I'm a newbie, so apologies if this has been hashed out on an older thread (7 pages of GHT topics too much for me to go thru ...)
We are all road enthusiasts and love the thrill of riding "new" road after completion of a construction project, whether new terrain or upgrade. However, have you ever read about a project and had an impulse to be against it?
I have surprised myself by having this reaction to the proposed Interstate 3 from Savannah to Knoxville. Savannah thru Augusta to I-85 makes a lot of sense to me. However, the "mountain" section from I-85 to Knoxville just does not sit well with me. I think I-40, I-26 and I-77 collectively provide sufficient Interstate mountain corridors for Tenn./ western N.C. area. [FULL DISCLOSURE - I grew up in foothills of NE Georgia and I suspect I may be getting in touch with my "inner NIMBY" :no:].
Has anyone else had a similar reaction to a given project?
any mention of the National Highway System can die in a fire.
I-66, I-69, I-73, and I-74 come to my mind.
I-66 is a bit silly. Just upgrade the parkways in Kentucky and use a number that fits such as I-56.
I-69 is too ambitious, IMHO. Use a few numbers that fit the grid to an extent, and use a suplimentary shield for the CanAmMex Corridor.
I-73. Why? Ohio and Michigan don't seem to want it. NC should use another number such as I-91 (south a la I-76, I-84, etc).
I-74. Again, why? Only NC is hot to trot to have it.
I am sold on I-69. It may be ambitious, but it would serve a need and fill out several missing links in the interstate grid.
As far as I-66,I-73 and I-74 in North Carolina are concerned, you are right, they are pointless and a waste of resources.
This is a highly personal response, but if I am not going to be able to see the construction plans for it, I don't give a flying fuck if it gets built.
another highly personal response but any signs that get put up with 1970 or newer specifications are damn near completely worthless to me.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 26, 2010, 12:34:02 PM
This is a highly personal response, but if I am not going to be able to see the construction plans for it, I don't give a flying fuck if it gets built.
With that mild sentiment in mind, here is link to a map of possible I-3 "mountain" routes: http://www.stopi3.org/maps/images/Slide46_jpg.jpg
I-3 is still very much just a distant concept & the map is closest thing I have seen to construction plans.
I assume you meant that you make up your mind much later in the process when you can assess "the devil in the details" and were speaking in general terms, not I-3. Nevertheless, I thought the group might enjoy the map.
My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.
A more pressing need in this area is completion of the US 64/US 74 corridor between Chattanooga and Asheville, which does not need to be built to full freeway standards.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 26, 2010, 01:58:30 PM
A more pressing need in this area is completion of the US 64/US 74 corridor between Chattanooga and Asheville, which does not need to be built to full freeway standards.
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100805/OPINION01/308050009/1006
Looks like more $$$ becoming available for Corridor K - US 64/ US 74:
"August 5, 2010
... North Carolina had a long-standing formula that mixed ARC money slated for the western 29 counties with the N.C. Department of Transportation's general budget. Money meant for mountain roads was going to pave Piedmont and Coastal projects as well.
Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe and the Senate's majority leader said it was one of the legislature's chief accomplishments during the short session in a year marked with budget shortfalls and hard decisions to change that formula. "This is huge for our region," Nesbitt told the AC-T editorial board this week.
That should mean $30 million annually focused specifically on highway needs in the mountains, in addition to the state highway funds allotted for the western counties.
Nesbitt said the funding could be used to improve the Corridor K series of highways – U.S. 64 and U.S. 74 – from Sylva to Bryson City, Andrews and Murphy over into Chattanooga, Tenn. Some portions of that road remain controversial in Graham County, where environmentalists worry about destruction of natural habitat while business leaders welcome potential economic benefits."
I would not want I-35 extended farther up the north shore (current MN 61). Originally when the freeway was extended it was planned to extend all the way to the MN 61 expressway northeast of 60th Ave, but the project was cut off at 26th Ave E. I would not want the freeway extended any further, then, now, or ever.
I don't care much for I-69, especially the piecemeal way in which it is coming together. It just doesn't make much sense to me to designate small stretches of road as I-69 when the whole project is a long ways from being finished. I just don't see the need for very many new long distance interstates at all. The only ones I really see the need for are some along already-existing roads that should be upgraded to interstate status such as CA 99 from I-5 to Sacramento and US 78 from Memphis to Birmingham.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 26, 2010, 11:12:38 AM
I'm a newbie, so apologies if this has been hashed out on an older thread (7 pages of GHT topics too much for me to go thru ...)
