Question is fairly simple enough: What interstates do you believe shouldn't exist?
Hard Mode: I-14, I-180 in Wyoming, I-73, I-74 and I-99 cannot be used :sombrero:
I-238 still should be CA 238 if a grid worthy number wasn't available in the X80 family. I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg has questionable value aside from baseball games for the Tampa Bay Rays.
I will take I-180, to make it legal I will use Illinois
Not always a popular opinion in the Ohio River board, but I'm a believer in the 8664 aka remove the Riverfront Elevated Viaduct of I-64 west of Spaghetti Junction in Louisville
Now with the unified I-265 and the completed East End Bridge, I-64 can be rerouted over I-265 between I-64/IN and I-64/KY. Traffic bound for I-65 South and Nashville can use I-264 in KY once crossing the Ohio, or use the new surface boulevard all the way to I-65 downtown
If just the Designation and not the Route itself, one could argue any intrastate 2DI should perhaps be a State Route instead. I am calling out I-88 in IL specifically, but there are countless others. It was fine as IL 5 but was promoted to I status due to the old silly speed limit law
I am shocked that WI's I-41 did not make the "hard mode" list, tho. I mean, it kinda begs unnecessary, as much as others on that list
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 25, 2020, 09:05:14 PM
I am shocked that WI's I-41 did not make the "hard mode" list, tho. I mean, it kinda begs unnecessary, as much as others on that list
Parts of I-14 have utility, such as the only serious proposed segment between Killeen / I-35 and College Station / US-190.
I-73, I-74, and I-99 all also have utility, though the numbering can be debated of I-99 and definitely I-74. Nonetheless, the physical freeways have use.
I-41 doesn't provide a direct route between either end, rather it serves the cities in between bound to either end.
I-587 in Kingston, NY. It's literally just another designation for the 28 expressway and doesn't have any exits.
I-380 north of I-84 isn't signed, so they should probably just decommission it.
I-790 in Utica, NY, doesn't have much of a purpose. It should just be called NY 49 and used as collector-distributors for the Thruway.
I-70 inside of 695. If anything, it should just be designated as MD 70, or even removed entirely.
Does I-384 need to exist? Seems Hartford-Providence will never happen.
If we're allowed to just choose designations while leaving the physical route:
I-97
I-790
I-878
I-595 in Maryland. The highway should exist, but there's no need for an Interstate designation. Obviously Maryland agrees!
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2020, 10:11:22 PM
I-595 in Maryland. The highway should exist, but there's no need for an Interstate designation. Obviously Maryland agrees!
I bet Maryland's Transportation Agency takes the Federal Interstate mileage funding for I-595, tho
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on January 25, 2020, 09:56:18 PM
I-790 in Utica, NY, doesn't have much of a purpose. It should just be called NY 49 and used as collector-distributors for the Thruway.
Not much need to extend NY 49 either, unless you're looking for a uniform number for the freeway. I-790 is overlapped with NY 5 for its entire length, and half if it is also overlapped with NY 8 and NY 12.
I don't think anyone really knows the full extent of I-790. The reference markers in the field are nonsensical.
And that ramp from the C/D WB to NY 5/8/12 SB...
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 25, 2020, 10:16:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2020, 10:11:22 PM
I-595 in Maryland. The highway should exist, but there's no need for an Interstate designation. Obviously Maryland agrees!
I bet Maryland's Transportation Agency takes the Federal Interstate mileage funding for I-595, tho
The funding you're referring to hasn't existed in almost a decade.
Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2020, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 25, 2020, 10:16:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2020, 10:11:22 PM
I-595 in Maryland. The highway should exist, but there's no need for an Interstate designation. Obviously Maryland agrees!
I bet Maryland's Transportation Agency takes the Federal Interstate mileage funding for I-595, tho
The funding you're referring to hasn't existed in almost a decade.
What's also incredible is that FHWA hasn't applied their data-driven formulas to apportion funds to the states in years now. The last few bills have just been mathematical proportions based upon some year's apportionment percentage.
I was actually thinking about how interstate mileage may actually be a variable in apportionments and have just concluded that we are so many years away from when it was last used that it basically doesn't matter in terms of how much states get now.
