I almost did not start this thread because the subject matter of this blog post (http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/tedium-syndication-highways) has been thoroughly hashed out in this Forum, but I decided to go ahead because it is interesting to see these matters discussed in the outside world. :cool:
What? No mention of I-238?
I did a quick scan through, and I saw some obvious choices for it, like I-170, the two I-180s (IL and Cheyenne), I-99 and I-69. However, where are I-97, I-73, I-74 and the potential I-85 extension? I think these deserve mention as well, although in the case of I-85, it already broke the rule south of Atlanta.
All in all, it's an interesting read!
The blog post's discussion of I-69 overlooks how the route splits into three suffixed routes (I-69W, I-69C, I-69E) in south Texas. And that is a new exception to the rules, unlike the old I-35W/I-35E splits which were discussed.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 08, 2015, 11:10:25 AM
What? No mention of I-238?
California, right? I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it. Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.
They did not mention the discontinuity of I-95 either. That is a surprise. And then there's the subtext throughout the article, summarized by the last sentence: "But unlike high-speed rail, the federal government loves building freeways–even if they don't go anywhere or they destroy neighborhoods in the process." In other words, a certain hostility toward freeways in general. You need freeways to get around effectively. A missing freeway is often a huge inconvenience for the very residents of these neighborhoods whose character has been preserved (it's harder for them to get to other places they might want to go) as well as for longer distance travelers.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on December 08, 2015, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 08, 2015, 11:10:25 AM
What? No mention of I-238?
California, right? I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it. Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.
I-238 is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's considered a non-chargeable interstate, which means it's basically state funded and not really a federal interstate. Second, AASHTO suggested the possibility of I-238 being part of I-580 if Caltrans designated the portion that is now 580 from San Rafael to Richmond I-180. But because California doesn't allow route duplication, I-238 it became.
They described I-80 in Nevada as "no trees, no curves, nothing" (also flat) and then used a picture with hills and a curve. :pan:
Quote from: Quillz on December 08, 2015, 12:50:13 PM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on December 08, 2015, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 08, 2015, 11:10:25 AM
What? No mention of I-238?
California, right? I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it. Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.
I-238 is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's considered a non-chargeable interstate, which means it's basically state funded and not really a federal interstate. Second, AASHTO suggested the possibility of I-238 being part of I-580 if Caltrans designated the portion that is now 580 from San Rafael to Richmond I-180. But because California doesn't allow route duplication, I-238 it became.
If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180". Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2015, 01:04:51 PM
They described I-80 in Nevada as "no trees, no curves, nothing" (also flat) and then used a picture with hills and a curve. :pan:
Quote from: Quillz on December 08, 2015, 12:50:13 PM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on December 08, 2015, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 08, 2015, 11:10:25 AM
What? No mention of I-238?
California, right? I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it. Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.
I-238 is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's considered a non-chargeable interstate, which means it's basically state funded and not really a federal interstate. Second, AASHTO suggested the possibility of I-238 being part of I-580 if Caltrans designated the portion that is now 580 from San Rafael to Richmond I-180. But because California doesn't allow route duplication, I-238 it became.
If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180". Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.
I'd agree. They also could have renumbered 238 to 980 and just left CA-24 alone.
Who bullied AASHTO into this consent and how? I'm all for thoughtful flexibility, but 238 was not that.
You guys keep forgetting that, Federal law notwithstanding, it's FHWA that has final say on Interstate route numbers...
Quote from: froggie on December 08, 2015, 06:03:24 PM
You guys keep forgetting that, Federal law notwithstanding, it's FHWA that has final say on Interstate route numbers...
And I don't think that one got legislated the way 99 did, did it?
I'm surprised at the lack of mention of I-93 through Franconia, New Hampshire.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 08, 2015, 05:52:45 PM
Who bullied AASHTO into this consent and how? I'm all for thoughtful flexibility, but 238 was not that.
