Both termini of US 158 are at US 64. It should be US 164.
I understand it isn't because the route and designation was extended/added to a previous, shorter route, but shouldn't I-376 in Western PA really be an (even)76? 676 or 876, perhaps? It does touch its Parent twice, on both sides of the Pittsburgh Metro Area *EDIT* not 676, since it is in use in Philly
Of course, I-238 in Cali is low hanging fruit, here
Quote from: fillup420 on October 08, 2017, 11:42:36 AM
Both termini of US 158 are at US 64. It should be US 164.
Would that not better qualify as an (even)64, or does the even/odd 3digit guidelines only apply for Interstates, and not US routes?
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 08, 2017, 11:56:17 AM
I understand it isn't because the route and designation was extended/added to a previous, shorter route, but shouldn't I-376 in Western PA really be an (even)76? 676 or 876, perhaps? It does touch its Parent twice, on both sides of the Pittsburgh Metro Area
Of course, I-238 in Cali is low hanging fruit, here
Quote from: fillup420 on October 08, 2017, 11:42:36 AM
Both termini of US 158 are at US 64. It should be US 164.
Would that not better qualify as an (even)64, or does the even/odd 3digit guidelines only apply for Interstates, and not US routes?
The first digit in 3-digit US routes refers to their position along the parent route. Like other guidelines, this rule sometimes gets broken.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 08, 2017, 11:56:17 AM
Of course, I-238 in Cali is low hanging fruit, here
As is I-99.
US 412, anyone?
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona. Out of grid stuff in Florida like FL 112 around Miami doesn't make much sense to me. Someone already lobbed up I-238 but that kind of makes sense when you realize it is a glorified extension of CA 238 and understand the background in California about numbering duplication. US 400, 412, 425, and 163 are all infamous bastardizations of the US Route grid.
US 158 entered Virginia and met US 58 when they first appeared. Not sure why they changed its routing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
... Out of grid stuff in Florida like FL 112 around Miami doesn't make much sense to me....
I never understood 112. There are plenty of 9xx numbers available. Is it pre 1946 number? Like CR 3 in Volusia county. Even then it makes no sense. Florida did a complete renumbering for state roads
Z981
SR 9336 in Miami Dade and Monroe County FL.. plenty of 9xx available, extend Krome Ave 's designation 997.. it was all SR 27 at one point. They could have made it 927.
East of Jacksonville SR 10 is signed on Atlantic Blvd.( Most of SR10 is hidden under US 90) some people think the SR10 is a continuation of I-10. I wonder why FDOT didn't feel the need to change it. Maybe because it is universally called Atlantic Blvd
Z981
CA-170 in Los Angeles its a low hanging fruit too. That freeway should be renamed CA-305/I-305.
I-305 makes no sense because nobody in Sacramento ever call Cap City Freeway I-305. Its US-50 or former Business 80.
Business 80 should be called CA-51 fully until CA-99 is renamed I-7 or I-9
Then CA-51 would need to get a CA-x07 or a CA-x09 in its place.
I-980 and CA-24 should be renamed CA-980 but then again I-980 was supposed to be the route to Southern Crossing to Candlestick Park though.
Quote from: bing101 on October 08, 2017, 03:14:45 PM
CA-170 in Los Angeles its a low hanging fruit too. That freeway should be renamed CA-305/I-305.
I-305 makes no sense because nobody in Sacramento ever call Cap City Freeway I-305. Its US-50 or former Business 80.
Business 80 should be called CA-51 fully until CA-99 is renamed I-7 or I-9
Then CA-51 would need to get a CA-x07 or a CA-x09 in its place.
I-980 and CA-24 should be renamed CA-980 but then again I-980 was supposed to be the route to Southern Crossing to Candlestick Park though.
Pretty much almost all the new numbers post 1964 don't make a ton of sense when there was some semblance of order before. Usually three digit routes were secondary while the one and two were for major urban corridors.
CA-170 has to be a carryover when US-70 was in the Los Angeles area but the 70 designation for California moved to the Sacramento Valley as CA-70. Its now in Oroville and Marysville. CA-170 would have to be moved to northern portion of the Sacramento Valley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_70 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_70)
CA-180
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_180
Its the only I/CA-X80 that does not connect or is hundreds of miles away from I-80.
US 96
AR 400
VA 90003, 90004, and 90005 :sombrero:
The northern-most part of US 321 is completely east-west, and the north/south directions even switch in Elizabethton. I think it should be a separate route from the northern split with US 421 to its northern terminus. US 170 or seems like a good number to me. Or at the very least, just sign US 321 as east-west from there onward.
Quote from: jwolfer on October 08, 2017, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
... Out of grid stuff in Florida like FL 112 around Miami doesn't make much sense to me....
I never understood 112. There are plenty of 9xx numbers available. Is it pre 1946 number? Like CR 3 in Volusia county. Even then it makes no sense. Florida did a complete renumbering for state roads
Z981
Apparently there were a lot of numbers that were changed in SE FL in the 1970s, but '112' - which, According To The Wiki, was assigned to the road originally as a planning placeholder - managed to stick.
I want to say that somewhere I read once that they once intended for toll roads to have distinct numbers (which might explain the Turnpike being FL-91), but I might have imagined that.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona.
Neither do AZ 347, AZ 238 (which ends at the Pima/Maricopa County line, becoming County Road 238 between there and Gila Bend), the former AZ 153 (now 44th St. in south Phoenix), and the future AZ 30 (Durango Freeway). Let's not even talk about AZ 210 in Tucson, which connects to no other numbered highway. Arizona never numbered any non-Interstate below 60 until recent years.
Neither did they use 0 thru 5 as the second digit on 3-digit highways, with the exception of AZ 504 in the Navajo Nation, continued from NM 504, in the 1970s. Now we have/had/will have State Routes 24, 30, ex-50, 143, ex-153, L101, L202, 210, 238, L303, and 347.
My guess is that state routes numbered 12 thru 59 (10 and 11 are/will be Interstates, and there are no single-digit highways in Arizona other than I-8) are to be allocated for non-interstate freeways, although I've never been able to find any documentation on it.
I've always had a question about the Loop 303 (officially, AZ 303L). It's not a loop, never has been, and never will be one AFAIK. Why not renumber it as AZ 33 (other than $$$, of course. :-D )?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnag.gy%2FVAX1YF.jpg&hash=dca866bf92cd337d1f242d6f5cf1cc3ad473f58c)
Quote from: bing101 on October 08, 2017, 07:37:50 PM
I'm trying to apply rules that don't exist.