And, of course, the current bill expires at the end of this FFY.
I-393 in NH. It's co-signed with US 4 and US 202 its entire length.
I-296.
I-189 - Burlington, VT
it's a glorified exit ramp
Quote from: Ben114 on January 26, 2020, 01:52:12 PM
I-189 - Burlington, VT
it's a glorified exit ramp
So is I-865 in Indy. But its number is sensible, since it replaced I-465 have a 3-way T Interchange with
itself
I-115, another glorified exit ramp
Would the Central Scranton Expressway in Scranton count, since it's also a glorified exit ramp?
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on January 26, 2020, 02:56:40 PM
Would the Central Scranton Expressway in Scranton count, since it's also a glorified exit ramp?
The Central Scranton Expressway isn't an interstate or part of one from my knowledge.
I-587 really doesn't need to be signed over NY 28, but it probably is so that NYSDOT can get extra FHWA funding.
^
Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2020, 08:16:11 AM
The funding you're referring to hasn't existed in almost a decade.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2020, 08:39:25 PM
I-238 still should be CA 238 if a grid worthy number wasn't available in the X80 family. I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg has questionable value aside from baseball games for the Tampa Bay Rays.
Add I-395 in Miami to the FL list... at least I-195 goes over a large bridge.
I-705, Tacoma. If you're proud of the federal money you've wrested from the Government, then I guess fly that red, white and blue banner. Otherwise a 1.5 mile Interstate seems strange. It's especially embarrassing if the state sign makers don't even care that it's an Interstate.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1738/41828223254_32c5a845d7_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26Jdzv1)
Quote from: DJ Particle on January 27, 2020, 02:11:06 AM
Add I-395 in Miami to the FL list... at least I-195 goes over a large bridge.
On the other hand, it really could be applied across SR 836 / Dolphin Expressway now that a lot of left exit/entrance ramps were removed, and much of the lane drops alleviated. It does serve a lot of traffic (175-210K AADT south of the airport), but since it's a toll facility on both ends, I doubt that the I-395 designation will ever be applied.
I-759, while convenient for I-59 traffic that wants to bypass 3/4 of Gadsden, really could just be "US 431/278 Bypass" or just SR 759 (or another number).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2020, 08:39:25 PM
I-238 still should be CA 238 if a grid worthy number wasn't available in the X80 family. I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg has questionable value aside from baseball games for the Tampa Bay Rays.
I-175 and I-375 predated Tropicana Field. I say that they should exist, and should be extended according to their original plans.
I-87 in North Carolina shouldn't exist. It should have another more appropriate designation, and because of that I really wish I-42 wasn't being planned for some other highways.
I-585 in Spartanburg. Ever since I-85 was relocated to the northern bypass around that city, it's become a useless designation, now that it ends at the Business Loop instead.
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 25, 2020, 09:05:14 PM
Not always a popular opinion in the Ohio River board, but I'm a believer in the 8664 aka remove the Riverfront Elevated Viaduct of I-64 west of Spaghetti Junction in Louisville
Now with the unified I-265 and the completed East End Bridge, I-64 can be rerouted over I-265 between I-64/IN and I-64/KY. Traffic bound for I-65 South and Nashville can use I-264 in KY once crossing the Ohio, or use the new surface boulevard all the way to I-65 downtown
I could see a good argument for never having built it to begin with, but now that it' there, there really isn't any sense in tearing it down. It's not going to suddenly turn NW Louisville into a destination, and commuters to downtown from Floyd and Harrison counties in Indiana are majorly inconvenienced.
How about Michigan's I-375?
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2020, 05:52:03 PM
How about Michigan's I-375?
I guess it doesn't count anyway since MDOT is planning to remove and replace with a boulevard.
I-195 in Baltimore is pretty worthless, it only has two exits, goes 4 miles and its entire purpose is being a glorified airport parkway. I see no reason why it shouldn't just be a continuation of MD-166.
I-97 is also fairly useless considering its short length and the fact that its corridor is already served by several other roads. I believe it should be a section of MD-2 instead of taking up a two digit number.
Quote from: mrcmc888 on January 30, 2020, 12:50:56 PM
I-97 is also fairly useless considering its short length and the fact that its corridor is already served by several other roads. I believe it should be a section of MD-2 instead of taking up a two digit number.