Actually, sweet reason might've done the trick. I-238 had the advantage of not renumbering the freeway being upgraded from state to Interstate. Not insisting on I-180 or I-480 (the only I-x80s then unused in California) meant no need to renumber CA 180 (Fresno's cross-town freeway, and gateway to Kings Canyon Nat'l Park) or CA 480 (major San Francisco freeway, before its later demise after the Loma Prieta earthquake).
Quote from: bzakharin on December 08, 2015, 11:59:02 AM
They did not mention the discontinuity of I-95 either. That is a surprise. And then there's the subtext throughout the article, summarized by the last sentence: "But unlike high-speed rail, the federal government loves building freeways–even if they don't go anywhere or they destroy neighborhoods in the process." In other words, a certain hostility toward freeways in general. You need freeways to get around effectively. A missing freeway is often a huge inconvenience for the very residents of these neighborhoods whose character has been preserved (it's harder for them to get to other places they might want to go) as well as for longer distance travelers.
I noted the same hatin' on freeways. Constructing a high speed rail line can disrupt a neighborhood as well. It all depends where they are built, not whether the vehicle used is a train or automobiles/trucks
I regularly design all of my facilities to the most inexpensive standard, which can sometimes mean that they are slightly against the standards, but would be generally overlooked by the general public. For example, on my Missouri I-70 plan, the inside shoulder is 5-6 feet instead of the standard 10-12 feet, in order to allow the third lane to fit underneath the existing overpasses, which do not allow any expansion to the right. My I-45 plan (especially the stretch through Missouri) is another example, as much of the route follows Missouri Expressways, on which the older road (which follows the lay of the land) would not be rebuilt to modern interstate standards for hills and such until it is time to reconstruct.
Quote from: Quillz on December 08, 2015, 12:50:13 PM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on December 08, 2015, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 08, 2015, 11:10:25 AM
What? No mention of I-238?
California, right? I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it. Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.
Not really out of the air, it's the old state route number for that highway.
Quote
I-238 is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's considered a non-chargeable interstate, which means it's basically state funded and not really a federal interstate.
Yes, California wanted to encourage truckers to think of it as an important route suitable for through trucks, as opposed to 580 from Oakland to Castro Valley which bans trucks.
Quote
Second, AASHTO suggested the possibility of I-238 being part of I-580 if Caltrans designated the portion that is now 580 from San Rafael to Richmond I-180. But because California doesn't allow route duplication, I-238 it became.
That doesn't make sense. What would have happened to the Castro Valley to Oakland maze section -- 180 also? Terrible idea confusing people by moving the 580 route number to a parallel route just a couple of miles away.
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2015, 01:04:51 PM
If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180".
What an arrogant reaction that would have been. Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.
Quote
Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.
Well, they didn't anticipate numbering so many short highways as 3dis. 380, 880, and 980 weren't on the drawing boards in 1964.
You could also call AASHTO short-sighted for not approving conversion of US 101 from L.A. to S.F. to an interstate when California asked. Then there would be no shortage of numbers. :)
Quote from: kkt on December 09, 2015, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2015, 01:04:51 PM
If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180".
What an arrogant reaction that would have been. Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.
I would say that it was arrogant of CA to spit all over the numbering rules of a FEDERAL highway system just because they didn't want to renumber a route.
Quote
Quote
Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.
Well, they didn't anticipate numbering so many short highways as 3dis. 380, 880, and 980 weren't on the drawing boards in 1964.
Regardless, they should have cleared out all potential 3di children of all their interstates regardless of whether they would have been used or not, just in case. Just because you're planning something now, doesn't mean that you never will 50-100 years from now. It's best to not leave yourself in a position to be screwed if the future doesn't go as you expect. Did they think that the interstates were going to be replaced in 20 years like the US routes were? That's the only reason I can think of for not allowing for more numbers to be added later.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 09, 2015, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2015, 01:04:51 PM
If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180".
What an arrogant reaction that would have been. Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.
I would say that it was arrogant of CA to spit all over the numbering rules of a FEDERAL highway system just because they didn't want to renumber a route.