Quote from: jwolfer on October 08, 2017, 02:07:27 PM
SR 9336 in Miami Dade and Monroe County FL.. plenty of 9xx available, extend Krome Ave 's designation 997.. it was all SR 27 at one point. They could have made it 927.
I like to think that they proposed 936, but that was too close to
836, an important corridor. They wanted 933, but that was taken. So...they either compromised, or FDOT was infuriated that day.
Quote from: Aerobird on October 08, 2017, 08:11:02 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on October 08, 2017, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
... Out of grid stuff in Florida like FL 112 around Miami doesn't make much sense to me....
I never understood 112. There are plenty of 9xx numbers available.
Apparently there were a lot of numbers that were changed in SE FL in the 1970s, but '112' - which, According To The Wiki, was assigned to the road originally as a planning placeholder - managed to stick.
I always thought either 88, 86, 96, or even 900 would have worked (too close to "90", perhaps).
SR 736 is also out of place among other 8xx numbers; it was once FL 82. "828" would work, but it was once used in place of what's currently part of SR 934. Then again, there's a few 700s in the Panhandle, so I guess that's the extra-number lot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Alaska's SR 98...why that number?
Alabama's SR 604 and 605? There were other available numbers in the 200-300s.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 09, 2017, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona.
Neither do AZ 347, AZ 238 (which ends at the Pima/Maricopa County line, becoming County Road 238 between there and Gila Bend), the former AZ 153 (now 44th St. in south Phoenix), and the future AZ 30 (Durango Freeway). Let's not even talk about AZ 210 in Tucson, which connects to no other numbered highway. Arizona never numbered any non-Interstate below 60 until recent years.
Neither did they use 0 thru 5 as the second digit on 3-digit highways, with the exception of AZ 504 in the Navajo Nation, continued from NM 504, in the 1970s. Now we have/had/will have State Routes 24, 30, ex-50, 143, ex-153, L101, L202, 210, 238, L303, and 347.
My guess is that state routes numbered 12 thru 59 (10 and 11 are/will be Interstates, and there are no single-digit highways in Arizona other than I-8) are to be allocated for non-interstate freeways, although I've never been able to find any documentation on it.
I've always had a question about the Loop 303 (officially, AZ 303L). It's not a loop, never has been, and never will be one AFAIK. Why not renumber it as AZ 33 (other than $$$, of course. :-D )?
Essentially the numbering theory that I have has to do when Arizona had US 66, 80, 91, 89, 180, 260, and 70 all in the state back when the original state highways were being plotted out. It seemed that most of the state highways more less tended to stay in the same 60-99 band with child routes assuming whatever point of origin route was with a third digit. So in a sense things like like AZ 266 and AZ 366 make perfect sense when they connected to US 666. I would almost kind of compare the route numberings to how Washington State has them now.
I can kind of give AZ 210 a pass since there seems to have been much grander designs for it. AZ 51 at least once appeared on planning maps as I-510, so that one makes sense to me also. Really any spur freeway in the Phoenix area ought to be carrying route numbers like the Loop freeways, really anything X0X. I have no idea what was going on with stuff like 347, 143, 153 and 238...it seems like ADOT just picks random shit out of a hat in the post-Interstate era.
I've never understood why Tennessee's lone spur route from I-40 is designated as I-140, given that it connects Knoxville and Maryville. Since it's in the eastern part of the state, shouldn't it have been I-540, 740 or 940?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 09, 2017, 10:36:55 PM
AZ 51 at least once appeared on planning maps as I-510, so that one makes sense to me also.
Back in the mid 1960s, what little there was of what is now I-10 north of the 17 split was signed as I-510. It ended at Buckeye Rd. and was strictly used for Sky Harbor access from I-17. This was when the intention was to run I-10 on the still-to-be-built Durango Freeway that will eventually become AZ 30. Eventually. :)
Quote from: bing101 on October 08, 2017, 07:37:50 PM
CA-170 has to be a carryover when US-70 was in the Los Angeles area but the 70 designation for California moved to the Sacramento Valley as CA-70. Its now in Oroville and Marysville. CA-170 would have to be moved to northern portion of the Sacramento Valley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_70 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_70)
CA-180
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_180
Its the only I/CA-X80 that does not connect or is hundreds of miles away from I-80.
Thing is that CA 180 has been there since 1934, way before the Interstate era. Given that it isn't an X80 number it wasn't like it could just been swapped out with another kind of how like the original CA 28 was renumbered CA 128. I guess it could be assigned a lower digit given the importance of the corridor has grown if the 180 number ever needed to be freed up. It isn't like there aren't numbers like "30" available for reuse these days.
Interestingly one could make the argument that there is way too many 3d Interstates in California and that they are actually what doesn't make much sense. Hell Caltrans could throw CA 17 back on I-880 and it would have a lot more route continuity, I-238 could just be bumped back down to a state highway.
PA's state routes (re)numbered after the advent of the Interstate system. Before that they followed a standard parent/child system then lost a bunch of 2 digit routes to the US Highway System but the renumbered routes kept to the system for the most part. It wasn't til the Interstates came to be that PADH and later PennDOT just said fuck and started numbering routes way out of the convention they had set.
Quote from: Charles2 on October 09, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
I've never understood why Tennessee's lone spur route from I-40 is designated as I-140, given that it connects Knoxville and Maryville. Since it's in the eastern part of the state, shouldn't it have been I-540, 740 or 940?
There is no difference between a 1xx, 3xx, 5xx, etc., except that ones designated later often have higher numbers. Position has nothing to do with it. (I used to think that lower first digits were longer on average, but that's not the case.)
In addition to the aforementioned examples, I'd like to throw in I-520 around Augusta, I-540 in Raleigh and I-495 on Long Island, for the following reasons:
- I-520 now touches its parent on both ends, when a few years ago, this wasn't the case. Granted, it exists in two states now, but I-620 would've been a better choice for when the inevitable happened.
- I-540 is a weird number choice for the outer beltway, even if NC 540 will be the dominant route on it. I still believe that the whole thing should be I-640, but too late for that.
- I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.
Then there are US 57 and US 163, as the former is more east-west than north-south, and the latter is nowhere close to US 63.
Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2017, 09:18:26 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnag.gy%2FVAX1YF.jpg&hash=dca866bf92cd337d1f242d6f5cf1cc3ad473f58c)
Quote from: bing101 on October 08, 2017, 07:37:50 PM
I'm trying to apply rules that don't exist.
What's the story behind
that one?
Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
In addition to the aforementioned examples, I'd like to throw in I-520 around Augusta, I-540 in Raleigh and I-495 on Long Island, for the following reasons:
- I-520 now touches its parent on both ends, when a few years ago, this wasn't the case. Granted, it exists in two states now, but I-620 would've been a better choice for when the inevitable happened.
- I-540 is a weird number choice for the outer beltway, even if NC 540 will be the dominant route on it. I still believe that the whole thing should be I-640, but too late for that.
- I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.
Then there are US 57 and US 163, as the former is more east-west than north-south, and the latter is nowhere close to US 63.
Also US 96, which is the opposite of US 57. And in the same state!
Quote from: 1 on October 10, 2017, 07:13:39 AM
Quote from: Charles2 on October 09, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
I've never understood why Tennessee's lone spur route from I-40 is designated as I-140, given that it connects Knoxville and Maryville. Since it's in the eastern part of the state, shouldn't it have been I-540, 740 or 940?
There is no difference between a 1xx, 3xx, 5xx, etc., except that ones designated later often have higher numbers. Position has nothing to do with it. (I used to think that lower first digits were longer on average, but that's not the case.)
I guess I just assumed (yeah, we all know what happens when that happens) that lower number 3-di's were assigned to the southern or western part of states. I know now better! :)
Quote from: Charles2 on October 10, 2017, 09:51:44 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 10, 2017, 07:13:39 AM
Quote from: Charles2 on October 09, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
I've never understood why Tennessee's lone spur route from I-40 is designated as I-140, given that it connects Knoxville and Maryville. Since it's in the eastern part of the state, shouldn't it have been I-540, 740 or 940?
There is no difference between a 1xx, 3xx, 5xx, etc., except that ones designated later often have higher numbers. Position has nothing to do with it. (I used to think that lower first digits were longer on average, but that's not the case.)
I guess I just assumed (yeah, we all know what happens when that happens) that lower number 3-di's were assigned to the southern or western part of states. I know now better! :)
Alabama seems to be one of the exceptions that numbers their 3dis with respect to some sort of future order...leaving out 159, 259, 365, 559, if needed. Of course, I-165 was the consolation prize for not getting 210.
Edit: now that I think about it, maybe they avoided Interstates 1xx and 2xx so that they wouldn't duplicate state routes; though SRs 10, 20, 22, 59, 65, and 165 exist.
I'm thinking IL starts low and gets higher
I-80: I-180, I-280
I-55: I-155, I-255/IL 255, I-355. Supposedly the FHWA felt I-455 was more appropriate, but ISTHA wanted and felt 355 was more appropriate
I-90: I-190, I-290, IL 390, and soon IL 490
I-94: I-294, IL 394. I-494 was Proposed. IL 194 and IL 594 are no more. A new I-594 is potentially proposed
I-72: I-172
I-70: I-270
I-74 is a bit of an outlier, with I-474 instead of I-274
Not that it makes it any more sensible, but I believe US 57 was "upgraded" to signify more of a connection to the associated route in Mexico, though I don't know why it couldn't just remain SH 57. The Texas section was renumbered SH 57 from 76 in 1966 and then given the US 57 designation in 1970.
And I can tell you, that's a pretty lonely place where it meets I-35.
In my area, it would have to be US 218. It seems to me they should have called it US 265 when they made it.
Elsewhere, there's US 220.
While the closest thing to a numbering system Utah has is putting similar/near-consecutive (or consecutive) numbers nearby one another (think of most numbers between UT-7 through UT-18 in the southwest corner of the state), going by this there are a few exceptions, but even then, there's another similar route number within a couple hours (that's very broad, I know, but still).
UT-13 (Tremonton-Plymouth) and UT-16 (Wyoming near Evanston, connects to WYO-89, to UT-30 via Randolph) are in far northern Utah.
UT-26 is in the general Ogden area while most routes in the 20s are in the central/southern reaches of the state.
UT-34 is St. George Blvd while all other existing routes in the 30s are in the northern half of the state.
UT-72 (Loa to I-70) and UT-76 (connector between 72 and I-70) are farther south than most routes in the 70s (mostly Utah County)
UT-87 and UT-88 are in the Uintah Basin while most 80s routes (north-central Utah, near Tremonton).
And so forth. But one that sticks out to me is UT-252 (Logan's 1000 West and 2500 North). It was a trade-off between Logan City and UDOT for UT-237 (Utah State University to US-91 in Hyde Park), UT-238 (a loop to Millville, Providence, and River Heights from UT-165 in Nibley to US-89/91 in south Logan), UT-239 (Logan's 1400 North between US-91 and 800 East AKA old UT-237), and UT-288 (Logan's 1200 East between US-89/UT-30 and 1000 North from 1200 East to old UT-237). (At least that was their latest iterations.) There's no nearby route number, as most of the existing 250s routes tend to be in the Sevier Valley (UT-256, UT-258, UT-259, and sure, let's add UT-260 though it should've been UT-250 IMO), and even UT-257 is roughly the same latitude as well, just a bit further west. Besides UT-252, no other number between UT-250 through UT-255 currently exists. I'm not sure why they didn't use the number 33 or 166. Perhaps another state route in the Cache Valley is somewhere on the way that will be UT-251 or UT-253?
IN 47 is E-W but has an odd number
IN 162 is partly E-W but mostly N-S yet is an even number
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 09, 2017, 11:10:40 PM
Quote from: bing101 on October 08, 2017, 07:37:50 PM
CA-170 has to be a carryover when US-70 was in the Los Angeles area but the 70 designation for California moved to the Sacramento Valley as CA-70. Its now in Oroville and Marysville. CA-170 would have to be moved to northern portion of the Sacramento Valley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_70 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_70)
CA-180
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_180
Its the only I/CA-X80 that does not connect or is hundreds of miles away from I-80.
Thing is that CA 180 has been there since 1934, way before the Interstate era. Given that it isn't an X80 number it wasn't like it could just been swapped out with another kind of how like the original CA 28 was renumbered CA 128. I guess it could be assigned a lower digit given the importance of the corridor has grown if the 180 number ever needed to be freed up. It isn't like there aren't numbers like "30" available for reuse these days.
