I just joined this site, and given that it is all about roads, there are probably threads on this already but would like to start off by mentioning the most hilarious interstate designations that don't conform to numbering standards:
1. CA I-238, I understand they ran out of numbers, but couldn't they have picked a better number? Since it connects I 580 and I 880, wouldn't a number that combines the two make more sense, such as I-588 or something? Or better yet just leave it as a state route? I find it odd that there are so many long distance highways that aren't designated interstates, such as CA 99 or the 101 freeway, yet little 2 mile connectors get upgraded! Just a very weird and random number
2. PA I-99, why wasn't this just made I-280, since it branches off from I-80, (I guess there are enough 280s in the country) or even a 76 based route, no clue where they got the 99 from. Given 99 is the highest possible number, shouldn't it be the furthest east north-south road? I know it would be hard to insert a new interstate east of 95, because in places like Florida or CT, it runs right along the shore, but maybe some major road east of 95 in another state could qualify for the designation, such as the Garden Parkway in NJ, or the new route being planned to follow DE 1 all the way to Norfolk VA?
3. I-69 in Texas, I don't even know where to begin with this, 3 incompleted tiny highway fragments, hundreds of miles apart, with one piece being west if I-35 (if you thought I-99 was an abomination..), and not even connecting to the rest of the system? Nothing makes sense about this one. Any other non-conforming highway numbering that are abominations?
4. I-295 in New Jersey: Just...what the hell is this?? Never in my life anywhere in the country have I seen an interstate begin as 3/4 of a beltway around a city, and then, just start sliding southwest all the way back down to Delaware..the path it takes is the dumbest route I have ever seen on one interstate. A complete beltway makes sense. A highway going northeast to southwest makes sense, but a combination of the two with the same number? Just..why??? Forget even the silliness of the I-95 gap when it could have just ran along the Jersey Turnpike, but seriously what is the logic of I-295. Start out heading east over the Delaware bridge on a road signed "north", then northeast on a road designated "north" curve west into PA while still signed "north" and then curve 180 degrees south, now going the opposite direction, that now says you are heading west? Talk about confusion. This is half a numbering issue and half a routing issue, because if they just designated I-95 like they should have, or made the beltway something else, ot wouldn't take a weird shape, but it's both.
5. Kentucky Route 620, I just discovered this one on the map, and this isn't a numbering issue so maybe I should start a thread on it, but the spiral shape of this one even beats I-295 in NJ. It's literally a lowercase letter e, what on earth is the logic of numbering it all the same thing? (Maybe it is a numbering issue since it could be a beltway but they should have numbered the central leg something else). Just an extremely odd path of a route.
All of these have been beaten to death here, in response to I-99, I think it's too long to be a 3di spur, and even if it were, it would have to be I-380 because 280 signifies a loop route that connects to its parent again or another interstate. And in Texas, the I-69 thing is weird but eventually I-69 (currently in multiple parts) will serve the Corpus Christi-Detroit corridor.
They don't follow the even-odd convention for direction, and like I said, even first digit 3dis don't necessarily have to reconnect to their parent interstate, just any other interstate will work (depending on the state. Some states like Illinois don't think this counts and will give such a spur an odd first digit.)
Quote from: kirbykart on October 25, 2022, 09:51:02 AM
All of these have been beaten to death here, in response to I-99, I think it's too long to be a 3di spur, and even if it were, it would have to be I-380 because 280 signifies a loop route that connects to its parent again or another interstate.
I-380 is already used in PA, so the next available 3di would be I-580.
As for the subject, I nominate I-73 and I-74 as nonsense numbering. I get that Congress wanted to connect the Ohio Valley to the Southeast, but the three strikes against the corridor are as follows:
1. I-73 is too far east of I-77, and I-74 is too far south of I-40
2. Both routes are multiplexed in central NC, with one of the numbers randomly disappearing for no reason at all
3. Neither one will connect to the Midwest, since the WV portion is not even a freeway
We already know about I-99 and I-238, but these two are just as bad.
As for the suffixed I-69 heresies...
I seem to remember someone saying that 69E, 69C, and 69W were originally just placeholders in the initial plans, but that nobody bothered to change the numbers to anything else. Is that true?
If they were placeholders, that would imply either all 3 segments are proposed individual highways, or one of them will be and they haven't decided which one, but even the furthest east segment wouldn't make sense as I-69. I doubt they could be 3 branches of the same highway, given the distance between them.
OK, so it was |sparker| that I remember saying that. Please see below for a compilation of posts from other threads on this topic.
Quote from: sparker on January 05, 2017, 08:46:56 PM
Back in 2010, I (via my consulting entity) submitted a paper to the Alliance for I-69 Texas suggesting just that except for designating US 281 as I-169. Their response was that they were inclined to follow the original "placeholder" designations of "Central" & "East" as the signed designations (a) because it followed the "letter of the law" as laid out in the HPC 18 legislative description, and (b) so as not to confuse the legislators tasked with pushing the various funding bills through Congress. Obviously they followed suit with the "69W" designation to Laredo using the same rationale.
My take on this is the Alliance used the "69" number as a virtual trademark -- to the extent that each aspect of the corridor was to retain some sort of reference to 69. Frankly, I was shocked to see that they had selected I-2 for the US 83 connector; I had expected it would be I-569 or something similar. But since no suffix was previously suggested for the Freer-Corpus added segment, I wouldn't be surprised if, when funding is sought for any activity on that segment, that it comes with a I-6 designation to match I-2 to the south as a "cross-trident" connector.
I guess the Alliance didn't trust their selected Congressional critters to do anything except walk & talk a straight line between point A (concept) and point B (funding & construction).
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2017, 03:31:17 PM
It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified). I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say. In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!
Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2017, 08:27:34 PM
Back circa late 2010 or early 2011 I submitted an analysis to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, in which I stated that the suffixed branches within the I-69 cluster were simply placeholders, since they were spelled out rather than stated as a single suffixed number (i.e. I-69 East vis-Ã -vis I-69E), and as such, could be changed quite easily by a simple alteration of the HPC 18/20 language. I suggested that I-69 itself replace I-69 East down to the border at Brownsville; that the segment along US 59 from Laredo to Victoria should become I-6, and that I-69 Central become I-169, which would then shunt east over US 83 to the main I-69 trunk at Harlingen (no I-2 in sight for this proposal). Also: the segment from Tenaha north to Texarkana should be I-47. Part of the rationale I expressed to the Alliance was that the suffixed numbers violated FHWA and AASHTO guidelines -- and although the legislated aspect of the corridor designations did in fact allow them to ignore those guidelines, it might be more appropriate from a regional standpoint to consider better-fitting alternative designations.
The response was that while my ideas had merit, the Congresspersons on board the proposal didn't want to "rock the boat" by substituting numbers that late in the game, that all their documentation referred to the branches as some form of the original "69" proposal -- besides, it had become recognized as a sort of "trademark" for the proposal in general and that the internal preference was for some iteration of "69" to be applied to all corridors covered by the original legislation (obviously that didn't apply to the I-2 corridor, as it was addressed separately and later).
And that was the end of that! However, when I-2 was designated a couple of years later, I was as surprised as anyone -- fully expecting US 83 to be I-169 or I-569, etc. to "keep it in the family", so to speak. I guess the Laredo-bound ambitions of that corridor had a bit to do with the choice.
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2018, 10:38:07 PM
Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about. Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).
Quote from: sparker on May 02, 2019, 09:18:46 PM
Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following: I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen. Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!). Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation. I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers. That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made. Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box! :sleep:
At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless. But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I! But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).
Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2020, 05:29:57 PM
... the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form. Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!). I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle. At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.
I-180 WY: It's a surface arterial, and is US 85 not enough of a designation for it?
IL I-180 also gets beaten to death here, but that's more because the whole road is useless, not just a bad numbering.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 25, 2022, 11:53:08 AM
I-180 WY: It's a surface arterial, and is US 85 not enough of a designation for it?
This is because 180 was already approved to be an Interstate before it was decided to no longer be a freeway. See below.
Quote from: froggie on May 11, 2020, 10:16:27 PM
It was given Interstate status because it was designated as part of the system and Interstate Construction funding was used in its construction. Don't forget that, until about 10 years ago, the Interstates were just as much a funding category as they were a system category.
Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2020, 01:58:48 PM
Nov. 1967 – Wyoming requested Interstate status for the corridor
Feb. 1968 – FHWA received Wyoming's request
Jun. 1970 – AASHO added I-180 to the Interstate system
Dec. 1970 – FHWA rejected Wyoming's concept proposal due to cost
Feb. 1971 – Wyoming submitted a new concept proposal, no longer a freeway
Mar. 1971 – FHWA approved Wyoming's new concept proposal
As you can see, I-180 was already on the books when its plans changed from its being grade-separated to an at-grade facility.
Also–and this is important–Interstate 80 east of that point wasn't even completed yet at the time, and wouldn't be until 1977.
Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2020, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 12, 2020, 02:05:09 PM
Hmmm ok that makes some sense. I'm just going to say it should be unsigned and that would eliminate the average person (non-roadgeek) from thinking it's an interstate.
It IS an Interstate, and it has been since 1970.
I-587 in New York. It's parent doesn't even acknowledge its existence. Not up to Interstate standards and also doesn't actually connect with I-87. FWIW Kingston doesn't need a spur Interstate to begin with.
It seems like whenever a state has only one 3di to a primary interstate, they always make it begin with 5, just like Reno/Carson City. Took forever to even find 587 in NY on a map, yep, that's really stupid. I know NJ has I-287, but I'd almost argue that's a primary one because it's so long.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 01:09:24 PM
It seems like whenever a state has only one 3di to a primary interstate, they always make it begin with 5 ...
Not.
Looking at the states around me here...
KS: 470 (670 came later), 235 (others came later)
OK: 235, 240
NE: 129
CO: 425 (rejected), 225 (later), 270 (470 was proposed later)
MO: ummmm, I'm too lazy to untangle all those 3di
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 01:09:24 PM
It seems like whenever a state has only one 3di to a primary interstate, they always make it begin with 5, just like Reno/Carson City. Took forever to even find 587 in NY on a map, yep, that's really stupid. I know NJ has I-287, but I'd almost argue that's a primary one because it's so long.
5xx 3di are surprisingly common generally. I checked a while ago, I-70 is the only x0 without a 5xx, and I-25 and 45 the only x5 (but those two only have 1 3di each anyways).
But anyways, Ohio doesn't have any odd first digit 3di at all, so they're out of the question.
So I wonder why Nevada chose 580 as the only 3di of 80? Just because it was in the middle?
I don't care for the two I-291s in MA and CT one should be I-491. They are too close to have the same number.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 01:52:07 PM
So I wonder why Nevada chose 580 as the only 3di of 80? Just because it was in the middle?
I-580 was originally approved as I-380, but AASHTO changed the number to 580 shortly thereafter at Nevada's request in order to be consistent with the numbering of the recently added I-515.
Quote from: State of Nevada, Department of Highways – 31-AUG-1978
Dear Mr. Stafseth:
As you probably know, an Interstate Spur to Route I-80 was recently approved for the Reno area here in Nevada and the FHWA tentatively assigned the route number I-380 subject to your concurrence.
We are hereby requesting that this number be changed to I-580. This change will be consistent with our Spur Number I-515 in Southern Nevada.
Enclosed are six applications for this route number change. An early approval of I-580 by the Route Numbering Sub-Committee will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
George B. Westenhoefer, P.E.
Chief Planning Survey Engineer
Quote from: AASHTO – 11-SEP-1978
Dear Mr. Westenhoefer:
We are in receipt of your letter of August 31, 1978, asking for a route number change of I-380 to I-580.
This request has been placed on the Route Numbering Committee's agenda, which will be meeting on October 28th, 1978.
Sincerely,
H. J. Rhodes
Deputy Director
As for why I-515 had been so numbered in the first place, I'm not sure. It was assigned the number 115 as a placeholder, but Nevada's formal application the next month requested the number 515 with no specific reason given that I can find.
Quote from: FHWA – 19-DEC-1975
Dear Mr. Bastian:
[...]
The number designation, 115, has been tentatively assigned to this route subject to the concurrence of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Sincerely yours,
Norbert T. Tiemann
Federal Highway Administrator
Quote from: State of Nevada, Department of Highways – 09-JAN-1975
Dear Mr. Stafseth:
Enclosed are six applications for the addition of Interstate Route I-515 (Spur) in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Approval of this addition by the U.S. Route Numbering Sub-Committee will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
George B. Westenhoefer
Chief Planning Survey Engineer
For what it's worth, I like the number 515. In my opinion, 115 would be too easily confused with 15 because of the double '1'. (For this reason, I also think I-110 in California should be I-310, I-110 in either Louisiana or Florida–or both–should be I-710, and I-115 in Montana should be I-715.) The number 515 avoids that confusion while still having two of the same digit in the number, which makes it easy to remember.
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2022, 03:30:57 PM
For what it's worth, I like the number 515. In my opinion, 115 would be too easily confused with 15 because of the double '1'. (For this reason, I also think I-110 in California should be I-310, I-110 in either Louisiana or Florida–or both–should be I-710, and I-115 in Montana should be I-715.) The number 515 avoids that confusion while still having two of the same digit in the number, which makes it easy to remember.
