Is Phoenix the largest metro area without a 3 digit interstate? Side note, why isn't i-19 just 17?
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:40:04 AM
Side note, why isn't i-19 just 17?
The overlap with I-10 would be longer than the southern non-overlapped segment (currently I-19).
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Heh. I remember this being discussed on m.t.r. Gotta be a thread on it already.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Several capitals have no 3-digit Interstates: SD, DE, AK, MO (no Interstates at all in its capital), NM (no 3dis in state), MA, ME
Looking down the list, Phoenix is #12. 1-11 all have 3dis, so Phoenix is indeed the largest metro area without one. Orlando (#23) seems to be next.
Albuquerque might also be up there as largest metro without a 3-digit.
Quote from: 1 on June 22, 2017, 08:49:40 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Several capitals have no 3-digit Interstates: SD, DE, AK, MO (no Interstates at all in its capital), NM (no 3dis in state), MA, ME
Looking down the list, Phoenix is #12. 1-11 all have 3dis, so Phoenix is indeed the largest metro area without one. Orlando (#23) seems to be next.
ME and MA are only on that list because of the mother of all technicalities. I-295 ends 10 miles south of Augusta and I-495 serves the Boston metro area.
Technically, Annapolis does have a 3di serving it (I-595), though it is unsigned.
Quote from: 1 on June 22, 2017, 08:49:40 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Several capitals have no 3-digit Interstates: SD, DE, AK, MO (no Interstates at all in its capital), NM (no 3dis in state), MA, ME
Don't forget TX, either. And I'm not sure you can say Boston doesn't have a 3di, with 495 around the perimeter of the metro area.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Most of them are up to Interstate design standards but parts of 51 likely don't meet them, for sure sections of 303 and 143 don't. US 60 runs on Grand Avenue which really has been built up as best it can with an expressway design. The issue there is that there is a ton of older development like Sun City and infrastructure with the railroads, really the Bell Road/Grand Ave project is a good of expample of what realistically could be done to US 60. Supposedly in the early concept stages the planned route of 51 was intended to be I-510. I once asked an ADOT representive why they never applied for 3d designations and they said that they weren't sure. Really I like the Loop X0X system, it is very easy to follow and understand unlike all the mucked up 3ds get in something like Metro Los Angeles.
Capitals without 3dis serving them:
Montgomery, AL (I'm not going to count I-685 as it's clear it's not meant to exist until I-85 moves)
Juneau, AK (no interstates at all; no 3dis in state)
Phoenix, AZ (used to have I-410, which is now part of I-17; no 3dis in state)
Dover, DE (no interstates at all)
Tallahassee, FL
Springfield, IL
Frankfort, KY
Augusta, ME (I-295 is near, but is a loop for Portland and Brunswick, rather than anything specific for Augusta)
Jefferson City, MO (no interstates at all)
Helena, MT
Albuquerque, NM (no 3dis in state)
Salem, OR
Pierre, SD (no interstates at all)
Montpelier, VT
Olympia, WA
Charleston, WV
Madison, WI
And these have no signed 3dis:
Sacramento, CA (I-805)
Annapolis, MD (I-595)
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2017, 10:44:45 AM
And these have no signed 3dis:
Sacramento, CA (I-805)
That should be
I-305. I-805 is signed in the San Diego area.
At the risk of being a wet blanket, Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. Not Albuquerque.
It also happens to be the state capital with the highest elevation at 7,200 feet above sea level.
why isn't the new highway in alabama just the new route, why move 85?
I thought it had something to do with the way they were funded? The loops got a large chunk of their funding from prop 400, a half cent sales tax for Maricopa county.
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2017, 10:44:45 AM
Capitals without 3dis serving them:
Montgomery, AL (I'm not going to count I-685 as it's clear it's not meant to exist until I-85 moves)
Juneau, AK (no interstates at all; no 3dis in state)
Phoenix, AZ (used to have I-410, which is now part of I-17; no 3dis in state)
Dover, DE (no interstates at all)
Tallahassee, FL
Springfield, IL
Frankfort, KY
Augusta, ME (I-295 is near, but is a loop for Portland and Brunswick, rather than anything specific for Augusta)
Jefferson City, MO (no interstates at all)
Helena, MT
Albuquerque, NM (no 3dis in state)
Salem, OR
Pierre, SD (no interstates at all)
Montpelier, VT
Olympia, WA
Charleston, WV
Madison, WI
And these have no signed 3dis:
Sacramento, CA (I-805)
Annapolis, MD (I-595)
1. AL
2. AK
3. AZ
4. DE
5. FL
6. IL
7. KY
8. MO
9. MT
10. NM
11. OR
12. SD
13. TX Austin has no 3di
14. VT
15. WA (edit: thanks, english si)
16. WV
17. WI
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Most of them are up to Interstate design standards but parts of 51 likely don't meet them, for sure sections of 303 and 143 don't. US 60 runs on Grand Avenue which really has been built up as best it can with an expressway design. The issue there is that there is a ton of older development like Sun City and infrastructure with the railroads, really the Bell Road/Grand Ave project is a good of expample of what realistically could be done to US 60. Supposedly in the early concept stages the planned route of 51 was intended to be I-510. I once asked an ADOT representive why they never applied for 3d designations and they said that they weren't sure. Really I like the Loop X0X system, it is very easy to follow and understand unlike all the mucked up 3ds get in something like Metro Los Angeles.
