:confused:
is this a common joke?
As much as any of us asking why isn't there a roadman 01, 02, 04,....etc. :poke:
To actually answer the question without being a smartass:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system
There are no interstates with those numbers simply because at the points in the grid that those numbers would occur, there is no current need for an Interstate designation. Should a need arise those numbers would be free to be assigned to the new highway.
Others: when someone has a valid (if somewhat "obvious" to us) question, actually be a decent person and answer the damned question instead of poking fun. This is a warning for the community–moderator action may occur in the future if another thread turns out like this one.
Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico all technically have an "Interstate 1," but they aren't really signed as such. A real Interstate 1 might become real if significant portions of US-101 are ever upgraded to interstate standards.
The other numbers that don't yet exist follow the same logic: If older highways were ever upgraded to interstate standards, those numbers are available for use.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 21, 2011, 06:16:18 PM
Others: when someone has a valid (if somewhat "obvious" to us) question, actually be a decent person and answer the damned question instead of poking fun. This is a warning for the community–moderator action may occur in the future if another thread turns out like this one.
I think we've all grown weary of the 13-year-old's incessant silly questions and hypotheticals, and this was a reaction to that.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2011, 11:02:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 21, 2011, 06:16:18 PM
Others: when someone has a valid (if somewhat "obvious" to us) question, actually be a decent person and answer the damned question instead of poking fun. This is a warning for the community–moderator action may occur in the future if another thread turns out like this one.
I think we've all grown weary of the 13-year-old's incessant silly questions and hypotheticals, and this was a reaction to that.
That is a completely different user.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 21, 2011, 11:40:39 PM
That is a completely different user.
it is two users who appear to have the same
modus operandi. I am comfortable not differentiating them until they demonstrate the ability to be differentiable.
as far as I can tell, they're both [redacted. Can we be a little less vituperative, please?] a fungible commodity.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 21, 2011, 11:47:19 PM
[redacted. Can we be a little less vituperative, please?]
I call 'em as I see 'em.
Quote from: Quillz on October 21, 2011, 06:53:17 PM
Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico all technically have an "Interstate 1," but they aren't really signed as such.
They have Interstates H-1, A-1, and PRI-1 respectively. Hawaii signs H-1 as such (usually omitting the hyphen), treating the "H" as part of the route number. Ditto H-2 and H-3. A-1 through A-4, and PRI-1 through PRI-3, are all unsigned.
Quote from: Roadman66 on October 21, 2011, 05:10:21 PM
:confused:
Part of the answer is as was suggested above.....there were enough gaps left for additional highways to be built and numbered as needed. Also, for the North-South part, '5' is the number for the longer highways (although I-45 is a notable exception) and when the grid was laid out back in the 105-s, the major roads were labelled as 'x5' routes and the rest filled in from there. Now, the big weakness of the original numbering set-up was a scarcity of numbers on the East side thus resulting in the atrociously placed I-99 between I-81 and I-79 in Pennsy (the only way this might fly would be if I-99 was extended south all along US 220 to its end point in the N Carolina and ended at I-95....or just east of there..
As for Interstate 5x routes, too many US 5x routes run amuck everywhere any I-5x routes may run, and as Fed policy generally forbids like numbered US and Interstate routes in the same State, that takes a few highway numbers off the board.
Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).
I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)
I don't see why everyone gets so worked up about I-99. 238, though, is completely anomalous. As is I(ntracounty)-97.
I'm thinking that this belongs in fictional highways.
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 22, 2011, 01:27:12 PM
I'm thinking that this belongs in fictional highways.
I'm thinking you're wrong. It was a question about the existing system and why certain numbers are omitted in that system, rather than a question about where a certain-numbered route (say, I-31) would be located if it were constructed or a suggestion like "I think VA-28 should be I-366." In other words, there's no discussion of fictional highways in this thread, at least not so far.
I believe another reason you don't see certain numbers, more in the middle (say 30-60) is to avoid duplication of US highways that were in existence when the Interstate system began being built. An I-50, for example, would be at the same point on the grid as US 50.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 21, 2011, 11:52:44 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 21, 2011, 11:47:19 PM
[redacted. Can we be a little less vituperative, please?]
I call 'em as I see 'em.
We can only hope you get some new eyewear before you use your phone again.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 22, 2011, 11:16:58 AM
I don't see why everyone gets so worked up about I-99. 238, though, is completely anomalous. As is I(ntracounty)-97.
I agree. I-99 doesn't bother me. I-238, on the other hand, annoys the crap out of me. And I-97 really ought to be a 3di.
Quote from: formulanone on October 22, 2011, 10:40:22 AM
Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).
I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.
In the unlikely chance that all 2di are used up, I think what will happen is the US route numbers will continue to exist, but just function like interstates.
Quote from: Quillz on October 23, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.
Wasted? What other good candidates are there for a future I-22 designation? And there is also always the possibility of a split designation, like I-76 and I-84.
What's the point of holding on to the numbers for future use if they are never used? Odds are we really won't see any true new-terrain interstate construction (I-69 being the exception); instead we will see reconstruction of existing roads.
Quote from: Quillz on October 23, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
Quote from: formulanone on October 22, 2011, 10:40:22 AM
Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).
I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.
In the unlikely chance that all 2di are used up, I think what will happen is the US route numbers will continue to exist, but just function like interstates.
Back in the days of the amended NMSL, when 65-mph speed limits were normally permitted only on rural Interstates, there was at least a legitimate reason for that practice. Nowadays, not so much (see also Maryland's decision not to post the I-595 designation on a portion of US-50).
It does continue to surprise me, however, that a fair number of people still tend to regard non-Interstates as somehow substandard or as an undesirable routing. I'm sure most of us can think of non-Interstates we've travelled that were better roads than some Interstates we've driven. But if there's evidence that drivers tend to opt for Interstates (and I don't know if there is), then I could certainly see a practical reason for this sort of re-numbering.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2011, 03:18:20 PM
It does continue to surprise me, however, that a fair number of people still tend to regard non-Interstates as somehow substandard or as an undesirable routing.
Wait... People actually think about their route? I thought they just plugged it in the GPS or Google.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2011, 03:18:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 23, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
Quote from: formulanone on October 22, 2011, 10:40:22 AM
Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).
I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.
In the unlikely chance that all 2di are used up, I think what will happen is the US route numbers will continue to exist, but just function like interstates.
Back in the days of the amended NMSL, when 65-mph speed limits were normally permitted only on rural Interstates, there was at least a legitimate reason for that practice. Nowadays, not so much (see also Maryland's decision not to post the I-595 designation on a portion of US-50).
It does continue to surprise me, however, that a fair number of people still tend to regard non-Interstates as somehow substandard or as an undesirable routing. I'm sure most of us can think of non-Interstates we've travelled that were better roads than some Interstates we've driven. But if there's evidence that drivers tend to opt for Interstates (and I don't know if there is), then I could certainly see a practical reason for this sort of re-numbering.
Doesn't surprise me at all: People know, even if they're on the other side of the country from home, that the Interstate marker means freeway. (Unless they're in Cheyenne, or on the New Jersey side of the Holland Tunnel.)
Incidentally, the "amended NMSL" is cited in the thread I started on what-the-f***-US-51-is-doing-on-an-Illinois-Tollway: someone theorized that Illinois wanted to make the freeway from Rockford to Bloomington US 51 but needed an Interstate designation for the sake of the 65-m.p.h. limit.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 23, 2011, 05:33:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2011, 03:18:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 23, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
Quote from: formulanone on October 22, 2011, 10:40:22 AM
Personally, I think they'll just use continue to use numbers in any way that fits the grid, and failing that, whatever number they like (or best suits the community).
I know, I'm basically asking for excommunication from these boards by stating that I-99 and I-238 are basically non-issues to me, but it's entirely possible that the system will run out of two-digit numbers. (Of course, until 12 months ago, I still thought nearly every 2di US Route and Interstate was used...that's where this forum has been a great help towards repelling my occassional bouts of ignorance.)
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.
In the unlikely chance that all 2di are used up, I think what will happen is the US route numbers will continue to exist, but just function like interstates.
Back in the days of the amended NMSL, when 65-mph speed limits were normally permitted only on rural Interstates, there was at least a legitimate reason for that practice. Nowadays, not so much (see also Maryland's decision not to post the I-595 designation on a portion of US-50).
It does continue to surprise me, however, that a fair number of people still tend to regard non-Interstates as somehow substandard or as an undesirable routing. I'm sure most of us can think of non-Interstates we've travelled that were better roads than some Interstates we've driven. But if there's evidence that drivers tend to opt for Interstates (and I don't know if there is), then I could certainly see a practical reason for this sort of re-numbering.
Doesn't surprise me at all: People know, even if they're on the other side of the country from home, that the Interstate marker means freeway. (Unless they're in Cheyenne, or on the New Jersey side of the Holland Tunnel.)
Incidentally, the "amended NMSL" is cited in the thread I started on what-the-f***-US-51-is-doing-on-an-Illinois-Tollway: someone theorized that Illinois wanted to make the freeway from Rockford to Bloomington US 51 but needed an Interstate designation for the sake of the 65-m.p.h. limit.
Not theorized, that's why I-39 (and I-88 W) exist. Otherwise, they'd have been US-51 and IL-5. It was in how the NMSL was amended in the 1980s for 65 mph. That was restricted to interstates only.
^^Sorry, I was quoting (or paraphrasing) from memory.
This is also the reason for I-335's existence. Before that NMSL amendment, KTA was perfectly content with that section of the turnpike being branded as only the Turnpike.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 23, 2011, 11:40:05 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 23, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.
Wasted? What other good candidates are there for a future I-22 designation? And there is also always the possibility of a split designation, like I-76 and I-84.
What's the point of holding on to the numbers for future use if they are never used? Odds are we really won't see any true new-terrain interstate construction (I-69 being the exception); instead we will see reconstruction of existing roads.
I don't like split designations, either.
Personally, I never saw the need to move away from suffixed routes. I don't think many people really would have confused I-80 for I-80N. Had suffixed routes been given some more guidelines (perhaps cap their length to around 500 miles or so), perhaps they could have still been around today.
Quote from: Quillz on October 24, 2011, 04:20:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 23, 2011, 11:40:05 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 23, 2011, 06:45:37 AM
This is why I'm against the seemingly "requirement" to renumber upgraded US routes to Interstate highways. Case in point, the future Interstate 22: That number is now wasted, because apparently, simply leaving US-78 as an interstate quality highway wasn't good enough. It had to be renumbered.