Or an 83 extension. :bigass:
Quote from: mrcmc888 on January 30, 2020, 12:50:56 PM
I-97 is also fairly useless considering its short length and the fact that its corridor is already served by several other roads. I believe it should be a section of MD-2 instead of taking up a two digit number.
Connects Annapolis, the state capital, to Baltimore, the state's largest city. Certainly warrants an interstate designation, at minimum a 3di.
Ultimately, I-97 could be extended 90 miles southward along the US-301 corridor to Ruther Glen, VA at I-95 as an eastern Washington Bypass, but that would never happen in today's environment in Virginia and Maryland.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 04:12:18 PM
Ultimately, I-97 could be extended 90 miles southward along the US-301 corridor to Ruther Glen, VA at I-95 as an eastern Washington Bypass, but that would never happen in today's environment in Virginia and Maryland.
No, the blame goes to Maryland and their associated counties (remember that their counties have home rule).
Virginia got burned in the past when they spent large sums of funding to study an outer bypass, without Maryland ever reciprocating or showing any constructive interest; and unless and until Maryland shows an EIS/location study level of interest, I would be opposed to Virginia investing any money into studying their section.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 04:24:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 04:12:18 PM
Ultimately, I-97 could be extended 90 miles southward along the US-301 corridor to Ruther Glen, VA at I-95 as an eastern Washington Bypass, but that would never happen in today's environment in Virginia and Maryland.
No, the blame goes to Maryland and their associated counties (remember that their counties have home rule).
Virginia got burned in the past when they spent large sums of funding to study an outer bypass, without Maryland ever reciprocating or showing any constructive interest; and unless and until Maryland shows an EIS/location study level of interest,
Virginia wouldn't participate today if Maryland were to pursue. At least, not under the current administration, and maybe future. What if Maryland began a NEPA today, then the current / future Virginia administration and CTB denies a study of the Virginia portion? They won't even do as little as study an I-95 widening, fully in state. Therefore, Virginia as a whole is represented this way. Was it (a) specific administration(s) and group(s) of people who denied it in Maryland during the NEPA process? Same thing.
You have "corrected" me when merely referencing "Virginia", when in fact it was the specific administration, though you seem to loosely use the term "Maryland" with no issue.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 04:24:02 PM
I would be opposed to Virginia investing any money into studying their section.
Do you happen to have a high-up position who determines where money is allocated to in the state? I would support them re-studying their portion, and actively pushing Maryland towards it. You and I both agree that I-95 needs a NEPA study completed from I-295 northwards, though the current administration doesn't and won't allocate funding.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 05:39:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 04:24:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 04:12:18 PM
Ultimately, I-97 could be extended 90 miles southward along the US-301 corridor to Ruther Glen, VA at I-95 as an eastern Washington Bypass, but that would never happen in today's environment in Virginia and Maryland.
No, the blame goes to Maryland and their associated counties (remember that their counties have home rule).
Virginia got burned in the past when they spent large sums of funding to study an outer bypass, without Maryland ever reciprocating or showing any constructive interest; and unless and until Maryland shows an EIS/location study level of interest,
Virginia wouldn't participate today if Maryland were to pursue.
A useless argument when you know that 40+ years of history shows that unless there is some massive change in governmental perspective, that Maryland
will not participate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 05:39:38 PM
At least, not under the current administration, and maybe future. What if Maryland began a NEPA today, then the current / future Virginia administration and CTB denies a study of the Virginia portion?
See my previous comment.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 05:39:38 PM
They won't even do as little as study an I-95 widening, fully in state. Therefore, Virginia as a whole is represented this way.
Well, it is not "little," and there are numerous other large projects around the state, there are NEPA-approved widening projects on I-81, I-66 and I-64, and there have been and are multi-billion dollar widening projects completed recently and ongoing on I-95 from Fredericksburg northward.
The results of the January 2020 Interstate 95 Interim Corridor Improvement Plan would provide at least 5 lanes in the peak direction and at least 4 lanes in the opposite direction, from VA-3 to I-495. Much wider in some places.
