Other than I-99 (reasons y'all might or might not know,) what is the most unnecessary interstate highway in the entire system, 2di or 3di? Let me hear your thoughts below.
I-180 (Wyoming)
I-238
I-97
Didn't we just have something like this a month ago?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21020.0
My votes:
I-180 in IL
I-395 in MD
I-195 in ME
I-393 in NH
I-990 in NY
I-587 in NY
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 01:05:16 AM
I-97
Eh, I have to disagree on this one. The number is debatable (personally I think it should be 83 or an x95) but it's a perfectly fine interstate.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 02, 2017, 01:38:23 AM
Didn't we just have something like this a month ago?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21020.0
My votes:
I-180 in IL
I-395 in MD
I-195 in ME
I-393 in NH
I-990 in NY
I-587 in NY
Newer user, they don't know to dig into the old thread list just yet it seems. I stand by I-580 in Nevada due to the total US 395 multiplex.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI stand by I-580 in Nevada due to the total US 395 multiplex.
I'd argue that connecting the capital city of a state to the 2nd largest city and a major transcontinental highway, especially given the pre-existing traffic levels and relatively short distance, is justifiable.
Any unsigned 3di, like I-305 CA, I-595 MD and I-910 LA.
I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.
I-180 IL
Quote from: froggie on October 02, 2017, 08:24:15 AM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI stand by I-580 in Nevada due to the total US 395 multiplex.
I'd argue that connecting the capital city of a state to the 2nd largest city and a major transcontinental highway, especially given the pre-existing traffic levels and relatively short distance, is justifiable.
Yeah, I'd be more for 3d routes like that it they actually weren't completely multiplexed with US Routes like I-580 is. It isn't like that really brings anything to the table from a navigation stand point.
Quote from: froggie on October 02, 2017, 08:24:15 AM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI stand by I-580 in Nevada due to the total US 395 multiplex.
I'd argue that connecting the capital city of a state to the 2nd largest city and a major transcontinental highway, especially given the pre-existing traffic levels and relatively short distance, is justifiable.
Also the fact that the freeway portion in Reno was always I-580 and only became "visible" recently. If the total 395 multiplex is such a big deal, move 395 back onto the old alignment and call it good.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 02, 2017, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 02, 2017, 08:24:15 AM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI stand by I-580 in Nevada due to the total US 395 multiplex.
I'd argue that connecting the capital city of a state to the 2nd largest city and a major transcontinental highway, especially given the pre-existing traffic levels and relatively short distance, is justifiable.
Also the fact that the freeway portion in Reno was always I-580 and only became "visible" recently. If the total 395 multiplex is such a big deal, move 395 back onto the old alignment and call it good.
That would be great but a lot of the surface alignment was turned back over, see Carson City and the road diet saga entails.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 02, 2017, 08:04:05 AM
I stand by I-580 in Nevada due to the total US 395 multiplex.
On that standard, I-39 in IL/WI due to Multiplexed with US 51 most of its journey, and when its not, with I-90/94 and US 51 in parallel
Quote from: inkyatari on October 02, 2017, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: ET21 on October 02, 2017, 10:13:18 AM
I-180 IL
Most pointless 3DI in the US
So much so that while storm chasing, I was able to walk down the northbound lanes with no traffic for a good 45 minutes
Quote from: inkyatari on October 02, 2017, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: ET21 on October 02, 2017, 10:13:18 AM
I-180 IL
Most pointless 3DI in the US
I agree with that sentiment...
But then again, 3DIs that are really glorified, long ramps are pretty silly, too. I-865 NW of Indy comes to mind...just a long, glorified ramp between I-65 and NW corner of I-465, no other access along the route
It serves a purpose for travel purposes, but for numbering...I'd rather just sign it as "To I-65" Westbound and "To I-465" Eastbound
I-180 in IL hits it both by uselessness in Traffic/travel purposes, and in Numbering/Designation
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 01:05:16 AM
I-180 (Wyoming)
I-238
I-97
I-238 is actually quite useful, despite its infamous number. It is a major trucking route for traffic coming from I-5 coming to the Bay Area - all trucks must exit I-580 onto I-238 and take I-880 N to SF/Oakland or S to San Jose and the bridge crossings.
Anything in southern Texas :sombrero:
I-587. Even its parent won't acknowledge its existence. Entire thing is concurrent with NY 28 (which shares a terminus) and could easily be signed as just that. Lord knows NYSDOT has installed enough 587 shields.
I-990 was mentioned and I'll say this about it: it was intended to be significantly longer. Depending on the plan, would have gone anywhere from Lockport to Rochester.
Quote from: catsynth on October 02, 2017, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 01:05:16 AM
I-180 (Wyoming)
I-238
I-97
I-238 is actually quite useful, despite its infamous number. It is a major trucking route for traffic coming from I-5 coming to the Bay Area - all trucks must exit I-580 onto I-238 and take I-880 N to SF/Oakland or S to San Jose and the bridge crossings.
The number is specifically why I consider it unnecessary. I'm of the opinion just leaving it as CA-238 would have been better, although I'm aware of the history and why it was given the badge.
Same reason I think I-97 is unnecessary. Would have been perfectly fine as either a 3di (perhaps something like 995?) or just an I-83 extension. A useful 2-digit number was now wasted.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 02, 2017, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 02, 2017, 08:24:15 AM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI stand by I-580 in Nevada due to the total US 395 multiplex.
I'd argue that connecting the capital city of a state to the 2nd largest city and a major transcontinental highway, especially given the pre-existing traffic levels and relatively short distance, is justifiable.
Yeah, I'd be more for 3d routes like that it they actually weren't completely multiplexed with US Routes like I-580 is. It isn't like that really brings anything to the table from a navigation stand point.
So why not I-393, which completely overlaps
two US routes (4 and 202), and goes absolutely nowhere?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 02, 2017, 08:04:05 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 02, 2017, 01:38:23 AM
Didn't we just have something like this a month ago?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21020.0
My votes:
I-180 in IL
I-395 in MD
I-195 in ME
I-393 in NH
I-990 in NY
I-587 in NY
Newer user, they don't know to dig into the old thread list just yet it seems. I stand by I-580 in Nevada due to the total US 395 multiplex.
Also, my thread focused on 3dis, this one allows 2dis to be brought in for discussion as well.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on October 02, 2017, 08:08:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 02, 2017, 08:04:05 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 02, 2017, 01:38:23 AM
Didn't we just have something like this a month ago?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21020.0
My votes:
I-180 in IL
I-395 in MD
I-195 in ME
I-393 in NH
I-990 in NY
I-587 in NY
Newer user, they don't know to dig into the old thread list just yet it seems. I stand by I-580 in Nevada due to the total US 395 multiplex.
Also, my thread focused on 3dis, this one allows 2dis to be brought in for discussion as well.
Except for ones in progress like I-14, no 2di will make the list of "most unnecessary".
I-39, in terms of Designation, is pretty unnecessary. US 51 was/is fine for the roadway
The Freeway Corridor, one could argue, is pretty important, as a functional north/south Chicago Bypass, and could legitimately be upgraded to Interstate Standard as far south as I-57 near Salem, IL
A similar argument could be made for I-41 in WI, as it simply duplicates US 41
Interstate 180 (Illinois) - Least traveled interstate
Interstate 238 (California) - Does not follow numbering rules, only 2.126 miles long, not federally funded
In hindsight, I-180 IL, but hindsight is 20/20. In terms of something that was actually unnecessary from the moment it was conceived, I will have to go with I-73.
No one has mentioned I-27 yet... it might not be totally useless as a road, but it could probably be signed as a state route, or, at most, a US route.
Quote from: Alps on October 03, 2017, 08:26:57 AM
In hindsight, I-180 IL, but hindsight is 20/20. In terms of something that was actually unnecessary from the moment it was conceived, I will have to go with I-73.
Along with the extensions of I-69 and I-74.
I-895 in New York. They're been talking about demolishing it for this reason.
Quote from: Henry on October 03, 2017, 08:41:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 03, 2017, 08:26:57 AM
In hindsight, I-180 IL, but hindsight is 20/20. In terms of something that was actually unnecessary from the moment it was conceived, I will have to go with I-73.
Along with the extensions of I-69 and I-74.
I'll agree on the I-74 extensions, but only everything on I-69 south of Memphis.
Quote from: inkyatari on October 03, 2017, 08:54:03 AM
Quote from: Henry on October 03, 2017, 08:41:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 03, 2017, 08:26:57 AM
In hindsight, I-180 IL, but hindsight is 20/20. In terms of something that was actually unnecessary from the moment it was conceived, I will have to go with I-73.
Along with the extensions of I-69 and I-74.
I'll agree on the I-74 extensions, but only everything on I-69 south of Memphis.
I also agree on I-74 extension into NC and I-69 south of Memphis too.
I-175 and I-375 in FL: essentially glorified ramp networks.
I-381 in Bristol is more of a ramp that an actual freeway.
Everyone's picking the wrong I-180. The one in Illinois was built for legitimate reasons. The bad one is the one in Wyoming, which isn't a real freeway.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 04, 2017, 01:38:49 PM
Everyone's picking the wrong I-180. The one in Illinois was built for legitimate reasons. The bad one is the one in Wyoming, which isn't a real freeway.
Why choose?
I-12, as a 2di, is unnecessary. Could very well survive as I-410 (I-476 in PA and I-495 in MA are both longer).
Quote from: hbelkinsEveryone's picking the wrong I-180. The one in Illinois was built for legitimate reasons. The bad one is the one in Wyoming, which isn't a real freeway.
At least the Wyoming one has traffic...
Quote from: jp the roadgeekI-12, as a 2di, is unnecessary. Could very well survive as I-410 (I-476 in PA and I-495 in MA are both longer).
Says most people who aren't familiar with either Louisiana or its early Interstate planning. Long story short: I-12 was not originally proposed to meet I-10 and I-59 at the same interchange.