I don't see the "arrogance" in wanting to maintain a route number that had been in place for 30 years, though they DID renumber several state routes as a result of the Interstate system's establishment (Route 5 in the Bay Area became today's Route 35, Route 8 in Stockton is now Route 26, former Route 15 became Route 7/now I-710).
Quote from: kkt on December 09, 2015, 11:50:16 PM
That doesn't make sense. What would have happened to the Castro Valley to Oakland maze section -- 180 also? Terrible idea confusing people by moving the 580 route number to a parallel route just a couple of miles away.
From what I understand, yes... AASHTO suggested I-180 from the 101 to the Oakland maze. And then 580 beginning on what is now the 238. This would have turned the 580 (formerly part of US-50) into two different numbered highways. Had CA-180 been a much shorter route than it was, I actually think this may have happened.
As I stated earlier, I think the best solution would have been to leave CA-24 alone, and renumbered CA-238 to I-980. Given that the actual 980 is only about 2 miles long, it barely affected CA-24, which is entirely freeway, anyway.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 09, 2015, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2015, 01:04:51 PM
If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180".
What an arrogant reaction that would have been. Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.
I would say that it was arrogant of CA to spit all over the numbering rules of a FEDERAL highway system just because they didn't want to renumber a route.
Quote
Quote
Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.
Well, they didn't anticipate numbering so many short highways as 3dis. 380, 880, and 980 weren't on the drawing boards in 1964.
Regardless, they should have cleared out all potential 3di children of all their interstates regardless of whether they would have been used or not, just in case. Just because you're planning something now, doesn't mean that you never will 50-100 years from now. It's best to not leave yourself in a position to be screwed if the future doesn't go as you expect. Did they think that the interstates were going to be replaced in 20 years like the US routes were? That's the only reason I can think of for not allowing for more numbers to be added later.
Seems Caltrans was on a furious Interstate push in the Bay Area. There are just as many freeways in SoCal, and yet most of them are retained as state routes. (There are no crazy proposals to turn something like CA-57 into I-510, or anything like that). There were plenty of (I assume) well-known state routes in the Bay Area that would have been perfectly fine left alone as freeways (9, 17, 21, all come to mind), but were renumbered as interstates due to brand name recognition. Thus, I don't think California would have ever truly run out of x80 numbers, it was just Caltrans logic at the time. I think other states like New York do a better job of spacing out their 3di, not cramming all of them into one urban area.
A few more:
- I-26, especially North of Asheville
- I-24, North of Nashville
- I-71, South of Cincinnati
- I-59, North of Birmingham
- I-81, South of Wytheville, VA
- I-74, South of Indianapolis
I'll have to say I-238, though, is in a league of its own.
Would I-82 be considered not following the rules? It's almost entirely a north-south route, and has been out of alignment since 1980 (although it was once in the proper grid when 84 was still 80N).
How did I-580 get designated in the first place? IMO if it doesn't allow trucks, it shouldn't be an interstate.
I-82 isn't the only one that's the wrong direction for its number. The same is true for I-26 and I-85, though I suspect the latter two are a result of tilting the grid so that the Appalachians are defined as "north" (kinda like how Quebec defines the St. Lawrence as "east").
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 01:33:57 PM
How did I-580 get designated in the first place? IMO if it doesn't allow trucks, it shouldn't be an interstate.
From Wikipedia...
"The truck prohibition has been in effect since the freeway was built in 1963 as part of U.S. 50. Both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) imposed the restriction, partly because the City of Oakland already had a truck ban through the area prior to the freeway's construction. Since then, the restriction was grandfathered in when the freeway was both renumbered and added to the Interstate Highway System."
But still, why make it an interstate in the first place? Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:23:16 PM
But still, why make it an interstate in the first place? Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.
Because California used Interstate funds to build it.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 09, 2015, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2015, 01:04:51 PM
If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180".
What an arrogant reaction that would have been. Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.
I would say that it was arrogant of CA to spit all over the numbering rules of a FEDERAL highway system just because they didn't want to renumber a route.
Quote
Quote
Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.
Well, they didn't anticipate numbering so many short highways as 3dis. 380, 880, and 980 weren't on the drawing boards in 1964.