This confusion is also the reason why I-865 in Indiana wasn't named I-665. At the time of renumbering, INDOT thought that 911 operators would confuse 65 and 665. Although I've never heard confusion with other numbers such as 440, 664, or 990.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 25, 2022, 02:16:08 PM
I don't care for the two I-291s in MA and CT one should be I-491. They are too close to have the same number.
Agreed, and there are too many 495s in the NorthEast in general, in Maryland, Delaware, Long Island, and Rhode Island. Maybe if they build I-82 from Hartford to Providence, it will get rid of the 291 near there, or the 691.
As for the 495s, in fact, if they ever did in an alternate universe build a bridge over the sound and extend 495, it may end up connecting with the Rhode Island 495 anyway since they would be facing the same general direction.
I think you meant I-495 in Massachusetts. Also there’s a 495 in Maine although it’s unsigned. It exists on the Falmouth Spur.
So there's 5 in total then!!
LOL
As for the 580 matching 515 that makes perfect sense, although I-11 may end up consuming 580 when it's fully built. I read they don't just want to connect Pheonix, Vegas, Carson, and Reno, but also to Portland or Seattle.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 04:17:28 PM
I read they don't just want to connect Pheonix, Vegas, Carson, and Reno, but also to Portland or Seattle.
That probably depends on who "they" are...
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 10:16:10 AM
I forgot about those two, at first I thought it was just my maps glitching and numbering them as interstates when they weren't (I have seen I-70 magically pop up in CA, and an I-78 in Rhode Island before) but it turns out I-73 and I-74 are in a million fragments! Speaking of North Carolina, I was just there in June, went to Carowinds and rode Fury325 rollercoaster dozens of time, was so fun, but in terms of highways, is there an I-87 in NC or is that a map glitch as well?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 10:52:33 AM
Confirmed, there is an I-87 in NC, was this intended to be connected to the I 87 going from Canada to NYC, or totally separate?
This I-87 is totally separate, intended to run from I-440 in Raleigh -to- I-664 in Chesapeake/Norfolk.
Before anybody flames out on this one, you should look up the I-87 (North Carolina-Virginia) thread on the Southeast regional board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.0
Let us know if you need any help understanding what went wrong on the numbering of this one...
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 04:17:28 PM
As for the 580 matching 515 that makes perfect sense, although I-11 may end up consuming 580 when it's fully built. I read they don't just want to connect Pheonix, Vegas, Carson, and Reno, but also to Portland or Seattle.
I-11 may well end up consuming 515 as well if it follows US-95.
I-11 is my favorite proposed project. Those cities obviously need an interstate connection. I would love for CA 99 to become I-7, and maybe even an I-9 could be built to directly connect LA and Carson City.
Vegas to Phoenix makes a lot of sense*; Vegas to Carson City and Reno is reasonable; anything north of there considerably less so.
*I've only driven the portion of US-93 from Kingman to Vegas, but that alone seems sensible as an Interstate corridor to me.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 10:02:26 PM
I think they wanted I-11 north of Reno because they wanted it to be coast-to-coast.
Check that again.
I mean, if "too many mountains" was a real issue, the part of I-11 that exists now wouldn't be there...
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 10:02:26 PM
Even that car commercial says "Welcome to Highway 93" so it should be. I think they wanted I-11 north of Reno because they wanted it to be coat-to-cost. Probably too many mountains near Idaho/Oregon to weave that through. I mean they did with I-70 in Denver, but look at that truck disaster..
Since you're new here I went and FIFY.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 09:35:19 AM
I just joined this site, and given that it is all about roads, there are probably threads on this already but would like to start off by mentioning the most hilarious interstate designations that don't conform to numbering standards:
1. CA I-238, I understand they ran out of numbers, but couldn't they have picked a better number? Since it connects I 580 and I 880, wouldn't a number that combines the two make more sense, such as I-588 or something? Or better yet just leave it as a state route? I find it odd that there are so many long distance highways that aren't designated interstates, such as CA 99 or the 101 freeway, yet little 2 mile connectors get upgraded! Just a very weird and random number
2. PA I-99, why wasn't this just made I-280, since it branches off from I-80, (I guess there are enough 280s in the country) or even a 76 based route, no clue where they got the 99 from. Given 99 is the highest possible number, shouldn't it be the furthest east north-south road? I know it would be hard to insert a new interstate east of 95, because in places like Florida or CT, it runs right along the shore, but maybe some major road east of 95 in another state could qualify for the designation, such as the Garden Parkway in NJ, or the new route being planned to follow DE 1 all the way to Norfolk VA?
3. I-69 in Texas, I don't even know where to begin with this, 3 incompleted tiny highway fragments, hundreds of miles apart, with one piece being west if I-35 (if you thought I-99 was an abomination..), and not even connecting to the rest of the system? Nothing makes sense about this one. Any other non-conforming highway numbering that are abominations?
These examples are essential parts of roadgeek lore, they have been discussed since this forums creation and probably on MTR before then.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 25, 2022, 11:54:51 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 09:35:19 AM
I just joined this site, and given that it is all about roads, there are probably threads on this already but would like to start off by mentioning the most hilarious interstate designations that don't conform to numbering standards:
1. CA I-238, I understand they ran out of numbers, but couldn't they have picked a better number? Since it connects I 580 and I 880, wouldn't a number that combines the two make more sense, such as I-588 or something? Or better yet just leave it as a state route? I find it odd that there are so many long distance highways that aren't designated interstates, such as CA 99 or the 101 freeway, yet little 2 mile connectors get upgraded! Just a very weird and random number
2. PA I-99, why wasn't this just made I-280, since it branches off from I-80, (I guess there are enough 280s in the country) or even a 76 based route, no clue where they got the 99 from. Given 99 is the highest possible number, shouldn't it be the furthest east north-south road? I know it would be hard to insert a new interstate east of 95, because in places like Florida or CT, it runs right along the shore, but maybe some major road east of 95 in another state could qualify for the designation, such as the Garden Parkway in NJ, or the new route being planned to follow DE 1 all the way to Norfolk VA?
3. I-69 in Texas, I don't even know where to begin with this, 3 incompleted tiny highway fragments, hundreds of miles apart, with one piece being west if I-35 (if you thought I-99 was an abomination..), and not even connecting to the rest of the system? Nothing makes sense about this one. Any other non-conforming highway numbering that are abominations?
These examples are essential parts of roadgeek lore, they have been discussed since this forums creation and probably on MTR before then.
Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011? I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.
I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ. I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.
Not sure if this should be part of this discussion, but over the past 10 years in Pittsburgh they made some changes to Interstate designations that now do not follow the "rules". I-376 used to just go from the Turnpike/I-76 in Monroeville to Downtown Pittsburgh, and I-279 used to loop to and from I-79 to Downtown and back. All was good. Then they extended freeway status to the new Pittsburgh Airport terminal and then extended even further back up to I-76 close to the Ohio border and even further up to I-80. They then changed the designation of southern portion of the I-279 half loop to I-376 and extended that designation onto the new freeway all the way to I-80.
So now I-279, with an even number, is basically a spur into downtown Pittsburgh and I-376 is now a partial loop and more but has the odd number designation. Being from Pittsburgh originally, it is something I think about every time I head back and visit. Not sure the reasoning behind this, if anyone does and would share that would be great. :banghead:
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2022, 10:48:00 AM
Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011? I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.
Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2022, 12:38:06 PM
I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ. I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.
No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively. For example...
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2022, 01:50:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2022, 10:48:00 AM
Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011? I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.
Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2022, 12:38:06 PM
I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ. I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.
No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively. For example...
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ
Ah, thanks! I knew that the 69 corridor(s) existed in official documents as far back as the 90s, but I didn't realize the whole "shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" business did.
Quote from: ski-man on October 26, 2022, 01:03:43 PM
So now I-279, with an even number, is basically a spur into downtown Pittsburgh and I-376 is now a partial loop and more but has the odd number designation. Being from Pittsburgh originally, it is something I think about every time I head back and visit. Not sure the reasoning behind this, if anyone does and would share that would be great. :banghead:
I suppose I-376 is a wildcard in that is both a partial loop, but also a spur to I-80 and the Sharon/Hermitage/Farrell area (by way of New Castle)
I believe the primary motivation was to have an interstate service Pittsburgh International Airport. Given that those various highways were all crapped together into a contiguous roadway over the decades, extending the I-376 route probably seemed the simplest and most logical way to go.
I'm guessing that they reasoned the amount of people that know what the first digit of a 3DI is supposed to denote about the route was far outweighed by the confusion of creating a new route number. (IE: Even though I-279 is now just a spur and not a loop, it would be even worse for the general public to renumber it to an odd-digit-79 simply because of that fact)
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2022, 01:50:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2022, 10:48:00 AM
Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011? I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.
Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2022, 12:38:06 PM
I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ. I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.
No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively. For example...
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ
A couple of posts about the federal corridor designation is a lot less than actual construction and inclusion in the FAQ (http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#36). Per the second link, actual interstate numbers hadn't even been finalized (indeed, this forum was already well underway by the time the first 69 suffix signs appeared). And I did say "a bit new", not "wasn't even conceived of by the most hopeful backer of the corridor".
Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2022, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2022, 01:50:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2022, 10:48:00 AM
Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011? I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.
Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2022, 12:38:06 PM
I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ. I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.
No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively. For example...
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ
A couple of posts about the federal corridor designation is a lot less than actual construction and inclusion in the FAQ (http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#36). Per the second link, actual interstate numbers hadn't even been finalized (indeed, this forum was already well underway by the time the first 69 suffix signs appeared). And I did say "a bit new", not "wasn't even conceived of by the most hopeful backer of the corridor".
Look, you were wrong. It was discussed on MTR, including the trident. No harm in admitting that.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 10:52:33 AM
Confirmed, there is an I-87 in NC, was this intended to be connected to the I 87 going from Canada to NYC, or totally separate?
Totally separate. I-87 from Raleigh to Rocky Mount was originally going to be I-495 before common sense gave out.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 27, 2022, 11:31:53 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2022, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2022, 01:50:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2022, 10:48:00 AM
Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011? I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.
Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2022, 12:38:06 PM
I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ. I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.
No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively. For example...
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ
A couple of posts about the federal corridor designation is a lot less than actual construction and inclusion in the FAQ (http://www.roadfan.com/mtrfaq.html#36). Per the second link, actual interstate numbers hadn't even been finalized (indeed, this forum was already well underway by the time the first 69 suffix signs appeared). And I did say "a bit new", not "wasn't even conceived of by the most hopeful backer of the corridor".
Look, you were wrong. It was discussed on MTR, including the trident. No harm in admitting that.
I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR". I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#History). kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not. Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!
Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there. I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era. I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2022, 12:37:52 PM
I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR". I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#History). kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not. Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!
Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there. I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era. I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...
To be fair, I also said "I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum". And the plain fact is that it was.
Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East". And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 12:57:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2022, 12:37:52 PM
I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR". I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#History). kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not. Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!
Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there. I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era. I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...
To be fair, I also said "I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum". And the plain fact is that it was.
Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East". And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.
Exactly. vdeane doesn't need to split hairs over all of this.
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2022, 02:22:49 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 25, 2022, 01:52:07 PM
So I wonder why Nevada chose 580 as the only 3di of 80? Just because it was in the middle?
I-580 was originally approved as I-380, but AASHTO changed the number to 580 shortly thereafter at Nevada's request in order to be consistent with the numbering of the recently added I-515.
Quote from: State of Nevada, Department of Highways – 31-AUG-1978
Dear Mr. Stafseth:
As you probably know, an Interstate Spur to Route I-80 was recently approved for the Reno area here in Nevada and the FHWA tentatively assigned the route number I-380 subject to your concurrence.
We are hereby requesting that this number be changed to I-580. This change will be consistent with our Spur Number I-515 in Southern Nevada.
Enclosed are six applications for this route number change. An early approval of I-580 by the Route Numbering Sub-Committee will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
George B. Westenhoefer, P.E.
Chief Planning Survey Engineer
Quote from: AASHTO – 11-SEP-1978
Dear Mr. Westenhoefer:
We are in receipt of your letter of August 31, 1978, asking for a route number change of I-380 to I-580.
This request has been placed on the Route Numbering Committee's agenda, which will be meeting on October 28th, 1978.
Sincerely,
H. J. Rhodes
Deputy Director
As for why I-515 had been so numbered in the first place, I'm not sure. It was assigned the number 115 as a placeholder, but Nevada's formal application the next month requested the number 515 with no specific reason given that I can find.
Quote from: FHWA – 19-DEC-1975
Dear Mr. Bastian:
[...]
The number designation, 115, has been tentatively assigned to this route subject to the concurrence of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Sincerely yours,
Norbert T. Tiemann
Federal Highway Administrator
Quote from: State of Nevada, Department of Highways – 09-JAN-1975
Dear Mr. Stafseth:
Enclosed are six applications for the addition of Interstate Route I-515 (Spur) in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Approval of this addition by the U.S. Route Numbering Sub-Committee will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
George B. Westenhoefer
Chief Planning Survey Engineer
Do any of them have regular names?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 26, 2022, 01:50:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2022, 10:48:00 AM
Was the 69E/69C/69W trident even a settled thing before 2011? I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum.
Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2022, 12:38:06 PM
I-238 and I-99 certainly were; IIRC, they were even in the MTR FAQ. I-69 is a bit new for that, however, especially the trident.
No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively. For example...
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ
I'm going to go back to this post in my response. Whether I-69E/C/W was a "settled" thing or not depends on what aspect you're looking at. The actual Interstate designations waited until those segments were ready for and requested to be added to the Interstate system proper...this is what vdeane makes her reference to.
However, reading through the actual TEA-21 legislation (copied in the 1998 MTR post linked upthread), the legislation makes it pretty clear that I-69C and I-69E were written into Federal law in that act (much as I-99 had been previous to that), so with those two routes it was "settled" in 1998 when TEA-21 was passed.
And I, for one, do recall the occasional thread about it during the late '90s/early '00s timeframe.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 27, 2022, 03:06:33 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 12:57:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2022, 12:37:52 PM
I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR". I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#History). kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not. Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!
Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there. I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era. I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...
To be fair, I also said "I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum". And the plain fact is that it was.
Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East". And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.
Exactly. vdeane doesn't need to split hairs over all of this.
If your issue was with kphoger's comment, then why go after mine instead?
If they build I-3 from Savannah Georgia to Knoxville Tennessee, that will be the top stupidity in the interstate highway system! Way in the wrong place! Maybe I should include this proposal in my OP as this is seriously being considered.
Another I-99 "option that was never fully explored" (thank God) was to connect the DE-SC I-99 to the Pennsylvania one..by having I-99 run concurrently along 76 and 476, that's disgusting lol, I-99 would basically not only start out way in the wrong place, but then turn 135 degrees counterclockwise, run concurrently along the Penn turnpike and somehow connect to DE via 476? This would be more nonsensical than PA I-99 as it is or even having both separately.
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2022, 09:13:06 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 27, 2022, 03:06:33 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2022, 12:57:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2022, 12:37:52 PM
I never said "no, it was never, ever discussed on MTR". I just said it was "a bit new" - which is true, the desigations were approved by FHWA on May 24, 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#History). kphoger's question was whether that was even a settled thing - clearly, it was not. Digging up a couple of posts from way back when does not refute my point that it wasn't on the same level as I-238 and I-99 - the I-69 suffixes (which are what I was referring to, not the fact that a corridor was designated) are not even in the FAQ!
Please don't put words into my mouth, it's one of my biggest pet peeves out there. I will, however, admit that the May 2013 designation of I-69C is earlier than I thought it was, but that's still well within the forum era, not the MTR era. I do hope this argument isn't somehow a proxy for an argument on whether the federal corridor designation actually required "I-69 East" to be signed I-69E and so on (for the record, I'm in the camp that believes it did not)...
To be fair, I also said "I'm highly skeptical that this was discussed on MTR before the creating of the AARoads forum". And the plain fact is that it was.
Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East". And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.
Exactly. vdeane doesn't need to split hairs over all of this.
If your issue was with kphoger's comment, then why go after mine instead?
I didn't "go after" your post. I quoted it because it was the same topic that kphoger's was about. Seriously you don't need to be so sensitive about these things. I wasn't meaning to call you out or anything. Just provided information to follow your post.
As brought up in another thread: technically, I-210 in California no longer meets its parent. CA-57 took over the corridor between San Dimas and the I-10 junction, and the rerouted segment along the foothills remains CA-210. This is one of the few instances I can think of where a 3di does not meet its parent in a strict technical sense.
Although it does on paper, since the FHWA definition still considers CA-57 to be "I-210." I'm talking more from a visible standpoint, as far as the actual shields go.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 27, 2022, 09:19:14 PM
If they build I-3 from Savannah Georgia to Knoxville Tennessee, that will be the top stupidity in the interstate highway system! Way in the wrong place! Maybe I should include this proposal in my OP as this is seriously being considered.
Another I-99 "option that was never fully explored" (thank God) was to connect the DE-SC I-99 to the Pennsylvania one..by having I-99 run concurrently along 76 and 476, that's disgusting lol, I-99 would basically not only start out way in the wrong place, but then turn 135 degrees counterclockwise, run concurrently along the Penn turnpike and somehow connect to DE via 476? This would be more nonsensical than PA I-99 as it is or even having both separately.
I-3 probably isn’t going to be built. They would have to get it through the Smokies to punch it through Knoxville. But I have to agree that numbering is ridiculous. Any Interstate on this corridor should just run from Savannah to Augusta. If a 2di is used, it would have to be a duplicate number such as a southern I-89, 91, or 93. The way I see it, I-3 was likely a pipe dream anyway.
It would be entirely west of I-77 so there would actually be no numbers left. But since I-95 is near there, a duplicate of the ones you listed is justifiable.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 28, 2022, 08:16:35 AM
It would be entirely west of I-77 so there would actually be no numbers left. But since I-95 is near there, a duplicate of the ones you listed is justifiable.
I-3 would be fine too.
Quote from: Quillz on October 28, 2022, 12:48:26 AM
... CA-210. This is one of the few instances I can think of where a 3di does not meet its parent in a strict technical sense.
Technically, I-585 no longer meets its parent.
Nor do any of the x78s.
Quote from: kphoger on October 28, 2022, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 28, 2022, 12:48:26 AM
... CA-210. This is one of the few instances I can think of where a 3di does not meet its parent in a strict technical sense.
Technically, I-585 no longer meets its parent.
Neat, never knew about this one. Wiki says it happened in 1995 when its parent was realigned.
I-580 (California) is really 4 different highways with one number
As long as you don't have to get off at an exit to stay on the same highway, it's fine with me. I can't stand that I-76/I-80 right-of-way-switch in Ohio.
Interstate 82 in Oregon and Washington. It's *north* of I-84! It should be a north-south route. I-9, perhaps?
Quote from: kramie13 on November 02, 2022, 02:24:41 PM
Interstate 82 in Oregon and Washington. It's *north* of I-84! It should be a north-south route. I-9, perhaps?
Obviously the reason it is north of I-84 is because I-84 was renumbered from I-80N in the late 70s. Long after I-82 was numbered.
But a n/s interstate would have worked too.
What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 02:44:23 PM
What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.
But it's already an interstate. Why would you remove the designation?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 02:44:23 PM
What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.
It's already an interstate, and a good one at that. The fastest route between Seattle and a big chunk of the US is via this Interstate.
Quote from: kramie13 on November 02, 2022, 02:24:41 PM
Interstate 82 in Oregon and Washington. It's *north* of I-84! It should be a north-south route. I-9, perhaps?
It's an NW-SE route that connects to an east-west corridor (Seattle to Boise/SLC). No one here would refer to Seattle-SLC as "heading south".
This is like the fourth time I've explained this in the past month. Great example of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.
What a route connects to isn't really relevant. What's relevant is how long a route runs in one way. That, at least in part, is the deciding factor on whether a route is west to east (even number) or south to north (odd number). If a route has a total of 50 miles and 35 of those miles run west to east and only 15 of those miles run south to north, it is a west to east route (I'm not including northwest, northeast, southwest, or southeast directionality in this example). Interstate 82 runs for a total of 143.58 miles, according to Wikipedia; however, there's nothing that says how many of those miles run west/east and how many of those miles run south/north. And for the diagonal sections where it runs northwest or southeast, do they run more west/east or do they run more south/north. There's nothing anywhere, for any route, that I can find that breaks down these miles. For example, out of Interstate 90's (hypothetical) 10 miles, 2 run south and north and 8 run west and east. The routing map on the Wikipedia article for Interstate 82 doesn't help since it's hard to tell which way it runs more in.
Washington State Route 17 primarily connects to several west to east corridors:
- Washington State Route 26
- Washington State Route 170
- Washington State Route 262
- Interstate 90
- Washington State Route 282
- Washington State Route 28
- US Route 2
- Washington State Route 172
- Washington State Route 174
If we use that logic, then Washington State Route 17 should be a west to east route (even number), but it's not. It's properly a south to north route (odd number). So, the logic is flawed. However, for a more similar/comparable example to the Interstate 82 scenario, Interstate 15, which is a south to north route, connects to several west to east interstate corridors, such as Interstate 90, Interstate 84, and Interstate 80. And it's a south to north route, as indicated by its odd number.
Also, a lot of people use Interstate 82 simply to travel between Ellensburg and Yakima, or areas near Yakima. And Yakima is south of Ellensburg, and vice-versa, Ellensburg is north of Yakima.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 02, 2022, 02:47:38 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 02:44:23 PM
What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.
But it's already an interstate. Why would you remove the designation?
Because it violated the numbering convention, and apparently it is cheaper to not have routes as interstates. This is hindsight though, I am saying it should never have been one to begin with.
Quote from: Amaury on November 02, 2022, 04:58:58 PM
Washington State Route 17 primarily connects to several west to east corridors:
If we use that logic, then Washington State Route 17 should be a west to east route (even number), but it's not. It's properly a south to north route (odd number). So, the logic is flawed.
Complete misunderstanding of the logic. I-82 is a component of a LONGER corridor in the SAME direction. SR 17 is not, those are just intersecting routes.
An actual example would be SR 522, which runs SW-NE but is an even number. Why? Because it forms part of a longer east-west corridor that connects Seattle to Stevens Pass via US 2. You just can't look at numbers in isolation.
Quote from: Amaury on November 02, 2022, 04:58:58 PM
Also, a lot of people use Interstate 82 simply to travel between Ellensburg and Yakima, or areas near Yakima. And Yakima is south of Ellensburg, and vice-versa, Ellensburg is north of Yakima.
2016 AADT shows that the busiest section north of Selah gets 18,000 daily average vehicles, while the
least busiest section between Yakima and I-182 gets 17,000 (and the busiest is well over 30,000). The busiest section is the section that runs more E-W than N-S.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 02, 2022, 02:47:38 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 02:44:23 PM
What about not designating it an interstate, since apparently that's so much trouble to begin with.
But it's already an interstate. Why would you remove the designation?
Because it violated the numbering convention, and apparently it is cheaper to not have routes as interstates. This is hindsight though, I am saying it should never have been one to begin with.
If you want to keep it an East-west designation, make the useless western I-86 a 3di and give it to existing I-82. Then you can give I-82 to either I-88 in IL or I-86 in PA-NY
That would be OK too. But all this talk is tempting me on starting a fictional thread on how to feasibly connect the two I-84s in the west and east coast. Give me time to plan this out and what routes to renumber along the way, so I can see if it's feasible or not, thanks.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 05:18:11 PM
Because it violated the numbering convention, and apparently it is cheaper to not have routes as interstates. This is hindsight though, I am saying it should never have been one to begin with.
So many things wrong with that...
1. The same people who came up with the numbering convention are the ones who renumbered it. It's their system, so let them do what they want with it.
2. Violating the numbering convention doesn't affect any driver in any way. There is no real reason to remove the Interstate designation other than your personal feelings about it.
3. When the route became an Interstate, it didn't violate any numbering conventions. So how would it be cheaper to remove the designation now?
4. Numbering is no reason for a route to not have become an Interstate. Besides which, see #3 above.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.msg2536188#msg2536188
Quote from: Bruce on November 02, 2022, 04:20:26 PMNo one here would refer to Seattle-SLC as "heading south".
That is not totally incorrect, according to the route: https://goo.gl/maps/92TmPobC1HerJAih9
If you're going from Boise, Idaho, to Seattle, Washington, you are heading
northwest. Vice-versa, if you're heading from Seattle, Washington, to Boise, Idaho, you are heading
southeast. It would definitely, however, be incorrect to say that if you are going from Ellensburg to Yakima, you are heading east, or vice-versa.
Quote from: Bruce on November 02, 2022, 05:22:35 PMComplete misunderstanding of the logic. I-82 is a component of a LONGER corridor in the SAME direction. SR 17 is not, those are just intersecting routes.
An actual example would be SR 522, which runs SW-NE but is an even number. Why? Because it forms part of a longer east-west corridor that connects Seattle to Stevens Pass via US 2. You just can't look at numbers in isolation.
WA 17 still connects to them, just as I-82 connects to I-90 and I-84. But that is also why I provided the I-15 example, which is more comparable. I have no issues with WA 522, as it's much more clear which way it runs (west to east) compared to I-82. I consider WA 522 akin to WA 18 in that regard, as it's also diagonal, but it's clear what the directionality is. I don't expect a route to run perfectly in one direction–in fact, that would be impossible for something like I-90. There are some that do, but it's mostly ones that are really short. I-90 has sections that run south and north. For example, you are technically heading north on I-90 eastbound after crossing the Vantage Bridge here in Washington. Likewise, you are heading south before crossing the Vantage Bridge on I-90 westbound. I was following I-90 on Google Maps across the county yesterday, and there's a section that runs south/north for a significant time in, I think, Illinois. Then as you get closer to New York, there's another section like that as I-90 moves back up closer to the Canadian border. In either case, just because it's not a straight horizontal line across the county, it's clear that it's a west to east route.