And actually, I-17 south of Dunlap is substandard in terms of lane and shoulder width, which is why it has a reduced speed limit. I think some of the ramp grades on I-17 are also substandard.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 22, 2017, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Most of them are up to Interstate design standards but parts of 51 likely don't meet them, for sure sections of 303 and 143 don't. US 60 runs on Grand Avenue which really has been built up as best it can with an expressway design. The issue there is that there is a ton of older development like Sun City and infrastructure with the railroads, really the Bell Road/Grand Ave project is a good of expample of what realistically could be done to US 60. Supposedly in the early concept stages the planned route of 51 was intended to be I-510. I once asked an ADOT representive why they never applied for 3d designations and they said that they weren't sure. Really I like the Loop X0X system, it is very easy to follow and understand unlike all the mucked up 3ds get in something like Metro Los Angeles.
And actually, I-17 south of Dunlap is substandard in terms of lane and shoulder width, which is why it has a reduced speed limit. I think some of the ramp grades on I-17 are also substandard.
Wasn't parts of AZ 69 grand fathered in as I-17?
If Phoenix had kept either of the formerly-existing Interstate 410 or Interstate 510, we wouldn't be having this conversion. Personally, it doesn't bother me that Phoenix doesn't have a 3-digit Interstate. Flagstaff and Tucson don't either.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:51:17 AM
Albuquerque might also be up there as largest metro without a 3-digit.
Fresno doesn't even have a 2-digit interstate (although I-5 does enter Fresno County, it is not really within the Fresno metro)! Neither does Monterey-Salinas-Watsonville-Santa Cruz (no interstate even enters Monterey or Santa Cruz Counties). Sacramento has a 3-digit interstate that is unsigned. I am not sure about the relative sizes of Eureka, Modesto, Palmdale-Lancaster, Santa Rosa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, and Ventura, but all of them have metros over 100K and none of them has a 2- or 3-dis (Palmcaster has one in the county, but none of the others does).
Quote from: michravera on June 22, 2017, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:51:17 AM
Albuquerque might also be up there as largest metro without a 3-digit.
Fresno doesn't even have a 2-digit interstate (although I-5 does enter Fresno County, it is not really within the Fresno metro)! Neither does Monterey-Salinas-Watsonville-Santa Cruz (no interstate even enters Monterey or Santa Cruz Counties). Sacramento has a 3-digit interstate that is unsigned. I am not sure about the relative sizes of Eureka, Modesto, Palmdale-Lancaster, Santa Rosa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, and Ventura, but all of them have metros over 100K and none of them has a 2- or 3-dis (Palmcaster has one in the county, but none of the others does).
The fact that Fresno, Bakersfield, and Modesto aren't served by an Interstate is the driving concept behind the longstanding proposal to elevate CA 99 between Wheeler Ridge and either Stockton or Sacramento to an Interstate (I-7 or I-9). The wheels were set in motion by the state with its "master plan" to expand CA 99 to a minimum of 6 total lanes over its entire length, and at the federal level by its inclusion as a designated future Interstate (without a specified number) in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU legislation, under the HPC #54 aegis. However, no one seems to be in any hurry to actually take any additional steps toward Interstate status, partially since as of now the entire route is already full freeway (albeit with a number of substandard segments). It certainly isn't high priority to do so within Caltrans, joining CA 210, CA 905, and CA 15 as potential and/or designated Interstates that the agency has not taken or deferred action to I-designate. AFAIK, no one has put forth the suggestion to designate any or all of CA 14 (via Palmdale/Lancaster) as a 3di (IMO, that could change if by chance I-40 were to be deployed along CA 58 in the area). Otherwise, none of the metro areas mentioned above, particularly those along the US 101 corridor, stand much of a chance of gaining Interstate service by either a 1/2di or 3di. Caltrans doesn't have the NCDOT or TXDOT fever!
