and LA south of I-10 and built in MO and LA north of I-10.  Just to see history is exciting enough.

These really don't bother me at all. The only interstate that really bothers me is 180 in Wyoming. There's absolutely no reason it should be an Interstate.

Disruptions in the numbering pattern make the numbering pattern more interesting. If there were no violations, we'd have a lot less to talk about!

Unless those violations are suffixed I-69 routes in Texas...  X-(

I care a little, because they are minor violations of the numbering system.  But not enough to join hands across America about them.

I love the exceptions to the rule. I was so happy to come across I-97 as a kid (whoa, there's something beyond 95!!), and then thrilled to see an I-99 shield in the flesh when we had to get gas. Fun story - I was learning to drive, got the wheel on the PA Tpk., and then forgot to watch the gas gauge. My parents saw this, freaked out, and my dad made me pull over after one of the tunnels. He then coasted down the hill in the right lane all the way to Bedford. In exchange, I demanded a picture of the I-99 shield - this was in the days of film, mind you - that was just outside the gas station along US 220.
I-238 will be added to my clinch list later this year, hopefully, completing the trifecta of routes that I care about in a positive, not negative, sense.

I don't mind violations to the numbering scheme which exist because no non-violating number is available. I also don't mind "numbers increase from west to east and south to north" being a general trend rather than a hard rule. Just look at the US highway system. I-99 may be out of order, but at least it's on the east coast.

The only problem I have with I-99 is how it was signed into law (wtf?) and not assigned traditionally through AASHTO. I-97 and I-238... whatever, no system is perfect.

Quote from: Zeffy on December 08, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
The only problem I have with I-99 is how it was signed into law (wtf?) and not assigned traditionally through AASHTO. I-97 and I-238... whatever, no system is perfect.

I do agree with that. I have no problem with legislating where Interstates should be (well... I have problems with politics in general, but let's not get into that), but let AASHTO assign the numbers.

I never understood the problem with I-97. It's east of I-95, so it doesn't break the grid. If the problem is "it's too short"...okay, I get it there, but the easy solution is to just extend it further south, but that's an idea for Fictional Highways.

99 and 238 are more "what the...?" to me.

Three Interstate oddities–three completely different attitudes.

I-97 I've never had a problem with. It fits the grid–so what if it's short? As I mentioned on another thread, that's the kind of thing that always made roadgeeking fun for me. If there was a legitimate I-99 in NJ that was 3/10s of a mile long, I'd celebrate it and make a special trip to clinch it.

That brings us to I-99, which will always give me heartburn–not so much because it doesn't fit the grid (although that's part of it), but more because it was it was the pet project of a real sludge of a politician. He singlehandedly diverted funds from much more deserving projects across my native state, and he embodies some of the worst elements in the American political system.

I-238 (which I tend to see every few weeks) just makes me scratch my head in bewilderment. Why? Why not I-480, now that the number is free? Or for that matter, why not just "TO I-880" going westbound and "TO I-580 headed east?

Quote from: NE2 on December 07, 2013, 01:20:24 PM
They exist. They're not changing. Get over it.

Quote from: wxfree on December 07, 2013, 01:27:54 PM
I really don't care.  I like order and planning.  I like that we have national highway numbering grids.  But an exception here and there doesn't break the value of the grid.  It can even (for those who care enough to pay attention) serve as a reminder that nothing is perfect and that little exceptions and variances are a part of life.  (I do tend to try to make everything into some sort of lesson.)

^ Essentially this.

If states have their exceptions (if any grid order at all), what's the big deal? I'll casually mention the basic odd/even basis for directions, and most people say "I didn't know that?" Only a select group of us really care, a tiny handful out of millions.

I get the reasoning: if everything went off the pattern, why bother having it in the first place? Because few folks care there's a pattern in the first place. Folks aren't taking those long cross-country drives like they used to, and they aren't that lost due to GPS and a data signal that appears almost anywhere.

It's a source of amusement, but if any state was allowed to re-sign fifty (or more) miles of interstate, the public would be a little outraged at the wasted expense and trouble doing so. Some five-mile stub, probably not.

Quote from: briantroutman on December 09, 2013, 02:02:57 AM
Three Interstate oddities–three completely different attitudes.

Agree.

My basic take:

I-97 - Not an issue, and if push came to shove for a longer, and still properly located gridwise 2di, the road's short enough to be re-assigned a 3di (likely I-995) without creating too much heartburn.

I-99 - as others have echoed, this issue w/this road is more of how the US 220 freeway received the I-99 designation rather than the number itself.  Although, if assigning a 2di number within the grid wasn't possible, it would've been better to use a lower number (I-73 prior to its being assigned to its current corridor perhaps) IMHO or just assign it as a 3di.

I-238 - at present, this is the only road I've not had the opportunity to drive on.  Given its short distance, I agree with others here that it should be either reassigned a more proper/fitting 3di (now that I-480 is available) or just have it be a ghost Interstate like I-495 is in Maine.