I-82 is even-numbered and designated accordingly as west and east. That is correct and matches with even-numbered routes being west and east and odd-numbered routes being south and north. It's the actual routing that I'm questioning. (Honestly, I'm surprised WSDOT didn't do to I-82 what they did with US 101 on the north and east sections of the peninsula. I guess the south/north sections are just not as long as the west and east and reversed south and north sections of US 101.) But at least the even-numbering and directionality match and make sense for I-82. Montana is worse, where several of its highways don't even make sense. For example, Montana Highway 286 is clearly a south to north route and is even designated as such, yet has an even number, which is used for west to east routes. Makes no sense. Similarly, Montana Secondary Highway 471, which isn't even signed, is clearly a west to east route, but has an odd number, which is used for south to north routes. Washington only has one highway like this: WA 548. Even number, but designated as south to north. (Note that I haven't driven this particular highway yet, it's just from what I've read on Wikipedia and seen on Google Maps.)
At the end of the day, I know nothing will change, and as such, I don't really agree with MMM, either. Having said that, if I had something saying something like out of I-82's 143.58 miles, 78.97 miles run west and east, including NW/SE sections that run more west/east, and 64.61 miles run south and north, including NW/SE sections that run more south/north, then it would be clear to me that it's a west to east route. However, there's nothing like that. We just have the total number of miles. And just looking at the routing on a map, it's not clear at all which way it runs more. Whereas if you look at the routing of something like Interstate 405, or even WA 522, on a map, it's clear which way it runs.
Quote from: Amaury on November 02, 2022, 06:22:25 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 02, 2022, 04:20:26 PMNo one here would refer to Seattle-SLC as "heading south".
That is not totally incorrect, according to the route: https://goo.gl/maps/92TmPobC1HerJAih9
If you're going from Boise, Idaho, to Seattle, Washington, you are heading northwest. Vice-versa, if you're heading from Seattle, Washington, to Boise, Idaho, you are heading southeast. It would definitely, however, be incorrect to say that if you are going from Ellensburg to Yakima, you are heading east, or vice-versa.
Human perception does not match cardinal directions. If you asked Seattle residents at random which direction Boise is in, they'd probably say east far more than southeast.
Quote from: Amaury on November 02, 2022, 06:22:25 PM
WA 17 still connects to them, just as I-82 connects to I-90 and I-84. But that is also why I provided the I-15 example, which is more comparable. I have no issues with WA 522, as it's much more clear which way it runs (west to east) compared to I-82. I consider WA 522 akin to WA 18 in that regard, as it's also diagonal, but it's clear what the directionality is.
The second part is literally what I am saying. I-82 is one component of a longer corridor, as is SR 18 (when you include I-90). SR 17 can be considered a component of a longer north-south corridor with the same logic when including US 395 and US 97. The
general direction of the corridor matters more than what the shorter route actually does.
Quote from: Amaury on November 02, 2022, 06:22:25 PM
I-82 is even-numbered and designated accordingly as west and east. That is correct and matches with even-numbered routes being west and east and odd-numbered routes being south and north. It's the actual routing that I'm questioning. (Honestly, I'm surprised WSDOT didn't do to I-82 what they did with US 101 on the north and east sections of the peninsula. I guess the south/north sections are just not as long as the west and east and reversed south and north sections of US 101.)
Changing the directions of an Interstate mid-route would be far more confusing than the US 101 situation, which is a unique case for good reason. The north-south section of I-82 between Ellensburg and Yakima is far shorter than the east-west section of US 101 atop the Olympia Peninsula.
Quote from: Amaury on November 02, 2022, 06:22:25 PM
Washington only has one highway like this: WA 548. Even number, but designated as south to north. (Note that I haven't driven this particular highway yet, it's just from what I've read on Wikipedia and seen on Google Maps.)
Montana's numbering system is not consistent and should not be factored in. Washington has several other examples of "misnumbered" highways, mainly in places where a newer highway is added between existing routes and a suitable number is not available. This is the case for SR 116, SR 194, SR 523, and SR 531 (all added in the 1991 batch). SR 548 is a bit odd since it does have available numbers, but perhaps WSDOT felt that guiding people to Birch Bay (a westerly trip from I-5) is a higher priority.
It can affect drivers. Let's say a driver is on I-84, trying to get to I-82, and their phone is dead and they don't know where to go. Knowing the numbering convention, they might decide to head south thinking they will eventually run into I-82 because it should be south of I-84. So they do that. Not knowing they are going completely the wrong way. That's a reason the numbering should be followed. There's only 99 numbers, so about 50 in each compass direction, it shouldn't be that hard to follow.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 07:10:37 PM
It can affect drivers. Let's say a driver is on I-84, trying to get to I-84, and their phone is dead and they don't know where to go. Knowing the numbering convention, they might decide to head south thinking they will eventually run into I-82 because it should be south of I-84. So they do that. Not knowing they are going completely the wrong way. That's a reason the numbering should be followed. There's only 99 numbers, so about 50 in each compass direction, it shouldn't be that hard to follow.
Are you HighwayStar?
Who's HighwayStar?
FritzOwl's twin??
I corrected a typo on my last post, to get from I-84 to I-82, not to I-84.
Middle of a HighwayStar debate about the grid and how it has to be perfect:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29052.125
(I'm pretty sure you're not actually HighwayStar; you haven't showed any signs of racism unlike his denying that redlining existed or saying that Mount McKinley was the original name of the mountain in Alaska.)
That would imply I have multiple accounts or something? No, I am new to this site and haven't seen that thread before. Looks interesting though, will check it out. He does have some similar points to me.
I do believe the entire population of the country that knows the numbering convention is also smart enough to travel with a paper map in the car.
(I always travel with a paper map in the car. Of course, it's a Kansas official map that I snagged from the Belle Plaine welcome center and have been too lazy to bring inside, so it's of limited use since I don't live in Kansas. But I have it, dang it!)
Are those maps detailed enough in local roads?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 08:03:05 PM
Are those maps detailed enough in local roads?
They show all the numbered highways, so they're at least as good as knowing numbering conventions would be.
(https://i.imgur.com/hyPdNif.jpg)
That's spaghetti.
I need my zoom function to identify exit numbers and what side of the road the exits are on. Can't exactly zoom in on a paper map, and don't keep microscopes in my backseat either.
Well, it won't run out of battery, won't turn itself off when you're trying to look at it, always has service, doesn't make me enter my code to unlock it while I'm driving, doesn't crash, and the data comes straight from the state DOT so it's (usually) as accurate as you can get...
I don't mind the small numbers if I don't have to worry about all that annoying shit. And besides, I do have a zoom function for the paper map. My eye doctor sold them to me and they sit on my face at all times.
(And what do you mean what side of the road the exits are on? That's what the exit tab on the sign is for.)
What makes you think I open the car windows? I live in Oklahoma.
Also, I will note we haven't had a need for a 96-page thread on this forum called "Paper maps just fucking SUCK now".
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 07:10:37 PM
It can affect drivers. Let's say a driver is on I-84, trying to get to I-82, and their phone is dead and they don't know where to go. Knowing the numbering convention, they might decide to head south thinking they will eventually run into I-82 because it should be south of I-84. So they do that. Not knowing they are going completely the wrong way. That's a reason the numbering should be followed. There's only 99 numbers, so about 50 in each compass direction, it shouldn't be that hard to follow.
So your response to this extremely rare hypothetical is to remove the interstate designation completely? How would that help the guy with the dead phone figure out where he is going?
He may not even try to ask for directions thinking he knows the numbering scheme, but at least if it had no designation, he would actually have to know the name and location relative to his current position. But my main point was if designating roads as interstates is so costly, and tedious, and unnecessary, than why do they go through the trouble of designating them, especially since they don't even fit the existing grid?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 10:08:34 PM
But my main point was if designating roads as interstates is so costly, and tedious, and unnecessary, than why do they go through the trouble of designating them, especially since they don't even fit the existing grid?
oh shit guys Arizona DOT is here
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 10:08:34 PM
He may not even try to ask for directions thinking he knows the numbering scheme, but at least if it had no designation, he would actually have to know the name and location relative to his current position. But my main point was if designating roads as interstates is so costly, and tedious, and unnecessary, than why do they go through the trouble of designating them, especially since they don't even fit the existing grid?
So your new line is why designate ANY interstates if you can't designate ALL freeways as interstates? This is just nonsensical logic.
And I-82 fit the grid when it was designated.
Well if "I-80N" was properly numbered, this issue wouldn't exist in the first place. It would have been I-82, the next one north I-84, the next one north I-86, I-88, I-90..etc, but when they start out with BS like letters, and then come to their senses and change them back, the numbers are all out of place, go figure. Lord only knows what would have happened if other places followed Texas's illogic and threw in "C" on top of that.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:19:28 AM
Well if "I-80N" was properly numbered, this issue wouldn't exist in the first place. It would have been I-82, the next one north I-84, the next one north I-86, I-88, I-90..etc, but when they start out with BS like letters, and then come to their senses and change them back, the numbers are all out of place, go figure. Lord only knows what would have happened if other places followed Texas's illogic and threw in "C" on top of that.
I-82 was assigned in 1957 and I-80N was renumbered to I-84 in 1980, so there weren't any numbers available. Too bad Idaho wasted I-86 on such a short route.
Just noticed you're saying about the thruway, since some exits are 15 miles apart, wouldn't the exit numbering appear to be almost random, vs thr way it us now? I understand urban interstates doing that because the exits are only about a mile apart anyway, but roads like the thruway shouldn't be numbered like that.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:41:18 AM
Just noticed you're saying about the thruway, since some exits are 15 miles apart, wouldn't the exit numbering appear to be almost random, vs thr way it us now? I understand urban interstates doing that because the exits are only about a mile apart anyway, but roads like the thruway shouldn't be numbered like that.
What point are you trying to make? Isn't any interstate with mile-based exit numbers in a rural area going to have this problem, to an extent? For example, new Mass Pike exit numbers, between old Exits 2 & 3 is a 30 mile gap, now they are numbered 10 and 41.
Most rural interstates shouldn't be mile based. That is one serious flaw in the numbering system. There is no logic or benefit in that whatsoever, just pure OCD. It's like saying I-90 must have exactly 90 exits in each state, or that I-70 must have exactly 70 exits in each state.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:18:06 AM
Most rural interstates shouldn't be mile based. That is one serious flaw in the numbering system. There is no logic or benefit in that whatsoever, just pure OCD. It's like saying I-90 must have exactly 90 exits in each state, or that I-70 must have exactly 70 exits in each state.
I'm not sure you understand what mile based exit numbers are. It has nothing to do with the route number; they're based on the mileage of the route in that state.
When heading north or east:
Exit 1 ➜ 1 mile from the state line
Exit 15 ➜ 15 miles from the state line
When heading south or west:
Exit 1 ➜ 1 mile to the state line
Exit 15 ➜ 15 miles to the state line
Yes I know that's what they mean, and there's no point to that. Why do they need to match the mile markers?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:18:06 AM
Most rural interstates shouldn't be mile based. That is one serious flaw in the numbering system. There is no logic or benefit in that whatsoever, just pure OCD. It's like saying I-90 must have exactly 90 exits in each state, or that I-70 must have exactly 70 exits in each state.
What happens when rural areas get big enough to justify new exits? Do you renumber all the old exits or make a suffix? Or just refuse to build an exit there? Mileage-based numbering eliminated the need to replace the other exit signs or have a bunch of suffixed exits.
Great point. Never thought of that. I guess they should keep it that way. Although what do they do when it is between the markers, do they round up or down?
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 02, 2022, 07:47:14 PM
I do believe the entire population of the country that knows the numbering convention is also smart enough to travel with a paper map in the car.
This.
If a person is dumb enough to head out for a 200-mile trip (I'm imagining Portland to Yakima) without bothering to get directions from someone or consult a map ahead of time, then they probably aren't knowledgeable enough to understand highway numbering conventions to begin with.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:29:34 AM
Yes I know that's what they mean, and there's no point to that. Why do they need to match the mile markers?
If you know you are going to get off at Exit 243 (mileage based) and you are currently at mile marker 197, you know you have 46 miles to your exit.
If you know you are getting off at Exit #17 (numerically based) and you are currently at mile marker 197, how many miles to your exit?
Edit:
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:37:49 AM
Although what do they do when it is between the markers, do they round up or down?
In most states, when an exit is between the state line and Mile Marker 1, it is Exit 1. Between MM1 and MM2 it is Exit 2. Etc.
There are a few Exit 0's. I'm sure there's a separate thread on that.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:37:49 AM
Great point. Never thought of that. I guess they should keep it that way. Although what do they do when it is between the markers, do they round up or down?
This is determined by state DOTs. I believe most commonly it's to round to the nearest mile marker, except when that mile marker is 0.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:29:34 AM
Yes I know that's what they mean, and there's no point to that. Why do they need to match the mile markers?
Well, they don't have to. But, if you're looking for Exit #114, and you're at mile marker 127, it's a handy way of figuring out you're 13 miles from your exit.
How is that not blatantly obvious?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:19:28 AM
Well if "I-80N" was properly numbered, this issue wouldn't exist in the first place. It would have been I-82, the next one north I-84, the next one north I-86, I-88, I-90..etc, but when they start out with BS like letters, and then come to their senses and change them back, the numbers are all out of place, go figure. Lord only knows what would have happened if other places followed Texas's illogic and threw in "C" on top of that.
It was properly numbered according to the 1950s standard. In the 1970s, they decided it wasn't and changed it. It really isn't that big of a deal.
