I've noticed something in the Interstate grid. It looks like some routes ending with 4 (94, 64, 84 west) essentially act as X0 routes, serving major corridors missed by the actual X0s, often more important than the cities hit by the actual X0s. Something else happens with Interstates like X9s (29, 59, 49, 69) and X1s (81, 71, 11 in the future). Meanwhile, some X0s and X5s (30, 45) aren't exactly major regional connectors. Isn't that somewhat strange?
I-30 seems off to me given how short it is. I-32 or I-28 seemingly would have been just of a good of fit? Similarly I-45 doesn't really seem to fit the bill of an X5 Interstate in terms of distance...major destinations yes though.
I-81 seems more like a "real" long N-S interstate highway than I-85 does. And I-81 is longer too.
But I-81 stays far enough west to avoid really large metropolitan areas, unlike I-85 through places like Atlanta, Georgia; Charlotte, North Carolina; Research Triangle, North Carolina; Greater Richmond Region, Virginia (though I-85 does not make it to Richmond); and Montgomery Alabama.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 09, 2020, 10:06:19 PM
I've noticed something in the Interstate grid. It looks like some routes ending with 4 (94, 64, 84 east) essentially act as X0 routes, serving major corridors missed by the actual X0s, often more importantthan the cities hit by the actual X0s.
You're going to leave western I-84 off that list? It serves Portland, Boise, and the greater Salt Lake City area, and it's pretty much
the route from the Pacific Northwest to anywhere south of I-90.
Quote from: US 89 on April 10, 2020, 12:28:48 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 09, 2020, 10:06:19 PM
I've noticed something in the Interstate grid. It looks like some routes ending with 4 (94, 64, 84 east) essentially act as X0 routes, serving major corridors missed by the actual X0s, often more importantthan the cities hit by the actual X0s.
You're going to leave western I-84 off that list? It serves Portland, Boise, and the greater Salt Lake City area, and it's pretty much the route from the Pacific Northwest to anywhere south of I-90.
Sorry, brain-fart.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 09, 2020, 10:06:19 PM
I've noticed something in the Interstate grid. It looks like some routes ending with 4 (94, 64, 84 west) essentially act as X0 routes, serving major corridors missed by the actual X0s, often more important than the cities hit by the actual X0s. Something else happens with Interstates like X9s (29, 59, 49, 69) and X1s (81, 71, 11 in the future). Meanwhile, some X0s and X5s (30, 45) aren't exactly major regional connectors. Isn't that somewhat strange?
A lot of that had to do with the original aim of
not duplicating US highway numbers and Interstate numbers in the same state -- effectively keeping 50 and 60 off the list. As "substitute" routes for those missing numbers, one could consider both I-44 and I-64 -- long-distance regional arteries hosting transcontinental traffic -- as the effective 50 and 60. Also, quite a few folks think that the section of I-94 between Billings, MT and Tomah, WI should have been the
real I-90, since it goes through the Twin Cities, arguably the major metro area of the upper Midwest/Plains region -- and that I-90 via Sioux Falls and Rapid City should have been something like I-86, since it features less aggregate traffic. But the observation about E-W Interstates ending in "4" is pretty accurate; since the "end" of suffixed routes ca. 1980, no less than
four end up hosting transcontinental and major interregional traffic (44, 64, 84/west, 94). Even the shorter I-24 serves as a connector between disparate regions (Midwest and Deep South). We'll leave the "pretender to the throne" I-74 out of this mix for the time being! :rolleyes:
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2020, 02:05:39 AM
A lot of that had to do with the original aim of not duplicating US highway numbers and Interstate numbers in the same state -- effectively keeping 50 and 60 off the list. As "substitute" routes for those missing numbers, one could consider both I-44 and I-64 -- long-distance regional arteries hosting transcontinental traffic -- as the effective 50 and 60.
For north-south x5 routes, though, all exist -- 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95.
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2020, 06:24:05 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2020, 02:05:39 AM
A lot of that had to do with the original aim of not duplicating US highway numbers and Interstate numbers in the same state -- effectively keeping 50 and 60 off the list. As "substitute" routes for those missing numbers, one could consider both I-44 and I-64 -- long-distance regional arteries hosting transcontinental traffic -- as the effective 50 and 60.