In answer to the OP question, I do believe that Phoenix is -- and has been for at least a decade or two -- the largest metro area
sans any 3di's!
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 22, 2017, 11:49:14 AMThat should be I-305. I-805 is signed in the San Diego area.
Of course, that's what you get for looking at a map which doesn't have it on and guess-membering where it goes and assuming it doesn't dead end.
Quote from: mwb1848 on June 22, 2017, 11:49:31 AMAt the risk of being a wet blanket, Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. Not Albuquerque.
Gah, I spent ages trying to spell Albubqwerty right too! Despite me using an RMN atlas with the stars for capitals. :rolleyes:
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 11:50:57 AMwhy isn't the new highway in alabama just the new route, why move 85?
Because it's going to I-20, though they could have done a 65/85 concurrency and had 685 meet 85 at both ends.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 22, 2017, 01:32:49 PM13. TX Austin has no 3di
I thought I had typed it. :-(
Not sure why your list omits WA though (I can understand removing ME) - Olympia definitely doesn't have a 3di.
Quote from: english si on June 23, 2017, 04:25:50 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 22, 2017, 11:49:14 AMThat should be I-305. I-805 is signed in the San Diego area.
Of course, that's what you get for looking at a map which doesn't have it on and guess-membering where it goes and assuming it doesn't dead end.
Quote from: mwb1848 on June 22, 2017, 11:49:31 AMAt the risk of being a wet blanket, Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. Not Albuquerque.
Gah, I spent ages trying to spell Albubqwerty right too! Despite me using an RMN atlas with the stars for capitals. :rolleyes:Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 11:50:57 AMwhy isn't the new highway in alabama just the new route, why move 85?
Because it's going to I-20, though they could have done a 65/85 concurrency and had 685 meet 85 at both ends.Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 22, 2017, 01:32:49 PM13. TX Austin has no 3di
I thought I had typed it. :-(
Not sure why your list omits WA though (I can understand removing ME) - Olympia definitely doesn't have a 3di.
It certainly does not. Fixing it...
Quote from: mwb1848 on June 22, 2017, 11:49:31 AM
At the risk of being a wet blanket, Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. Not Albuquerque.
It also happens to be the state capital with the highest elevation at 7,200 feet above sea level.
And the oldest continuously inhabited state capital city in the US.
It should have been first in line for a 3di :-)
Hello Orlando, FL is now a large metro being served by only one primary highway with no children as the connecting freeways are all tolled and under FL law ( the Sunshine Skyway and Alligator Alley are grandfathered in cause they both predate the interstate system) cannot be if they become interstate anyhow.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2017, 12:02:48 PM
Hello Orlando, FL is now a large metro being served by only one primary highway with no children as the connecting freeways are all tolled and under FL law ( the Sunshine Skyway and Alligator Alley are grandfathered in cause they both predate the interstate system) cannot be if they become interstate anyhow.
I found that Orlando's metro area is 2nd behind Phoenix for those without a 3di (it's in Reply #4, but it could easily be missed since the information was in my second edit, after Reply #5 had already been written).
Yeah, its below the line where it looks like a typical signature. At least three users on here did not see it before you did as I hate arguing which on here is very easy to do these days.
Phoenix is most definitely the most populous city in the United States without a 3 digit Interstate. As of 2016 Census estimates the city limits population is over 1.6 million people. That ranks 5th in the nation (behind NYC, LA, Chicago and Houston, all of which have over 2 million in city limits population).
Austin could pass the 1 million mark on city limits population within the next few years unless the city prices itself out of being able to do so in terms of living costs. The metro area and zone between Austin and San Antonio is booming with rapid population growth.
Albuquerque's city limits population is about 560,000 people. That's only 1/3 the size of Phoenix' city limits population. Its metro area population of just under 1 million is a fraction of Phoenix' metro population of over 3 million.
Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 06:14:29 PM
Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.
If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 24, 2017, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 06:14:29 PM
Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.
If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317
Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 24, 2017, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 06:14:29 PM
Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.
If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317
Thing is...what does it add? Really the 3ds are over saturated around the country and it was always really refreshing to see ADOT shun them completely. Overlapping an Interstate designation on a US Route like US 395/I-580 is completely unnecessary IMO.
Quote from: sparker on June 25, 2017, 12:15:46 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 24, 2017, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 06:14:29 PM
Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.
If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317
Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?
I-317 would start at The Stack and would include what is currently the southernmost portion of I-17, and would be concurrent with I-10 for a few miles until the Superstition Transition.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 25, 2017, 01:11:41 AM
Thing is...what does it add? Really the 3ds are over saturated around the country and it was always really refreshing to see ADOT shun them completely. Overlapping an Interstate designation on a US Route like US 395/I-580 is completely unnecessary IMO.