Interestingly one could make the argument that there is way too many 3d Interstates in California and that they are actually what doesn't make much sense. Hell Caltrans could throw CA 17 back on I-880 and it would have a lot more route continuity, I-238 could just be bumped back down to a state highway.
Absolutely no connection between US 70 and CA 170; the former would have been decommissioned concurrent with the establishment of the latter; the number, like so many in the '64 renumbering, seems to have been pulled out of some orifice somewhere or the product of random generation.
Under the previous -- but often ignored or bypassed -- Division of Highways idiom (<1963), the 170 number would have been applied to an east-west highway between SSR 166 and SSR 178 anywhere between US 101 and the desert; what's now CA 223 would have been a likely candidate for such a designation if signed under the old system, as would CA 202. Even numbered 3-digit SSR's
not divisible by 4 commenced in downtown L.A. and were theoretically to be applied to E-W routes northward until 198 -- but there were some unexplained oddities (under this theorem SSR 134 should have been SSR 114, with SSR 118 the next corridor to the north). 198 was to be the highest number in the series; the 3-digit numbering system then switched over to the other set that
was divisible by 4 and decreasing as one progressed north. By the time the renumbering occurred, 180 was the highest-numbered of these. If all LRN's in the SJ Valley had received SSR numbers, under this system it's likely present CA 216 would have been LRN 196, and CA 201 LRN 192 or even 188. Chances are present CA 146 and CA 129 over nearer the coast would have been subject to that SSR numbering routine as well (likely 184 and 160 respectively). But all that is speculation; the renumbering threw pretty much the whole network into the chaos it is today!
US 96 in Texas.
M-123. There's no reason the portion from Newberry to Paradise couldn't have been M-117 (as the first few miles north of Newberry once was).
Quote from: GaryV on October 11, 2017, 06:57:44 PM
M-123. There's no reason the portion from Newberry to Paradise couldn't have been M-117 (as the first few miles north of Newberry once was).
Even M-22 doesn't make a lot of sense in places. The route along the Lake Michigan Coast up to the top of the Leelanau Peninsula makes sense but then the route changes direction much like M-123 does. The whole multiplex with M-72 into Traverse City just to end at US 31/M-37 is really weird also. It seems to me that the Grand Traverse Bay portion ought to be numbered M-201 all the way to the top of Leelanau...but then again that would hack up a tourist favorite, so really its a minimal gripe.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 11, 2017, 07:48:23 PM
Quote from: GaryV on October 11, 2017, 06:57:44 PM
M-123. There's no reason the portion from Newberry to Paradise couldn't have been M-117 (as the first few miles north of Newberry once was).
Even M-22 doesn't make a lot of sense in places. The route along the Lake Michigan Coast up to the top of the Leelanau Peninsula makes sense but then the route changes direction much like M-123 does. The whole multiplex with M-72 into Traverse City just to end at US 31/M-37 is really weird also. It seems to me that the Grand Traverse Bay portion ought to be numbered M-201 all the way to the top of Leelanau...but then again that would hack up a tourist favorite, so really its a minimal gripe.
They're numbered based on length, right? What makes 22 a bad number?
Quote from: 1 on October 11, 2017, 09:21:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 11, 2017, 07:48:23 PM
Quote from: GaryV on October 11, 2017, 06:57:44 PM
M-123. There's no reason the portion from Newberry to Paradise couldn't have been M-117 (as the first few miles north of Newberry once was).
Even M-22 doesn't make a lot of sense in places. The route along the Lake Michigan Coast up to the top of the Leelanau Peninsula makes sense but then the route changes direction much like M-123 does. The whole multiplex with M-72 into Traverse City just to end at US 31/M-37 is really weird also. It seems to me that the Grand Traverse Bay portion ought to be numbered M-201 all the way to the top of Leelanau...but then again that would hack up a tourist favorite, so really its a minimal gripe.
They're numbered based on length, right? What makes 22 a bad number?
It changes cardinal direction in the middle of the route, 123 does the same thing. If anything 22 should be cut back to 72 instead of multiplexing it.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 09, 2017, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona.
Neither do AZ 347, AZ 238 (which ends at the Pima/Maricopa County line, becoming County Road 238 between there and Gila Bend), the former AZ 153 (now 44th St. in south Phoenix), and the future AZ 30 (Durango Freeway). Let's not even talk about AZ 210 in Tucson, which connects to no other numbered highway. Arizona never numbered any non-Interstate below 60 until recent years.
Neither did they use 0 thru 5 as the second digit on 3-digit highways, with the exception of AZ 504 in the Navajo Nation, continued from NM 504, in the 1970s. Now we have/had/will have State Routes 24, 30, ex-50, 143, ex-153, L101, L202, 210, 238, L303, and 347.
My guess is that state routes numbered 12 thru 59 (10 and 11 are/will be Interstates, and there are no single-digit highways in Arizona other than I-8) are to be allocated for non-interstate freeways, although I've never been able to find any documentation on it.
I've always had a question about the Loop 303 (officially, AZ 303L). It's not a loop, never has been, and never will be one AFAIK. Why not renumber it as AZ 33 (other than $$$, of course. :-D )?
IF complete L303 will form a 1/4 Loop from I-8 In Goodyear (yes the south border of Goodyear is I-8) to I-17 In Phoenix
Quote from: mapman1071 on October 12, 2017, 07:07:04 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 09, 2017, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona.
Neither do AZ 347, AZ 238 (which ends at the Pima/Maricopa County line, becoming County Road 238 between there and Gila Bend), the former AZ 153 (now 44th St. in south Phoenix), and the future AZ 30 (Durango Freeway). Let's not even talk about AZ 210 in Tucson, which connects to no other numbered highway. Arizona never numbered any non-Interstate below 60 until recent years.
Neither did they use 0 thru 5 as the second digit on 3-digit highways, with the exception of AZ 504 in the Navajo Nation, continued from NM 504, in the 1970s. Now we have/had/will have State Routes 24, 30, ex-50, 143, ex-153, L101, L202, 210, 238, L303, and 347.
My guess is that state routes numbered 12 thru 59 (10 and 11 are/will be Interstates, and there are no single-digit highways in Arizona other than I-8) are to be allocated for non-interstate freeways, although I've never been able to find any documentation on it.
I've always had a question about the Loop 303 (officially, AZ 303L). It's not a loop, never has been, and never will be one AFAIK. Why not renumber it as AZ 33 (other than $$$, of course. :-D )?