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2017, 05:57:00 PM
Says most people who aren't familiar with either Louisiana or its early Interstate planning. Long story short: I-12 was not originally proposed to meet I-10 and I-59 at the same interchange.
Whats the long version of the story?
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 10:08:28 AM
I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.
I agree...
In fact now that the number California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.
Interstate 587 - Kingston, New York
I'm surprised no one has mentioned MD I-595. Hell they don't even bother to sign it.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 05, 2017, 02:42:00 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned MD I-595. Hell they don't even bother to sign it.
One could argue the same about I-124 in Chattanooga.
I-15 south of the Alberta border. 2016 AADT of 1,924.
It's so dead you could have a one lane bridge with "yield to oncoming traffic" signs plopped down and it would still function well.
I-980 mainly because its a continuation of CA-24.
Forgot I-790. It's multiplexed with NY 5 and NY 12 the entire route
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: catsynth on October 02, 2017, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 01:05:16 AM
I-180 (Wyoming)
I-238
I-97
I-238 is actually quite useful, despite its infamous number. It is a major trucking route for traffic coming from I-5 coming to the Bay Area - all trucks must exit I-580 onto I-238 and take I-880 N to SF/Oakland or S to San Jose and the bridge crossings.
The number is specifically why I consider it unnecessary. I'm of the opinion just leaving it as CA-238 would have been better, although I'm aware of the history and why it was given the badge.
While I agree the number is definitely funky, an Interstate designation for that stretch of freeway is important as it provides truckers the assurance that the route they have to take to reach the Port of Oakland (because trucks are banned on I-580) is built to Interstate-standards.
either drop I-41 or remove I-894. Both actually - the number doesn't make the road - and here is an entry from the department of redundancy department.
Quote from: dgolub on October 03, 2017, 08:49:17 AM
I-895 in New York. They're been talking about demolishing it for this reason.
More than talk -- it just got decommissioned at the last AASHTO meeting (details in another thread); the first step toward "boulevardization"!
Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2017, 06:00:11 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 03, 2017, 08:49:17 AM
I-895 in New York. They're been talking about demolishing it for this reason.
More than talk -- it just got decommissioned at the last AASHTO meeting (details in another thread); the first step toward "boulevardization"!
Similar to that situation you have I-375 in Detroit. Back in 2013/2014 MDOT was talking about making I-375 into a parkway but never went through with it. My understanding was that there was supposed to be some impact survey this year to determine what to do with I-375.
Quote from: plain on October 02, 2017, 07:09:37 PM
Anything in southern Texas :sombrero:
I was thinking that at first, but then I remembered I-35 between San Antonio and Laredo. I wouldn't want that downgraded.
Quote from: kkt on October 04, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 10:08:28 AM
I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.
I agree...
In fact now that the number California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.
I agree on re-using I-480 for the Sacramento area. It's 2017 -- the "480" moniker is no longer the four-letter word it was in the 1970s and 80s in the Bay Area. It's stupid not to use an available number because some aging hippies the next town over don't like it.
That said, 480 should replace Biz 80, not mainline 80, because of how the exits are arranged. I'm also a fan of marking US-50 as I-305 from I-80 to Placerville, but that still leaves the Biz 80 designation on the eastern half.
I'd just as soon leave US 50 through Sacramento the same as it is now. It's a cleaner terminus for US 50 than it had when it zigged south and then west and then north. The Elvas Freeway is substandard for interstates and the interstate funds once slated for it were not used, so it can't become an interstate route.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 17, 2017, 08:42:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2017, 06:00:11 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 03, 2017, 08:49:17 AM
I-895 in New York. They're been talking about demolishing it for this reason.
More than talk -- it just got decommissioned at the last AASHTO meeting (details in another thread); the first step toward "boulevardization"!
Similar to that situation you have I-375 in Detroit. Back in 2013/2014 MDOT was talking about making I-375 into a parkway but never went through with it. My understanding was that there was supposed to be some impact survey this year to determine what to do with I-375.
I-375 doesn't really serve a ton of traffic for what it is. Almost all the traffic using it gets off at either the Madison or Lafayette exit. Near the end at Jefferson it's rarely that busy but Jefferson itself is. The whole interchange where I-75 exits onto itself needs to be rebuilt. I-375 shouldn't even be there as the freeway should end at Gratiot and the rest of it should be a city street. But I-75 between I-96 and I-94 should be replaced too and I-75 routed on I-94 and the last part of I-96. Then scale the Lodge back to the Grand Blvd. area with it being a city street south of Grand Blvd. and a freeway north of it. This would clear all the freeways away from downtown and be able to build viable neighborhoods. I'm doing more urban planning talking I guess than highway talking though.
One not mentioned yet: I-277 in Akron.
- I-277 currently only runs about 4 miles connecting I-76 with I-77 on the south side of Akron.
- I-277 is totally multiplexed with a portion of US-224.
And if you're multiplexing I-277 with another highway already...
- I-277 would make more sense if it were extended up I-76 east's "Kenmore Leg" on the west side of Akron fully making it connecting on both ends to it's parent I-77. It's only another 2 miles and a few sign changes!!!
- I-277 could also make sense if it were extended on it's western end to follow I-76 west to SR-21 North, connecting back with I-77 in Montrose/Fairlawn -- Another commonly used bypass of the central Akron area.
- I-277 could also make sense if it was extended on it's eastern end to follow I-77 North to SR-8 North to I-271.
I-475 in downtown Flint, Michigan.
Quote from: Porksoda on October 23, 2017, 07:56:11 AM
I-475 in downtown Flint, Michigan.
Flint has a downtown? ;)
I will not be completely happy in life until I-74 in North Carolina is deleted.
Quote from: Porksoda on October 23, 2017, 07:56:11 AM
I-475 in downtown Flint, Michigan.
How is I-475 unnecessary? It carries almost all the traffic coming from north of Flint to Port Huron and also serves as a bypass of I-75 through downtown Flint. I-475 in downtown Flint carries nearly 60,000 vehicles a day, that's more than any secondary street or state highway in Genesee County.
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 23, 2017, 12:47:39 PM
Quote from: Porksoda on October 23, 2017, 07:56:11 AM
I-475 in downtown Flint, Michigan.
Flint has a downtown? ;)
Yes and actually Flint's downtown isn't as bad as one would think. The Flint Cultural Center is thriving and so is the UM-Flint campus. You'd be safe downtown but watch traveling in any other part of the city of Flint.
Also I wouldn't say that I-99 is unnecessary rather just has the wrong number.
Quote from: ZLoth on October 04, 2017, 08:02:21 PM
Interstate 587 - Kingston, New York
My first accidental Interstate clinch. On a recent trip from Michigan, I took the wrong exit off of the traffic circle next to the Thruway and took the rather short trip to the eastern end. It was a lonely trip too, only saw a couple of other vehicles.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 24, 2017, 10:18:13 AM
I will not be completely happy in life until I-74 in North Carolina is deleted.
I agree. We don't need I-74 in NC. (and I-87 in NC as well.)
I-587 runs concurrent with NY 28. You dont need both. I-384 could also stand to be removed and have US 6 rerouted onto it. I-290 (MA) should just be converted to I-395.
Quote from: kkt on October 04, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 10:08:28 AM
I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.
I agree...
In fact now that the number California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.
Make I-480 appear on I-238 then.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 17, 2017, 02:06:41 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 04, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 10:08:28 AM
I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.
I agree...
In fact now that the number California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.
I agree on re-using I-480 for the Sacramento area. It's 2017 -- the "480" moniker is no longer the four-letter word it was in the 1970s and 80s in the Bay Area. It's stupid not to use an available number because some aging hippies the next town over don't like it.
That said, 480 should replace Biz 80, not mainline 80, because of how the exits are arranged. I'm also a fan of marking US-50 as I-305 from I-80 to Placerville, but that still leaves the Biz 80 designation on the eastern half.
But Wait Business 80 aka CA-51 should be CA-X09 or CA-x07 if CA-99 becomes I-7 or I-9.
Quote from: bing101 on October 25, 2017, 07:43:03 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 17, 2017, 02:06:41 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 04, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 10:08:28 AM
I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.
I agree...
In fact now that the number California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.
I agree on re-using I-480 for the Sacramento area. It's 2017 -- the "480" moniker is no longer the four-letter word it was in the 1970s and 80s in the Bay Area. It's stupid not to use an available number because some aging hippies the next town over don't like it.
That said, 480 should replace Biz 80, not mainline 80, because of how the exits are arranged. I'm also a fan of marking US-50 as I-305 from I-80 to Placerville, but that still leaves the Biz 80 designation on the eastern half.
But Wait Business 80 aka CA-51 should be CA-X09 or CA-x07 if CA-99 becomes I-7 or I-9.
It should be CA-807 or 809 to keep it an "x80" of sorts :bigass:
I-115 and 315 in Montana. (Yes, I know 315 is unsigned). Both are glorified ramps with only one exit. 315 is also entirely concurrent with (and signed as) US-89, I-15 Business, and Montana state route 3 and 200.
If I had to pick another 2di, it would be I-86. For the amount of traffic that actually travels that road, a 4-lane divided road (which would be US-30) would probably suffice. Most of the eastbound traffic at Burley ID heads southeast to Utah, so that they can either go south on 15 or east on 80.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 26, 2017, 08:32:25 PM
Quote from: bing101 on October 25, 2017, 07:43:03 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 17, 2017, 02:06:41 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 04, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 10:08:28 AM
I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.
I agree...
In fact now that the number California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.
I agree on re-using I-480 for the Sacramento area. It's 2017 -- the "480" moniker is no longer the four-letter word it was in the 1970s and 80s in the Bay Area. It's stupid not to use an available number because some aging hippies the next town over don't like it.
That said, 480 should replace Biz 80, not mainline 80, because of how the exits are arranged. I'm also a fan of marking US-50 as I-305 from I-80 to Placerville, but that still leaves the Biz 80 designation on the eastern half.
But Wait Business 80 aka CA-51 should be CA-X09 or CA-x07 if CA-99 becomes I-7 or I-9.