For north-south x5 routes, though, all exist -- 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95.
And it works because the US highways used x1 as their major cross-country routes, so there was less chance of interference with usually shorter US-x5 routes. And also I-45 being only inside Texas helps.
Quote from: GaryV on April 11, 2020, 08:05:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2020, 06:24:05 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2020, 02:05:39 AM
A lot of that had to do with the original aim of not duplicating US highway numbers and Interstate numbers in the same state -- effectively keeping 50 and 60 off the list. As "substitute" routes for those missing numbers, one could consider both I-44 and I-64 -- long-distance regional arteries hosting transcontinental traffic -- as the effective 50 and 60.
For north-south x5 routes, though, all exist -- 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95.
And it works because the US highways used x1 as their major cross-country routes, so there was less chance of interference with usually shorter US-x5 routes. And also I-45 being only inside Texas helps.
The lack of a US 55 after the '30's didn't hurt either regarding the N-S 5's either. In addition, the basic shape of the US as a laterally-biased rectangle allowed a bit more spread as regards number distribution. But from that point on, it was an "open market" regarding the importance of specific odd-numbered Interstates not divisible by 5. Some were configured as major interregional arteries (29, 59, 77, 81), while many others simply served as regional connectors. That being said, WI still managed to F.U. the upper Midwest grid arrangement with I-43 (the last to be designated of the '68 additions); but to be fair, back in the early '70's with the revamped rules requiring a "bottom-up" designation process few (outside of IL in the '80's and '90's) expected much in the way of new Interstate corridors until the ISTEA and NHS legislation in the nineties.
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2020, 02:05:39 AM
Also, quite a few folks think that the section of I-94 between Billings, MT and Tomah, WI should have been the real I-90, since it goes through the Twin Cities, arguably the major metro area of the upper Midwest/Plains region -- and that I-90 via Sioux Falls and Rapid City should have been something like I-86, since it features less aggregate traffic.
And it even shows up as the preferable way on Google Maps, despite passing through the Twin Cities and such.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 11, 2020, 12:45:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2020, 02:05:39 AM
Also, quite a few folks think that the section of I-94 between Billings, MT and Tomah, WI should have been the real I-90, since it goes through the Twin Cities, arguably the major metro area of the upper Midwest/Plains region -- and that I-90 via Sioux Falls and Rapid City should have been something like I-86, since it features less aggregate traffic.
And it even shows up as the preferable way on Google Maps, despite passing through the Twin Cities and such.
Funny that when I looked for Billings to Tomah it's 14 hours, 42 minutes and 1,009 miles taking I-94 and 14 hours, 48 minutes and 987 miles taking I-90 via the US-212 shortcut.
But going Tomah to Billings it's 14 hours, 47 minutes and 1,010 miles taking I-94 and 14 hours, 36 minutes and 988 miles taking I-90 and again via the US-212 shortcut.
I-7/ I-9 proposed freeway from Ridge Route to Sacramento (aka CA-99) is simply a defacto X-5 if it was approved.
Quote from: bing101 on April 12, 2020, 01:14:22 PM
I-7/ I-9 proposed freeway from Ridge Route to Sacramento (aka CA-99) is simply a defacto X-5 if it was approved.
Let's hope it extends up to Tri-Cities or so.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 09, 2020, 10:15:20 PM
I-30 seems off to me given how short it is. I-32 or I-28 seemingly would have been just of a good of fit? Similarly I-45 doesn't really seem to fit the bill of an X5 Interstate in terms of distance...major destinations yes though.
Not I-28. It'd be out-of-place as compared to I-22, I-24, and I-26. :)
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 12, 2020, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 09, 2020, 10:15:20 PM
I-30 seems off to me given how short it is. I-32 or I-28 seemingly would have been just of a good of fit? Similarly I-45 doesn't really seem to fit the bill of an X5 Interstate in terms of distance...major destinations yes though.
Not I-28. It'd be out-of-place as compared to I-22, I-24, and I-26. :)
Then it would have to be below 20, and it's clearly north of I-20.
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2020, 03:06:39 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 12, 2020, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 09, 2020, 10:15:20 PM
I-30 seems off to me given how short it is. I-32 or I-28 seemingly would have been just of a good of fit? Similarly I-45 doesn't really seem to fit the bill of an X5 Interstate in terms of distance...major destinations yes though.
