Some interesting differences than what got built - namely the suffixed routes that were very common everywhere (guess only 35 is the sole survivor of those...well now 69 too).
(https://i.ibb.co/x2JjGRs/image0-5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Cwh7vTt)
California went off the deep end trying to change it as much as possible before stabilizing circa 1958:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/11/establishing-numbering-conventions-of.html?m=1
Nothing at all for SW Florida? I know the region was a lot less populated back then but good foresight adding I-75 to Miami.
Interesting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
May have saved the city. If you look at GSV in Cairo it's one of the most depressing places in the country.
Oregon looks basically the same, besides I-84 leaving the Oregon-Washington border behind a little bit later than it does now.
What the OP posted was actually the 4th rendition of what was recommended and approved.
The Aug 14, 1957 map is online:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_August_14,_1957.jpg
(I-31, I-67, long I-82 OR, long I-84 PA)
Quote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
The mid 1950s was before the riots there. and it was a more important place then.
Mike
Quote from: kurumi on December 03, 2024, 11:51:21 PMThe Aug 14, 1957 map is online:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_August_14,_1957.jpg
(I-31, I-67, long I-82 OR, long I-84 PA)
And a second I-82 in NJ and PA. I guess number duplication has always been with us.
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 12:42:06 PMAnd a second I-82 in NJ and PA. I guess number duplication has always been with us.
IIRC, the split US 2 and US 422 also date to the beginnings of the US highway system.
Quote from: froggie on December 03, 2024, 10:42:36 PMWhat the OP posted was actually the 4th rendition of what was recommended and approved.
How many renditions were there? I was assuming this was the final one.
The official one that probably best matches this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_June_27,_1958.jpg
Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 02:22:13 PMQuote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 12:42:06 PMAnd a second I-82 in NJ and PA. I guess number duplication has always been with us.
IIRC, the split US 2 and US 422 also date to the beginnings of the US highway system.
The US route system always had more disorder than the interstates, however (to the point where I have a hard time seeing the parent/child relationship 2dus and 3dus routes are supposed to have). But now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 07:57:54 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 02:22:13 PMQuote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 12:42:06 PMAnd a second I-82 in NJ and PA. I guess number duplication has always been with us.
IIRC, the split US 2 and US 422 also date to the beginnings of the US highway system.
The US route system always had more disorder than the interstates, however (to the point where I have a hard time seeing the parent/child relationship 2dus and 3dus routes are supposed to have). But now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.
I also even feel the usage of suffixed routes in the US system was much more consistent (loops that return to parent) than the plethora of suffixed spurs the Interstates used to have.
US 6N is the only suffixed spur left in the US system and it wasn't nearly as long as, say, the former I-80N!
Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 08:16:45 PMUS 6N is the only suffixed spur left in the US system and it wasn't nearly as long as, say, the former I-80N!
9W
Quote from: hotdogPi on December 04, 2024, 08:19:52 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 08:16:45 PMUS 6N is the only suffixed spur left in the US system and it wasn't nearly as long as, say, the former I-80N!
9W
9W isn't a spur as it begins and ends at 9. There are several other E and W alternates left.
QuoteBut now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.
To further respond to this thought:
If the US route system's most egregious grid divegence is US 11...
IMO having I-43 and I-57 share the same direct north south trajectory but as two separate numbers (when IIRC 57 was once proposed to continue up 43) messed up the number assignments west of Chicago. This is how I-49 is entirely west of I-39!
(Not to mention the issues of using major numbers for intrastate 45 and short 30, especially when California had suggested using 30 instead of the eventual I-40 for the US 66 corridor)
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 03, 2024, 07:17:35 PMOregon looks basically the same, besides I-84 leaving the Oregon-Washington border behind a little bit later than it does now.
I seem to recall seeing a proposal at one point that had I-82 and I-84 sharing a long concurrency. I-82 instead began in Portland, I-84 began in Yakima, then I-82 followed the modern I-84 corridor through Utah and I-84 used the modern I-86 corridor to Pocatello. There was a map posted here at some point demonstrating it.
Other than a long concurrency and reusing 84, this always felt like a better idea. And would have avoided the suffix routing.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 08:16:45 PMQuote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 07:57:54 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 02:22:13 PMQuote from: vdeane on December 04, 2024, 12:42:06 PMAnd a second I-82 in NJ and PA. I guess number duplication has always been with us.
