3DI's like I-180 in Wyoming and I-315 in Montana make me think these 3DI's aren't really worth being singed as 3DIs and should have their interstate designation removed, or at least go unsigned. I-180 in Cheyenne should just be signed as US 85, while I-315 in Butte should just be Business I-15. I'd even go as far to say that I-180 in IL should have it's interstate number removed since it doesn't serve as an interstate corridor and IDOT doesn't even post exit numbers on it. Same for the glorified connecter ramp I-781 in NY.
Another "exit ramp": I-189
Maybe I-293 or I-393 in New Hampshire: the former is a combination of two already existing routes (the Everett Turnpike and NH 101), and the latter is already US 4/202.
Edit: I-587 is like I-781, but more useless.
781 is more useful than you think...it's more than a "glorified connector ramp". As someone who frequently travels that way from the North Country, it has saved a great deal of time bypassing all of the development (and the thousand lights!) on US11 near Fort Drum.
790, on the other hand... :pan:
I-305 in Sacramento should not have the I-305 designation because the Public only knows this freeway as US-50 and Business 80.
Speaking of US 11, the 3 miles of I-359 in Alabama that are also totally concurrent with AL 69.
iPhone
I-381
I-315 isn't "singed"...
I-175 and I-375 in St Pete, FL.
I-895 in Bronx, NY.
I-587 in Kingston, NY.
QuoteSame for the glorified connecter ramp I-781 in NY.
781 has exit numbers (US 11 is Exit 4), and actually serves a purpose related to the original intention of the Interstates (as a network of commerce and DEFENSE highways).
I'm surprised no one has mentioned I-180 in Illinois yet.
I-195 in Maine.
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:25:55 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned I-180 in Illinois yet.
You did ;)
I-894 in Milwaukee - As much as they keep the number for "Bypass" reasons, I-41 is due to usurp the entire route - making it pretty redundant.
I-587 is especially useless considering that it has another route number for its entire length, although it is cool for roadgeeks.
I-345 could be US 75
I-510 could be LA 47.
Any 3di that is not signed. If you aren't going to sign it, don't designate it.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 09, 2015, 10:11:02 AM
Any 3di that is not signed. If you aren't going to sign it, don't designate it.
*cough* I-595 in Maryland *cough*
In a general sense, I would nominate any 3di route that was given an Interstate number solely to qualify for the 65-mph speed limit back in the late 1980s. Now that federal speed limit controls are gone, such would be unnecessary, although I also recognize and concede that it'd be more problematic to remove those Interstate designations now that people are used to them.
In a more specific sense, the following strike me as unnecessary Interstate numbers:
I-695 in New York (perfectly useful highway that doesn't seem to need to carry an Interstate shield)
I-395 in Baltimore (ditto)
I-895 in New York (questionable whether the road is useful at all)
I-564 in Norfolk (yes, it serves the naval base, but why does it need an Interstate number to do that?)
I-495 in Maine (basically a glorified ramp bypassing Portland; of course, it's unsigned under the current configuration)
I-395 in Miami strikes me as a possible waste of a number except that it connects to the port and I suspect there may be some truck-related reason for posting an Interstate number, similar to how I-795 in North Carolina was given that number to make it easier for trucks to get to Goldsboro.
I'm one of those who would actually like to see more signed interstates, not less, but the only two that I have traveled that readily come to mind are I-381 in Virginia and I-587 in New York. For the former, it has no interchanges except for its terminus at I-81 and is basically a long exit ramp. For I-587, it doesn't have a direct freeway-to-freeway connection via interchange to its parent, has no interchanges, and is basically just an extension of the four-lane NY 28.
For routes I haven't driven, the obvious ones are I-180 Wyoming and I-238 California.
If we're going to include future routes, I-785 would be one. It's already known as US 29, and I wouldn't mind it being treated the same way as I-595 on US 50.
Quote from: Henry on February 09, 2015, 11:06:51 AM
If we're going to include future routes, I-785 would be one. It's already known as US 29, and I wouldn't mind it being treated the same way as I-595 on US 50.
When I drove on Florida's Route 9B in December (Future I-795), I remember thinking the Interstate number seems unnecessary, even though the road will be a useful shortcut that will allow southbound traffic to avoid using the loop ramp at the I-295/I-95 junction.
I agree I-180 in Illinois needs to be decommissioned. It does not go anywhere. While there were plans at one time to extend the freeway south to Peoria, those are long dead, and it will only be an expressway now, if even that (IL-29 doesn't need upgrades between Peoria and Hennepin).
Also, I-190 in the O'Hare area is too short for a Interstate. I-190 should be given to the future Elgin-O'Hare West Bypass.
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet? Okay, here goes.
I-238
:drops mic, walks off:
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet? Okay, here goes.
I-238
:drops mic, walks off:
Not needing a number is different from needing its number changed.
QuoteI-564 in Norfolk (yes, it serves the naval base, but why does it need an Interstate number to do that?)
As I mentioned above with I-781, this serves a valid purpose of the original intention for the Interstates. Nevermind that it's the biggest naval base in the world (in terms of ships and personnel)...
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2015, 11:43:58 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet? Okay, here goes.
I-238
:drops mic, walks off:
Not needing a number is different from needing its number changed.
Just going with the OP here. A 3di that shouldn't have an interstate designation. I think 238 fits this. It could easily just stay CA-238.
The original intent was socialism. Defense was tacked on to make it more palatable to the hawks.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet? Okay, here goes.
I-238
:drops mic, walks off:
hbelkins had already listed it.
I had thought of it but didn't mention it because I've never been out there and so I don't know whether it's a situation where it merits an Interstate number, just not the one it has, or whether it's an overall waste of a number.
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
QuoteI-564 in Norfolk (yes, it serves the naval base, but why does it need an Interstate number to do that?)
As I mentioned above with I-781, this serves a valid purpose of the original intention for the Interstates. Nevermind that it's the biggest naval base in the world (in terms of ships and personnel)...
Sure, I recognize the "defense" aspect of the system. Doesn't change my general feeling that an Interstate number isn't really "needed" on that road. That's not an insult to the naval base so much as it is my general feeling on particularly short Interstate stubs that don't promote some sort of thru movement.
I haven't been through the Watertown area since I-781 opened (most recent trip through there was January 2006 on the way home from Mont-Tremblant and Ottawa), but I gather from what others have said and from looking at a map that it's a bit of a different animal than I-564 due to serving as a sort of bypass around Watertown.
I'm sure if someone wanted to take the time, we could come up with plenty of defense facilities served by freeways that aren't designated as Interstates, after all (although I suppose Texas has expressed an interest in designating US-190 as an Interstate to serve Fort Hood).
Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.
