AARoads Forum

Which pisses you off the most?

I-710.

It was a hard decision to make as both make my stomach upset!  I ended up with the Texas mess.

Between the I-69s and the I-73/I-74 mess, I choose... I-180 in Cheyenne WY. :bigass:

I-587, NY. :bigass:

These numbering issues don't piss me off.

It's when government agencies create unsafe situations or allow them to continue to exist, or when they allow congestion to occur or fail to fix it.

If a road is given a designation that is not in compliance, I can still drive on it the same way no matter what number it is.

If an unsafe situation is created or allowed to exist, it directly affects my personal safety, and that makes me angry.

Examples of things that piss me off because they endanger me:
1.Short merges
2.Left turns with inadequate visibility of oncoming traffic
3. Intersections with inadequate visibility
4.Intersections that don't have signals, but need them
5.Allowing other drivers to not signal or drive w/o lights, or speed.

Examples of things that piss me off because they inconvenience me:
1. Congestion
2. Unwarranted all-way stops
3. Bad Signal Timing
4. School Zones
5. School Busses

My personal safety is important to me. By creating unsafe situations, or allowing them to exist, the government is basically saying to me and everybody else "Fuck You, we don't care about you, we do whatever the hell we want". Government is supposed to be by the people, for the people. It has really fallen short of that.

I think it's a little ridiculous to get "pissed off" over a numbering issue, when there are so many more important issues to worry about.

You mention school buses, I had an issue where the same school bus stopped twice within 100 feet to be nice to drop the child off at his apartment complex.  However, this was on a busy arterial where the bus could have killed two birds with one stone and stopped in the middle.

One woman customer at work was telling me how it used to be buses would not stop on arterials but on the side roads or go into the complexes.  I think that should be.

Also public  buses should have exclusive lanes or turnouts to keep them out of regular traffic.  In Orlando FDOT widened many highways but never included features for Lynx Buses to stop.  That does piss me and every driver out there as bus stops are usually post intersection and so damn close together.  At Sams on OBT you have a choice of walking to three places to catch a bus. 

The I-74\I-73 mess in North Carolina pisses me off more. :pan: I don't get what's so bad about I-69 in Texas. If the numbering is the problem then just make it I-47 south of Texarkana. And make 69 C and W into 3dis. :bigass:

I think what pisses me off more than just a silly interstate allignment is the fact that I'm crossing a perpendicular cross street, be that of an "unmarked" crosswalk on a minor road connecting a major road trying to make eye contact with the driver coming into view and doesn't make eye contact with me while I'm still crossing the street!

quote from roadman 65:

Quote
Also public  buses should have exclusive lanes or turnouts to keep them out of regular traffic.  In Orlando FDOT widened many highways but never included features for Lynx Buses to stop.  That does piss me and every driver out there as bus stops are usually post intersection and so damn close together.  At Sams on OBT you have a choice of walking to three places to catch a bus.

I strongly agree. It is really unfair to motorists that busses are allowed to stop in traffic lanes of busy streets and block traffic. The LYNX busses stopping on SR 50 in Colonialtown is ridiculous. They should have to stop on side streets out of the way.

Ambassador Caffery Parkway in Lafayette, LA. Especially between Walmart and Johnston St. Especially at Christmastime.

Depends.  Which highway is the left lane hog located?  That's the highway that pisses me off more.

Between the two, I-73/74 is more irritating.  It will never ever be completed, and another number should have been chosen for the eastern I-74 when it was obvious it will never be completed.  I-69 is strange, but should be completed.

Neither is an irritation worth worrying about.

Now, for road building, what really pisses me off is...

A. The removal of fund for building the Prairie Parkway between I-80 and I-88 west of Yorkville.  It is a much needed route, and it should have been built first, then IL-47 should have had improvements.  And...

B. The interference from outside groups regarding the Illiana Expressway.  Another very necessary route that needed to be built yesterday.

I voted for the mess in NC, but the one that pisses me off most is WI's over-consumption of 2di's.

Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 27, 2014, 02:07:22 PM
I voted for the mess in NC, but the one that pisses me off most is WI's over-consumption of 2di's.

There are far worse offenders than WI for this.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2014, 02:13:40 PM

Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 27, 2014, 02:07:22 PM
I voted for the mess in NC, but the one that pisses me off most is WI's over-consumption of 2di's.

There are far worse offenders than WI for this.

Such as a certain state just to the south of Wisconsin we like to Ill-Annoy.

Compare:
WI - 39, 41, 43, 90, 94
IL - 24, 39, 41 (a whole fucking mile!), 55, 57, 64, 70, 72, 74, 80, 88, 90, 94
Not to mention Illinois made a play for I-37 (now I-155) and I-53 (now I-355).  That would've made 15.  I'm shocked IDOT didn't try to extend I-44 eastward into the state!

Trivia question: Which state has the most 2dis?
Answer: Illinois with 13.  Texas only has 11 (not counting the suffixed I-35s and I-69s), soon to be 12 (w/I-49).

I-73/I-74 is the one I despise more! At least there is an effort to complete I-69 from eastern TX back to Indianapolis.

I-73 is fine - not ideal, but perfectly tolerable. I-74 on the other hand is quite irksome, not least its route with the U-turn!

I-238.  :sombrero:

I voted for 73/74. Both are hopelessly out of place, even more than I-99 which gives so many people heartburn.

I can see the logic in the two I-84s because they are located so far apart but are pretty much along the same latitude. I-74 in North Carolina doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially since it will never be connected to I-74 in Ohio. I-73 could be numbered something else.

I-69 is going to be a complete route, and the suffixed routes should be changed to something else, but at least that's eventually going to be connected to existing 69 in Indiana. Not so for 74, and there's not going to be an I-73 in Ohio despite the wishes of some.

I voted for I-69, because the whole I-69C thing is stupid.


However, I understand the issues with I-73/74.


I'm more pissed off about the NIMBY people that prevent the construction of freeways, extra lanes on the highway, roundabouts, or anything else that can reduce congestion, and instead continue to bitch about the congestion.

I-69. Yeah, I-73/74 is a mess to say the least, but still don't get what the hell I-69C is supposed to even stand for. Suffixed Interstates are ugly anyway.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2014, 04:09:37 PM
I can see the logic in the two I-84s because they are located so far apart but are pretty much along the same latitude. I-74 in North Carolina doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially since it will never be connected to I-74 in Ohio. I-73 could be numbered something else.