IIRC, the split US 2 and US 422 also date to the beginnings of the US highway system.
The US route system always had more disorder than the interstates, however (to the point where I have a hard time seeing the parent/child relationship 2dus and 3dus routes are supposed to have). But now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.
I also even feel the usage of suffixed routes in the US system was much more consistent (loops that return to parent) than the plethora of suffixed spurs the Interstates used to have.
US 6N is the only suffixed spur left in the US system and it wasn't nearly as long as, say, the former I-80N!
I think the relation of trunks and branches was it was supposed to fill in gaps. Good examples farther west you go. There's a lot of land between US-95 and US-99, so in between, you were "supposed" to have the x95 branches. US-395 is the best example of this. And then the trunk suffixes (95A, 95B, etc.) were "supposed" to work like interstate auxiliaries, just short loops or spurs.
Just my speculation. But if it was applied consistently this way, I think it could have worked. And why I will die on the hill that US-199 should exist in place of US-101. (And real world 199, 299, 399 would be bumped up accordingly).
Granted, I also feel US-97 should have replaced US-395 south of Susanville.
Quote from: Quillz on December 05, 2024, 05:25:20 PMQuote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 03, 2024, 07:17:35 PMOregon looks basically the same, besides I-84 leaving the Oregon-Washington border behind a little bit later than it does now.
I seem to recall seeing a proposal at one point that had I-82 and I-84 sharing a long concurrency. I-82 instead began in Portland, I-84 began in Yakima, then I-82 followed the modern I-84 corridor through Utah and I-84 used the modern I-86 corridor to Pocatello. There was a map posted here at some point demonstrating it.
Other than a long concurrency and reusing 84, this always felt like a better idea. And would have avoided the suffix routing.
I agree, we wouldn't have the weird numbering of I-82 and the duplicate numbering of I-84. Also, there's just as much traffic that's using I-84 to I-82 to go to Seattle than using I-84 to get to Portland. The only problem would be the extended concurrency, like you said.
No I-27, I-72 or eastern I-88 to be found here (my guess is that they wouldn't be added to the system until 1968, the system's first expansion).
Also, even in the east there were 2-lane Interstates to be designated. Not surprisingly, the majority was concentrated on the less-populated areas in the central part of the country and out west.
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 05, 2024, 07:35:09 PMQuote from: Quillz on December 05, 2024, 05:25:20 PMQuote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 03, 2024, 07:17:35 PMOregon looks basically the same, besides I-84 leaving the Oregon-Washington border behind a little bit later than it does now.
I seem to recall seeing a proposal at one point that had I-82 and I-84 sharing a long concurrency. I-82 instead began in Portland, I-84 began in Yakima, then I-82 followed the modern I-84 corridor through Utah and I-84 used the modern I-86 corridor to Pocatello. There was a map posted here at some point demonstrating it.
Other than a long concurrency and reusing 84, this always felt like a better idea. And would have avoided the suffix routing.
I agree, we wouldn't have the weird numbering of I-82 and the duplicate numbering of I-84. Also, there's just as much traffic that's using I-84 to I-82 to go to Seattle than using I-84 to get to Portland. The only problem would be the extended concurrency, like you said.
I think concurrencies are fine. Here it makes sense.
Where the heck is the original alignment of I-84E (I-82E) to Providence?
Also, I-80S in southern PA?
Quote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 09:29:55 PMQuoteBut now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.
To further respond to this thought:
If the US route system's most egregious grid divegence is US 11...
IMO having I-43 and I-57 share the same direct north south trajectory but as two separate numbers (when IIRC 57 was once proposed to continue up 43) messed up the number assignments west of Chicago. This is how I-49 is entirely west of I-39!
(Not to mention the issues of using major numbers for intrastate 45 and short 30, especially when California had suggested using 30 instead of the eventual I-40 for the US 66 corridor)
I-45 being west of the northern half of I-35 was inevitably going to cause problems with the grid. There was no reason for the northern states to skip numbers under 45, since it's far enough away and Texas wasn't going to use them all. Make that I-39 from the start and the grid probably ends up much neater.
That and there should have been a Milwaukee-Green Bay interstate earlier on like Wisconsin wanted. If that highway opened earlier Illinois wouldn't have as much grounds to complain about extending 55 or 57 north to the border. (Hell, if 55 got extended there's a case for making I-41 a very long 3di.)