We are all road enthusiasts and love the thrill of riding "new" road after completion of a construction project, whether new terrain or upgrade. However, have you ever read about a project and had an impulse to be against it?
I have surprised myself by having this reaction to the proposed Interstate 3 from Savannah to Knoxville. Savannah thru Augusta to I-85 makes a lot of sense to me. However, the "mountain" section from I-85 to Knoxville just does not sit well with me. I think I-40, I-26 and I-77 collectively provide sufficient Interstate mountain corridors for Tenn./ western N.C. area. [FULL DISCLOSURE - I grew up in foothills of NE Georgia and I suspect I may be getting in touch with my "inner NIMBY" :no:].
Has anyone else had a similar reaction to a given project?
Any such a project would require a LOT of expensive long tunneling and viaduct bridging, much like what is seen on some of those Alpine and other mountain motorways in Europe. OTOH, it would allow the current road through that area (the 'Dragon's Tail' section of US 129, which I have driven :) ) to be downgraded and converted into an NPS parkway, perhaps to be added to the Blue Ridge and/or Foothills Parkways.
As for the numbering - as I have stated before, I am not at all 'AR' regarding these things and due to a severe geographic imbalance in the availability of 'proper' I-route numbers, will not oppose this one. I will also not oppose 'out of sequence' numbers if they are logical continuations of already existing routes.
Mike
To be honest, I don't think an I-3 in the mountains would be so bad provided it were designed with thoroughgoing application of the advice contained here:
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13935523M/Trassierung_und_Gestaltung_von_Strassen_und_Autobahnen.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 26, 2010, 03:23:48 PM
To be honest, I don't think an I-3 in the mountains would be so bad provided it were designed with thoroughgoing application of the advice contained here:
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13935523M/Trassierung_und_Gestaltung_von_Strassen_und_Autobahnen.
As long as the application allows the cars to run on time ... :sombrero:
Riverside Freeway in Tulsa.
Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built. We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan.... Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 26, 2010, 05:34:03 PM
Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built. We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan.... Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.
don't forget the Inner Beltway (I-695) in Boston, that would've basically torn out half of Cambridge.
If I were alive back then, I probably would have shunned plowing Rondo Street in St. Paul for I-94, but the freeway is indispensable now.
In the present day, every time I call my mom who lives in southern Minneapolis, she complains about yet another overpass/ramp closure on I-35W that forces her to the side streets to get downtown. Everything they're doing to that stretch between MN-62 and downtown Minneapolis seem to cater to those who come from the far southern suburbs at the expense those who live in the city proper.
Not entirely the case. I grew up in south Minneapolis off 60th and found 35W to be quite useful in heading into downtown or points further north. There's also the little matter that, without this project, traffic would continue to divert onto local streets (Portland and Nicollet in particular for Minneapolis), and they wouldn't have gotten a shiny new transit center in the median at 46th.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 26, 2010, 01:14:06 PM
With that mild sentiment in mind, here is link to a map of possible I-3 "mountain" routes: http://www.stopi3.org/maps/images/Slide46_jpg.jpg
That map isn't really narrowing the posibilities very much. I'm half surprised they didn't consider a routing through Smoky Mountains NP!
Two of the cities I've lived in, Atlanta and Columbus, have had pipe dreams about an outer-outerbelt in the past. Atlanta's ended up being cut back, then cancelled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Perimeter) and in Columbus it was just editorial page talk, as far as I know. Atlanta's planned path wouldn't really solve anything, given the area's growth, and let's face it, how many more interstates does Ohio need?
I've read that one theory as to why Toronto has only one north-south freeway through town was the overambitious nature of the province in planning multiple corridors through there...
I feel like the proposals for 480 along the waterfront and 80 west of Market Street served to prevent anything more important and useful in SF (280/1, 101) from ever being finished.
Quote from: 6a on August 26, 2010, 08:56:38 PM
Two of the cities I've lived in, Atlanta and Columbus, have had pipe dreams about an outer-outerbelt in the past. Atlanta's ended up being cut back, then cancelled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Perimeter) and in Columbus it was just editorial page talk, as far as I know. Atlanta's planned path wouldn't really solve anything, given the area's growth, and let's face it, how many more interstates does Ohio need?