Plus there is the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program between Richmond and Union Station in D.C. Big peak periods impacts with the enabled service expansions on Amtrak and Virginia Railway Express passenger lines.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 05:39:38 PM
Was it (a) specific administration(s) and group(s) of people who denied it in Maryland during the NEPA process? Same thing.
There never was a NEPA process started for the Maryland segments either eastern or western.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 05:39:38 PM
You have "corrected" me when merely referencing "Virginia", when in fact it was the specific administration, though you seem to loosely use the term "Maryland" with no issue.
That was not apparent that you were referencing that way.
Maryland and its D.C. suburban counties have a half-century history of not being willing to NEPA-study these routes, so I feel comfortable using the term "Maryland" broadly, but note that I nearly always include the associated counties (remember home rule).
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 05:39:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 04:24:02 PM
I would be opposed to Virginia investing any money into studying their section.
Do you happen to have a high-up position who determines where money is allocated to in the state? I would support them re-studying their portion, and actively pushing Maryland towards it. You and I both agree that I-95 needs a NEPA study completed from I-295 northwards, though the current administration doesn't and won't allocate funding.
No, no, no, no, no.
Pushing Maryland would be like trying to push an M1 Abrams tank with your bare hands.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 09:08:26 PM
there are NEPA-approved widening projects on I-66 and there have been and are multi-billion dollar widening projects completed recently and ongoing on I-95 from Fredericksburg northward.
For the Northern Virginia region, all of which are HO/T lane projects after 2012. They are refusing to initiate a NEPA or feasibility study for the entire I-95 corridor and produced an outrageous figure for general purpose widening to merely dismiss any discussion of it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 09:12:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 09:08:26 PM
there are NEPA-approved widening projects on I-66 and there have been and are multi-billion dollar widening projects completed recently and ongoing on I-95 from Fredericksburg northward.
For the Northern Virginia region, all of which are HO/T lane projects after 2012.
The I-95 C-D lanes between VA-3 and north of US-17 are not HOT. They will add at least 2 lanes each way to I-95 and will also function as local freeway between VA-3 and US-17.
These are a series of expansions from VA-3 all the way to I-495 and continuing up I-395 to downtown D.C., 23 miles of express roadway widening, 20 miles of express roadway new extension, and 5 miles of new C-D roadways.
Plus possibly 27 miles of shoulder conversions to a traffic lane, per the Jan. 2020 report.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 09:12:21 PM
They are refusing to initiate a NEPA or feasibility study for the entire I-95 corridor and produced an outrageous figure for general purpose widening to merely dismiss any discussion of it.
The current and immediately previous governor and the CTB which now is 100% members appointed by them. They are responsible for that malfeasance and misfeasance.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 09:35:42 PM
Plus possibly 27 miles of shoulder conversions to a traffic lane, per the Jan. 2020 report.
Only part time, which would operate in the opposite direction of peak traffic. 4 general purpose lanes during off-peak, 3 general purpose lanes during peak. The bottleneck from Woodbridge to Fredericksburg will not go away. The only reason I can see them refusing to add capacity in the peak direction is "compensation events" to Transurban.
The proper solution would be to construct one full general purpose lane and full-depth shoulder in each direction... but you know... $12.5 billion :-o
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 09:35:42 PM
These are a series of expansions from VA-3 all the way to I-495 and continuing up I-395 to downtown D.C., 23 miles of express roadway widening, 20 miles of express roadway new extension, and 5 miles of new C-D roadways.
5 miles of general purpose expansion outside Transurban's area of influence.
43 miles of privatized HO/T roadway and 0 miles of general purpose widening inside of Transurban's area of influence.
Refusal to study any additional general purpose widening for the peak direction inside of Transurban's area of influence. Once outside of Transurban's area of influence however, the report did recommend 4 miles of 8-lane widening between Exit 126 and Exit 130.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 09:41:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 09:35:42 PM
Plus possibly 27 miles of shoulder conversions to a traffic lane, per the Jan. 2020 report.
Only part time, which would operate in the opposite direction of peak traffic. 4 general purpose lanes during off-peak, 3 general purpose lanes during peak. The bottleneck from Woodbridge to Fredericksburg will not go away. The only reason I can see them refusing to add capacity in the peak direction is "compensation events" to Transurban.