What made them create all interstates as 4+ lanes instead of 2?
Quote from: michiganguy123 on December 07, 2024, 08:53:49 PMWhat made them create all interstates as 4+ lanes instead of 2?
Likely Eisenhower's experiences as a commanding general during WWII.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on December 07, 2024, 09:29:26 PMQuote from: michiganguy123 on December 07, 2024, 08:53:49 PMWhat made them create all interstates as 4+ lanes instead of 2?
Likely Eisenhower's experiences as a commanding general during WWII.
Mike
Actually, a few actually did get built as 2 lanes initially, like I-95 north of Bangor. Safety proved to be an issue, however.
Quote from: vdeane on December 07, 2024, 10:18:12 PMQuote from: mgk920 on December 07, 2024, 09:29:26 PMQuote from: michiganguy123 on December 07, 2024, 08:53:49 PMWhat made them create all interstates as 4+ lanes instead of 2?
Likely Eisenhower's experiences as a commanding general during WWII.
Mike
Actually, a few actually did get built as 2 lanes initially, like I-95 north of Bangor. Safety proved to be an issue, however.
I-15 at the Idaho-Montana state line was also built as two lanes due to light traffic (that section was even in the Guinness book for many years as having the lowest AADT of any mainline interstate), but it has long since been upgraded to a conventional four lanes divided.
Mike
Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on December 06, 2024, 11:08:51 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 04, 2024, 09:29:55 PMQuoteBut now it seems as if not only is the interstate system not living up to the pedestal I put it on, but that it never did.
To further respond to this thought:
If the US route system's most egregious grid divegence is US 11...
IMO having I-43 and I-57 share the same direct north south trajectory but as two separate numbers (when IIRC 57 was once proposed to continue up 43) messed up the number assignments west of Chicago. This is how I-49 is entirely west of I-39!
(Not to mention the issues of using major numbers for intrastate 45 and short 30, especially when California had suggested using 30 instead of the eventual I-40 for the US 66 corridor)
I-45 being west of the northern half of I-35 was inevitably going to cause problems with the grid. There was no reason for the northern states to skip numbers under 45, since it's far enough away and Texas wasn't going to use them all. Make that I-39 from the start and the grid probably ends up much neater.
That and there should have been a Milwaukee-Green Bay interstate earlier on like Wisconsin wanted. If that highway opened earlier Illinois wouldn't have as much grounds to complain about extending 55 or 57 north to the border. (Hell, if 55 got extended there's a case for making I-41 a very long 3di.)
Good thing the grid is irrelevant and I-43 works just fine.
What I think is funny is how like I-43 is only about 200 miles or so west of I-75, even further I-75 is within 300 miles of I-39.
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 08, 2024, 08:40:13 PMWhat I think is funny is how like I-43 is only about 200 miles or so west of I-75, even further I-75 is within 300 miles of I-39.
Well, I-75 is pretty diagonal. US-6 should have ended up somewhere around Seattle by the numbers, but it originally ended up a hundred miles or so from US-80. But imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any major diagonal routes.
Quote from: pderocco on December 09, 2024, 02:21:56 AMBut imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any major diagonal routes.
The more subtle question from this:
I often bring up the concept of routing logic, but I think it does makes sense to think about this for a second: which diagonal routes do feel like one coheisve corridor vs. cobbled together without any real practical trajectory?
Example from the US route system: US 62 going from El Paso to Niagara Falls for something that is very much not a unified routing.
Example from the Interstate system that is super logical: I-71 (which to some degree parallels US 42), connecting Louisville and the three most important cities in Ohio on a cohesive pathway. In fact, my friends and I took all of 71 as part of a 2006 trip to the Clevleand Grand Prix.
Another one that works really well for both the US and Interstate system is the parallel set of I-85 and US 29.
Quote from: pderocco on December 09, 2024, 02:21:56 AMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 08, 2024, 08:40:13 PMWhat I think is funny is how like I-43 is only about 200 miles or so west of I-75, even further I-75 is within 300 miles of I-39.
Well, I-75 is pretty diagonal. US-6 should have ended up somewhere around Seattle by the numbers, but it originally ended up a hundred miles or so from US-80. But imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any major diagonal routes.
US-6 originally did not leave the Northeast. Its original extent was roughly Pennsylvania to Cape Cod. It was gradually extended in a diagonal pattern, and eventually it reached Long Beach. I'm not sure if this was just a series of happy accidents, or if at some point it was decided to make US-6 become the longest numbered route in the country (since taken over by US-20).