Not I-28. It'd be out-of-place as compared to I-22, I-24, and I-26. :)
Then it would have to be below 20, and it's clearly north of I-20.
Or an X20 or X40. That would mean reassigning something to I-530 also. I still think I-30 is important enough to justify a 2D designation much like I-17 since they connect X0 Interstates.
I-66 should honestly be a 3di. It's one of the shortest Intersates, and it's shorter than many Interstate spurs (135, anyone?).
If I-70 had been I-60, would it have helped anything?
The only state where I could see this would have been confusing is Missouri. Yes, US 60 and I-70 also both enter Illinois and West Virginia, but US 60 is in Illinois is for less than a mile through a place few bother to travel, and I-70 passes through only the Northern Panhandle of Vest Virginia.
Even in Missouri, the routes are parallel and over 100 miles apart.
Subtract 10 from I-64, I-66, and I-68, and the only issue is the relatively recent extension of I-64 into Missouri.
Thoughts?
Fictional territory.
You know I-45 is a major interstate when a "minor" corridor like I-69 (hehe) has more mileage. :bigass:
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 13, 2020, 01:27:03 AM
You know I-45 is a major interstate when a "minor" corridor like I-69 (hehe) has more mileage. :bigass:
I-69 used to be just a regional connection to the Canadian border in Port Huron until all these planned expansions started. Driving that Interstate in High School I never would have thought it would be any more significant other than the freeway I took home from the Chicago area.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 13, 2020, 01:27:03 AM
You know I-45 is a major interstate when a "minor" corridor like I-69 (hehe) has more mileage. :bigass:
I'll reiterate what I've said previously -- the concept of 5's and 0's being the "major" routes was highly oversold back in the early days ('57-'58) of deciding designations -- and a number of major cities pissed and moaned because they weren't either sited
on one or, even more often, at the
junction of a 0 and 5. The first numbering iteration had what is now the western I-84 as I-82 (the present I-82 connector wasn't even a corridor then), but Portland demurred because at the time they, through their Oregon congresspeople, expressed the wish to have a x0 heading their way. Houston also wanted to be at a "double major" junction, being close to the million-population mark at the time, and I-35 was slated to head down US 81 to Austin and San Antonio from DFW. So the numbering system was "tweaked" to accommodate them. Remember that back then the system was tacitly assumed to be a "one-shot" deal; significant future additions were not even seriously considered -- 40K worth of network was enough to bite off in one big and expensive chunk! So the "long single-ended suffixed designation" was instituted, yielding I-80N for the entire Utah-Portland NW server; likewise, when I-80 was shifted from the PA TPK, which had split near Harrisburg into 80N to New York Metro and 80S to Philadelphia, north to the present alignment 80S was simply retained, splitting off from the main near Youngstown, OH. (both the original I-80 and later I-80S had a significant multiplex with I-70 over the turnpike). And Houston got I-45 over what was to be a regional connector, accounting for the relative shortness of its length. Frankly, the Midwest just didn't have that many available corridors under the original Interstate schematic, and winding I-35 around to accommodate as many midwestern metro areas as possible created a problematic situation, designation-wise. So I-29 ended up as a major route (it might have actually been I-35, with KC-Duluth being I-45 if only Houston hadn't whined about their status). Of course, down the line the suffix concept was rethought; and the current numbering scheme commenced with I-80S gradually being supplanted by I-76 starting back in 1964 (mirrored a dozen years later with the Denver-Nebraska I-80S becoming I-76 -- with
that number derived from the 1976 Colorado centennial celebration). CA also dealt with their I-5 split routes in 1963 as a prelude to their general in-state renumbering a year later. Then, when AASHTO, with FHWA backing, decided to eliminate the suffixes in the late '70's (with the I-35 DFW/Twin Cities splits being "grandfathered" in), the various suffixes (on I-15, the I-35 Salida branch, I-70, and I-80) were changed to what they are today. But by that time, many cities such as Portland had rethought their commitment to freeways in general, so most of that activity went uncontested. So what is on the ground today reflects shifting priorities over the years -- from early accommodation of various cities' wishes to rethinking and rationalizations of those decisions later down the line -- which has led to some unusual (albeit often necessary) designation choices with later system additions.
