Curious as to how the 3dis were numbered when the 3di ended up as a child of a route other than the lowest-numbered interstate in a city?
Why, for instance, is the Atlanta bypass 285 instead of an x20?
Or why isn't I-675 in Dayton an x70 instead?
There is no rule that it has to be the lowest number.
For some (I-291 MA is an example), the lower number already exists.
Okay, I have to ask.
What the hell is ^H^H^H^H^H^H supposed to mean? :ded:
Quote from: Zeffy on May 11, 2014, 06:13:22 PM
Okay, I have to ask.
What the hell is ^H^H^H^H^H^H supposed to mean? :ded:
Backspace. So the title actually says
How did the children get their numbers?(with two spaces between the last two words :spin:)
To those of us old enough, ^H is a backspace.
To bring this back on topic (ahem...), In the case of I-285, GA probably thought it was best to have a completely different number for both planned bypass-function Interstates, to minimize confusion (I-285, I-420). I actually wish that kind of logic existed nationwide...
Texas seems to go for the longest interstate as parent of full loops - so 410, 610, 820 (Dallas' not-full loop is a bit strange as 635 was used for it) other states seem similar when it comes to full loops.
SC I-385 is strange, as it is surely more a spur of I-26.
NC I-840 ought to be an I-x85, rather than take the last I-x40
I opted for the (backspace) because strikethru text is not available for thread titles.
Hmmm. Gave my the interesting mental image of the Capital Beltway's eastern side having an I-466/I-95 concurrency (this because I-266 was already planned for a route in Arlington).
Not sure about parents, but it seems like the first number is based off of their relative length during planning. 2 goes to the longest loop, 4 to the next longest, etc.
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 11, 2014, 09:56:29 PM
Not sure about parents, but it seems like the first number is based off of their relative length during planning. 2 goes to the longest loop, 4 to the next longest, etc.
In Michigan, they're numbered west-to-east or south-to-north. The first bypass for I-96 on the west end is I-296 in Grand Rapids, next is I-496 in Lansing and lastly I-696 by Detroit. Going north along I-75, we have I-275 in the Detroit area, I-475 at Flint and I-675 at Saginaw.
For Connecticut, I-384 and I-395 got those numbers because CT 184 and CT 195 already existed and ConnDOT won't allow number duplication. Consider that those two state highways were formerly CT 84 and CT 95 before the arrival of the mainline interstates forced their renumbering and you can't blame ConnDOT for not wanting to renumber them a second time.
I-291 is the lowest even digit possible for x91, but why not make it an x84? Well, separate highways numbered I-284 and I-484 were also planned in the Hartford area, but never built, so 291 fit in a more comprehensive system that never came to be.
Likewise, I-491 was planned (also in the Hartford area!) but never built, and I-684 already existed in Connecticut because of how New York built it... so I-691 got its number because it was, considering the other then still-active proposals, the lowest even x84 or x91 available for that road.
A couple clarifications on Connecticut:
* CT 195 was never CT 95 (though today's CT 184 was numbered 95 for a short time)
* I-291 numbering (c. 1957) predates I-284 and I-484 (introduced 1976)
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 11, 2014, 09:56:29 PM
Not sure about parents, but it seems like the first number is based off of their relative length during planning. 2 goes to the longest loop, 4 to the next longest, etc.
I thought I had noticed a West to East trend for the even numbers.
TN: Memphis 240, Nashville 440, Knoxville 640
NC: Asheville 240, Raleigh 440
I'll check it out more thoroughly when I get a chance.
Loops seem a bit more common than spurs....
PA has Williamsport 180 Scranton 380
GA Columbus 185 Atlanta 985
How about I-287? Shouldn't it be x95 since it starts and ends at that route?
Actually, that forces me to ask the question that has bothered me for more than a decade of cross-country travel...
Why don't they Twin cities have a single route number for their Beltway? It bothers me to no end that it is I-494 and I-694, when nearly everyone else uses 1 number for a beltway.
Why did Oregon choose I-405 for their downtown route, instead of 605 or 805, so it would be less likely to be confused with Seattle's I-405?
Quote from: woodpusher on May 12, 2014, 08:18:16 AM
I thought I had noticed a West to East trend for the even numbers.
TN: Memphis 240, Nashville 440, Knoxville 640
Thanks for mentioning Nashville. Why wasn't I-440 named I-224 instead?
