Okay, I just mentioned this in another post, but it is becoming a little more commonplace in the United States for a three digit interstate (3di) to be exchanged for a two digit (2di) one. A great example of this occurred when Interstate 181 in Tennessee, a perfectly good numbered 3di, was completely replaced by a two digit one, namely Interstate 26. Did the need of one city to have another two digit interstate really facilitate a change in designation of a 3di freeway that had been signed in the area since the 1980's? So now instead of having a 3di that served these northeastern Tennessee cities well (and directly connected them to I-81, a well known and traveled 2di), we have an out of place I-26, which even though signed East/West, runs in a complete opposite northeast/southwest direction for a good portion in southern Tennessee. I thought it funny when I was traveling west on I-26 last March but in reality I was traveling northeast!! And the fact it ends at US 11W instead of at I-81 also bothers me. My suggestion for Johnson City would have been, we'll sign I-26 up to I-81, you can keep your portion of I-181. But alas, that would have made some sort of sense (except for the opposite portion in southern TN) and it would have not made those in power in Johnson City very happy. The other option would to have been to leave it alone, it's fine the way it is.
Yes, I can see they are really making good use of their extra two digit interstate...
I'm sure that when I-69 finally makes it down through the Evansville area we can say goodbye to I-164. And the same goes for I-390 if and when I-99 reaches New York.
Any thoughts about this topic?? I'd love to hear about them!!
Don't forget the death of Interstate 265 in Nashville for realigned Interstate 65.
Yes, I forgot about that one. Good point. Yet another 3di I will never get to see or clinch...Better get to I-164 and I-390 while I can...
Original Interstate 880 was replaced with Interstate 80 around Sacramento for Business Loop I-80 too...
Is the I-390/I-99 thing actually going to happen? As far as I know there are no official plans to change I-390 to I-99.
I-97 is a prime example.
Quote from: deanej on January 29, 2009, 05:52:38 PM
Is the I-390/I-99 thing actually going to happen? As far as I know there are no official plans to change I-390 to I-99.
Most of what I've read on the subject is just speculation. Although, it seems to me that it would make more sense for I-99 to end in Rochester, NY instead of Painted Post!
But, who said state highway department made much sense. :banghead: :banghead:
Quote from: DrZoidberg on January 29, 2009, 05:59:26 PM
I-97 is a prime example.
Well, I-97 never replaced a 3di though...
I-97 is a prime example of a 2di that should be a 3di. I'm surprised that it even got approved as a 2di in the first place.
Wasnt 97 planned to go further than it actually does either north or south?
I am too, but the city of Annapolis wanted to be connected to a 2di, much like most other capitals in the US. And given that it only touches I-695, it easily could have become I-995 since all other x95's are in use (even including the hidden I-595). That would have been a better numbering for it, and we could have had the highest 3di yet!!
Another idea I thought of would be to have I-70 extend south and east on the I-695 beltway, then run down current I-97 to U.S. 50 & 301 (hidden I-595) where it would then turn east, cross the Chesapeake Bay to the 50/301 split and then continue east on a new alignment over to Dover, DE. Then you could have an additional state capital in range of a 2di.
Or a third option could have been to just assign it but keep it a hidden route, much like I-595 is.
*cough* 238.
Also, why can't they just make I-82 a 3 digit? It barely goes through anywhere that's important.
I-82 is a little different story. When originally planning the interstate system, I-82 fit into the grid perfectly between what was then I-80N and I-90. Just because it doesn't go through any metropolis doesn't mean it's not an important route to be 2di. It is actually a vital link for motorists leaving the Seattle area wanting to travel to places like Boise, Salt Lake City and points south and east of there. Plus having a 140 mile 3di that is not some sort of bypass or beltway doesn't sound appealing.
I guess Iowa's I-380's pretty safe ;-) :eyebrow:
I hope WA and ID don't exchange I-182, US 12 and I-184 for a Tri Cities-Boise 2di
Quote from: ComputerGuy on January 29, 2009, 10:15:14 PM
I hope WA and ID don't exchange I-182, US 12 and I-184 for a Tri Cities-Boise 2di
I don't think you have anything to worry about there :)
They already have I-86
Interstate 326 became part of an extended Interstate 77. A bit different of a concept, but it fits within the parameters of this thread. :-D
I-95 replaced I-495 on the east side of the Capital Beltway before the latter was restored a short time later.