Wasted? What other good candidates are there for a future I-22 designation? And there is also always the possibility of a split designation, like I-76 and I-84.
What's the point of holding on to the numbers for future use if they are never used? Odds are we really won't see any true new-terrain interstate construction (I-69 being the exception); instead we will see reconstruction of existing roads.
I don't like split designations, either.
Personally, I never saw the need to move away from suffixed routes. I don't think many people really would have confused I-80 for I-80N. Had suffixed routes been given some more guidelines (perhaps cap their length to around 500 miles or so), perhaps they could have still been around today.
I used to think about suffixed routes a fair bit due to the way the Capital Beltway here in the DC area is numbered. Everyone knows how the planned I-95 through the District was deleted in the 1970s and was re-routed onto the eastern half of the Beltway. For many years that eastern half was numbered solely as I-95 and the western half was solely I-495. Apparently a lot of people found this confusing for whatever reason and the eastern side was eventually signed with both numbers, but I always thought it might have made more sense to make an exception to the "no suffixes" rule and sign it as I-95W and I-95E, with the idea being that it underscores to the unfamiliar motorist that both directions go to the same place,* such that if you're in the wrong lane you need not bomb across five lanes of traffic to get to the "correct" half of the Beltway. (Of course, I also recognize that here in the DC area there are some legitimate reasons for wanting the eastern side of the Beltway to be the primary thru route due to a fairly twisty section in Maryland and another narrower section just west of there, and suffixed numbers would take away from the idea of the eastern side being the "preferred" long-distance route. That's a valid point.)
In the same vein, that line of thought then led me to ponder the notion that the New Jersey Turnpike's northern end, where it splits into the Eastern and Western Spurs, could quite logically be signed as I-95E and I-95W, again under the same principle of reassuring the unfamiliar motorist that both routes will indeed get you to the GW Bridge regardless of whether one route is "preferred."
Hmm, as I chew on this a few other thoughts are crossing my mind, but I want to develop them more fully in my head before I try to describe them here.
*While I suppose it's true that if you go the other way around I-495 you'll find your way back, the motorist unfamiliar with the area doesn't necessarily know that the distances are roughly the same and might think there's an important reason why he needs to use the eastern half, setting aside temporary factors like road construction in Virginia or seasonal factors like Christmas-shopping traffic near Tysons Corner. In other words, I'm positing that while the even-numbered 3di does denote a loop route, the presence of the 2di number on a portion of the 3di loop changes the situation.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 21, 2011, 06:16:18 PM
To actually answer the question without being a smartass:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system
There are no interstates with those numbers simply because at the points in the grid that those numbers would occur, there is no current need for an Interstate designation. Should a need arise those numbers would be free to be assigned to the new highway.
Others: when someone has a valid (if somewhat "obvious" to us) question, actually be a decent person and answer the damned question instead of poking fun. This is a warning for the community–moderator action may occur in the future if another thread turns out like this one.
True we need to be more "sensible" when answering questions, but look at the bright side of the sarcastic remarks. If they had not been made, he would have asked more questions like how come there is no NY 17D, 17E, 17F, etc. or even ask why US 9W is instead of NY 9W. Obviously that would be next considering he wanted to know why there were missing letters on streets in Brooklyn and then this.
Even though these guys were silly in responses, they did have a point themselves about some people not wording their questions properly.
There is Interstate 2 Planned in Texas.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on June 12, 2014, 12:06:51 PM
There is Interstate 2 Planned in Texas.
Not "planned" anymore. It's there already.
There is a new I-2 in Texas
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on June 12, 2014, 12:06:51 PM
There is Interstate 2 Planned in Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2)]
More like Intrastate 2 :-D !
We'll see more interstate designations get used - Texas and North Carolina have been rather aggressive about building freeways, and are at places in the grid where free numbers are plentiful.
It is probably nothing more than envy, but there's also a connotation that a 2di is "major" and a 3di is not. Some places are already pushing for 2-digit numbers before the 3-digit signs go up (looking at you Owensboro, KY).
Quote from: tidecat on June 12, 2014, 11:02:17 PM
We'll see more interstate designations get used - Texas and North Carolina have been rather aggressive about building freeways, and are at places in the grid where free numbers are plentiful.
And they still built I-74...
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 23, 2011, 05:33:34 PM(Unless they're in Cheyenne, or on the New Jersey side of the Holland Tunnel.)
Or Breezewood.
Quote from: 1 on June 13, 2014, 02:25:15 PM
Quote from: tidecat on June 12, 2014, 11:02:17 PM
We'll see more interstate designations get used - Texas and North Carolina have been rather aggressive about building freeways, and are at places in the grid where free numbers are plentiful.
And they still built I-74...
And I-69W/C/E
I-2 Does exist in Texas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2
But for I-1 that could not exist unless Caltrans decides to convert all of CA-1 or all of US-101 to meet interstate standards. However that could never happen.
I-7 and I-9 has been talked about among roadgeeks for CA-99 but there is no concrete evidence about this change.
I-1 does exist as I-H1 in Oahu.
Quote from: bing101 on June 13, 2014, 08:33:51 PM
I-1 does exist as I-H1 in Oahu.
I honestly would not count the prefixed interstates in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico as part of the grid system.
If you did then you would have to 2's. I-H2 and I-2. :colorful:
An I-1 could theoretically exist in Washington and/or Oregon with no input from Caltrans needed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
An I-1 could theoretically exist in Washington and/or Oregon with no input from Caltrans needed.
Or Alaska... :spin:
Now with I-41 being applied to part of US 41 where freeway in WI, now if Caltran wanted to apply the name I-1 to all freeway parts of CA 1, I am sure it will be done by AASHTO.
Whenever something new comes out, a precedent is set, such as I-99 being signed into law setting the way for the feds to bring back suffix routes that were once banned.
Quote from: bing101 on June 13, 2014, 08:33:51 PM
But for I-1 that could not exist unless Caltrans decides to convert all of CA-1 or all of US-101 to meet interstate standards. However that could never happen.
You're right, CalTrans wouldn't renumber CA-1. But they might renumber US-101 from L.A. to somewhere in the S.F. Bay Area as I-3. There's only a few spots left in that part of 101 that don't meet interstate standards.
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2014, 11:57:04 AM
Quote from: bing101 on June 13, 2014, 08:33:51 PM
But for I-1 that could not exist unless Caltrans decides to convert all of CA-1 or all of US-101 to meet interstate standards. However that could never happen.
You're right, CalTrans wouldn't renumber CA-1. But they might renumber US-101 from L.A. to somewhere in the S.F. Bay Area as I-3. There's only a few spots left in that part of 101 that don't meet interstate standards.
Surprisingly more spots than one would think of immediately: while there are indeed no stoplights between South Van Ness Avenue/Duboce Avenue in SF and the south terminus, the Prunedale stretch still has quite a few at-grades. I THINK there's work right now to close the freeway gap between Ventura and Santa Barbara though.
For the most part, the way the grid is set up allows for numbered routes that fit the grid nicely, with wide spaces between the primary ones (those that end in 0 and 5). While it's true that not everything needs an Interstate, it would be fun to ponder what various places that currently do not have a direct connection to the system could use one someday. Which is why fictional freeways have become very popular in the roadgeek world. Sadly, there most likely will never be an I-50 or I-60, because they would conflict with US routes of the same number; however, if they could get away with having I-41/US 41 and I-74/US 74, then maybe the aforementioned two routes may have a chance, however little it may be.
They don't exist because they were never built. What kind of question is this?
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 02:38:51 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2014, 11:57:04 AM
You're right, CalTrans wouldn't renumber CA-1. But they might renumber US-101 from L.A. to somewhere in the S.F. Bay Area as I-3. There's only a few spots left in that part of 101 that don't meet interstate standards.
Surprisingly more spots than one would think of immediately: while there are indeed no stoplights between South Van Ness Avenue/Duboce Avenue in SF and the south terminus, the Prunedale stretch still has quite a few at-grades. I THINK there's work right now to close the freeway gap between Ventura and Santa Barbara though.
Even some of the freeway sections might be short of Interstate-grade, and hard to fix. For example, Caltrans had a devil of a time getting rid of the at-grades in Santa Barbara. I suspect (though can't point to specific examples) that Interstate standards fell by the wayside just to upgrade the old divided highway through Santa Barbara to something meeting minimal freeway standards.
Quote from: oscar on June 17, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
I suspect (though can't point to specific examples) that Interstate standards fell by the wayside just to upgrade the old divided highway through Santa Barbara to something meeting minimal freeway standards.
The left exits off US 101 at old Route 225 (Cabrillo Boulevard) probably are the most obvious spot for substandard design:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Coast+Village+Road,+Santa+Barbara,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.422832,-119.653924&spn=0.006301,0.008014&sll=34.421779,-119.648838&sspn=0.012603,0.016029&oq=Coast+Village+Road,+Sa&t=h&hnear=Coast+Village+Rd,+Santa+Barbara,+California&z=17
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 03:23:38 PM
Quote from: oscar on June 17, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
I suspect (though can't point to specific examples) that Interstate standards fell by the wayside just to upgrade the old divided highway through Santa Barbara to something meeting minimal freeway standards.
The left exits off US 101 at old Route 225 (Cabrillo Boulevard) probably are the most obvious spot for substandard design:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Coast+Village+Road,+Santa+Barbara,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.422832,-119.653924&spn=0.006301,0.008014&sll=34.421779,-119.648838&sspn=0.012603,0.016029&oq=Coast+Village+Road,+Sa&t=h&hnear=Coast+Village+Rd,+Santa+Barbara,+California&z=17
Substandard just because it's a left exit? I wish I had a dollar for every left exit off an interstate I've taken...
It looks like at that exit there would be enough space in the ROW to build a new overpass for the mainline and put the exits to the sides, if that's really necessary. The exit would have to be closed for a while during construction.
Prunedale would be a bigger challenge.
Quote from: oscar on June 17, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 02:38:51 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2014, 11:57:04 AM
You're right, CalTrans wouldn't renumber CA-1. But they might renumber US-101 from L.A. to somewhere in the S.F. Bay Area as I-3. There's only a few spots left in that part of 101 that don't meet interstate standards.
Surprisingly more spots than one would think of immediately: while there are indeed no stoplights between South Van Ness Avenue/Duboce Avenue in SF and the south terminus, the Prunedale stretch still has quite a few at-grades. I THINK there's work right now to close the freeway gap between Ventura and Santa Barbara though.
