AARoads Forum

Lets put this topic to a poll:

Do you consider Interstate 35 one continuous route?

or

Do you consider it to be three discontinuous segments interrupted by their evil brothers Interstate 35E and Interstate 35W.......twice?

Thoughts?

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 25, 2016, 03:12:49 PM
Lets put this topic to a poll:

Do you consider Interstate 35 one continuous route?

or

Do you consider it to be three discontinuous segments interrupted by their evil brothers Interstate 35E and Interstate 35W.......twice?

Thoughts?

I say it's continuous.

As a number, it's continuous. The intention is that the route is all 35, while you're just given choices at two points as to which way to continue on 35. I think all suffixed routes, historically, were intended to be continuous, maybe with the exception of 5W.

continuous

Due to the splits I consider three separate I-35s exist. The southern one from Laredo to Hillsboro, the central one from Denton to Burnsville MN, and the northern one from Lino Lakes to Duluth. There are I-35E and I-35W between Hillsboro and Denton and between Burnsville and Lino Lakes, yes, but no plain I-35 (or I-35C, for that matter).

The same applies to US routes (applying this, for some time US 31 didn't exist in Kentucky at all).

You forgot to add the poll :pan:

It's continuous, just like US 19, 25, 31, and 70.

Since both DOT's in TX and MN use the post mileage from the main I-35 alignment on one of the "split" routes (the east branch in both states) as an overall in-state indicator, I would say that the intent was to provide a continuous route along the full corridor (although given the restrictions on I-35E in MN it might have behooved MNDOT to switch the through mileage to 35W!).  In short, it's continuous, IMO.

Quote from: 1 on August 25, 2016, 03:32:06 PM
You forgot to add the poll :pan:

It's continuous, just like US 19, 25, 31, and 70.

You can choose both "yes" and "no" on the poll.  Sounds like something that Sir Humphrey Appleby (Yes Minister) would set up.

Quote from: roadman on August 25, 2016, 03:57:53 PM

Quote from: 1 on August 25, 2016, 03:32:06 PM
You forgot to add the poll :pan:

It's continuous, just like US 19, 25, 31, and 70.

You can choose both "yes" and "no" on the poll.  Sounds like something that Sir Humphrey Appleby (Yes Minister) would set up.

Frankly I don't care about the poll as much as I do the discussion.  I didn't really want a bunch of yeses and nos, I really wanted to know what you thought and why.  I jut put the poll there because apparently if you mention poll, it has to have a poll. 

Quote from: coatimundi on August 25, 2016, 03:18:01 PM
As a number, it's continuous. The intention is that the route is all 35, while you're just given choices at two points as to which way to continue on 35. I think all suffixed routes, historically, were intended to be continuous, maybe with the exception of 5W.

The Interstate system had way more suffixed spur routes from what I recall (80S/76, 80N/western 84, 15E/western 86, 81E/380, 70S/270).  Not the biggest fan of that.

California's suffixed interstates were all designed to be loop routes (5E/5W, 15E) from what I understand, much like the past 99W/99E split.

Quote from: coatimundi on August 25, 2016, 03:18:01 PM
As a number, it's continuous. The intention is that the route is all 35, while you're just given choices at two points as to which way to continue on 35. I think all suffixed routes, historically, were intended to be continuous, maybe with the exception of 5W.

I-35W (now I-135) in Kansas only went from Wichita to I-70 in Salina.


iPhone

Quote from: TheStranger on August 25, 2016, 07:49:06 PM
California's suffixed interstates were all designed to be loop routes (5E/5W, 15E) from what I understand, much like the past 99W/99E split.

As California was a latecomer to the whole milepost/exit number concept,  the whole idea of "through route" vs. "discontinuous route" probably didn't occur to the old Division of Highways -- even though the planned I-5W would have had a substantial (48-mile) multiplex with I-80.  Even so, if mileage indication would have been a consideration then, the through/continuous mileage likely would have been over I-5E as the more direct route; whether the aggregate mileage of I-5W would have included that 48 miles over I-80 is moot today; the '64 renumbering made it discontinuous in any case.

