Many alternatives exist, but to me it seems it would have made more sense to do the following:
-@ the 80/95 intersection 80/95 co-merge over the GWB through the Trans-Manhattan & the X-Bronx to the Bruckner interchange
-@ the Bruckner interchange, 80 takes over the current 295 until the intersection with the LIW (495)
-@ the LIE intersection with the Clearview Expressway I-80 takes over the LIE to the terminus
-the Clearview Expressway south of the LIE becomes I-180
-the LIE west of the Clearview Expressway is I-480
One reason this never happened is because NY doesn't like concurrencies, and the proposed extension would be pointless anyway.
If the Mid Manhattan Tunnel was ever built, I-80 could run down current 280 and right into the tunnel and then to the LIE.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on August 20, 2020, 12:52:18 PM
If the Mid Manhattan Tunnel was ever built, I-80 could run down current 280 and right into the tunnel and then to the LIE.
Or if NJ 3 were ever upgraded it could be even more direct.
Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2020, 11:03:17 AM
One reason this never happened is because NY doesn't like concurrencies, and the proposed extension would be pointless anyway.
No its not pointless, I-80 shouldn't dead end at I-95, while I-495 goes so far out.
I would either have I-495 become I-80 or I-87.
Quote from: bluecountry on August 24, 2020, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2020, 11:03:17 AM
One reason this never happened is because NY doesn't like concurrencies, and the proposed extension would be pointless anyway.
No its not pointless, I-80 shouldn't dead end at I-95, while I-495 goes so far out.
I would either have I-495 become I-80 or I-87.
Why I-87?
Quote from: TheDon102 on August 24, 2020, 06:40:59 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 24, 2020, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2020, 11:03:17 AM
One reason this never happened is because NY doesn't like concurrencies, and the proposed extension would be pointless anyway.
No its not pointless, I-80 shouldn't dead end at I-95, while I-495 goes so far out.
I would either have I-495 become I-80 or I-87.
Why I-87?
Where I-87 ends, @ (-278, you could easily have I-278 end there, with I-87 following the Bruckner to the Clearview over the Throgs Neck to the LIE to Riverhead.
Would make more sense for I-87 to end out in Riverhead then some 3 digit spur.
Quote from: bluecountry on August 25, 2020, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on August 24, 2020, 06:40:59 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 24, 2020, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2020, 11:03:17 AM
One reason this never happened is because NY doesn't like concurrencies, and the proposed extension would be pointless anyway.
No its not pointless, I-80 shouldn't dead end at I-95, while I-495 goes so far out.
I would either have I-495 become I-80 or I-87.
Why I-87?
Where I-87 ends, @ (-278, you could easily have I-278 end there, with I-87 following the Bruckner to the Clearview over the Throgs Neck to the LIE to Riverhead.
Would make more sense for I-87 to end out in Riverhead then some 3 digit spur.
I think I-87 taking over I-278 would be more logical. If you want to end 80 at Riverhead you could probably just have New York build the Mid Manhattan Expressway, and have NJ upgrade 3 and US 46 to interstate standards.
Edit: Also it probably makes sense to have 80 end at 95 instead of some town at the end of Long Island. What would be pretty cool however would be to sign 80 on the LIE and then extend the LIE with a bridge to Rhode Island or Connecticut to connect to 95 :bigass:
Quote from: bluecountry on August 24, 2020, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2020, 11:03:17 AM
One reason this never happened is because NY doesn't like concurrencies, and the proposed extension would be pointless anyway.
No its not pointless, I-80 shouldn't dead end at I-95, while I-495 goes so far out.
I would either have I-495 become I-80 or I-87.
And, since we're on this, how is that routing numbered as I-495 anyhow? It doesn't serve as a bypass, nor does it connect 2 interstates or reconnect to it's "parent".
Shouldn't it be an odd numbered 3di (like I-195)? Let's just say that, as far as numbering goes, keeping I-80 on this route would make more sense than it's current designation.
I-495 originally went from the NJ Turnpike (I-95) to what is now I-295 (originally part of I-78), although the Mid-Manhattan Expressway was never built. The rest was NY 495. At some point, it was extended east, absorbing NY 495. It was also proposed to be extended further east - at least as far as Mattituck (where it would have fed into the CR 48 divided highway), with some proposals going as far as to have an eastern cross-sound bridge connecting to eastern CT or even RI, where I-495 would have connected back to I-95.
Realize that this question is inherently anachronistic.
First of all the Clearview itself originally was designated as I-78, so it had a 2di number already. It was renumbered 295 once it became clear that the missing links necessary to connect it with the rest of I-78 were never getting built.
Secondly, none of the LIE east of the Clearview was originally part of the interstate system. I-495 ended there, the remainder to the east was NY 495 (same idea as how to this day NY 390 is an extension of I-390, and so forth). The interstate designation was extended east later.
So if you're asking "Why didn't it?", well, given how the various designations and plans stood in 1956 this would not have made any sense at the time. If you're suggesting it would make more sense this way in 2020, then that's purely in the realm of fictional highways, and the "why not?" is because state DOTs do not spend money changing route signs when the existing ones are perfectly functional for the navigational purposes of the ordinary driver.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on September 04, 2020, 11:59:33 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 24, 2020, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2020, 11:03:17 AM
One reason this never happened is because NY doesn't like concurrencies, and the proposed extension would be pointless anyway.
No its not pointless, I-80 shouldn't dead end at I-95, while I-495 goes so far out.
I would either have I-495 become I-80 or I-87.
And, since we're on this, how is that routing numbered as I-495 anyhow? It doesn't serve as a bypass, nor does it connect 2 interstates or reconnect to it's "parent".
Shouldn't it be an odd numbered 3di (like I-195)? Let's just say that, as far as numbering goes, keeping I-80 on this route would make more sense than it's current designation.
The reason for I-495 is was for the Cross-Sound Bridge to either CT or RI, which was the ultimate goal of I-495 when originally designated.
Quote from: TEG24601 on September 05, 2020, 05:02:02 PM
The reason for I-495 is was for the Cross-Sound Bridge to either CT or RI, which was the ultimate goal of I-495 when originally designated.
See Duke87's and vdeane's posts immediately before yours. THAT is why it was designated I-495. Had nothing to do with a Cross-Sound Bridge.
Speaking of I-80 ends I'd argue the West end of I-80 should be in Gilroy, CA at the end of the US 101 freeway.