http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110509/NEWS/105090324/-1/SPORTS12/Des-Moines-City-Council-meeting-set-today (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110509/NEWS/105090324/-1/SPORTS12/Des-Moines-City-Council-meeting-set-today)
Should be I-435 instead of I-335, otherwise MoDOT should be up in arms about not being allowed to change MO 370 into I-370.
Would much prefer "835" over "435" in this case. Why duplicate numbers if you don't have to?
Like the idea, hate the number. I would think I-635 or I-835 would be a better option, since people associate I-435 with the Kansas City loop and Des Moines is too close to KC for that number to work.
I wish I could attend the city council meeting tonight but won't be able to due to another commitment...
I would route I-80 over current I-235 and move the 235 number to the beltway outside. No duplication, no confusion with other cities, just one hell of a time for Des Moines residents ;)
QuoteI would think I-635 or I-835 would be a better option, since people associate I-435 with the Kansas City loop and Des Moines is too close to KC for that number to work.
There's almost 170 miles between the two. The numerous cases on the East Coast of 3dis with the same number that are much closer together than that (only 25 miles in the case of the two I-291's) puts to rest the argument that it's "too close".
But if you have the option of spreading out the numbers then why not? Some people could confuse two I-435 numbered highways.
Quote from: Zmapper on May 09, 2011, 10:34:39 PM
But if you have the option of spreading out the numbers then why not? Some people could confuse two I-435 numbered highways.
I don't think the confusion is too much of a problem, given that they're so many miles apart.
and states tend to use the lowest available number of the correct parity. Counterexamples are tough to find: Connecticut skipping 195, likely to avoid confusion with the RI/MA route; Georgia inexplicably skipping 116 and 316; California omitting 180 because it does not fit their numbering grid; and I'm sure there are other examples but they aren't common. Oh, AR's first x30 is 430; go figure.
Updated story from KCCI-TV in Des Moines: http://www.kcci.com/news/27833073/detail.html
Even reporter Todd Magel on the 10:00 news tonight acknowledged that 435 may be the final number instead of 335, "depending on Interstate naming rules".
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
and states tend to use the lowest available number of the correct parity. Counterexamples are tough to find: Connecticut skipping 195, likely to avoid confusion with the RI/MA route; Georgia inexplicably skipping 116 and 316; California omitting 180 because it does not fit their numbering grid; and I'm sure there are other examples but they aren't common. Oh, AR's first x30 is 430; go figure.
With CT's 395, it enters MA so that was the lowest number available in MA.
Outliers that stand out as a higher number than what is available:
- I-710 in southern California (getting its numbering from former State Route 7, IIRC) when I-310 is available
- I-485 in North Carolina when I-285 isn't in use in the state
- I-820 in Texas, no other even I-x20s in that state
- I-435 in San Antonio with I-235 not in use in Texas
- future I-905 in San Diego when I-705 is still free in California
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
With CT's 395, it enters MA so that was the lowest number available in MA.
for some reason I had thought that 395 was originally just in Conn and intended to be extended eastward... I might just be mixing it up with the 84/86/384 fiasco.
one example of route numbering which does make sense, even though it is not the lowest available number, is Minnesota and Wisconsin's I-535. it likely took the number from the fact that it is completely multiplexed with US-53, with an eye towards the fact that it ends at WI-35.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
- I-435 in San Antonio with I-235 not in use in Texas
Actually, it's I-410 in San Antonio, but still, there is no I-210 in TX
Also I-635 in Dallas when there is no I-235 or I-435; Unsigned I-345 (US 75) in Dallas where there is no I-145.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
and states tend to use the lowest available number of the correct parity. Counterexamples are tough to find: Connecticut skipping 195, likely to avoid confusion with the RI/MA route; Georgia inexplicably skipping 116 and 316; California omitting 180 because it does not fit their numbering grid; and I'm sure there are other examples but they aren't common. Oh, AR's first x30 is 430; go figure.
With CT's 395, it enters MA so that was the lowest number available in MA.