Here's a list:
OR I-105 (OR126)
MT I-115 (I-15BL, I-90BL)
TN I-124 (US27)
SC I-126 (US76)
NE-IA I-129 (US20, US75)
AR FI130 (I-49)
MO-TN I-155 (US412)
IL I-172 (IL110)
WY I-180 (US85, US87Bus, I-25 BL)
WA I-182 (US12)
SD I-190 (US16)
MI I-194 (MI66)
OK I-235 (US77)
CO I-270 (US36)
OH I-277 (US224)
NC FI852 (US52)
CA I-305 (I-80BL)
MT I-315 (US89, I-15BL)
TX I-345 (US75)
TX I-369 (US59)
IA I-380 (US218)
NH I-393 (US4, US202)
NC I-495 (including future section) (US64)
LA I-510 (LA47)
NV I-515 (US93, US95)
AR I-530 (US65)
AR FI555 (US63)
AL I-565 (US72 Alt)
NV I-580 (US395)
VA I-581 (US220)
SC I-585 (US176)
NY I-587 (NY28)
MD I-595 (US50)
NY I-790 (NY5)
IN I-865 (US52)
NY I-878 (NY878)
WY I-894 (Future I-41)
LA I-910 (US90 Bus)
Edit: added future routes
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:58:24 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2015, 11:43:58 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet? Okay, here goes.
I-238
:drops mic, walks off:
Not needing a number is different from needing its number changed.
Just going with the OP here. A 3di that shouldn't have an interstate designation. I think 238 fits this. It could easily just stay CA-238.
Not really.
1. I-238 is built to interstate standards and carries a lot of out-of-area traffic, especially trucks as I-580 does not allow trucks through Oakland. Interstate status makes it clearer that it's a good through route. CA 238 is a surface street boulevard.
2. If you follow CA 238 north to its end you don't end up on I-238. To get on I-238 you must turn and go a couple of blocks on other streets to get to the freeway entrance. Likewise if you follow I-238 to its east end if you don't take an exit you end up on I-580, not CA 238.
3. I-238's upgrade to interstate standards was built with interstate funds.
I-238 should have an interstate number, just not that one. I-480 is the obvious choice, now that it's been decades since the Embarcadero Freeway was open.
Quote from: english si on February 09, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.
....
Are there any situations in which the non-Interstate designation denotes a class of roads on which certain classes of trucks might be prohibited? If so, could a desire or need to allow trucks be a reason for posting the Interstate number? I suppose the alternate solution to that is to change the regulations on trucks, but I have no idea whether that's realistic or practical.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 09, 2015, 12:51:06 PM
Quote from: english si on February 09, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.
....
Are there any situations in which the non-Interstate designation denotes a class of roads on which certain classes of trucks might be prohibited? If so, could a desire or need to allow trucks be a reason for posting the Interstate number?
If I'm not mistaken, this was the specific rationale for North Carolina's I-795 (though the concurrency with US 117 has since been removed).
(edit to fix minor typo)
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:25:55 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned I-180 in Illinois yet.
You mean other than the OP, right?
My nomination: H*.*
Quote from: TheStranger on February 09, 2015, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 09, 2015, 12:51:06 PM
Quote from: english si on February 09, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.
....
Are there any situations in which the non-Interstate designation denotes a class of roads on which certain classes of trucks might be prohibited? If so, could a desire or need to allow trucks be a reason for posting the Interstate number?
If I'm not mistaken, this was the specific rational for North Carolina's I-795 (though the concurrency with US 117 has since been removed).
I believe that's true and I noted it in an earlier post, though in passing. I wonder if there are any others?
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:27:00 PM
My nomination: H*.*
So that would be just I-H-201, right? The others being one-digit?
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:58:24 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2015, 11:43:58 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet? Okay, here goes.
I-238
:drops mic, walks off:
Not needing a number is different from needing its number changed.
Just going with the OP here. A 3di that shouldn't have an interstate designation. I think 238 fits this. It could easily just stay CA-238.
Not really.
1. I-238 is built to interstate standards and carries a lot of out-of-area traffic, especially trucks as I-580 does not allow trucks through Oakland. Interstate status makes it clearer that it's a good through route. CA 238 is a surface street boulevard.
2. If you follow CA 238 north to its end you don't end up on I-238. To get on I-238 you must turn and go a couple of blocks on other streets to get to the freeway entrance. Likewise if you follow I-238 to its east end if you don't take an exit you end up on I-580, not CA 238.
3. I-238's upgrade to interstate standards was built with interstate funds.
I-238 should have an interstate number, just not that one. I-480 is the obvious choice, now that it's been decades since the Embarcadero Freeway was open.
I-238's number should be "TO-580". Eliminate the unnecessary 3di altogether. Perfect example of a glorified system of exit ramps. Just as Texas doesn't sign 345, California shouldn't sign 238.
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 01:34:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:27:00 PM
My nomination: H*.*
So that would be just I-H-201, right? The others being one-digit?
No. I was harking back to the good old days of DOS. H*.* meaning anything beginning with H. The H- highways are not useful for interstate traffic.
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:36:52 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
Not really.
1. I-238 is built to interstate standards and carries a lot of out-of-area traffic, especially trucks as I-580 does not allow trucks through Oakland. Interstate status makes it clearer that it's a good through route. CA 238 is a surface street boulevard.
2. If you follow CA 238 north to its end you don't end up on I-238. To get on I-238 you must turn and go a couple of blocks on other streets to get to the freeway entrance. Likewise if you follow I-238 to its east end if you don't take an exit you end up on I-580, not CA 238.
3. I-238's upgrade to interstate standards was built with interstate funds.
I-238 should have an interstate number, just not that one. I-480 is the obvious choice, now that it's been decades since the Embarcadero Freeway was open.
I-238's number should be "TO-580". Eliminate the unnecessary 3di altogether. Perfect example of a glorified system of exit ramps. Just as Texas doesn't sign 345, California shouldn't sign 238.
Why do roads have numbers? So you know where to turn and can concisely describe your location if you're stalled or there's an accident. "To 580" is not unique, and the exits off of it would be a issue with panicky drivers on a fuzzy cellphone.
Should all the shortest interstates on Kurumi's list also be eliminated? I-238 is too long to even be on the list...
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/long3di.html
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 01:34:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:27:00 PM
My nomination: H*.*
So that would be just I-H-201, right? The others being one-digit?
No. I was harking back to the good old days of DOS. H*.* meaning anything beginning with H. The H- highways are not useful for interstate traffic.
The Hawaii freeways received the Interstate shields due to the funding used to build those roads (and if I'm not mistaken, all of them pass near active military bases).
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.
I-291 in CT doesn't really need a designation. If it was ever completed as a full beltway then of course, but it's really just a connector between I-91 and I-84. You could get away with signing it as CT 218.
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 02:14:18 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument then that the I-H* routes shouldn't be signed because they don't serve
Interstate traffic?
Would the argument then be that the majority of all 3dis shouldn't be signed as such? I-405 in California, for example, while functioning as a bypass/alternate to I-5 in L.A., doesn't really serve any
Interstate purpose.
Beyond that (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), but the 139(a) Non-Chargeable Interstates don't necessarily receive Federal funding, right? So the shields aren't always a signifier of where the funding came from, but rather the route's functionality within the system?