Even some of the freeway sections might be short of Interstate-grade, and hard to fix. For example, Caltrans had a devil of a time getting rid of the at-grades in Santa Barbara. I suspect (though can't point to specific examples) that Interstate standards fell by the wayside just to upgrade the old divided highway through Santa Barbara to something meeting minimal freeway standards.
Wait I-3 Cannot exist until Ca-3 is renumbered.
Or I-9 Cannot exist until CA-9 in Los Gatos is made a county route or a new State route number either CA-21 or CA-141.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_3
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2014, 04:13:38 PM
Substandard just because it's a left exit? I wish I had a dollar for every left exit off an interstate I've taken...
How many of those were constructed after 1970 though?
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2014, 04:13:38 PM
It looks like at that exit there would be enough space in the ROW to build a new overpass for the mainline and put the exits to the sides, if that's really necessary. The exit would have to be closed for a while during construction.
I'm not sure the ROW is as big as it looks on paper - the Montecito area is notoriously NIMBY and I recall that contributed to how long (until 1992!) it took for the 101 stoplights to finally be removed in that area. Seems like one of those "this is the only way we can get it built here" compromises.
Quote from: bing101Wait I-3 Cannot exist until Ca-3 is renumbered.
Or I-9 Cannot exist until CA-9 in Los Gatos is made a county route or a new State route number either CA-21 or CA-141.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_3
California has already bandied about the idea of Route 99 becoming and Interstate, and with 11 accounted for in Nevada/Arizona, 7 and 9 are the only options. Renumbering to accommodate a future Interstate route is not new (it happened most notably in the 1950s with Route 10/Firestone Boulevard in Inglewood becoming Route 42, and in the 1964 renumbering); at least 7 is a very short border connector in the southern part of the state.
US 101 was submitted as a possible Interstate back in the late 1940s/early 1950s (though not accepted), and at one point, I-405 was submitted as I-3 (ca. 1958) which AASHO rejected. (To be fair, both of those happened while 3 was not in use in the system, the 1934 Route 3 having become Alternate US 101 at that point)
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 06:36:45 PM(it happened most notably in the 1950s with Route 10/Firestone Boulevard in Inglewood becoming Route 42, and in the 1964 renumbering)
do you know what year 10 was renumbered? I know it was definitely renumbered by 1962 as I have a photo from that year of a brand new green sigh with a white 42 shield.
also, what about 5 (Skyline Blvd.) and 15 (Atlantic Ave.)? I think the 10 swap was expedited because of the proximity of the two routes - were the two 15s considered closeby? 5 and 5 were fairly far apart and likely could have coexisted like 40 and 40, or 80 and 80.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 17, 2014, 06:57:27 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 06:36:45 PM(it happened most notably in the 1950s with Route 10/Firestone Boulevard in Inglewood becoming Route 42, and in the 1964 renumbering)
do you know what year 10 was renumbered? I know it was definitely renumbered by 1962 as I have a photo from that year of a brand new green sigh with a white 42 shield.
I WANT to say ca. 1959 but don't quote me on that. In 1957 it was still 10:
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/212948/Page+056/Los+Angeles+County+1957+Street+Atlas/California/
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 17, 2014, 06:57:27 PM
also, what about 5 (Skyline Blvd.) and 15 (Atlantic Ave.)? I think the 10 swap was expedited because of the proximity of the two routes - were the two 15s considered closeby? 5 and 5 were fairly far apart and likely could have coexisted like 40 and 40, or 80 and 80.
5 and 15 (which was already on the Long Beach Freeway at this point) both were switches made in the 1964 renumbering.
Quote from: bing101 on June 17, 2014, 04:56:49 PM
Wait I-3 Cannot exist until Ca-3 is renumbered.
Obviously. Perhaps CA-333?
Quote
Or I-9 Cannot exist until CA-9 in Los Gatos is made a county route or a new State route number either CA-21 or CA-141.
I would suggest CA-239. CA-239 is a legislative route elsewhere in California, but it's unconstructed and not likely to be constructed in the near future, so I see nothing wrong with using it for CA-9. CA-239 would make a nice series alongside CA-238 and CA-237, which also began as parts of CA-9 and have had their numbers changed.
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2014, 07:55:45 PM
Obviously. Perhaps CA-333?
given the precedent of 330 and 371, the implication is that 3 would be renumbered to 303.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 06:36:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2014, 04:13:38 PM
Substandard just because it's a left exit? I wish I had a dollar for every left exit off an interstate I've taken...
How many of those were constructed after 1970 though?
Far fewer, true. Freeway construction in the U.S. generally slowed way down after 1970.
Quote
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2014, 04:13:38 PM
It looks like at that exit there would be enough space in the ROW to build a new overpass for the mainline and put the exits to the sides, if that's really necessary. The exit would have to be closed for a while during construction.
I'm not sure the ROW is as big as it looks on paper - the Montecito area is notoriously NIMBY and I recall that contributed to how long (until 1992!) it took for the 101 stoplights to finally be removed in that area. Seems like one of those "this is the only way we can get it built here" compromises.
If there's space for the mainlines on the sides and the exit ramps in the center, there ought to be space for them swapped. It's just a small matter of constructing it while keeping the road open. :nod:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 17, 2014, 06:57:27 PM
do you know what year 10 was renumbered? I know it was definitely renumbered by 1962 as I have a photo from that year of a brand new green sigh with a white 42 shield.
1961 RMcN shows it as CA 10
Mapmikey
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2014, 04:13:38 PM
Prunedale would be a bigger challenge.
Agreed. Delving into the details of current efforts to upgrade this section of 101: Some projects are underway now to improve US 101 near Prunedale (a large segment north of Salinas is due for completion in 2015), but even it won't be sufficient to bring 101 up to Interstate standards through Prunedale. And the section of 101-156 leading north from Prunedale through the eucalyptus woodland would require substantial improvements to bring it to Interstate freeway standards. This is not impossible, mind you, but it would cost quite a bit of money.
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/programs/hwyproj/us101_prunedale.html
QuoteThe Prunedale Improvement Project is constructing three new interchanges / overpasses along US 101 through North Monterey County at: Russell/Espinosa, Blackie/Reese, and Crazy Horse Canyon/Echo Valley Roads. The project will also close the remaining gaps in the concrete median barrier from Crazy Horse Canyon to Russell/Espinosa, resulting in one continuous barrier. Additional Improvements are also being made to the San Miguel flyover and to local roads throughout the corridor to improve access and local circulation.
The project started construction in 2011 and, as of fall 2013, is about 80 percent complete.
The Prunedale Bypass remains a separate project that remains on the table yet is currently unfunded per the project's FAQ page: http://pipinfo.blogspot.com/p/pip-faqs.html
Quote4. Has the original Prunedale Bypass plan been abandoned?
Funding for the larger Prunedale Freeway Project is a challenge. The Prunedale Freeway Project, which includes the bypass as an alternative, has not been abandoned and has been identified as the next phase of improvements to Route 101 in the Prunedale area.
A separate project that began in 2013 will remove intersections near the red barn area (which is known to anyone who's driven this stretch of 101):
Quote8. Why doesn't this project extend to the sometimes very heavily congested area near the Red Barn?
Throughout the Route 101 corridor, there are areas where need for improvement has been identified. The San Juan Road area has a high crash history and very high traffic volumes of over 63,000 vehicles a day. The 101/San Juan Road Interchange Project will remove three at-grade intersections (Dunbarton Road, San Juan Road and Cole Road) and construct one interchange near the Red Barn. The new interchange will help improve safety and reduce the congestion along this heavily traveled stretch of Highway 101. This project is expected to begin construction in 2013.
The San Juan Road interchange is slated for completion in January 2015 (connecting with the Prunedale project to the south) and has its own webpage at: http://www.tamcmonterey.org/programs/hwyproj/us101_SanJuanRd.html
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 02:38:51 PM
I THINK there's work right now to close the freeway gap between Ventura and Santa Barbara though.
Yes, you are correct. A carpool lane is being added between these points, and the project will remove the at-grade intersection leading into La Conchita, a small community located just west of Ventura (and site of a large-scale landslide disaster back in 2004-5). The project to expand 101 to six lanes and eliminate at-grade crossings is a long-term project about halfway through its projected 15-year term as noted on the project webpage:
http://sbroads.com/improving_101.html
QuoteThe good news for motorists and truckers traveling on U.S. 101 is that construction has begun to add northbound and southbound High Occupancy Vehicle (carpool) lanes to the most congested corridor on the Central Coast of California, between Mussel Shoals in Ventura County and the city of Santa Barbara. Upon completion of the project, this 16 mile corridor will be expanded from four to six lanes and be a part of a continuous 40 mile, six lane highway, extending from the city of Ventura in Ventura County to the city of Goleta in Santa Barbara County. The carpool lanes will be the first ever opened on the Central Coast of California.
QuoteThe bad news for motorists is that construction of the expansion project will take an estimated fifteen years to complete. Because of its length and expense, the sixteen mile widening project will be delivered in four phases, with an estimated total cost of nearly $690 million. The project will be funded by $140 million from Measure A, Santa Barbara County's transportation sales tax, and $550 million in state and federal funding.
The project is a collaborative effort between Caltrans, the owner-operator of the highway, the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), the primary funding partner, and the local jurisdictions adjacent to the highway including the city of Santa Barbara, city of Carpinteria and County of Santa Barbara.
The eight cities in the county, the County of Santa Barbara, and SBCAG have adopted positions supporting the US 101 HOV widening as our region's highest priority transportation project for federal funding.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 07:09:51 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 17, 2014, 06:57:27 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 06:36:45 PM(it happened most notably in the 1950s with Route 10/Firestone Boulevard in Inglewood becoming Route 42, and in the 1964 renumbering)
do you know what year 10 was renumbered? I know it was definitely renumbered by 1962 as I have a photo from that year of a brand new green sigh with a white 42 shield.
I WANT to say ca. 1959 but don't quote me on that. In 1957 it was still 10:
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/212948/Page+056/Los+Angeles+County+1957+Street+Atlas/California/
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 17, 2014, 06:57:27 PM
also, what about 5 (Skyline Blvd.) and 15 (Atlantic Ave.)? I think the 10 swap was expedited because of the proximity of the two routes - were the two 15s considered closeby? 5 and 5 were fairly far apart and likely could have coexisted like 40 and 40, or 80 and 80.