It makes a little more sense when comparing it to some other US routes that are mainly diagonal, like US-52 and US-54. I believe US-62 is the super oddball that touches both Mexico and Canada despite being a west-east route.
I think a poster here mentioned once that what probably would have helped is if a range of numbers was specifically set aside for diagonal routes. It also would have helped is having a consistent logic for numbers: i.e. is a route's number determined by its terminus, or its rough location within the country? US-11's numbering makes sense if you consider its northern terminus, but its southern terminus is well out of alignment. Then you have something like US-30 which makes sense for most of its length, but it's effectively flipped in Oregon, being north of US-20 instead of south. (Although this is due to US-20 originally ending near Yellowstone).
Quote from: pderocco on December 09, 2024, 02:21:56 AMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 08, 2024, 08:40:13 PMWhat I think is funny is how like I-43 is only about 200 miles or so west of I-75, even further I-75 is within 300 miles of I-39.
Well, I-75 is pretty diagonal. US-6 should have ended up somewhere around Seattle by the numbers, but it originally ended up a hundred miles or so from US-80. But imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any major diagonal routes.
How do you figure that I-75 is diagonal? It pretty much goes north and south wherever it's at. US-6 is out of the grid just about everywhere.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 09, 2024, 03:46:18 AMQuote from: pderocco on December 09, 2024, 02:21:56 AMBut imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any major diagonal routes.
The more subtle question from this:
I often bring up the concept of routing logic, but I think it does makes sense to think about this for a second: which diagonal routes do feel like one coheisve corridor vs. cobbled together without any real practical trajectory?
Example from the US route system: US 62 going from El Paso to Niagara Falls for something that is very much not a unified routing.
Example from the Interstate system that is super logical: I-71 (which to some degree parallels US 42), connecting Louisville and the three most important cities in Ohio on a cohesive pathway. In fact, my friends and I took all of 71 as part of a 2006 trip to the Clevleand Grand Prix.
Another one that works really well for both the US and Interstate system is the parallel set of I-85 and US 29.
The only thing that I-71 does that US-42 doesn't is I-71 goes through Columbus while US-42 bypasses it.
Quote from: Quillz on December 09, 2024, 05:12:51 AMor if at some point it was decided to make US-6 become the longest numbered route in the country (since taken over by US-20).
Isn't that debatable based on whether or not US 20 is discontinuous through Yellowstone?
The question that I have is: Why are some US highways diagonal, while most interstates are mostly due north-south/east-west? The only really majorly diagonal Interstates are I-24, I-85, and I guess I-69 is kinda diagonal as well. Those are the ones I think of, unless I'm forgetting one. I assume it's because a straight pathway is better to intersect with major cities. Also, lots of the X0 and X1/5 US routes follow straight pathways.
Quote from: mgk920 on December 08, 2024, 12:27:16 PMQuote from: vdeane on December 07, 2024, 10:18:12 PMQuote from: mgk920 on December 07, 2024, 09:29:26 PMQuote from: michiganguy123 on December 07, 2024, 08:53:49 PMWhat made them create all interstates as 4+ lanes instead of 2?
Likely Eisenhower's experiences as a commanding general during WWII.
Mike
Actually, a few actually did get built as 2 lanes initially, like I-95 north of Bangor. Safety proved to be an issue, however.
I-15 at the Idaho-Montana state line was also built as two lanes due to light traffic (that section was even in the Guinness book for many years as having the lowest AADT of any mainline interstate), but it has long since been upgraded to a conventional four lanes divided.
Mike
A long stretch of I-70 in Utah was originally 2 lanes. I remember taking a family trip out west and going through that area not too long after it was constructed in the early 70s.
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 09, 2024, 12:56:35 PMThe question that I have is: Why are some US highways diagonal, while most interstates are mostly due north-south/east-west? The only really majorly diagonal Interstates are I-24, I-85, and I guess I-69 is kinda diagonal as well. Those are the ones I think of, unless I'm forgetting one. I assume it's because a straight pathway is better to intersect with major cities. Also, lots of the X0 and X1/5 US routes follow straight pathways.
4, 22, 30, 37, 44, 71, 81, western 84, 89
It's not just the three you mentioned.