Quote from: DTComposer on February 09, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 02:14:18 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument then that the I-H* routes shouldn't be signed because they don't serve Interstate traffic?
Would the argument then be that the majority of all 3dis shouldn't be signed as such? I-405 in California, for example, while functioning as a bypass/alternate to I-5 in L.A., doesn't really serve any Interstate purpose.
Beyond that (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), but the 139(a) Non-Chargeable Interstates don't necessarily receive Federal funding, right? So the shields aren't always a signifier of where the funding came from, but rather the route's functionality within the system?
Most 3dis do serve "
Interstate" traffic (by connecting to Interstates that go into another state). The exceptions are Alaska/Hawaii and the I-2 area.
QuoteIA I-380 (US218)
IA 27 in this case, not US 218 (which is separate from I-380 between Cedar Rapids and Waterloo). It should also be noted that the IA 27 designation came MUCH LATER than I-380 did.
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2015, 02:33:07 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on February 09, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 02:14:18 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument then that the I-H* routes shouldn't be signed because they don't serve Interstate traffic?
Would the argument then be that the majority of all 3dis shouldn't be signed as such? I-405 in California, for example, while functioning as a bypass/alternate to I-5 in L.A., doesn't really serve any Interstate purpose.
Beyond that (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), but the 139(a) Non-Chargeable Interstates don't necessarily receive Federal funding, right? So the shields aren't always a signifier of where the funding came from, but rather the route's functionality within the system?
Most 3dis do serve "Interstate" traffic (by connecting to Interstates that go into another state). The exceptions are Alaska/Hawaii and the I-2 area.
But then, so do most state and U.S. routes, so would you then argue for the FritzOwl Interstate numbering scheme?
My point was more this: people driving into California from another state don't use I-405 for its stated Interstate purpose (an I-5 bypass/alternate), though they may use it to get to their destination in the region, the same way they might use CA-57, or CA-91, or any number of other non-Interstate freeways in the region. So from that standpoint, I-405 shouldn't have an Interstate designation, whereas a route like I-580 or I-505, which allow long-haul traffic to more easily connect to the Bay Area from I-5 (or vice-versa), do justify their Interstate designation.
Quote from: DTComposer on February 09, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 02:14:18 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument then that the I-H* routes shouldn't be signed because they don't serve Interstate traffic?
Would the argument then be that the majority of all 3dis shouldn't be signed as such? I-405 in California, for example, while functioning as a bypass/alternate to I-5 in L.A., doesn't really serve any Interstate purpose.
Beyond that (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), but the 139(a) Non-Chargeable Interstates don't necessarily receive Federal funding, right? So the shields aren't always a signifier of where the funding came from, but rather the route's functionality within the system?
Yes, an Interstate should connect to an interstate highway network in order to carry a blue shield. That's kind of the point. If I-405 serves as an alternate or bypass route to I-5, then it obviously does serve any interstate traffic wishing to bypass that area. Or, alternatively, it serves commercial traffic making deliveries to the area from other states. Etc.
And you may be right about non-chargeable Interstates and funding. My point is that many (apparently not all) of the highways suggested received funding from that source, so we shouldn't consider it a deal breaker for the purposes of this thread.
Hawaii's Interstates should be unsigned, just like the freeway portions of Alaska's and PR's Interstates.
Quote from: english si on February 09, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
Ones entirely concurrent with another route? Certainly some of them are pointless.
Here's a list:
Need to add I-296 (US-131) - and it's not even signed.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet? Okay, here goes.
I-238
:drops mic, walks off:
Ahem...
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2015, 10:56:05 AM
For routes I haven't driven, the obvious ones are I-180 Wyoming and I-238 California.
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 03:50:35 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.
What's the point? Hawaii doesn't deserve to sign Interstates that they built to standards? and who suggested signing I-A1 on the Richardson?
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:58:24 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2015, 11:43:58 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet? Okay, here goes.
I-238
:drops mic, walks off:
Not needing a number is different from needing its number changed.
Just going with the OP here. A 3di that shouldn't have an interstate designation. I think 238 fits this. It could easily just stay CA-238.
Not really.
1. I-238 is built to interstate standards and carries a lot of out-of-area traffic, especially trucks as I-580 does not allow trucks through Oakland. Interstate status makes it clearer that it's a good through route. CA 238 is a surface street boulevard.
2. If you follow CA 238 north to its end you don't end up on I-238. To get on I-238 you must turn and go a couple of blocks on other streets to get to the freeway entrance. Likewise if you follow I-238 to its east end if you don't take an exit you end up on I-580, not CA 238.
3. I-238's upgrade to interstate standards was built with interstate funds.
I-238 should have an interstate number, just not that one. I-480 is the obvious choice, now that it's been decades since the Embarcadero Freeway was open.
Better yet -- Truncate I-880 from the MacArthur Maze down to I-238.
Eliminate I-238.
Reroute I-580 off the MacArthur Freeway and onto I-238 and the Nimitz Freeway north to the Maze.
Establish I-480 onto the MacArthur Freeway.
That will eliminate not one but two mainline switches I-580 currently does, and the mainline switch it would do at current 238/880 would be obvious enough, presenting a logical through route from Castro Valley to Oakland, for both trucks and cars, and on a single number. However, that will mean that I-880 would lose its direct connection to I-80, but I-280 says hi. The downside is forcing the public to acclimate to the changes and the original I-5W routing taking up another number (580-480-80-505).
Quote from: Molandfreak on February 09, 2015, 09:47:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 03:50:35 PM
Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.
What's the point? Hawaii doesn't deserve to sign Interstates that they built to standards? and who suggested signing I-A1 on the Richardson?
My point ... [deep breath] ... was that all the points you made about the H-# Interstates--funding, freeway standards, military base--could also be made about at least one highway in Alaska. I see the blue shield in Honolulu as just as unnecessary as I would see the blue shield in Fairbanks. [/vortex]
One major difference: the Hawaiian Interstates were (mostly) explicitly built as Interstates. They didn't have other numbers.
Though not signed as 3DI's, I-69C on US 281 and I-69E on US 77 in Texas should be decommissioned too since, if it weren't for the signing of I-2 along US 83's freeway alignment, I swear that Texas wants to number every new or proposed interstate corridor in that state as part of I-69.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 09, 2015, 11:07:34 PM
Better yet -- Truncate I-880 from the MacArthur Maze down to I-238.
Eliminate I-238.
Reroute I-580 off the MacArthur Freeway and onto I-238 and the Nimitz Freeway north to the Maze.
Establish I-480 onto the MacArthur Freeway.
That will eliminate not one but two mainline switches I-580 currently does, and the mainline switch it would do at current 238/880 would be obvious enough, presenting a logical through route from Castro Valley to Oakland, for both trucks and cars, and on a single number. However, that will mean that I-880 would lose its direct connection to I-80, but I-280 says hi. The downside is forcing the public to acclimate to the changes and the original I-5W routing taking up another number (580-480-80-505).