5 and 15 (which was already on the Long Beach Freeway at this point) both were switches made in the 1964 renumbering.
My understanding is that SR 5, SR 8, and SR 15 were all renumbered to prevent duplication of the Interstate route numbers elsewhere in the state. So SR 5 became SR 35, SR 8 became SR 26, and SR 15 became SR 7 which became I-710.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
An I-1 could theoretically exist in Washington and/or Oregon with no input from Caltrans needed.
Even though this may be controversial, I would actually be in favor of I-1 being used instead of I-101 for a potential East Coast highway. I have yet to hear how a 3di spawn of a hypothetical I-101 would be numbered. Of course, the problem would then be similar to that of I-50 and I-60 with US routes of the same number, but I'd really hope that drivers are intelligent enough to know the difference between a road that has a blue/red shield with limited access and a road that has a black/white shield with traffic lights.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 18, 2014, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
An I-1 could theoretically exist in Washington and/or Oregon with no input from Caltrans needed.
Even though this may be controversial, I would actually be in favor of I-1 being used instead of I-101 for a potential East Coast highway. I have yet to hear how a 3di spawn of a hypothetical I-101 would be numbered. Of course, the problem would then be similar to that of I-50 and I-60 with US routes of the same number, but I'd really hope that drivers are intelligent enough to know the difference between a road that has a blue/red shield with limited access and a road that has a black/white shield with traffic lights.
Is there a 2di proposal that might actually be built extending most of the way up and down the east coast, east of I-95? If it only goes through a few states, a 3di would be a better way to number it.
I-101 as a pretend 2di would have some problems. As you say, no way to number its 3di branches.
I-1 on the east coast would be completely out of the grid, as well as causing re-use of route number 1, which exists as US-1 in the east coast states.
Reusing a route number for different categories of routes within the same state causes confusion in many different ways. Sure, when you see the route sign, it's easy to tell. But just look through the signage errors threads for all the times contractors and even DOTs have been confused enough to post the wrong sign. Then think about directions given over the phone, and all the times people casually leave out the "I" or "US" and just say "route".
By the way, there are plenty of US routes with freeway sections.
QuoteIs there a 2di proposal that might actually be built extending most of the way up and down the east coast, east of I-95?
No. Was studied by VDOT in 2006, but the short conclusion was a combination of lack of interest and no money to do it.
Quote from: froggie on June 18, 2014, 10:35:11 AM
QuoteIs there a 2di proposal that might actually be built extending most of the way up and down the east coast, east of I-95?
No. Was studied by VDOT in 2006, but the short conclusion was a combination of lack of interest and no money to do it.
You have a lot more experience with US 13 than I do, but during the times I've driven it, I haven't found the traffic lights to be that much of a slowdown so as to necessitate an interstate on the peninsula.
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2014, 10:21:33 AM
Reusing a route number for different categories of routes within the same state causes confusion in many different ways. Sure, when you see the route sign, it's easy to tell. But just look through the signage errors threads for all the times contractors and even DOTs have been confused enough to post the wrong sign. Then think about directions given over the phone, and all the times people casually leave out the "I" or "US" and just say "route".
Or, as many people in NJ prefer to say it: "<number>". No route, no highway, I, US, whatever. In fact, the only time I've heard "Route" is referring to a US Highway.
Quote from: kkt on June 18, 2014, 10:21:33 AM
Reusing a route number for different categories of routes within the same state causes confusion in many different ways. Sure, when you see the route sign, it's easy to tell. But just look through the signage errors threads for all the times contractors and even DOTs have been confused enough to post the wrong sign. Then think about directions given over the phone, and all the times people casually leave out the "I" or "US" and just say "route".
And the fact that the interstate shield has become synonymous with road trips in people's minds, even though most people's idea of a road trip is historic US 66. Lots of merchandising with I shields next to rural two lane roads for that reason.
Quote from: andy3175 on June 18, 2014, 12:15:35 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 02:38:51 PM
I THINK there's work right now to close the freeway gap between Ventura and Santa Barbara though.
Yes, you are correct. A carpool lane is being added between these points, and the project will remove the at-grade intersection leading into La Conchita, a small community located just west of Ventura (and site of a large-scale landslide disaster back in 2004-5). The project to expand 101 to six lanes and eliminate at-grade crossings is a long-term project about halfway through its projected 15-year term as noted on the project webpage:
http://sbroads.com/improving_101.html
QuoteThe good news for motorists and truckers traveling on U.S. 101 is that construction has begun to add northbound and southbound High Occupancy Vehicle (carpool) lanes to the most congested corridor on the Central Coast of California, between Mussel Shoals in Ventura County and the city of Santa Barbara. Upon completion of the project, this 16 mile corridor will be expanded from four to six lanes and be a part of a continuous 40 mile, six lane highway, extending from the city of Ventura in Ventura County to the city of Goleta in Santa Barbara County. The carpool lanes will be the first ever opened on the Central Coast of California.
QuoteThe bad news for motorists is that construction of the expansion project will take an estimated fifteen years to complete. Because of its length and expense, the sixteen mile widening project will be delivered in four phases, with an estimated total cost of nearly $690 million. The project will be funded by $140 million from Measure A, Santa Barbara County's transportation sales tax, and $550 million in state and federal funding.
The project is a collaborative effort between Caltrans, the owner-operator of the highway, the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), the primary funding partner, and the local jurisdictions adjacent to the highway including the city of Santa Barbara, city of Carpinteria and County of Santa Barbara.
The eight cities in the county, the County of Santa Barbara, and SBCAG have adopted positions supporting the US 101 HOV widening as our region's highest priority transportation project for federal funding.
In my mind, it's a bad place for an HOV lane. It doesn't connect to any other HOV lane. In LA, the US 101 corridor is one of the few corridors that is not slated to ever have an HOV lane. Plus, most of the rest of the road through the area, already is 3 lanes. So this expansion shouldn't be thought of as a mere expansion, it's really a correction of a long-held bottleneck that should have been replaced years ago and should be 3 GPLs.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 18, 2014, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
An I-1 could theoretically exist in Washington and/or Oregon with no input from Caltrans needed.
Even though this may be controversial, I would actually be in favor of I-1 being used instead of I-101 for a potential East Coast highway. I have yet to hear how a 3di spawn of a hypothetical I-101 would be numbered. Of course, the problem would then be similar to that of I-50 and I-60 with US routes of the same number, but I'd really hope that drivers are intelligent enough to know the difference between a road that has a blue/red shield with limited access and a road that has a black/white shield with traffic lights.
I'd hope so too, but this sign I've passed many times in Maryland strongly leads me to conclude otherwise:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland070/i-070_wb_exit_018_03.jpg)
I'm sure the reason is exactly what others have said: People are given directions along the lines of, "Take 70 west to 68 and follow that to 219." So they see the "68" on the state route shield and assume that's the road they need. Stuff like this is one reason I've always thought when you give directions you should try to include multiple pieces of information, such as "Take I-70 west past Hancock and look for the left-side exit for I-68 towards Cumberland. Take that exit and follow I-68 a really long time beyond Cumberland and Frostburg to the exit for US-219 south towards Oakland." (If I know the exit numbers I will throw those in as well.) In the I-70/I-68 case, since I know about the state route I might add, "You will see an exit for Maryland Route 68 towards Clear Spring. That's the wrong road, so don't exit there."
I think the sign shown above would be more useful if it referred to I-68 west towards Cumberland rather than the unnecessary "National Freeway" reference. The person who gets confused over which "68" he needs won't find the two different shields and "National Freeway" particularly helpful.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 18, 2014, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
An I-1 could theoretically exist in Washington and/or Oregon with no input from Caltrans needed.
Even though this may be controversial, I would actually be in favor of I-1 being used instead of I-101 for a potential East Coast highway. I have yet to hear how a 3di spawn of a hypothetical I-101 would be numbered. Of course, the problem would then be similar to that of I-50 and I-60 with US routes of the same number, but I'd really hope that drivers are intelligent enough to know the difference between a road that has a blue/red shield with limited access and a road that has a black/white shield with traffic lights.
US 1 has many freeway segments. In just the area I live, there is the Roosevelt Expressway in Philadelphia, the Trenton Freeway in Trenton, and the Pulaski Skyway in northeast NJ. Other US routes have much longer freeway segments, witness US 30 and US 202.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyeongbu_Expressway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyeongbu_Expressway)
Interstate 1 exists but you have to be in South Korea to drive there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeongdong_Expressway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeongdong_Expressway)
Interstate 50 does exist too but its in South Korea.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=856391781057037&set=a.856391767723705.1073741929.100000586708549&type=1&theater
Yes I photoshop this via aaroads shield generator
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=856391791057036&set=a.856391767723705.1073741929.100000586708549&type=1&theater
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 26, 2014, 10:49:52 AM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 18, 2014, 09:53:23 AM
but I'd really hope that drivers are intelligent enough to know the difference between a road that has a blue/red shield with limited access and a road that has a black/white shield with traffic lights.
I'd hope so too, but this sign I've passed many times in Maryland strongly leads me to conclude otherwise:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland070/i-070_wb_exit_018_03.jpg)
That is, I think, a good sign patching over a dumb route number. (And I don't think "National Freeway" is unnecessary because it emphasizes that I-68 is a
freeway, which is what most people would be looking for.)
If you look at the "Erroneous Road Signs" thread, DOTs and their contractors frequently mess up route classifications. And if they can't keep it straight, it should no be surprise the general public is sometimes confused.
Some states like California have a "one road, one number" system. I-210 and CA-210 are the same road and, as a driver, I really don't care what the bureaucratic limbo reasons are for one shield or another. Then I show up in Maryland and they have a completely different 68? I would have a right to be confused.
Quote from: flowmotion on June 27, 2014, 04:54:19 AM
....
That is, I think, a good sign patching over a dumb route number. (And I don't think "National Freeway" is unnecessary because it emphasizes that I-68 is a freeway, which is what most people would be looking for.)
....
Only thing is, though, most people on the East Coast don't use the word "freeway" in the generic sense in the way people in California use it. I'm not sure in this context the word "freeway" offers any better reinforcement than simply listing Cumberland and maybe Morgantown (the only two major municipalities I-68 passes along its brief length). No doubt part of the idea, though, is that they want to promote it as a thru route for longer-distance traffic. Elsewhere there's another sign recommending I-68 as an "alternate route" to Ohio and points west ("alternate" clearly referring to the "traditional" Pennsylvania Turnpike routing), so I'm sure there's a concern that listing control cities on this sort of sign might cause some people to think I-68 is a route for local traffic.