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 12, 2014, 10:41:33 AM
Actually, that forces me to ask the question that has bothered me for more than a decade of cross-country travel...
Why don't they Twin cities have a single route number for their Beltway? It bothers me to no end that it is I-494 and I-694, when nearly everyone else uses 1 number for a beltway.
And there is the curious case of I-255 and I-270 in St. Louis. I-270 could have been the full loop and that segment of I-270 between I-255 and I-55/I-70 could have been a different route number. Of course the lowest numbered interstate in STL is I-44.
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 11, 2014, 09:56:29 PM
Not sure about parents, but it seems like the first number is based off of their relative length during planning. 2 goes to the longest loop, 4 to the next longest, etc.
That's the way I think it should be. That's the way it is in Ohio (roughly), but I think that was by accident. It's plausible they tried to follow the Michigan model described above, but it got messed up when some new 3dIs were added.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2014, 11:27:14 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 12, 2014, 10:41:33 AM
Actually, that forces me to ask the question that has bothered me for more than a decade of cross-country travel...
Why don't they Twin cities have a single route number for their Beltway? It bothers me to no end that it is I-494 and I-694, when nearly everyone else uses 1 number for a beltway.
And there is the curious case of I-255 and I-270 in St. Louis. I-270 could have been the full loop and that segment of I-270 between I-255 and I-55/I-70 could have been a different route number. Of course the lowest numbered interstate in STL is I-44.
Perhaps there is an unwritten rule that the parent of the beltway number needed to be a through interstate. Such examples include Baltimore (I-70[N] and I-83 end there, so the beltway is an I-x95), Washington (I-66 and I-270, I-70S at one time, end there, so the beltway is an I-x95), and Jacksonville, FL (I-10 ends there, and the beltway is an I-x95). Not sure how consistently that is used across the country.
Then there are examples like I-205 in California. It technically could have been an x80 3di, but it makes perfect sense to be the 205 since it takes you "to I-5"
I feel the same about 580. It could have reasonably been numbered 380, 780 or 980, but it connects both the 5 and the 80.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on May 11, 2014, 10:20:30 PM
In Michigan, they're numbered west-to-east or south-to-north. The first bypass for I-96 on the west end is I-296 in Grand Rapids, next is I-496 in Lansing and lastly I-696 by Detroit. Going north along I-75, we have I-275 in the Detroit area, I-475 at Flint and I-675 at Saginaw.
So what happened to I-175? :ded:
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on May 12, 2014, 01:24:17 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on May 11, 2014, 10:20:30 PM
In Michigan, they're numbered west-to-east or south-to-north. The first bypass for I-96 on the west end is I-296 in Grand Rapids, next is I-496 in Lansing and lastly I-696 by Detroit. Going north along I-75, we have I-275 in the Detroit area, I-475 at Flint and I-675 at Saginaw.
So what happened to I-175? :ded:
Well, this rule is true for the loops/bypasses. 175 would have been a spur, but if it had been planned it was cancelled. Regarless, MDOT wanted to stay consistent, I-375 was so named because it was after I-275.
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 12, 2014, 01:48:01 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on May 12, 2014, 01:24:17 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on May 11, 2014, 10:20:30 PM
In Michigan, they're numbered west-to-east or south-to-north. The first bypass for I-96 on the west end is I-296 in Grand Rapids, next is I-496 in Lansing and lastly I-696 by Detroit. Going north along I-75, we have I-275 in the Detroit area, I-475 at Flint and I-675 at Saginaw.
So what happened to I-175? :ded:
Well, this rule is true for the loops/bypasses. 175 would have been a spur, but if it had been planned it was cancelled. Regarless, MDOT wanted to stay consistent, I-375 was so named because it was after I-275.
That doesn't explain why I-196 is after I-296, though - and that would have still been true before I-96 and I-196 were switched west of Grand Rapids. If there were ever a proposed I-175, that's news to me (and I'd love to hear about it!).
Since non-roadgeeks in Grand Rapids
still confuse "I-96" and "196" to this day, and I-375 wasn't planned and was commissioned after I-196 and I-194, perhaps MDOT decided no more 3di's should start with a 1 to prevent "motorist confusion." Motorist confusion is how MDOT successfully petitioned AASHTO to let them stop signing I-296, and it's also an alleged reason why M-6 didn't get an I-x96 designation.