Quote from: hotdogPi on December 09, 2024, 01:02:21 PMQuote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 09, 2024, 12:56:35 PMThe question that I have is: Why are some US highways diagonal, while most interstates are mostly due north-south/east-west? The only really majorly diagonal Interstates are I-24, I-85, and I guess I-69 is kinda diagonal as well. Those are the ones I think of, unless I'm forgetting one. I assume it's because a straight pathway is better to intersect with major cities. Also, lots of the X0 and X1/5 US routes follow straight pathways.
4, 22, 30, 37, 44, 71, 81, western 84, 89
It's not just the three you mentioned.
I forget lol. Must just be really tired today. To me though, 89, 30, and 4 aren't so northwest-southeast/southewest-northeast that they could be considered diagonal IMO. The rest I get.
What do you mean I-4 isn't diagonal? It's about as close to 45° as you can get.
I-59 also pretty darn diagonal.
Quote from: hotdogPi on December 09, 2024, 01:17:15 PMWhat do you mean I-4 isn't diagonal? It's about as close to 45° as you can get.
I'd say it's straight up east west from Tampa to Orlando, and north-south from Orlando to Daytona Beach.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 09, 2024, 01:30:52 PMI-59 also pretty darn diagonal.
Indeed it is, the long I-20 concurrency definitely helps out by being so long.
Of note:
I brought it up earlier with I-71 and US 42, but it's notable that a lot of the diagonal interstates parallel diagonal US routes themselves:
I-59 and I-81 - US 11
I-30 - US 67 middle segment
I-4 - US 92
I-44 - old US 66 going northeast of OKC, US 62 southwest of OKC
original I-74 - US 150 and US 421
I-26, the western I-76, I-82, and the eastern I-88 are diagonal as well.
Quote from: Quillz on December 09, 2024, 05:12:51 AMI think a poster here mentioned once that what probably would have helped is if a range of numbers was specifically set aside for diagonal routes. It also would have helped is having a consistent logic for numbers: i.e. is a route's number determined by its terminus, or its rough location within the country? US-11's numbering makes sense if you consider its northern terminus, but its southern terminus is well out of alignment. Then you have something like US-30 which makes sense for most of its length, but it's effectively flipped in Oregon, being north of US-20 instead of south. (Although this is due to US-20 originally ending near Yellowstone).
Why do we need a range of numbers for diagonal routes? The vast majority of travellers for the vast majority of trips don't take the entire route. Even if routes are simply patched together, unless the numbering is confusing for navigation, I'm not seeing why its a problem if a specific highway is out of place in the grid, OR a diagonal route switches number a dozen times as it traverses the country.
I feel like adding more rules to the Interstate / US system eventually becomes pointless. The base even/odd rules make it flexible enough to accommodate terrain and travel patterns. If we had a rigid hexagonal numbering system, then there'd be debates on whether I-95 runs from New Brunswick to Boston, or from Cleveland to Miami.
Yo momma's diagonal.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2024, 04:49:47 PMWhy do we need a range of numbers for diagonal routes?
Because Brasil #1?
Quote from: NE2 on December 09, 2024, 06:42:09 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2024, 04:49:47 PMWhy do we need a range of numbers for diagonal routes?
Because Brasil #1?
NE2, I heard you're the most knowledgeable person on this forum. Can you elaborate on why I-75 randomly ends west of Downtown Miami at seemingly no street at all?
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 09, 2024, 07:42:56 PMQuote from: NE2 on December 09, 2024, 06:42:09 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2024, 04:49:47 PMWhy do we need a range of numbers for diagonal routes?
Because Brasil #1?
NE2, I heard you're the most knowledgeable person on this forum. Can you elaborate on why I-75 randomly ends west of Downtown Miami at seemingly no street at all?
Florida wanted to build a connection at North Miami Beach but I ate the plans and they didn't have backups.
Quote from: NE2 on December 09, 2024, 07:46:37 PMQuote from: PNWRoadgeek on December 09, 2024, 07:42:56 PMQuote from: NE2 on December 09, 2024, 06:42:09 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2024, 04:49:47 PMWhy do we need a range of numbers for diagonal routes?
Because Brasil #1?
NE2, I heard you're the most knowledgeable person on this forum. Can you elaborate on why I-75 randomly ends west of Downtown Miami at seemingly no street at all?
Florida wanted to build a connection at North Miami Beach but I ate the plans and they didn't have backups.