Quote from: sparker on April 13, 2020, 01:01:02 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 13, 2020, 01:27:03 AM
You know I-45 is a major interstate when a "minor" corridor like I-69 (hehe) has more mileage. :bigass:
I'll reiterate what I've said previously -- the concept of 5's and 0's being the "major" routes was highly oversold back in the early days ('57-'58) of deciding designations -- and a number of major cities pissed and moaned because they weren't either sited on one or, even more often, at the junction of a 0 and 5. The first numbering iteration had what is now the western I-84 as I-82 (the present I-82 connector wasn't even a corridor then), but Portland demurred because at the time they, through their Oregon congresspeople, expressed the wish to have a x0 heading their way. Houston also wanted to be at a "double major" junction, being close to the million-population mark at the time, and I-35 was slated to head down US 81 to Austin and San Antonio from DFW. So the numbering system was "tweaked" to accommodate them. Remember that back then the system was tacitly assumed to be a "one-shot" deal; significant future additions were not even seriously considered -- 40K worth of network was enough to bite off in one big and expensive chunk! So the "long single-ended suffixed designation" was instituted, yielding I-80N for the entire Utah-Portland NW server; likewise, when I-80 was shifted from the PA TPK, which had split near Harrisburg into 80N to New York Metro and 80S to Philadelphia, north to the present alignment 80S was simply retained, splitting off from the main near Youngstown, OH. (both the original I-80 and later I-80S had a significant multiplex with I-70 over the turnpike). And Houston got I-45 over what was to be a regional connector, accounting for the relative shortness of its length. Frankly, the Midwest just didn't have that many available corridors under the original Interstate schematic, and winding I-35 around to accommodate as many midwestern metro areas as possible created a problematic situation, designation-wise. So I-29 ended up as a major route (it might have actually been I-35, with KC-Duluth being I-45 if only Houston hadn't whined about their status). Of course, down the line the suffix concept was rethought; and the current numbering scheme commenced with I-80S gradually being supplanted by I-76 starting back in 1964 (mirrored a dozen years later with the Denver-Nebraska I-80S becoming I-76 -- with that number derived from the 1976 Colorado centennial celebration). CA also dealt with their I-5 split routes in 1963 as a prelude to their general in-state renumbering a year later. Then, when AASHTO, with FHWA backing, decided to eliminate the suffixes in the late '70's (with the I-35 DFW/Twin Cities splits being "grandfathered" in), the various suffixes (on I-15, the I-35 Salida branch, I-70, and I-80) were changed to what they are today. But by that time, many cities such as Portland had rethought their commitment to freeways in general, so most of that activity went uncontested. So what is on the ground today reflects shifting priorities over the years -- from early accommodation of various cities' wishes to rethinking and rationalizations of those decisions later down the line -- which has led to some unusual (albeit often necessary) designation choices with later system additions.
Well-done analysis! This still sometimes bleeds through; some people have said that Minneapolis is still grumbling about getting 94 and not 90.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 09, 2020, 10:06:19 PM
I've noticed something in the Interstate grid. It looks like some routes ending with 4 (94, 64, 84 west) essentially act as X0 routes, serving major corridors missed by the actual X0s, often more important than the cities hit by the actual X0s. Something else happens with Interstates like X9s (29, 59, 49, 69) and X1s (81, 71, 11 in the future). Meanwhile, some X0s and X5s (30, 45) aren't exactly major regional connectors. Isn't that somewhat strange?
IMO, I-84 (West) should really be I-80. It hugs US 30 through most of its route, as I-80 does to the East. Of course, I would prefer if I-94 was I-90, I-90 was I-80 (connecting to I-86W across Wyoming) and going all the way to the coast, and shifting everything else up appropriately.
Quote from: TEG24601 on April 13, 2020, 01:37:21 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 09, 2020, 10:06:19 PM
I've noticed something in the Interstate grid. It looks like some routes ending with 4 (94, 64, 84 west) essentially act as X0 routes, serving major corridors missed by the actual X0s, often more important than the cities hit by the actual X0s. Something else happens with Interstates like X9s (29, 59, 49, 69) and X1s (81, 71, 11 in the future). Meanwhile, some X0s and X5s (30, 45) aren't exactly major regional connectors. Isn't that somewhat strange?