IF complete L303 will form a 1/4 Loop from I-8 In Goodyear (yes the south border of Goodyear is I-8) to I-17 In Phoenix
Is it really now? The last I saw Goodyear annexed land south to Mobile and AZ 238. No wonder the Sonoran Desert National Monument was created, between Goodyear and Buckeye there wouldn't be very much open desert left at the rate they are land grabbing.
QEW
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 10, 2017, 10:55:19 AM
Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
In addition to the aforementioned examples, I'd like to throw in I-520 around Augusta, I-540 in Raleigh and I-495 on Long Island, for the following reasons:
- I-520 now touches its parent on both ends, when a few years ago, this wasn't the case. Granted, it exists in two states now, but I-620 would've been a better choice for when the inevitable happened.
- I-540 is a weird number choice for the outer beltway, even if NC 540 will be the dominant route on it. I still believe that the whole thing should be I-640, but too late for that.
- I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.
Then there are US 57 and US 163, as the former is more east-west than north-south, and the latter is nowhere close to US 63.
Also US 96, which is the opposite of US 57. And in the same state!
IIRC, what is now US 96 is the old US 59 while the current US 59 from about Houston southwest is the original 1926-1930s US 96. Seems like the designations were flipped ca. 1939 to extend US 59 to the Mexican border.
Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
- I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.
That's correct. NJ 495 is numbered as such because it was supposed to be part of it. (In fact, the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel is signed incorrectly as I-495.)
Quote from: dgolub on October 13, 2017, 06:54:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
- I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.
That's correct. NJ 495 is numbered as such because it was supposed to be part of it. (In fact, the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel is signed incorrectly as I-495.)
Slightly incorrect. The section in New Jersey
was part of I-495 originally. The part planned to connect the two across Manhattan was canceled in the 70s, so in the 80s, the Jersey side was demoted to a state route.
I remember still seeing interstate shields on the Jersey side into the 90s that weren't incorrect when they were put up. But you're right that New York seems to still be putting up
new interstate shields, and that is incorrect.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 12, 2017, 08:51:06 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on October 12, 2017, 07:07:04 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 09, 2017, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona.
Neither do AZ 347, AZ 238 (which ends at the Pima/Maricopa County line, becoming County Road 238 between there and Gila Bend), the former AZ 153 (now 44th St. in south Phoenix), and the future AZ 30 (Durango Freeway). Let's not even talk about AZ 210 in Tucson, which connects to no other numbered highway. Arizona never numbered any non-Interstate below 60 until recent years.
Neither did they use 0 thru 5 as the second digit on 3-digit highways, with the exception of AZ 504 in the Navajo Nation, continued from NM 504, in the 1970s. Now we have/had/will have State Routes 24, 30, ex-50, 143, ex-153, L101, L202, 210, 238, L303, and 347.
My guess is that state routes numbered 12 thru 59 (10 and 11 are/will be Interstates, and there are no single-digit highways in Arizona other than I-8) are to be allocated for non-interstate freeways, although I've never been able to find any documentation on it.
I've always had a question about the Loop 303 (officially, AZ 303L). It's not a loop, never has been, and never will be one AFAIK. Why not renumber it as AZ 33 (other than $$$, of course. :-D )?
IF complete L303 will form a 1/4 Loop from I-8 In Goodyear (yes the south border of Goodyear is I-8) to I-17 In Phoenix
Is it really now? The last I saw Goodyear annexed land south to Mobile and AZ 238. No wonder the Sonoran Desert National Monument was created, between Goodyear and Buckeye there wouldn't be very much open desert left at the rate they are land grabbing.
AZ 210 in Tucson was supposed to be a full freeway, connecting to I-10 between Speedway Blvd and Congress St. Whenever it finally connects to I-10, it will be a surface street on its west end. A freeway segment is proposed from the area of Golf Links Rd to I-10 on the SE side of Tucson.
Arizona has changed many state route numbers before they ever got signed in the field. AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802. AZ 30 was first AZ 801. Most of the current loop system was made up of AZ x17 numbers. Loop 303 was first proposed as AZ 517. Part of Loop 202 was proposed as AZ 217. Loop 101 was proposed as AZ 117 and AZ 417.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 10, 2017, 10:23:55 PM
I'm thinking IL starts low and gets higher
I-80: I-180, I-280
I-55: I-155, I-255/IL 255, I-355. Supposedly the FHWA felt I-455 was more appropriate, but ISTHA wanted and felt 355 was more appropriate
I-90: I-190, I-290, IL 390, and soon IL 490
I-94: I-294, IL 394. I-494 was Proposed. IL 194 and IL 594 are no more. A new I-594 is potentially proposed
I-72: I-172
I-70: I-270
I-74 is a bit of an outlier, with I-474 instead of I-274
I-274 had been considered for part of I-80 around Quad Cities, see http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix74.html#274il (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix74.html#274il).
Starting low would also not fit with the previously proposed I-870 for part of I-270 from I-255 to I-55/I-70 at Troy (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i870.html#870il (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i870.html#870il)). There is (was?) the possible I-564 for connecting I-64 from I-55 to the new I-70 bridge if the second phase of the project is every constructed (in which I-70 would branch off of I-55 east of IL 203 instead of having the bump with I-64).
For the original topic:
* IL/MO 110 - IMHO would have been better to have MO/IL 88 extend west of the I-80/I-88 interchange, and then extend I-88 eastward along I-290 to the Circle. Or make it an MO/IL x36.
* A lot of the out of grid US routes such as US 6, US 24, and US 59
* I-30
* I-41 (I know there are a couple reasons for this one, but I disagree with them)
* I-45
An easier way to get rid of the I-64/I-70 bump would be to reverse/flip I-64 and I-70 from the Bump in East St Louis to the I-64 end @ I-70 in Wentzville.
Resigning the routes (and the child MO 370 and MO 364) -- much cheaper than building new terrain Interstate, even in East St Louis. Would be cheaper even for IL to pay MO to resign, than building new
I like the idea of making the CKC IL/MO 88 instead of IL/MO 110 after the end of I-88. Of course, the CKC should really be signed 55->72/36->35, but Western IL wanted its route
I still don't quite understand why the STL Beltway isn't signed only I-255 or I-270 for the actual belt route all around, with the leg back to I-55/70 being the other not used (if 255 for beltway, 270 for that short E-W spur; if 270 for beltway, 255 for the short spur). IL 255 can be changed to a (odd)55 or (odd)70, depending on the final Beltway number. I believe I read some history of the STL Beltway that part of it was signed I-244 as well at one point, maybe...