It should be CA-807 or 809 to keep it an "x80" of sorts :bigass:
CA 51 is unlikely to ever be an interstate. It doesn't meet interstate standards, and the project that would have raised it to interstate standards was cancelled. So call it Business 80 or CA 51, but don't call it I-anything.
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on October 04, 2017, 01:23:07 PM
I-381 in Bristol is more of a ramp that an actual freeway.
It is a lot more than a ramp, it is a 4-lane freeway. It also has a nice 3-level semi-directional interchange with I-81.
Interstate 381 in Virginia is the 1.45-mile-long connector from I-81 to the 4-lane 1.2-mile-long arterial VA-381 connector to the downtown of the City of Bristol. I-381 and VA-381 form a continuous thoroughfare.
Traffic volumes on I-381 are about 15,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) with 3% large trucks. The southerly ramps between I-81 and I-381 carry about 700 AADT each. The vast majority of the traffic is on the northerly ramps, about 6,500 AADT each.
Interstate 381 in Virginia
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I381_VA_Desc.html
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 26, 2017, 11:00:51 PM
If I had to pick another 2di, it would be I-86. For the amount of traffic that actually travels that road, a 4-lane divided road (which would be US-30) would probably suffice. Most of the eastbound traffic at Burley ID heads southeast to Utah, so that they can either go south on 15 or east on 80.
I-86 should be a 3di at best. Let the eastern 86 be the sole owner of the number.
Unsigned I-895B/I-895 Bus. south of Baltimore. Just a ramp, really. Number it I-97.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 24, 2017, 10:18:13 AM
I will not be completely happy in life until I-74 in North Carolina is deleted.
While to an extent I agree, it's not going anywhere.
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 26, 2017, 11:00:51 PM
If I had to pick another 2di, it would be I-86. For the amount of traffic that actually travels that road, a 4-lane divided road (which would be US-30) would probably suffice. Most of the eastbound traffic at Burley ID heads southeast to Utah, so that they can either go south on 15 or east on 80.
I 100% agree that it doesn't need to be a 2di. A 3di like I-284 (or anything really) would be just fine, or just US-30 (but it's already interstate standard and connects to major interstates on both ends so might as well keep the designation I suppose). But traffic levels aren't that far off. Just east of where I-84 and I-86 split, I-84 has AADT of 9140 and I-86 has AADT of 7407. They're both quite low, really, but not significantly different. Got the info from here by the way: http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/roadwaydata/Maps/ATR_WIMmap_map.html
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 01, 2017, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 26, 2017, 11:00:51 PM
If I had to pick another 2di, it would be I-86. For the amount of traffic that actually travels that road, a 4-lane divided road (which would be US-30) would probably suffice. Most of the eastbound traffic at Burley ID heads southeast to Utah, so that they can either go south on 15 or east on 80.
I 100% agree that it doesn't need to be a 2di. A 3di like I-284 (or anything really) would be just fine, or just US-30 (but it's already interstate standard and connects to major interstates on both ends so might as well keep the designation I suppose). But traffic levels aren't that far off. Just east of where I-84 and I-86 split, I-84 has AADT of 9140 and I-86 has AADT of 7407. They're both quite low, really, but not significantly different. Got the info from here by the way: http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/roadwaydata/Maps/ATR_WIMmap_map.html
I think it should be an odd numbered spur route off either I-84 or I-15 like I-184 or I-115. I think anytime AADT drops below 10,000 on an Interstate that's a quite low number. I-75 dips as low as 3,200 AADT in the U.P. of Michigan and another one out west is I-82 that seems pretty useless to me it could be another spur off I-84 or off I-90 and it even has a spur route in the Tri-Cities area of Washington. I was thinking though that I-86 should just be U.S. 30.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 01, 2017, 08:10:50 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 01, 2017, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 26, 2017, 11:00:51 PM
If I had to pick another 2di, it would be I-86. For the amount of traffic that actually travels that road, a 4-lane divided road (which would be US-30) would probably suffice. Most of the eastbound traffic at Burley ID heads southeast to Utah, so that they can either go south on 15 or east on 80.
I 100% agree that it doesn't need to be a 2di. A 3di like I-284 (or anything really) would be just fine, or just US-30 (but it's already interstate standard and connects to major interstates on both ends so might as well keep the designation I suppose). But traffic levels aren't that far off. Just east of where I-84 and I-86 split, I-84 has AADT of 9140 and I-86 has AADT of 7407. They're both quite low, really, but not significantly different. Got the info from here by the way: http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/roadwaydata/Maps/ATR_WIMmap_map.html
I think it should be an odd numbered spur route off either I-84 or I-15 like I-184 or I-115. I think anytime AADT drops below 10,000 on an Interstate that's a quite low number. I-75 dips as low as 3,200 AADT in the U.P. of Michigan and another one out west is I-82 that seems pretty useless to me it could be another spur off I-84 or off I-90 and it even has a spur route in the Tri-Cities area of Washington. I was thinking though that I-86 should just be U.S. 30.
Since it is at Interstate standards already though, I think it is better to leave it as a 3di. It wouldn’t even be too long of a 3di at 62 miles, since I can find I-135 at 92 miles (and I’m sure there are probably more long 3dis that I don’t know about or can’t think of right now). I would suggest an I-x15 number since it was originally I-15W, but an I-x84 would work just as well.
I-82 just has a bad number since originally its south end was at I-80N which was renumbered to 84. Maybe it should have an odd number instead (perhaps I-11 in case they ever connect them?), but it should stay a 2di. It’s actually a pretty important connector for traffic heading southeast from Seattle. And, it’s 143 miles which is longer than any current 3di.
Quote from: roadguy2 on November 01, 2017, 11:55:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 01, 2017, 08:10:50 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 01, 2017, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 26, 2017, 11:00:51 PM
If I had to pick another 2di, it would be I-86. For the amount of traffic that actually travels that road, a 4-lane divided road (which would be US-30) would probably suffice. Most of the eastbound traffic at Burley ID heads southeast to Utah, so that they can either go south on 15 or east on 80.
I 100% agree that it doesn't need to be a 2di. A 3di like I-284 (or anything really) would be just fine, or just US-30 (but it's already interstate standard and connects to major interstates on both ends so might as well keep the designation I suppose). But traffic levels aren't that far off. Just east of where I-84 and I-86 split, I-84 has AADT of 9140 and I-86 has AADT of 7407. They're both quite low, really, but not significantly different. Got the info from here by the way: http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/roadwaydata/Maps/ATR_WIMmap_map.html
I think it should be an odd numbered spur route off either I-84 or I-15 like I-184 or I-115. I think anytime AADT drops below 10,000 on an Interstate that's a quite low number. I-75 dips as low as 3,200 AADT in the U.P. of Michigan and another one out west is I-82 that seems pretty useless to me it could be another spur off I-84 or off I-90 and it even has a spur route in the Tri-Cities area of Washington. I was thinking though that I-86 should just be U.S. 30.
Since it is at Interstate standards already though, I think it is better to leave it as a 3di. It wouldn't even be too long of a 3di at 62 miles, since I can find I-135 at 92 miles (and I'm sure there are probably more long 3dis that I don't know about or can't think of right now). I would suggest an I-x15 number since it was originally I-15W, but an I-x84 would work just as well.
I-82 just has a bad number since originally its south end was at I-80N which was renumbered to 84. Maybe it should have an odd number instead (perhaps I-11 in case they ever connect them?), but it should stay a 2di. It's actually a pretty important connector for traffic heading southeast from Seattle. And, it's 143 miles which is longer than any current 3di.
I agree leaving it as a 3di. At 62 miles it'd probably be around 20th in length for a 3di about the same length as I-285 around Atlanta. It seems like most of the longer ones are beltways or bypasses. Either I-x15 or I-x84 would work fine.
I-82 being part of the route between Seattle and Boise, ID and SLC it is needed I wouldn't say that's unnecessary but rather just numbered wrong so we agree. They should just switch I-82 and I-84 or I-7, I-9 or yeah connect with I-11. With there being no direct Interstate route between Las Vegas and Phoenix I'm thinking they will probably extend it south before they extend it north.
You could also keep the I-86 number and multiplex I-86 with I-84 and replace I-82's number with I-86. Then you eliminate I-82's number. Honestly though a I-x84 or I-x15 would be the best bet for I-86.
Cancel my above idea I didn't realize it was 418 miles from I-82's eastern terminus to I-86's western terminus. That'd be a pointless multiplex to just connect it with an expressway that's going to only go another 60 miles. When I look at map's out west I don't realize how many miles are between some points.
A better idea would be to switch I-82 and I-86 and run I-82 to I-84's current terminus at I-80 and run I-84 to I-15 in Pocatello.
I-530 in Arkansas. Concurrent with US 65 the whole way and a road to nowhere (no offense to Pine Bluff).
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 17, 2017, 02:06:41 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 04, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 10:08:28 AM
I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.
I agree...
In fact now that the number California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.
I agree on re-using I-480 for the Sacramento area. It's 2017 -- the "480" moniker is no longer the four-letter word it was in the 1970s and 80s in the Bay Area. It's stupid not to use an available number because some aging hippies the next town over don't like it.
That said, 480 should replace Biz 80, not mainline 80, because of how the exits are arranged. I'm also a fan of marking US-50 as I-305 from I-80 to Placerville, but that still leaves the Biz 80 designation on the eastern half.
It's not "aging hippies" that hated the Embarcadero. Pretty much everyone in San Francisco hated it, except for Chinatown businesses. But that whole section of town was opened up to more business and residential development, and became much more appealing.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 02, 2017, 12:41:57 AM
Cancel my above idea I didn't realize it was 418 miles from I-82's eastern terminus to I-86's western terminus. That'd be a pointless multiplex to just connect it with an expressway that's going to only go another 60 miles. When I look at map's out west I don't realize how many miles are between some points.
A better idea would be to switch I-82 and I-86 and run I-82 to I-84's current terminus at I-80 and run I-84 to I-15 in Pocatello.