Better better yet, the current I-238+the north part of I-880 becomes I-580, and the current I-580 between I-238 and the Maze loses its Interstate designation entirely and becomes CA 238 (as a logical northward extension of that corridor). No trucks, no Interstate designation for you.
I-865. Should be "to I-65 north" and "to I-465 east".
Hawaii's Interstates deserve to be called such because they facilitate interstate commerce. Surely tourists are aided in getting around Oahu by the presence of the Interstates.
Quote from: vtk on February 10, 2015, 12:02:53 AM
I-865. Should be "to I-65 north" and "to I-465 east".
Hawaii's Interstates deserve to be called such because they facilitate interstate commerce. Surely tourists are aided in getting around Oahu by the presence of the Interstates.
Not to mention getting goods to boats to take them elsewhere in the world.
Quote from: GaryV on February 09, 2015, 07:37:04 PMNeed to add I-296 (US-131) - and it's not even signed.
I was going by Clinched Highway Mapping, where it isn't entirely concurrent, with a bit not concurrent at its north end, but you are right - they look like slip roads.
I-180 in WY and IL
I-172 in IL
I-587 in NY
I-790 in NY *shudders*
I-381 in VA
I-115 in MT
I-088 in IL;)
I-878 in NY
I-345 in TX
I-894 in WI
I-235 in IA (Why couldn't either I-35 or I-80 be routed onto here?)
I disagree with an earlier poster that I-190 shouldn't exist, it may be short but it provides a very important interstate connection. Some interstates are truly pointless.
Even better move the I-305 designation to Los Angeles. I can see the CA-134 In Glendale and Burbank meeting to interstate standards.
Quote from: vtk on February 10, 2015, 12:02:53 AM
I-865. Should be "to I-65 north" and "to I-465 east".
Actually, I think it should be part of I-465, and the mileposts should start at I-65 in the northwest corner of the loop and go clockwise back to where I-465 would meet itself. I fully disagree with FHWA that all full loops like I-465 should start their mileposts and exit numbering at the south end of the loop. Mileposts and exit numbering should start where it makes logical sense, and on I-465, that's at the northwest corner.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on February 10, 2015, 06:28:49 AM
I-088 in IL;)
I-086, of both types.
One of them is fine as US 30, and the other must remain NY 17 at all costs.
While I agree that I-238 was a bad number choice because there is no I-38, I still feel that it is perfectly fine for an Interstate connector. That being said, I'm all for reviving the I-480 number for it.
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2015, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on February 10, 2015, 06:28:49 AM
I-088 in IL;)
I-086, of both types.
One of them is fine as US 30, and the other must remain NY 17 at all costs.
Why the western I-86 isn't a 3di, like I-384, is beyond me.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on February 11, 2015, 05:29:33 AM
Why the western I-86 isn't a 3di, like I-384, is beyond me.
It was originally I-15W, and it really should have been changed to I-115 or I-184.
Quote from: vtk on February 11, 2015, 09:42:32 AM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on February 11, 2015, 05:29:33 AM
Why the western I-86 isn't a 3di, like I-384, is beyond me.
It was originally I-15W, and it really should have been changed to I-115 or I-184.
I personally think any duplicated Interstate number should have to be renumbered (personally to a 3di). I don't like the multiple 76s, 84s, 86s, and 88s. Heck, I'd even advocate restoring the old suffixed routes over duplicated ones.
^Totally agree. As long as Texas gets to do it, I don't see why the other 49 states can't as well...
Quote from: ajlynch91 on February 11, 2015, 10:05:20 AM
^Totally agree. As long as Texas and Minnesota get to do it, I don't see why the other 48 states can't as well...
FTFY.
BTW, I-097 :spin:. At least not with this number.
Quote from: corco on February 09, 2015, 01:49:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2015, 10:34:17 PM
I-315 isn't "singed"...
Or in Butte
Disagree, NE2. I-115 near Butte has signs. Here's why I-315 isn't signed. It's known as I-15 Business multiplexed with Montana 200 and Montana 3, US 89. I-315 may as well be terminated, but then, you'd take out the third shortest interstate in the country, but, you know, what can you do in this regard? Montana better think of something soon to sign I-315 or it won't be there anymore.
Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?
whoosh
I-790 should at least be rerouted along NY 43 to serve as more than a glorified C-D road. But hey, at least it's actually a freeway now. Used to be a super 2.
I'll nominate I-478. Consists solely of a tunnel and its toll booths.
Quote from: NE2 on February 11, 2015, 07:59:37 PM
Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?
:eyebrow: What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying
I disagree that I-115 is not signed.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on February 11, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 11, 2015, 07:59:37 PM
Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?
:eyebrow: What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.
Who said that I-115 is not signed
Quote from: cl94 on February 11, 2015, 10:24:26 PM
I-790 should at least be rerouted along NY 43 to serve as more than a glorified C-D road. But hey, at least it's actually a freeway now. Used to be a super 2.
Boy that's quite an extension of I-790. ;)
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on February 11, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
What? I think you may need to reread the post.
How you haven't yet been nominated for a Darwin Award is beyond me.
Quote from: corco on February 11, 2015, 11:30:00 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on February 11, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 11, 2015, 07:59:37 PM
Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?
:eyebrow: What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.
Who said that I-115 is not signed
This is getting good.
Pass the pretzels.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on February 11, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 11, 2015, 07:59:37 PM
Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?
:eyebrow: What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.
It would help if you addressed the correct person in your quote then. NE2 was making the 'singed' comment;
Corco, not NE2, mentioned Butte (the reference to I-115).
It's not smart to doggedly correct the person who hadn't made a reference to the point you're correcting.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 13, 2015, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on February 11, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 11, 2015, 07:59:37 PM
Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?
:eyebrow: What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.
It would help if you addressed the correct person in your quote then. NE2 was making the 'singed' comment; Corco, not NE2, mentioned Butte (the reference to I-115).
It's not smart to doggedly correct the person who hadn't made a reference to the point you're correcting.
Where did I mention I-115
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2015, 11:50:37 PM
Quote from: corco on February 11, 2015, 11:30:00 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on February 11, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 11, 2015, 07:59:37 PM
Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?
:eyebrow: What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.
Who said that I-115 is not signed
This is getting good.
Pass the pretzels.
/me passes the pretzels and popcorn
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4149/5046091402_029de93f24.jpg)
Quote from: corco on February 13, 2015, 12:31:24 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on February 13, 2015, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on February 11, 2015, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 11, 2015, 07:59:37 PM
Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?
:eyebrow: What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.
It would help if you addressed the correct person in your quote then. NE2 was making the 'singed' comment; Corco, not NE2, mentioned Butte (the reference to I-115).
It's not smart to doggedly correct the person who hadn't made a reference to the point you're correcting.
Where did I mention I-115
Indirectly, when you said Butte.
No, corco was just correcting the OP, who incorrectly said that I-315 was in Butte. No one said anything about 115 until Billy, which I'm guessing was a typo on his part.
Why Context Matters™
I-375 in Detroit really should just be the final leg of M-10.