It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 02:24:30 PM
It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.
It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2014, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 02:24:30 PM
It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.
It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.
And besides, all the even I-x95's in NYC were being used up, so IMO, there was no easy solution for it.
All this talk of child interstates, and nobody's suggested that boy interstates take the parent's name, and girl interstates take the name of the one they hook up with?
P.S. Somebody tell I-238 it was adopted.
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2014, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 02:24:30 PM
It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.
It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.
995 implies a spur, not a loop. There was really no reasonable way to label the roads in NY properly, given a) the jumble, and b) the shortage of good "parents" Probably the simplest solution would be to make 495 into 395 (it ended up a dangling spur) and call 287 495. But I admit there is almost no point in doing so.
In Illinois, they were numbered, with the exception of I-474, in the order they were created.
I-180 is the first spur of I-80, likewise, I-280 is the first loop (in Illinois, even 3dis connect at both ends to their parent).
I-190 is the first spur, and I-290 is the first loop (having been I-90 prior to 1978).
I-294 is the first loop. IL-394 was numbered along with IL-194 (former number for the Kennedy Expy/Northwest Twy) and IL-594 (which was a bit later and is currently I-190).
I-155 was the first spur while I-355 was the second. I-255 is obviously the first and only loop. Why was I-155, I-155 instead of I-174 or I-374? No idea. I-355 was more obvious, ending at I-290.
I-270 is the first and only loop, numbered in conjunction with Missouri.
I-172 is the first and only spur.
I-474 is a bit of a mystery. It is the first and only loop of I-74, but numbered as if it were the second. IIRC, there may have been plans for an I-274 in the Quad Cities, but nothing ever came of it if there was.
Quote from: Brandon on May 12, 2014, 04:42:44 PM
I-474 is a bit of a mystery.
Not as big a mystery as I-894!
Quote from: formulanone on May 12, 2014, 03:58:08 PM
P.S. Somebody tell I-238 it was adopted.
But don't tell it that it was a mistake. :poke:
Quote from: getemngo on May 12, 2014, 02:10:11 PM
Since non-roadgeeks in Grand Rapids still confuse "I-96" and "196" to this day, and I-375 wasn't planned and was commissioned after I-196 and I-194, perhaps MDOT decided no more 3di's should start with a 1 to prevent "motorist confusion."
When I was a kid, my grandmother always referred to I-185 as "eye-eighty-five", as opposed to the actual I-85, which was simply "eighty-five", so I can see the argument here. (I can't recall how she referred to SR 85, which parallels I-85 about 10-20 miles to the east.) It is the only 3di in Georgia beginning with a 1 (there was a planned I-175 along the corridor of today's SR 300, but it was cancelled).
Quote from: Brandon on May 12, 2014, 04:42:44 PM
I-474 is a bit of a mystery. It is the first and only loop of I-74, but numbered as if it were the second. IIRC, there may have been plans for an I-274 in the Quad Cities, but nothing ever came of it if there was.
See http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix74.html about the long-dead plans for I-274 in the Quad Cities.
Quote from: getemngo on May 12, 2014, 04:48:51 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 12, 2014, 04:42:44 PM
I-474 is a bit of a mystery.
Not as big a mystery as I-894!
My best guess for that one (and the related question of I-794) is that Wisconsin didn't want to use the same numbers as its neighbors. Illinois had 294 (and 194, 394, and 594 as state highways), and Minnesota had 394, 494, and 694, so 794 and 894 were the lowest (and in 894's case, only) numbers left. (Which just leads back to the question of why Minnesota needed both 494 and 694, of course...)
Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on May 12, 2014, 08:14:05 PM
Quote from: getemngo on May 12, 2014, 04:48:51 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 12, 2014, 04:42:44 PM
I-474 is a bit of a mystery.
Not as big a mystery as I-894!
My best guess for that one (and the related question of I-794) is that Wisconsin didn't want to use the same numbers as its neighbors. Illinois had 294 (and 194, 394, and 594 as state highways), and Minnesota had 394, 494, and 694, so 794 and 894 were the lowest (and in 894's case, only) numbers left. (Which just leads back to the question of why Minnesota needed both 494 and 694, of course...)
494 is a beltway. 694 is a bypass.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 04:13:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2014, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 02:24:30 PM
It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.