My 2 cents.

In retrospect, maybe it would'be been better to have applied the same I-X1s & I-X5s standard for the longer north-south routes as in the US highway system as opposed to just the current I-X5s being the longer north-south routes.  Such would've allowed for more major north-south 2dis.

Quote from: briantroutman on December 09, 2013, 02:02:57 AMHe singlehandedly diverted funds from much more deserving projects across my native state

Not true. The same funding that built I-99 built the I-26 portion of US 23 and I-68; is building US 48 and parts of US 460 and I-22, and many more highways in a large number of states.

As to the routes themselves, my decreasing order of heartburn:

1.) I-238. This one's obvious.

2.) I-97. Too short for a two-digit route. People who think I-99 should be a three-digit route lose the legitimacy of their argument if they're OK with I-97. This should either be an I-83 extension or an x95.

3.) I-99. I have no problems with it. The route as originally envisioned was to cover three states, and even now will connect two east-west interstates in two states and intersect a third east-west interstate. It also could and should be extended along I-390 to the Rochester area. It's certainly long enough to be a 2di and no other numbers were available.

Only interstate I care about is Interstate 180. At least I-238, I-99 and I-97 are freeways. I-180 isn't a freeway.

Quote from: Lytton on December 10, 2013, 01:18:28 AMI-180 isn't a freeway.

Nor, save for one short section, are Alaska's interstates, ditto bits of I-PR2 and I-PR3, but no one complains about these.

Quote from: english si on December 10, 2013, 07:38:31 AM

Quote from: Lytton on December 10, 2013, 01:18:28 AMI-180 isn't a freeway.

Nor, save for one short section, are Alaska's interstates, ditto bits of I-PR2 and I-PR3, but no one complains about these.

But these aren't signed as interstates, though.

Apparently VDOT had proposed a more grid-logical I-99 in a 2006 report:

A thread covering such can be found at
2006 VDOT Report for I-99 Corridor (REAL) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11093.0)

Quote from: Big John on December 07, 2013, 02:10:25 PM
As long as they don't build I-3 on the east coast.

Amen.  I'm not convinced that the I-99 number itself is so horrible.  At least they didn't put it in California.  However, I'm a bit concerned about the precedent it sets for legislators deciding that they want to number an interstate after something and completely botching the grid.

I do not see why people get upset over I-78 in Jersey City, NJ where it is aligned on 12th Street and Boyle Plaza with four at grade intersections when that is actually at the route's terminus.  If, say, I-78 were freeway east of there (I would hardly count the Holland Tunnel as a freeway for this purpose as it acts in everybody's mind as a crossing) then it would be noteworthy.   However, it is only freeway west of there with I-78 not being signed east of the NJ Turnpike freeway end, so we can actually think of it as sort of ending a Jersey Avenue.

When I lived in NJ, I had no idea that I-78 went into the tunnel and emptied out onto the NYC streets.  It was until I started to get into roads on the internet, when I found out that I-78 does indeed make it into NY via the two one way Jersey City Streets.  Being that it is the home stretch of the interstate, it does not bother me much as I-676 in Philadelphia having one signal (actually two as its one in each direction) as I-676 is freeway on both sides of the lights.   Nonetheless, though, it does not bother me to the point of losing sleep or a boycott (like some  users here are doing with Breezewood, PA for its fight  against  both PennDOT and PTC to let I-70 and the PT get connected) the City of Philadelphia for it.

I-97 and i-99 don't bother me too much.  They were the closest numbers to the grid that were available.

I-238 doesn't bother me too much either, because no 3dis were available at the time.  Now it would have to be changed.  No, it shouldn't have been an unsigned interstate, because the bay area needed to advertise that it's the preferred route for trucks.  Maybe it should be I-480 now, but Caltrans has so many things to spend money on I can see why it's not at the top of the list.

I-180 in Wyoming is really bad.

I-69EWC bother me more because they were completely unnecessary, being great candidates for 3di. 

Quote from: kkt on December 11, 2013, 01:57:51 AM
I-69EWC bother me more because they were completely unnecessary, being great candidates for 3di. 

Not 3DIs. Way too long for 3DIs. But there are several 2DIs available (duplicating Wisconsin if necessary). I-69 entering eastern Texas bothers me period, due to intersecting and probably overlapping US 69. I'd make I-39 on US 59 from Laredo to Texarkana, I-41 on US 281, and I-47 on US 77. Silly bonus: last digit stays the same.

Quote from: NE2 on December 11, 2013, 02:46:24 AM
Way too long for 3DIs.

Everything is bigger in Texas, 3dis included.

Quote from: kkt on December 11, 2013, 01:57:51 AM
I-238 doesn't bother me too much either, because no 3dis were available at the time.  Now it would have to be changed.  No, it shouldn't have been an unsigned interstate, because the bay area needed to advertise that it's the preferred route for trucks.  Maybe it should be I-480 now, but Caltrans has so many things to spend money on I can see why it's not at the top of the list.