I believe that if it wasn't for I-69 and its branches in Texas, it would have been easier to eventually eliminate the I-35W/I-35E labels and just use an even number (I-x35) for Texas and Minnesota.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on August 25, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
I believe that if it wasn't for I-69 and its branches in Texas, it would have been easier to eventually eliminate the I-35W/I-35E labels and just use an even number (I-x35) for Texas and Minnesota.

Who would get it though? This would be extremely controversial in DFW. Dallas is the obvious choice because of larger population and prominence. But it would only stoke Fort Worth's culture of inferiority.

The suffixed I-69's is completely ridiculous. It shows you how bickering among little towns and the attempt to appease them can result in stupid stuff happening with highways.

Continuous because one of the I-35 branches (I-35E in Dallas and I-35W in Minneapolis) continue with the regular I-35 milemarkers and exit numbers.

Instead of an east-west split, why wasn't a 3DI assigned for one of the routes through DFW and the Twin Cities?

Quote from: golden eagle on August 26, 2016, 10:04:56 AM
Instead of an east-west split, why wasn't a 3DI assigned for one of the routes through DFW and the Twin Cities?

The problem comes in with the size of the cities involved, or their political pull.  Fort Worth is significantly smaller than Dallas, but has some political pull.  Saint Paul is close in size to Minneapolis.  I can see the I-35E-W split more in the Twin Cities than around Dalls-Ft Worth (which should be the one to get either a different 2di a la I-33, or a 3di a la I-235).

Quote from: golden eagle on August 26, 2016, 10:04:56 AM
Instead of an east-west split, why wasn't a 3DI assigned for one of the routes through DFW and the Twin Cities?

Fort Worth and Saint Paul would bitch too hard about not having a mainline interstate pass through them.

If it were up to me, 287 would be upgraded to an interstate all the way to Amarillo (I-38 or I-33 would work, depending on if you wanted to go all the way to Limon/Denver/Colorado Springs/Pueblo or Raton), and 35W south of the 287 split would be a continuation of 38. 35W north of the split would be I-335 to Denton.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 25, 2016, 05:10:36 PM

Quote from: roadman on August 25, 2016, 03:57:53 PM

Quote from: 1 on August 25, 2016, 03:32:06 PM
You forgot to add the poll :pan:

It's continuous, just like US 19, 25, 31, and 70.

You can choose both "yes" and "no" on the poll.  Sounds like something that Sir Humphrey Appleby (Yes Minister) would set up.

Frankly I don't care about the poll as much as I do the discussion.  I didn't really want a bunch of yeses and nos, I really wanted to know what you thought and why.  I jut put the poll there because apparently if you mention poll, it has to have a poll. 

So noted.  Just thought I'd point it out.

Quote from: golden eagle on August 26, 2016, 10:04:56 AM
Instead of an east-west split, why wasn't a 3DI assigned for one of the routes through DFW and the Twin Cities?

In both cases, neither town (Dallas, Ft. Worth Minneapolis and St. Paul) wanted to relinquish the I-35 number.  Neither town wanted to be favored over the other.  Believe it or not, I-35W (or I-35E for the sake of example) is still a main line interstate whereas I-335 is an axillary interstate.    Even though visually they look the same (both are on 36" x 24" shields) they are no where near the same politically. 

It isn't just a coincidence that where the two I-35s are, there are also Major League baseball teams that use the state name as their "city" instead of (Dallas, Ft. Worth Minneapolis or St. Paul.  And, at first, both teams played in a suburb of the combined metropolitan area between the two cities (Arlington and Bloominton).   It's because neither town wanted the other to claim it. 

I would consider it to be one continuous route, very similar to river with an island in the middle. You still get from the North to the South or vice-versa on the same route or river regardless of which branch you take.

Quote from: amroad17 on August 26, 2016, 04:41:39 AM
Continuous because one of the I-35 branches (I-35E in Dallas and I-35W in Minneapolis) continue with the regular I-35 milemarkers and exit numbers.

I-35E in St Paul has the regular milemarkers and exit numbers, not 35W in Minneapolis.

Yes.  I stand corrected.