IMO, I-84 (West) should really be I-80. It hugs US 30 through most of its route, as I-80 does to the East. Of course, I would prefer if I-94 was I-90, I-90 was I-80 (connecting to I-86W across Wyoming) and going all the way to the coast, and shifting everything else up appropriately.
Then 25 would overlap with your 80, then go up to your 90?
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 12, 2020, 03:49:14 PM
I-66 should honestly be a 3di. It's one of the shortest Intersates, and it's shorter than many Interstate spurs (135, anyone?).
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to recall that at least 10 mainline Interstate highways are shorter than I-66 which is 75 miles long.
Connecting I-81 to Washington seems a valid use of a mainline route number.
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2020, 08:17:11 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 12, 2020, 03:49:14 PM
I-66 should honestly be a 3di. It's one of the shortest Intersates, and it's shorter than many Interstate spurs (135, anyone?).
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to recall that at least 10 mainline Interstate highways are shorter than I-66 which is 75 miles long.
Connecting I-81 to Washington seems a valid use of a mainline route number.
I-87 (NC), I-97, I-11, I-14, I-2, I-86 (ID), and I-19 are all shorter than I-66.
In the future, I-87 (NC), I-11, and I-14 are slated to be extended in much longer corridors, and I-19 may be replaced by I-11 in the process. Additionally, while not officially designated, I-2 may eventually be extended to Laredo along the US-83 corridor in the future as well. That would leave I-97 and I-86 being shorter than I-66, all corridors that could reasonably be 3di's.
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:59:12 AM
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Wasn't I-66 supposed to eventually extend all the way into Kentucky?
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 14, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:59:12 AM
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Wasn't I-66 supposed to eventually extend all the way into Kentucky?
A later proposal drafted in the 1990s, though never gained any fruition. The most that came were "Future I-66" signs in Kentucky.
Virginia or West Virginia have no plans to construct any piece of the corridor to interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 01:30:37 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 14, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:59:12 AM
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Wasn't I-66 supposed to eventually extend all the way into Kentucky?
A later proposal drafted in the 1990s, though never gained any fruition. The most that came were "Future I-66" signs in Kentucky.
Virginia or West Virginia have no plans to construct any piece of the corridor to interstate standards.
The closest thing to a potential I-66 corridor between its present alignment and KY is a combination of ARC corridors "H" and "G" via Charleston, using I-79 northeast of that city. Seeing as how the progress on "H" has been and likely will continue to be a protracted process due to continuing funding issues (and the terrain doesn't help much either!) just to do an expressway, it would likely be a
very long and bumpy slog to get it up to Interstate standards -- and both WV and the Feds will want to take a
long break before even entertaining the idea of upgrading H (and G, along US 119, is not even close to I-standards). But unless KY's proposed I-66 segment along their southern tier is prioritized, the cost of doing so would be unnecessary and, frankly, pointless. Once completed, Corridor H would have to demonstrate the ability to attract traffic away from competing Interstates in the area before any upgrade plans would be made.
I-11 is a defacto x5 though. However I-11 was supposed to expand into Reno, or to Phoenix though at one point
Quote from: bing101 on April 17, 2020, 05:12:08 PM
I-11 is a defacto x5 though. However I-11 was supposed to expand into Reno, or to Phoenix though at one point
Check OP.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 17, 2020, 06:10:05 PM
Quote from: bing101 on April 17, 2020, 05:12:08 PM
I-11 is a defacto x5 though. However I-11 was supposed to expand into Reno, or to Phoenix though at one point
Check OP.
Not really; in fact the I-11 corridor -- especially if it's eventually extended up into Oregon -- would, service-wise, be more or less an analogue of I-81 back East -- a diagonal connector bypassing the major coastal metro areas. But unlike I-81, which doesn't see many cities with 100K incorporated population, it
does hit two major metro areas with over a million residents (PHX and LV, of course), and will come close to another (Reno) with about 300K. But like so many other Southwest corridors, there's a lot of nothing between those metro areas.