Good choice NE2. I respect you for that.
Quote from: NE2 on December 09, 2024, 06:42:09 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 09, 2024, 04:49:47 PMWhy do we need a range of numbers for diagonal routes?
Because Brasil #1?
This was a semiserious reply though. Brasil uses 3xx for diagonals (and 4xx for short connections).
Quote from: Quillz on December 09, 2024, 05:12:51 AMI think a poster here mentioned once that what probably would have helped is if a range of numbers was specifically set aside for diagonal routes. It also would have helped is having a consistent logic for numbers: i.e. is a route's number determined by its terminus, or its rough location within the country? US-11's numbering makes sense if you consider its northern terminus, but its southern terminus is well out of alignment. Then you have something like US-30 which makes sense for most of its length, but it's effectively flipped in Oregon, being north of US-20 instead of south. (Although this is due to US-20 originally ending near Yellowstone).
It would make numeric sense for NE/SW to be even.5 numbers and NW/SE odd.5 numbers.
Yeah, that'll happen.
The old US-91 and US-93 are an even better example of routes crossing that could have been renumbered so that they just had a concurrency without crossing. But it sure seems like US routes were laid out with less regularity than the Interstates were later. Part of that is simply the much larger number of them.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 03, 2024, 05:34:17 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
May have saved the city. If you look at GSV in Cairo it's one of the most depressing places in the country.
Flooding absolutely dominates life in the Mississippi Valley and makes it pretty much impossible for major cities to exist
Quote from: kernals12 on December 10, 2024, 03:25:57 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 03, 2024, 05:34:17 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
May have saved the city. If you look at GSV in Cairo it's one of the most depressing places in the country.
Flooding absolutely dominates life in the Mississippi Valley and makes it pretty much impossible for major cities to exist
St. Louis, Memphis, Quad Cities...
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 10, 2024, 09:13:43 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 10, 2024, 03:25:57 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 03, 2024, 05:34:17 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
May have saved the city. If you look at GSV in Cairo it's one of the most depressing places in the country.
Flooding absolutely dominates life in the Mississippi Valley and makes it pretty much impossible for major cities to exist
St. Louis, Memphis, Quad Cities...
Twin Cities...
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 10, 2024, 09:13:43 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 10, 2024, 03:25:57 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 03, 2024, 05:34:17 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
May have saved the city. If you look at GSV in Cairo it's one of the most depressing places in the country.
Flooding absolutely dominates life in the Mississippi Valley and makes it pretty much impossible for major cities to exist
St. Louis, Memphis, Quad Cities...
Sorry, I mean Mississippi Delta, which has a specific meaning and consists of the area visible on Satellites between St Louis and Baton Rouge
Quote from: kernals12 on December 10, 2024, 10:38:07 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 10, 2024, 09:13:43 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 10, 2024, 03:25:57 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 03, 2024, 05:34:17 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
May have saved the city. If you look at GSV in Cairo it's one of the most depressing places in the country.
Flooding absolutely dominates life in the Mississippi Valley and makes it pretty much impossible for major cities to exist
St. Louis, Memphis, Quad Cities...
Sorry, I mean Mississippi Delta, which has a specific meaning and consists of the area visible on Satellites between St Louis and Baton Rouge
Memphis is between St Louis and Baton Rouge
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 10, 2024, 10:43:27 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 10, 2024, 10:38:07 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 10, 2024, 09:13:43 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 10, 2024, 03:25:57 AMQuote from: Roadgeekteen on December 03, 2024, 05:34:17 PMQuote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2024, 05:31:08 PMInteresting to see I-24 connecting with I-57 at Cairo in this early map, rather than its eventual terminus a bit north of there.
May have saved the city. If you look at GSV in Cairo it's one of the most depressing places in the country.
Flooding absolutely dominates life in the Mississippi Valley and makes it pretty much impossible for major cities to exist
St. Louis, Memphis, Quad Cities...
Sorry, I mean Mississippi Delta, which has a specific meaning and consists of the area visible on Satellites between St Louis and Baton Rouge
Memphis is between St Louis and Baton Rouge
He's inaccurate about the Mississippi Delta definition. It's actually the part of the state of Mississippi that borders the river.
This isn't something I pulled out of my ass. Here's a well-known Youtube geography channel about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_Valley
K12 isn't completely wrong...