I-84 follows the greatest traffic flow. I-84 and I-86 are in good relative positions, although I-86 would make a great 3di. I-82 is a little out of grid, but it's not worth re-signing just to fix its grid position.
I'd renumber I-82 to I-7 or I-9, I-86 to a 3di, and I-84 to I-82. That would remove two duplicated 2dis.
Quote from: vdeane on November 02, 2017, 12:55:41 PM
I'd renumber I-82 to I-7 or I-9, I-86 to a 3di, and I-84 to I-82. That would remove two duplicated 2dis.
It'd make sense to me and like you said you wouldn't have the eastern and western I-84 and I-86. I too think that I-82 should have an odd number and I-86 a 3di. I think your idea is the best one I could come up with.
Quote from: FightingIrish on November 02, 2017, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 17, 2017, 02:06:41 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 04, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 10:08:28 AM
I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.
I agree...
In fact now that the number California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.
I agree on re-using I-480 for the Sacramento area. It's 2017 -- the "480" moniker is no longer the four-letter word it was in the 1970s and 80s in the Bay Area. It's stupid not to use an available number because some aging hippies the next town over don't like it.
That said, 480 should replace Biz 80, not mainline 80, because of how the exits are arranged. I'm also a fan of marking US-50 as I-305 from I-80 to Placerville, but that still leaves the Biz 80 designation on the eastern half.
It's not "aging hippies" that hated the Embarcadero. Pretty much everyone in San Francisco hated it, except for Chinatown businesses. But that whole section of town was opened up to more business and residential development, and became much more appealing.
Actually, that's not correct. There were many locals in the area that supported keeping the Embarcadero as an expressway.
Copied from Reply #160 of the Interstate 81 in Syracuse (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18020.150) thread:
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 27, 2017, 08:45:55 AMFWIW, here's the Wiki account (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_480) with an excerpt (below) regarding the Embarcadero (bold emphasis added):
Quote from: WikipediaIn the 1980s, opposition to the Embarcadero Freeway resurfaced in proposals to tear it down. On November 5, 1985, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway. The proposal was put to the voters in 1987 and soundly defeated, opposed in particular by influential Chinatown community organizer Rose Pak, who feared that Chinatown would suffer catastrophic consequences if it would lose this fast crosstown connection. The October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake significantly damaged the structure, causing it to be closed to traffic. Caltrans planned to retrofit and retain the double-decker freeway. Various groups in and outside the City supported the Caltrans plan, but there was a significant opinion within the City in favor of removing the freeway structure. Then-Mayor Art Agnos proposed demolishing the freeway in favor of a boulevard with an underpass at the Ferry Building to allow for a large plaza.
Opposition to demolishing the freeway mounted again, with over 20,000 signatures gathered to again create a ballot measure. Prior to the earthquake, the Embarcadero Freeway carried approximately 70,000 vehicles daily in the vicinity of the Ferry Building. Another 40,000 vehicles per day used associated ramps at Main and Beale streets. The strongest opposition came from Chinatown and other neighborhoods north of downtown. Merchants in Chinatown had suffered a dramatic decline in business in the months immediately following the earthquake and feared that if the freeway was not reopened they would not recover.
Agnos continued to negotiate with federal and state officials to win enough funding to make the demolition practical, and the opposition relented. Agnos argued that the city would squander "the opportunity of a lifetime" if it allowed the freeway to remain. After months of debate, the Board of Supervisors narrowly voted in favor of demolition by a 6—5 margin. Demolition began on February 27, 1991. That year, Agnos was defeated for re-election as Chinatown switched its support away from him.
Upshoot to the above IMHO:
1. Had the 1989 earthquake not happened, the Freeway might be still standing & in use.
2. Support for the keeping the freeway came from locals (i.e. voters) as well as commuters (i.e. outsiders).
3. The Mayor who supported the freeway removal was shortly voted out of office.
It is true that there was some support for keeping the Embarcadero Freeway, even some for rebuilding it after it was seriously damaged. But it was a minority, and Agnos's defeat was about a lot more than that issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/26/us/san-francisco-mayor-in-tough-bid-for-re-election.html
Frank Jordan defeated Agnos, and Jordan's campaign featured photos of homeless people, vandalism, litter, closed libraries.
I-384 is a spur to nowhere. I do know that it is what was built of I-84 east of Hartford. Could a more informed roadgeek tell me what it is used for now? How much traffic is on it?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 02, 2017, 09:51:30 PM
I-384 is a spur to nowhere. I do know that it is what was built of I-84 east of Hartford. Could a more informed roadgeek tell me what it is used for now? How much traffic is on it?
It's basically used as a bypass of, and to get to, downtown Manchester. ConnDOT uses Providence as a control city where it exits I-84 East on the East Hartford/Manchester town line, but the better option to get to Providence from Hartford is I-84 to Exit 69, then CT 74 to US 44 to CT/RI 101 to US 6. It's mostly used by commuters from the eastern exburbs of Hartford along US 6 or US 44 east of the split (Bolton, Coventry, Andover) and to get to and from the Willimantic area. It can also be used as an alternate route to UConn's campus if I-84 or CT 195 is backed up after a game at Gampel. Traffic thins out especially east of CT 83, where one could safely drive 75 MPH were it legal.
Interstate 73 may be a bit of a clusterfunk, but I actually think a lot of it is decent. The most important part of the theorized I-73 is probably the proposed section from Columbus, Ohio to Interstate 75. That seems like it would be an incredibly useful interstate corridor, at least to me. The least needed part is probably the proposed section in and near West Virginia. Regarding I-73 in North Carolina, I personally think it is probably not such a bad idea to have an interstate corridor radiating directly south from Greensboro. So I actually do agree with the I-73 concept somewhat, but I can't say
so much the same regarding the proposed
I-74 extension (even though both the I-73 and I-74 ideas and projects are quite highly associated with eachother). :-D
As desolate as it may be, I think I-15 in northern Montana actually serves a pretty good purpose. I'd say it is justified, being part of a direct route from the United States to (eventually) one of the largest cities in Canada, north of the border (Calgary) - not to mention that even more north of that, Edmonton is also a pretty big city.
I-99, I-97, and I-238 all have terrible numbering, but the highways themselves, I agree, are actually all
really important.
Quote from: vdeane on November 02, 2017, 12:55:41 PM
I'd renumber I-82 to I-7 or I-9, I-86 to a 3di, and I-84 to I-82. That would remove two duplicated 2dis.
That is a
really, really good idea! I think I-82 has silly numbering as well - not only is it a moderately north-south interstate corridor, but it is also not in the grid correctly, as the "82" interstate number is supposed to be located south of I-84, not north of it. I think I-7 and I-9 would be great Interstate designations to assign to I-82 and limited-access CA 99. I've actually never thought about it before, but I guess a 3di number is a good bit more fitting for I-86 in Idaho. And should all of the above happen, then let's redesignate I-84 as I-82, and our work is done (at least over there)! :biggrin:
Now, to get to my true pick for
the most unnecessary interstate, I simply truly cannot decide. As I said in the "Most and Least Important 3dis?" thread, I just personally can't narrow down all the choices to one. There are so, so many different candidates for the "most unnecessary interstate," with practically all of them being 3dis. Unsigned 3dis are also something to think about, as someone else said. So unfortunately, as a result, especially due to my indecisiveness, I personally have no pick for the most unnecessary interstate as of now, but I think that if I think very hard on it for ages I could probably reach my conclusion and personal pick. X-( :-D
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on November 03, 2017, 09:28:30 PM
Interstate 73 may be a bit of a clusterfunk, but I actually think a lot of it is decent. The most important part of the theorized I-73 is probably the proposed section from Columbus, Ohio to Interstate 75. That seems like it would be an incredibly useful interstate corridor, at least to me. The least needed part is probably the proposed section in and near West Virginia. Regarding I-73 in North Carolina, I personally think it is probably not such a bad idea to have an interstate corridor radiating directly south from Greensboro. So I actually do agree with the I-73 concept somewhat, but I can't say so much the same regarding the proposed I-74 extension (even though both the I-73 and I-74 ideas and projects are quite highly associated with eachother). :-D
As desolate as it may be, I think I-15 in northern Montana actually serves a pretty good purpose. I'd say it is justified, being part of a direct route from the United States to (eventually) one of the largest cities in Canada, north of the border (Calgary) - not to mention that even more north of that, Edmonton is also a pretty big city.
I-99, I-97, and I-238 all have terrible numbering, but the highways themselves, I agree, are actually all really important.
Quote from: vdeane on November 02, 2017, 12:55:41 PM
I'd renumber I-82 to I-7 or I-9, I-86 to a 3di, and I-84 to I-82. That would remove two duplicated 2dis.
That is a really, really good idea! I think I-82 has silly numbering as well - not only is it a moderately north-south interstate corridor, but it is also not in the grid correctly, as the "82" interstate number is supposed to be located south of I-84, not north of it. I think I-7 and I-9 would be great Interstate designations to assign to I-82 and limited-access CA 99. I've actually never thought about it before, but I guess a 3di number is a good bit more fitting for I-86 in Idaho. And should all of the above happen, then let's redesignate I-84 as I-82, and our work is done (at least over there)! :biggrin:
Now, to get to my true pick for the most unnecessary interstate, I simply truly cannot decide. As I said in the "Most and Least Important 3dis?" thread, I just personally can't narrow down all the choices to one. There are so, so many different candidates for the "most unnecessary interstate," with practically all of them being 3dis. Unsigned 3dis are also something to think about, as someone else said. So unfortunately, as a result, especially due to my indecisiveness, I personally have no pick for the most unnecessary interstate as of now, but I think that if I think very hard on it for ages I could probably reach my conclusion and personal pick. X-( :-D
A simpler plan would be to just switch I-82 and I-84.
A lot of talk about I-82 being out of grid.. remember I-84 was originally I-80N, so 82 fit in the grid when it was numbered back in 1950s
Z981
I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.