I don't think 3dis are oversaturated, though there are some odd ones that I question. Agree on the US route overlaps, but I'd say that the US should have been left where it was.
As a slight aside, it's been noted previously that Austin is the largest city in the US with exactly one interstate (Phoenix may not have any 3dis, but it does have two 2dis - Austin has only one).
If you look at metro areas, Orlando is the largest with only one interstate - unless you go by the combined statistical area with Daytona Beach, in which case you have both I-95 and I-4.
At any rate, something interesting Orlando and Phoenix have in common is that neither are particularly for want of freeway mileage. They have plenty of freeways looping and spurring off the interstates. The loops and spurs just don't have 3di designations as they might in other cities.
Not coincidentally, Orlando and Phoenix are both much larger today than they were in 1956 when the interstate system was first laid out and funding was allotted. In 1956, neither really needed any spurs or loops, so they were not assigned any. Subsequently, as the areas have grown and needed more freeways, the folks in them have elected to pay for their construction using other revenue streams (a local sales tax surcharge for Phoenix, tolls for Orlando) rather than seek federal interstate funding. Without the funding motive, they haven't seen the need to apply for interstate designations for these roads - and why would they? These roads already have perfectly good numbers.
The thing to remember is that despite the interstates being an ostensibly federal system, just about everything that's been added to it after the initial plan was added to it because a particular state or congressman from a particular state wanted it to be - not because there was any central planning. So you're going to see inconsistency between states (North Carolina wants to put an interstate shield on everything, Florida does its own thing and is not really interested in any new interstate designations) depending on what each state wants.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 25, 2017, 09:05:45 PM
As a slight aside, it's been noted previously that Austin is the largest city in the US with exactly one interstate (Phoenix may not have any 3dis, but it does have two 2dis - Austin has only one).
If you look at metro areas, Orlando is the largest with only one interstate - unless you go by the combined statistical area with Daytona Beach, in which case you have both I-95 and I-4.
At any rate, something interesting Orlando and Phoenix have in common is that neither are particularly for want of freeway mileage. They have plenty of freeways looping and spurring off the interstates. The loops and spurs just don't have 3di designations as they might in other cities.
Not coincidentally, Orlando and Phoenix are both much larger today than they were in 1956 when the interstate system was first laid out and funding was allotted. In 1956, neither really needed any spurs or loops, so they were not assigned any. Subsequently, as the areas have grown and needed more freeways, the folks in them have elected to pay for their construction using other revenue streams (a local sales tax surcharge for Phoenix, tolls for Orlando) rather than seek federal interstate funding. Without the funding motive, they haven't seen the need to apply for interstate designations for these roads - and why would they? These roads already have perfectly good numbers.
The thing to remember is that despite the interstates being an ostensibly federal system, just about everything that's been added to it after the initial plan was added to it because a particular state or congressman from a particular state wanted it to be - not because there was any central planning. So you're going to see inconsistency between states (North Carolina wants to put an interstate shield on everything, Florida does its own thing and is not really interested in any new interstate designations) depending on what each state wants.
The big difference with Orlando is that most of its freeways are toll roads.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 26, 2017, 01:29:17 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 25, 2017, 09:05:45 PM
As a slight aside, it's been noted previously that Austin is the largest city in the US with exactly one interstate (Phoenix may not have any 3dis, but it does have two 2dis - Austin has only one).
If you look at metro areas, Orlando is the largest with only one interstate - unless you go by the combined statistical area with Daytona Beach, in which case you have both I-95 and I-4.
At any rate, something interesting Orlando and Phoenix have in common is that neither are particularly for want of freeway mileage. They have plenty of freeways looping and spurring off the interstates. The loops and spurs just don't have 3di designations as they might in other cities.
Not coincidentally, Orlando and Phoenix are both much larger today than they were in 1956 when the interstate system was first laid out and funding was allotted. In 1956, neither really needed any spurs or loops, so they were not assigned any. Subsequently, as the areas have grown and needed more freeways, the folks in them have elected to pay for their construction using other revenue streams (a local sales tax surcharge for Phoenix, tolls for Orlando) rather than seek federal interstate funding. Without the funding motive, they haven't seen the need to apply for interstate designations for these roads - and why would they? These roads already have perfectly good numbers.
The thing to remember is that despite the interstates being an ostensibly federal system, just about everything that's been added to it after the initial plan was added to it because a particular state or congressman from a particular state wanted it to be - not because there was any central planning. So you're going to see inconsistency between states (North Carolina wants to put an interstate shield on everything, Florida does its own thing and is not really interested in any new interstate designations) depending on what each state wants.