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 13, 2017, 09:34:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 12, 2017, 08:51:06 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on October 12, 2017, 07:07:04 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 09, 2017, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona.
Neither do AZ 347, AZ 238 (which ends at the Pima/Maricopa County line, becoming County Road 238 between there and Gila Bend), the former AZ 153 (now 44th St. in south Phoenix), and the future AZ 30 (Durango Freeway). Let's not even talk about AZ 210 in Tucson, which connects to no other numbered highway. Arizona never numbered any non-Interstate below 60 until recent years.
Neither did they use 0 thru 5 as the second digit on 3-digit highways, with the exception of AZ 504 in the Navajo Nation, continued from NM 504, in the 1970s. Now we have/had/will have State Routes 24, 30, ex-50, 143, ex-153, L101, L202, 210, 238, L303, and 347.
My guess is that state routes numbered 12 thru 59 (10 and 11 are/will be Interstates, and there are no single-digit highways in Arizona other than I-8) are to be allocated for non-interstate freeways, although I've never been able to find any documentation on it.
I've always had a question about the Loop 303 (officially, AZ 303L). It's not a loop, never has been, and never will be one AFAIK. Why not renumber it as AZ 33 (other than $$$, of course. :-D )?
IF complete L303 will form a 1/4 Loop from I-8 In Goodyear (yes the south border of Goodyear is I-8) to I-17 In Phoenix
Is it really now? The last I saw Goodyear annexed land south to Mobile and AZ 238. No wonder the Sonoran Desert National Monument was created, between Goodyear and Buckeye there wouldn't be very much open desert left at the rate they are land grabbing.
AZ 210 in Tucson was supposed to be a full freeway, connecting to I-10 between Speedway Blvd and Congress St. Whenever it finally connects to I-10, it will be a surface street on its west end. A freeway segment is proposed from the area of Golf Links Rd to I-10 on the SE side of Tucson.
Arizona has changed many state route numbers before they ever got signed in the field. AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802. AZ 30 was first AZ 801. Most of the current loop system was made up of AZ x17 numbers. Loop 303 was first proposed as AZ 517. Part of Loop 202 was proposed as AZ 217. Loop 101 was proposed as AZ 117 and AZ 417.
Interesting, any planning documents on the 101, 202, and 303? I've heard of AZ 217 but not 117, 517, and 417
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 13, 2017, 10:20:02 PM
An easier way to get rid of the I-64/I-70 bump would be to reverse/flip I-64 and I-70 from the Bump in East St Louis to the I-64 end @ I-70 in Wentzville.
Resigning the routes (and the child MO 370 and MO 364) -- much cheaper than building new terrain Interstate, even in East St Louis. Would be cheaper even for IL to pay MO to resign, than building new
Resigning would not get I-70 traffic to the new Mississippi crossing without going through the interchange with I-64, which was the intent of this cut-off. A partial view of the older plan is available on Page 3 here. (http://www.modot.org/stlouis/major_projects/documents/PSBIndustrymtg.11-5-12FPSB.pdf)
I like the idea of making the CKC IL/MO 88 instead of IL/MO 110 after the end of I-88. Of course, the CKC should really be signed 55->72/36->35, but Western IL wanted its route
I still don't quite understand why the STL Beltway isn't signed only I-255 or I-270 for the actual belt route all around, with the leg back to I-55/70 being the other not used (if 255 for beltway, 270 for that short E-W spur; if 270 for beltway, 255 for the short spur). IL 255 can be changed to a (odd)55 or (odd)70, depending on the final Beltway number. I believe I read some history of the STL Beltway that part of it was signed I-244 as well at one point, maybe...
[/quote]
mass 25 could just be I-495.
Not a route number, but more rather exit numbering that doesn't make sense. I-485 in Charlotte is a beltway, and the exit numbers reset at the southern JCT with I-77. Why would they not reset at one of the JCT's with I-85?
Quote from: fillup420 on October 20, 2017, 12:00:36 PM
Not a route number, but more rather exit numbering that doesn't make sense. I-485 in Charlotte is a beltway, and the exit numbers reset at the southern JCT with I-77. Why would they not reset at one of the JCT's with I-85?
Beltways tend to reset at intersections with north-south roads that intersect at perpendicular angles. In Charlotte's case, I-77 fits the bill better than I-85 because 77 is closer to a true north-south route there, while 85 runs at an angle.
Quote from: fillup420 on October 20, 2017, 12:00:36 PM
Not a route number, but more rather exit numbering that doesn't make sense. I-485 in Charlotte is a beltway, and the exit numbers reset at the southern JCT with I-77. Why would they not reset at one of the JCT's with I-85?
I may add to this.. when I-485 was first built, it was built from I-77 east to US 74 after a couple of extensions. It makes sense to have the exit numbers reset at I-77. As of why they chose I-485 is a good question. My assumption is that there is already I-277 and I-85 doesn't have a I-x85 in Charlotte area.
I-476 in PA doesn't make sense to me, at least not the part that piggybacks on to the PA Turnpike NE Extension. Shouldn't even number prefixes on 3di interstates either bypass a city/congested area or connect 2 interstates? For one thing, having a straight line interstate running 160 miles wasn't what they had in mind for the definition of a bypass or connector. Secondly, I-476 doesn't really connect directly with i-81 (at it's end, at least).
Had it been numbered I-576, they at least might have gotten away with calling it an extra-long spur.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2017, 12:55:04 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 13, 2017, 09:34:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 12, 2017, 08:51:06 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on October 12, 2017, 07:07:04 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 09, 2017, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2017, 12:57:37 PM
AZ 24 and AZ 143 don't follow any previous conventions in Arizona.
Neither do AZ 347, AZ 238 (which ends at the Pima/Maricopa County line, becoming County Road 238 between there and Gila Bend), the former AZ 153 (now 44th St. in south Phoenix), and the future AZ 30 (Durango Freeway). Let's not even talk about AZ 210 in Tucson, which connects to no other numbered highway. Arizona never numbered any non-Interstate below 60 until recent years.
Neither did they use 0 thru 5 as the second digit on 3-digit highways, with the exception of AZ 504 in the Navajo Nation, continued from NM 504, in the 1970s. Now we have/had/will have State Routes 24, 30, ex-50, 143, ex-153, L101, L202, 210, 238, L303, and 347.