Three: One for an east-west route from Cincinnati to Parkersburg, an I-76 extension westward, and something connecting to the US 22 freeway that heads towards Pittsburgh :sombrero:
As for the original topic: The Truck Only Lanes for I-44 in Missouri, and the I-70 Corridor of the Future Truck Lanes (KC to Wheeling). If these would be modified so there would be corresponding car-only lanes (a 2x2x2x2 setup with the truck lanes on the outside, all ramps between the car and truck lanes?) I'd be much more willing to consider them.
I oppose I-3 solely because of the number. If they called it something sensible I wouldn't have any objection to it!
I know this kinda goes with I-73 but I really hope the SMART Road is never finished because I'm not sure the cost of gett ing it through I-81 is supposed to be and even though US 460 has some traffic it's not to where a connection from I-81 to Blacksburg needs to be built.
Quote from: froggie on August 26, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Not entirely the case. I grew up in south Minneapolis off 60th and found 35W to be quite useful in heading into downtown or points further north. There's also the little matter that, without this project, traffic would continue to divert onto local streets (Portland and Nicollet in particular for Minneapolis), and they wouldn't have gotten a shiny new transit center in the median at 46th.
I did not hear about the transit center, that's really nifty. The past three years have been hell on the side streets, though, so I've heard.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 26, 2010, 05:34:03 PM
Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built. We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan.... Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.
Quote from: 6a on August 26, 2010, 08:56:38 PM
Two of the cities I've lived in, Atlanta and Columbus, have had pipe dreams about an outer-outerbelt in the past. Atlanta's ended up being cut back, then cancelled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Perimeter) and in Columbus it was just editorial page talk, as far as I know. Atlanta's planned path wouldn't really solve anything, given the area's growth, and let's face it, how many more interstates does Ohio need?
Above "historical - things actually turned out OK" comments helped me crystallize my thoughts regarding I-3. I grew up in Gainesville, GA. As a kid, I heard the following local lore re I-85 [I cannot vouch for accuracy]:
I-85 was originally slated to be routed to the west of the current route: from Atlanta through Gainesville, Toccoa and Clemson, S.C. up to Greenville. However, the route was changed, not through NIMBY opposition, but by good ol' Georgia politics. The Governor, Ernest Vandiver, was able to get the route changed to its current alignment. By an uncanny coincidence, the new route happened to be adjacent to some land holdings of some guy with the last name of Vandiver. The route was noted for a dangerous curve nicknamed the "Vandiver curve" (guess where the curve led), which was later cured to some degree.
Gainesville and the other jilted towns along the original route were given a political consolation: Georgia 365. GA 365 was built as a limited-access highway from I-85 at Suwanee up to Gainesville (later converted to I-985). North of Gainesville, in somewhat hillier country, GA 365 was built as a 4-lane unlimited access highway.
Today, the sentiment among many is that things actually worked out for the better. Gainesville has the luxury of direct Interstate access to Atlanta, but without all of the I-85 through traffic. My sense is that communities north of Gainesville are happy with GA 365 in its current form (easy for me to say).
Re I-3, I think my gut reaction against it was based on how not getting I-85 really did not hurt my home town. Yes, quality 4-lane roads may be needed through the mountains from I-85 to Knoxville, but not Interstate-standard.
Take that, inner NIMBY :ded:
even Dale Earnhardt would agree that 3 is a silly number for a route in that location.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on August 26, 2010, 10:14:05 PM
Any project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.
I'd miss the old signs but not enough to oppose a project solely on that basis.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on August 26, 2010, 10:14:05 PM
Any project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.
That's when you deluge the DOT in emails and see if they'll give you some of their old signs. ;)
Let's see, I love driving and roads, yet so many road project seem to be nothing more than useless political pork or grotesque development sprawl. I would estimate that at least 25% of road projects have no real reason to exist, especially while core parts of the network are under-maintained.
Likewise, the history of urban freeway construction has been shameful, and I understand why citizens have so little trust in their local transportation experts to the point where they have become NIMBY knee-jerkers.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on August 26, 2010, 10:14:05 PM
Any project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.