What about the west portion of I-76?

Quote from: Zeffy on June 27, 2014, 05:05:00 PM
I-69. Yeah, I-73/74 is a mess to say the least, but still don't get what the hell I-69C is supposed to even stand for.

C stands for central (there's an east already, and there's planned to be a west). But let's pretend C stands for crap, since that's what I-69C is.

Quote from: 1 on June 27, 2014, 05:20:02 PM

Quote from: Zeffy on June 27, 2014, 05:05:00 PM
I-69. Yeah, I-73/74 is a mess to say the least, but still don't get what the hell I-69C is supposed to even stand for.

C stands for central (there's an east already, and there's planned to be a west). But let's pretend C stands for crap, since that's what I-69C is.

Someone explain to me why 69C needs to exist in the first place. 69W and 69E at least are normal suffixes. Is US 281 not enough that it needs to be 69C?

Welcome to Texas, where everything is bigger. Even the bone headed moves.

Quote from: Perfxion on June 27, 2014, 06:23:54 PM
Welcome to Texas, where everything is bigger. Even the bone headed moves.

I would not call these Interstates "bigger". They're quite short.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2014, 04:09:37 PM
I-238.  :sombrero:

I-238 should have been an option; I find it much more irritating the California was allowed to break the numbering rules, yet Missouri wasn't allowed to bend them to have MO 370 signed as I-370.

Though lately I might go with the whole I-41 business in Illinois and Wisconsin.

---

Quote from: Brandon on June 27, 2014, 02:28:47 PM
IL - 24, 39, 41 (a whole fucking mile!), 55, 57, 64, 70, 72, 74, 80, 88, 90, 94
Not to mention Illinois made a play for I-37 (now I-155) and I-53 (now I-355).  That would've made 15.  I'm shocked IDOT didn't try to extend I-44 eastward into the state!

I though I-53 was an earlier plan for I-155 and the Peoria to I-180 corridor, see http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i180.html#180il (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i180.html#180il)

Illinois was trying to get the I-66 corridor shifted into the southern half of the state.  I'm sure the number of 2di's would have been greater if more of the supplemental freeway system had been finished.

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 27, 2014, 07:14:36 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2014, 04:09:37 PM
I-238.  :sombrero:

I-238 should have been an option; I find it much more irritating the California was allowed to break the numbering rules, yet Missouri wasn't allowed to bend them to have MO 370 signed as I-370.

Why would that have required bending the rules?

^ Because AASHTO considered MO 370 more of a bypass and wanted it numbered as I-870, per Kurumi's site (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i370.html#370mo) (and at least the number change bit backed up through one of the Post Dispatch's traffic columns awhile back).

I believe that suffixed Interstates should be only used when you have two routes that get you to the same place, and neither clearly is more or less of a bypass than the other.

People from the USDOT, FHWA, and AASHTO should seriously give congress a briefing on the Interstate highway system. :bigass:

Where exactly is I-73 supposed to go? :confused: If its eventual route is completely off grid... :banghead:

I wouldn't say either piss me off.  Sure they're both anomalies, but where's the fun in having a perfect numbering system?

Quote from: Alex4897 on June 27, 2014, 11:43:27 PMSure they're both anomalies, but where's the fun in having a perfect numbering system?

Cannot agree more with this statement. People take the grid like its supposed to be some set in stone commandment, rather then just a government created guide from the early to middle decades of the last century. (which it actually is)

I picked the I-69 trio, but it was a tough call.  The deciding factor was I-2.  I hate I-2.

I could truly care less.  The fact of the matter is, they are all just roads, or at least hypothetical roads at this point.  Of course, I-74 is totally out of place in North Carolina, but really, it's just a number.  It's not like the Interstate highway grid is a religion.

Quote from: Brandon on June 27, 2014, 02:28:47 PM
IL - 24, 39, 41 (a whole fucking mile!), 55, 57, 64, 70, 72, 74, 80, 88, 90, 94
Not to mention Illinois made a play for I-37 (now I-155) and I-53 (now I-355).  That would've made 15.  I'm shocked IDOT didn't try to extend I-44 eastward into the state!

I thought I heard they were going to attempt to get I-44 in IL when they finished I-70's ultimate reroute by adding more ramps at the I-70 bridge.

No. 1 is Wyoming I-180, because it creates the mistaken impression that people will be driving on, you know, an interstate.

Then I-69, because the mess was completely preventable.  Sure, there's substandard things about freeways that are more dangerous or delaying, but they would take real money to fix.  I-69 suffixed routes are just cussedness.

Then I-73/74.  I'm not sure what question N.C. was asking, but I-73/74 is the wrong answer.

I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2014, 03:28:59 AM


I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

If I were California, I would have renumbered CA 180 and any other route that could become a 3di just in case.

Why are we so off topic here?  Its just a survey between two situations that seems to have drifted to be either attacking the OP for only picking two scenarios out of many that piss off us road geeks, or to bring up the other cases of road geek indigestion.

Quote from: TheStranger on June 28, 2014, 04:25:31 AM

Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2014, 03:28:59 AM


I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

Yeah, but the only x80 number that was available was I-180, and CA-180 was established in 1934 according to CAhighways. 

I-580 was proposed as I-72 and briefly signed as I-5W before it was finally renumbered as I-580.  US-101 from Los Angeles to San Francisco was proposed as an interstate and would probably have become I-3.  Either of those would have given several possible 3di options for I-238 that would have fit the numbering scheme.

I-94 around Lake Michigan

Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2014, 10:57:55 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 28, 2014, 04:25:31 AM

Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2014, 03:28:59 AM


I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

Yeah, but the only x80 number that was available was I-180, and CA-180 was established in 1934 according to CAhighways. 

I-580 was proposed as I-72 and briefly signed as I-5W before it was finally renumbered as I-580.  US-101 from Los Angeles to San Francisco was proposed as an interstate and would probably have become I-3.  Either of those would have given several possible 3di options for I-238 that would have fit the numbering scheme.

Ah, I misread your post originally!

Some thoughts:

- California was VERY willing to renumber pre-1964 state routes 5, 8, 10, and 15 (though not sure all of those combined would have matched 180's total length), and for that matter, the entire pre-1964 west extent of Route 178 became part of Route 58.  Interesting that 180 was retained (though I don't think anyone foresaw that they needed more 3di numbers then).