I guess what I'm saying is while I can kind of understand their thinking, I have never once heard anybody (BGSs don't count) refer to I-68 as the "National Freeway" aside from in forum posts such as this one. My point is simply this: If, as is likely the case, the sign was posted because of people who were exiting at Clear Spring onto the state route when they were seeking the Interstate because someone had told them to "take 70 west to 68," a sign that merely uses route shields without more is not likely to help those people in any great way because they probably didn't realize they were seeking an Interstate (because I think most people at least recognize the Interstate shield, even if they proceed to mess up the directions anyway!).
Edited to add: In other words, my point is simply that while the sign is well-intentioned and the people who posted it had the right idea, the sign could probably be made more helpful given that it's obviously directed at people who are unfamiliar with the roads in the area.
Quote from: bing101 on June 26, 2014, 07:09:47 PM
Interstate 1 exists but you have to be in South Korea to drive there.
Interstate 50 does exist too but its in South Korea.
Um, what? The wikipedia articles call these Expressways, not Interstates. Just because the shields are red, white, and blue doesn't make them interstates.
Quote from: flowmotion on June 27, 2014, 04:54:19 AM
Some states like California have a "one road, one number" system. I-210 and CA-210 are the same road and, as a driver, I really don't care what the bureaucratic limbo reasons are for one shield or another. Then I show up in Maryland and they have a completely different 68? I would have a right to be confused.
Maryland could easily adopt that practice by multiplexing MD 68 over I-70 until it joins I-68 (which is a fairly short distance from this interchange). OTOH, looking at the length of MD 68 (and the number of multiplexes with similar state route numbers), one could also make the argument for just re-designating MD 68 as something else, or eliminating it entirely.
^^ Or one can accept that one is I-68 while the other is M- or SR-68 with entirely different shields and colors.
Quote from: Brandon on June 27, 2014, 01:22:20 PM
^^ Or one can accept that one is I-68 while the other is M- or SR-68 with entirely different shields and colors.
As others have pointed out, that approach might work if the average person made the distinction between Interstate and state numbers in either giving directions or casual conservation.
Quote from: roadman on June 27, 2014, 01:53:38 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 27, 2014, 01:22:20 PM
^^ Or one can accept that one is I-68 while the other is M- or SR-68 with entirely different shields and colors.
As others have pointed out, that approach might work if the average person made the distinction between Interstate and state numbers in either giving directions or casual conservation.
In some places [cough]Michigan[cough] they do.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2014, 09:29:07 AM
Quote from: flowmotion on June 27, 2014, 04:54:19 AM
....
That is, I think, a good sign patching over a dumb route number. (And I don't think "National Freeway" is unnecessary because it emphasizes that I-68 is a freeway, which is what most people would be looking for.)
....
Only thing is, though, most people on the East Coast don't use the word "freeway" in the generic sense in the way people in California use it. I'm not sure in this context the word "freeway" offers any better reinforcement than simply listing Cumberland and maybe Morgantown (the only two major municipalities I-68 passes along its brief length). No doubt part of the idea, though, is that they want to promote it as a thru route for longer-distance traffic. Elsewhere there's another sign recommending I-68 as an "alternate route" to Ohio and points west ("alternate" clearly referring to the "traditional" Pennsylvania Turnpike routing), so I'm sure there's a concern that listing control cities on this sort of sign might cause some people to think I-68 is a route for local traffic.
I guess what I'm saying is while I can kind of understand their thinking, I have never once heard anybody (BGSs don't count) refer to I-68 as the "National Freeway" aside from in forum posts such as this one. My point is simply this: If, as is likely the case, the sign was posted because of people who were exiting at Clear Spring onto the state route when they were seeking the Interstate because someone had told them to "take 70 west to 68," a sign that merely uses route shields without more is not likely to help those people in any great way because they probably didn't realize they were seeking an Interstate (because I think most people at least recognize the Interstate shield, even if they proceed to mess up the directions anyway!).
Edited to add: In other words, my point is simply that while the sign is well-intentioned and the people who posted it had the right idea, the sign could probably be made more helpful given that it's obviously directed at people who are unfamiliar with the roads in the area.
Even though the term "National Freeway" seems to distinguish I-68 from Maryland/SR-68 on that sign, I honestly think (as a layman) the only reason I-68 is referred to as "National Freeway" is simply because "Interstate Highway" won't fit on the sign. Maybe if they actually spelled out "State Route" for SR-68, the sign would be easier to understand. Or perhaps the sign should be redone with added control cities for further clarification.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 27, 2014, 04:00:10 PM
Even though the term "National Freeway" seems to distinguish I-68 from Maryland/SR-68 on that sign, I honestly think (as a layman) the only reason I-68 is referred to as "National Freeway" is simply because "Interstate Highway" won't fit on the sign. Maybe if they actually spelled out "State Route" for SR-68, the sign would be easier to understand. Or perhaps the sign should be redone with added control cities for further clarification.
I think Maryland uses the term "National Freeway" for tourism reasons. Remember, it supplanted US 40, which is known as the National Highway.
Been interested in this topic for a long time. definitely think US-101 should be I-3. Calif will never give up CA-1 and its freeway sections are so intermittent that unless the whole route is upgraded, not likely to be Interstate. So I-1 should be in Alaska. Some day that state will likely upgrade Denali Hwy from Anchorage to Fairbanks. Logical route number then. On the East Coast Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel is being widened in tunnel sections. Bridges are already divided multi lane. No reason US 13 can't be upgraded on Delmarva to I-101. NC recently designated US 64 to I-495. Could become I-48 someday all the way to Outer Banks. US-50 from DC to Delmarva could become I-66 with an extension to Dover. I-101 could be extended to Wilmington, Del via Del-1 and south to Wilmington, NC via new freeway. Then south to Myrtle Beach, Charleston and Savannah. There are many Freeways across the US that could be given Interstate route numbers. North Carolina and Wisconsin figured out that just designating a freeway as Interstate attracts investment such as factories, warehouses, motels, restaurants, malls etc. Why can't Florida's Turnpike be I-79? In places where gaps occur such as I-66 in DC, surface street connections could be designated as Business Interstate Route (Bus I-66 on New York Ave NE.).
There are routes that could get interstate numbers, but should they? Should any stretch of freeway be an interstate?
It seems like in most cases money would be better spent upgrading the interstates we've got. Many are severely congested, have insufficient shoulders or geometry, structural deficiencies. If we can't take care of the interstate system we've got, we have no business expanding it.
Well you get no argument from me when it comes to fixing our existing infrastructure. But why does it have to be one or the other? Can't we do both? Can't we continue improving outdated sections while continuing to expand to keep up with population growth and traffic loads. Many Interstates have been added to the original system over the years. I-88 in Illinois, I-43 in Wisconsin, I-39 in Illinois, I-49 in LA and Mo to name a few. Yes it cost money to resign highways but that is a nominal investment when compared to the economic benefit. The Interstate System is the main transportation network of the nation. It carries 90% of the road traffic. It is vital that motorists understand that an Interstate is the chief artery through a city or region. That it meets the minimum standards of a superhighway and offers the safest travel route. In my opinion any highway that meets the standards of an Interstate and connects to the system directly should carry an Interstate route designation and be signed as such.
Quote from: RoadPirate on June 05, 2015, 12:55:19 AM
Well you get no argument from me when it comes to fixing our existing infrastructure. But why does it have to be one or the other? Can't we do both? Can't we continue improving outdated sections while continuing to expand to keep up with population growth and traffic loads. Many Interstates have been added to the original system over the years. I-88 in Illinois, I-43 in Wisconsin, I-39 in Illinois, I-49 in LA and Mo to name a few. Yes it cost money to resign highways but that is a nominal investment when compared to the economic benefit. The Interstate System is the main transportation network of the nation. It carries 90% of the road traffic. It is vital that motorists understand that an Interstate is the chief artery through a city or region. That it meets the minimum standards of a superhighway and offers the safest travel route. In my opinion any highway that meets the standards of an Interstate and connects to the system directly should carry an Interstate route designation and be signed as such.
I agree, but then I'm from NC, where these ideas have pretty much become official policy (I-73, I-74, I-274, I-285, I-785, I-885). I can tell you that not everyone in these forums agrees.
Not every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards. I-99, for example, was fine as just US 220 as it served the same purpose. Having US 220 as a freeway between Bedford and State College was plenty. Bud Schuster did not have to get congress to spend our tax money to make it I-99 as there are better things that the money could be used for in this society then add some freeway to the federal funding list.
States need to carry their weight as well and fund some of their own freeway networks, and not make every freeway that there is (NC you are one of them like I-795 which goes to Goldsboro a city that no one really goes to) just so that 90 percent of the repairs can be paid by us. It is all absurd to have the hard earning population pay for roads outside of their state, let some of the states take care of some of their own.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 05, 2015, 08:06:06 PM
Not every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards. I-99, for example, was fine as just US 220 as it served the same purpose. Having US 220 as a freeway between Bedford and State College was plenty. Bud Schuster did not have to get congress to spend our tax money to make it I-99 as there are better things that the money could be used for in this society then add some freeway to the federal funding list.
States need to carry their weight as well and fund some of their own freeway networks, and not make every freeway that there is (NC you are one of them like I-795 which goes to Goldsboro a city that no one really goes to) just so that 90 percent of the repairs can be paid by us. It is all absurd to have the hard earning population pay for roads outside of their state, let some of the states take care of some of their own.
Sorry, I missed I-795 in my list. I'm not defending any particular highway. But I'll say this. NC has built 691 miles of freeways on US and state highways, expanding its interstate system by more than 50%. Adding some of that mileage to the interstate system doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 05, 2015, 08:06:06 PM
Not every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards. I-99, for example, was fine as just US 220 as it served the same purpose. Having US 220 as a freeway between Bedford and State College was plenty. Bud Schuster did not have to get congress to spend our tax money to make it I-99 as there are better things that the money could be used for in this society then add some freeway to the federal funding list.
States need to carry their weight as well and fund some of their own freeway networks, and not make every freeway that there is (NC you are one of them like I-795 which goes to Goldsboro a city that no one really goes to) just so that 90 percent of the repairs can be paid by us. It is all absurd to have the hard earning population pay for roads outside of their state, let some of the states take care of some of their own.