The I-395 Shirley Highway replaced the original alignment of I-95 into Washington D.C.
In Maine, I-95 replaced I-495 on the Maine Turnpike, and I-295 replaced the former I-95 alignment.
Quote from: flaroadgeek on January 29, 2009, 05:06:28 PM
the fact it ends at US 11W instead of at I-81 also bothers me. My suggestion for Johnson City would have been, we'll sign I-26 up to I-81, you can keep your portion of I-181. But alas, that would have made some sort of sense
On the contrary, it makes no sense for a route to just spontaneously change number. If it was left as it was, motorists would drive straight through an interchange, on the mainline of a highway, and all of a sudden find that the number has changed for no apparent reason. So, it made perfect sense for I-26 to assimilate I-181 like that.
Now, as for the fact that I-26 travels more north-south than it does east-west... that's an actual logic error, but the lack of available numbers in the region meant it was either give it an even number and sign it east-west or give it a very out of place odd number.
Although, I dunno, I think I might actually like it better if it were I-67 (the closest and highest available odd number).
95 never replaced 495 in DC, its just cosigned now
According to Scott Kozel's Roads to the Future, the I-95 designation replaced I-495 in 1977 on the eastern half of the Beltway when I-395 took over Shirley. The cosigning occurred in 1989.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Capital_Beltway.html (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Capital_Beltway.html)
yup yup, because people got confused. Thought you meant today it still took over.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 29, 2009, 11:54:19 PM
Quote from: flaroadgeek on January 29, 2009, 05:06:28 PM
the fact it ends at US 11W instead of at I-81 also bothers me. My suggestion for Johnson City would have been, we'll sign I-26 up to I-81, you can keep your portion of I-181. But alas, that would have made some sort of sense
On the contrary, it makes no sense for a route to just spontaneously change number. If it was left as it was, motorists would drive straight through an interchange, on the mainline of a highway, and all of a sudden find that the number has changed for no apparent reason. So, it made perfect sense for I-26 to assimilate I-181 like that.
Nice point, but the original I-26 spontaneously changed into I-240 before the extension took place. Motorists driving west on I-26 stayed on the mainline to reach I-240 east, with the designation changing right at I-40. And isn't that what guide signs are for? To alert motorists as to what highway they are on? If people can't understand what the sign reads, then they don't need to be on the road.
If you think american highways spontaneously changing numbers is crazy, look at Northern Irelands motorway network...ridiculous
Quote from: Duke87 on January 29, 2009, 11:54:19 PM
On the contrary, it makes no sense for a route to just spontaneously change number. If it was left as it was, motorists would drive straight through an interchange, on the mainline of a highway, and all of a sudden find that the number has changed for no apparent reason. So, it made perfect sense for I-26 to assimilate I-181 like that.
Now, as for the fact that I-26 travels more north-south than it does east-west... that's an actual logic error, but the lack of available numbers in the region meant it was either give it an even number and sign it east-west or give it a very out of place odd number.
Although, I dunno, I think I might actually like it better if it were I-67 (the closest and highest available odd number).
But there are so many corridors proposed/available where I-67 would be in the proper place: Montgomery AL to I-10, US 31 from Indy to South Bend, or US 131 in Michigan. Better to make the current I-26 from I-385 to the Virginia state line into a southern I-79, and have I-26 replace I-385.
Regarding the original topic, I think I-10 or I-17 replaced an even I-x10 in Phoenix.
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 30, 2009, 12:42:19 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 29, 2009, 11:54:19 PM
On the contrary, it makes no sense for a route to just spontaneously change number. If it was left as it was, motorists would drive straight through an interchange, on the mainline of a highway, and all of a sudden find that the number has changed for no apparent reason. So, it made perfect sense for I-26 to assimilate I-181 like that.
Now, as for the fact that I-26 travels more north-south than it does east-west... that's an actual logic error, but the lack of available numbers in the region meant it was either give it an even number and sign it east-west or give it a very out of place odd number.
Although, I dunno, I think I might actually like it better if it were I-67 (the closest and highest available odd number).