The big difference with Orlando is that most of its freeways are toll roads.
More so, Phoenix actually has a planned out street grid whereas Orlando does not. The really interesting thing is that Phoenix is actually slightly older having been settled in 1867 while Orlando was 1875. Having lived in both cities I can certainly say that the lack of urban planning is really the culprit behind the traffic problems that the city has. The main roads are often limited on the surface, some require you to actually drive through residential areas like FL 15 does. With I-4 being the only "free" limited access road it causes people to pile onto said Interstate but also the free surface routes. Phoenix is sublime in comparison terms of overall design and traffic flow, everything makes sense with the street grid and where the freeways are located.
Loop 101 should be an x17, in which case SR-51 could be either an x10 or x17. US60 should be an x10.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 26, 2017, 09:22:03 AM
Loop 101 should be an x17, in which case SR-51 could be either an x10 or x17. US60 should be an x10.
There might be some merit to the US 60 freeway if it had been done while it was signed as AZ 360. What's the point of having an Interstate completely multiplexed with a US Route on to have it suddenly end?....looking at you I-580 in Nevada. Really the 3d Interstates are such a watered down product that most states that didn't get Federal Highway Fund money aren't even bothering to petition for new ones. Really the 303 ought to be a 3d of I-17 when it is built up to complete freeway standards, especially if ADOT gets smart and routes I-11 on the southern segment from Grand Avenue/US 60.
Personally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes. There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.
Trenton, NJ doesn't host any interstates of any sort either, though one might say it's "served" by I-295 and I-195
Quote from: sparker on June 25, 2017, 12:15:46 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 24, 2017, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 06:14:29 PM
Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.
If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317
Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?
I was thinking the same thing.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 25, 2017, 07:35:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 25, 2017, 12:15:46 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 24, 2017, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 06:14:29 PM
Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.
If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317
Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?
I-317 would start at The Stack and would include what is currently the southernmost portion of I-17, and would be concurrent with I-10 for a few miles until the Superstition Transition.
Okay, gotcha. Incidentally, did you move? You used to live in Gilbert, if I'm not mistaken.
Quote from: hm insulators on June 29, 2017, 01:23:55 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 25, 2017, 07:35:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 25, 2017, 12:15:46 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 24, 2017, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2017, 06:14:29 PM
Could the 101 qualify for an interstate? It would make sense that at least that one be a 3di.
If I would make the existing freeways Interstates, here is how I would do them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410 (I-210 would probably be reserved for SR 210 in Tucson)
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317
Since the freeway portion of US 60 east of I-10 doesn't intersect I-17, wouldn't that be more appropriately designated as I-310 rather than I-317?
I-317 would start at The Stack and would include what is currently the southernmost portion of I-17, and would be concurrent with I-10 for a few miles until the Superstition Transition.
Okay, gotcha. Incidentally, did you move? You used to live in Gilbert, if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, I moved. I live with my parents, so I moved with them.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 26, 2017, 09:22:03 AM
Loop 101 should be an x17, in which case SR-51 could be either an x10 or x17. US60 should be an x10.
Used to possess an old map of Phoenix metro, circa mid to late eighties. The then progressing Loop 101 was signed as "417", inside an oval. On the map, that is.
Quote from: DJStephens on June 30, 2017, 09:51:25 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 26, 2017, 09:22:03 AM
Loop 101 should be an x17, in which case SR-51 could be either an x10 or x17. US60 should be an x10.
Used to possess an old map of Phoenix metro, circa mid to late eighties. The then progressing Loop 101 was signed as "417", inside an oval. On the map, that is.
That was for the Agua Fria portion, with the Price/Pima portion being proposed as 117.
For Loop 202, there were four different proposed designations for four different segments. The portion of the Red Mountain Freeway west of the Price/Pima Freeway was proposed as SR 217, the portion of the Red Mountain between the Price/Pima Freeway and the Superstition Freeway was proposed as SR 216, the SanTan Freeway was proposed as SR 220, and the South Mountain Freeway was proposed as SR 218.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2017, 09:49:20 AMPersonally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes. There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.
I can see this becoming a real problem if Caltrans does this. It would be kinda meaningless tbh, as the route numbers would likely stay the same, but all the route shields would have to change. And if they do change the route numbers, locals will be very confused that the numbers have changed. It's just better to stay as it is, even with how confusing the LA Freeway system might be. What I would like to see is for Caltrans to completely revamp the entire number system, aka another 'Great Renumbering'. Either leave the federal routes (any 2di Inter and US Highways remain), and the state routes get completely renumbered to fall into a grid system of numbers, or leave all primary routes alone like SR 1, SR 99, etc. The remainder would be auxiliary of the main parent routes.