It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.
995 implies a spur, not a loop. There was really no reasonable way to label the roads in NY properly, given a) the jumble, and b) the shortage of good "parents" Probably the simplest solution would be to make 495 into 395 (it ended up a dangling spur) and call 287 495. But I admit there is almost no point in doing so.
You could alway introduce x87 numbers into the mix, given that the only ones used are I-287, I-587 (yeesh), and I-787 (though I-687 was also planned).
As for how I-287 got that number in the first place... keep in mind, that as far as New York residents (especially upstate NY residents) are concerned, it's not a beltway, but two separate roads. People around here don't really think of the multiplex, and both NYSTA and NYSDOT would prefer to pretend it doesn't exist; the exit numbers and mileposts both do this, and NYSTA does the minimal signage necessary on the portion co-signed with I-87 (which most people think of as "The Thruway" anyways). People coming from the Thruway ticket system are either going to the Cross-Westchester or the New Jersey I-287 (or a local exit), not both. We didn't even want them to have the same number; the FHWA forced us to because they wanted a NYC beltway.
NY doesn't really have beltways at all. I-481, which looks the most like one, is considered a bypass of I-81 for through trucks. Rochester comes the closest, and arguably would have had a de facto beltway had the NY 104 freeway between NY 390 and the Veterans Memorial Bridge been built, but that still would have been a patchwork of 3-5 designations. I-390/NY 390 and I-590/NY 590 are spurs of each other to connect I-390 and I-90 to Rochester's northern suburbs. I-190 is a Thruway spur to Niagara Falls. I-290 is a bypass of I-190 through downtown Buffalo to Niagara Falls. Albany doesn't even have anything that even remotely resembles a loop. The more beltware-like freeway proposals here arrived after freeway construction was already waning and only portions got built, if anything at all.
Quote from: Henry on May 12, 2014, 03:52:17 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2014, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 02:24:30 PM
It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.
It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.
And besides, all the even I-x95's in NYC were being used up, so IMO, there was no easy solution for it.
295 and 495 should be first digit odd by standard convention, since they do not have both ends at another interstate (for 495,
neither end is).
So 295 or 495 could have been used for 287 had the roads they were actually put on been given first digit odd numbers -
all of those are available in New York for I-95.
Quote from: vdeane on May 12, 2014, 08:46:15 PM
You could alway introduce x87 numbers into the mix, given that the only ones used are I-287, I-587 (yeesh), and I-787 (though I-687 was also planned).
As for how I-287 got that number in the first place... keep in mind, that as far as New York residents (especially upstate NY residents) are concerned, it's not a beltway, but two separate roads.
The history of New York's x87s (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix87.html) is as tortured as the history of its x78s. What actually got built and numbered what bears almost no resemblance to the original plans, which are further mangled by the fact that originally New York wanted to build new freeway for I-87 all the way up the east side of the Hudson rather than putting it on the Thruway.
Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on May 12, 2014, 08:14:05 PM
My best guess for that one (and the related question of I-794) is that Wisconsin didn't want to use the same numbers as its neighbors. Illinois had 294 (and 194, 394, and 594 as state highways), and Minnesota had 394, 494, and 694, so 794 and 894 were the lowest (and in 894's case, only) numbers left. (Which just leads back to the question of why Minnesota needed both 494 and 694, of course...)
You forgot the cancelled I-494 for the Crosstown Expressway in Chicago.
As for 794, the Lake Freeway was supposed to go into Illinois, so there may have been plans to bring the 794 designation across the state line.
Really curious if Wisconsin would have sought an x94 for the cancelled Racine loop freeway.
Quote from: hbelkinsAnd there is the curious case of I-255 and I-270 in St. Louis. I-270 could have been the full loop and that segment of I-270 between I-255 and I-55/I-70 could have been a different route number. Of course the lowest numbered interstate in STL is I-44.
That idea had been brought up before I-255 was completed, see http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i870.html#870il (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i870.html#870il)
Quote from: vdeane on May 12, 2014, 08:46:15 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 04:13:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2014, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 02:24:30 PM
It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.
It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.
995 implies a spur, not a loop. There was really no reasonable way to label the roads in NY properly, given a) the jumble, and b) the shortage of good "parents" Probably the simplest solution would be to make 495 into 395 (it ended up a dangling spur) and call 287 495. But I admit there is almost no point in doing so.