I-705 in Tacoma really should just be an extension of SR-7.
I-190 in Chicago should just be the "Airport Freeway" like it would be in nearly every other state.
I-194 in Battle Creek, should just me M-66.
What about the 710 stub near the 210 at 134 interchange in Pasadena. It's still under interstate designation but the 710 gap is still around
Quote from: bing101 on February 14, 2015, 08:30:14 PM
What about the 710 stub near the 210 at 134 interchange in Pasadena. It's still under interstate designation
No it's not. It's never been an Interstate from I-10 to I-210 (despite signage at Valley Boulevard).
Quote from: NE2 on February 14, 2015, 08:59:11 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 14, 2015, 08:30:14 PM
What about the 710 stub near the 210 at 134 interchange in Pasadena. It's still under interstate designation
No it's not. It's never been an Interstate from I-10 to I-210 (despite signage at Valley Boulevard).
Right its hidden CA-710 former CA-7. But the Pasadena Gap was supposedly going to take I-710 designation though but since the Pasadena Gap was not connected its CA-710.
Wrong on almost all counts. It's never been an Interstate north of I-10. It's never been a future Interstate. FHWA has only ever recognized the part of I-710 south of I-10.
(Why do I bother?)
I-579 in Pittsburgh, while I get that it serves an important purpose, could just be a continuation of PA 885.
I-370 in Maryland (although now a little more important with the completion of MD 200) is a glorified connector to a Metro station, although I do appreciate its function.
Quote from: sbeaver44 on February 15, 2015, 05:57:46 PM
I-579 in Pittsburgh, while I get that it serves an important purpose, could just be a continuation of PA 885.
I-370 in Maryland (although now a little more important with the completion of MD 200) is a glorified connector to a Metro station, although I do appreciate its function.
Agreed, interstates that are extensions of longer state routes (or US routes) should become secret desingations or non-designations.
Another example: I-980 in Oakland should be CA-24
And as far as metro areas where there are both state highway and interstate highway freeways, I would say (generally speaking) that the interstate freeways probably still do more as servicing interstate traffic then the state route
MODIFIED TO ADD:
For example, Greater L.A. has 2 2dis, I-5 and I-10. Essentially, connecting L.A. with Sacramento, San Diego, and San Bernardino. The roads that connect these control cities should be 3dis. So I-405 connects Sacramento to San Diego via coastal LA (and uses the control cities to boot). I-210 connects Sacramento to San Bernardino. I-215 connects San Diego to San Bernardino. The other 3dis in LA aren't really interstate and could just as easily be signed as interstate quality state roads. So I-110 could become CA-11 again, I-710 could become CA-7 again, I-605 could become CA-35 (the old routing for Pioneer / Norwalk), and I-105 could be either CA-42 or CA-90.
So while most of the above 3dis are local in nature, I-405 , I-215, and I-210 are definitely appropriate Interstate highways, and within the metro area have the same importance as I-10, I-5 and I-15.
In many other cities, the only freeways of significant size are the interstates. A beltway certainly provides the function of bypass to move interstate traffic. Look at Atlanta. I-285's control cities are all major towns distant from Atlanta, the same controls as the 2dis, as opposed to local suburbs.
And many odd 3di spurs, while short, serve an important function of bringing the city closer to the 2di. This is certainly true of Pittsburgh and Rochester.
Quote from: mrsman on February 15, 2015, 09:47:18 PM
MODIFIED TO ADD:
For example, Greater L.A. has 2 2dis, I-5 and I-10. Essentially, connecting L.A. with Sacramento, San Diego, and San Bernardino. The roads that connect these control cities should be 3dis. So I-405 connects Sacramento to San Diego via coastal LA (and uses the control cities to boot). I-210 connects Sacramento to San Bernardino. I-215 connects San Diego to San Bernardino. The other 3dis in LA aren't really interstate and could just as easily be signed as interstate quality state roads. So I-110 could become CA-11 again, I-710 could become CA-7 again, I-605 could become CA-35 (the old routing for Pioneer / Norwalk), and I-105 could be either CA-42 or CA-90.
110 and 710 each connect downtown Los Angeles with the ports (San Pedro, Long Beach). Could argue that 605 links San Bernardino with Long Beach (210 to 605 to 405)
105 provides indirect airport access from downtown via 110 or 710, and airport connections as Interstate routes are absolutely common (380 as the other California example...190 in Chicago, 678 in Queens, 635 for DFW, 215 in Las Vegas, 580 in Reno, etc.)
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 13, 2015, 05:49:42 PM
I-375 in Detroit really should just be the final leg of M-10.
Then M-10 would be a J-shaped route.
QuoteI-190 in Chicago should just be the "Airport Freeway" like it would be in nearly every other state.
I-190 is fine as it is. It's a bit over 2 miles long, longer than many other 3dis. If anything, Wis-119 should be I-594.
Umm how about split I-580 into 3 parts in the Bay Area
CA-480 can go from San Rafael to I-80. Then CA-580 can be used between Oakland and Hayward
We can remove wrong way concurrency between Albany to Emeryville where I-580 is co signed with I-80.
Then the I-205 designation can expand from Tracy and connect to I-880 and I-580 in Castro Valley/Hayward area. Then I-305 can be reused between the current I-205 @ 580 interchange to I-5.
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 13, 2015, 05:49:42 PM
I-705 in Tacoma really should just be an extension of SR-7.
Maybe. But at least as an interstate, they have to post 60mph as the speed limit. As a state highway they could lower it, and as a regular driver of it, that's the last thing I want.
Quote from: bing101 on February 17, 2015, 11:27:14 PM
Umm how about split I-580 into 3 parts in the Bay Area
CA-480 can go from San Rafael to I-80. Then CA-580 can be used between Oakland and Hayward
We can remove wrong way concurrency between Albany to Emeryville where I-580 is co signed with I-80.
Then the I-205 designation can expand from Tracy and connect to I-880 and I-580 in Castro Valley/Hayward area. Then I-305 can be reused between the current I-205 @ 580 interchange to I-5.
Splitting 580 into so many parts would not improve the situation. The major trip intention is SoCal and Central Valley-Oakland for car drivers. Now, that's one route: 580. Under this proposal, it would be three routes, 305-205-580. More confusing for most people.
I don't think a wrong-way concurrency is that big a deal. It's pretty clearly signed.
If I-238 is such a big deal, it could be changed to I-480 without having to renumber so many existing routes for so many miles.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 12:19:32 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 13, 2015, 05:49:42 PM
I-705 in Tacoma really should just be an extension of SR-7.
Maybe. But at least as an interstate, they have to post 60mph as the speed limit. As a state highway they could lower it, and as a regular driver of it, that's the last thing I want.
Wait what? Where did you see that 60 MPH is the minimum interstate speed limit in Washington? I mean, I don't think any interstates are posted less than 60, but I think it's coincidental, not statutory, though I could be missing something.