Personally, I see no use for a 3di interstate in Phoenix
yet, but there is always growth somewhere in the valley that will need a freeway connection, and local dollars might not always fill the gap. Arizona's highway system as a whole is so well laid out, I haven't seen anything that needs improvement except for a way to stop wrong way drivers.
Quote from: Exit58 on July 04, 2017, 01:31:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2017, 09:49:20 AMPersonally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes. There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.
I can see this becoming a real problem if Caltrans does this. It would be kinda meaningless tbh, as the route numbers would likely stay the same, but all the route shields would have to change. And if they do change the route numbers, locals will be very confused that the numbers have changed. It's just better to stay as it is, even with how confusing the LA Freeway system might be. What I would like to see is for Caltrans to completely revamp the entire number system, aka another 'Great Renumbering'. Either leave the federal routes (any 2di Inter and US Highways remain), and the state routes get completely renumbered to fall into a grid system of numbers, or leave all primary routes alone like SR 1, SR 99, etc. The remainder would be auxiliary of the main parent routes.
Personally, I see no use for a 3di interstate in Phoenix yet, but there is always growth somewhere in the valley that will need a freeway connection, and local dollars might not always fill the gap. Arizona's highway system as a whole is so well laid out, I haven't seen anything that needs improvement except for a way to stop wrong way drivers.
It's a bit of a shame that back in '64 CA didn't attempt to actually expand on the numbering system they had (albeit with a lot of variance, much due to topology) rather than the essentially randomized approach they took:
....let's see, we'll replace US 466 with the old LRN number 58, but we'll pull a number out of the hat for replacing US 99 in the desert......86.....now that's the ticket......Might as well move 70 up to the Feather River......that'll give us another 70/99 multiplex up there......hee, hee!.
One of these days I'll do a map reflecting what I'd have done back in '64. I was only 14 when the changes occurred, but the whole process seemed odd to me even back then!
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2017, 05:42:29 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 04, 2017, 01:31:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2017, 09:49:20 AMPersonally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes. There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.
I can see this becoming a real problem if Caltrans does this. It would be kinda meaningless tbh, as the route numbers would likely stay the same, but all the route shields would have to change. And if they do change the route numbers, locals will be very confused that the numbers have changed. It's just better to stay as it is, even with how confusing the LA Freeway system might be. What I would like to see is for Caltrans to completely revamp the entire number system, aka another 'Great Renumbering'. Either leave the federal routes (any 2di Inter and US Highways remain), and the state routes get completely renumbered to fall into a grid system of numbers, or leave all primary routes alone like SR 1, SR 99, etc. The remainder would be auxiliary of the main parent routes.
Personally, I see no use for a 3di interstate in Phoenix yet, but there is always growth somewhere in the valley that will need a freeway connection, and local dollars might not always fill the gap. Arizona's highway system as a whole is so well laid out, I haven't seen anything that needs improvement except for a way to stop wrong way drivers.
It's a bit of a shame that back in '64 CA didn't attempt to actually expand on the numbering system they had (albeit with a lot of variance, much due to topology) rather than the essentially randomized approach they took: ....let's see, we'll replace US 466 with the old LRN number 58, but we'll pull a number out of the hat for replacing US 99 in the desert......86.....now that's the ticket......Might as well move 70 up to the Feather River......that'll give us another 70/99 multiplex up there......hee, hee!.
One of these days I'll do a map reflecting what I'd have done back in '64. I was only 14 when the changes occurred, but the whole process seemed odd to me even back then!
Really the concept the Divison of Highways seemed to be going for was threefold; eliminate as many many multiplexes as possible, eliminate intrastate US Routes, and change the route numbers to what is signed in the field. In retrospect the multiplexes minimizing was pretty sound given how crazy long multiplexes like US 91/466 and US 6/US 395 really got. Aside from just a handful of 3d designations like I-280 and I-210 really there wasn't a ton of point to muddy up previous routes numbers. Granted getting a draw from Federal funds and having the "Interstate" designation was a new fangled fancy pants thing. IMO it would be a lot more simple to leave state route numbers in place and either eliminate the Interstate designation or make it silent. I would hate for a city like Phoenix with a super easy to understand highway numbering system to be changed up now. If anything 51, 24, and 143 maybe ought to be converted into X0X route numbers.
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2017, 05:42:29 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 04, 2017, 01:31:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2017, 09:49:20 AMPersonally I'd like to see someone here in Caltrans revisit how useful 3d Interstate designations really are for navigational purposes. There are so many of them here that it makes (at least in my opinion) more sense to pick out which ones are really important and redesignate the minor ones as state highways....but that is a discussion for another Board or two I think.