Cool, I guess I'm not a "roadgeek" either. You know, they have a place with lots of old signs; it is called The Third World. :sombrero:
QuoteAny project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.
I'm with the last three posters on this one...
I guess you guys are right. Forget my last post.
I-73 / 74 foolishness:
It is not so much the road, certainly not parts of it, is unneeded, but the goofy zig-zagging of two out-of-place numbers that, more than anything just link unrelated local projects.
My solution:
North of North Carolina:
None of this road is ever going to be built, at least not to interstate standards, and whatever is is well-marked by simply using the existing US route numbers.
North Carolina:
From I-77, simply renumber it as a 3di in the 77 or the 40 series, continuing the numbering if/when US 52 is upgraded, forming a connection between I-77 at Mt. Airy and I-40 at Winston-Salem.
If/when US 311 as a four lane between Winston-Salem and US 220 near Randleman is ever finished, simply leave it as US 311, or if NC insists, use another 3di in the 40 series.
The new southern bypass of Greensboro is a 3di in the 40 series, with appropriate multiplex of 85 as needed.
US 220 is, well, US 220. If they every get a bypass of Rockingham with a direct connection to US 74, then it is US 220 as well, ending the road at US 74 rather than at US 1.
The rest of the road is simply US 74 to the ocean and then US 17 remains the coastal road.
South Carolina:
Simply use SC 22, and probably name it something like "Myrtle Beach Highway", or find an appropriate 3dUS in the 01 series for a road from US 74 to Myrtle Beach.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 28, 2010, 12:29:27 PM
South Carolina:
Simply use SC 22, and probably name it something like "Myrtle Beach Highway", or find an appropriate 3dUS in the 01 series for a road from US 74 to Myrtle Beach.
SC-22 could be an extension of I-20 from I-95 or act as a gap of a future I-101 along with DE-1 or being some I-x95 if it extends to reach I-95.
Quote from: mightyace on August 27, 2010, 01:15:21 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on August 26, 2010, 10:14:05 PM
Any project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.
I'd miss the old signs but not enough to oppose a project solely on that basis.
It's fun to find old signs out in the field, but there are safety issues involved if the signs become illegible or lose their reflectivity.
Most all of the old-style signs in Kentucky have been replaced with signs faced with reflective sheeting, but I can remember when the old-style signs were still pretty common. Some of them were nearly impossible to read at night.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2010, 09:21:03 PM
It's fun to find old signs out in the field, but there are safety issues involved if the signs become illegible or lose their reflectivity.
Most all of the old-style signs in Kentucky have been replaced with signs faced with reflective sheeting, but I can remember when the old-style signs were still pretty common. Some of them were nearly impossible to read at night.
certainly for STOP and other high-criticality signs this is an issue, but a route marker (which is the best find of them all), having an older-spec trailblazer lying around isn't the end of the world.
surely STOP's unique shape (designed to be distinguishable when covered in snow) would make it less highly-critical?
Quote from: english si on August 29, 2010, 01:48:38 PM
surely STOP's unique shape (designed to be distinguishable when covered in snow) would make it less highly-critical?
it is uniquely shaped
because it is so critical! STOP signs should always be in top-notch condition.
my point was that the unique shape would make them not so critical in replacing due to wear and tear - the shape conveys the message as well. They are uniquely shaped so that something has to be very severely wrong before you can't go "that's a STOP sign" - they are designed so that they don't have to be in tip top condition in order to yet the point across.
Quote from: 6a on August 26, 2010, 08:56:38 PM
how many more interstates does Ohio need?
All they need is one more -- A true-interstate linking Toledo @ I-280 to Huntington, WV @ I-64. US-23 is pure driving hell between Delaware (, OH) and Columbus (and south of Columbus to a lesser extent) due to constant small towns with multiple traffic lights & business districts, and the NIMBYS in and around Delaware are to blame. I'd like to say that those businesses along US-23 between Delaware & I-270 think they are one big Breezewood, and if ANY Interstate bypasses the current US-23 corridor or reroutes traffic over to I-71 North of Columbus, then the game is over for many of those businesses. And because the majority of those businesses are just a short drive from the capitol, the NIMBY's have their megaphone.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 29, 2010, 06:49:19 PM
Quote from: 6a on August 26, 2010, 08:56:38 PM
how many more interstates does Ohio need?