- I haven't read really much on why 5W became 580/505, only that it happened - though when it occurred, 505 was not built yet.  (That not only solves the usage of two 3dis for what had previously been a single-number branch of a major interstate, but could have given more options for what is now 238)  It wouldn't be the last time (15E) that California would establish a suffixed Interstate loop, either.

I don't mind violations in the grid as they are inevitable in any system other than a section line road grid system, but the two examples I listed are just plain silly. 

Of course, it's California policy that disallows I-180 and CA-180 from both existing. Would they really be confused by anyone? Oklahoma has I-44 and SH-44 and nobody seems to get lost.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 28, 2014, 06:01:52 PM
Of course, it's California policy that disallows I-180 and CA-180 from both existing. Would they really be confused by anyone? Oklahoma has I-44 and SH-44 and nobody seems to get lost.

The policy for no duplicates really stems from a reaction to the 1956-1964 set of them due to Interstates and US routes coexisting in the state (40, 80 in particular).  Maybe it's a bit extreme - other states like Illinois never had an issue with geographically disparate routes of the same number - but the route numbers take precedence in common usage over whatever type of route they are.  This is somewhat a side effect of the post-1964 policy, though it does make sense to simply use the numbers alone in reference when they cannot be mistaken for any other route elsewhere in the state.

I-69 irks me more.  WTF with I-69C?  Not even Tennessee uses that suffix, and they the king of split routes.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 28, 2014, 06:01:52 PM
Of course, it's California policy that disallows I-180 and CA-180 from both existing. Would they really be confused by anyone? Oklahoma has I-44 and SH-44 and nobody seems to get lost.

Oklahoma has a lot of duplicate numbers...56, 59, 266...

69W/C/E I think is worse. At least 73 and 74 touch the interstate system. We could eliminate 73 and make it 81E and eliminate 74 and make it 77E or 75W... Or 81W, 81C, and 81W. See how ridiculous that sounds? 


iPhone

I meant 95W instead of 75W


iPhone

Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 29, 2014, 12:36:10 AM
69W/C/E I think is worse. At least 73 and 74 touch the interstate system. We could eliminate 73 and make it 81E and eliminate 74 and make it 77E or 75W... Or 81W, 81C, and 81W. See how ridiculous that sounds? 


iPhone

The I-69s will too.  They just got in early because one of the highway bills permitted I-69 and I-11 to have disconnected signed segments if they would be connected within 25 years.

Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2014, 07:28:30 PM

Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 29, 2014, 12:36:10 AM
69W/C/E I think is worse. At least 73 and 74 touch the interstate system. We could eliminate 73 and make it 81E and eliminate 74 and make it 77E or 75W... Or 81W, 81C, and 81W. See how ridiculous that sounds? 


iPhone

The I-69s will too.  They just got in early because one of the highway bills permitted I-69 and I-11 to have disconnected signed segments if they would be connected within 25 years.

And if they don't, what happens?  The states have to give all that money back with interest?

I'm more upset about the I-73/I-74 thingy in North Carolina. I can remember being 14-15 years old, so this was eight years ago, and reading articles that they were going to extend I-73 into South Carolina, up to meet I-81 in Virginia or something. I feel that with the I-69 project, albeit in different sections, has gotten farther that I ever anticipated. Yeah, it's disjointed for now, but they've shown that they have gotten somewhere. What have they done in North Carolina? One section of I-73 from I-85 north up to I-40? That's it?

I like coming back onto sites like AAroads or reading articles that say "new section of I-69 has opened". It's suspenseful for me, since with I-69, I keep thinking "okay, what are they going to open next? What day? How long of a segment? How many new exits? Trust me, I was in awe when they opened up the sections from Evansville to Crane, Ind. and the two sections in Houston. I was not expecting that.

The other thing that I personally don't have a problem with, but some might have (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there's this confusion now with US 74/I-74. How do you give directions to someone who's going from Wilmington to Charlotte? Go down to US 74 to I-74 back to US 74...ugh...too much.

I-73 got the airport connector built and will eventually be built to Roanoke. 220 is a train wreck between Roanoke and Collinsville. Also now there's an interstate to Rockingham. I-74 got the Mt Airy bypass built, 52 will be upgraded, and 311/High Point Bypass is done. 73/74 has come a lot further than 69 has. For now at least. I also doubt 69 through Arky and MS and the 69 Mississippi River bridge will be built in 25 years.


iPhone

Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 30, 2014, 04:11:52 AM
I-73 got the airport connector built and will eventually be built to Roanoke. 220 is a train wreck between Roanoke and Collinsville. Also now there's an interstate to Rockingham. I-74 got the Mt Airy bypass built, 52 will be upgraded, and 311/High Point Bypass is done. 73/74 has come a lot further than 69 has. For now at least. I also doubt 69 through Arky and MS and the 69 Mississippi River bridge will be built in 25 years.

I don't look for Virginia to take significant action to build 73. 220 isn't that bad between Roanoke and Martinsville. It's a four-lane arterial that handles traffic just fine.

I have a feeling that I-69 in Texas will default into I-369 for a long while as TexDOT won't build the further part if LA is not going to build their portion yet.  That should satisfy truckers as they can use I-30 and I-40 between there and Memphis and won't be in too much of a hurry to get the rest done.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 30, 2014, 11:27:24 AM

Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 30, 2014, 04:11:52 AM
I-73 got the airport connector built and will eventually be built to Roanoke. 220 is a train wreck between Roanoke and Collinsville. Also now there's an interstate to Rockingham. I-74 got the Mt Airy bypass built, 52 will be upgraded, and 311/High Point Bypass is done. 73/74 has come a lot further than 69 has. For now at least. I also doubt 69 through Arky and MS and the 69 Mississippi River bridge will be built in 25 years.

I don't look for Virginia to take significant action to build 73. 220 isn't that bad between Roanoke and Martinsville. It's a four-lane arterial that handles traffic just fine.

I don't see it going fast but I don't see Mississippi going fast either. 220 is 4 lane but there are several tight turns and 220 between 419 and the BRP is a nightmare


iPhone

Is I-69 through Arkansas really necessary? Texarkana to Memphis already has a well established route (30 to 40).

Mainline I-69 doesn't pass through Texarkana. It will cross I-20 at Shreveport.