But there are so many corridors proposed/available where I-67 would be in the proper place: Montgomery AL to I-10, US 31 from Indy to South Bend, or US 131 in Michigan. Better to make the current I-26 from I-385 to the Virginia state line into a southern I-79, and have I-26 replace I-385.
Regarding the original topic, I think I-10 or I-17 replaced an even I-x10 in Phoenix.
I agree with you on the possibilities on where the number 67 could go. I also like your idea about renumbering of I-26 into a southern I-79. Even though it would be located west of I-77, it would fit into the system better than the current I-26. I also like your idea about I-26 taking over I-385. Now to quote duke87, would you have it completely assimilate I-385 or would you have it end at I-85 with the original I-385 still being a spur into Greenville?? Just curious.
As far as your question about the replacement in Phoenix, an I-410 was originally proposed on the alignment that the current I-10 is on between the two I-17 interchanges near downtown. But the route was nixed in favor of I-10.
Quote from: akotchi on January 30, 2009, 12:03:17 AM
According to Scott Kozel's Roads to the Future, the I-95 designation replaced I-495 in 1977 on the eastern half of the Beltway when I-395 took over Shirley. The cosigning occurred in 1989.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Capital_Beltway.html (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Capital_Beltway.html)
Many signs even in 1993 had Interstate 495 co-signed as an afterthought. There were guide signs for Interstate 95 with a small Interstate 495 panel posted next to them. It did not take long after that for Interstate 495 to be reintegrated onto the eastern half of the beltway.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 29, 2009, 11:54:19 PM
On the contrary, it makes no sense for a route to just spontaneously change number. If it was left as it was, motorists would drive straight through an interchange, on the mainline of a highway, and all of a sudden find that the number has changed for no apparent reason. So, it made perfect sense for I-26 to assimilate I-181 like that.
There are other great examples of interstate routes changing numbers on the mainline:
Interstate 494 becomes 694 (and vice versa) at the full-cloverleaf interchange with I-94 east of St. Paul, MN:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=44.948384~-92.9597&style=h&lvl=15&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=6213915&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=44.948384~-92.9597&style=h&lvl=15&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=6213915&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)
Interstates 280 and 680 swap numbers at the US 101 stack interchange in San Jose, CA:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=37.339276~-121.851876&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=5911709&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=37.339276~-121.851876&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=5911709&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)
Even though these are 3di to 3di number changes, it is still a change of a route number on the main carriageways of an interstate highway.
Quote from: flaroadgeek on January 30, 2009, 12:58:05 AM
I also like your idea about I-26 taking over I-385. Now to quote duke87, would you have it completely assimilate I-385 or would you have it end at I-85 with the original I-385 still being a spur into Greenville?? Just curious.
I'd have I-26 eat the whole thing all the way into Greenville, if we were going to do that.
Although, no, I wouldn't reroute I-26 that way.
Looking at it, it might make more sense for the part of 385 north of the junction with 185 to be part of 185, with the rest either remaining 385 or being an x26... but I'm generally not a fan of renumbering highways just 'cause. It causes too much confusion and is a waste of money. Renumbering really ought to only take place as a result of highways being extended where a new longer highway absorbs a shorter existing one.
Yes, because we need to have as few interstate numbers as possible in this country.
Quote from: flaroadgeek on January 30, 2009, 05:22:15 PM
There are other great examples of interstate routes changing numbers on the mainline:
I'm sure I can pick up several given time... :biggrin:
Here are two that immediately come to mind:
In the Quad Cities area of Illinois and Iowa near Moline, IL you have a switch between I-80 and I-74/280 on the east/west mainline and I-74 and I-80 on the north/south mainline.
Near Youngstown, OH @ Ohio Turnpike Exit 218, both the Turnpike mainline and a freeway exchange I-76 and I-80. The freeway is I-76 west of the interchange toward Akron and is I-80 east of the interchange toward northern Youngstown and northern Pennsylvania.
The Ohio turnpike is I-80 northwest of the interchange toward Cleveland and is I-76 southwest of the interchange towards the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Pittsburgh.
A few more . . .
I-395 and I-290 change at the Mass Pike.
I-76 and I-276 at Valley Forge, PA
I-287 and NJ 440 in Woodbridge, NJ (even though one is not an interstate)
Okay, getting back to the root of this topic, what do others think about existing 3di's getting overtaken by 2di's (via extension and otherwise)??