None of the three speed limit statutes that seem relevant mention that:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.405
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.410
I think that New York's I-695 is a waste of a number. It was always the north leg of I-295 and I-78 previously. Plus the signs have if for I-95 north on NB I-295 and I-295 SB for I-95 Southbound anyway as that is the vital information that is needed.
NY could use an unsigned reference route to that and free up I-695 for something else in the area.
I already mentioned I-895 here and will not again if one wants to ask why I did not include that here as it is the same thing, but with no real purpose being that the Sheridan north of I-95 was cancelled decades ago. At least I-695 is connecter, though a glorified ramp between I-95 and I-295, serves a major connection between two vital freeways.
Quote from: corco on February 18, 2015, 01:14:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 12:19:32 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 13, 2015, 05:49:42 PM
I-705 in Tacoma really should just be an extension of SR-7.
Maybe. But at least as an interstate, they have to post 60mph as the speed limit. As a state highway they could lower it, and as a regular driver of it, that's the last thing I want.
Wait what? Where did you see that 60 MPH is the minimum interstate speed limit in Washington? I mean, I don't think any interstates are posted less than 60, but I think it's coincidental, not statutory, though I could be missing something.
None of the three speed limit statutes that seem relevant mention that:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.405
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.410
There is no law, just from my experience, 60 is the de facto speed limit for interstates. Freeways around here that are not interstates seem to have greater variation in speed limit (SR-16 and SR-410 are posted at 55 for certain portions, for example, and not for any particular reason it would seem).
Isn't there a stretch of 5 in Seattle that's posted at 55 or less?
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Isn't there a stretch of 5 in Seattle that's posted at 55 or less?
Eastbank Freeway, and through the Terwilliger Curves on the Baldock Freeway. Entire length of I-405 is at 50; non-50 portions of I-5 are at 55.
I-84 west of I-205 is at 55. I-205 north of Exit 6 is at 55.
I-5 between I-105/OR 126 and OR 569 is at 60 if not 55.
Oregon is slow.
ETA: Misread Froggie's post and thought he was referring to Portland.
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Isn't there a stretch of 5 in Seattle that's posted at 55 or less?
The ATMs can change the speed limit down to
25 35? but nothing is permanent below 60.
I think 50 is the floor for urban areas. I-76 within Philly is 50 although the approach to the Walt Whitman Bridge is 45. (Not sure if that stretch is controlled by the DRPA or not. Their digital speed limit signs are posted there and their cops patrol it).
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 18, 2015, 02:05:08 PM
I think 50 is the floor for urban areas. I-76 within Philly is 50 although the approach to the Walt Whitman Bridge is 45. (Not sure if that stretch is controlled by the DRPA or not. Their digital speed limit signs are posted there and their cops patrol it).
I-395 in Washington, DC, is mostly posted at either 40 or 45 mph, but it has a short segment posted at 35. DC's I-695 is also posted at 45 mph. I suppose "lowest Interstate speed limit" is a separate thread (I think it's probably already been a thread at some point, too, though I'm not inclined to look for it).
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 18, 2015, 02:05:08 PM
I think 50 is the floor for urban areas. I-76 within Philly is 50 although the approach to the Walt Whitman Bridge is 45. (Not sure if that stretch is controlled by the DRPA or not. Their digital speed limit signs are posted there and their cops patrol it).
IIRC, the appraoch to the Walt Whitman Bridge is controlled by the DRPA.
As far as posted urban speeds along Interstates are concerned; the Big Dig Tunnels for I-90 & 93 in Boston have posted speeds of 45 mph. The old Central Artery (granted, its design predated the Interstate system) had a posted speed of 35.
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Isn't there a stretch of 5 in Seattle that's posted at 55 or less?
You might be thinking of the "Reduced Sight Distance 50 MPH" warning sign on I-5 south just past the I-90 split.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=seattle&hl=en&ll=47.607176,-122.330221&spn=0.002488,0.008969&sll=47.302465,-122.25572&sspn=0.005515,0.008969&t=h&hnear=Seattle,+King+County,+Washington&z=17&layer=c&cbll=47.607178,-122.330224&panoid=0-ju6_8x-dbpk8NIfYkPOA&cbp=12,141.64,,1,3.34 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=seattle&hl=en&ll=47.607176,-122.330221&spn=0.002488,0.008969&sll=47.302465,-122.25572&sspn=0.005515,0.008969&t=h&hnear=Seattle,+King+County,+Washington&z=17&layer=c&cbll=47.607178,-122.330224&panoid=0-ju6_8x-dbpk8NIfYkPOA&cbp=12,141.64,,1,3.34)
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Isn't there a stretch of 5 in Seattle that's posted at 55 or less?
You might be thinking of the "Reduced Sight Distance 50 MPH" warning sign on I-5 south just past the I-90 split.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=seattle&hl=en&ll=47.607176,-122.330221&spn=0.002488,0.008969&sll=47.302465,-122.25572&sspn=0.005515,0.008969&t=h&hnear=Seattle,+King+County,+Washington&z=17&layer=c&cbll=47.607178,-122.330224&panoid=0-ju6_8x-dbpk8NIfYkPOA&cbp=12,141.64,,1,3.34 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=seattle&hl=en&ll=47.607176,-122.330221&spn=0.002488,0.008969&sll=47.302465,-122.25572&sspn=0.005515,0.008969&t=h&hnear=Seattle,+King+County,+Washington&z=17&layer=c&cbll=47.607178,-122.330224&panoid=0-ju6_8x-dbpk8NIfYkPOA&cbp=12,141.64,,1,3.34)
What is this I don't even
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 02:22:43 PM
What is this I don't even
What, is the link not working for you? Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2015, 03:38:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 02:22:43 PM
What is this I don't even
What, is the link not working for you? Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...
No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 05:07:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2015, 03:38:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 02:22:43 PM
What is this I don't even
What, is the link not working for you? Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...
No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?
Blind corners and hills are common causes for accidents. That's part of the reason why the state DOT wanted to install the variable speed signs, since I-5 and SR-520 have several blind corners.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 05:07:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2015, 03:38:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 02:22:43 PM
What is this I don't even
What, is the link not working for you? Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...
No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?
Yes, there's limited sightlines over the crest of the hill there, and someone who was booming along at 60+ and not paying much attention might rearend slower traffic. Okay, it's rare indeed that you could be zooming along at 60 on that particular stretch of I-5, but just in case...
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2015, 06:34:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 05:07:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2015, 03:38:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 02:22:43 PM
What is this I don't even
What, is the link not working for you? Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...
No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?
Yes, there's limited sightlines over the crest of the hill there, and someone who was booming along at 60+ and not paying much attention might rearend slower traffic. Okay, it's rare indeed that you could be zooming along at 60 on that particular stretch of I-5, but just in case...
They should get out of the left lane, then. X-(
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2015, 06:34:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 05:07:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2015, 03:38:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 02:22:43 PM
What is this I don't even
What, is the link not working for you? Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...
No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?