Quote from: billtm on June 30, 2014, 02:39:34 PM
Is I-69 through Arkansas really necessary? Texarkana to Memphis already has a well established route (30 to 40).

No. It's a huge waste of money. If you want to get to Shreveport from Memphis it might be faster to go
I-40 to Little Rock, cut down I-30 to Texarkana and then go south on I-49.

Actually the whole project is a huge waste of money. Indy - Memphis already has a route. I-70 to I-57 to I-55. Multilane highways in Texas are already fast. From Houston to Laredo already has a route. I-10 to I-35 via San Antonio.

Also the current route from Indianapolis to Mexico will be 70 miles shorter than I-69 and faster. 

Parts are alright though:

SW Indiana is rather cut off from the State Capital and had been pushing for an interstate for decades (sour grapes from you that it isn't US41 heading south from Terre Haute to Evansville?)
Kentucky's bit is basically modernisation of existing freeways and a bypass for Hendersonville
Turning 4-lanes into Freeways improves safety, and many of the routes in TX have lots of truck traffic now.
The Lower Rio Grande deserves an Interstate.

That leaves:
Houston-Laredo - not much shorter than via San Antonio. However it does take traffic away from that Met Area, and the Katy Freeway.
AR and MS - a bit porky, sure
TN - upgrading US51 doesn't look hard, and why not.

So that gives two meta SIU's of Indy-Memphis and Texarkana/Shreveport - Brownsville (if you are going to moan about longer, you can't complain about I-369, which cuts off quite a few miles). Arkansas and Mississippi have some sections that are justifiable on their own, ditto upgrading US281 and US59 s of Houston.

Honestly it would've been a waste of money had it come to Terre Haute. US 41 is already a pretty nice highway south of Terre Haute. SR 641 would've and is going to solve a lot of problems south of town. A NE bypass around Terre Haute would be nice. Terre Haute is really the only bad part on US 41 / SR 63. Although the St. Johns area is bad (Illiana will solve that). I-164 is a good way to get around Evansville, although I usually just stay on 41.

The lower Rio Grande has an interstate (35). I-2 is also there now, which it already was there as US 83. US 281 and 77 were good enough. US 59 north of Houston is good enough. US 51 is good until the northern part of Memphis. Yes interstates are nice but they aren't needed everywhere. Interstate quality bypasses around small towns on multilane highways is the answer.

Quote from: US 41 on June 30, 2014, 04:11:11 PM

Quote from: billtm on June 30, 2014, 02:39:34 PM


Actually the whole project is a huge waste of money. Indy - Memphis already has a route. I-70 to I-57 to I-55. Multilane highways in Texas are already fast. From Houston to Laredo already has a route. I-10 to I-35 via San Antonio.

Also the current route from Indianapolis to Mexico will be 70 miles shorter than I-69 and faster.

For Houston-Laredo,  I used GoogleMaps and it gave me two options. The one where it shows US 59 (which practically makes a beeline), and the one you mentioned, using I-10 W to I-410, to I-35 S (which makes an arc, essentially).

US 59 (mind you, the new sections of I-69 might make this shorter)= 311 miles.
I-10->I-410->I-35= 350 miles.

Also, one should consider that between Laredo and Houston, there aren't really any major cities, well those that would cause any traffic jams, etc. So 350 miles, with a chance of running into traffic in San Antonio, a major U.S. city, or 311 miles of just beelining straight from point A to point B?

Lastly, what about people from Corpus Christi who want to go to Laredo? It'd be very impractical to go up to San Antonio and come back down I-35. So, I guess I-69 helps out in that regard too. This is my reflection on this, no harm intended.  :)

Quote from: US 41 on June 30, 2014, 06:49:21 PM
Honestly it would've been a waste of money had it come to Terre Haute. US 41 is already a pretty nice highway south of Terre Haute. SR 641 would've and is going to solve a lot of problems south of town. A NE bypass around Terre Haute would be nice. Terre Haute is really the only bad part on US 41 / SR 63. Although the St. Johns area is bad (Illiana will solve that). I-164 is a good way to get around Evansville, although I usually just stay on 41.

The lower Rio Grande has an interstate (35). I-2 is also there now, which it already was there as US 83. US 281 and 77 were good enough. US 59 north of Houston is good enough. US 51 is good until the northern part of Memphis. Yes interstates are nice but they aren't needed everywhere. Interstate quality bypasses around small towns on multilane highways is the answer.

I agree with this statement.  This would be a prudent spend of the taxpayer coin.

IMHO, I-69 from Memphis to Shreveport is a huge waste of money that won't get heavy traffic anyway. I would end I-69 south of Memphis at US-61. and then redesignate Future 369/69 in Texas from Texarkana south past Carthage as I-47. This would get rid of the need for the Great River Bridge, which would save a lot of time and money. But it looks like Arkansas is already starting to build I-69, whether the bridge will be completed or not. 

All that branching, the waste of resources for a Memphis to Shreveport freeway and the Ohio River Bridge miles from anything make I-69 worse.  Although I-74's ridiculous double-back-on-itself end at the coast makes it a tough choice.  Seriously, how stupid is that?  It's on the way to a logical end in Wilmington, then is going abruptly take off through the swamp, turn around and go to Myrtle Beach.  How hard is it to see the best way for Myrtle to get an interstate is to bring I-20 over from Florence?

As for I-69 in Texas, I believe the great Walter Sobchak said it best: "Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?!?!"

Ohio River Bridge miles from anything?

Not sure that's right - it's 2-3 miles east of the US41 bridge, basically forming a Henderson bypass, and connecting to the Evansville area pretty centrally a couple of miles north of the bridge. Certainly, if you are in Evansville and going south to anywhere but Henderson and the small towns west of there, you'd use I-69 rather than the existing route!

Did you mean Mississippi Bridge?

We could use another Mississippi River bridge downstream... Just in case the faultline acts up again


iPhone

2004: what pisses you off more, I-99 or I-238?
2014: what pisses you off more, I-69W/C/E or I-73/74?

I love it.  :sombrero:


I'm going to have to go with 69 simply because 69C is ridiculous. I honestly don't mind 69E and 69W but the center route should be just plain 69.

Meanwhile, for 73/74 I just shrug and say "because North Carolina". They may be ambitious while adjacent states are not, but there is nothing really wrong in theory with what they've done there.

No you are right about having the interstate freeway's built north of Rockingham, but the numbers could be a I-36, I-38, or an x85, x40, or x77.