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 03:25:05 AMQuote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 17, 2020, 06:10:05 PMQuote from: bing101 on April 17, 2020, 05:12:08 PM
I-11 is a defacto x5 though. However I-11 was supposed to expand into Reno, or to Phoenix though at one point
Check OP.
Not really; in fact the I-11 corridor -- especially if it's eventually extended up into Oregon -- would, service-wise, be more or less an analogue of I-81 back East -- a diagonal connector bypassing the major coastal metro areas. But unlike I-81, which doesn't see many cities with 100K incorporated population, it does hit two major metro areas with over a million residents (PHX and LV, of course), and will come close to another (Reno) with about 300K. But like so many other Southwest corridors, there's a lot of nothing between those metro areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_19 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_19#cite_note-adot1215-15)
Also I-11 was planned to join with I-19 though in a proposal.
Quote from: bing101 on April 18, 2020, 11:45:02 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 03:25:05 AMQuote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 17, 2020, 06:10:05 PMQuote from: bing101 on April 17, 2020, 05:12:08 PM
I-11 is a defacto x5 though. However I-11 was supposed to expand into Reno, or to Phoenix though at one point
Check OP.
Not really; in fact the I-11 corridor -- especially if it's eventually extended up into Oregon -- would, service-wise, be more or less an analogue of I-81 back East -- a diagonal connector bypassing the major coastal metro areas. But unlike I-81, which doesn't see many cities with 100K incorporated population, it does hit two major metro areas with over a million residents (PHX and LV, of course), and will come close to another (Reno) with about 300K. But like so many other Southwest corridors, there's a lot of nothing between those metro areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_19 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_19#cite_note-adot1215-15)
Also I-11 was planned to join with I-19 though in a proposal.
That portion of I-11 paralleling I-10 from Casa Grande southeast to Tucson and then paralleling (or subsuming) I-19 south from there to Nogales serves as the dictionary definition of "gratuitous" or even "superfluous". Granted, the Tucson area itself probably needs a relief route or two, but that particular I-11 segment doesn't even fit the bill, being a long-range western bypass of the city. IMO, the farthest south I-11 should get
is Casa Grande -- and even the section from there northwest to I-10 at Buckeye, while an effective Phoenix bypass for both I-10 and I-11 traffic, was initiated primarily to enhance development south of Phoenix. All that is the result of local developers and interests "tacking on" their ambitions to a Phoenix-Vegas intercity corridor concept, to the detriment of attention being paid to actually building the main "stem" northwest of Phoenix.
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 02:33:22 PM
Quote from: bing101 on April 18, 2020, 11:45:02 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 03:25:05 AMQuote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 17, 2020, 06:10:05 PMQuote from: bing101 on April 17, 2020, 05:12:08 PM
I-11 is a defacto x5 though. However I-11 was supposed to expand into Reno, or to Phoenix though at one point
Check OP.
Not really; in fact the I-11 corridor -- especially if it's eventually extended up into Oregon -- would, service-wise, be more or less an analogue of I-81 back East -- a diagonal connector bypassing the major coastal metro areas. But unlike I-81, which doesn't see many cities with 100K incorporated population, it does hit two major metro areas with over a million residents (PHX and LV, of course), and will come close to another (Reno) with about 300K. But like so many other Southwest corridors, there's a lot of nothing between those metro areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_19 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_19#cite_note-adot1215-15)
Also I-11 was planned to join with I-19 though in a proposal.
That portion of I-11 paralleling I-10 from Casa Grande southeast to Tucson and then paralleling (or subsuming) I-19 south from there to Nogales serves as the dictionary definition of "gratuitous" or even "superfluous". Granted, the Tucson area itself probably needs a relief route or two, but that particular I-11 segment doesn't even fit the bill, being a long-range western bypass of the city. IMO, the farthest south I-11 should get is Casa Grande -- and even the section from there northwest to I-10 at Buckeye, while an effective Phoenix bypass for both I-10 and I-11 traffic, was initiated primarily to enhance development south of Phoenix. All that is the result of local developers and interests "tacking on" their ambitions to a Phoenix-Vegas intercity corridor concept, to the detriment of attention being paid to actually building the main "stem" northwest of Phoenix.