Quote from: flaroadgeek on January 30, 2009, 06:26:06 PM
Okay, getting back to the root of this topic, what do others think about existing 3di's getting overtaken by 2di's (via extension and otherwise)??
I prefer it for long[er] distance routes.
For example, I-99 replacing I-390 in New York.
Or, how about, a second I-85 replacing I-476 along the PA Turnpike Northeast Extension. I-476 is way too long! IMHO Also, since it now extends up to Scranton it should at least be an odd number since it's really a spur.
Maybe what should be done is AASHTO rip down all the current Interstate numbers....and assign us signgeeks to redo the grid so the numberings make more sense given how many Interstates there are now (and proposed/under construction) than planned back in the mid-50s.... (and get rid of that damned I-99 in PA!!!)
I totally agree with that one!
Another planned 3di for a 2di in Virginia is I-581 for I-73(if VDOT ever gets the money to build it)
If I-66 wasn't supposed to be extended, I would make it a 3di... maybe another x95. It sure shouldn't be a 2di though, as it only runs through the top of the state of Virginia. Never even crosses state lines.
And I just realized that that is the opposite of this thread... :-/
QuoteIf I-66 wasn't supposed to be extended, I would make it a 3di... maybe another x95. It sure shouldn't be a 2di though, as it only runs through the top of the state of Virginia. Never even crosses state lines.
True, DTP, it never crosses state lines, but it does enter the District of Columbia for about a mile and a half. See aaroad's interstate guide at http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-066.html (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-066.html)
Meh... close enough. It's pretty much just one big interchange inside D.C.
I can't believe nobody has named the biggest 'route number change' out there: I-80 and I-76 in Ohio. But that's mostly due to the fact the Ohio Turnpike is the true 'mainline'.
Sykotyk
Isn't I-99 in PA just an elaborate monument to Bud Shuster?
QuoteIsn't I-99 in PA just an elaborate monument to Bud Shuster?
Pretty much. :ded:
Quote from: Sykotyk on March 26, 2009, 08:19:26 PM
I can't believe nobody has named the biggest 'route number change' out there: I-80 and I-76 in Ohio. But that's mostly due to the fact the Ohio Turnpike is the true 'mainline'.
Sykotyk
Actually mightyace did bring that up several posts before yours. :pan:
How about exchanging I-182 and I-184 for a new extended I-82, from the Tri-Cities to Boise via Walla Walla and Lewiston, ID?
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned I-279 and I-79. Technically, these routes are backwards of what AASHTO defines, and originally I-79 was supposed to go into Pittsburgh. The southern section was originally defined as I-79, and once the section on the north side of the city was completed, then I-79 would be a through route through Pittsburgh. Instead, they switch them, much to my chagrin :ded:.
Quote from: njroadhorse on May 31, 2009, 12:32:27 PM
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned I-279 and I-79. Technically, these routes are backwards of what AASHTO defines, and originally I-79 was supposed to go into Pittsburgh. The southern section was originally defined as I-79, and once the section on the north side of the city was completed, then I-79 would be a through route through Pittsburgh. Instead, they switch them, much to my chagrin
Personally, I think it makes more sense for the mainline to take the shorter route, whether that means going through the city or bypassing it. Simply because long distance traffic will tend to follow the mainline, and thus if you make the longer route the mainline, you're going to send people the long way around, wasting gas and travel time. It doesn't make a difference for traffic going to the city, they'll follow whichever route goes there regardless.
As for the supposed "benefit" of a city getting a 2di over a 3di... meh, it's all in people's heads. Practically, it makes no difference. Sending 79 through Pittsburgh as opposed to 279 wouldn't boost business in the city any, though it would likely boost congestion a bit. Not to mention that doing that would mean routing 79 along a pair of single lane ramps south of the city (never a good thing).