 I-73 fits better than the I-99 BS. 74 is a joke. The best number for it in light of recent events? I-26E


iPhone

74 is a joke only because WV and OH will not build their section of the road that would connect it to the existing I-74 that is in the grid proper.  74 would be a lot like 69 where you have its extension west of I-45 and I-37 in Texas.

I-74 in NC should have just been a Southern I-79.  Would have solved all the problems as you could have just added I-79 shields along I-77 and then you would have it all connected with no problems.

Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2014, 10:57:55 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 28, 2014, 04:25:31 AM

Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2014, 03:28:59 AM


I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

Yeah, but the only x80 number that was available was I-180, and CA-180 was established in 1934 according to CAhighways. 

I-580 was proposed as I-72 and briefly signed as I-5W before it was finally renumbered as I-580.  US-101 from Los Angeles to San Francisco was proposed as an interstate and would probably have become I-3.  Either of those would have given several possible 3di options for I-238 that would have fit the numbering scheme.

I always thought it was stupid that I-580 wasn't signed as a stand-alone 2di. It would most certainly clean up the x80 glut. I-72 is a fine number for that, even I-48, since there is no other route 48 in the state system. The I-580 designation never really made much sense.

And if I were in charge of renumbering, I'd have it replace the whole I-580 route from I-5 to US 101. As for I-238, it could be a 3di of I-580's replacement, or just an unsigned connector from I-880 to the mother route.

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 03, 2014, 08:26:20 AM
I-74 in NC should have just been a Southern I-79.  Would have solved all the problems as you could have just added I-79 shields along I-77 and then you would have it all connected with no problems.

You would copy WI with its three interstate concurrency then.

Quote from: FightingIrish on July 03, 2014, 09:39:08 AM
I always thought it was stupid that I-580 wasn't signed as a stand-alone 2di. It would most certainly clean up the x80 glut. I-72 is a fine number for that, even I-48, since there is no other route 48 in the state system. The I-580 designation never really made much sense.

Interestingly, part of today's 580 (specifically Altamont to Route 238) corresponds to the original US 48. 

580/505 both seem to be compromise designations derived from the former 5W number (a renumbering which led to the unintended consequence of a 3di designation shortage 20 years later).

Quote from: FightingIrish on July 03, 2014, 09:39:08 AM

Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2014, 10:57:55 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 28, 2014, 04:25:31 AM

Quote from: kkt on June 28, 2014, 03:28:59 AM


I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

Yeah, but the only x80 number that was available was I-180, and CA-180 was established in 1934 according to CAhighways. 

I-580 was proposed as I-72 and briefly signed as I-5W before it was finally renumbered as I-580.  US-101 from Los Angeles to San Francisco was proposed as an interstate and would probably have become I-3.  Either of those would have given several possible 3di options for I-238 that would have fit the numbering scheme.

I always thought it was stupid that I-580 wasn't signed as a stand-alone 2di. It would most certainly clean up the x80 glut.

Well, they failed to anticipate how many 3dis would be added to the system.  At the time the interstates were created, they thought that would be it.  Foolish, maybe, but there was no allowance for nonchargeable interstate miles and Congress wasn't in the business of legislating individual route numbers back then.

Quote
I-72 is a fine number for that,

I-72 would have been a fine number for that.  However, since then, CA-72 has been created out of former El Camino in part of L.A.

Quote
even I-48, since there is no other route 48 in the state system. The I-580 designation never really made much sense.

It makes sense as a mnemonic, from 5 to 80.

Quote
And if I were in charge of renumbering, I'd have it replace the whole I-580 route from I-5 to US 101. As for I-238, it could be a 3di of I-580's replacement, or just an unsigned connector from I-880 to the mother route.

I-238 needs to be signed.  It has a couple of exits in between 580 and 880.

I-580 is now a very well known route number, and it's really too late to change its number.  I-238 becoming I-480 seems like the way to go, if we change it at all.

Quote from: Duke87 on July 02, 2014, 10:03:46 PM
2004: what pisses you off more, I-99 or I-238?
2014: what pisses you off more, I-69W/C/E or I-73/74?

I love it.  :sombrero:


I'm going to have to go with 69 simply because 69C is ridiculous. I honestly don't mind 69E and 69W but the center route should be just plain 69.

Meanwhile, for 73/74 I just shrug and say "because North Carolina". They may be ambitious while adjacent states are not, but there is nothing really wrong in theory with what they've done there.

This I agree with. I'm all for suffixed routes, but the "C" just seems out of place.

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67

Quote from: kkt on July 03, 2014, 12:46:18 PM
I-238 needs to be signed.  It has a couple of exits in between 580 and 880.

The interchange between the Whitestone Expressway (I-678) and the Grand Central Parkway in NYC includes a freeway that has five exits.  It is not signed.  I think I-238's lone folded diamond and ramps slapped in the middle of a freeway-freeway interchange can manage.  Up here in NY, we only recently (past five years) began signing freeway numbers between the last interchange and the terminus.  Even to this day, I-490 is mainly signed as "To I-90/Thruway" starting at Eastview Mall, with two miles, a county line crossing, and one more (major) interchange to go.

The Adirondack Northway stub from I-90 to US 20 is not signed as anything either and it has an interchange.

Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2014, 08:01:19 PM

Quote from: kkt on July 03, 2014, 12:46:18 PM
I-238 needs to be signed.  It has a couple of exits in between 580 and 880.

The interchange between the Whitestone Expressway (I-678) and the Grand Central Parkway in NYC includes a freeway that has five exits.  It is not signed.  I think I-238's lone folded diamond and ramps slapped in the middle of a freeway-freeway interchange can manage.  Up here in NY, we only recently (past five years) began signing freeway numbers between the last interchange and the terminus.  Even to this day, I-490 is mainly signed as "To I-90/Thruway" starting at Eastview Mall, with two miles, a county line crossing, and one more (major) interchange to go.

The Adirondack Northway stub from I-90 to US 20 is not signed as anything either and it has an interchange.

So when there's an accident, someone whips out their cell phone and calls 911 and says "I'm on a road without a number" and the dispatcher tries to get useful information out of the panicky person to tell where the hell they are?

Quote from: kkt on July 04, 2014, 12:40:06 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2014, 08:01:19 PM

Quote from: kkt on July 03, 2014, 12:46:18 PM
I-238 needs to be signed.  It has a couple of exits in between 580 and 880.