All they need is one more -- A true-interstate linking Toledo @ I-280 to Huntington, WV @ I-64. US-23 is pure driving hell between Delaware (, OH) and Columbus (and south of Columbus to a lesser extent) due to constant small towns with multiple traffic lights & business districts, and the NIMBYS in and around Delaware are to blame. I'd like to say that those businesses along US-23 between Delaware & I-270 think they are one big Breezewood, and if ANY Interstate bypasses the current US-23 corridor or reroutes traffic over to I-71 North of Columbus, then the game is over for many of those businesses. And because the majority of those businesses are just a short drive from the capitol, the NIMBY's have their megaphone.
And this is the Ohio segment of I 73, defeated by those same forces.
Quote from: english si on August 29, 2010, 02:28:01 PM
my point was that the unique shape would make them not so critical in replacing due to wear and tear - the shape conveys the message as well. They are uniquely shaped so that something has to be very severely wrong before you can't go "that's a STOP sign" - they are designed so that they don't have to be in tip top condition in order to yet the point across.
But if they are in tip top condition they are easier to see from farther away, thus aiding in conveying their message.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2010, 01:24:47 AMBut if they are in tip top condition they are easier to see from farther away, thus aiding in conveying their message.
I'm not disputing that they ought to be in tip top condition and there being so is a good thing. I'm disputing that they _have_ to _always_ be in tip top condition - after all they are designed to be recognisable when completely illegible through snow covering it.
Bare in mind, I'm in a country where STOP is rarely used, with Give Way (Yield) being a lot more popular - it's much more important (with the average STOP sign placement) to be able to see the sign and STOP here than in the states. I know how important for safety STOP signs are, but I also can see how they are a great bit of design, and have engineered in a lack of a need to clean them if defaced, replace them if faded, or to clear them if covered in snow. It's a good thing to keep them as clear and as possible, but not essential.
Simon, you are also in a country where STOP signs are routinely illuminated using overhead fluorescent fixtures, which is never the case in the USA (the closest equivalent is experimental LED-enhanced STOP signs). So the insistence on STOP signs having retroreflective sheeting in good condition does not necessarily imply a more conservative approach in the US.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 26, 2010, 05:34:03 PM
Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built. We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan.... Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.
To be honest, the only one in New York City I wouldn't have liked is the Queens-Interborough Expressway:
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/queens-interboro/
As for Philadelphia, I think I can live without the Cross Town Expressway and most of the Girard Avenue Expressway(except between I-95 and the formerly proposed North Penn Expressway).
http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/PA-309/
http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/girard/
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 30, 2010, 03:07:22 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 26, 2010, 05:34:03 PM
Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built. We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan.... Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.
To be honest, the only one in New York City I wouldn't have liked is the Queens-Midtown Expressway:
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/queens-interboro/
As for Philadelphia, I think I can live without the Cross Town Expressway and most of the Girard Avenue Expressway(except between I-95 and the formerly proposed North Penn Expressway).
http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/PA-309/
http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/girard/
From a Memphis Daily News review of the "Interstate 69: The Unfinished History of the Last Great American Highway" book:
"...any book about highway development in Memphis should include a conversation with attorney Charles Newman, a Little Tea Shop regular who in the late 1960s and early 1970s worked with the Citizen to Preserve Overton Park ... That was the grassroots group responsible for keeping I-40 from tearing through the park, a watershed moment for Memphis, yet an antithetical one considering the rash of highway construction at that time in the U.S."
Anyone have enough "local knowledge" to weigh in with a historical verdict on this event?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 26, 2010, 01:58:30 PM
My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.
A more pressing need in this area is completion of the US 64/US 74 corridor between Chattanooga and Asheville, which does not need to be built to full freeway standards.
Exactly. I don't mind the idea behind I-3, but really? Interstate 3? At least I-99 is SOMEWHAT located in the east... I-3 is nowhere near the West Coast, and even then, Hawaii already has an "I-3" of sorts.
Is there really no other number(s) available for the proposed routing?
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 26, 2010, 01:58:30 PM
My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.
Exactly. I don't mind the idea behind I-3, but really? Interstate 3? At least I-99 is SOMEWHAT located in the east... I-3 is nowhere near the West Coast, and even then, Hawaii already has an "I-3" of sorts.