Quote from: jwolfer on November 03, 2017, 11:15:14 PM
A lot of talk about I-82 being out of grid.. remember I-84 was originally I-80N, so 82 fit in the grid when it was numbered back in 1950s
Z981
That is a very good point. I knew about I-84 being I-80N, but I actually did not know the time period in which Interstate 82 came to be, which was evidently back during the same time. That makes a lot of sense now; I did always wonder why the heck that interstate had the number "82," since nowadays, it is out of the grid, but I never thought about the fact that historically it was perfectly fine - but then again, I-82 does have some north-south tendencies, which is another hit to its justification (the number) in modern times - so with that said (and call me a grid nazi, which I am), I don't think it would be such a bad idea to renumber I-82 to something like I-7 in these times. Thank you very much for the information and the insight, jwolfer! :nod:
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 03, 2017, 11:17:16 PM
I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.
You might have a point now, but there was a time before MAP-21 when states would receive federal funds for interstate maintenance. The designation of interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico was partially a means of ensuring equity.
Quote from: Rothman on November 04, 2017, 12:50:56 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 03, 2017, 11:17:16 PM
I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.
You might have a point now, but there was a time before MAP-21 when states would receive federal funds for interstate maintenance. The designation of interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico was partially a means of ensuring equity.
Could any of them become signed if they were upgraded to interstate standards?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 04, 2017, 12:57:42 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 04, 2017, 12:50:56 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 03, 2017, 11:17:16 PM
I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.
You might have a point now, but there was a time before MAP-21 when states would receive federal funds for interstate maintenance. The designation of interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico was partially a means of ensuring equity.
Could any of them become signed if they were upgraded to interstate standards?
I suppose, but that may just cause confusion with the already established state route designations.
I-73 most likely isn't going to happen. Michigan has no interest in it and I don't think Ohio does either.
Or just switch I-82 and I-84's number west of their interchange together.
82 is not unnecessary. It just has a bad number.
I can agree that I-82 is needed. It provides part of the route between Seattle to Boise and SLC and vice versa, I-84 provides the route to Portland so both are needed but the numbers should just be switched around or give I-82 an odd number. I can see why it has an even number though since the middle of the route goes east and west and the two other legs of the route go north and south. To me it appears to go just as far north and south as it does east and west. At least it's not like I-69 in Michigan between Lansing and Port Huron which is even signed east and west.
Quote from: Rothman on November 06, 2017, 12:10:55 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 04, 2017, 12:57:42 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 04, 2017, 12:50:56 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 03, 2017, 11:17:16 PM
I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.
You might have a point now, but there was a time before MAP-21 when states would receive federal funds for interstate maintenance. The designation of interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico was partially a means of ensuring equity.
Could any of them become signed if they were upgraded to interstate standards?
I suppose, but that may just cause confusion with the already established state route designations.
Could they be signed right now, even without meeting Interstate standards?
After all, they're already designated.
I-39. The alignment is necesary, but it's either US 51 or I90/94 for its whole route.
So long as we're in Wisconsin, there's the matter of I 41
Quote from: OCGuy81 on November 08, 2017, 04:43:52 PM
I-39. The alignment is necesary, but it's either US 51 or I90/94 for its whole route.
So long as we're in Wisconsin, there's the matter of I 41
I-39 in Wisconsin is pretty much useless but in Illinois it is important enough to be an interstate.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 08, 2017, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on November 08, 2017, 04:43:52 PM
I-39. The alignment is necesary, but it's either US 51 or I90/94 for its whole route.
So long as we're in Wisconsin, there's the matter of I 41
I-39 in Wisconsin is pretty much useless but in Illinois it is important enough to be an interstate.
Probably never gonna happen, but would love to see it making it further South in IL. Start getting it to Decatur/I-72, then Vandalia/I-70, then Salem/I-57
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 08, 2017, 09:31:41 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 08, 2017, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on November 08, 2017, 04:43:52 PM
I-39. The alignment is necesary, but it's either US 51 or I90/94 for its whole route.
So long as we're in Wisconsin, there's the matter of I 41
I-39 in Wisconsin is pretty much useless but in Illinois it is important enough to be an interstate.
Probably never gonna happen, but would love to see it making it further South in IL. Start getting it to Decatur/I-72, then Vandalia/I-70, then Salem/I-57
Also a northern extension to US 2 in Ironwood.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 08, 2017, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 08, 2017, 09:31:41 PM
Probably never gonna happen, but would love to see it making it further South in IL. Start getting it to Decatur/I-72, then Vandalia/I-70, then Salem/I-57
Also a northern extension to US 2 in Ironwood.
Unless they build an interstate across the UP, I don't ever see that happening. Makes more sense to angle it to the Duluth metro, but that will never happen either.
That having been said, I don't know what all the discussion is about. I-180 in Illinois is the most unneeded and unnecessary interstate in the country.
Quote from: inkyatari on November 09, 2017, 08:54:51 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 08, 2017, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 08, 2017, 09:31:41 PM
Probably never gonna happen, but would love to see it making it further South in IL. Start getting it to Decatur/I-72, then Vandalia/I-70, then Salem/I-57
Also a northern extension to US 2 in Ironwood.
Unless they build an interstate across the UP, I don't ever see that happening. Makes more sense to angle it to the Duluth metro, but that will never happen either.
That having been said, I don't know what all the discussion is about. I-180 in Illinois is the most unneeded and unnecessary interstate in the country.
I would upgrade US 53 to give Duluth freeway access from the east.
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 08, 2017, 09:31:41 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 08, 2017, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on November 08, 2017, 04:43:52 PM
I-39. The alignment is necesary, but it's either US 51 or I90/94 for its whole route.
So long as we're in Wisconsin, there's the matter of I 41
I-39 in Wisconsin is pretty much useless but in Illinois it is important enough to be an interstate.
Probably never gonna happen, but would love to see it making it further South in IL. Start getting it to Decatur/I-72, then Vandalia/I-70, then Salem/I-57
I thought we'd had this discussion on the forum before. Took some digging.
Quote from: I-39 on February 10, 2015, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 10, 2015, 08:11:18 PM
Re: US-51 ...
Having driven US-51 all the way from Rockford to Sandoval before, and having driven it with great frequency at all points from from there on south for work (I was a delivery driver in southern Illinois) I would agree that four lanes anywhere north between Pana and Sandoval might be overkill. But I would support it down to Pana.
Well, I would support a four lane U.S 51.......................... if it were built as a fully access controlled facility (Interstate standards) and brought down to hook up with I-57 north of Salem (like the original FAP 412 corridor proposed), but since we all know that will not happen, I'd say forget it. If you can't build like that, it's not worth it at all. IDOT can focus the money on more priority issues like the U.S 20 and 67 corridors. Nonetheless, I DO think IDOT ought to take another look at U.S 51 between Bloomington and Decatur for possibly building a new freeway or fixing the existing expressway (i.e properly bypassing Clinton and Forsyth, which if you do that, might as well build the whole corridor as a freeway).
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 09, 2017, 10:54:10 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 09, 2017, 08:54:51 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 08, 2017, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 08, 2017, 09:31:41 PM
Probably never gonna happen, but would love to see it making it further South in IL. Start getting it to Decatur/I-72, then Vandalia/I-70, then Salem/I-57
Also a northern extension to US 2 in Ironwood.
Unless they build an interstate across the UP, I don't ever see that happening. Makes more sense to angle it to the Duluth metro, but that will never happen either.
That having been said, I don't know what all the discussion is about. I-180 in Illinois is the most unneeded and unnecessary interstate in the country.
I would upgrade US 53 to give Duluth freeway access from the east.
Probably not necessary, though it would help to clean up some of the intersections along the surface street portion of 2/53 and maybe get the speed limit up to 45-50 from the current 35.
There's quite a bit of push to 4-lane US 2 across northern WI, but a freeway would be overkill.
Quote from: inkyatari on November 09, 2017, 08:54:51 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 08, 2017, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 08, 2017, 09:31:41 PM
Probably never gonna happen, but would love to see it making it further South in IL. Start getting it to Decatur/I-72, then Vandalia/I-70, then Salem/I-57
Also a northern extension to US 2 in Ironwood.
Unless they build an interstate across the UP, I don't ever see that happening. Makes more sense to angle it to the Duluth metro, but that will never happen either.
That having been said, I don't know what all the discussion is about. I-180 in Illinois is the most unneeded and unnecessary interstate in the country.
And I-180 in Wyoming is the most unneeded and unnecessary designation. Complete slap in the face to the entire Interstate system.
Quote from: 20160805 on November 15, 2017, 07:10:49 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 09, 2017, 08:54:51 AM
That having been said, I don't know what all the discussion is about. I-180 in Illinois is the most unneeded and unnecessary interstate in the country.
And I-180 in Wyoming is the most unneeded and unnecessary designation. Complete slap in the face to the entire Interstate system.
Does it make you feel like puking?
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2017, 07:17:25 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on November 15, 2017, 07:10:49 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 09, 2017, 08:54:51 AM
That having been said, I don't know what all the discussion is about. I-180 in Illinois is the most unneeded and unnecessary interstate in the country.
And I-180 in Wyoming is the most unneeded and unnecessary designation. Complete slap in the face to the entire Interstate system.
Does it make you feel like puking?
It doesn't make me feel like puking, no, but it's enough to trigger significant periods of annoyance upon just thinking about it.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 06, 2017, 06:04:29 PM
Forgot I-790. It's multiplexed with NY 5 and NY 12 the entire route
The long term plan is to renumber NY-49/ny-365 to I-790.
I-87 and I-587 in North Carolina. All I hear anyone say about those decisions is, "Why are they changing the number? Those roads have always been 64 and 264".
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 07, 2017, 10:30:42 AM
I-73 most likely isn't going to happen. Michigan has no interest in it and I don't think Ohio does either.
IMHO, the only way it ever happens in MI and OH is if it uses the US-23 corridor between Toledo and Flint (it fits in the grid). Also, the NC portion could easily be a 3di or two.