The interchange between the Whitestone Expressway (I-678) and the Grand Central Parkway in NYC includes a freeway that has five exits.  It is not signed.  I think I-238's lone folded diamond and ramps slapped in the middle of a freeway-freeway interchange can manage.  Up here in NY, we only recently (past five years) began signing freeway numbers between the last interchange and the terminus.  Even to this day, I-490 is mainly signed as "To I-90/Thruway" starting at Eastview Mall, with two miles, a county line crossing, and one more (major) interchange to go.

The Adirondack Northway stub from I-90 to US 20 is not signed as anything either and it has an interchange.

So when there's an accident, someone whips out their cell phone and calls 911 and says "I'm on a road without a number" and the dispatcher tries to get useful information out of the panicky person to tell where the hell they are?

Usually roads without a number have a name. I don't think I've ever seen a road without either a name or a number. Even if it's just a connector or a stub, I would think it would be associated with the road(s) it connects or stubs off of.

NYS has reference route numbers on its unnamed and unnumbered roads, but people generally do not know them.  The connector between NY 281 and I-81 at Homer, NY is one good example of one as well as the NY 9N connector at Lake George that spurs from Exit 22 of I-87.

Quote from: kkt on July 04, 2014, 12:40:06 AM
So when there's an accident, someone whips out their cell phone and calls 911 and says "I'm on a road without a number" and the dispatcher tries to get useful information out of the panicky person to tell where the hell they are?

As mentioned, we have reference markers that can be referenced, though they don't necessarily correspond to the road they're on (it would be too much effort to change our highway inventory records).  Also, around here nobody cares what NYSDOT calls a road.  People don't navigate by number, they navigate by name.  That road in NYC is considered to be a connector, not a freeway in and of itself (it's exit numbers are actually exits 13 A-D for I-678) and everyone just calls that bit of the Northway I-87, and I-87 south of the I-90 interchange might as well not exist as far as most people are concerned (the Thruway is simply the Thruway; in the western part of the state, if people know I-90 at all, they most certainly don't know that it's a transcontinental interstate, or that it enters other states at all).  Near where I grew up, US 20 and NY 5 have a long multiplex.  None of my relatives know that US 20 and NY 5 are separate designations.  They're like US 1 and US 9 in northern New Jersey.  Nobody calls I-86 anything other than "route 17", even though NY 17 has been slowly disappearing from signs for years.

I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway and I don't typically navigate through Missoula using numbers. I do it by name just as vdeane mentioned. The way I see it is that why waste your time being so pissed off about a crapshoot number of an interstate or US highway when we have other, more important things to be pissed off about like why we solve other country's problems instead of our own, that kind of thing. If there is a way to end this topic, I would close with the fact that I-69C, 73 and 74 are just numbers. To emphasise, why be so pissed off about a stupid number when we have other things to be "rightfully" pissed off about like high gas prices or workers not getting the due they deserve or our veterans not getting the care they deserve after fighting for our freedoms and such?

73 is not that much of a problem.

74, however, is "stupid as food".


2 will be more reasonable when it connects to the main part of the Interstate system.

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on July 05, 2014, 08:16:54 PM
I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway and I don't typically navigate through Missoula using numbers. I do it by name just as vdeane mentioned. The way I see it is that why waste your time being so pissed off about a crapshoot number of an interstate or US highway when we have other, more important things to be pissed off about like why we solve other country's problems instead of our own, that kind of thing. If there is a way to end this topic, I would close with the fact that I-69C, 73 and 74 are just numbers. To emphasise, why be so pissed off about a stupid number when we have other things to be "rightfully" pissed off about like high gas prices or workers not getting the due they deserve or our veterans not getting the care they deserve after fighting for our freedoms and such?

Because Interstate numbering is on topic on this board and the other issues you mention aren't. Besides, complaints aren't a zero sum game. Being disgruntled about I-69C doesn't preclude you from having opinions about other things.

I mean, I'm not a fan of I-69C or the chaotic traffic congestion of I-73/74 but I'm in no position to be pissed off about it. My position, I believe, was made clear, but having said that, my only offering is that we make petitions to the state of Texas to reconsider in using a number that makes sense. That'd mean using something like "169" or "469". Instead of being pissed off about I-69C, we need to come up with some solutions that I'd suggest talking to the Texas state officials. Call any one of them you know about I-69C, the DPS, DOT, whatever, make some conservative effort to make your opinion known to them. As for the I-73/74 bucket of junk, my only suggestion is find routes to bypass them. You're better off on the side roads connecting I-73/74. It's like me using Highway 10 West instead of Interstate 90. So, instead of being pissed about this godawful traffic nightmare of I-73/74, maybe look up some alternate routes to go around it. Why does Nashville, TN have I-440? It's there so that if people don't like the clusterfuck of I-40, 24, or 65, they can use 440 to cut around it. Huntsville's got I-565 that people use to bypass I-65.

The state of Texas has nothing to do with I-69C's numbering (lettering?)  The number was written into legislation passed by the dumbfuck Congress.

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on July 05, 2014, 08:16:54 PM
I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway and I don't typically navigate through Missoula using numbers. I do it by name just as vdeane mentioned.

So maybe we should spend our time being pissed off because the manual now says highway names shouldn't be placed on BGSs?  :biggrin:

Quote from: kkt on July 05, 2014, 11:07:21 PM

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on July 05, 2014, 08:16:54 PM
I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway and I don't typically navigate through Missoula using numbers. I do it by name just as vdeane mentioned.

So maybe we should spend our time being pissed off because the manual now says highway names shouldn't be placed on BGSs?  :biggrin:

Well, poo poo! Put the dadgum highway name on it anyway!   ;-)

Quote from: bugo on July 05, 2014, 09:36:21 PM
The state of Texas has nothing to do with I-69C's numbering (lettering?)  The number was written into legislation passed by the dumbfuck Congress.

I'm sure Texas had the option of not signing it as an interstate at all.  The law designates the I-69 corridor.  A corridor is a general routing, not an exact one.  Thus, they only needed to build one leg, not three.

A good question would be, is who lobbied for a split corridor?  This would have been a lot less ambiguous if congress had just picked one, instead of leaving it to Texas to decide (and then for Texas to say "f*** it, let's just build everything").