I heard that 11 was supposed to
replace 19
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 02:42:13 PM
I heard that 11 was supposed to replace 19
Several options for I-11 from Casa Grande down to Nogales have been proposed; one of them bypasses Tucson to the west and joins I-19 a few miles south of the city, and utilizes the I-19 alignment the rest of the way to Mexico (the others simply parallel it several miles to the west). But nothing is written in stone at this time; all prospects remain simply speculative.
X4 seems a lot more used than X2.
14, 24, 44, 64, 74, 84, 94
X2s
22 (fairly recent), 72, 82 (which should be a N-S designation, IMO)
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 14, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:59:12 AM
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Wasn't I-66 supposed to eventually extend all the way into Kentucky?
I even saw an I-66 plan extending it to California.
Is there a hierarchy for route numbering? Like, some numbers are higher than others?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2020, 12:29:18 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 14, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:59:12 AM
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Wasn't I-66 supposed to eventually extend all the way into Kentucky?
I even saw an I-66 plan extending it to California.
Lemme guess, FritzOwl's.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 20, 2020, 12:11:11 PM
82 (which should be a N-S designation, IMO)
I concur - in my fictional renumbering of the interstate system, it's I-13.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 20, 2020, 01:17:19 PM
Is there a hierarchy for route numbering? Like, some numbers are higher than others?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2020, 12:29:18 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 14, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:59:12 AM
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Wasn't I-66 supposed to eventually extend all the way into Kentucky?
I even saw an I-66 plan extending it to California.
Lemme guess, FritzOwl's.
No, it's mentioned on the Wikipedia page for I-66.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 20, 2020, 01:17:19 PM
Is there a hierarchy for route numbering? Like, some numbers are higher than others?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2020, 12:29:18 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 14, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:59:12 AM
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Wasn't I-66 supposed to eventually extend all the way into Kentucky?
I even saw an I-66 plan extending it to California.
Lemme guess, FritzOwl's.
It was an actual proposal in the 1990s, though never went anywhere.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 21, 2020, 12:38:51 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 20, 2020, 01:17:19 PM
Is there a hierarchy for route numbering? Like, some numbers are higher than others?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2020, 12:29:18 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 14, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:59:12 AM
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Wasn't I-66 supposed to eventually extend all the way into Kentucky?
I even saw an I-66 plan extending it to California.
Lemme guess, FritzOwl's.
It was an actual proposal in the 1990s, though never went anywhere.
I think the proposal was meant to bring back the whole "mother road"/"66" nostalgia.
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 21, 2020, 12:52:35 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 21, 2020, 12:38:51 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 20, 2020, 01:17:19 PM
Is there a hierarchy for route numbering? Like, some numbers are higher than others?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2020, 12:29:18 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 14, 2020, 01:24:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:59:12 AM
Reasonably, I could see I-66 being an I-x95, though obviously nowadays it would not be re-numbered.
Wasn't I-66 supposed to eventually extend all the way into Kentucky?
I even saw an I-66 plan extending it to California.
Lemme guess, FritzOwl's.
It was an actual proposal in the 1990s, though never went anywhere.
I think the proposal was meant to bring back the whole "mother road"/"66" nostalgia.
The numbering choice was certainly part of that corridor's selling points. The proposal, which dates from about 1987, was called the "Transamerica" corridor (no connection to the S.F. pyramid skyscraper of the same name!). Similar to the I-69 corridor, it was cobbled together from separate proposals in Virginia, Kentucky, Kansas, and California. The California section was promoted by Fresno interests in order to put them on a major cross-country E-W corridor. Of course it included a major Sierra crossing -- envisioned as a series of tunnels more or less along the Sequoia/Kings Canyon national park common border, then shunting down US 395 to CA 136, then on across Death Valley along CA 190, coming into Nevada at Pahrump (where travelers could avail themselves of carnal pleasure for a nominal fee!), on to Las Vegas, then MPXing with I-15 up to St. George. It would zig-zag along the AZ/UT border, passing near 4 Corners, and then follow US 160 to Walsenburg, CO. From there it would continue east along CO 10 before following us 50 and the entirety of US 400 via Wichita (where its primary midwest backers hailed from), then across US 60 through MO into KY, where it traced the later I-66 track across the southern tier of parkways and into WV. It used the then-nascent Coalfields parkway to Beckley, then up US 19 across the New River high bridge before segueing onto ARC Corridor "H" all the way to the
real I-66 -- which was extended across the Chesapeake Bay before ending up at either Dover or Ocean City, MD (that was never "finalized"). Of course, once the concept was published in the summer of '87, environmental opposition to pretty much everything west of Kansas was lodged. When the ISTEA authorizing legislation was passed in 1991, much of the eastern half of the corridor was enshrined as HPC #3 -- but with a southern shift in VA to a US 460-based corridor across the state. West of Wichita, the corridor definition was deliberately vague -- it could be interpreted as going to San Diego, L.A., Bakersfield -- you name it -- pretty much everywhere
except Fresno!