Yes, there's limited sightlines over the crest of the hill there, and someone who was booming along at 60+ and not paying much attention might rearend slower traffic. Okay, it's rare indeed that you could be zooming along at 60 on that particular stretch of I-5, but just in case...
Fair enough. Maybe they should install a giant mirror so you can see the other side of the hill, like at blind corners in parkades.
Jokes aside, they should put the warning sign overhead or install more variable speed signs (which, knowing WSDOT, is something they will more than likely do).
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 05:07:20 PM
No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?
NTTA has several of those posted on the southern portion of the Dallas North Tollway, which has really awful geometrics. The road is mostly at grade level, but it dips down below the cross streets that also run at grade level so the overpasses and vertical curves limit visibility. Not that it does anything to slow the typical 75+mph traffic (speed limit 65), but the warnings feel like they should be there.
http://goo.gl/maps/83zXp http://goo.gl/maps/3HuPj
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2015, 10:07:27 AM
Quote from: vtk on February 10, 2015, 12:02:53 AM
I-865. Should be "to I-65 north" and "to I-465 east".
Actually, I think it should be part of I-465, and the mileposts should start at I-65 in the northwest corner of the loop and go clockwise back to where I-465 would meet itself. I fully disagree with FHWA that all full loops like I-465 should start their mileposts and exit numbering at the south end of the loop. Mileposts and exit numbering should start where it makes logical sense, and on I-465, that's at the northwest corner.
I know I'm late jumping in here, but vtk's suggestion was pretty much how they were originally signed along with being signed I-465. INDOT changed it to prevent an intersection of 3 I-465s in the northwest corner.
They could always number the stretch of I-865 as US 52 since it shares the highway with I-865. As it is, no one else is taking the I-865 number and it's not I-238, so it could be worse.
I see nothing wrong with I-865 but I-465 Intersecting with itself didn't make any sense. There are much more insignificant corridors that are numbered. I-381 and I-587 come to mind.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2015, 02:08:47 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 18, 2015, 02:05:08 PM
I think 50 is the floor for urban areas. I-76 within Philly is 50 although the approach to the Walt Whitman Bridge is 45. (Not sure if that stretch is controlled by the DRPA or not. Their digital speed limit signs are posted there and their cops patrol it).
I-395 in Washington, DC, is mostly posted at either 40 or 45 mph, but it has a short segment posted at 35. DC's I-695 is also posted at 45 mph. I suppose "lowest Interstate speed limit" is a separate thread (I think it's probably already been a thread at some point, too, though I'm not inclined to look for it).
I-279 in Pittsburgh has a segment posted at 40mph. http://goo.gl/maps/UAyU5
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2015, 01:33:44 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 13, 2015, 05:49:42 PM
I-375 in Detroit really should just be the final leg of M-10.
Then M-10 would be a J-shaped route.
QuoteI-190 in Chicago should just be the "Airport Freeway" like it would be in nearly every other state.
I-190 is fine as it is. It's a bit over 2 miles long, longer than many other 3dis. If anything, Wis-119 should be I-594.
Is there something wrong with a J-Shaped Route?
As for I-190, you are correct it is longer, but it has only one job, and is about as long as the Sea-Tac Access Road/Freeway, which has no state/federal designation other than "Sea-Tac Access Road".
Unless I missed it, I didn't see anyone mention I-180 in Cheyenne.
I would add I-110 in LA. They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb. If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 01, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
Unless I missed it, I didn't see anyone mention I-180 in Cheyenne.
OP Post:
Quote from: Lyon Wonder on February 08, 2015, 09:13:51 PM
3DI's like I-180 in Wyoming...
:bigass:
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 01, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
As for I-190, you are correct it is longer, but it has only one job, and is about as long as the Sea-Tac Access Road/Freeway, which has no state/federal designation other than "Sea-Tac Access Road".
I see two: It connects to O'Hare, and provides access from the Kennedy to US 12-45 and N. River Road. It would also be easier for a visitor to Chicagoland to figure out how to access the interstate system from O'Hare by looking for I-190 shields versus however "O'Hare Access Road" would be signed.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 01, 2015, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 01, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
As for I-190, you are correct it is longer, but it has only one job, and is about as long as the Sea-Tac Access Road/Freeway, which has no state/federal designation other than "Sea-Tac Access Road".
I see two: It connects to O'Hare, and provides access from the Kennedy to US 12-45 and N. River Road. It would also be easier for a visitor to Chicagoland to figure out how to access the interstate system from O'Hare by looking for I-190 shields versus however "O'Hare Access Road" would be signed.
FWIW, the freeway to Seatac Airport doesn't actually have any named signed. All the signs leading towards the freeway just have "SeaTac Airport" as the road/control city. In the case of I-190, instead of Kennedy Expressway, you could call it the O'Hare Expressway and drop a highway designation entirely. People might catch on.
Nope. Without a blue shield, nobody would ever make it to or from the airport. That's why all airports have Interstates going to them.
Quote from: kphoger on March 01, 2015, 05:21:11 PM
Nope. Without a blue shield, nobody would ever make it to or from the airport. That's why all airports have Interstates going to them.
Sarcasm translates poorly across the interwebs.
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 01, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2015, 01:33:44 PM
QuoteI-190 in Chicago should just be the "Airport Freeway" like it would be in nearly every other state.
I-190 is fine as it is. It's a bit over 2 miles long, longer than many other 3dis. If anything, Wis-119 should be I-594.
I-190: I-90✈
WIS 119: I-94✈
This way, there won't be a limit to the amount of airport spurs a state can have. :D
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 01, 2015, 07:36:26 PM
I-190: I-90✈
WIS 119: I-94✈
This way, there won't be a limit to the amount of airport spurs a state can have. :D
Nah, make them all I-980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Highway_980).
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 01, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
I would add I-110 in LA. They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb. If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.
Louisiana has an I-110, so that maaaybe isn't the best way to describe the one in CA. :pan: And that situation actually makes a lot of sense; the Harbor Freeway has 2-3x the traffic of the Arroyo Seco Parkway, and the latter isn't at Interstate standards and won't be anytime soon (unless you believe the land of No 710 will approve a major highway project).
Quote from: Zeffy on February 09, 2015, 10:18:55 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 09, 2015, 10:11:02 AM
Any 3di that is not signed. If you aren't going to sign it, don't designate it.
*cough* I-595 in Maryland *cough*
Agreed.
Quote from: sbeaver44 on February 15, 2015, 05:57:46 PM
I-370 in Maryland (although now a little more important with the completion of MD 200) is a glorified connector to a Metro station, although I do appreciate its function.
I-370 should be decommissioned and its length signed as Md. 200.
Even better, transfer maintenance responsibility for I-370 and unsigned Md. 200A (the old part of I-370 from the site of the Md. 200 interchange to the Shady Grove rail station) from the Maryland State Highway Administration to the Maryland Transportation Authority.
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 01, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
I would add I-110 in LA. They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb. If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.
110 north of 101 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway) is a historic route in a tight corridor where upgrading to interstate standards would be extremely disruptive.