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on July 05, 2014, 08:16:54 PM
I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway

I agree. We should argue about stuff that really matters, like Clearview.   X-(

Regarding the topic subject line, I'd vote the I-73/74 thing being a worse issue than I-69 in Texas. I don't like I-73/74 because the route numbering, short segments and odd-ball routing has to be confusing for a lot of motorists. There's next to no chance at all I-74 in North Carolina will connect to the other existing I-74. There is a logical path I-73 could take into Virginia, but I don't see that being built anytime soon. However, I-69 in Texas is the least of that route's problems.

At least the Texas portion of I-69 has a good chance of being completed over the next 10-15 years. The same can't be said for portions of the route in some other states, particularly Mississippi's portion as well as the Great River Bridge.

The biggest thing I can't stand about I-69 is just how crooked the route is in Southern Indiana and Kentucky. The proposed alignment in Arkansas and Mississippi is not much better. Most other Interstate highways are far more direct and time saving than I-69. They only get crooked in certain areas when something big like a mountain range is in the way. If the proposed I-69 route is ever completed fully between the Canadian & Mexican borders a lot of long haul truckers and other motorists traveling long distances will choose other far more straight Interstate routes.

At least in Texas I-69 is following a somewhat more direct path (even though the alignment could have been better). I don't have any problem with the "W," "C," & "E" suffixes. If anything a number besides I-69 should have been chosen. I-47 would have made more sense -running from Shreveport down to Houston, Corpus Christi & Laredo. I-369 into Texarkana could have been I-747 instead. I-69E could have been an extension of I-37 (although that re-routing might have drawn the ire of people in Corpus Christi). I-69C could have been I-33, or just an Interstate quality version of US-281. Dual Interstate routes into South Texas seems justifiable considering well over 1 million Americans live down there. BTW, I would have preferred I-2 to be a 3 digit Interstate route if there are no plans of any extension. I-2 would be more legit if it was extended up to Laredo at least.

I don't like I-66 in Kentucky since there's hardly any chance it will be connected to the existing route in Virginia.

I-97 sucks for its short length. It should have been a 3 digit Interstate, if it was signed as an Interstate highway at all. The same goes for I-86 in Idaho. That's another one that should have been a 3 digit Interstate.

I don't like I-39 for a number of reasons. As far as the grid goes, what was wrong with I-53? The I-39 designation should have been reserved for a more western location. I-41 seems pretty unnecessary. The designation seems more motivated by politics. The number won't help motorists any more than US-41.

Quote from: jbnv on July 07, 2014, 04:18:36 PM

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on July 05, 2014, 08:16:54 PM
I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway

I agree. We should argue about stuff that really matters, like Clearview.   X-(

Clearview doesn't even matter that much. Misleading information does.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 07, 2014, 04:35:47 PM
The biggest thing I can't stand about I-69 is just how crooked the route is in Southern Indiana and Kentucky. The proposed alignment in Arkansas and Mississippi is not much better. Most other Interstate highways are far more direct and time saving than I-69. They only get crooked in certain areas when something big like a mountain range is in the way. If the proposed I-69 route is ever completed fully between the Canadian & Mexican borders a lot of long haul truckers and other motorists traveling long distances will choose other far more straight Interstate routes.

If you compare the Google output of "Port Huron MI to Brownsville TX" to a map of proposed I-69, the I-69 corridor is actually straighter.

Indiana's alignment needed to connect Evansville to Indianapolis via Bloomington and Crane. There are some environmental reasons why that route is on the corridor it is.

As for Kentucky, they made the decision here to use the existing almost-to-interstate-standards former toll roads. Apparently it's just as fast to get from the Calvert City area to Henderson via I-24, the WK and Pennyrile parkways at 70 mph than it is US 60 at 55 mph or less, and it's a whole lot cheaper to make spot improvements to bring the parkways up to interstate standards than it is to build 60 or so miles of new terrain freeway.

The section of I-69 most blatantly out of the way is the bit north of Fort Wayne already in existence: the direct way is via US24, I-75 and I-94. While the 'Fort to Port' US24 corridor is being upgraded, it does seem strange that they don't bring it into the I-69 pork barrel.

Of course this section of I-69 makes a big Detroit bypass and performs a useful regional route in Michigan, linking up cities. Similar to Arkansas's bit, but with bigger cities.

Quote from: english si on July 08, 2014, 06:15:12 AM
The section of I-69 most blatantly out of the way is the bit north of Fort Wayne already in existence: the direct way is via US24, I-75 and I-94. While the 'Fort to Port' US24 corridor is being upgraded, it does seem strange that they don't bring it into the I-69 pork barrel.

I don't think Ohio was invited to the I-69 trough.

I'll vote for I-73/74 in North Carolina. I would never drive on I-74 because it is broken up into so many tiny segments and I feel that it would be too easy for me to get lost once one of the segments ends. Also, if you drive northbound on I-77 north of I-40 in NC to where I-74 splits off, I-77 is signed as both I-77 north and I-74 west for a few miles before the I-74 shields completely disappear even though no other road carried I-74.

As for I-73, I was always against that road and wish that South Carolina opted instead to extend I-20 east of Florence to Myrtle Beach or Wilmington (NC). If the SC legislature was so worried about losing tax revenue from tourists to Wilmington, they could have extended I-20 to Wilmington, but used the control city of Myrtle Beach.

I'm fine with I-73 routing (because once it is built and done, it will only go from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach), but not the I-74 one. I voted for the I-69 mess though. Really, it is just a number. No big deal. There is no such thing as a perfect grid these days.

I-73/74 just annoys me. Not because of the numbering, but because it wouldn't take too much work to connect the two sections of 74. Make it concurrent with I-77 to Charleston and use an upgraded US 35 and OH SR 32, both of which are high-quality roads that need a few driveways and crossroads cut off (save a short 2 land stretch of US 35 and immediately east of I-275). Don't build a new alignment through WV if it's too expensive and make due with what you have. I-73 is a tad trickier. While not as blatant of an AASHTO violation as I-99, it won't be remotely close to its place until it's west of I-77, as the next west would be I-71. Up to Roanoke is set. The route from there would be a wrong-way concurrency on I-81 to the Smart Road extension and up US 460, a divided highway, from there to I-77. If it stayed concurrent with I-74 and remained on US 32 until US 23, it could follow US 23, I-270, OH SR 15, I-75, and US 23 again to Flint. Projects are underway to bridge minor roads over and SR 15 is Interstate quality except for a couple of RIROs.