Quote from: kphoger on November 03, 2022, 10:42:31 AM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:29:34 AM
Yes I know that's what they mean, and there's no point to that. Why do they need to match the mile markers?
Well, they don't have to. But, if you're looking for Exit #114, and you're at mile marker 127, it's a handy way of figuring out you're 13 miles from your exit.
How is that not blatantly obvious?
The adding new exits later on is blatantly obvious, I just didn't think of it for some reason, but why would you have to know the distance to your exit? Signs will label the exit ahead of time. You can also just set your tripodometer if you have done the route before, of you know the mileage ahead of time, and just do some simple math as you go along.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 12:09:06 PM
why would you have to know the distance to your exit?
–
Daddy, when's lunch?–
Honey, check the map. What exit number is Alantown?–
191.–
OK, we're at mile marker 241, so that's ... 50 miles ... We're about 40 minutes away, guys, so around 12:35.or–
The gas light just came on. Honey, how far is it to Alantown?–
The map says it's at Exit #191.–
OK, we're at mile marker 241, so that's ... hmmm, it doesn't look like we can make to the truck stop in Alantown.–
I just saw a billboard back there saying there's a Super-Sbarro gas station at Exit #220.–
Cool. We'll fill up there instead.
If I know I need to exit at Exit 300 and I'm at MM 258, I know I can assuredly pass a long string of trucks and have enough time to get in the right lane before my exit. But if I'm at MM 298, I might be better off hanging back and just driving slower since my exit is in only 2 miles. (Sure, there should be a 2-mile sign, but...well...New Mexico has interstates too.)
Also, providing distance data to drivers has been part of American signage since before the car. Hand-painted signs for destinations and mileages were commonplace signage for horse-drawn carriages in the 19th century. Later, in the 1910s, when ACSC was posting the first road signs intended for automobile use in California, they were already putting distance information on them. (In the photos, the diamond-shape signs came first, in the 1910s or so, and then in the 1920s-1930s they changed to rectangular ones.)
(photos by Max Rockatansky)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dK1TjWNN6zc/W4xy-e94jvI/AAAAAAAARvI/riXW9OvS2PUy99qPpvmWUGo5l96BnS7IACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_5496.JPG)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h528KB7gfhg/W4xy5_eIvjI/AAAAAAAARvE/3ZUDRkP_yvU2LXWqlOF2YHzaxS0-m_hsACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_5497.JPG)
And it's not just the US, either. Pretty much every country has a specification for a distance information sign that appears after major highway junctions.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:18:06 AM
Most rural interstates shouldn't be mile based. That is one serious flaw in the numbering system. There is no logic or benefit in that whatsoever, just pure OCD. It's like saying I-90 must have exactly 90 exits in each state, or that I-70 must have exactly 70 exits in each state.
Mile-based exit numbers are at their most useful in rural areas where they can be used to easily calculate distance. This argument makes no sense.
@Scott
Out of curiosity, been talking to Alps about Laws Depot?
Quote from: Bruce on November 03, 2022, 01:39:57 PMMile-based exit numbers are at their most useful in rural areas where they can be used to easily calculate distance. This argument makes no sense.
Agreed. They have been going too far in that direction and suggesting things like eliminating interstate designations, which is why I said I don't really agree with them, either.
A counter argument was not offered: if rural interstates shouldn't have mileage-based exits, what should the exit numbers be based off of?
Quote from: Quillz on November 03, 2022, 03:19:56 PM
A counter argument was not offered: if rural interstates shouldn't have mileage-based exits, what should the exit numbers be based off of?
There is probably a better argument for not having exit numbers at all out west versus going back to sequential numbers.
Quote from: Quillz on November 03, 2022, 03:19:56 PM
A counter argument was not offered: if rural interstates shouldn't have mileage-based exits, what should the exit numbers be based off of?
the greek alphabet
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 03, 2022, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 03, 2022, 03:19:56 PM
A counter argument was not offered: if rural interstates shouldn't have mileage-based exits, what should the exit numbers be based off of?
There is probably a better argument for not having exit numbers at all out west versus going back to sequential numbers.
What do you mean "out west"? Plenty of rural spots in the east too, like the thirty-mile gap on the Mass Pike I mentioned earlier.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 03, 2022, 12:39:46 PM
If I know I need to exit at Exit 300 and I'm at MM 258, I know I can assuredly pass a long string of trucks and have enough time to get in the right lane before my exit. But if I'm at MM 298, I might be better off hanging back and just driving slower since my exit is in only 2 miles. (Sure, there should be a 2-mile sign, but...well...New Mexico has interstates too.)
Since when has a two-mile sign been necessary? Say you're travelling at 70 mph; you still have almost a whole minute till the exit from the one-mile advance. I don't see the reason for a 2-mile sign,
with one exception: major freeway-to-freeway junctions. These could have advances 10 miles back for all I care. But 2-mile advances build up anticipation of reaching the exit much more quickly than you actually will, and really there is plenty of time to move over to the right lane (which you should already be in unless you were passing someone) and make your exit from the one-mile advance sign.
This is one of the few instances in which New Mexico has done something correctly.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 03:40:33 PM
Since when has a two-mile sign been necessary? Say you're travelling at 70 mph; you still have almost a whole minute till the exit from the one-mile advance.
Back when I drove an Isuzu cab-over box truck, it would have been nice. With the pedal to the metal, it would top out at just over 70 mph–although I did once get it up to 77 mph on a long downhill with a stiff tailwind. When passing a tractor-trailer, one mile was often not quite enough to complete a passing maneuver.
I prefer having 2-mile signs in rural areas. Having a single 1-mile advance sign and a single sign at the exit is pretty sparse. You could miss the 1-mile sign while passing a truck and suddenly miss, or almost miss, your exit. Especially on a road like the Thruway where there's often 10-15 miles between exits, some redundancy to make sure drivers have plenty of warning is a good thing.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 03:40:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 03, 2022, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 03, 2022, 03:19:56 PM
A counter argument was not offered: if rural interstates shouldn't have mileage-based exits, what should the exit numbers be based off of?
There is probably a better argument for not having exit numbers at all out west versus going back to sequential numbers.
What do you mean "out west"? Plenty of rural spots in the east too, like the thirty-mile gap on the Mass Pike I mentioned earlier.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 03, 2022, 12:39:46 PM
If I know I need to exit at Exit 300 and I'm at MM 258, I know I can assuredly pass a long string of trucks and have enough time to get in the right lane before my exit. But if I'm at MM 298, I might be better off hanging back and just driving slower since my exit is in only 2 miles. (Sure, there should be a 2-mile sign, but...well...New Mexico has interstates too.)
Since when has a two-mile sign been necessary? Say you're travelling at 70 mph; you still have almost a whole minute till the exit from the one-mile advance. I don't see the reason for a 2-mile sign, with one exception: major freeway-to-freeway junctions. These could have advances 10 miles back for all I care. But 2-mile advances build up anticipation of reaching the exit much more quickly than you actually will, and really there is plenty of time to move over to the right lane (which you should already be in unless you were passing someone) and make your exit from the one-mile advance sign.
This is one of the few instances in which New Mexico has done something correctly.
You have a lot more Delaware-like states out east where sequentially numbered exits can actually still be semi-effective.
Illinois generally has 1-mile and ½-mile advance signage. It wasn't till I drove in Kentucky that I saw 2-mile advance signage. My preference would be 2-mile and ½-mile.
Two mile signage is also nice when there hasn't been an exit for awhile. Otherwise 1 and 1/2 mile are fine.
I've noticed Oregon also has more than just the "in 1 mile" signs. At least on the western side of the state. I've noticed a 1/2 mile, a 1/4 mile, etc. Washington has some, too, but not to the extent Oregon does.
Quote from: Quillz on November 03, 2022, 03:19:56 PM
A counter argument was not offered: if rural interstates shouldn't have mileage-based exits, what should the exit numbers be based off of?
The 1st exit: 1
The 2nd Exit: 2
The 3rd Exit: 3
And so on..
And no more N-S labeling, the same road in a different direction, should be a different Exit, especially if there are specific ramps you have to get on at the exit. At least with sequential numbering, you know once you reach the number just before the your exit, you know it's the next exit, whereas having exits 179, 214, 247, 267, 301..etc, you have no clue if your exit is coming up next unless you research ahead of time.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
At least with sequential numbering, you know once you reach the number just before the your exit, you know it's the next exit
Ah, but it might not be. There might be a letter suffix exit in between that was added later on.
I get the sense you haven't done much driving out in the more rural regions of the US. Distance information is
far more useful than knowing if your exit just happens to be the next one. Knowing how far away I am tells me if I need to move over and putter along behind a truck going 10 mph below the speed limit because my exit is coming right up, or if I can continue to comfortably pass slower traffic for the time being. Gaps of 10-20+ miles between exits are often the norm in less populated regions.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 03:40:33 PM
Since when has a two-mile sign been necessary? Say you're travelling at 70 mph; you still have almost a whole minute till the exit from the one-mile advance.
You can put me in the camp of people who prefer a 2-mile sign when exit spacing permits, which incidentally, is what the MUTCD recommends:
Quote from: MUTCD, 2E.33.02
For major and intermediate interchanges, Advance Guide signs should be placed at 1/2 mile and at 1 mile in advance of the exit with a third Advance Guide sign placed at 2 miles in advance of the exit if spacing permits. At minor interchanges, only one Advance Guide sign should be used. It should be located 1/2 to 1 mile from the exit gore. If the sign is located less than 1/2 mile from the exit, the distance displayed should be to the nearest 1/4 mile. Fractions of a mile, rather than decimals, should be displayed in all cases.
I would perhaps not make an exception for minor exits, though.
Regarding 2-mile signs: I don't expect them, but they sure are nice to have sometimes, much like ground-level repeater signals at intersections. And since I live in a state with 75 and 80 mph speed limits, having the extra mile worth of notice that your exit is coming up makes a lot of sense.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 03, 2022, 03:19:56 PM
A counter argument was not offered: if rural interstates shouldn't have mileage-based exits, what should the exit numbers be based off of?
The 1st exit: 1
The 2nd Exit: 2
The 3rd Exit: 3
And so on..
And no more N-S labeling, the same road in a different direction, should be a different Exit, especially if there are specific ramps you have to get on at the exit. At least with sequential numbering, you know once you reach the number just before the your exit, you know it's the next exit, whereas having exits 179, 214, 247, 267, 301..etc, you have no clue if your exit is coming up next unless you research ahead of time.
That's how they used to sign exits in many states back when the Interstate system was first built.
It ended up breaking down pretty quickly due to the need to add new exits. (In one particularly stupid example, I-4 has a cloverleaf that at one point was signed as Exit 53CA and Exit 53CB.) In most states that tried it, they threw in the towel and renumbered their exits to mile-based in the 1980s or so (and a second tranche of states did so around 2000).
As of the 2009 MUTCD, mile-based numbers are required nationwide.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
And no more N-S labeling
Do you mean no more cardinal direction auxiliary signs to accompany route shields at all? That sounds less than useful. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
the same road in a different direction, should be a different Exit, especially if there are specific ramps you have to get on at the exit.
So, for example, if I-600 interchanges with US-1000, then that interchange might be Exit #17 in one direction but Exit #49 in the other direction? That's an intriguing idea. I keep trying to argue against it, but all my arguments seem weak.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
At least with sequential numbering, you know once you reach the number just before the your exit, you know it's the next exit
As has already been mentioned, that isn't useful information in a lot of places.
For example, I-335 in Kansas only has a single exit between its endpoints. If I'm driving north from Wichita to Topeka, and I get to the US-56 interchange, it's a lot more useful information to know that I'm 30 miles away from my exit than to know I'm only one interchange away.
Or if I'm starting to run low on gas during a road trip, and I see a billboard that says there's a truck stop at Exit #55, and I'm at Exit #47, and the exits are numbered sequentially, then I still have no clue how far it is to the truck stop. Can I make it? Who knows? But if the exit numbers are mile-based, then I can easily tell that I'm just eight miles away.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
whereas having exits 179, 214, 247, 267, 301..etc, you have no clue if your exit is coming up next unless you research ahead of time.
Which, again, doesn't really matter in rural areas. It really only matters if the exits are close together.
Quote from: kphoger on November 03, 2022, 07:11:41 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
And no more N-S labeling
Do you mean no more cardinal direction auxiliary signs to accompany route shields at all? That sounds less than useful. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
the same road in a different direction, should be a different Exit, especially if there are specific ramps you have to get on at the exit.
So, for example, if I-600 interchanges with US-1000, then that interchange might be Exit #17 in one direction but Exit #49 in the other direction? That's an intriguing idea. I keep trying to argue against it, but all my arguments seem weak.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
At least with sequential numbering, you know once you reach the number just before the your exit, you know it's the next exit
As has already been mentioned, that isn't useful information in a lot of places.
For example, I-335 in Kansas only has a single exit between its endpoints. If I'm driving north from Wichita to Topeka, and I get to the US-56 interchange, it's a lot more useful information to know that I'm 30 miles away from my exit than to know I'm only one interchange away.