Regardless, they should have cleared out all potential 3di children of all their interstates regardless of whether they would have been used or not, just in case. Just because you're planning something now, doesn't mean that you never will 50-100 years from now. It's best to not leave yourself in a position to be screwed if the future doesn't go as you expect. Did they think that the interstates were going to be replaced in 20 years like the US routes were? That's the only reason I can think of for not allowing for more numbers to be added later.
They thought the interstates were for long-haul travel, not a bunch of short commuter routes within metro areas. And they did allow for numbers to be added later, three of them. What's NY going to number the next spur of I-90?
If you want to place blame, blame the original interstate numbering scheme for failing to allow for growth generally, and failing to allocate more than one 2di though a fast-growing major metro area both in the original scheme and when California requested one.
Quote from: Quillz on December 10, 2015, 01:19:09 PM
There were plenty of (I assume) well-known state routes in the Bay Area that would have been perfectly fine left alone as freeways (9, 17, 21, all come to mind), but were renumbered as interstates due to brand name recognition.
680 was built mostly on new, parallel alignment to the old surface road Route 21 (except for the north portion that became part of 680 in 1976).
17 being converted to Interstate between 280 and 80 was part of a mid-80s push to have Interstate funds used to rehabilitate the Nimitz Freeway. Today's 580 between Richmond Parkway and Cutting Boulevard was all new-build replacement of the former Route 17 surface street from Albany northwards, Hoffman Boulevard.
Quote from: Quillz on December 10, 2015, 01:15:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 09, 2015, 11:50:16 PM
That doesn't make sense. What would have happened to the Castro Valley to Oakland maze section -- 180 also? Terrible idea confusing people by moving the 580 route number to a parallel route just a couple of miles away.
From what I understand, yes... AASHTO suggested I-180 from the 101 to the Oakland maze. And then 580 beginning on what is now the 238. This would have turned the 580 (formerly part of US-50) into two different numbered highways. Had CA-180 been a much shorter route than it was, I actually think this may have happened.
Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.
Quote
As I stated earlier, I think the best solution would have been to leave CA-24 alone, and renumbered CA-238 to I-980. Given that the actual 980 is only about 2 miles long, it barely affected CA-24, which is entirely freeway, anyway.
But California used interstate funds to pay for 980's construction, so it had to have an interstate number.
In retrospect, it might have been better to have federal funded short routes like 980 and 380 paid for under a different program that wouldn't have required them to have interstate numbers.
Now I-238 could be changed to I-480, if they cared enough to pay for sign changes just to make it fit the rules.
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:30:49 PM
They thought the interstates were for long-haul travel, not a bunch of short commuter routes within metro areas. And they did allow for numbers to be added later, three of them. What's NY going to number the next spur of I-90?
If you want to place blame, blame the original interstate numbering scheme for failing to allow for growth generally, and failing to allocate more than one 2di though a fast-growing major metro area both in the original scheme and when California requested one.
Maybe they should have been paying attention to the Yellow Book then...
Regarding NY, we've done as best we can. At least we actually used our x90s on interstates and not state highways (though NY isn't shy about duplicating interstates, which is annoying). Just the layout of the state. If we really needed one, renumbering I-390 or I-690 would be options. Buffalo would have the most issues; Albany has I-87, Syracuse has I-81, and Rochester can conceivably get I-99.
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:03:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:23:16 PM
But still, why make it an interstate in the first place? Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.
Because California used Interstate funds to build it.
Still not sure why one would use interstate funds for a road that doesn't allow trucks. Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in, and now allows trucks that can fit under the bridges.
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:40:39 PM
Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.
Is that really a rule? I'm pretty sure that as long as an interstate connects to another 3di with the same parent, it's good.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 07:09:06 PM
Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in
Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.
No mention of the traffic lights on I-78 in Jersey City, I-676 in Philadelphia, or I-70 in Breezewood. Also, the truck route along Astoria Boulevard where I-278 gets routed along the Grand Central Parkway in Queens.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 10, 2015, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 07:09:06 PM
Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in
Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.