Similarly, swapping 70 and 270 around St. Louis would make sense (270's a lot shorter and avoids downtown)... though the western junction between the two would need to be fixed to avoid the single lane ramp issue.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 31, 2009, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: njroadhorse on May 31, 2009, 12:32:27 PM
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned I-279 and I-79. Technically, these routes are backwards of what AASHTO defines, and originally I-79 was supposed to go into Pittsburgh. The southern section was originally defined as I-79, and once the section on the north side of the city was completed, then I-79 would be a through route through Pittsburgh. Instead, they switch them, much to my chagrin
Personally, I think it makes more sense for the mainline to take the shorter route, whether that means going through the city or bypassing it. Simply because long distance traffic will tend to follow the mainline, and thus if you make the longer route the mainline, you're going to send people the long way around, wasting gas and travel time. It doesn't make a difference for traffic going to the city, they'll follow whichever route goes there regardless.
As for the supposed "benefit" of a city getting a 2di over a 3di... meh, it's all in people's heads. Practically, it makes no difference. Sending 79 through Pittsburgh as opposed to 279 wouldn't boost business in the city any, though it would likely boost congestion a bit. Not to mention that doing that would mean routing 79 along a pair of single lane ramps south of the city (never a good thing).
Similarly, swapping 70 and 270 around St. Louis would make sense (270's a lot shorter and avoids downtown)... though the western junction between the two would need to be fixed to avoid the single lane ramp issue.
True, but that doesn't stop other interstates from a one-lane ramp. I-80 in Nebraska has a one-lane stretch in both directions with the I-76 junction (I-80 west to I-76 is the mainline).
Still, anybody looking for the 'fastest way' will take I-270, regardless. Only those not prone to look at directions and repeats the mantra "follow I-70 to Denver" for example, will find themselves in downtown St. Louis.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk link=topic=219.msg25901#msg25901
Still, anybody looking for the 'fastest way' will take I-270, regardless. Only those not prone to look at directions and repeats the mantra "follow I-70 to Denver" for example, will find themselves in downtown St. Louis.
You'd be surprised how many people that latter description represents. When driving on unfamiliar roads that they need directions for, people will tend to favor a simpler route over a shorter/faster one. "Follow I-70 west" is a lot easier to remember than "Follow I-70 west, when you're approaching St Louis, get off onto I-270 west, then get back onto I-70 west".
And when you tell someone that that's shorter, they might scratch their head and wonder "well, if it's shorter, than why'd they make I-70 go the other way?" And they'd have an excellent point.
Putting up guide signs which advise long distance travelers to go the other way does help, though.
St. Louis isn't the problem - the problem is Kansas City. Staying on I-70 westbound through the Exit 2 Complex is one hell of a task.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 01, 2009, 04:47:53 PM
St. Louis isn't the problem - the problem is Kansas City. Staying on I-70 westbound through the Exit 2 Complex is one hell of a task.
...Hence why I always use the 670 if I'm cutting through KC.
Future I-130 in Texarkana is also Future I-49. I am starting to doubt that I-130 will ever be signed.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 01, 2009, 04:47:53 PM
St. Louis isn't the problem - the problem is Kansas City. Staying on I-70 westbound through the Exit 2 Complex is one hell of a task.
Wow, that one doesn't make any sense period. Three sides of the rectangle for no apparent reason. 70 and 670 there can and ought to flip.
...and do the exit numbers really go up to 2P? :crazy:
Similar inanity: 10 and 610 in New Orleans. Sure, just route the primary highway around two legs of the triangle while the secondary route shortcuts with the third one. Makes perfect sense. :pan:
I think it goes up to 2Z, skipping only 2I and 2O as they look too much like 21 and 20.
What about such freeways as I-380 Iowa, I-155 Tennessee, I-196 Michigan, I-135 Kansas, I-595 Florida, and I-210 California. If I had the power, they'd be in order I-37, I-56, I-65, I-31, I-2, and I-14.
QuoteI think it goes up to 2Z, skipping only 2I and 2O as they look too much like 21 and 20.
The highest it goes up to is 2Y because 2Z can look too much like 22.
These are my 3dis that need to be changed to 2dis:
I-7W & I-7E : Gobbles up I-280 & I-880 at the Bay Area.
My I-11: Gobbles up I-680 in California.
I-63 or I-67 should be I-196.
my I-61 takes over I-355 in Illinois.
I-380 in Iowa should be part of a new n-s 2di.
I-476 in Pennsylvania should be a I-85 extension
my I-40 proposal takes over I-264 in Va. Beach in Virginia and half of the I-210 & the entire I-605 in LA.
More info on these new routes go to "if you controlled the entire highway system" on Fictional Roads.