Actually I have used I-795 3 times now since it was built/designated and I have found I to be quite helpful as it has saved me as much as 20 minutes on trips north of my location, versus having to go all he way to Selma on US-70 to I-95.
You are technically correct that Goldsboro is not a destination in and of itself, however, I-795 is the closest Interstate connection to those of us up and down the Crystal Coast. The combined population of 10 counties, close to probably 500k people have paid their fair share in taxes to fund construction of Interstates in everyone else's state, we deserved to have a decent connection of our own.
Now, if only we could get a decent connection to points south we will be all set :)
Quote from: roadman65 on June 05, 2015, 08:06:06 PMNot every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards.
But on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with signing interstate-standard freeways that form part of the network as interstates.
The issues people ought to have with I-99 is the pork and the numbering. That an interstate quality freeway has interstate shields should not be an issue.
Quote from: english si on June 06, 2015, 07:01:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 05, 2015, 08:06:06 PMNot every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards.
But on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with signing interstate-standard freeways that form part of the network as interstates.
The issues people ought to have with I-99 is the pork and the numbering. That an interstate quality freeway has interstate shields should not be an issue.
Agreed! In fact many Interstates don't even qualify for Federal funding and are entirely state funded. Those that were toll roads like the Pennsylvania Turnpike or the George Washington Bridge, San Francisco Bay Bridge were assigned Interstate route numbers for the convenience of the motorists but get no Fed dollars. The signage is for the benefit of drivers so that they know it is a superhighway that is connected to the rest of the system. The current network of highways is now a convoluted mess that makes it harder for many people to understand and navigate. It could be simplified by making more freeways Interstates. I mean a lot of Americans have a hard time just dealing with simple geography. Our system could really use some route cleaning.
By the way I do agree that naming US 220 in Penn to I-99 was really stupid. But again that is a separate issue. It could have been numbered I-580 or I-776 instead of wasting it that way. Same with I-97 which should be a 3DI.
Those who bash I-99 for the number need to remember that it will eventually connect to I-86 at Corning, NY, and really should be extended up I-390 to Rochester. And, it was originally planned to run south to connect to I-68 at Cumberland, Md. At the length it will run when it's finished in Pennsylvania, it's too long to be a 2DI.
And if you want to call it pork, then so is all of US 23 from Columbus to Asheville, all of OH 32/US 50 from Cincinnati to Clarksburg, and any other Appalachian Regional Commission corridor.
I-99 is pork as it was created to serve the ego of a particular politician even so for locally naming the road after himself. Whether it has an interstate shield on it or not, it does not change the quality of the road.
That is why I think upgrading US 77 in Kenedy County, Texas is also pork as with I-69C running nearby and the fact even with US 77 not being interstate grade there, it still can transport commerce as easily and efficient as it being an interstate. We have too many other issues going on that could use that money.
Plus, talk about being part of a network. Is I-2 that? So far it is isolated from the rest of the system, thanks to ole Buddy setting precident with his signing interstates into law, congress did it again.
Also did you notice that I-69C does not go directly to Mexico?
I actually don't have a problem with the upgrade of US-220 (I-99) or its designation as an Interstate. It's the numbering that is a problem. The original Interstate numbering scheme was logical and fairly simple. It it was very easy to understand and should remain that way. I-99 was chosen because there were no other odd 2DI's available in the east. Bad choice though because it is situated between I-79 and I-81. At the present I-99 is an intrastate highway. If if is ever extended south to Cumberland then it may deserve a 2DI designation. There may be plans to extend I-99 up US-15 to NY, but again until that happens then it should be a 3DI. In any case I-99 is a bad number for that location. A more logical designation for I-390 would be I-83. US-15 through the Susquehanna Valley should be upgraded from Harrisburg and redesignated I-83 all the way to Rochester. While we're on the topic of Penn Interstates, PA-28 has been greatly improved in Pittsburgh. The eastern part could be upgraded as far as I-80 and PA-28 could be designated as an interstate. That would provide an excellent connection between Pittsburgh and NYC eliminating the need to use the Penn Tpke for that route.
I never had the problem of upgrade of US 220 in PA either. In fact I saw it get built through Altoona. Back in 1984 it ended near Sproul and you had to use a two lane arterial to get to Duncansville where US 220 and US 22 had a brief concurrency eastward to Holidaysburg. One year later in 1985 another segment opened from Newry to the current Plan Road interchange near the Logan Valley Mall while north of there to Tyrone was under construction.
I could not wait to see it all open as I always liked PA building freeways for US routes or even some of its state roads. So I am in total favor of it, but they all do not need interstate designations on them. Sure it would be nice.
As far as I-83 goes, yes it should connect to I-390. Try going from DC to Buffalo directly by freeway. You just cannot and that should be a priority to have one interstate quality road between two such major cities.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2015, 01:27:38 PM
I-99 is pork as it was created to serve the ego of a particular politician even so for locally naming the road after himself. Whether it has an interstate shield on it or not, it does not change the quality of the road.
That is why I think upgrading US 77 in Kenedy County, Texas is also pork as with I-69C running nearby and the fact even with US 77 not being interstate grade there, it still can transport commerce as easily and efficient as it being an interstate. We have too many other issues going on that could use that money.
Plus, talk about being part of a network. Is I-2 that? So far it is isolated from the rest of the system, thanks to ole Buddy setting precident with his signing interstates into law, congress did it again.
Also did you notice that I-69C does not go directly to Mexico?
Roadman65 you make some good points here. The whole I-69 project has plenty of critics as well as supporters. I-m a bit conflicted about this route number. In Indiana it makes sense and if does get built down to Memphis then ok extend the route number. The planned route from Memphis to Texas is more east-west and could actually be designated I-32 perhaps. From Houston to Mexico it could be designated I-4 or I-6 as it parallels the Gulf Coast . The idea of splitting it into three branches in south Texas is just dumb. Planned I-69W could easily be I-4. The south Texas section could also be an odd number such as I-31 or I-33 or both if they meet Interstate standards. Either way there should be a direct freeway from Laredo to Corpus Christi. As far as I-2 goes, that number makes perfect sense since it will be directly linked to the rest of the system once I-69 is connected from Houston to Brownsville. Then it would be logical for I-2 to continue north along the Rio Grande to Laredo.
What irks me is that I-69E and I-69C are too close together serving the same region. Pharr and Brownsville are very near each other and part of the same regional area. Yet its getting two freeways aligned near each other to serve the very same purpose. Just like I-73 and I-74 both going to Myrtle Beach when only one of them is needed.
Yes, I-2 someday will reach Laredo, but not in our lifetimes. It is way shorter than I-369 and thus right now should be x69 until that day arrives. As far as I-69 in Arkanas goes, I-49 is top priority there and of course LA (not the city) is waiting for AR to build their short segment, so it will be a long while for the two ends to tie together. Yes, all these should be numbered differently just as I-74 in NC should be I-32, I-34, I-36, or even I-38.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 06, 2015, 01:00:56 PM
Those who bash I-99 for the number need to remember that it will eventually connect to I-86 at Corning, NY, and really should be extended up I-390 to Rochester. And, it was originally planned to run south to connect to I-68 at Cumberland, Md. At the length it will run when it's finished in Pennsylvania, it's too long to be a 2DI.
You mean a 3di - but, given the dates, it could have been a less out-of-place I-73.
But, yes, even this is debatable as to whether it's awful.
QuoteAnd if you want to call it pork, then so is all of US 23 from Columbus to Asheville, all of OH 32/US 50 from Cincinnati to Clarksburg, and any other Appalachian Regional Commission corridor.
I don't see them all being Interstate standard freeway with the name of the person on it. That said, it does provide a useful link, and a freeway suits it in many ways. And yes, the pork is a debatable thing.
What ought not be debatable is that an interstate standard road has an interstate number - that's my point.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2015, 02:13:36 PMWhat irks me is that I-69E and I-69C are too close together serving the same region. Pharr and Brownsville are very near each other and part of the same regional area. Yet its getting two freeways aligned near each other to serve the very same purpose.
They serve very different purposes and different traffic flows into the highly populated region (especially when you account for the other side of the Rio Grande).
QuoteJust like I-73 and I-74 both going to Myrtle Beach when only one of them is needed.
Likewise, though the 74 route is a bizarre one with the swamp u-turn. Only I-73 is needed, but US74 and US17 sections of I-74 are worth building (along with the rest of those corridors to Wilmington), just the swamp u-turn and numbering are rubbish.
QuoteYes, I-2 someday will reach Laredo, but not in our lifetimes.
And where else would the I-2 number go? What harm is it doing being I-2, rather than I-169?
QuoteIt is way shorter than I-369 and thus right now should be x69 until that day arrives.
And if Arkansas hadn't bothered with their I-69 segment, then Shreveport would be the spur of I-47 (Texarkana - Mexico), though you'd be moaning that I-147 would be longer than I-2.
Actually Pharr and Brownsville are still close enough to have one interstate serving both.
As far as I-2 goes, it is a waste right now of a good number as I-97 is in Anne Arundel County, MD.
I had no idea of a planned I-47 and would there be a I-147? BTW I-476 in PA is longer than I-2, and so it I-287 in NJ- NY.
Oh man that whole I-73 & I-74 mess. I can see I-73 from Bluefield, WV to Flint, MI, but not any further south. I-74 east of Cincinnati makes no sense. Better to extend I-68 west from Morgantown, WV to Cincinnati via upgraded US-50 & OH-32. I agree that upgraded US-74 through NC should be I-38. Myrtle Beach to Wilmington could be part of I-101. The current I-73 & I-74 in NC could be I-99, more logical than the one in Penn. Maybe extend that up to Roanoke but no need to go any further north.
If you don't live or travel on the east coast you may not understand the need for an I-101 along the SE coast. Traffic on I-95 is horrible especially in the DC area. A new interstate from Savannah to Wilmington, DE is essential. It would serve the fast growing cities in the coastal Carolinas and Virginia while providing badly needed relief in DC and Baltimore. I-81 is not much of an alternative because of all the truck traffic and only two lanes each way. Florida and Georgia have done a great job with I-95, but VA & NC could use some improvement. SC's section of I-95 is so bad that it hardly qualifies as an Interstate anymore.
Don't know of a planned I-47 either however the Indian Nation Turnpike in Oklahoma would be logical. Could be extended south to Beaumont, TX and north to Tulsa, Topeka and perhaps Lincoln, NE.