You could alway introduce x87 numbers into the mix, given that the only ones used are I-287, I-587 (yeesh), and I-787 (though I-687 was also planned).
As for how I-287 got that number in the first place... keep in mind, that as far as New York residents (especially upstate NY residents) are concerned, it's not a beltway, but two separate roads. People around here don't really think of the multiplex, and both NYSTA and NYSDOT would prefer to pretend it doesn't exist; the exit numbers and mileposts both do this, and NYSTA does the minimal signage necessary on the portion co-signed with I-87 (which most people think of as "The Thruway" anyways). People coming from the Thruway ticket system are either going to the Cross-Westchester or the New Jersey I-287 (or a local exit), not both. We didn't even want them to have the same number; the FHWA forced us to because they wanted a NYC beltway.
I'm not sure who you mean — living for many years about 15 minutes away from 87/287 and spending a great deal of time along the northern half of 287, I never got the sense that anyone gave it much thought. When it was two separate roads, sure, people along one part and the other had little connection, but it has been 21 years. There was a development surge along the new and old parts after the completion, and with population turnover, fading memories, and changed settlement patterns, the number of people for whom a divided 287 has any meaning is dwindling.
These days, communities along the 287 corridor have more in common with their neighbors along the corridor than they do with the city (or the rest of the Thruway corridor).
Quote from: Duke87 on May 12, 2014, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 12, 2014, 03:52:17 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2014, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 02:24:30 PM
It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.
It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.
And besides, all the even I-x95's in NYC were being used up, so IMO, there was no easy solution for it.
295 and 495 should be first digit odd by standard convention, since they do not have both ends at another interstate (for 495, neither end is).
So 295 or 495 could have been used for 287 had the roads they were actually put on been given first digit odd numbers - all of those are available in New York for I-95.
If you're including renumbering 287 into NJ, 295 would not be available: It already exists in South Jersey.
Even 495 isn't (wasn't) available because of its usage (and former usage) going into NYC.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 13, 2014, 06:28:48 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 12, 2014, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 12, 2014, 03:52:17 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2014, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 12, 2014, 02:24:30 PM
It always baffled me that 287 was not an x95, but I guess with the complete mess of Interstate secondary routes in New York, there just weren't enough to go around.
It's interesting how I-287 multiplexes with I-87, it's parent route before dying at I-95 in Port Chester, NY, or becoming NJ 440 near Perth Amboy in NJ. They could've used I-995 (looks awkward doesn't it?) if nothing else would've worked. Yet I still don't think I-287 should be renumbered.
And besides, all the even I-x95's in NYC were being used up, so IMO, there was no easy solution for it.
295 and 495 should be first digit odd by standard convention, since they do not have both ends at another interstate (for 495, neither end is).
So 295 or 495 could have been used for 287 had the roads they were actually put on been given first digit odd numbers - all of those are available in New York for I-95.
If you're including renumbering 287 into NJ, 295 would not be available: It already exists in South Jersey.
Even 495 isn't (wasn't) available because of its usage (and former usage) going into NYC.
But if plans for tearing down the Sheridan Expressway go through, I-895 would be available once again. However, even that might not be obtained as it's still being reserved for an unbuilt corridor in the Philadelphia area.
What's wrong with I-1095? :D
Quote from: Quillz on May 12, 2014, 12:54:13 PM
Then there are examples like I-205 in California. It technically could have been an x80 3di, but it makes perfect sense to be the 205 since it takes you "to I-5"
I feel the same about 580. It could have reasonably been numbered 380, 780 or 980, but it connects both the 5 and the 80.
When 205 was first proposed, it would have not touched an x80 route at all, as 580 then was I-5W (and the current I-5 between Vernalis through Sacramento to Dunnigan was proposed, though never signed, as I-5).
Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 12, 2014, 12:54:13 PM
Then there are examples like I-205 in California. It technically could have been an x80 3di, but it makes perfect sense to be the 205 since it takes you "to I-5"
I feel the same about 580. It could have reasonably been numbered 380, 780 or 980, but it connects both the 5 and the 80.
When 205 was first proposed, it would have not touched an x80 route at all, as 580 then was I-5W (and the current I-5 between Vernalis through Sacramento to Dunnigan was proposed, though never signed, as I-5).