Outliers that stand out as a higher number than what is available:
- I-710 in southern California (getting its numbering from former State Route 7, IIRC) when I-310 is available
- I-485 in North Carolina when I-285 isn't in use in the state
- I-820 in Texas, no other even I-x20s in that state
- I-435 in San Antonio with I-235 not in use in Texas
- future I-905 in San Diego when I-705 is still free in California
I-510 hasn't been used in California either! And I-285 is being reserved for the US 52 freeway spur into Winston-Salem.
As for the Des Moines Beltway, it should be I-435.
A few more examples to consider:
- I-459 in Alabama instead of I-259
- I-430 in Arkansas instead of I-230
- I-530 in Arkansas instead of I-330 (I-130 is reserved for a spur that may one day become part of an extended I-49)
- I-555 in Arkansas instead of I-155 or I-355
- I-575 in Georgia instead of I-175 or I-375
- I-985 in Georgia instead of I-385, I-585 or I-785
- I-375 in Michigan instead of I-175
- I-535 in Minnesota instead of I-135 or I-335
- I-515 in Nevada instead of I-115 or I-315
- I-393 in New Hampshire instead of I-193
- I-587 in New York State instead of I-187 or I-387
- I-540 in North Carolina instead of I-340
- I-785 in North Carolina instead of I-185, I-385 or I-585
- I-795 in North Carolina instead of I-195, I-395 or I-595
- I-564 in Virginia instead of I-164 or I-364
- I-705 in Washington State instead of I-105, I-305 or I-505
- I-794 in Wisconsin instead of I-194, I-394 or I-594
- I-894 in Wisconsin instead of I-294, I-494 or I-694
I am aware of some unused numbers being proposed in the past (I-175 in Georgia and I-335 in Minnesota), but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Several of your examples allude to other 3-digit routes that were proposed at the time, but later cancelled or renumbered. The Virginia example represents the lowest unused odd x64 number, which is a similar case with other routes, at least in those states that tended to avoid duplication.
I-335.. for Des Moines Beltway.. does that include the future section from I-80 North to I-35?
I-335 is fine for the beltway, IMHO. It doesn't return to I-35 a la I-155 or I-355 in Illinois.
If it connects two interstates, the default should be an even 3di regardless if it returns to it's parent.
I'd make exceptions if means a state would have to burn it's last even 3di for a given interstate. But as this is not the case here, 435 is fine, just fine or for that matter, 635 or 835. But definitely even. Iowa ain't going to be using all its even x35's anytime soon.
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 10, 2011, 01:35:31 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
- I-435 in San Antonio with I-235 not in use in Texas
Actually, it's I-410 in San Antonio, but still, there is no I-210 in TX
Thanks for the correction. Though there is a lack of I-235 in Missouri, that makes sense as the lowest number used - I-435 - is not the lowest one available in the other state it runs in, Kansas.
Quote from: Buummu on May 10, 2011, 02:48:43 PM
I-335.. for Des Moines Beltway.. does that include the future section from I-80 North to I-35?
I was 95% sure that the extension north and back west to I-35 is dead.
But, as I search tonight to see if the southwest section from I-35 back to I-80 still has any life, I find a public hearing for it back in January:
http://www.polkcountyiowa.gov/publicworks/Pages/neBeltway.aspx (http://www.polkcountyiowa.gov/publicworks/Pages/neBeltway.aspx)
thanks for the link!
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
- I-485 in North Carolina when I-285 isn't in use in the state
But there is a "Future" I-285 in NC.
QuoteBut there is a "Future" I-285 in NC.
Which came LONG after I-485 was designated.
and there is a "Future" I-785 as well.. both of them coming in the very far away future.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 10, 2011, 12:42:59 AM
one example of route numbering which does make sense, even though it is not the lowest available number, is Minnesota and Wisconsin's I-535. it likely took the number from the fact that it is completely multiplexed with US-53, with an eye towards the fact that it ends at WI-35.
I'm thinking I-705 in Tacoma may be a sim
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2011, 11:28:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
and states tend to use the lowest available number of the correct parity. Counterexamples are tough to find: Connecticut skipping 195, likely to avoid confusion with the RI/MA route; Georgia inexplicably skipping 116 and 316; California omitting 180 because it does not fit their numbering grid; and I'm sure there are other examples but they aren't common. Oh, AR's first x30 is 430; go figure.