My guess is that state routes numbered 12 thru 59 (10 and 11 are/will be Interstates, and there are no single-digit highways in Arizona other than I-8) are to be allocated for non-interstate freeways, although I've never been able to find any documentation on it.
I've always had a question about the Loop 303 (officially, AZ 303L). It's not a loop, never has been, and never will be one AFAIK. Why not renumber it as AZ 33 (other than $$$, of course. :-D )?
IF complete L303 will form a 1/4 Loop from I-8 In Goodyear (yes the south border of Goodyear is I-8) to I-17 In Phoenix
Is it really now? The last I saw Goodyear annexed land south to Mobile and AZ 238. No wonder the Sonoran Desert National Monument was created, between Goodyear and Buckeye there wouldn't be very much open desert left at the rate they are land grabbing.
AZ 210 in Tucson was supposed to be a full freeway, connecting to I-10 between Speedway Blvd and Congress St. Whenever it finally connects to I-10, it will be a surface street on its west end. A freeway segment is proposed from the area of Golf Links Rd to I-10 on the SE side of Tucson.
Arizona has changed many state route numbers before they ever got signed in the field. AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802. AZ 30 was first AZ 801. Most of the current loop system was made up of AZ x17 numbers. Loop 303 was first proposed as AZ 517. Part of Loop 202 was proposed as AZ 217. Loop 101 was proposed as AZ 117 and AZ 417.
Interesting, any planning documents on the 101, 202, and 303? I've heard of AZ 217 but not 117, 517, and 417
You would probably have to do a search of the Phoenix Regional Freeway System plans as of 1985 to see if any of these documents still exist. Some info was on the old mtr newsgroup. ADOT used to have some info in regards to the recent conversion of Loop 303 to a freeway.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 13, 2017, 09:34:07 PM
Arizona has changed many state route numbers before they ever got signed in the field. AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802. AZ 30 was first AZ 801. Most of the current loop system was made up of AZ x17 numbers. Loop 303 was first proposed as AZ 517. Part of Loop 202 was proposed as AZ 217. Loop 101 was proposed as AZ 117 and AZ 417.
Arizona once considering some of the routes for future interstates, given the x17 numbers? :biggrin:
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 22, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 13, 2017, 09:34:07 PM
Arizona has changed many state route numbers before they ever got signed in the field. AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802. AZ 30 was first AZ 801. Most of the current loop system was made up of AZ x17 numbers. Loop 303 was first proposed as AZ 517. Part of Loop 202 was proposed as AZ 217. Loop 101 was proposed as AZ 117 and AZ 417.
Arizona once considering some of the routes for future interstates, given the x17 numbers? :biggrin:
For what it's worth over the years I've talked to several representatives at ADOT about stuff like that, specifally why the Loop Routes weren't 3ds in addition to AZ 51. The most I've ever got from anyone was that I-510 was rejected in the initial Interstate planning phase and that Loop designations were thought to be more sensible over 3d Interstate numbers...at least in the last couple decades anyways. Unfortunately Old highway documentation or anything planning wise is more difficult to come by for Arizona as opposed other states like California.
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 22, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 13, 2017, 09:34:07 PM
Arizona has changed many state route numbers before they ever got signed in the field. AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802. AZ 30 was first AZ 801. Most of the current loop system was made up of AZ x17 numbers. Loop 303 was first proposed as AZ 517. Part of Loop 202 was proposed as AZ 217. Loop 101 was proposed as AZ 117 and AZ 417.
Arizona once considering some of the routes for future interstates, given the x17 numbers? :biggrin:
I think the freeways around Phoenix may have been set up to be interstates if they had been built before the 1980s. Today I doubt any new interstate (other than I-11) will come into the Phoenix area.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 22, 2017, 12:36:58 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 22, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 13, 2017, 09:34:07 PM
Arizona has changed many state route numbers before they ever got signed in the field. AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802. AZ 30 was first AZ 801. Most of the current loop system was made up of AZ x17 numbers. Loop 303 was first proposed as AZ 517. Part of Loop 202 was proposed as AZ 217. Loop 101 was proposed as AZ 117 and AZ 417.
Arizona once considering some of the routes for future interstates, given the x17 numbers? :biggrin:
For what it's worth over the years I've talked to several representatives at ADOT about stuff like that, specifally why the Loop Routes weren't 3ds in addition to AZ 51. The most I've ever got from anyone was that I-510 was rejected in the initial Interstate planning phase and that Loop designations were thought to be more sensible over 3d Interstate numbers...at least in the last couple decades anyways. Unfortunately Old highway documentation or anything planning wise is more difficult to come by for Arizona as opposed other states like California.
I thought the reason was that the Loops were financed by a county sales tax, without Federal money, and the latter was required in order for a freeway to be signed as an Interstate.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 22, 2017, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 22, 2017, 12:36:58 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 22, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 13, 2017, 09:34:07 PM
Arizona has changed many state route numbers before they ever got signed in the field. AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802. AZ 30 was first AZ 801. Most of the current loop system was made up of AZ x17 numbers. Loop 303 was first proposed as AZ 517. Part of Loop 202 was proposed as AZ 217. Loop 101 was proposed as AZ 117 and AZ 417.
Arizona once considering some of the routes for future interstates, given the x17 numbers? :biggrin:
For what it's worth over the years I've talked to several representatives at ADOT about stuff like that, specifally why the Loop Routes weren't 3ds in addition to AZ 51. The most I've ever got from anyone was that I-510 was rejected in the initial Interstate planning phase and that Loop designations were thought to be more sensible over 3d Interstate numbers...at least in the last couple decades anyways. Unfortunately Old highway documentation or anything planning wise is more difficult to come by for Arizona as opposed other states like California.
I thought the reason was that the Loops were financed by a county sales tax, without Federal money, and the latter was required in order for a freeway to be signed as an Interstate.
Just because Federal money wasn't used doesn't mean that ADOT couldn't apply for an Interstate designation. My theory is that ADOT views 3ds as worthless especially when no Federal funding goes into them or long term plans back in the initial Interstate building phase were rejected.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 22, 2017, 02:31:51 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 22, 2017, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 22, 2017, 12:36:58 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 22, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 13, 2017, 09:34:07 PM
Arizona has changed many state route numbers before they ever got signed in the field. AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802. AZ 30 was first AZ 801. Most of the current loop system was made up of AZ x17 numbers. Loop 303 was first proposed as AZ 517. Part of Loop 202 was proposed as AZ 217. Loop 101 was proposed as AZ 117 and AZ 417.