A freeway where one portion is a state route and one is an Interstate is not uncommon in California and like 110 generally was created in the 1980s (880/17, 980/24).
Quote from: TheStranger on March 02, 2015, 12:05:44 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 01, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
I would add I-110 in LA. They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb. If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.
110 north of 101 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway) is a historic route in a tight corridor where upgrading to interstate standards would be extremely disruptive.
A freeway where one portion is a state route and one is an Interstate is not uncommon in California and like 110 generally was created in the 1980s (880/17, 980/24).
I have no problem with the corridor being signed as Ca. 110 north of downtown Los Angeles and I-110 south of there, though if we go back in time far enough, it was all posted as Ca. 11.
Ca. 110 is a "dead end"
freeway parkway that only indirectly connects to I-210.
I-110 links downtown L.A. with I-105, I-405 and the Port of Los Angeles and thus has regional and even national importance (and yes, I know that many of the trucks headed east from the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach toward I-10, I-15 and I-40 prefer I-710).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 02, 2015, 12:22:50 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 02, 2015, 12:05:44 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 01, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
I would add I-110 in LA. They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb. If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.
110 north of 101 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway) is a historic route in a tight corridor where upgrading to interstate standards would be extremely disruptive.
A freeway where one portion is a state route and one is an Interstate is not uncommon in California and like 110 generally was created in the 1980s (880/17, 980/24).
I have no problem with the corridor being signed as Ca. 110 north of downtown Los Angeles and I-110 south of there, though if we go back in time far enough, it was all posted as Ca. 11.
Even further back, the I-110/Harbor Freeway portion was US 6 and the Route 110/Arroyo Seco Parkway portion was US 66 (with 6 overlapping the latter to Avenue 26). As a single-designation route from north to south, it only existed as such from 1964-1981.
IMO, basically any interstate less than a mile long that has no identity of its own.
It was spoken on this forum before but some interstates like I-175 and I-375 are just glorified exit ramps for I-275.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 02, 2015, 01:37:47 PM
IMO, basically any interstate less than a mile long that has no identity of its own.
It was spoken on this forum before but some interstates like I-175 and I-375 are just glorified exit ramps for I-275.
It comes down to what the interstate shield is supposed to mean. If interstate funding paid for its construction, some people think there ought to be a sign saying so.
Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2015, 01:27:00 PM
My nomination: H*.*
They should say "intrastate" at the top of the shield. :P
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2015, 01:34:03 PM
So that would be just I-H-201, right? The others being one-digit?
I-H2: Not to be confused with IH 2! ;)
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 01, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
Is there something wrong with a J-Shaped Route?
No. Nothing at all. (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?r=me.me175)
Quote from: jhuntin1 on February 28, 2015, 08:18:47 PM
I know I'm late jumping in here, but vtk's suggestion was pretty much how they were originally signed along with being signed I-465. INDOT changed it to prevent an intersection of 3 I-465s in the northwest corner.
TX Loop 224 is designated (http://www.txdot.gov/tpp/hwy/sl/sl0224.htm), but a quick check of GMSV suggests, not signed, that way. The I-865-equivalent "tail" is just signed as US59.
TX Loop 323's "tail" is also signed as TO Loop 323, and TO US271/TX155. That's no fun, is it.
Quote from: NE2 on March 01, 2015, 08:01:45 PM
Nah, make them all I-980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Highway_980).
AUGH! MY EYES! I cannot unsee that... I could have remained blissfully ignorant. No thanks to you...
How about I-585 in SC .....? I just clinched this "interstate" 3 days ago road tripping back from Florida and it is the most substandard interstate I have seen aside from I-180 in Wyoming. Not to mention that it was orphaned by its parent when the bypass of I-85 in Spartanburg got built .....
Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.
Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.
Quote from: OracleUsr on March 23, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.
Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.
I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.
The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 24, 2015, 12:20:30 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on March 23, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.
Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.
I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.
The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.
The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 26, 2015, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 24, 2015, 12:20:30 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on March 23, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.
Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.
I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.
The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.
The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0
It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....
This one-mile sign for I-85 (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.99548,-81.975367&spn=0.012603,0.024784&t=m&layer=c&cbll=34.995492,-81.975484&panoid=EMC_DMj1lYwfzy-HbnSUSA&cbp=12,341.3,,1,-30.57&z=16) makes it clear that they're planning to rebuild the interchange.
Quote from: NE2 on March 27, 2015, 07:57:13 PM
This one-mile sign for I-85 (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.99548,-81.975367&spn=0.012603,0.024784&t=m&layer=c&cbll=34.995492,-81.975484&panoid=EMC_DMj1lYwfzy-HbnSUSA&cbp=12,341.3,,1,-30.57&z=16) makes it clear that they're planning to rebuild the interchange.
Yep, it is on the books SPUI. Any idea what configuration is planned there .....? I have my idea which I will post on another thread .....
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 27, 2015, 07:38:21 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 26, 2015, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 24, 2015, 12:20:30 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on March 23, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.
Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.
I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.
The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.
The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0
It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....
There is on the ramps at least since Oct. '12.
http://goo.gl/maps/3JcxL
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 27, 2015, 07:38:21 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 26, 2015, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 24, 2015, 12:20:30 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on March 23, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.
Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.
I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.
The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.
The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0
It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....
Interesting. There were no reassurance shields that I remember ....
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 28, 2015, 12:46:21 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 27, 2015, 07:38:21 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 26, 2015, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 24, 2015, 12:20:30 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on March 23, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.
Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.
I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.
The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.
The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0
It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....
There is on the ramps at least since Oct. '12.
http://goo.gl/maps/3JcxL
Looks like this must be southbound. I went northbound B.L. I-85 and looped back on I-85 to US 176 'To I-585'.
I bet this is due to the new ramp that was recently rebuilt for B.L. I-85 south to northbound US 176 and I guess I-585 according to this photo .....
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 28, 2015, 12:46:21 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 27, 2015, 07:38:21 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 26, 2015, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on March 24, 2015, 12:20:30 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on March 23, 2015, 10:42:25 PM
Actually, i think I-585 is still signed to its parent route, or a block short.
Regardless it's just US 176/SC 9 as a freeway.
I-585 starts at Business loop 85 and goes into Spartanburg as a VERY substandard freeway. I-585 currently ends about 3 miles south of I-85 although there are some long range plans to upgrade the last mile of the US 176 freeway needed to remove the traffic signals.
The section of I-585 that is signed is definitely in serious need of an upgrade if it is supposed to be an interstate.
The signs on I-85 Business now say it does I-585 goes North of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/RZPs0
It may, however I just drove it last Saturday and there were no reassurance shields north of B.L. I-85. I also do not recall an end shield in either direction .....
There is on the ramps at least since Oct. '12.
http://goo.gl/maps/3JcxL
I went northbound and there was not an exit for BL I-85 north to northbound US 176/I-585 so had no idea what the southbound signs were showing. I will bet that I-585 being extended north had something to do with the new BL I-85 south to US 176 ramp being rebuilt .....?