Yes US 74 from Charlotte to Wilmington should have a straight interstate, but not turn back to Myrtle Beach. And I-74 south of I-40 is nauseating. Have I-38 run along US 74, even from Asheville would be nice.
If we're fixing I-73 and I-74, couldn't the easternmost section of proposed I-73 in South Carolina become an extension of I-20?
Quote from: kkt on June 05, 2015, 12:27:15 AM
There are routes that could get interstate numbers, but should they? Should any stretch of freeway be an interstate?
No.
I think there are several problems.
1- "Interstate" is a good sound bite. Pol says "I am going to build I-whatever". That is a lot easier than "I am going to see that US whatever is improved to a standard similar to an interstate, with no-at grade intersections".
2- "Interstate" is a brand people understand. The to layman, "Interstate" means a safe high speed road with no stop lights, no at-grade intersections, and adequate provision for steep grades. Other types of highway, even a US, can vary from a de facto interstate to something only slightly less, to one with at grades, hick town speed traps, and stop lights, to good 2 lane, to city street, to inadequate rural road. Sign makers and map makers (and the idiots who make GPS devices) have not learned to distinguish. Some US routes are good for cross country travel. Some, even if far shorter than the interstate, are not.
One thing I think could be done is a signage that could convey "interstate quality". Let us take the 73-74 idiocy. Rather than renumbering US 220, just have a sign that says "Interstate Quality Road, next XX miles" and, more importantly "END Interstate Quality Road - Watch for stop lights and at grade intersections". I would say to put a blank blue sign below the shield on roads that are de facto interstates, same size as the directional. So [SOUTH] [US 220] [blank blue] would convey to the motorist that the road might as well be taken as an interstate. Perhaps even generally acceptable words for lesser forms of thru highways (such as WV's use of "corridor" to mean "rural expressway with at-grades and stop lights" ) with a similar color bar indicating that status.
3 - "Interstate" is a standard they really cannot vary from. Lets look at Corridor L in WV. When built (as a mixed 2 and 4 lane, then upgraded to a full 4 lane, with at grade intersections) it was a very acceptable road for the purpose. THEN the "something must be done" idiots got a stop light at every intersection. THEN the hick towns created speedtraps and lobbied for ridiculous SLs. THEN the greedy landowners got driveway permits to created 100s more at grade intersections. That cannot happen with an interstate, and the public knows, and wants, that.
What about MA 2, which is a freeway, but not Interstate standard (because of at-grades) between exits 27 and 33?
Quote from: 1 on June 07, 2015, 09:15:58 AM
What about MA 2, which is a freeway, but not Interstate standard (because of at-grades) between exits 27 and 33?
A good route number for MA-2 would be I-92. While we're at it NH-101 could be I-94. For those I-standard purists I only advocate redesignation for those highways that meet Interstate standards. MA-2 isn't there yet but could be with a nominal investment. Mostly it needs improved ramps that meet high speed standards. Only that portion from Greenfield to Concord really close to qualifying. As for NH-101 that portion from Manchester to Hampton qualifies now.
Quote from: RoadPirate on June 07, 2015, 11:55:48 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 07, 2015, 09:15:58 AM
What about MA 2, which is a freeway, but not Interstate standard (because of at-grades) between exits 27 and 33?
A good route number for MA-2 would be I-92. While we're at it NH-101 could be I-94. For those I-standard purists I only advocate redesignation for those highways that meet Interstate standards. MA-2 isn't there yet but could be with a nominal investment. Mostly it needs improved ramps that meet high speed standards. Only that portion from Greenfield to Concord really close to qualifying. As for NH-101 that portion from Manchester to Hampton qualifies now.
An I-x93 would work just as well for NH 101. As for MA there are other routes that would be better served by an interstate designation than MA 2. MA 3 for one between Braintree and Cape Cod, either as an extension of I-93 or an I-x93, and perhaps MA 24 which has been studied for inclusion into the Interstate system.
Quote from: bob7374 on June 07, 2015, 01:22:42 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 07, 2015, 09:15:58 AM
An I-x93 would work just as well for NH 101. As for MA there are other routes that would be better served by an interstate designation than MA 2. MA 3 for one between Braintree and Cape Cod, either as an extension of I-93 or an I-x93, and perhaps MA 24 which has been studied for inclusion into the Interstate system.
All true. However when it comes to designating routes as Interstates there is no zero sum game. There is no reason MA-2, MA-3 and MA-24 as well as other such as MA-140 and MA-146 can't all be designated. As long as they meet Interstate standards and are directly connected to the Interstate System they can be designated as Interstates.
Quote from: tidecat on June 07, 2015, 08:20:41 AM
If we're fixing I-73 and I-74, couldn't the easternmost section of proposed I-73 in South Carolina become an extension of I-20?
If NC had their way it would. I read someplace on line, that NC wants I-20 to come over to Wilmington, but SC does not probably because they are so hell bent on I-73, a road which they seem to not be in a hurry to get funding for, get built.
I think I-73 should go no further south than I-95. To get to MB head south to Florence to a I-20 extension east, or simply have I-73 terminate at the I-20 extension to avoid a dog leg on I-95.
I-74 should be a full US 74 corridor upgrade from Charlotte to Wilmington and have I-32, or I-38 to it!
Quote from: roadman65 on June 07, 2015, 03:46:57 PM
Quote from: tidecat on June 07, 2015, 08:20:41 AM
If we're fixing I-73 and I-74, couldn't the easternmost section of proposed I-73 in South Carolina become an extension of I-20?
If NC had their way it would. I read someplace on line, that NC wants I-20 to come over to Wilmington, but SC does not probably because they are so hell bent on I-73, a road which they seem to not be in a hurry to get funding for, get built.
I think I-73 should go no further south than I-95. To get to MB head south to Florence to a I-20 extension east, or simply have I-73 terminate at the I-20 extension to avoid a dog leg on I-95.
I-74 should be a full US 74 corridor upgrade from Charlotte to Wilmington and have I-32, or I-38 to it!
Myrtle Beach draws a lot more visitors from the north than from the west, so I-73 actually does make sense as a connection from I-95 southbound to MB. It's frustrating that SC is too cheap to build it. At the present time, neither NC nor SC is interested in extending I-20 to Wilmington.
I strongly support having an "I-32" across southern NC from I-26 to Wilmington: this is an idea whose time will come. The I-74 section from I-77 (Mt. Airy) through Winston-Salem to I-73 should be I-173 (or maybe I-177).
It would have to be a first even digit. Any interstate connecting two other interstates has to be even, except in New York with I-495, but that is a long story of how that got to be.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 07, 2015, 04:08:30 PM
It would have to be a first even digit. Any interstate connecting two other interstates has to be even, except in New York with I-495, but that is a long story of how that got to be.
Fine with me. But I can think of exceptions: I-385 in SC, I-390 in NY and I-135 in KS connect two other interstates. Another rule often ignored.
Yes unfortunately, they are. Then again with I-135 it serves as a spur into a city. Though that city is Salina, it still is a straight line branch.
I don't think Bud Shuster had anything to do with I-99 being named after him. That would be a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decision -- as was the decision in West Virginia to name one of the ARC Corridors and the entire ARC network after Robert Byrd.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2015, 05:12:47 PM
I don't think Bud Shuster had anything to do with I-99 being named after him. That would be a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decision -- as was the decision in West Virginia to name one of the ARC Corridors and the entire ARC network after Robert Byrd.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2015, 05:12:47 PM
I don't think Bud Shuster had anything to do with I-99 being named after him. That would be a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decision -- as was the decision in West Virginia to name one of the ARC Corridors and the entire ARC network after Robert Byrd.
Just like it was The State of New Jersey naming the IZOD Center at the time of its opening after the sitting governor at the time. Still in both cases, I think ego of the person named played a big part indirectly.
Quote from: bob7374 on June 07, 2015, 01:22:42 PM
Quote from: RoadPirate on June 07, 2015, 11:55:48 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 07, 2015, 09:15:58 AM
What about MA 2, which is a freeway, but not Interstate standard (because of at-grades) between exits 27 and 33?
A good route number for MA-2 would be I-92. While we're at it NH-101 could be I-94. For those I-standard purists I only advocate redesignation for those highways that meet Interstate standards. MA-2 isn't there yet but could be with a nominal investment. Mostly it needs improved ramps that meet high speed standards. Only that portion from Greenfield to Concord really close to qualifying. As for NH-101 that portion from Manchester to Hampton qualifies now.
An I-x93 would work just as well for NH 101. As for MA there are other routes that would be better served by an interstate designation than MA 2. MA 3 for one between Braintree and Cape Cod, either as an extension of I-93 or an I-x93, and perhaps MA 24 which has been studied for inclusion into the Interstate system.
Agree with above... MA-2 could also be I-x95 (due to interchange with I-495, although I forget if it has to be meeting an interstate at its terminus or not). MA 3 should be an extension of I-93 - they'll need to change the exit numbers soon anyways with Mass. switching to mileage (as the 2012 MUTCD revision says, by 2022); be it I-93, I-x93 or something different, it should be an interstate. NH 101 should be I-x93 as the above says, or if they wanted to extend it to perhaps through Southern VT to Albany NY and make the whole thing a new interstate I-92...
It could be a lot of things.
Don't even get me started about I-95/MA 128.
I think that MA 3 should be I-93. Its much better than making MA 24 such as some are proposing, or promising. The rest of I-93 back to I-95 should revert back to MA 128 as people from the area still call it such.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 08, 2015, 04:51:55 PM
I think that MA 3 should be I-93. Its much better than making MA 24 such as some are proposing, or promising. The rest of I-93 back to I-95 should revert back to MA 128 as people from the area still call it such.
The stretch from when I-95 abandons 128 to the "Braintree Split" should be 128. If I-93 were to head down MA 3 to the Cape, the only road would be US 1 and bringing back the 128 designation there I would have no issue with, a 128/US-1 concurrency, and perhaps an I-x95 or I-x93, much like I-95/US 1/MA 128 multiplex past Canton.
(However, it is still a source of confusion why people haven't switched to calling it I-95 yet - blame their 1970s counterparts who got angry about I-95 running through Boston proper).
And as for it being MA 3 heading down to the Cape - why does US 3 suddenly end and become MA 3 anyways?? The big point here is, I-93 should run to the Cape.