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2017, 07:17:25 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on November 15, 2017, 07:10:49 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 09, 2017, 08:54:51 AM
That having been said, I don't know what all the discussion is about. I-180 in Illinois is the most unneeded and unnecessary interstate in the country.
And I-180 in Wyoming is the most unneeded and unnecessary designation. Complete slap in the face to the entire Interstate system.
Does it make you feel like puking?
I-395 in MD does that for me. Think I'll slap a 3di on every exit ramp longer than 1/4 mi.
all of them
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 25, 2017, 10:50:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2017, 07:17:25 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on November 15, 2017, 07:10:49 AM
And I-180 in Wyoming is the most unneeded and unnecessary designation. Complete slap in the face to the entire Interstate system.
Does it make you feel like puking?
I-395 in MD does that for me. Think I'll slap a 3di on every exit ramp longer than 1/4 mi.
I-395 is a complex and expensive-to-build elevated 6-lane freeway spur that provides vital access from I-95 to the central business district of Baltimore.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 25, 2017, 10:50:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2017, 07:17:25 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on November 15, 2017, 07:10:49 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 09, 2017, 08:54:51 AM
That having been said, I don't know what all the discussion is about. I-180 in Illinois is the most unneeded and unnecessary interstate in the country.
And I-180 in Wyoming is the most unneeded and unnecessary designation. Complete slap in the face to the entire Interstate system.
Does it make you feel like puking?
I-395 in MD does that for me. Think I'll slap a 3di on every exit ramp longer than 1/4 mi.
Ha! Florida beat you to that --
twice in St. Petersburg. And
those were off another 3di rather than the trunk -- talk about insult to injury!
There are four I-180's and two of them are a complete waste of space.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 07, 2017, 10:30:42 AM
I-73 most likely isn't going to happen. Michigan has no interest in it and I don't think Ohio does either.
Virginia isn't interested either, despite Roanoke and Martinsville screaming for it. That part of the state usually gets the shaft.
Quote from: LM117 on November 26, 2017, 09:47:04 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 07, 2017, 10:30:42 AM
I-73 most likely isn't going to happen. Michigan has no interest in it and I don't think Ohio does either.
Virginia isn't interested either, despite Roanoke and Martinsville screaming for it. That part of the state usually gets the shaft.
The thing is I've traveled to North Carolina and through it from Michigan and it really isn't that hard to get to if you just follow I-77 to the Ohio Turnpike and then over to Toledo and up into Michigan so to me I-73 makes no sense.
Quote from: sparker on November 26, 2017, 01:31:55 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 25, 2017, 10:50:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2017, 07:17:25 AM
Quote from: 20160805 on November 15, 2017, 07:10:49 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 09, 2017, 08:54:51 AM
That having been said, I don't know what all the discussion is about. I-180 in Illinois is the most unneeded and unnecessary interstate in the country.
And I-180 in Wyoming is the most unneeded and unnecessary designation. Complete slap in the face to the entire Interstate system.
Does it make you feel like puking?
I-395 in MD does that for me. Think I'll slap a 3di on every exit ramp longer than 1/4 mi.
Ha! Florida beat you to that -- twice in St. Petersburg. And those were off another 3di rather than the trunk -- talk about insult to injury!
I'm not sure what is the problem with urban Interstate spurs. By definition they are usually short in length and much more expensive to build than rural mainline mileage of similar length, and are very useful connectors. They were authorized under the national Interstate project and got 90% federal funding. I suppose they don't -have- to be posted with an Interstate route number, but then again why not?
Plus Interstate auxiliary routes can parent other Interstate auxiliary routes, there are a number of such cases. MD I-370 and I-795 and NJ I-195 for a few in this area of the country.
Quote from: Beltway on November 26, 2017, 03:07:18 PM
I suppose they don't -have- to be posted with an Interstate route number, but then again why not?
Because they're already another route, at least in some cases (I-180 WY, I-587, I-393, etc.). Something that isn't overlapped, like I-381 in Virginia, is fine, except I-375 (FL) should be US 92.
Quote from: LM117 on November 26, 2017, 09:47:04 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 07, 2017, 10:30:42 AM
I-73 most likely isn't going to happen. Michigan has no interest in it and I don't think Ohio does either.
Virginia isn't interested either, despite Roanoke and Martinsville screaming for it. That part of the state usually gets the shaft.
As I have said a number of times, it is a very worthwhile project, except for the $4 billion cost, like how to obtain that level of funding. Especially when there is a very capable 4-lane divided highway with town bypasses in that corridor (US-220 between NC and I-81).
Quote from: 1 on November 26, 2017, 03:10:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 26, 2017, 03:07:18 PM
I suppose they don't -have- to be posted with an Interstate route number, but then again why not?
Because they're already another route, at least in some cases (I-180 WY, I-587, I-393, etc.). Something that isn't overlapped, like I-381 in Virginia, is fine, except I-375 (FL) should be US 92.
The ones I was thinking of are not overlapped. I see on a map that it is kinda hard to see where all that US-92 goes in St. Pete.
Quote from: Beltway on November 26, 2017, 03:15:18 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 26, 2017, 03:10:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 26, 2017, 03:07:18 PM
I suppose they don't -have- to be posted with an Interstate route number, but then again why not?
Because they're already another route, at least in some cases (I-180 WY, I-587, I-393, etc.). Something that isn't overlapped, like I-381 in Virginia, is fine, except I-375 (FL) should be US 92.
The ones I was thinking of are not overlapped. I see on a map that it is kinda hard to see where all that US-92 goes in St. Pete.
US 92 looks like it just peters out (no pun intended!) at the corner of 4th Street North and 5th Avenue North; a block east of where I-375 terminates. 5th Avenue seems to be signed as Alternate US 19; apparently
that was the original US 92 route west to its former terminus at US 19 pre-deployment of I-275 and its "children".
Quote from: fillup420 on November 15, 2017, 11:45:07 PM
I-87 and I-587 in North Carolina. All I hear anyone say about those decisions is, "Why are they changing the number? Those roads have always been 64 and 264".
I do agree with this. I-87 and I-587 is not needed.
The issue with roads like I-381 and I-395 in MD is that they're just exit ramps that happen to have an interstate number. Should we assign an interstate number to literally every single exit in the Thruway ticket system? They're the exact same thing! Any interstate with no interchanges between its termini and less than two miles long is suspect.
I-175 and I-375 are fine because there are intermediate interchanges (note that I-395 doesn't technically have an exit; it just splits in two; also, I support retroceding most of DC back into MD, and there would be too many x95 numbers if that were to happen).
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2017, 07:48:18 PM
......... I support retroceding most of DC back into MD, and there would be too many x95 numbers if that were to happen).
I take it that the issue here is I-695 occurring both in MD and DC, with about 40 miles separating them. Since there's little or no chance of actually retroceding DC to MD on a political/jurisdictional basis, the reference is to functionality in regards to Interstate numbers (essentially considering DC, for this purpose, to be just another MD city), in which case I-695 could revert to a I-295 extension, assume another number (with the only unused designation in MD being 995), or be considered a 395 "spur". But that's not going to happen, nor is any renumbering regardless of whether or not the route in question is a glorified exit ramp. Once it's on the books and the driving public (reinforced by traffic broadcasts) has included it in their routing idiom, it's pretty much a done deal.
All unsigned interstates should go.
I-705 in Washington state its a short interstate but I say it should be a state route.
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2017, 07:48:18 PM
The issue with roads like I-381 and I-395 in MD is that they're just exit ramps that happen to have an interstate number.
I rather disagree, they are much more than "exit ramps", they are 1 1/2 mile urban freeways that connect the mainline Interstate into urban CBD thoroughfares.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/I-395-Downtown_Baltimore.JPG
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I381_VA_Desc.html
Lots of those short interstates were just as expensive as cross-state upgrades to 2-lane highways, and carry as much traffic.
Generally, if it was constructed with the 90% Federal funds, to interstate standards, it gets an interstate number. Is that a bad thing? Maybe they should've kept and built on the US highway route number system.
Depends on whether "unnecessary" applies to the road or the number.
Examples:
Unnecessary Road: I-180 IL, other freeways that lead nowhere
Unnecessary Number: I-41 WI, I-865 IN, other cases where Interstate numbers were slapped on just because they can
Quote from: Super Mateo on November 27, 2017, 06:28:42 AM
Depends on whether "unnecessary" applies to the road or the number.
Examples:
Unnecessary Road: I-180 IL, other freeways that lead nowhere
Unnecessary Number: I-41 WI, I-865 IN, other cases where Interstate numbers were slapped on just because they can
I-865 is important because having it be I-465 was confusing.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2017, 08:49:40 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on November 27, 2017, 06:28:42 AM
Depends on whether "unnecessary" applies to the road or the number.
Examples:
Unnecessary Road: I-180 IL, other freeways that lead nowhere
Unnecessary Number: I-41 WI, I-865 IN, other cases where Interstate numbers were slapped on just because they can
I-865 is important because having it be I-465 was confusing.
Quite right. If anything, it should have been I-165 since it's a short stub with no exits outside of both its termini
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2017, 08:49:40 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on November 27, 2017, 06:28:42 AM
Depends on whether "unnecessary" applies to the road or the number.
Examples:
Unnecessary Road: I-180 IL, other freeways that lead nowhere
Unnecessary Number: I-41 WI, I-865 IN, other cases where Interstate numbers were slapped on just because they can
I-865 is important because having it be I-465 was confusing.
I-180 IL was important when originally built in the 1960s to serve a major steel mill complex. The fact that the plants later closed is not the fault of those who planned and built the highway.
^ One could also argue that I-180 IL was quintessential pork. This is backed up by a GAO (Government Accounting Office) report that concluded it was "constructed to satisfy the demands of a steel company (Jones & Laughlin) looking to locate a plant in Hennepin." (per Kurumi)
"No other interstate route has been constructed primary to serve a private manufacturing company, and no other interstate spur serves an area with such a small population," the GAO said.