Or if I'm starting to run low on gas during a road trip, and I see a billboard that says there's a truck stop at Exit #55, and I'm at Exit #47, and the exits are numbered sequentially, then I still have no clue how far it is to the truck stop. Can I make it? Who knows? But if the exit numbers are mile-based, then I can easily tell that I'm just eight miles away.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
whereas having exits 179, 214, 247, 267, 301..etc, you have no clue if your exit is coming up next unless you research ahead of time.
Which, again, doesn't really matter in rural areas. It really only matters if the exits are close together.
I think by N-S labeling MMM means the "I-80N" or "I-69E" sort of deal. Which doesn't really exist anymore, only in seven cases between two Interstates.
As for the different number exit thing, I think MMM is referring to a scenario such as this one:
Let's take an example of I-990 Exit 2 @ Sweet Home Road. (https://goo.gl/maps/vbxPe3xaf6YDAcS87) Coming south on I-990, we have two exit ramps; one for going north on Sweet Home Rd, the other for going south. Currently these are Exits 2A-B; in MMM's ideal world they would be Exits 2 and 3.
I cannot believe that I-335 has only one exit between endpoints. That's crazy!
And yeah, MMM, the advance guide sign(s) shall give you plenty of notice for when your exit is coming. No need to know way ahead of time if your exit is next.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 07:41:31 PM
I cannot believe that I-335 has only one exit between endpoints. That's crazy!
Well, consider that the Kansas Turnpike was built as a New York Thruway-style toll road before the Interstate designations were assigned,, and the part that is I-335 now wasn't meant to be a standalone route.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 03, 2022, 07:59:15 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 07:41:31 PM
I cannot believe that I-335 has only one exit between endpoints. That's crazy!
Well, consider that the Kansas Turnpike was built as a New York Thruway-style toll road before the Interstate designations were assigned,, and the part that is I-335 now wasn't meant to be a standalone route.
OK, that makes sense.
I'm pretty sure MMM mean stuff like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1406937,-76.1038165,3a,48.8y,276.27h,94.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn5QME_Wfgn4F3uh20tnoWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when he's talking about N-S labeling.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 03:40:33 PM
What do you mean "out west"? Plenty of rural spots in the east too, like the thirty-mile gap on the Mass Pike I mentioned earlier.
That's a very interesting definition of rural... ever been on I-80 in Wyoming?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
At least with sequential numbering, you know once you reach the number just before the your exit, you know it's the next exit, whereas having exits 179, 214, 247, 267, 301..etc, you have no clue if your exit is coming up next unless you research ahead of time.
No, you just do simple math to figure out how far it is until the next exit. It's easier (at least for me) to go "Well I'm at Exit 2 and I need Exit 12 so it's a nice 10-mile cruise till I have to get off I-90" than "I'm at Exit 1 and I need Exit 4 so I'll just wait for two exits to pass, don't know where they are"
Quote from: vdeane on November 03, 2022, 08:20:40 PM
I'm pretty sure MMM mean stuff like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1406937,-76.1038165,3a,48.8y,276.27h,94.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn5QME_Wfgn4F3uh20tnoWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when he's talking about N-S labeling.
Saw that for the first time when I did my Northeast trip this summer and that makes a lot more sense than the A/B/C/D convention in the Midwest/Mountain West. Exit 396N tells me it's for I-29 North while Exit 396B tells me nothing.
Yes I am talking about the directions of the road you are exiting on to, not the "I-80N and I-80S". If you don't have to choose the direction until after fully exiting the highway, then just give the exit one number obviously, as you don't have to deal with direction until after the fact. But if it's an interchange between two interstates, where you have to choose a ramp at the exit, then simply label them two consecutive numbers so you know which number ahead of time instead of having to worry about the N or S labeling.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 03, 2022, 01:46:46 PM
@Scott
Out of curiosity, been talking to Alps about Laws Depot?
No, Jake Bear does a lot of ACSC sign replicas, so I've had to learn a lot about ACSC and CSAA signage from him to be able to help with that. Your photos were the first good actual photos that came up on Google Images. :nod:
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 06:07:35 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 03, 2022, 03:19:56 PM
A counter argument was not offered: if rural interstates shouldn't have mileage-based exits, what should the exit numbers be based off of?
The 1st exit: 1
The 2nd Exit: 2
The 3rd Exit: 3
And so on..
And no more N-S labeling, the same road in a different direction, should be a different Exit, especially if there are specific ramps you have to get on at the exit. At least with sequential numbering, you know once you reach the number just before the your exit, you know it's the next exit, whereas having exits 179, 214, 247, 267, 301..etc, you have no clue if your exit is coming up next unless you research ahead of time.
If you are at exit 179 and know you have to get off at exit 247, why do you care if there is one or ten exits in between?
It is much more important to me to know the mileage to my exit.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:40:24 PM
I mean you could try to spot the mile markers on the side...
They're really easy to spot, especially in states like Missouri that have them every 0.2 miles on every single interstate; even in other states they're easy to find.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 03, 2022, 08:44:18 PM
If you are at exit 179 and know you have to get off at exit 247, why do you care if there is one or ten exits in between?
It is much more important to me to know the mileage to my exit.
Exactly, that's how you get time estimates. Traveling in New Hampshire was annoying because of the sequential numbering (not that we ever had that far to go because the state is TINY).
Because such a huge difference in exits (not saying one that extreme exists anywhere in the country) may make me think I missed exits in between when there weren't any. But I know the longest stretch between exits is only 37 miles through the Salt Flats, and the 47 or 57 mile stretch between exits on the southern half of "Florida's Turnpike" isn't part of the interstate highway system so it doesn't count, but technically yes, if you know your ending exit you shouldn't be surprised.
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 03, 2022, 08:50:13 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:40:24 PM
I mean you could try to spot the mile markers on the side...
They're really easy to spot, especially in states like Missouri that have them every 0.2 miles on every single interstate; even in other states they're easy to find.
Depends how fast you are whizzing by them, but the way some states put the decimal value underneath the first 2 numbers can make it hard to read in that half a second, but point taken.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:40:24 PM
But if you know your exit ahead of time, thar means you probably asked for a route on your phone, which means you should also know the mileage, and whether you could make it on gas or not.
Or... here's a wild thought... the person I'm visiting gave me directions and said to get off at Exit #112.
Quote from: kphoger on November 03, 2022, 08:57:35 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:40:24 PM
But if you know your exit ahead of time, thar means you probably asked for a route on your phone, which means you should also know the mileage, and whether you could make it on gas or not.
Or... here's a wild thought... the person I'm visiting gave me directions and said to get off at Exit #112.
Or you looked at a map that had the exit numbers on it, as an alternative for those of us who are too anti-social to ask for directions lol
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:51:16 PM
Because such a huge difference in exits (not saying one that extreme exists anywhere in the country) may make me think I missed exits in between when there weren't any.
I mean if you're going from Exit 61 to Exit 332 who cares that you missed Exit 127, Exit 170, Exit 248, etc., unless you travel by counting the exits you pass...
Well I do joyride alot LOL but what's wrong with also posting signs every few miles telling you the number of miles to the next few exits. Don't even have to do math then at all, or add/subtract any mileage.
(BTW I just had to do this ridiculous captcha to log into one of my online social clubs, where I had to pick which set of 4 dice out of 4 choices which added up to 14, 7 times, made a mistake and had to do it another 7 times) so forgive me if I am a little bias against doing math right now..)
BTW, I am adding I-295 in NJ to the OP of this discussion. The path it takes is just ludicrous
I mean, it's not that hard to know the exit number you're getting off at and watch the mile markers you pass get closer and closer to that number...
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:51:16 PM
Because such a huge difference in exits (not saying one that extreme exists anywhere in the country) may make me think I missed exits in between when there weren't any. But I know the longest stretch between exits is only 37 miles through the Salt Flats, and the 47 or 57 mile stretch between exits on the southern half of "Florida's Turnpike" isn't part of the interstate highway system so it doesn't count, but technically yes, if you know your ending exit you shouldn't be surprised.
It's much less surprising to know the mile I need to get off than a sequential exit number that may be a mile, ten miles, or twenty five miles down the highway.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:40:24 PM
But if you know your exit ahead of time, thar means you probably asked for a route on your phone, which means you should also know the mileage ...
But if you know your exit ahead of time, thar means you probably asked for a route on your phone, which means it will tell you when your exit is coming up, so you don't even need to know if it's the next one or not to begin with.
And the giant exit signs also have the exit numbers in fifteen-inch-tall numbers at the top of them.
Seriously, this is something that a) has worked very well since the 1980s b) takes maybe fifteen minutes of travel on an Interstate highway to fully understand and begin using c) is far more useful for navigation than numbering conventions. Mile-based exit numbering is in the MUTCD, which (being issued by the FHWA, which is part of the actual government) means it probably has a stronger regulatory basis than the numbering conventions, which are just the policy of AASHTO, which is not actually part of the government.
I mean if you're looking at the exit signs they're essentially proxy mile markers.
In the scenario below, if you come into SD from the west and want to go to Deadwood, you take Exit 17, and from the Wyoming border you can assume at roughly 75-80 mph you'll be to the exit in about 15 minutes. If it was Exit 6, all you'd know was that it was the 6th exit, not anything else. If you have to post mileage signs to the exits as was mentioned before, might as well number them by the mile anyway and save some money in the process.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pryQ1XD9/pointless-sequentials.png)
...why is that in Clearview
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 03, 2022, 08:32:12 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 03:40:33 PM
What do you mean "out west"? Plenty of rural spots in the east too, like the thirty-mile gap on the Mass Pike I mentioned earlier.
That's a very interesting definition of rural... ever been on I-80 in Wyoming?
Quote from: vdeane on November 03, 2022, 08:20:40 PM
I'm pretty sure MMM mean stuff like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1406937,-76.1038165,3a,48.8y,276.27h,94.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn5QME_Wfgn4F3uh20tnoWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when he's talking about N-S labeling.
Saw that for the first time when I did my Northeast trip this summer and that makes a lot more sense than the A/B/C/D convention in the Midwest/Mountain West. Exit 396N tells me it's for I-29 North while Exit 396B tells me nothing.
I wasn't really trying to say that the East Berkshires are that rural in a cultural sense (although they are), more highlighting the extremely long exit gap. At least if there are a lot of exits to frontage roads in the middle of nowhere, you have something interesting to look at (the exit signs and the interchange).
I think your definition of rural is closer to "barren wasteland". Rural is when you have a small town every 5-20 miles and beautiful countryside in between. Vermont is rural. The Berkshires are rural. The Great Salt Flats are not rural. (Yes, I know the Salt Flats are in West Utah).
In response to "Exit 9N-S", yeah, aren't those great?! I'm so disappointed when I don't see those in other parts of the country. So helpful!
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 09:41:52 PM
I mean to each their own, but I find it easier to look out for the giant exit signs than the tiny mile marker signs on the side of the road.
Actually I don't even need to do that. I know the exit number I use when I am going home (183). If I pass exit 100, I know I have 83 miles to my exit. I add 83 to whatever my odometer reads, and now I continuously know how many miles I have until I get to my exit. I could even use a tripometer if I don't want to do the math.
If it sequential, I have no idea what the mileage is. Only how many exits are in between, which is absolutely irrelevant to me.
Isn't all that harder than just looking out for signs?
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 08:45:38 AM
Isn't all that harder than just looking out for signs?
But the signs don't tell me what I need to know. I want to know how many miles until my exit, which roughly tells me how much longer I need to go timewise.
Telling me how many exits I have left in a sequential system is irrelevant because I don't know the interval between those exits.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 04, 2022, 08:53:47 AM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 08:45:38 AM
Isn't all that harder than just looking out for signs?
But the signs don't tell me what I need to know. I want to know how many miles until my exit, which roughly tells me how much longer I need to go timewise.
Telling me how many exits I have left in a sequential system is irrelevant because I don't know the interval between those exits.
Also, the signs can only go so far out. I assume you're not going to put the next 40 exits and the mileages to them on a sign. Probably four is the max you'd be able to sign. With mile-based exit numbering, there is literally no limit to how far you have to be without knowing that distance. Short of resetting numbers at a state line, but that's going to affect sequential numbers anyway.
Out in the sticks, pretty much all exits look alike. They blend together. It's really easy to lose track of how many you pass especially if there's a lot of them and not a lot of cities in between. If I'm on I-80 leaving Rock Springs, Wyoming and I know I need to get to exit 211 in Rawlins... yeah, there are 22 exits between them, but it is
infinitely more useful to know that it's 104 miles away. Not only am I going to get constant reassurances of how far I have left with the passing mile markers, but those reassurances are
consistent and I can estimate travel times with that information. Even without doing any exact calculations, I'll notice that the exit numbers are about 100 miles apart, so assuming I go a little faster than 60 mph (a mile a minute) it'll take me probably somewhere around 90 minutes. (By the way, Google says 86 minutes, which I only looked up after I made that guess.) I can't do that with sequential numbering, because the exits are anywhere from 2 to 9 miles apart from each other.
Put it this way. Joe Q. Farmer has no idea the interstates are on a grid system, or if he does, he thinks it's some nerdy thing that won’t ever be useful and would make him sound weird if he told anyone. But he will religiously use the same sort of quick mental math I just described using the exit numbers.