With CT's 395, it enters MA so that was the lowest number available in MA.
Outliers that stand out as a higher number than what is available:
- I-710 in southern California (getting its numbering from former State Route 7, IIRC) when I-310 is available
I'm thinking I-705 in Tacoma might be a similar story.
I'm thinking this could be a fun topic in General Highways, if you're so inclined. So I set one up. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4738)
Just came through Des Moines last weekend on I-35 and saw a lot of dirt work at mm94 on the east side. Is this where the bypass will tie into I-35?
rte66man
According to Iowa DOT, it's for a new local interchange at NE 36th St to serve northern Ankeny.
Update from the Des Moines Register: Problems noted in beltway plan (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121121/NEWS/311210057/Problems-noted-beltway-plan)
In short, plans to upgrade US 65/IA 5 to I-335 or I-whatever-35 have hit a snag after an Iowa DOT study stated that about $23.5 million in upgrades would be needed. It's also going to cause access problems for farmers in the area since a minimum speed limit would need to be imposed. The old IA 46 bridge that crossed the Des Moines River just west of US 65 was removed in 1998, so the US 65 portion of the beltway has no minimum speed limit. This allows farm machinery to use that stretch of road.
I'm pretty sure that's just a state law that prohibits tractors on Interstates.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on May 09, 2011, 10:34:39 PM
But if you have the option of spreading out the numbers then why not? Some people could confuse two I-435 numbered highways.
I don't think the confusion is too much of a problem, given that they're so many miles apart.
But there are no cities in between, and residents of one frequently travel to or beyond the other. A driver from Minneapolis, going to Kansas, encounters only two cities in between–Des Moines and Kansas City. With such sparse population, they might reasonably have directions like 'South 35 to South 435 to West 70'.
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 01:30:45 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on May 09, 2011, 10:34:39 PM
But if you have the option of spreading out the numbers then why not? Some people could confuse two I-435 numbered highways.
I don't think the confusion is too much of a problem, given that they're so many miles apart.
But there are no cities in between, and residents of one frequently travel to or beyond the other. A driver from Minneapolis, going to Kansas, encounters only two cities in between–Des Moines and Kansas City. With such sparse population, they might reasonably have directions like 'South 35 to South 435 to West 70'.
I'm not convinced that this is given serious consideration when numbering 3DIs. On the relatively short (less than 90-minute) drive from Topeka, KS to Lee's Summit, MO, one will encounter two Interstates 470. Also, Oklahoma City and Wichita are about as far from each other as are Kansas City and Des Moines, and both Oklahoma City and Wichita have an I-235.
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 02, 2012, 12:06:19 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 01:30:45 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on May 09, 2011, 10:34:39 PM
But if you have the option of spreading out the numbers then why not? Some people could confuse two I-435 numbered highways.
I don't think the confusion is too much of a problem, given that they're so many miles apart.
But there are no cities in between, and residents of one frequently travel to or beyond the other. A driver from Minneapolis, going to Kansas, encounters only two cities in between–Des Moines and Kansas City. With such sparse population, they might reasonably have directions like 'South 35 to South 435 to West 70'.
I'm not convinced that this is given serious consideration when numbering 3DIs. On the relatively short (less than 90-minute) drive from Topeka, KS to Lee's Summit, MO, one will encounter two Interstates 470. Also, Oklahoma City and Wichita are about as far from each other as are Kansas City and Des Moines, and both Oklahoma City and Wichita have an I-235.
The two closest same-numbered signed 3dis I can think of would be the two I-291s, and the I-695s in Baltimore and Washington DC.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 02, 2012, 12:41:42 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 02, 2012, 12:06:19 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 01:30:45 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2011, 10:45:06 PM
Quote from: Zmapper on May 09, 2011, 10:34:39 PM
But if you have the option of spreading out the numbers then why not? Some people could confuse two I-435 numbered highways.
I don't think the confusion is too much of a problem, given that they're so many miles apart.
But there are no cities in between, and residents of one frequently travel to or beyond the other. A driver from Minneapolis, going to Kansas, encounters only two cities in between–Des Moines and Kansas City. With such sparse population, they might reasonably have directions like 'South 35 to South 435 to West 70'.