In retrospect, the corridor was like the proverbial "camel's origin as a horse designed by a committee". Pretty much every aspect of the western Transamerica section passed through protected and/or scenic areas such as the CA South Sierra national parks, Death Valley, Monument Valley, Durango, etc. Except for a couple of Central CA representatives, there was zero Congressional support for the corridor west of Kansas. Once ISTEA was in the books, the original Wichita backers tried (to no avail) to get the HPC #3 corridor re-specified along US 54 down to I-40 in NM, and then out I-40 all the way to its CA terminus so they would have access from both directions. They had to wait for 2005's SAFETEA-LU before securing that particular place in the HPC litany with HPC #51 along US 54 from Wichita to El Paso.
Like with the I-69 corridor, the Transamerica concept strung together priorities from various regions along the route -- but their penchant for picking the more environmentally sensitive alignments out West doomed that corridor segment from the beginning. They essentially wanted to put a corridor in locations that no rational planner would consider on their most cynical day -- there's a reason why there isn't a freeway through Kings Canyon and Death Valley, skirting Zion N.P., bisecting Monument Valley, and crossing the southern Colorado Rockies. Calling it I-66 was the
least troublesome aspect of the proposal. :ded:
Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 20, 2020, 12:11:11 PM
X4 seems a lot more used than X2.
14, 24, 44, 64, 74, 84, 94
X2s
22 (fairly recent), 72, 82 (which should be a N-S designation, IMO)
What about 4 itselft?
It makes sense that more X4s and X6s get used than X2s and X8s. 4 and 6 are routes that are halfway between major X0 Interstates, while 2 and 8 are closer to an X0 and wouldn't be needed as much.
Even
Major: 10, 20, 30, 40, 70, 80, 90 (7)
Adjacent: 2, 8, 12, 22, 42, 68, 72, 78, 82, 88, 88 (11)
Away: 4, 14, 16, 24, 26, 44, 64, 66, 74, 76, 76, 84, 84, 86, 86, 94, 96 (16, 17 if you count 74 twice)
Odd
Major: 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95 (10)
Adjacent: 17, 27, 37, 43, 57, 73, 77, 83, 87, 87, 93, 97 (12)
Away: 11, 19, 29, 39, 41, 49, 59, 69, 71, 79, 81, 89, 91, 99 (14)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 24, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 20, 2020, 12:11:11 PM
X4 seems a lot more used than X2.
14, 24, 44, 64, 74, 84, 94
X2s
22 (fairly recent), 72, 82 (which should be a N-S designation, IMO)
What about 4 itself?
Or I-2?
I think the reason they picked x4s is because it gives the option to have a route number available to the north and south, whereas if they picked an x2 there wouldn't be the ability to put anything new between it and the x0. The four x2s in existence do not create problems: I-2 is about as far south as you can go, I can't see anything EW between I-22 and I-20, I-72 and I-82 are the last available even numbers in the 80s and 90s (though I-82 is off the grid and its orientation is debatable).
Though based off that logic you could argue for x6s instead of x4s (if nothing between the x0s had been used yet. If there was already an x2 then the x6 would be more appropriate, etc.)
Quote from: I-55 on November 24, 2020, 04:20:19 PM
I-82 are the last available even numbers in the 80s and 90s (though I-82 is off the grid and its orientation is debatable).
I-92 and I-98 are available.
Quote from: I-55 on November 24, 2020, 04:20:19 PM
(though I-82 is off the grid and its orientation is debatable)
Orientation issues aside, 82 is numbered as such because 84 used to be 80N.