The FHWA COULD have forced CA to renumber CA 180 or repeal the route number duplication ban.  CalTrans was certainly lacking foresight in not renumbering 180 when all the other state highways got renumbered to accommodate the interstates.

Quote from: vdeane on December 11, 2013, 11:43:21 AM

The FHWA COULD have forced CA to renumber CA 180 or repeal the route number duplication ban.  CalTrans was certainly lacking foresight in not renumbering 180 when all the other state highways got renumbered to accommodate the interstates.

The state highways that did get renumbered were generally shorter than 180:

15 (Long Beach Freeway)
10 (Manchester Avenue/Firestone Boulevard)
5 (Skyline Boulevard)
8 (today's Route 26)

I get the logic in keeping 180 (major route through Fresno and an original 1934 state route) even if it created problems later on.  At the time it was retained...380, 780, 980 were not even on the radar yet.

Is there a formal prohibition on using four-digit interstate numbers? Turn I-238 into I-1080 if not.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 11, 2013, 02:52:26 PM
Is there a formal prohibition on using four-digit interstate numbers? Turn I-238 into I-1080 if not.

I've never seen one, but I do know that four "digits" are in use for I-H201 on the shields.  So, it could be done on the shields, but I don't know if there is a formal prohibition or not.

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

Quote from: amroad17 on December 11, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

It technically will never break the grid, unless I-40 gets extended anywhere beyond I-5.

Quote from: amroad17 on December 11, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

Of course, it would be a lot less expensive to renumber I-238 as I-480 (or even I-1080, as someone has suggested).  Just throwing a "what if" option to the conversation.

Quote from: kkt on December 12, 2013, 12:17:45 AM

Quote from: amroad17 on December 11, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

Quote from: Brandon on December 12, 2013, 10:09:06 AM

Quote from: kkt on December 12, 2013, 12:17:45 AM

Quote from: amroad17 on December 11, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

Kurumi's I-338, anyone? :bigass:

What interests me the most is the fact that I-2 is longer than I-369 which each are both longer than I-97.

So having a two digit interstate in the bay area is not a bad idea.  It is also not that it would be the greatest thing for the Bay Area in general even so , but it does fall under the "who cares" thing as it seems like anything goes in the world of highways.

If Caltrans did it it is fine by me, but it is not really something that important to campaign for other than suggest it to Sacramento, but ideally it would work as I-2 and I-97 both exist.

Quote from: Brandon on December 12, 2013, 10:09:06 AM

Quote from: kkt on December 12, 2013, 12:17:45 AM

Quote from: amroad17 on December 11, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

That could be an upside.  However if a 2di were to be added to the Bay Area, I think US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, then I-880 to Oakland, then I-580 to San Rafael becoming I-3 would be a much better candidate.

Quote from: kkt on December 12, 2013, 01:31:45 PM

Quote from: Brandon on December 12, 2013, 10:09:06 AM

Quote from: kkt on December 12, 2013, 12:17:45 AM

Quote from: amroad17 on December 11, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

That could be an upside.  However if a 2di were to be added to the Bay Area, I think US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, then I-880 to Oakland, then I-580 to San Rafael becoming I-3 would be a much better candidate.

It's an area that has a lot of freeways and lacks a large amount of interstate numbers due to having only one 2di (I-80) enter the area.  As such, the number of interstates is maxed out at 10 (I-80 through I-980).  It really could use another 2di that is not I-5 to augment the system in the area.  I-3 (above) is one idea.  Mine would be to use two of them.

A. I-3 along I-505, I-80, I-880, and US-101.

This would start at I-5 and go south.  If US-101 is ever made all freeway to LA, it could be extended south.  Why I-3 and not I-1?  No conflict with CA-1, a famous route in its own right.

B. I-58 along I-205 and I-580.  I-238 becomes I-258.

A change would mean just blue-outing the "0" on the signs to start.  It's north of I-40, south of I-80, and most of CA-58 east of I-5 might become I-40 anyway someday.  It makes the I-238 a simple sticker coverup with a "5" over the "3" to start.  The remnant I-580 (I-5 to I-205) becomes the new I-205.

The conversion of I-5W to I-505 and I-580 was a mistake - the Bay Area needed another 2di.

I-15W got a 2di number, why didn't I-5W?

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 12, 2013, 10:36:17 AM

Quote from: Brandon on December 12, 2013, 10:09:06 AM

Quote from: kkt on December 12, 2013, 12:17:45 AM

Quote from: amroad17 on December 11, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

Kurumi's I-338, anyone? :bigass:

Send all the viatologists at 85 mph.

Quote from: Steve on December 12, 2013, 07:22:18 PM

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 12, 2013, 10:36:17 AM

Quote from: Brandon on December 12, 2013, 10:09:06 AM

Quote from: kkt on December 12, 2013, 12:17:45 AM

Quote from: amroad17 on December 11, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

Kurumi's I-338, anyone? :bigass:

Send all the viatologists at 85 mph.

http://instantrimshot.com/