73/74 annoys me because, with relatively little effort, both could be extended up existing routes to Ohio and Michigan, yet neither has gotten out of North Carolina.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 07, 2014, 10:46:09 PM
Indiana's alignment needed to connect Evansville to Indianapolis via Bloomington and Crane. There are some environmental reasons why that route is on the corridor it is.

As for Kentucky, they made the decision here to use the existing almost-to-interstate-standards former toll roads. Apparently it's just as fast to get from the Calvert City area to Henderson via I-24, the WK and Pennyrile parkways at 70 mph than it is US 60 at 55 mph or less, and it's a whole lot cheaper to make spot improvements to bring the parkways up to interstate standards than it is to build 60 or so miles of new terrain freeway.

Monroe County (Bloomington) is still fighting the interstate. If they go to the south end of town I think they will find that they have lost that battle.

Quote from: cl94 on July 14, 2014, 08:37:28 PM
73/74 annoys me because, with relatively little effort, both could be extended up existing routes to Ohio and Michigan, yet neither has gotten out of North Carolina.

Quote from: Strider on July 14, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
I'm fine with I-73 routing (because once it is built and done, it will only go from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach)

If you all are waiting for I-73 to be built in Virginia, or both to be built in West Virginia, I hope you have plenty of decades to spare.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2014, 10:26:41 PM

Quote from: cl94 on July 14, 2014, 08:37:28 PM
73/74 annoys me because, with relatively little effort, both could be extended up existing routes to Ohio and Michigan, yet neither has gotten out of North Carolina.

Quote from: Strider on July 14, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
I'm fine with I-73 routing (because once it is built and done, it will only go from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach)

If you all are waiting for I-73 to be built in Virginia, or both to be built in West Virginia, I hope you have plenty of decades to spare.

I-73 won't have more than a couple miles up there for 50 years, if not more. North Carolina will get it to the border within the next couple decades and Virginia will do nothing for a couple more. Same with I-74. How long ago was the Smart Road extension/ Future I-73 supposed to be built?

Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2014, 10:26:41 PM

Quote from: cl94 on July 14, 2014, 08:37:28 PM
73/74 annoys me because, with relatively little effort, both could be extended up existing routes to Ohio and Michigan, yet neither has gotten out of North Carolina.

Quote from: Strider on July 14, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
I'm fine with I-73 routing (because once it is built and done, it will only go from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach)

If you all are waiting for I-73 to be built in Virginia, or both to be built in West Virginia, I hope you have plenty of decades to spare.

And Ohio and Michigan just don't give a shit about I-73.

Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2014, 10:18:34 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2014, 10:26:41 PM

Quote from: cl94 on July 14, 2014, 08:37:28 PM
73/74 annoys me because, with relatively little effort, both could be extended up existing routes to Ohio and Michigan, yet neither has gotten out of North Carolina.

Quote from: Strider on July 14, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
I'm fine with I-73 routing (because once it is built and done, it will only go from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach)

If you all are waiting for I-73 to be built in Virginia, or both to be built in West Virginia, I hope you have plenty of decades to spare.

And Ohio and Michigan just don't give a shit about I-73.

Yep. Even though their stretches are closest to Interstate quality. We might see it up near the Great Lakes in the next 2 centuries.

Quote from: cl94 on July 14, 2014, 10:40:20 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2014, 10:26:41 PM

Quote from: cl94 on July 14, 2014, 08:37:28 PM
73/74 annoys me because, with relatively little effort, both could be extended up existing routes to Ohio and Michigan, yet neither has gotten out of North Carolina.

Quote from: Strider on July 14, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
I'm fine with I-73 routing (because once it is built and done, it will only go from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach)

If you all are waiting for I-73 to be built in Virginia, or both to be built in West Virginia, I hope you have plenty of decades to spare.

I-73 won't have more than a couple miles up there for 50 years, if not more. North Carolina will get it to the border within the next couple decades and Virginia will do nothing for a couple more. Same with I-74. How long ago was the Smart Road extension/ Future I-73 supposed to be built?

I-73, in North Carolina, will be complete within the next decade, not in several.  Construction is currently along both ends of I-73 now, leaving only three segments still yet to start:  US 220 to US 74, I-74 to state line (to be built by SCDOT), and the Madison-Mayoden area, where its already at expressway grade.

Key words in your post: North Carolina.  Every other state can't be bothered with I-73 or I-74, so the roads will remain incomplete outside of NC for essentially forever.  West Virginia's segment of I-74 is being built, but not as a freeway.

I don't care if I won't live to see I-73 being full built across VA, NC and SC, at least that's the only interstate I am fine with. I don't see why there is I-73 hate.... if the interstate is off the numbering grid, so what? I am sure there are some that are off the numbering grid. Again, so what? we can complain about stuff we want, keep in mind that we are not the ones who create interstates. As long as it connects from point A to point B, problem solved, and if the number happens to be I-73, I-69, I-74 or any number. Live with it.

Quote from: Strider on July 17, 2014, 09:14:53 PM
I don't care if I won't live to see I-73 being full built across VA, NC and SC, at least that's the only interstate I am fine with. I don't see why the I-73 hate.... if the interstate is off the numbering grid, so what? we can complain about stuff we want, keep in mind that we are not the ones who create interstates.

73 is not the problem. 74 is.

Quote from: 1 on July 17, 2014, 09:16:14 PM

Quote from: Strider on July 17, 2014, 09:14:53 PM
I don't care if I won't live to see I-73 being full built across VA, NC and SC, at least that's the only interstate I am fine with. I don't see why the I-73 hate.... if the interstate is off the numbering grid, so what? we can complain about stuff we want, keep in mind that we are not the ones who create interstates.

73 is not the problem. 74 is.

I don't like the 74 routing either, there is nothing we can do about it. There will be 2 separate I-74s.

The route numbers are more out of place than I-99, for one thing.

Another is the discontinuous nature of I-74, since there will never be a freeway connection between Cincinnati and Mt. Airy.

Also, the fact that there is no need for an interstate between Greensboro and Roanoke; US 220 serves the purpose just fine as a four-lane surface route. Neither is there a need for a new route between Roanoke and Blacksburg/Christiansburg, I-81 and US 460 serve the purpose.