That's one thing that I've always questioned. Why, with the sheer number of 3di interstates that the Bay Area has, did not CalTrans use a throwaway 2di such as I-3 or I-58 (or some other such number) to free up interstate numbers (I-x80 and I-x05) for use in other places, instead creating monstrosities such as I-238? I-5W would've been a perfect I-3.
Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 12, 2014, 12:54:13 PM
Then there are examples like I-205 in California. It technically could have been an x80 3di, but it makes perfect sense to be the 205 since it takes you "to I-5"
I feel the same about 580. It could have reasonably been numbered 380, 780 or 980, but it connects both the 5 and the 80.
When 205 was first proposed, it would have not touched an x80 route at all, as 580 then was I-5W (and the current I-5 between Vernalis through Sacramento to Dunnigan was proposed, though never signed, as I-5).
That's one thing that I've always questioned. Why, with the sheer number of 3di interstates that the Bay Area has, did not CalTrans use a throwaway 2di such as I-3 or I-58 (or some other such number) to free up interstate numbers (I-x80 and I-x05) for use in other places, instead creating monstrosities such as I-238? I-5W would've been a perfect I-3.
In the early days of interstate submissions and proposals, US 101 between downtown Los Angeles and Route 37 in Marin WAS submitted and rejected (notwithstanding portions that were briefly considered parts of other routes, i.e. the never-signed 105 along the Santa Ana Freeway and the never-signed 480/101 concurrency on SF's Doyle Drive). I feel like that would have made a major difference in available numbers (hypothetically, 280 - and the later 880 - likely would have been numbered in relation to its role as a US 101 reliever, not as a child route of 80).
IIRC, from what else I've seen at Cahighways, many 3dis in the LA area were proposed as 2dis initially for similar reasons, i.e. 210 was originally proposed I-12/I-14 in 1957, 405 as I-9 in 1957 and I-3 in 1958, 605 as I-13 in 1957. 280 was proposed as I-3 and 680 as..I-5! (This was also when there were some trial proposals to use I-76 for what is now 80, in order to avoid route duplication; 40 was considered as I-30 under the same rationale.)
Many years before this, seems AASHO thought about it briefly when the relatively short US 48 (approximately along portions of Route 238, I-580, and all of I-205) existed. Not sure how long 48 was signed before US 50 was awkwardly extended to loop through Stockton and take over that alignment.
I-5W being transformed into essentially 3 numbers (205, 580, 505) in 1964 absolutely ate into how many available 3di numbers Northern California has had since. The refusal to have 480 available as an Interstate number after the Embarcadero Freeway project was halted at Broadway didn't help matters.
---
Looking at the original (pre-1964) 3di proposals for California, it seems on first glance that a west-to-east/north-to-south pattern occurred initially:
I-80: 280 westernmost (Junipero Serra Boulevard corridor), followed by 480 (Doyle Drive/Lombard Street gap/Embarcadero Freeway), then 680 in the inland Bay Area, and 880 in Sacramento's Natomas and Del Paso Heights districts.
I-5: 205 northernmost, 405 next (Sylmar), then 605 (Norwalk), and 805 (Sorrento Valley).
I-10: 210 was the only one at the time.
Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 04:47:25 PM
Why ... did not CalTrans use a throwaway 2di such as I-3 or I-58 (or some other such number) to free up interstate numbers (I-x80 and I-x05) for use in other places, instead creating monstrosities such as I-238?
A "throwaway 2di" might be just as much a monstrosity as the "orphan" I-238, depending on whom you ask.
Quote from: vtk on May 13, 2014, 06:59:37 PM
A "throwaway 2di" might be just as much a monstrosity as the "orphan" I-238, depending on whom you ask.
It seems to work for I-97.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 13, 2014, 08:46:35 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 13, 2014, 06:59:37 PM
A "throwaway 2di" might be just as much a monstrosity as the "orphan" I-238, depending on whom you ask.
It seems to work for I-97.
Which one gets "fixed" more often in the Fictional Highways board?
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 12, 2014, 10:41:33 AM
Why did Oregon choose I-405 for their downtown route, instead of 605 or 805, so it would be less likely to be confused with Seattle's I-405?
I thought the same thing for I-215 in Las Vegas. Why didn't NvDOT went with I-415 so that no one would confuse it with I-215 back in SoCal?