They could operate whenever and however is chosen in the future.
They need to conduct a full EIS/location study, evaluate a range of alternatives, produce cost estimates and environmental impact details, produce cost estimates for any compensation event, produce a DEIS, an FEIS and a ROD. Between I-295 and I-495 even if there is no widening north of Woodbridge.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 09:41:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 09:35:42 PM
These are a series of expansions from VA-3 all the way to I-495 and continuing up I-395 to downtown D.C., 23 miles of express roadway widening, 20 miles of express roadway new extension, and 5 miles of new C-D roadways.
5 miles of general purpose expansion outside Transurban's area of influence.
43 miles of privatized HO/T roadway and 0 miles of general purpose widening inside of Transurban's area of influence.
Their area of influence could go anywhere that a future comprehensive agreement might take it. They are not "privatized," it is a public-private partnership where VDOT retains ownership of the highway; and it is not a good that can be moved somewhere else if someone doesn't want to play ball.
They need to conduct a full EIS/location study, evaluate a range of alternatives, produce cost estimates and environmental impact details, produce cost estimates for any compensation event, produce a DEIS, an FEIS and a ROD. Between I-295 and I-495 even if there is no widening north of Woodbridge.
Ralph!! Northam does not seem willing to authorize this study thru his CTB.
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 10:19:27 PM
They need to conduct a full EIS/location study, evaluate a range of alternatives, produce cost estimates and environmental impact details, produce cost estimates for any compensation event, produce a DEIS, an FEIS and a ROD. Between I-295 and I-495 even if there is no widening north of Woodbridge.
Preaching to the choir at this point.
I would predict I-95 will still be only 6-lanes south of Woodbridge by 2040, and traffic congestion will worsen.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 10:43:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2020, 10:19:27 PM
They need to conduct a full EIS/location study, evaluate a range of alternatives, produce cost estimates and environmental impact details, produce cost estimates for any compensation event, produce a DEIS, an FEIS and a ROD. Between I-295 and I-495 even if there is no widening north of Woodbridge.
Preaching to the choir at this point.
I would predict I-95 will still be only 6-lanes south of Woodbridge by 2040, and traffic congestion will worsen.
I don't have ESP, and I am not a prophet, so I can't predict something like that, that far into the future.
The $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program will have a huge impact during peak hours, so it is not something to dismiss; and if they are willing to spend that kind of money, then by 2025 (the implied "interim" date) they could plan some major highway improvements.
However, with the C-D project between VA-3 and US-17, and the reversibles extension under construction, and these shoulders lanes, that would provide (in however they define peak hours) at least 5 lanes in one direction and 4 lanes the other direction all the way north (aside: this governor has at least partly spoiled the word "north" for me), from VA-3 to I-495.
For something completely different -- the Interstate designations for Alaska's four unsigned Interstate routes, and the three in Puerto Rico. A ploy by the late Alaska porkmeister Sen. Ted Stevens, to bring in Federal matching funds on top of the already highly favorable match Alaska was getting (he threw a bone to Puerto Rico while he was at it). The Interstate designations now have little or no funding relevance. The odds are remote that Interstate signs will ever go up. And even if they are, the designations would need to be changed since they are confusingly out of synch with the existing Alaska state route numbers (similar situation in Puerto Rico).
Quote from: mrcmc888 on January 30, 2020, 12:50:56 PM
I-195 in Baltimore is pretty worthless, it only has two exits, goes 4 miles and its entire purpose is being a glorified airport parkway. I see no reason why it shouldn't just be a continuation of MD-166.
I-97 is also fairly useless considering its short length and the fact that its corridor is already served by several other roads. I believe it should be a section of MD-2 instead of taking up a two digit number.
I guess you have a point with I-195. You could also make a case for I-395 which could be considered a glorified exit ramp from I-95 to downtown Baltimore.
But, number aside, the I-97 corridor is very much needed for traffic between Baltimore and Annapolis. That corridor is not "already served by several other roads" - the only real alternative is MD 2 (which is congested much of the time) and MD 10.
I've said it before, but: "Hate the number, but don't hate the asphalt."