I-278 is worse. Excluding the section west of the Verrazzano, it isn't close to standards. I don't have a time to list everything wrong with it. It even has a drawbridge. Trucks are banned from 2 sections because of vertical clearance. If they wanted to allow trucks on I-580, they could.
And going back to New York's Interstates, I-790 and I-587. Neither has a direct Interstate connection from the parent. Both are concurrent with a state route for their entire length. The short x80s are nothing compared to those two. And if New York's x90s weren't used up, I could certainly see New York giving an x90 to US 219.
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:40:39 PM
Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.
Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.
Quote from: Quillz on December 11, 2015, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:40:39 PM
Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.
Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.
Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)
Quote from: TheStranger on December 11, 2015, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 11, 2015, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:40:39 PM
Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.
Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.
Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)
A couple other examples of such include I-190 in MA and I-195 in NJ.
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:03:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:23:16 PM
But still, why make it an interstate in the first place? Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.
Because California used Interstate funds to build it.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 10, 2015, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 07:09:06 PM
Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in
Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.
You're contradicting each other here. According to wikipedia, I-580 was built in 1963, well after the interstate system was created. Honestly, I would have had I-580 terminate at I-880 and leave the rest as a state highway or US route.
Quote from: cl94 on December 10, 2015, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 10, 2015, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 07:09:06 PM
Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in
Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.
I-278 is worse. Excluding the section west of the Verrazzano, it isn't close to standards. I don't have a time to list everything wrong with it. It even has a drawbridge. Trucks are banned from 2 sections because of vertical clearance. If they wanted to allow trucks on I-580, they could.
And going back to New York's Interstates, I-790 and I-587. Neither has a direct Interstate connection from the parent. Both are concurrent with a state route for their entire length. The short x80s are nothing compared to those two. And if New York's x90s weren't used up, I could certainly see New York giving an x90 to US 219.
I'm not aware of a hard truck ban on I-278. Trucks that can fit under the bridges are allowed on it (though I'm only aware of the section on the former Grand Central Parkway... is the other east of the Sheridan?).
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 11, 2015, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 11, 2015, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 11, 2015, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:40:39 PM
Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.
Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.
Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)
A couple other examples of such include I-190 in MA and I-195 in NJ.
And I-422 in Birmingham, AL when it's done.
Quote from: vdeane on December 11, 2015, 01:33:18 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 10, 2015, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 10, 2015, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 07:09:06 PM
Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in
Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.
I-278 is worse. Excluding the section west of the Verrazzano, it isn't close to standards. I don't have a time to list everything wrong with it. It even has a drawbridge. Trucks are banned from 2 sections because of vertical clearance. If they wanted to allow trucks on I-580, they could.
And going back to New York's Interstates, I-790 and I-587. Neither has a direct Interstate connection from the parent. Both are concurrent with a state route for their entire length. The short x80s are nothing compared to those two. And if New York's x90s weren't used up, I could certainly see New York giving an x90 to US 219.
I'm not aware of a hard truck ban on I-278. Trucks that can fit under the bridges are allowed on it (though I'm only aware of the section on the former Grand Central Parkway... is the other east of the Sheridan?).
The GCP section has a hard ban on anything over 3 axles. That's pretty close to a hard ban.
There's a height restriction on the Promenade heading EB. 12'2".
Either way, all expressways in New York City excluding I-95, the Deegan north of I-95, the Van Wyck, the Clearview north of the LIE, the LIE east of the Clearview, and I-695 have a hard ban on trucks over 48', which is a violation itself.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 11, 2015, 02:30:01 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 11, 2015, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 11, 2015, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 11, 2015, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:40:39 PM
Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.
Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.
Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)
A couple other examples of such include I-190 in MA and I-195 in NJ.
And I-422 in Birmingham, AL when it's done.
No. Only has to touch a child. Of course, that doesn't excuse the x78s not touching I-78, but they were supposed to and I-478 comes close.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 11, 2015, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 11, 2015, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 11, 2015, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:40:39 PM
Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.
Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.
Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)
A couple other examples of such include I-190 in MA and I-195 in NJ.
I-195 does interchange with I-95 at exit 7A of the NJTP. 95 does extend (albeit unsigned) down the NJTP to Exit 6. The 95 signs start at 7A though.
Quote from: vdeane on December 11, 2015, 01:33:18 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:03:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:23:16 PM
But still, why make it an interstate in the first place? Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.
Because California used Interstate funds to build it.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 10, 2015, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 07:09:06 PM
Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in
Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.
You're contradicting each other here. According to wikipedia, I-580 was built in 1963, well after the interstate system was created. Honestly, I would have had I-580 terminate at I-880 and leave the rest as a state highway or US route.
There is no contradiction. The truck ban was established on MacArthur Blvd. in 1951. When the MacArthur Freeway was built parallel to MacArthur Blvd. in the 1960s, the truck ban was continued on the new structure. The idea was to separate automobile traffic from truck traffic, the truck traffic taking I-880 to I-238 (CA 17 to CA 238 at the time).
It used to be a rule that interstates could only terminate at other interstates, national borders, or major bodies of water. I-580 couldn't have terminated at what is now I-880 because it was a state route until 1984. Also, the MacArthur Freeway was built with interstate funds, therefore it had to carry an interstate number. If it wasn't 580, it would use up yet another of the limited supply of x80 numbers.
Quote from: cl94 on December 11, 2015, 03:28:13 PM
The GCP section has a hard ban on anything over 3 axles. That's pretty close to a hard ban.
Is that still there? Thought they got rid of the hard ban a while back. NYSDOT got rid of Truck I-278 on its signage a while ago; it's now marked as an alternate route for over-height vehicles (Truck I-278 signs from NYCDOT and the MTA remain). Pretty sure NYSDOT considers Grand Central Parkway to be truncated to where I-278 splits off.
Quote
There's a height restriction on the Promenade heading EB. 12'2".
Must have missed that one due to the lack of a Truck I-278 route there.
Quote from: kkt on December 11, 2015, 03:54:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 11, 2015, 01:33:18 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:03:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:23:16 PM
But still, why make it an interstate in the first place? Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.
Because California used Interstate funds to build it.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 10, 2015, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 07:09:06 PM
Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in
Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.
You're contradicting each other here. According to wikipedia, I-580 was built in 1963, well after the interstate system was created. Honestly, I would have had I-580 terminate at I-880 and leave the rest as a state highway or US route.
There is no contradiction. The truck ban was established on MacArthur Blvd. in 1951. When the MacArthur Freeway was built parallel to MacArthur Blvd. in the 1960s, the truck ban was continued on the new structure. The idea was to separate automobile traffic from truck traffic, the truck traffic taking I-880 to I-238 (CA 17 to CA 238 at the time).
It used to be a rule that interstates could only terminate at other interstates, national borders, or major bodies of water. I-580 couldn't have terminated at what is now I-880 because it was a state route until 1984. Also, the MacArthur Freeway was built with interstate funds, therefore it had to carry an interstate number. If it wasn't 580, it would use up yet another of the limited supply of x80 numbers.
You can't have a road that is both grandfathered in and built with interstate funds. If I were FHWA, I would have rejected the truck ban, but they could have been allowed to restrict trucks from exiting in Oakland (a la NYC). If they wanted a car-only route, they could have used current I-880 for that as it was then a state route.
Quote from: vdeane on December 11, 2015, 04:06:07 PM
You can't have a road that is both grandfathered in and built with interstate funds.
The federal prohibition against truck bans on interstates was with the 1982 Federal Surface Transportation Improvement Act.
Have a look at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/routes/restrict-hist-580.htm (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/routes/restrict-hist-580.htm)
Truck ban was there as of last fall with a bunch of Truck I-278 signs remaining. Was still a 3 axle maximum.
Could one of the people downstate confirm?
Why couldn't they route I-278 down Astoria Boulevard back to its alignment? Wasn't that supposed to be a freeway (a small section of it)?