Continuous, precisely because of the exit numbers and because Minnesota (at least) has the actual legal definition of what is I-35 following 35E. I've gotten in Wikipedia spats with people who think otherwise and seem insistent on presenting it as being a broken route.

Going off what Brandon said, in Minnesota's case there really isn't a clear winner. Minneapolis is larger, but St. Paul is the state capital. There really is no way to pick one over the other.

When in doubt, follow the exit numbers.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 27, 2016, 07:03:02 PM
Going off what Brandon said, in Minnesota's case there really isn't a clear winner. Minneapolis is larger, but St. Paul is the state capital. There really is no way to pick one over the other.

I consider it to be one continuous route, with divided sections along the corridor.  I like what TxDOT did at the new Hillsboro interchange, not having exit numbers for either route, because neither route is an exit, but each is a continuation.  I suspect they'll do the same thing in the new Denton interchange.  Through traffic lacking a driver preference for one or the other can go either way and know that they both go to the same place.  That's what a divided route ought to do.

I grew up in Texas always aware of I-35 E & W in DFW. As a child road-geek, I remember puzzling about why and how this came to be. [Remember, I'm an old fart, this was in the pre-internet days when historic stuff of this nature was much more difficult to research]  Eventually I reasoned - guessed, really - that the Ft. Worth routing must have been the "preferred" route as it was straighter and shorter, therefore was the "real" I-35; Dallas, being so much larger, must have had the political pull to keep the I-35 name rather than be a loop/spur route. Simplistic, of course, but I still have a preference for short/direct/straight routing. (e.g. In LA, I-10 v I-12 really 'bugs' me)

The idea of the "parkway" section of I-35E in SP niggles a bit, too. If it's got the Interstate shield, it doesn't feel right for it not to be up to Interstate standards, IMHO.

In Texas, 35W always seemed newer, quicker and easier to drive that 35E.  The new 30/35W made 35W the best option for thru traffic. I imagine the new 30/35E interchange will be just as nice, when/if they ever get finished with it.

Is 35W newer than 35E, or just a better design?

The section of I-35W in south Fort Worth was rebuilt in, I believe, the 80s, so it's nice and modern. The whole route through Dallas is old and not well designed.  North of the southern junction with Loop 12, it's full of broad, sweeping curves, and a few pretty sharp ones.  The stretch in north Fort Worth is also old and inadequate for the traffic, but is at least of relatively straight alignment.  This section is being rebuilt, so 35W will still be the route with better design.

There are plans to rebuild I-35E from US 67 to Loop 12 in the 2017 to 2030 timeframe, excluding the Mixmaster currently under construction.  I'm sure that will help, but they're pretty well stuck with a less-than-ideal alignment.  I'd say 35W is both newer (or soon will be) and of better design.  The speed limit is scheduled to be set at 70 all the way through Fort Worth after construction is finished.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 26, 2016, 10:29:37 AM
Fort Worth and Saint Paul would bitch too hard about not having a mainline interstate pass through them.

What are I-20 and I-94, chopped liver?

Could I-35 in the DFW Metroplex have simply been routed N/S in between the two cities, via Arlington? The cities could then be accessed via I-30/I-20 or some other short spur.

Quote from: TR69 on August 29, 2016, 09:28:34 PM
Could I-35 in the DFW Metroplex have simply been routed N/S in between the two cities, via Arlington? The cities could then be accessed via I-30/I-20 or some other short spur.

Then they'd *both* bitch about being neglected in the process of doling out north-south interstates.  With the political history each city has had (local, state, federal), it is doubtful that either city would have lost out on something as economically important as interstate placement... something would have been done to hinder any process of an in-between interstate while lobbyists and landowners along alternate paths would have made regular trips to Austin and/or Washington to plead the case for a different route (or routes).

Quote from: TR69 on August 29, 2016, 09:28:34 PM
Could I-35 in the DFW Metroplex have simply been routed N/S in between the two cities, via Arlington? The cities could then be accessed via I-30/I-20 or some other short spur.

Both were built on the footprint of pre-existing US highways, (35E = US 77, 35W = US 81 & US 377) so there was already some ROW rather than going thru the whole design/land acquisition/NIMBY headaches than would have ensued.