I'm not convinced that this is given serious consideration when numbering 3DIs. On the relatively short (less than 90-minute) drive from Topeka, KS to Lee's Summit, MO, one will encounter two Interstates 470. Also, Oklahoma City and Wichita are about as far from each other as are Kansas City and Des Moines, and both Oklahoma City and Wichita have an I-235.
The two closest same-numbered signed 3dis I can think of would be the two I-291s, and the I-695s in Baltimore and Washington DC.
And the I-395s in Baltimore and Washington. And the I-495s in Massachusetts and Maine. So many.
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 01:30:45 PM
But there are no cities in between, and residents of one frequently travel to or beyond the other. A driver from Minneapolis, going to Kansas, encounters only two cities in between–Des Moines and Kansas City. With such sparse population, they might reasonably have directions like 'South 35 to South 435 to West 70'.
But at least for now, said driver would not encounter a 'South 435' when traveling SB on I-35. If/when the new facility would make it to I-35 north of I-80, the Iowa DOT would just need to be careful with the control cities.
Quote from: Zmapper on May 09, 2011, 10:34:39 PM
But if you have the option of spreading out the numbers then why not? Some people could confuse two I-435 numbered highways.
If people don't confuse the two I-470s in Topeka and Kansas City, two I-435s farther apart shouldn't bother anyone.
While researching for an overhaul to the Interstate 235 page (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-235_ia.html) on Interstate-Guide, I ran across a 2014 Iowa Public Radio story (http://iowapublicradio.org/post/iowas-newest-interstate#stream/0) about the upgrade of the Des Moines outer beltway to an Interstate. The same issue that Jason wrote about up thread was mentioned about slow moving farm equipment using the freeway. With the recent approval of Interstate 555 thanks to an exemption for farm equipment using the stretch across the St. Francis River floodway, could something similar work for Iowa?
Farmers all gonna be farmin' with them new fangled drones purdy soon . . . .
:-D
I drove this road when I was up in Des Moines a couple of weeks ago. I didn't realize that this is being proposed as an interstate. It will be interesting to see what they plan on doing going forward.
Just throwing this out there, but if 335 and 435 don't work, how about 835? It's not being used anywhere else.
If they were to make the beltway an Interstate, they should also renumber the confusing exit sequence. It starts out with the mileage of state highway 5 and later gets the mileage of US 65. Exit 0 would be at Interstate 35, and they would count up from there.
I recall that 2014 article when it came out. Take note that area officials put a hold on the idea, pending more study. Given how heavily agricultural Iowa is (far moreso than northeastern Arkansas), I would hazard a bet that this won't happen.
The way to minimize numerical confusion would be to number it I-880. 235 and 880 have zero digits in common, making it easy to separate them in your mind. I will also accept 835. Note that Iowa doesn't have a 180 because each state on either side of Iowa has a 180. You don't see the expressway from Iowa City to Waterloo also carrying a 180 designation, do you? No, it's I-380. I think everyone here agrees, though, that an odd first digit is insane lol. I-540 in NC is irritating enough to me.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 18, 2016, 09:21:11 AM
I-540 in NC is irritating enough to me.
I-520 around Augusta is irritating too, but at least it exists in two states.
As for this beltway, I think I-835 would be perfect for it. It's the only even I-x35 that has yet to be used (I-235 in Des Moines and Wichita, I-435 in Kansas City and I-635 in Kansas City and Dallas).
QuoteNote that Iowa doesn't have a 180 because each state on either side of Iowa has a 180. You don't see the expressway from Iowa City to Waterloo also carrying a 180 designation, do you? No, it's I-380.
At the time I-380 came about, Iowa had an IA 180. They were well within their right to request 380 for the Interstate route.
It's seems more likely to me that this corridor will remain State Highway 5 and US 65.
I like 835 because it is a mashup of 80 and 35, the two interstates that it connects.
Quote from: Henry on March 18, 2016, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 18, 2016, 09:21:11 AM
I-540 in NC is irritating enough to me.
I-520 around Augusta is irritating too, but at least it exists in two states.
I-520 originally was a spur entirely in Georgia that ended at GA-28. Only much later was it extended to bypass Augusta.