Quote from: US 89 on November 04, 2022, 10:09:38 AM
Put it this way. Joe Q. Farmer has no idea the interstates are on a grid system, or if he does, he thinks it's some nerdy thing that won't ever be useful and would make him sound weird if he told anyone. But he will religiously use the same sort of quick mental math I just described using the exit numbers.
Yeah, and you are 100% right about the general knowledge of the grid system. IMO the vast majority of people either have no idea, or at best a vague knowledge of the interstate grid. So the fact that I-82 is north of I-84 doesn't bother them in the least.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 08:45:38 AM
Isn't all that harder than just looking out for signs?
So is figuring out how many exits are in between the next one and the one you want.
In other words... Why would you want to know if your exit is next or not? Just look for the big green sign.
Quote from: kphoger on November 04, 2022, 12:58:34 PM
Why would you want to know if your exit is next or not?
Let me know if I'm going out on a limb here, but people tend to like to know where they have to get off the highway.
I suppose there is spontaneity in just getting off wherever, though. :D
There's been a lot of talk about long distance driving and mileage based exits in rural areas. But mileage based exits are far more useful than sequential based even in local driving. The local "international" airport is just 2 exits away from where I live, but that information won't help me catch my flight because it's also 21 miles from here to the local airport. The fact that I get on I-15 at exit 256, and the local airport is exit 277 helps me to figure how early I need to leave my house to catch the flight.
Just thought of an easy solution: every exit gets both sequential and mileage!
EXIT #10: MILE 25
That would make it so much easier, right? </sarcasm>
Quote from: FrCorySticha on November 04, 2022, 01:09:43 PM
Just thought of an easy solution: every exit gets both sequential and mileage!
EXIT #10: MILE 25
That would make it so much easier, right? </sarcasm>
I think Vermont is actually doing this.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 04, 2022, 01:25:32 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on November 04, 2022, 01:09:43 PM
Just thought of an easy solution: every exit gets both sequential and mileage!
EXIT #10: MILE 25
That would make it so much easier, right? </sarcasm>
I think Vermont is actually doing this.
Indeed they are. (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4282741,-71.9492831,3a,28.7y,285.85h,88.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szFufRr0QfeQGcthLiDytvg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DzFufRr0QfeQGcthLiDytvg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D12.612047%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Quote from: Rothman on November 04, 2022, 01:02:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 04, 2022, 12:58:34 PM
Why would you want to know if your exit is next or not?
Let me know if I'm going out on a limb here, but people tend to like to know where they have to get off the highway.
Correct. But people don't care if there's another exit first that they need to
not exit at. They're generally just "looking out for signs".
At least
I don't care if there's another exit in between. If I know I'm getting off at Hwy 3000 and that it's Exit #50505, then I get off where a sign with those two numbers tells me to. As I'm getting close to that point, I don't care how many exits I need to ignore in between–but I
might need to know how
far it is till my exit.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 03:03:25 PM
I was about to suggest also numbering exits in opposite directions for each side of the road, so everything you enter a state, regardless of which way you are going, will always start with 1, but based on some of the reactions here, I think I'm going to pump my brakes on that one.
As I mentioned earlier on the forum, I can't actually come up with a solid argument against it. But personally, I'd rather the numbers start at the high end and work their way down to zero.
No that makes perfect sense. Increasing numbers you don't know when they will end, but going down to 0, there is no exit 0 or negative 1, so I totally understand that! What I was saying though, is that whichever way they go, they go the same way once crossing the state line for both directions. So a highway with 70 exits in a state, exit 2 east would exit 69 west..etc, or the way you prefer exit 69 east would be exit 2 west..etc
Quote from: kphoger on November 04, 2022, 03:05:22 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 03:03:25 PM
I was about to suggest also numbering exits in opposite directions for each side of the road, so everything you enter a state, regardless of which way you are going, will always start with 1, but based on some of the reactions here, I think I'm going to pump my brakes on that one.
As I mentioned earlier on the forum, I can't actually come up with a solid argument against it. But personally, I'd rather the numbers start at the high end and work their way down to zero.
The solid argument against is that when you give directions to someplace, you don't need to change the exit number in your directions depending on what direction people are coming from.
I do prefer traveling in the direction of decreasing mileage, though.
Quote from: US 89 on November 04, 2022, 03:16:51 PM
The solid argument against is that when you give directions to someplace, you don't need to change the exit number in your directions depending on what direction people are coming from.
Yeah, I hadn't quite fleshed that out. I was thinking in terms of billboards, which would obviously be in a fixed location and therefore could have the appropriate exit number. I was also thinking of mapping software, which could obviously handle different numbers. But I had failed to consider the warehouse dispatcher who has to give directions to multiple truck drivers every day–and who would probably appreciate not having to care which direction the truck was coming from.
Or any directions, such as in TV and radio advertisements. "Take I-32 to Exit 17 - but if you're coming from the X-direction, it's Exit 94"
Quote from: GaryV on November 04, 2022, 03:27:47 PM
Or any directions, such as in TV and radio advertisements. "Take I-32 to Exit 17 - but if you're coming from the X-direction, it's Exit 94"
That's the sort of argument that was easy to dismantle. Just change the ad to say "Take I-32 to Ballbuster Road" instead.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 03:11:58 PM
No that makes perfect sense. Increasing numbers you don't know when they will end, but going down to 0, there is no exit 0 or negative 1, so I totally understand that! What I was saying though, is that whichever way they go, they go the same way once crossing the state line for both directions. So a highway with 70 exits in a state, exit 2 east would exit 69 west..etc, or the way you prefer exit 69 east would be exit 2 west..etc
The problem with having exit numbers always tie to the direction you're going is it creates confusion. You say "Exit 2 on Interstate 88," do you mean westbound or eastbound? I think from a strict motorist standpoint, this isn't a terrible idea, but there would need to be some kind of internal logic. It's the same reason mile markers don't reset. Even if there are realignments that no longer make the mile markers exactly a mile apart, the point is you want one unique number. Makes it easier to locate people.
Although reading some later posts, seems just referring to the actual exit name itself could work out. But I would imagine most DOTs still want some kind of internal numbering for each given exit that is fixed.
I think the sense of "reset" he was using is that whenever something changes the length of road, they typically don't go out there and change all of the mileposts from there onward to accurately reflect the new mileage.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 05, 2022, 10:07:58 PM
But mile markers do reset. Even on a cross country interstate like 80, mile markers drop to 0 in each state, there's no mile marker 2500 somewhere in Jersey. So what do you mean by that exactly?
If they realign the second mile so it's now only a half-mile long (as is often the case as roads generally straighten out over time due to better engineering), they're not going to renumber the mile marker to something like "1.5," they'll just leave it at "2." Likewise, if they add like 10 miles between mile marker 74 and 75, they might do something like R75, R76, R77 (standing for "realigned") and then you'll see "75" again. Because it doesn't really matter. As long as the values are unique, that is what is important.
Mile makers, at best, give a very rough sense of the route's length or where you are. It's not intended for real navigation, and never was.
Quote from: Quillz on November 05, 2022, 11:37:40 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 05, 2022, 10:07:58 PM
But mile markers do reset. Even on a cross country interstate like 80, mile markers drop to 0 in each state, there's no mile marker 2500 somewhere in Jersey. So what do you mean by that exactly?
If they realign the second mile so it's now only a half-mile long (as is often the case as roads generally straighten out over time due to better engineering), they're not going to renumber the mile marker to something like "1.5," they'll just leave it at "2." Likewise, if they add like 10 miles between mile marker 74 and 75, they might do something like R75, R76, R77 (standing for "realigned") and then you'll see "75" again. Because it doesn't really matter. As long as the values are unique, that is what is important.
Mile makers, at best, give a very rough sense of the route's length or where you are. It's not intended for real navigation, and never was.
Most states are a
bit less obvious about it than California is...
Oh I see what was meant NVM.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on November 04, 2022, 01:09:43 PMJust thought of an easy solution: every exit gets both sequential and mileage!
EXIT #10: MILE 25
That would make it so much easier, right? </sarcasm>
That was actually tried (and, for a time, recommended by FHWA) back in the 1970's--it did not last long.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2022, 11:43:05 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 05, 2022, 11:37:40 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 05, 2022, 10:07:58 PM
But mile markers do reset. Even on a cross country interstate like 80, mile markers drop to 0 in each state, there's no mile marker 2500 somewhere in Jersey. So what do you mean by that exactly?
If they realign the second mile so it's now only a half-mile long (as is often the case as roads generally straighten out over time due to better engineering), they're not going to renumber the mile marker to something like "1.5," they'll just leave it at "2." Likewise, if they add like 10 miles between mile marker 74 and 75, they might do something like R75, R76, R77 (standing for "realigned") and then you'll see "75" again. Because it doesn't really matter. As long as the values are unique, that is what is important.
Mile makers, at best, give a very rough sense of the route's length or where you are. It's not intended for real navigation, and never was.
Most states are a bit less obvious about it than California is...
I actually dislike how California does things and much prefer the federal standard of just using "Mile X" instead of the weird county postmile thing California does.
Quote from: Quillz on November 06, 2022, 12:58:17 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2022, 11:43:05 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 05, 2022, 11:37:40 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 05, 2022, 10:07:58 PM
But mile markers do reset. Even on a cross country interstate like 80, mile markers drop to 0 in each state, there's no mile marker 2500 somewhere in Jersey. So what do you mean by that exactly?
If they realign the second mile so it's now only a half-mile long (as is often the case as roads generally straighten out over time due to better engineering), they're not going to renumber the mile marker to something like "1.5," they'll just leave it at "2." Likewise, if they add like 10 miles between mile marker 74 and 75, they might do something like R75, R76, R77 (standing for "realigned") and then you'll see "75" again. Because it doesn't really matter. As long as the values are unique, that is what is important.
Mile makers, at best, give a very rough sense of the route's length or where you are. It's not intended for real navigation, and never was.
Most states are a bit less obvious about it than California is...
I actually dislike how California does things and much prefer the federal standard of just using "Mile X" instead of the weird county postmile thing California does.
Well, I was referring more to the R- prefixes. Most states seem like they don't draw attention to it when the mileposts are "rigged". Like, if you add a mile of road between MP 74 and MP 75, just make 74 and 75 1½ miles each. Maybe nobody will notice...
I agree that the postmile system is weird, although some of California's counties are so big that resetting at county lines at least makes some degree of sense if you squint at it. If they're going to do that, though, I wish they'd at least steal Nevada's giant enhanced postmile. I love those things. I never realized until I saw one of California's postmiles in person how utterly unreadable and inscrutable they are, especially the ones that use the stenciled text instead of FHWA Series.
The only thing I don't like about Nevada's enhanced mileposts is that putting the mile number sideways looks really weird when it's a single digit and there would be even more room to put it upright like a standard marker. I also never remember which way it's supposed to turn, which is really annoying if it's for mile 6 or 9.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 06, 2022, 12:23:05 AM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on November 04, 2022, 01:09:43 PMJust thought of an easy solution: every exit gets both sequential and mileage!
EXIT #10: MILE 25
That would make it so much easier, right? </sarcasm>
That was actually tried (and, for a time, recommended by FHWA) back in the 1970's--it did not last long.
Vermont actually did something similar to this in lieu of switching to mileage based exits
https://maps.app.goo.gl/adYkrJkApzYn1NX37?g_st=ic (https://maps.app.goo.gl/adYkrJkApzYn1NX37?g_st=ic)
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 09:10:38 PM
BTW, I am adding I-295 in NJ to the OP of this discussion. The path it takes is just ludicrous
Much better than I-95 having a physical gap in NJ. Before the parital interchange with I-276 in PA was built and going due east to the NJTP, I-95 used to go north then east, terminating at I-295/US 1... and starting again on the NJTP at what, NJ 133?.
As a result, I-295 was extended west then south into PA along what used to be I-95 to terminate at I-95/I-276, fully eliminating what was a difficult task of staying on I-95 through NJ because it was physically impossible.
Sure, NJ, PA, AASTHO, and FHWA could have used a more elegant number to fill in the post-I-95 road, such as 695 or 895, but that's akin to saying that the DC beltway *should* be two discreet numbers, like the Twin Cities' beltway, and in the end, the agencies weren't bothered, nor is Joe Q. Public.
I-82. This is looking at the details and missing the big picture. As mentioned several times, including in the PNW forum, I-82 isn't its own discreet corridor; it's part of the Puget Sound-Wasatch Front corridor. It was numbered well before I-84 existed, which entirely replaced I-80N. At time of designation, 82 was where it was meant to be in terms of The Grid.
I-80N's function, being a x0 interstate, was part of a transcontinental route, that is, Portland to New York, with mainline I-80 being the modern San Francisco to New York branch. I-84 still functions that way, though it's really thought of more as the regional Portland-Salt Lake; it's still as important as the other major x4 -- I-94.
With that all said, 84 was chosen for a lack of numbers as I-15W got 86, which would have been a bit more egregious on 84 with respect to 82.
And, in the end, 82 being north of 84 isn't even the most notable violation of a pure grid. I-99 comes to mind, and there's my favorite, I-238.
All of these, ultimately, are the exceptions that prove the rule. The I-69 triad shouldn't have happened, however.
Now. Exit numbers. I'm a classical musician. Older music tends to only have rehearsal numbers, usually denoting major sections or phrases. Most music now has measure or bar numbers as well, usually on the first measure of a staff. Some have it on every measure, but that can make the music look a little cluttered depending on the part.