Quote from: dlsterner on January 30, 2020, 11:53:19 PM
I guess you have a point with I-195. You could also make a case for I-395 which could be considered a glorified exit ramp from I-95 to downtown Baltimore.
Many Interstate spurs are short, but that is part of the concept, the mainline Interstate highways can have freeway spurs for various functions.
I-195 is a spur from I-95 to BWI airport. I-395 is a spur from I-95 to downtown Baltimore.
Quote from: dlsterner on January 30, 2020, 11:53:19 PM
But, number aside, the I-97 corridor is very much needed for traffic between Baltimore and Annapolis. That corridor is not "already served by several other roads" - the only real alternative is MD 2 (which is congested much of the time) and MD 10.
The planning for I-97 included a route alternative along the MD-2 corridor. MD-2 is a arterial highway but far less than a freeway.
the short section of I-87 in North Carolina. If they are serious about the entire route, it would make more sense to just wait until the entire route is finished before signing it. Currently, its only 14 miles long, and randomly disappears, causing the exit numbers to go from 13 to 432. makes no sense.
Quote from: fillup420 on February 01, 2020, 11:49:48 AM
the short section of I-87 in North Carolina.
None of it should exist.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on January 27, 2020, 09:24:22 PM
I-705, Tacoma. If you're proud of the federal money you've wrested from the Government, then I guess fly that red, white and blue banner. Otherwise a 1.5 mile Interstate seems strange. It's especially embarrassing if the state sign makers don't even care that it's an Interstate.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1738/41828223254_32c5a845d7_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26Jdzv1)
lol ouch
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2020, 08:39:25 PM
I-238 still should be CA 238 if a grid worthy number wasn't available in the X80 family. I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg has questionable value aside from baseball games for the Tampa Bay Rays.
I-238 is always rumored to meet with I-380 in San Bruno for the Rumored Southern Crossing. Technically i-238 is part of the I-380 to CA-380 gap in the Bay Area.
I-69 south of Indianapolis, I-49 north of I-20, and I-74 in North Carolina. I'll believe these are continuous Interstates when I see them built as such, but I don't even know if any of us will live that long. And frankly, I find it hard to justify parts of them, especially I-49 going through the north side of Shreveport. [Fictional Highways]I'd be fine with I-49 being routed onto LA 3132 and I-220 around Shreveport and going all the way to I-30.[/Fictional Highways] But, is I-49 between I-30 and I-40 really going to be completed within the next decade? [Fictional Highways]I-49 between I-40 and I-435 would have been just fine as a big, long I-540.[/Fictional Highways]
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 27, 2020, 09:46:01 PM
I-69 south of Indianapolis
Uh... you know that I-69 between Indianapolis and Martinsville is to be complete by 2024? A interstate connecting Indianapolis to Evansville is sorely needed as there was no way to get to Evansville prior to the I-69 extension up to Bloomington and north to Martinsville. Also, Bloomington was the largest city in Indiana with no US routes or Interstates.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 28, 2020, 01:35:03 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 27, 2020, 09:46:01 PM
I-69 south of Indianapolis
Uh... you know that I-69 between Indianapolis and Martinsville is to be complete by 2024? A interstate connecting Indianapolis to Evansville is sorely needed as there was no way to get to Evansville prior to the I-69 extension up to Bloomington and north to Martinsville. Also, Bloomington was the largest city in Indiana with no US routes or Interstates.
Heh. I lived in Bloomington. IN 37 has always been serviceable, so there was a way to get to Evansville.
That said, the "missing spoke" is welcome.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 28, 2020, 01:35:03 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 27, 2020, 09:46:01 PM
I-69 south of Indianapolis
Uh... you know that I-69 between Indianapolis and Martinsville is to be complete by 2024? A interstate connecting Indianapolis to Evansville is sorely needed as there was no way to get to Evansville prior to the I-69 extension up to Bloomington and north to Martinsville. Also, Bloomington was the largest city in Indiana with no US routes or Interstates.
I-69 southwest of Kentucky then. I can maybe see the gaps between the Tennessee state line and I-465 being filled in my lifetime, but I wouldn't hold out hope for the rest.
Also, I think you meant "no good way," which would be fair to argue as an opinion.