Quote from: vtk on May 13, 2014, 08:56:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 13, 2014, 08:46:35 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 13, 2014, 06:59:37 PM
A "throwaway 2di" might be just as much a monstrosity as the "orphan" I-238, depending on whom you ask.
It seems to work for I-97.
Which one gets "fixed" more often in the Fictional Highways board?
Worth pointing out, though, that I-580 is the ninth-longest 3di in the country. If you converted it to I-58, it would be longer than six other already existing 2dis (I-2, I-19, I-66, I-73, western I-86, and I-97). You could then turn I-238 into I-258. Only one digit off for both roads!
I never quite understood why the westernmost spur of I-59 in Alabama was numbered 359 instead of 159, or since I-59 is duplexed with I-20 in western Alabama, why wasn't 120 or 320 used, since I-20 is a more important route than I-59. Similarly, why wasn't the Birmingham southern bypass numbered 259 instead of 459? And better yet, why isn't the proposed Northern Bypass of Birmingham, which might get completed by the time my great grandchildren start driving, numbered 659 or 859 instead of 422? The way it is drawn up now, the Northern bypass will end and begin at I-59.
Alabama has hidden state designations for its interstates. I-65 is AL 665, I-10 is AL 610, etc. The I-59 spurs actually are AL 359, AL 459, and AL 759 since those numbers were not in use elsewhere in the system, and it prevents things like AL-6459 in the route logs.
I-359 is a north/south route, so while an x20 is available, it wouldn't make sense.
AL 159 is also in use at Gordo, so I-159 would be an especially poor choice for Tuscaloosa.
One to watch might be AL 85 from Geneva to Fort Rucker. I have a hunch it may swap catalog numbers with I-85 and I-685, the latter of which is currently on the books as AL 108. An alternative would be that I-85 has its catalog designation changed to something like AL 385.
I see your point, but does it necessarily hold water? Consider:
I-10: Mobile County to Baldwin County; AL-10: Choctaw County to Henry County
I-20: Sumter County to Cleburne County, AL-20: Lauderdale to Limestone County
I-22: Marion County to Jefferson County; AL-22: Dallas County to Randolph County
I-59: Sumter County to DeKalb County; AL-59: Baldwin and Monroe Counties
I-65: Mobile County to Limestone County; AL-65: Jackson County
I-85: Montgomery County (for now, maybe) to Lee County; AL-85: Geneva and Dale Counties
I-165: Mobile County; AL-165: Barbour and Russell Counties
I know that internally all 2-di Interstates in Alabama are designated as AL-6XX; is there a separate designation for all 3-di's?
And evidently ALDoT doesn't seem overly concerned about Interstate or US routes intersecting multiple routes of the same number. For example:
I-65 junctions both I-10 (in Mobile) and AL-10 (in Greenville).
I-65 junctions both I-20 (in Birmingham) and AL-20 (near Decatur).
I-65 junctions AL-22 (in Clanton) and will junction I-22 (in Birmingham, if and when the interchange is completed).
I-65 junctions both AL-59 (in Bay Minette) and I-59 (in Birmingham)
U.S. 72 junctions both I-65 (in Athens) and AL-65 (at Paint Rock in Jackson County).
I know that in the '50's all state routes that duplicated U.S. routes in the state were eliminated. I wonder why the same strategy wasn't enacted when Interstate route designations were announced later in the '50's?
Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2014, 05:57:04 PMWhy, for instance, is the Atlanta bypass 285 instead of an x20?
Probably because I-285 provides a more direct bypass route for I-85 than for I-75 or I-20.
Quote from: Charles2 on May 13, 2014, 11:33:56 PM
I never quite understood why the westernmost spur of I-59 in Alabama was numbered 359 instead of 159, or since I-59 is duplexed with I-20 in western Alabama, why wasn't 120 or 320 used, since I-20 is a more important route than I-59. Similarly, why wasn't the Birmingham southern bypass numbered 259 instead of 459? And better yet, why isn't the proposed Northern Bypass of Birmingham, which might get completed by the time my great grandchildren start driving, numbered 659 or 859 instead of 422? The way it is drawn up now, the Northern bypass will end and begin at I-59.