Quote from: cl94 on December 11, 2015, 04:48:51 PM
Truck ban was there as of last fall with a bunch of Truck I-278 signs remaining. Was still a 3 axle maximum.
Could one of the people downstate confirm?
Yes, the 3-axle maximum was the case as of when I went through there a couple of months ago. The last time I was on Astoria Boulevard in that area, at the NYC meet last year, they still had Truck I-278 signs on Astoria Boulevard.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 11, 2015, 10:17:08 PM
Why couldn't they route I-278 down Astoria Boulevard back to its alignment? Wasn't that supposed to be a freeway (a small section of it)?
That's basically what they do. Cars follow the Grand Central Parkway for one exit, while trucks have to get off onto Astoria Boulevard and then get back on at the beginning of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.
Keep in mind that NYCDOT ONLY replaces signs in kind. I'd go with the signs on I-278 itself, which at least has some NYSDOT influence. And the I-278 signage says vehicles over 12' 8'', NOT trucks. "Truck I-278" (which is actually "Trucks I-278" on NYCDOT's signage, VERY important distinction, as "Truck" functions as a bannered route, while "Trucks" is like a "TO" banner) is actually signed as "Alt to I-278".
Quote from: vdeane on December 12, 2015, 08:49:09 PM
Keep in mind that NYCDOT ONLY replaces signs in kind. I'd go with the signs on I-278 itself, which at least has some NYSDOT influence. And the I-278 signage says vehicles over 12' 8'', NOT trucks. "Truck I-278" (which is actually "Trucks I-278" on NYCDOT's signage, VERY important distinction, as "Truck" functions as a bannered route, while "Trucks" is like a "TO" banner) is actually signed as "Alt to I-278".
Signage on I-278 is "over 3 axles use Astoria Boulevard". I'll add that there is a "Truck I-278" assembly on the mainline at Exit 44 heading EB and possibly more. It used to be a full truck ban, but they allow buses and small trucks. You still have plenty of trucks (basically anything that needs to deliver to Brooklyn or western Queens) that take the truck route.
Quote from: vdeane on December 12, 2015, 08:49:09 PM
Keep in mind that NYCDOT ONLY replaces signs in kind. I'd go with the signs on I-278 itself, which at least has some NYSDOT influence. And the I-278 signage says vehicles over 12' 8'', NOT trucks. "Truck I-278" (which is actually "Trucks I-278" on NYCDOT's signage, VERY important distinction, as "Truck" functions as a bannered route, while "Trucks" is like a "TO" banner) is actually signed as "Alt to I-278".
Actually, the photos that I have (see http://www.greaternyroads.info/roads/nyinter/i278) show two signs for Truck I-278, one sign for Trucks I-278, and a BGS for Truck Route I-278. I'd guess that the Trucks I-278 sign was a goof.
I-69 always confused me. The first problem, to me, is the E-W Nature North/East of Lansing, and the second is the trip to Texas from Indy. The latter could easily be addressed with a different number, and the former could instead just be I-96, and then renumber Lansing to Detroit... or make it I-98 and we can stop having that argument. Alternatively, I-94 could follow the history of US 10 and US 16 and just end at Lake Michigan on either side, then the portion from Chicago to Port Huron would be I-92 and the portion from Milwaukee to Chicago could be just I-41 or I-43.
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 11, 2015, 03:48:48 PM
I-195 does interchange with I-95 at exit 7A of the NJTP. 95 does extend (albeit unsigned) down the NJTP to Exit 6. The 95 signs start at 7A though.
that's a coincidence of the Somerset Freeway's cancellation. by original design, I-195 was only going to connect to I-295.
Quote from: cl94 on December 12, 2015, 09:59:00 PM
Signage on I-278 is "over 3 axles use Astoria Boulevard". I'll add that there is a "Truck I-278" assembly on the mainline at Exit 44 heading EB and possibly more. It used to be a full truck ban, but they allow buses and small trucks. You still have plenty of trucks (basically anything that needs to deliver to Brooklyn or western Queens) that take the truck route.