I can see this becoming a real problem if Caltrans does this. It would be kinda meaningless tbh, as the route numbers would likely stay the same, but all the route shields would have to change. And if they do change the route numbers, locals will be very confused that the numbers have changed. It's just better to stay as it is, even with how confusing the LA Freeway system might be. What I would like to see is for Caltrans to completely revamp the entire number system, aka another 'Great Renumbering'. Either leave the federal routes (any 2di Inter and US Highways remain), and the state routes get completely renumbered to fall into a grid system of numbers, or leave all primary routes alone like SR 1, SR 99, etc. The remainder would be auxiliary of the main parent routes.
Personally, I see no use for a 3di interstate in Phoenix yet, but there is always growth somewhere in the valley that will need a freeway connection, and local dollars might not always fill the gap. Arizona's highway system as a whole is so well laid out, I haven't seen anything that needs improvement except for a way to stop wrong way drivers.
It's a bit of a shame that back in '64 CA didn't attempt to actually expand on the numbering system they had (albeit with a lot of variance, much due to topology) rather than the essentially randomized approach they took: ....let's see, we'll replace US 466 with the old LRN number 58, but we'll pull a number out of the hat for replacing US 99 in the desert......86.....now that's the ticket......Might as well move 70 up to the Feather River......that'll give us another 70/99 multiplex up there......hee, hee!.
One of these days I'll do a map reflecting what I'd have done back in '64. I was only 14 when the changes occurred, but the whole process seemed odd to me even back then!
Even before 1964 there wasn't much of a system... in retrospect it would have been nice to make more changes in order to have a more orderly system. Still, it's hard to adjust to route changes and I can understand why they didn't want to change more than they had to.
california's numbering system makes no sense
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 09:35:32 PM
california's numbering system makes no sense
It used to when the signed routes were originally plotted out. The odd numbers were north/south and the evens were east/west. There wasn't a "grid" but major routes had lower numbers while minor rural corridors had the three digit variety. Really that all fell apart once the unnumbered LRNs were given actual route numbers and signed as such in the field.
BUT....does something like Arizona really make sense? What logic goes into how Arizona numbered their routes aside from the loop routes in Phoenix? It sure seems like that numbers in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s were favorites for some reason but I could never really pinpoint why that was? Maybe it had something to do with early US routes like US 60, 70, 80, and 89 being present in the state?
For those of us who don't know, what is the Phoenix numbering system? The numbers seem pretty random on Google Maps.
nevada's and new mexico's seem to make no sense either
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 07, 2017, 07:32:35 AM
nevada's and new mexico's seem to make no sense either
Nevada actually has a range of routes that are considered "primary" while others higher up are, urban, and secondary. The idea is to group like numbers together in a given area, an example would be all the 1XX numbers around Las Vegas and Clark County. The numbering scheme workings like this:
Primary: 0-499
Urban: 500-699
Secondary: 700 plus
Nevada deleted a lot of fluff locally maintained State Highways when they renumbered in 1976, that is why you still things on maps like NV 8A near places like Vya...no point for anyone local to really change the name. New Mexico is pretty all over the place like you said but I've found this particular page to be the most useful when trying to sort the state out:
http://www.steve-riner.com/nmhighways/NMHome.htm
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 06, 2017, 10:23:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 09:35:32 PM
california's numbering system makes no sense
It used to when the signed routes were originally plotted out. The odd numbers were north/south and the evens were east/west. There wasn't a "grid" but major routes had lower numbers while minor rural corridors had the three digit variety. Really that all fell apart once the unnumbered LRNs were given actual route numbers and signed as such in the field.
BUT....does something like Arizona really make sense? What logic goes into how Arizona numbered their routes aside from the loop routes in Phoenix? It sure seems like that numbers in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s were favorites for some reason but I could never really pinpoint why that was? Maybe it had something to do with early US routes like US 60, 70, 80, and 89 being present in the state?
California' system doesn't make as much sense because it uses the number system of the I-system and the US-system which might make sense for the entire US (and are backwards to each other), but doesn't make sense if you only consider California. And then piggybacks all of the California principle routes then secondary routes then highways then county roads.
why isn't there a better connection with i-17 and us 60?