Quote from: Quillz on December 09, 2024, 05:12:51 AMQuote from: pderocco on December 09, 2024, 02:21:56 AMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 08, 2024, 08:40:13 PMWhat I think is funny is how like I-43 is only about 200 miles or so west of I-75, even further I-75 is within 300 miles of I-39.
Well, I-75 is pretty diagonal. US-6 should have ended up somewhere around Seattle by the numbers, but it originally ended up a hundred miles or so from US-80. But imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any major diagonal routes.
US-6 originally did not leave the Northeast. Its original extent was roughly Pennsylvania to Cape Cod. It was gradually extended in a diagonal pattern, and eventually it reached Long Beach. I'm not sure if this was just a series of happy accidents, or if at some point it was decided to make US-6 become the longest numbered route in the country (since taken over by US-20).
It makes a little more sense when comparing it to some other US routes that are mainly diagonal, like US-52 and US-54. I believe US-62 is the super oddball that touches both Mexico and Canada despite being a west-east route.
I think a poster here mentioned once that what probably would have helped is if a range of numbers was specifically set aside for diagonal routes. It also would have helped is having a consistent logic for numbers: i.e. is a route's number determined by its terminus, or its rough location within the country? US-11's numbering makes sense if you consider its northern terminus, but its southern terminus is well out of alignment. Then you have something like US-30 which makes sense for most of its length, but it's effectively flipped in Oregon, being north of US-20 instead of south. (Although this is due to US-20 originally ending near Yellowstone).
US 20's extension west of Yellowstone is almost irrelevant to US 30's swap in Nampa and Caldwell, however -- it's always been north of US 26 (and 28 before that). US 20 just made it more pronounced by going south of US 26 west of Vale.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 10, 2024, 03:25:57 AMFlooding absolutely dominates life in the Mississippi Valley and makes it pretty much impossible for major cities to exist
Cairo and Memphis have both held the title of the largest city in the world. So has downstream Alexandria.
I'm talking of the Nile, which the people naming the Mississippi cities were reminded of, hence Egyptian names in Illinois and Tennessee. That being the Nile that very famously flooded pretty much every year until 1970 when they stored the flood waters behind a dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_of_the_Nile)...
Pretty sure I-84 was supposed to go through northern Pennsylvania at one point, replacing US 6.
Quote from: epzik8 on December 11, 2024, 11:32:41 AMPretty sure I-84 was supposed to go through northern Pennsylvania at one point, replacing US 6.
That was the original plan, until I-80 was realigned and replaced what was to be the eastern I-82.
Quote from: Henry on December 11, 2024, 11:03:23 PMQuote from: epzik8 on December 11, 2024, 11:32:41 AMPretty sure I-84 was supposed to go through northern Pennsylvania at one point, replacing US 6.
That was the original plan, until I-80 was realigned and replaced what was to be the eastern I-82.
I'm actually glad things turned out that way. An interstate along the US 6 corridor would have been nice in some ways, but it would have ended up too close to NY's Southern Tier Expressway. Current I-76, I-80, I-86, and I-90 ended up being spread out appropriately across NY and PA, especially considering the lack of population centers in northern PA.
kind of wonder how they would have routed I-77 between cleveland and Detroit? and did anyone else see that I-94 was originally place where I-96 is at today in Michigan
Quote from: cwf1701 on December 13, 2024, 12:59:15 AMkind of wonder how they would have routed I-77 between cleveland and Detroit? and did anyone else see that I-94 was originally place where I-96 is at today in Michigan
Probably just among the Ohio Turnpike and I-75, which is probably why it was scraped. I guess they could have made OH-2 an interstate instead of piggybacking on the turnpike but the OTIC would have likely been mad.
Quote from: cwf1701 on December 13, 2024, 12:59:15 AMand did anyone else see that I-94 was originally place where I-96 is at today in Michigan
Yeah that idea never made any sense. It was smart of them to change it to what it is now.
Quote from: cwf1701 on December 13, 2024, 12:59:15 AMkind of wonder how they would have routed I-77 between cleveland and Detroit? and did anyone else see that I-94 was originally place where I-96 is at today in Michigan
Along I-90 and I-75. And yeah that was the original plan but it got altered to what it is today. I-92 was supposed to be the route between Detroit and Chicago taking over US-12's route that ultimately was changed to I-94 and I-96 took over US-16's route. I think it makes more sense the way they have it today.