I wonder if the leading numeral 1 is avoided for the "reason" that certain signs for I-126 and I-129 both have text instead of shields...misreading of the 1 as an I (e.g., "126" read as "I-26" by some), so 1xx is skipped? Doesn't seem plausible or reasonable that too many people could be doing that, but that's a reason I've read about for the text "I-126" type thing. Sigh.
I recall that 865 was used because "665" sounded too much like "65" for emergency calls and the whole reason for renumbering there was to have a distinct number, not a new number that was also ambiguous or confusing.
I-710 and I-110: mnemonics as they were upgraded from CA-7 and CA-11, respectively.
no idea if I-505 and I-580 have anything to do with I-5W and US-50.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 19, 2014, 02:26:22 PM
I-710 and I-110: mnemonics as they were upgraded from CA-7 and CA-11, respectively.
no idea if I-505 and I-580 have anything to do with I-5W and US-50.
I-505 and I-580 were once I-5W, so I believe that Caltrans thought they'd be better off keeping the 5 as the first number when they received their respective 3di designations. If so, this makes a whole lot of sense.
Quote from: Charles2 on May 17, 2014, 09:28:04 PM
I see your point, but does it necessarily hold water? Consider:
I-10: Mobile County to Baldwin County; AL-10: Choctaw County to Henry County
I-20: Sumter County to Cleburne County, AL-20: Lauderdale to Limestone County
I-22: Marion County to Jefferson County; AL-22: Dallas County to Randolph County
I-59: Sumter County to DeKalb County; AL-59: Baldwin and Monroe Counties
I-65: Mobile County to Limestone County; AL-65: Jackson County
I-85: Montgomery County (for now, maybe) to Lee County; AL-85: Geneva and Dale Counties
I-165: Mobile County; AL-165: Barbour and Russell Counties
I know that internally all 2-di Interstates in Alabama are designated as AL-6XX; is there a separate designation for all 3-di's?
And evidently ALDoT doesn't seem overly concerned about Interstate or US routes intersecting multiple routes of the same number. For example:
I-65 junctions both I-10 (in Mobile) and AL-10 (in Greenville).
I-65 junctions both I-20 (in Birmingham) and AL-20 (near Decatur).
I-65 junctions AL-22 (in Clanton) and will junction I-22 (in Birmingham, if and when the interchange is completed).
I-65 junctions both AL-59 (in Bay Minette) and I-59 (in Birmingham)
U.S. 72 junctions both I-65 (in Athens) and AL-65 (at Paint Rock in Jackson County).
I know that in the '50's all state routes that duplicated U.S. routes in the state were eliminated. I wonder why the same strategy wasn't enacted when Interstate route designations were announced later in the '50's?
My guess is that there were people with addresses that would have changed. It also helps that the interstate shields are blue, and not white like Alabama state routes and US routes.
I-165 in Mobile was supposed to be part of the long-canceled I-210 beltway, but AL-210 was built in the 1950s. It may very well be AL-6165 for inventory purposes, although 365 and 410 were and still are available.
I agree that allowing the duplication may be a poor choice in hindsight given that there will probably be another 2-digit interstate in Alabama's future. If I-14 ever gets built as proposed, it won't be that far from AL 14.
Quote from: Brandon on May 13, 2014, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 13, 2014, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 12, 2014, 12:54:13 PM
Then there are examples like I-205 in California. It technically could have been an x80 3di, but it makes perfect sense to be the 205 since it takes you "to I-5"
I feel the same about 580. It could have reasonably been numbered 380, 780 or 980, but it connects both the 5 and the 80.
When 205 was first proposed, it would have not touched an x80 route at all, as 580 then was I-5W (and the current I-5 between Vernalis through Sacramento to Dunnigan was proposed, though never signed, as I-5).
That's one thing that I've always questioned. Why, with the sheer number of 3di interstates that the Bay Area has, did not CalTrans use a throwaway 2di such as I-3 or I-58 (or some other such number) to free up interstate numbers (I-x80 and I-x05) for use in other places, instead creating monstrosities such as I-238? I-5W would've been a perfect I-3.
Not I-58 as that would conflict with CA-58 and CA does not allow same numbers.
I always thought that if you were doing a renumbering, I-238, I-580 between I-238 and I-205 and I-205 can be a single 2di. I-580 connection to I-5, and the I-580 connection from the SF Bay Bridge to I-238 would be two 3dis of the new interstate. I-580 would now be limited to Richmond-San Rafael without a multiplex on I-80.