I just realized this looking at Google Earth 2 minutes ago, although I suspected it beforehand. It is peculiar indeed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Most of them are up to Interstate design standards but parts of 51 likely don't meet them, for sure sections of 303 and 143 don't. US 60 runs on Grand Avenue which really has been built up as best it can with an expressway design. The issue there is that there is a ton of older development like Sun City and infrastructure with the railroads, really the Bell Road/Grand Ave project is a good of expample of what realistically could be done to US 60. Supposedly in the early concept stages the planned route of 51 was intended to be I-510. I once asked an ADOT representive why they never applied for 3d designations and they said that they weren't sure. Really I like the Loop X0X system, it is very easy to follow and understand unlike all the mucked up 3ds get in something like Metro Los Angeles.
Kinda like the Pittsburgh Belt system, except on expressways (PHX) instead of surface streets (PGH)...
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 22, 2017, 11:49:14 AM
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2017, 10:44:45 AM
And these have no signed 3dis:
Sacramento, CA (I-805)
That should be I-305. I-805 is signed in the San Diego area.
But Sacramento used to have a signed 3di and it was I-880 Beltline Freeway. This was until the 1980's when Caltrans moved the I-880 designation for San Jose to Oakland in the 1980's.
Sacramento's Beltline freeway became I-80 sometime in the 1980's.
The nearest Signed 3di to Sacramento today is I-505 from Vacaville to Winters. However I-505 is in the Sacramento Valley though but not in Sacramento city proper.
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on July 19, 2017, 11:45:50 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Most of them are up to Interstate design standards but parts of 51 likely don't meet them, for sure sections of 303 and 143 don't. US 60 runs on Grand Avenue which really has been built up as best it can with an expressway design. The issue there is that there is a ton of older development like Sun City and infrastructure with the railroads, really the Bell Road/Grand Ave project is a good of expample of what realistically could be done to US 60. Supposedly in the early concept stages the planned route of 51 was intended to be I-510. I once asked an ADOT representive why they never applied for 3d designations and they said that they weren't sure. Really I like the Loop X0X system, it is very easy to follow and understand unlike all the mucked up 3ds get in something like Metro Los Angeles.
Kinda like the Pittsburgh Belt system, except on expressways (PHX) instead of surface streets (PGH)...
the interstates inside pittsburgh city limits are utter garbage, very poor design, terrible traffic flow.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on July 19, 2017, 11:45:50 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 22, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
are the non interstate freeways in the metro area up to interstate standards? also why isn't us 60 a freeway when it goes diagonal on the west side? i was going to ask if it was the only capital without a 3digit interstate, but vermont's capital doesn't either.
Most of them are up to Interstate design standards but parts of 51 likely don't meet them, for sure sections of 303 and 143 don't. US 60 runs on Grand Avenue which really has been built up as best it can with an expressway design. The issue there is that there is a ton of older development like Sun City and infrastructure with the railroads, really the Bell Road/Grand Ave project is a good of expample of what realistically could be done to US 60. Supposedly in the early concept stages the planned route of 51 was intended to be I-510. I once asked an ADOT representive why they never applied for 3d designations and they said that they weren't sure. Really I like the Loop X0X system, it is very easy to follow and understand unlike all the mucked up 3ds get in something like Metro Los Angeles.
Kinda like the Pittsburgh Belt system, except on expressways (PHX) instead of surface streets (PGH)...
the interstates inside pittsburgh city limits are utter garbage, very poor design, terrible traffic flow.
Essentially, square peg--round hole.
They laid them down where they fit best. 579 is really not that necessary at it just ends unexpectedly at a light shortly before the Liberty Bridge for an on ramp. 579 couldn't go much further, as the intersection before the tunnel would be a real pain to completely eliminate, though the light south of the tunnel could have been fixed in some manner.
279 isn't bad, it's just when it condenses where it meets 376 becomes a traffic nightmare as most traffic seems to want 376 and not Carson Street. A lot of merging on a tight bridge with limited sight lines.
Ohio River Blvd, Blvd of the Allies, Bigelow Blvd, all of those could have been upgraded in a better manner where at least freeway spurs could've been done simpler. For BotA, 579 could've continued in some manner down it back to 279. But, that is why the renumbering took place. Even PA28 is a freeway with an inept connect to 279.
Boston, MA does not have a 3di to my knowledge in it's borders. US-1/I-90/I-93 do a good enough job. Although there is a 3di west of Boston between Worcester and Framingham, about 30 minutes or so outside the city.
Quote from: SFalcon71 on July 31, 2017, 06:22:21 AM
Boston, MA does not have a 3di to my knowledge in it's its borders. US-1/I-90/I-93 do a good enough job. Although there is a 3di west of Boston between Worcester and Framingham, about 30 minutes or so outside the city.
For city limits itself, Phoenix is larger than Boston.
When discussing metro areas (the original intent of this thread), I-495 (the 3di you're talking about) is considered to be part of the metro area.