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2017, 09:41:44 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2017, 08:49:40 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on November 27, 2017, 06:28:42 AM
Depends on whether "unnecessary" applies to the road or the number.
Examples:
Unnecessary Road: I-180 IL, other freeways that lead nowhere
Unnecessary Number: I-41 WI, I-865 IN, other cases where Interstate numbers were slapped on just because they can
I-865 is important because having it be I-465 was confusing.
I-180 IL was important when originally built in the 1960s to serve a major steel mill complex. The fact that the plants later closed is not the fault of those who planned and built the highway.
At least it could serve a northern route to Peoria.
Quote from: Beltway on November 26, 2017, 10:03:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2017, 07:48:18 PM
The issue with roads like I-381 and I-395 in MD is that they're just exit ramps that happen to have an interstate number.
I rather disagree, they are much more than "exit ramps", they are 1 1/2 mile urban freeways that connect the mainline Interstate into urban CBD thoroughfares.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/I-395-Downtown_Baltimore.JPG
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I381_VA_Desc.html
IMO I-381 would make a lot more sense to have numbered if VA 381 were also signed. Otherwise, having grown up in Turnpike Land, it strikes me as very similar to the trumpets that dominate most trips I take to anywhere outside of the Capital District (if I want to go south, east, or west, it's the Thruway or two lane roads). Thanks to guide signs, guiderail in the median, and the number of lanes around the toll barriers, many of these interchanges feel like mini-freeways.
Unsigned I-444 in Tulsa is pretty useless. It's just the other two legs of the expressway square around downtown Tulsa, and it's also US 75 for its entire length. Unless/until Tulsa gets another downtown 2di, no need for it in any form.
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2017, 04:28:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 26, 2017, 10:03:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2017, 07:48:18 PM
The issue with roads like I-381 and I-395 in MD is that they're just exit ramps that happen to have an interstate number.
I rather disagree, they are much more than "exit ramps", they are 1 1/2 mile urban freeways that connect the mainline Interstate into urban CBD thoroughfares.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/I-395-Downtown_Baltimore.JPG
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I381_VA_Desc.html
IMO I-381 would make a lot more sense to have numbered if VA 381 were also signed. Otherwise, having grown up in Turnpike Land, it strikes me as very similar to the trumpets that dominate most trips I take to anywhere outside of the Capital District (if I want to go south, east, or west, it's the Thruway or two lane roads). Thanks to guide signs, guiderail in the median, and the number of lanes around the toll barriers, many of these interchanges feel like mini-freeways.
I've seen trumpet ramps longer than I-381. See NJ Turnpike Exit 15X. Using the I-381 logic, that should be an Interstate as well.
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2017, 04:28:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 26, 2017, 10:03:32 PM
I rather disagree, they are much more than "exit ramps", they are 1 1/2 mile urban freeways that connect the mainline Interstate into urban CBD thoroughfares.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/I-395-Downtown_Baltimore.JPG
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I381_VA_Desc.html
IMO I-381 would make a lot more sense to have numbered if VA 381 were also signed. Otherwise, having grown up in Turnpike Land, it strikes me as very similar to the trumpets that dominate most trips I take to anywhere outside of the Capital District (if I want to go south, east, or west, it's the Thruway or two lane roads). Thanks to guide signs, guiderail in the median, and the number of lanes around the toll barriers, many of these interchanges feel like mini-freeways.
VA-381 was signed with route signs for many years, best I can determine the signs were removed sometime after 2000.
I have seen lots of turnpike interchange connectors, but I don't recall any almost 3 miles long and with part built to Interstate standards. I-81/I-381 is not a trumpet, it is a 3-level semi-directional interchange.
I suppose they could have signed the whole thing as VA-381, but having the Interstate number gives added visibility to its role as a freeway spur from I-81 into the Bristol CBD. It was designated as such in 1961 and I don't see any real reason to change it today.
Quote from: cl94 on November 27, 2017, 05:10:16 PM
I've seen trumpet ramps longer than I-381. See NJ Turnpike Exit 15X. Using the I-381 logic, that should be an Interstate as well.
What is stopping them from making it Interstate 395, 595, 795 or 995?
Quote from: froggie on November 27, 2017, 10:56:27 AM
^ One could also argue that I-180 IL was quintessential pork. This is backed up by a GAO (Government Accounting Office) report that concluded it was "constructed to satisfy the demands of a steel company (Jones & Laughlin) looking to locate a plant in Hennepin." (per Kurumi)
"No other interstate route has been constructed primary to serve a private manufacturing company, and no other interstate spur serves an area with such a small population," the GAO said.
I didn't realize that the plant wasn't there yet when I-180 was built. Nevertheless I would not claim that every auxiliary Interstate highway was fully justified; there may some that weren't.
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2017, 05:17:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2017, 04:28:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 26, 2017, 10:03:32 PM
I rather disagree, they are much more than "exit ramps", they are 1 1/2 mile urban freeways that connect the mainline Interstate into urban CBD thoroughfares.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/I-395-Downtown_Baltimore.JPG
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I381_VA_Desc.html
IMO I-381 would make a lot more sense to have numbered if VA 381 were also signed. Otherwise, having grown up in Turnpike Land, it strikes me as very similar to the trumpets that dominate most trips I take to anywhere outside of the Capital District (if I want to go south, east, or west, it's the Thruway or two lane roads). Thanks to guide signs, guiderail in the median, and the number of lanes around the toll barriers, many of these interchanges feel like mini-freeways.
VA-381 was signed with route signs for many years, best I can determine the signs were removed sometime after 2000.
I have seen lots of turnpike interchange connectors, but I don't recall any almost 3 miles long and with part built to Interstate standards. I-81/I-381 is not a trumpet, it is a 3-level semi-directional interchange.
I suppose they could have signed the whole thing as VA-381, but having the Interstate number gives added visibility to its role as a freeway spur from I-81 into the Bristol CBD. It was designated as such in 1961 and I don't see any real reason to change it today.
Oddly, when Bristol replaced their cutouts in the early 2000s, they did install regular VA 381 shields but removed them not that long after.
I-381's interchange with I-81 has had 3 configurations but none were a trumpet.
I always thought VA 381 should be I-381 Bus or US 19 (which would then also replace VA 140 in Abingdon)
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 27, 2017, 07:49:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2017, 05:17:34 PM
VA-381 was signed with route signs for many years, best I can determine the signs were removed sometime after 2000.
I have seen lots of turnpike interchange connectors, but I don't recall any almost 3 miles long and with part built to Interstate standards. I-81/I-381 is not a trumpet, it is a 3-level semi-directional interchange.
I suppose they could have signed the whole thing as VA-381, but having the Interstate number gives added visibility to its role as a freeway spur from I-81 into the Bristol CBD. It was designated as such in 1961 and I don't see any real reason to change it today.
Oddly, when Bristol replaced their cutouts in the early 2000s, they did install regular VA 381 shields but removed them not that long after.
I-381's interchange with I-81 has had 3 configurations but none were a trumpet.
I always thought VA 381 should be I-381 Bus or US 19 (which would then also replace VA 140 in Abingdon)
Yes, I-81 originally had a wide median for about 1/2 mile in the interchange area, and a left exit from I-81 SB to I-381. The upgrade project for the full interchange also rebuilt SB I-81 to be alongside NB I-81 with a paved median.
Did the Interstate Business Routes get a higher percentage of federal funds than the 50% which was the maximum provided on federal-aid highway projects before the Interstate system?
One of the obvious reasons for I-381 being an Interstate highway was to fund this freeway spur with the standard 90% federal funds provided for Interstate projects, rather than having only 50% federal funds provided (at most).
I-381 was approved as part of the original 1956 Interstate Highway System.
It is in the "Yellow Book", _General Location of National System of Interstate Highways Including All Additional Routes at Urban Areas Designated in September 1955_, Bureau of Public Roads (BPR).
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/bristol.jpg
As to why I-381 wasn't built all the way thru the downtown, these Yellow Book city maps showed conceptual proposals, and VA-381 was the 4-lane arterial extension that took the route to the edge of the downtown. If they ever did consider extending the freeway all the way thru the downtown, they may have decided to utilize a less impacting alternative with the VA-381 arterial portion.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 27, 2017, 07:49:15 PM
I-381's interchange with I-81 has had 3 configurations but none were a trumpet.
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2017, 09:15:10 PM
Yes, I-81 originally had a wide median for about 1/2 mile in the interchange area, and a left exit from I-81 SB to I-381. The upgrade project for the full interchange also rebuilt SB I-81 to be alongside NB I-81 with a paved median.
I've seen the original interchange Scott describes from historic topos, and I drive through the current interchange almost daily. What was the third configuration Mike mentions?
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 27, 2017, 07:49:15 PM
I always thought VA 381 should be I-381 Bus or US 19 (which would then also replace VA 140 in Abingdon)
I always thought it a bid odd that US 58 was moved to the interstate, while US 11 and US 19 stayed on their old route.
Quote from: CYoder on November 28, 2017, 12:24:39 PM
I've seen the original interchange Scott describes from historic topos, and I drive through the current interchange almost daily. What was the third configuration Mike mentions?
The first configuration (per Topo maps) also had a
left ramp from 81 NB curling around to the left ramp from 81 SB to 381.
QuoteI always thought it a bid odd that US 58 was moved to the interstate, while US 11 and US 19 stayed on their old route.
I can see why US 11 stays off - not a through route north of Bristol. But US 19 is no different from US 58 through here in that regard.
I checked the CTB minutes and found no discussion on options for where the Bristol Interstate Spur would run - only that the public meeting had occurred and the option that was built was approved - to tie into existing Commonwealth Ave, which prevented it from being a freeway any further than it already is because although Euclid Ave didn't come along until the mid 1960s, Commonwealth Ave and the piece that still exists northwest of where VA 381 changes to I-381 was already there.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2017, 01:13:05 PM
The first configuration (per Topo maps) also had a left ramp from 81 NB curling around to the left ramp from 81 SB to 381.