In rehearsal, it is very uncommon to go from the top to the end of a piece or movement within the piece in one go. The conductor needs to stop the band or orchestra to fix a passage a section screwed up (wrong note, key signature reminder), tighten up a technical passage, provide a reminder to observe dynamics (too loud, too soft, failure to observe crescendos/decrescendos, etc), tighten up balance (not enough trombone (HA!), too much bass clarinet, who has the melody and get beneath them, and so on), interpreting what the music is doing and changing how the orchestra approaches said passage.
In a Rehearsal Number/Letter Only piece (say, a Beethoven symphony), the conductor has to count back or forward a number of measures from the nearest rehearal mark ("24 measures before Letter O"), then the players have to do the same, which is a pain when it's in the middle of a 39 measure rest and wastes time. In a mixed, even with numbers only at the first measure of a staff, they can say "Pickup to 1141" [phrase break and tempo change in Rachmonioff Symphony 2, 3rd mvt], and the wind orchestra can get to their place in the transcription that much faster than counting measures by hand.
Applying this to exit numbers: Sequential exit numbers are your rehearsal letters. They're too abstract to tell you what's happening in between, and don't provide much useful on-the-ground information. The public doesn't need to know nor really care on how many exits a route has. It is slightly more useful than California's former complete lack of exit numbers, but I'd almost go with nothing than sequential exits (in music, rehearsal numbers/letters are a must -- "15 after the double bar/8 before the Tempo Primo" is even more abstract lol).
In distance based exit numbers, they are your measure or bar numbers, providing much more granular information, including distance to your destination exit and comparing that with you and your vehicle's current capabilities (ie, how much fuel you have, when you need to take a break for food, rest, etc). The only time there's ambiguity is when heading north or east and it's not immediately clear when the state line or terminal point is. Sequential exits don't help in this regard, mind.
This is also an issue with music, although if you're playing the part, you can see how far it is.
There are some examples where sequential does work... sort of. I-95 in CT, I hear, is sequential but exits close enough in succession it's mileage anyway, and I-84/US 30 between I-5 and I-205, to make up for the two-mile mileage discrepency of the Banfield Freeway to the mainline east out to Idaho. And though sequential, the Banfield's in effect still close enough to be distance based.
I changed my mind about the exit numbers. I did honestly find the mileage more useful when I was driving on the Penn turnpike, I-81, and I-283, in the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia yesterday. I withdraw my case on that!
As for the I-95 gap, that could have easily been avoided. Common sense is that the entire turnpike should have been interstate 95. Its the fastest route, and would keep all of I-95 on the same road in one state. No one in their right mind driving from Maine to Miami would deliberately exit the jersey turnpike at exit 6, to pay an extra toll to enter Pennsylvania, and endure Philly's gridlock, extra curvy "delaware expressway", only to end up back where you would have been taking the turnpike to begin with. The original summerset freeway proposal was even more ridiculous in my opinion. Why on earth would you route I-95 not along the turnpike, when it can bypass trenton and Philly and Wilmington completely??? To put the icing on the cake, the exit numbers in the 60s from this ghost freeway now makes it look like a continuation of I-80s exit numbers, even though I-80 doesnt continue east, but it should.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 06, 2022, 01:39:32 AM
Quote from: Quillz on November 06, 2022, 12:58:17 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2022, 11:43:05 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 05, 2022, 11:37:40 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 05, 2022, 10:07:58 PM
But mile markers do reset. Even on a cross country interstate like 80, mile markers drop to 0 in each state, there's no mile marker 2500 somewhere in Jersey. So what do you mean by that exactly?
If they realign the second mile so it's now only a half-mile long (as is often the case as roads generally straighten out over time due to better engineering), they're not going to renumber the mile marker to something like "1.5," they'll just leave it at "2." Likewise, if they add like 10 miles between mile marker 74 and 75, they might do something like R75, R76, R77 (standing for "realigned") and then you'll see "75" again. Because it doesn't really matter. As long as the values are unique, that is what is important.
Mile makers, at best, give a very rough sense of the route's length or where you are. It's not intended for real navigation, and never was.
Most states are a bit less obvious about it than California is...
I actually dislike how California does things and much prefer the federal standard of just using "Mile X" instead of the weird county postmile thing California does.
Well, I was referring more to the R- prefixes. Most states seem like they don't draw attention to it when the mileposts are "rigged". Like, if you add a mile of road between MP 74 and MP 75, just make 74 and 75 1½ miles each. Maybe nobody will notice...
I agree that the postmile system is weird, although some of California's counties are so big that resetting at county lines at least makes some degree of sense if you squint at it. If they're going to do that, though, I wish they'd at least steal Nevada's giant enhanced postmile. I love those things. I never realized until I saw one of California's postmiles in person how utterly unreadable and inscrutable they are, especially the ones that use the stenciled text instead of FHWA Series.
Oh, when you explain it like that, it makes sense. I would actually agree. The number just needs to be unique. If it's not actually a mile or so, I don't think anyone would notice or care. And I do like enhanced mile markers, they should come here. Although I do prefer black-on-white as far as color schemes go for any sort of mile marker system.
Quote from: Bickendan on November 06, 2022, 04:53:19 PM
(in music, rehearsal numbers/letters are a must -- "15 after the double bar/8 before the Tempo Primo" is even more abstract lol).
FWIW, this is exactly how it sometimes happens in non-classical contexts. On chord charts, the music is generally just given sections names like "Bridge 2" or "Chorus 3", but the piano player might be playing from full-on sheet music with the sections labeled differently (Chorus 3 on the chord chart might be called Chorus 5 on the sheet music, depending on how repeated sections are handled).
There are times during rehearsal at church that the starting point has to be called out as something like "halfway through the second time of the repeated chorus that's right after the bridge". (And sometimes, the next question is "OK, and what part are you calling the bridge?" because maybe the piano music labels that as Chorus 3c or something wacky like that.) Yes, the band leader could simply call it "measure 59", but that wouldn't mean anything to the other members of the band, who aren't reading from full sheet music–and that's assuming he had gone through both sets of music and matched up measure numbers with section names ahead of time–and also that the measure numbering is the same for piano as it is for cello and for keyboard, which isn't always the case.
And then there's that one song we play whose music was written out in full sheet music, but with no measure numbers or rehearsal marks or section names or anything–just three pages of unidentified measures...
Quote from: kphoger on November 04, 2022, 03:05:22 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 03:03:25 PM
I was about to suggest also numbering exits in opposite directions for each side of the road, so everything you enter a state, regardless of which way you are going, will always start with 1, but based on some of the reactions here, I think I'm going to pump my brakes on that one.
As I mentioned earlier on the forum, I can't actually come up with a solid argument against it. But personally, I'd rather the numbers start at the high end and work their way down to zero.
Hey, here's a fun argument against doing this:
– [
driver]
I just witnessed a car crash, and it looks pretty bad. One vehicle rolled into the ditch, and the other spun out and hit the median barrier.
– [
911 dispatcher]
And what is your location, sir?
– [
driver]
I'm heading west on highway 204, but the accident was on the eastbound side.
– [
911 dispatcher]
And what is the approximate mile marker for the location where you witnessed the accident?
There are actually countries where each direction has a separate distance-marking scheme. In Britain, for example, most motorways have A and B carriageways, where A goes away from London while B goes to London. (Other letters are used for, e.g., ring roads.) These designators appear on driver location signs (the British equivalent to enhanced location reference markers) along with the kilometerpoint. I think part of the reason we don't use such a system in the US is that inclusion of the cardinal direction suffices to differentiate up and down carriageways. Ramps also typically have their own location reference signing.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2022, 11:07:37 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 06, 2022, 04:53:19 PM
(in music, rehearsal numbers/letters are a must -- "15 after the double bar/8 before the Tempo Primo" is even more abstract lol).
FWIW, this is exactly how it sometimes happens in non-classical contexts. On chord charts, the music is generally just given sections names like "Bridge 2" or "Chorus 3", but the piano player might be playing from full-on sheet music with the sections labeled differently (Chorus 3 on the chord chart might be called Chorus 5 on the sheet music, depending on how repeated sections are handled).
There are times during rehearsal at church that the starting point has to be called out as something like "halfway through the second time of the repeated chorus that's right after the bridge". (And sometimes, the next question is "OK, and what part are you calling the bridge?" because maybe the piano music labels that as Chorus 3c or something wacky like that.) Yes, the band leader could simply call it "measure 59", but that wouldn't mean anything to the other members of the band, who aren't reading from full sheet music–and that's assuming he had gone through both sets of music and matched up measure numbers with section names ahead of time–and also that the measure numbering is the same for piano as it is for cello and for keyboard, which isn't always the case.
And then there's that one song we play whose music was written out in full sheet music, but with no measure numbers or rehearsal marks or section names or anything–just three pages of unidentified measures...
I feel every part of this x.x
...in 9/8 :bigass:
Quote from: Bickendan on November 07, 2022, 11:57:51 PM
...in 9/8
That's just fancy 3/4 ...
(Speaking of which, have you ever noticed that 6/4 is somewhat common, whereas 18/8 is almost unheard of?)
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 07, 2022, 11:57:51 PM
...in 9/8
That's just fancy 3/4 ...
(Speaking of which, have you ever noticed that 6/4 is somewhat common, whereas 18/8 is almost unheard of?)
That gives me anxiety just looking at it, and I haven't played my instrument regularly in years.
It would basically be 6/4 time, just with triplets. You'd think it would be somewhat common, but there are very few examples of its having been used.
Notably, JS Bach used 18/16 time in one of his works–but only in the right hand.
(https://d29ci68ykuu27r.cloudfront.net/items/21952297/look_insides/large_file/file_1_page_1.png)
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 08:02:03 PM
It would basically be 6/4 time, just with triplets. You'd think it would be somewhat common, but there are very few examples of its having been used.
I wonder if it's because if the music is written with triplets in mind, the composer is more likely to have it in 6/8 or 3/8 to begin with? The only time I recall seeing 18/8 is in the Rachmaninoff Cello Sonata, and that was only a handful of isolated measures.
Now that I think about it, I think it might be more common to see 4-beat groups split up into two bars of 6/8 bars than one of 12/8. I didn't take enough music theory in college to figure out why that is though.
12/8 is still relatively common, particularly if the desired effect is a four-beat in compound time (compare 4/4 vs 2/4). I typically count 4/4 and even 12/8 in cut time while playing though, as it makes it easier to listen for the musical phrase when counting rests.
I'm currently playing Arturo Marquez's Danzon 2 in band, which has clave beat patterns in 4/4, with 2 bar phrases alternating between 2+2+2+2 and 3+3+2. Very fun piece :)
@SD Mapman, I encourage you to listen to Pat Metheny Group's The First Circle. It starts and ends in 22/8, which the lead sheet breaks into 12/8+10/8 for ease of reading... and the 12/8 is 5 beats (3+2+3+2+2) and the 10/8 4 (3+3+2+2).
Here's an Adam Neely video justifying how signatures like 7/12 and 8/12 are, in some situations, the clearer solution and not contrived nonsense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9yI4dtuGQ.
It's mainly so the tempo is preserved through meter changes. Picture a song in 4/4 but with triplets (12 of them per measure). Then you want a few bars where 4 of them are dropped, leaving 8. Calling this 8/8 doesn't help. You'd have to change the tempo from e.g. ♩=120 to ♪=360 which really implies that the tempo is changing.
Googling for 8/12 is difficult because most of the results are actually 12/8.
High school band geeks might have played Percy Grainger's Lincolnshire Posy, where the Lord Melbourne movement switches meters almost every measure, and includes gems like 1½/4 and 2½/4.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 09, 2022, 12:04:32 PM
LOL someone criticized me on the Jersey Turnpike thread saying tolls discussions were "off topic" yet what is all this in my thread? :spin: :spin: :spin:
That looked like an admin overstepping his powers to me.
Quote from: pianocello on November 08, 2022, 10:59:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 08, 2022, 08:02:03 PM
It would basically be 6/4 time, just with triplets. You'd think it would be somewhat common, but there are very few examples of its having been used.
I wonder if it's because if the music is written with triplets in mind, the composer is more likely to have it in 6/8 or 3/8 to begin with?
I think it's actually more likely to be divided into two measures of 9/8.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on November 09, 2022, 12:04:32 PM
LOL someone criticized me on the Jersey Turnpike thread saying tolls discussions were "off topic" yet what is all this in my thread? :spin: :spin: :spin:
If it's in purple, it's not someone criticizing you, it's forum management telling you what to do.
Quote from: 1 on November 09, 2022, 12:13:39 PM
That looked like an admin overstepping his powers to me.
To me it looked like MMM having a fictional idea that was no more related to the NJTP than any other toll road, and Steve was trying to re-rail the thread to focus on the NJTP. That sort of thing is what we're here for.
I know it was an admin, but no I was intending to only talk about the Turnpike. I was comparing the length and cost to other toll roads to show how outrageously expensive it is per mile. All the U-turn stuff had to do with the effect on tolls.
Whatever your intent, it's just an idea you had and not anything to do with anything the NJTA intends to implement, so he was justified in ending debate on the subject.