Arizona once considering some of the routes for future interstates, given the x17 numbers? [emoji3]
For what it's worth over the years I've talked to several representatives at ADOT about stuff like that, specifally why the Loop Routes weren't 3ds in addition to AZ 51. The most I've ever got from anyone was that I-510 was rejected in the initial Interstate planning phase and that Loop designations were thought to be more sensible over 3d Interstate numbers...at least in the last couple decades anyways. Unfortunately Old highway documentation or anything planning wise is more difficult to come by for Arizona as opposed other states like California.
I thought the reason was that the Loops were financed by a county sales tax, without Federal money, and the latter was required in order for a freeway to be signed as an Interstate.
Just because Federal money wasn't used doesn't mean that ADOT couldn't apply for an Interstate designation. My theory is that ADOT views 3ds as worthless especially when no Federal funding goes into them or long term plans back in the initial Interstate building phase were rejected.
Same reason Orlando's toll roads are not
I-x04
Z981
Quote from: hbelkins on October 20, 2017, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on October 20, 2017, 12:00:36 PM
Not a route number, but more rather exit numbering that doesn't make sense. I-485 in Charlotte is a beltway, and the exit numbers reset at the southern JCT with I-77. Why would they not reset at one of the JCT's with I-85?
Beltways tend to reset at intersections with north-south roads that intersect at perpendicular angles. In Charlotte's case, I-77 fits the bill better than I-85 because 77 is closer to a true north-south route there, while 85 runs at an angle.
The MUTCD specifies that mileposting and exit numbers on circumferential routes (i.e. beltways) begin at a location near a southern polar location and proceed clockwise. The beginning point can be a radial freeway or other Interstate [as with this situation], or at an imaginary north-south line that bisects the route, or at some other distinguishable landmark on the south end.
AR 128 near Hot Springs runs predominantly N-S, but is posted E-W
Quote from: roadfro on October 22, 2017, 05:52:23 PM
The MUTCD specifies that mileposting and exit numbers on circumferential routes (i.e. beltways) begin at a location near a southern polar location and proceed clockwise. The beginning point can be a radial freeway or other Interstate [as with this situation], or at an imaginary north-south line that bisects the route, or at some other distinguishable landmark on the south end.
This makes a lot more sense than the other reason :awesomeface:
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 21, 2017, 04:01:44 PM
I-476 in PA doesn't make sense to me, at least not the part that piggybacks on to the PA Turnpike NE Extension. Shouldn't even number prefixes on 3di interstates either bypass a city/congested area or connect 2 interstates? For one thing, having a straight line interstate running 160 miles wasn't what they had in mind for the definition of a bypass or connector. Secondly, I-476 doesn't really connect directly with i-81 (at it's end, at least).
Had it been numbered I-576, they at least might have gotten away with calling it an extra-long spur.
I-476 existed between 276,76,and 95 originally, with PA9 being the Northeast Extension. in 1996 they were able to get it turned into Interstate 476, which was originally (when the Northeast Ext was built) going to visit New York. It got canned to Clarks Summit, where a future direct i-81 connection will be built.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 22, 2017, 08:37:02 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 21, 2017, 04:01:44 PM
I-476 in PA doesn't make sense to me, at least not the part that piggybacks on to the PA Turnpike NE Extension. Shouldn't even number prefixes on 3di interstates either bypass a city/congested area or connect 2 interstates? For one thing, having a straight line interstate running 160 miles wasn't what they had in mind for the definition of a bypass or connector. Secondly, I-476 doesn't really connect directly with i-81 (at it's end, at least).
Had it been numbered I-576, they at least might have gotten away with calling it an extra-long spur.
I-476 existed between 276,76,and 95 originally, with PA9 being the Northeast Extension. in 1996 they were able to get it turned into Interstate 476, which was originally (when the Northeast Ext was built) going to visit New York. It got canned to Clarks Summit, where a future direct i-81 connection will be built.
Northeast Extension or no Northeast Extension, the Blue Route portion of I-476 serves as a bypass with respect to Philadelphia; hence the reasoning for the even number prefix.
Had the proposed 12-mile Loop Expressway been built (such would've located south & parallel to I-276); it
could've (not saying it
would've) served as an easterly extension of I-476 if it were eligible for Interstate funding. The short stretch of the Blue Route between the 12 Mile Loop & I-276 could've been designated as an extension of PA 9; but such is fictional territory.
Quote from: US71 on October 22, 2017, 06:59:18 PM
AR 128 near Hot Springs runs predominantly N-S, but is posted E-W
I-95 in ct and ri also runs east to west.
none of the I-x78's in New York connect to their parent route, I-78. That's really been bothering me lately.
I-82 should be an odd number.
Quote from: dgolub on October 13, 2017, 06:54:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
- I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.
That's correct. NJ 495 is numbered as such because it was supposed to be part of it. (In fact, the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel is signed incorrectly as I-495.)
If they ever build the LoMEx they should extend I-78 over it.
OH also the US20 and US30 designations should be swapped west of Boise, ID.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 24, 2017, 12:54:31 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 13, 2017, 06:54:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
- I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.
That's correct. NJ 495 is numbered as such because it was supposed to be part of it. (In fact, the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel is signed incorrectly as I-495.)
If they ever build the LoMEx they should extend I-78 over it.
In fact, that was the plan, before it and other planned expressways (Bushwick, Nassau, etc.) were cancelled, and I-78 was truncated back to the east end of the Holland Tunnel.
Quote from: Henry on October 24, 2017, 10:27:03 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 24, 2017, 12:54:31 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 13, 2017, 06:54:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 10, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
- I-495 was probably numbered with the assumption that it would cross the Sound to meet I-95 in either RI or CT (we're still waiting!); also, its westward extension across Manhattan and into NJ never happened either.
That's correct. NJ 495 is numbered as such because it was supposed to be part of it. (In fact, the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel is signed incorrectly as I-495.)
If they ever build the LoMEx they should extend I-78 over it.
In fact, that was the plan, before it and other planned expressways (Bushwick, Nassau, etc.) were cancelled, and I-78 was truncated back to the east end of the Holland Tunnel.
The original NJ/NY I-495 was to extend from I-95 east through the Lincoln Tunnel, across Manhattan and under the East River, then take the LIE out as far as then-proposed I-78 (I-295 today), where it would terminate. The extension out onto Long Island occurred at a later time.