Is there really no other number(s) available for the proposed routing?
Well, if we can have two I-84/86/88s, why not apply the same concept for north-south routes? I-89 (or maybe I-83) sounds fine to me.
Quote from: Eth on August 31, 2010, 11:01:02 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 26, 2010, 01:58:30 PM
My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.
Exactly. I don't mind the idea behind I-3, but really? Interstate 3? At least I-99 is SOMEWHAT located in the east... I-3 is nowhere near the West Coast, and even then, Hawaii already has an "I-3" of sorts.
Is there really no other number(s) available for the proposed routing?
Well, if we can have two I-84/86/88s, why not apply the same concept for north-south routes? I-89 (or maybe I-83) sounds fine to me.
Most agreed. I-87, I-89, I-91, and I-93 aren't getting out of New England/New York anytime soon.
Quote from: Eth on August 31, 2010, 11:01:02 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 26, 2010, 01:58:30 PM
My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.
Exactly. I don't mind the idea behind I-3, but really? Interstate 3? At least I-99 is SOMEWHAT located in the east... I-3 is nowhere near the West Coast, and even then, Hawaii already has an "I-3" of sorts.
Is there really no other number(s) available for the proposed routing?
Well, if we can have two I-84/86/88s, why not apply the same concept for north-south routes? I-89 (or maybe I-83) sounds fine to me.
Yeah, that could work fine, and would be much better than Interstate 3.
The reason behind "3" is as follows:
"this highway would honor the sacrifice of the United States Army 3rd Infantry Division, which was involved with various events in the Iraq War, including taking over Najaf, seizing Saddam International Airport and Saddam Hussein's palaces, and fighting on the day of Baghdad's "liberation."" (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-003.html)
Georgia Route 3 runs north-south in western part of state from Florida to Tennessee. In NW part of state, it runs parallel to I-75 for a while (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Route_3). Are there un-named parts of I-75 that could be named in honor of 3rd Infantry; in other words, designate GA Route 3 as "3rd Infantry Highway" from Florida to an available part of I-75, and then back to GA Route 3 up to Tennessee? Then, Savannah-Knoxville route could get a more AASHTO-friendly number.
And/or, co-sign Savannah-Knoxville interstate as a second, southern U.S. 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_3), with attention-grabbing signs similar to the U.S. 78/ Corridor X signs in Alabama?
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 26, 2010, 01:58:30 PM
My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.
A more pressing need in this area is completion of the US 64/US 74 corridor between Chattanooga and Asheville, which does not need to be built to full freeway standards.
Exactly. I don't mind the idea behind I-3, but really? Interstate 3? At least I-99 is SOMEWHAT located in the east... I-3 is nowhere near the West Coast, and even then, Hawaii already has an "I-3" of sorts.
Is there really no other number(s) available for the proposed routing?
If they must build it, I'd extend I-81.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 01, 2010, 07:23:40 AM
And/or, co-sign Savannah-Knoxville interstate as a second, southern U.S. 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_3), with attention-grabbing signs similar to the U.S. 78/ Corridor X signs in Alabama?
Assuming the following Wikipedia info is correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Infantry_Division_(United_States), "In 1996 the division was restationed at Fort Stewart, Fort Benning, and Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia. The division repeatedly demonstrated its deployability since then by maintaining a battalion, and later a brigade task force presence in Kuwait. It has also moved sizable forces to Egypt, Bosnia and Kosovo in partnership training and peacekeeping missions", why not amend the federal legislation creating I-3 to instead IMMEDIATELY honor the 3rd Infantry by federally designating the STRAHNET corridor from Hunter Army Airfield to Fort Stewart to Fort Benning as the 3rd Infantry Corridor? STRAHNET map: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2000/chapter7/movement_of_military_forces_and_materiel_map.html (although it looks like map has Fort Benning misplaced; it should be located near Columbus, GA)
Advantages (in general):
1. IMMEDIATELY honor those who served (most will be dead by time proposed interstate actually built);
2. I-16 will be substantial part of corridor; part of a pre-existing interstate will honor 3rd Infantry;
3. Symbolism of unity of 3rd Infantry;
4. Now is perfect time to do it since Obama announced end to combat operations in Iraq last night.
Advantages (for roadgeeks)
1. Designation of "I-3" amended away;
2. No need for a southern U.S. 3 to be created;
3. New "STRAHNET / 3rd Infantry Corridor" signs to be critiqued. :sombrero:
Quote from: Eth on August 31, 2010, 11:01:02 PM
Well, if we can have two I-84/86/88s, why not apply the same concept for north-south routes? I-89 (or maybe I-83) sounds fine to me.