I saw one sign in my photos on the Triboro Bridge. I don't have comprehensive coverage EB on the other side. I was curious if they ever rebuilt the road to handle full truck weights; guess not. I expect the "Truck I-278" signage dates to the full truck ban and hasn't been updated.
Quote from: dgolub on December 13, 2015, 10:17:30 AM
Actually, the photos that I have (see http://www.greaternyroads.info/roads/nyinter/i278) show two signs for Truck I-278, one sign for Trucks I-278, and a BGS for Truck Route I-278. I'd guess that the Trucks I-278 sign was a goof.
All on the local road (and the Trucks I-278 sign was on the ramp, which makes it more likely to be legit than the others), which has no ties to NYSDOT. Given that NYCDOT only replaces in kind when they can be bothered to update signage at all, I don't consider it a smoking gun. It likely dates back to the days of the full truck ban.
Quote from: odditude on December 13, 2015, 11:40:19 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 11, 2015, 03:48:48 PM
I-195 does interchange with I-95 at exit 7A of the NJTP. 95 does extend (albeit unsigned) down the NJTP to Exit 6. The 95 signs start at 7A though.
that's a coincidence of the Somerset Freeway's cancellation. by original design, I-195 was only going to connect to I-295.
By original design, it wouldn't have existed at all. NJ traded the unbuilt mileage of I-95 for it.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:23:16 PM
But still, why make it an interstate in the first place? Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.
I-580 was originally intended to be part of a split I-5W. It followed current 580 to I-80 at Oakland, then would have been concurrent with I-80 and then head north on current I-505. I always wondered why I-205 had an even prefix because it looks like it ought to be odd, but it makes sense for a route connecting 5W and 5E.
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2015, 03:33:25 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 12, 2015, 09:59:00 PM
Signage on I-278 is "over 3 axles use Astoria Boulevard". I'll add that there is a "Truck I-278" assembly on the mainline at Exit 44 heading EB and possibly more. It used to be a full truck ban, but they allow buses and small trucks. You still have plenty of trucks (basically anything that needs to deliver to Brooklyn or western Queens) that take the truck route.
I saw one sign in my photos on the Triboro Bridge. I don't have comprehensive coverage EB on the other side. I was curious if they ever rebuilt the road to handle full truck weights; guess not. I expect the "Truck I-278" signage dates to the full truck ban and hasn't been updated.
Quote from: dgolub on December 13, 2015, 10:17:30 AM
Actually, the photos that I have (see http://www.greaternyroads.info/roads/nyinter/i278) show two signs for Truck I-278, one sign for Trucks I-278, and a BGS for Truck Route I-278. I'd guess that the Trucks I-278 sign was a goof.
All on the local road (and the Trucks I-278 sign was on the ramp, which makes it more likely to be legit than the others), which has no ties to NYSDOT. Given that NYCDOT only replaces in kind when they can be bothered to update signage at all, I don't consider it a smoking gun. It likely dates back to the days of the full truck ban.
Quote from: odditude on December 13, 2015, 11:40:19 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 11, 2015, 03:48:48 PM
I-195 does interchange with I-95 at exit 7A of the NJTP. 95 does extend (albeit unsigned) down the NJTP to Exit 6. The 95 signs start at 7A though.
that's a coincidence of the Somerset Freeway's cancellation. by original design, I-195 was only going to connect to I-295.
By original design, it wouldn't have existed at all. NJ traded the unbuilt mileage of I-95 for it.
NJ traded i278 in Union County for 195.
Of course any highway that was previously a US route prior to becoming interstate.
However, to find a rare case how about San Antonio's Beltway I-410. It has an unusual way of being complete at its concurrency with I-35. Instead of building the actual freeway at the north end of the concurrency for through traffic, it exits into a ramp only to double back as the inner 410 defaults to I-35 N Bound for Austin and I-410 outer actually has all of its lanes come from I-35.
Its not the narrowing into ramps, as I-83 in Harrisburg and I-55 in Memphis do that, but the double back scenario there.