Another concept I thought of involving 95/128, to the north, would start in NH, plexing I-89/93 past 89's current end, then bringing I-89 down the Everett Turnpike where the majority of I-293 is, converting the remaining 293/NH 101 plex to an E-W I-x89 or changing 293 to an E-W from N-S marking road. I-89 would continue down the Everett Turnpike, and plex with US 3 starting at Nashua, enter Massachusetts, and at the end of the existing US 3 freeway (where 3 plexes with 95/128), I-89 would end. I could go into more detail on the fictional highways section. It would be much less confusing if I-89 was extended past Concord, NH and terminated at Burlington, MA; and if I-93 continued past Braintree, MA to Cape Cod.
I think we are threading water here and going into fictional territory here, so I will cease going any further. However, I will say this these ideas we have are all sensational.
No more, lets keep it to why numbers are missing from the existing grid. Anybody care to open a new thread in fictional highways I would be glad to contribute.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 08, 2015, 07:07:38 PM
I think we are threading water here and going into fictional territory here, so I will cease going any further. However, I will say this these ideas we have are all sensational.
No more, lets keep it to why numbers are missing from the existing grid. Anybody care to open a new thread in fictional highways I would be glad to contribute.
Open thread about I-89 southern extension and I-93 to the Cape:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15713.0
The simplest reason that numbers are missing from the existing network is that so far there hasn't been the need for 99 primary routes. You could use up a few more numbers by getting rid of the duplicates (I-84, I-86, I-88) and splitting some routes that use significant multiplexes (I-94 could be I-92 north of the Indiana Toll Road, and not overlap I-90 in the Chicago area), but that really only works for the east-west routes.
The biggest drawbacks are a carryover from the US Highway System about "major routes", and the original intent to not duplicate numbers used on US Highways in a state. Both systems having more routes in the North and Midwest made it difficult to assign interstates between 50 and 62. The insistence on "major" route numbers also led to a lot of gaps in numbering, especially with I-35 running through Kansas City and I-55 running through St. Louis.
If CA 99 is ever upgraded, I believe the logical number should be "9", in the same way that I-8 was chosen because it superceded US 80 and I-44 and I-55 were chosen when they superceded US 66. There is a mnemonic link in the number to the road's history preserved in the new number.
Quote from: mrose on June 09, 2015, 01:53:58 AM
If CA 99 is ever upgraded, I believe the logical number should be "9", in the same way that I-8 was chosen because it superceded US 80 and I-44 and I-55 were chosen when they superceded US 66. There is a mnemonic link in the number to the road's history preserved in the new number.
I feel this way about the proposed I-3 in Georgia. I-18 would make more sense because it would be directly north of I-16, which should make that a bit easier to remember. I don't know if there are any state routes with the number 18 along I-3's route, but choosing numbers that are easy to remember because they correspond with some other historical or local fact is good practice, though fitting in with the grid numberwise is obviously the best practice.
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 11, 2015, 01:09:42 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2015, 02:31:36 PM
As far as I-2 goes, it is a waste right now of a good number as I-97 is in Anne Arundel County, MD.
No. There aren't any other corridors I-2 could reasonably be used for. I-97 has some (DE 1, Wilmington-Myrtle Beach connector, etc.)
If it were going further like to Laredo or even El Paso, yes. For what it is doing it should be an x69 unless later on they extend it. Also, Florida along FL 80 could use an I-2 if it were upgraded to freeway. Highly unlikely, but it would fit in there perfect.
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 11, 2015, 01:14:13 AM
Quote from: RoadPirate on June 07, 2015, 11:55:48 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 07, 2015, 09:15:58 AM
What about MA 2, which is a freeway, but not Interstate standard (because of at-grades) between exits 27 and 33?
A good route number for MA-2 would be I-92. While we're at it NH-101 could be I-94. For those I-standard purists I only advocate redesignation for those highways that meet Interstate standards. MA-2 isn't there yet but could be with a nominal investment. Mostly it needs improved ramps that meet high speed standards. Only that portion from Greenfield to Concord really close to qualifying. As for NH-101 that portion from Manchester to Hampton qualifies now.
If you really want, MA 2 could also be an off-the-grid I-28. I-95 would go on I-93's current route, and MA 128 would nominally become I-128. :-P
Except MA 28 is one of the most important non-freeway state routes in Massachusetts.
The Interstate freeway system should designate CA route 99, formerly an US highway, to Interstate 9 or I-9, which is in sync with the north to south routes with odd numbers. CA (ex-US) 99 runs from Sacramento, the state capital meeting with I-80 to 20-some miles south of Bakersfield meeting with I-5 in kern county. To call it I-9 is helpful to attract drivers and businesses' attention to the economically struggling towns of the San Joaquin valley, such as Lodi-Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Madera, Fresno-Clovis (the most populous one), Tulare-Visalia and Bakersfield. There are 3 freeways south of Stockton: the I-205 and I-580 in the town of Tracy, and CA 120 around Lathrop and Manteca, bedroom communities for the SF Bay and Sacramento metro areas. I have no idea why there isn't an I-9 already, but the "99" exists and it needs a transportation facelift.
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 21, 2015, 07:11:13 PM
The Interstate freeway system should designate CA route 99, formerly an US highway, to Interstate 9 or I-9, which is in sync with the north to south routes with odd numbers. CA (ex-US) 99 runs from Sacramento, the state capital meeting with I-80 to 20-some miles south of Bakersfield meeting with I-5 in kern county. To call it I-9 is helpful to attract drivers and businesses' attention to the economically struggling towns of the San Joaquin valley, such as Lodi-Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Madera, Fresno-Clovis (the most populous one), Tulare-Visalia and Bakersfield. There are 3 freeways south of Stockton: the I-205 and I-580 in the town of Tracy, and CA 120 around Lathrop and Manteca, bedroom communities for the SF Bay and Sacramento metro areas. I have no idea why there isn't an I-9 already, but the "99" exists and it needs a transportation facelift.
If Wikipedia can be believed, its page for Interstate 9 says "Interstate 9 has been proposed by Caltrans for State Route 99 in central California. It would go from the split with I-5 at Wheeler Ridge (Wheeler Ridge Interchange) north through Fresno to Stockton, where the proposed route turns west via the State Route 4 freeway to a terminus at I-5 in the central part of that city."
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 22, 2015, 06:54:34 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 21, 2015, 07:11:13 PM
The Interstate freeway system should designate CA route 99, formerly an US highway, to Interstate 9 or I-9, which is in sync with the north to south routes with odd numbers. CA (ex-US) 99 runs from Sacramento, the state capital meeting with I-80 to 20-some miles south of Bakersfield meeting with I-5 in kern county. To call it I-9 is helpful to attract drivers and businesses' attention to the economically struggling towns of the San Joaquin valley, such as Lodi-Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Madera, Fresno-Clovis (the most populous one), Tulare-Visalia and Bakersfield. There are 3 freeways south of Stockton: the I-205 and I-580 in the town of Tracy, and CA 120 around Lathrop and Manteca, bedroom communities for the SF Bay and Sacramento metro areas. I have no idea why there isn't an I-9 already, but the "99" exists and it needs a transportation facelift.
If Wikipedia can be believed, its page for Interstate 9 says "Interstate 9 has been proposed by Caltrans for State Route 99 in central California. It would go from the split with I-5 at Wheeler Ridge (Wheeler Ridge Interchange) north through Fresno to Stockton, where the proposed route turns west via the State Route 4 freeway to a terminus at I-5 in the central part of that city."
Follow the citation from Wiki. It's a long-term vision, not a proposal.
So, where would an I-1 be placed? I think US 101 is much too famous to be renumbered.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 23, 2015, 06:33:32 PM
So, where would an I-1 be placed? I think US 101 is much too famous to be renumbered.
Ideally you would renumber CA 1, but large portions of CA 1 are not even four lanes, and numerous sections are concurrent with US 101.
Quote from: tidecat on June 24, 2015, 08:40:54 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 23, 2015, 06:33:32 PM
So, where would an I-1 be placed? I think US 101 is much too famous to be renumbered.
Ideally you would renumber CA 1, but large portions of CA 1 are not even four lanes, and numerous sections are concurrent with US 101.
Think FritzOwl. He has 'advocated' for all of CA 1 turning into his I-1. :-D
But California doesn't allow duplication between Interstate, US or State Route numbers, unless it's an continuation of the route with the same number , eg. CA 110-I-110, CA 15-I-15, CA 210-I-210.
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 24, 2015, 08:46:42 PM
Quote from: tidecat on June 24, 2015, 08:40:54 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 23, 2015, 06:33:32 PM
So, where would an I-1 be placed? I think US 101 is much too famous to be renumbered.
Ideally you would renumber CA 1, but large portions of CA 1 are not even four lanes, and numerous sections are concurrent with US 101.
Think FritzOwl. He has 'advocated' for all of CA 1 turning into his I-1. :-D
But California doesn't allow duplication between Interstate, US or State Route numbers, unless it's an continuation of the route with the same number , eg. CA 110-I-110, CA 15-I-15, CA 210-I-210.
of which CA 210 should be I-210 already.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 23, 2015, 06:33:32 PM
So, where would an I-1 be placed? I think US 101 is much too famous to be renumbered.
As far as I'm concerned, I think we should just drop the "H" on I-H1, I-H2, etc, and just call them I-1, I-2, I-3, and I-201. Hence, 1, 2, and 3 all fit where they are and would just be duplicate routes (in the case of I-2) as I-76, I-86, etc.
Quote from: Brandon on June 25, 2015, 10:22:31 AM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 23, 2015, 06:33:32 PM
So, where would an I-1 be placed? I think US 101 is much too famous to be renumbered.
As far as I'm concerned, I think we should just drop the "H" on I-H1, I-H2, etc, and just call them I-1, I-2, I-3, and I-201. Hence, 1, 2, and 3 all fit where they are and would just be duplicate routes (in the case of I-2) as I-76, I-86, etc.
Having driven on all the I-Hs except I-H2, I consider this blasphemous.
Quote from: tidecat on June 24, 2015, 08:40:54 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on June 23, 2015, 06:33:32 PM
So, where would an I-1 be placed? I think US 101 is much too famous to be renumbered.
Ideally you would renumber CA 1, but large portions of CA 1 are not even four lanes, and numerous sections are concurrent with US 101.
Ideally you would leave CA 1 the heck alone. It's a practically perfect scenic drive. There is no room to make it 4 lanes, the geometrics would not support freeway speeds, and it requires frequent left turns for beach access. People who are in a hurry take US 101 or I-5, and they should continue to do so.