I see it now. NB loop present on the 1960 Wallace topo, and gone in the 1968 revision.
Quote from: MCRoads on October 03, 2017, 08:37:42 AM
No one has mentioned I-27 yet... it might not be totally useless as a road, but it could probably be signed as a state route, or, at most, a US route.
Agree 100%! A US highway would be sufficient (US 87). Now, if they extend the southern terminus down to I-20, or even I-10 for that matter, then I-27 would make sense.
Quote from: capt.ron on November 28, 2017, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on October 03, 2017, 08:37:42 AM
No one has mentioned I-27 yet... it might not be totally useless as a road, but it could probably be signed as a state route, or, at most, a US route.
Agree 100%! A US highway would be sufficient (US 87). Now, if they extend the southern terminus down to I-20, or even I-10 for that matter, then I-27 would make sense.
I think that it should be I-140.
US 87 does break from I-27 in between exits 61 and 77 and again between exits 88 and 110 so you'd have to move US 87's allignment to stay on I-27's allignment. It should therefore be US 87 or an I-x40 odd number.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2017, 01:13:05 PM
The first configuration (per Topo maps) also had a left ramp from 81 NB curling around to the left ramp from 81 SB to 381.
I can see why they later removed that loop ramp. Unlike a higher speed left exit, traffic would exit from the left lane and have to slow down to about 25 mph to use that loop ramp. Safety issues. Plus the reverse movement was not present; that would have required at least one more overpass.
Quote
I checked the CTB minutes and found no discussion on options for where the Bristol Interstate Spur would run - only that the public meeting had occurred and the option that was built was approved - to tie into existing Commonwealth Ave, which prevented it from being a freeway any further than it already is because although Euclid Ave didn't come along until the mid 1960s, Commonwealth Ave and the piece that still exists northwest of where VA 381 changes to I-381 was already there.
VDOT or the VTRC library would most likely have a study document from the late 1950s that presented the planning and preliminary engineering for the Bristol Interstate Spur.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 28, 2017, 06:03:57 PM
Quote from: capt.ron on November 28, 2017, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on October 03, 2017, 08:37:42 AM
No one has mentioned I-27 yet... it might not be totally useless as a road, but it could probably be signed as a state route, or, at most, a US route.
Agree 100%! A US highway would be sufficient (US 87). Now, if they extend the southern terminus down to I-20, or even I-10 for that matter, then I-27 would make sense.
I think that it should be I-140.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 28, 2017, 08:47:41 PM
US 87 does break from I-27 in between exits 61 and 77 and again between exits 88 and 110 so you'd have to move US 87's allignment to stay on I-27's allignment. It should therefore be US 87 or an I-x40 odd number.
Since now that serious discussions about extending I-27 south to San Angelo and Laredo have commenced, courtesy of TxDOT, its status as a functional "spur" of I-40 might not be all that permanent. This marks the first time a state agency rather than a locally-based interest group has expressed interest in developing the Port-to-Plains corridor (see the appropriate thread in Mid-South for details), so after decades of inaction, something may actually be happening on this particular front!
Apologies for waking up an old thread, but I drove I-180 in Illinois today, just because I had the opportunity. Nothing at either end, and no evidence of civilization near any of its exits. And almost no traffic.
Quote from: Jim on July 26, 2018, 01:42:05 PM
Apologies for waking up an old thread, but I drove I-180 in Illinois today, just because I had the opportunity. Nothing at either end, and no evidence of civilization near any of its exits. And almost no traffic.
Thank you for reminding us of the correct answer to this thread.
I'll take that highway every October to get to an apple orchard west of Lacon. It's impressively barren and inexplicable.
Are you still in the area?
Since I didn't exist when this thread is at it's height, I'm putting my input.
Most 2dis should stay interstates however some should be a 3di instead (west I-86 to I-115 for example). There are some exceptions.
3di's on the other hand are more ahhh.
I-180 in both Wyoming and Illinois need to go. The Wyoming one can stay if it is ever upgraded to a freeway.
I-315 in Montana is pretty pointless as it's also US 89 and I-15Bus.
I-705 in Washnington is really a glorified C/D lanes to downtown, and feels substandard. Really should be SR 7.
LG-TP260
Quote from: Jim on July 26, 2018, 01:42:05 PM
Apologies for waking up an old thread, but I drove I-180 in Illinois today, just because I had the opportunity. Nothing at either end, and no evidence of civilization near any of its exits. And almost no traffic.
Well I remember about 10 years ago taking a trip to Iowa and was on I-80 approaching I-180 and got sick. At that time I didn't know much about I-180 and decided to get off and take that to see if there was an exit anywhere because I really did know I was in the middle of nowhere I knew that much so I get on I-180 and I'm driving for a minute and I'm thinking wow there is no traffic at all on this highway, come up to the first exit US-6 and I'm thinking I'm turning around and going back to I-80. Well it's not far into the middle of nowhere because Princeton is right there and it is by no means a big town at all but probably around 7,500 people being at least a serviceable town for that area. Get back on I-80 and come up to exit 56 and there was a Walmart right there so at least I was fine. I wanted to ride that thing to the end and if I wasn't sick I probably wouldn't of got on it at all but I haven't been to the southern end of it yet I think I'd die laughing at how small of a place Hennepin, Illinois is and it has an Interstate serving it. Well I do know the reason I-180 was built but still.
Interstate 495 in Maine. Completely unsigned and has exits solely at its termini. The freeway can stay though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_515
I-515 in Las Vegas needs to go away because its co-signed with US-93 and US-95 plus I-11.
Business 80 Sacramento needs to go because its officially CA-51.
Quote from: bing101 on July 27, 2018, 12:33:43 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_515
I-515 in Las Vegas needs to go away because its co-signed with US-93 and US-95 plus I-11.
There's a good chance it will be deleted. And in a similar vein, I-894 is completely co-signed with I-41 at this point, too. I personally think I-41 shouldn't exist south of I-43, but I'm split on whether I-41 should have a southern terminus at the Zoo Interchange or at I-94 near Milwaukee's airport.
Quote from: bing101 on July 27, 2018, 12:33:43 AM
I-515 in Las Vegas needs to go away because its co-signed with US-93 and US-95 plus I-11.
Not that I disagree, but none of I-11 is co-signed with I-515. At this point, I-11 begins where I-515 ends, which is at the Wagonwheel Drive interchange. Discussion in the Pacific Southwest board suggests that when the Boulder City Bypass is complete, I-11 will be extended up to the I-215 interchange, replacing that part of 515. Yes, that means three interstates will end at the same interchange (11, 215, 515).
The reason 515 is being kept at this point is that there is still debate over how to route I-11 through Las Vegas. While US 95 seems the obvious choice, there has been talk of routing it on the existing western bypass of I-215 and CC 215 (with freeway upgrades where needed), or building a completely new eastern bypass. I see no reason why I-11 shouldn't just follow US 95, which won't require any new freeway construction and is more direct anyway. In which case, I-11 should just be extended up the rest of 515 at this point.
NDOT is probably waiting to see how the results of Project Neon (the revamp of the 15/515/93/95 downtown interchange and approaches) pan out before making a recommendation as to the final I-11 alignment. My guess is that if there are any significant improvements regarding traffic flow and congestion patterns after about a year or so of use (that would push any assessment out to mid-2020), barring any other developments concerning the 215 loop (such as a definitive plan for a connecting freeway to US 95 north from the loop's NW corner), I-11 will indeed be designated right down US 95 and subsequently signed all the way out to the end of the freeway NW of town (and I-515 will be consigned to the dustbin).
I don't know just what WDOT were smoking when they designated a four lane road in Cheyenne I-180. It's never been Interstate standard at all...hell, it's hardly expressway standard. Upgrade it, or more practically, redesignate it.
I am sure many agree that I-99 is :bigass: but that being obvious and as former user Blawpe aka Interstateng would call out the moderators on that one for me necroposting :sombrero:
However, is really I-180 in IL needed or better yet I-180 in Cheyenne? The later is not even freeway and concurs with another interstate's Business Loop, but the former is not even to a population center.
I-380 in Iowa is iffy as that is just another excuse to sign a local highway as interstate, but I am not from Iowa so I cannot say what regional importance that one has.
I-587 in NY. Its not even connected to another freeway (directly anyway) and mostly is a four lane uninterrupted part of NY 28 that just happens to have no median breaks or side streets.
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: catsynth on October 02, 2017, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2017, 01:05:16 AM
I-180 (Wyoming)
I-238
I-97
I-238 is actually quite useful, despite its infamous number. It is a major trucking route for traffic coming from I-5 coming to the Bay Area - all trucks must exit I-580 onto I-238 and take I-880 N to SF/Oakland or S to San Jose and the bridge crossings.
The number is specifically why I consider it unnecessary. I'm of the opinion just leaving it as CA-238 would have been better, although I'm aware of the history and why it was given the badge.
Same reason I think I-97 is unnecessary. Would have been perfectly fine as either a 3di (perhaps something like 995?) or just an I-83 extension. A useful 2-digit number was now wasted.
I-238 has been rumored to be part of the I-380 gap in the Bay Area due to the Southern Crossing from San Bruno to Castro Valley.
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2018, 04:35:01 PM
NDOT is probably waiting to see how the results of Project Neon (the revamp of the 15/515/93/95 downtown interchange and approaches) pan out before making a recommendation as to the final I-11 alignment. My guess is that if there are any significant improvements regarding traffic flow and congestion patterns after about a year or so of use (that would push any assessment out to mid-2020), barring any other developments concerning the 215 loop (such as a definitive plan for a connecting freeway to US 95 north from the loop's NW corner), I-11 will indeed be designated right down US 95 and subsequently signed all the way out to the end of the freeway NW of town (and I-515 will be consigned to the dustbin).
I don't think Project Neon won't really have any baring on the future path of I-11. Project Neon won't be significantly changing any major traffic flows, but is expected to de-clog existing congestion on I-15 south of the Spaghetti Bowl.