Disagree, given that I don't think there should be ANY 2di duplication. Otherwise it's fine. Much better than I-3.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 01, 2010, 07:23:40 AM
The reason behind "3" is as follows:
"this highway would honor the sacrifice of the United States Army 3rd Infantry Division, which was involved with various events in the Iraq War, including taking over Najaf, seizing Saddam International Airport and Saddam Hussein's palaces, and fighting on the day of Baghdad's "liberation."" (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-003.html)
Still a terrible reason for jacking up the numbering. Honoring their sacrifice by sacrificing the integrity of the numbering plan. WHAT HAS AMERICA COME TO.
I know the reasoning behind wanting to call it I-3, but it doesn't change the fact it's a terrible idea and should be numbered something else.
What would happen if sometime in the future US-101 in California was to be upgraded to an Interstate? I-3 would work perfect for that, or else they'd have to call it Interstate 1.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 29, 2010, 06:49:19 PM
Quote from: 6a on August 26, 2010, 08:56:38 PM
how many more interstates does Ohio need?
All they need is one more -- A true-interstate linking Toledo @ I-280 to Huntington, WV @ I-64. US-23 is pure driving hell between Delaware (, OH) and Columbus (and south of Columbus to a lesser extent) due to constant small towns with multiple traffic lights & business districts, and the NIMBYS in and around Delaware are to blame. I'd like to say that those businesses along US-23 between Delaware & I-270 think they are one big Breezewood, and if ANY Interstate bypasses the current US-23 corridor or reroutes traffic over to I-71 North of Columbus, then the game is over for many of those businesses. And because the majority of those businesses are just a short drive from the capitol, the NIMBY's have their megaphone.
Wrong NIMBYS. Business owners along US 23 were not the ones complainging about I-73. It was the farmers and residential land owners in Southern Delaware County that didn't want to give up their land to gov't that didn't want I-73.
Being within earshot of the capital didn't get their voices heard. Having money and education so they knew how and where to complain got them heard.
Quote from: english si on August 29, 2010, 02:28:01 PM
my point was that the unique shape would make them not so critical in replacing due to wear and tear - the shape conveys the message as well. They are uniquely shaped so that something has to be very severely wrong before you can't go "that's a STOP sign" - they are designed so that they don't have to be in tip top condition in order to yet the point across.
They are not being replaced due to wear and tear, but because of a new federal minimum reflectivity standard.
-----------
Why not make a parkway name if they want to honor the 3rd Division? "The Third Division Honorary Parkway"
Quote from: Troubleshooter on September 11, 2010, 08:57:35 AM
Why not make a parkway name if they want to honor the 3rd Division? "The Third Division Honorary Parkway"
Quote from: Grzrd on September 01, 2010, 09:51:59 AM
why not amend the federal legislation creating I-3 to instead IMMEDIATELY honor the 3rd Infantry by federally designating the STRAHNET corridor from Hunter Army Airfield to Fort Stewart to Fort Benning as the 3rd Infantry Corridor? STRAHNET map: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2000/chapter7/movement_of_military_forces_and_materiel_map.html (although it looks like map has Fort Benning misplaced; it should be located near Columbus, GA)
Advantages:
1. IMMEDIATELY honor those who served (most will be dead by time proposed interstate actually built);
2. I-16 will be substantial part of corridor; part of a pre-existing interstate will honor 3rd Infantry;
3. Symbolism of unity of 3rd Infantry;
4. Now is perfect time to do it since Obama announced end to combat operations in Iraq last night.
[5] Designation of "I-3" amended away;
I recently "cleaned up" above post and emailed it to members of Georgia's Congressional delegation. Sen. Chambliss' office left me a voicemail this week and said they are submitting it to Transportation Committee and will "track" its progress. I'm 99% sure it is a polite put-off of a constituent, but who knows?