Hey, there's a new route log: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf (NY 781?)
I-495/NY 495 is totally bungled here - no number for the Lincoln, I-495 beginning at the Queens-Midtown, with a gap between I-278 and I-678 that's NY 495. WTF? The FHWA's NHS map (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/ny/newyork_ny.pdf) agrees. AND this matches the figure given by the FHWA: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table2.cfm WTMFF? Was the piece from I-278 to I-678 somehow never added to the IHS?
Traffic counts (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/Traffic%20Data%20Report%202010%20Appendix%20E%20301-500.pdf) are more sensical, with NY 495 in the Lincoln and I-495 from the Queens-Midtown to Riverhead (no number across Manhattan).
I always thought that the technical beginning of I-495 was at the east end of the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. This is odd indeed.
I've also always wondered why the NY 495 designation even exists for the Lincoln Tunnel, considering it's all PANYNJ maintained.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 13, 2012, 08:42:09 PM
I've also always wondered why the NY 495 designation even exists for the Lincoln Tunnel, considering it's all PANYNJ maintained.
... that's still a state agency? I don't get why this is an issue. It's like saying the GWB and HT can't have route numbers either.
Quote from: NE2 on February 10, 2012, 12:15:06 AM
Hey, there's a new route log: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf (NY 781?)
So far here's what I notice that's new:
-I-86 extended from Horseheads to Elmira (not yet mentioned in Broome County though)
-NY 283 truncated from NY 3 in Felts Mills back to NY 342 at "La Ray" [sic] (that doesn't seem to be news, probably just an overlooked update from years back)
-NY 343 no longer intersects US 44 at its west end (again, not news to this edition, but only just being updated)
-NY 495, per this topic, continues to show the gap between I-278 and I-678 (no change in this edition)
-NY 590 unchanged (contrary to the posted truncation at Titus Ave.)
-NY 631 unchanged; that is, not reflecting the extension between NY 31 and NY 370 (yet again, not new this year, but not updated either)
-NY 781 unchanged; that is, not updated to I-781
-NY 915J added for Round Lake Bypass
-NY 915L added for Maher Road (old piece of NY 85/Slingerlands Bypass)
-NY 915M added for Chrisler Ave. west of I-890 (which I never realized wasn't 915D...)
-NY 972E added for the new Seaway Int'l Bridge approach road replacing the Massena Traffic Circle (more news to me!)
-Some additions and updates to bicycle routes, including new Bicycle Route 517...(huh?)
-Ditto for commemorative bridges and highways...
Quote from: empirestate on February 14, 2012, 04:29:35 PM
-Some additions and updates to bicycle routes, including new Bicycle Route 517...(huh?)
517 was signed a couple years ago with Obamabucks. It's a connection between 5, 17, and Bicycle PA Route Z, as well as being part of proposed USBR 30.
Quote from: Steve on February 14, 2012, 12:52:51 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 13, 2012, 08:42:09 PM
I've also always wondered why the NY 495 designation even exists for the Lincoln Tunnel, considering it's all PANYNJ maintained.
... that's still a state agency? I don't get why this is an issue. It's like saying the GWB and HT can't have route numbers either.
Those crossings are part of posted interstates, so obviously the Port Authority signs them as such. But the Lincoln Tunnel is not, and NY 495 is unsigned (unless you count all the error I-495 signs), so it's therefore odd that NYSDOT would keep the number for it internally. Also odd that they would have traffic counts for it, considering it is not their responsibility.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 14, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
Also odd that they would have traffic counts for it, considering it is not their responsibility.
They have traffic counts for a bunch of locally-maintained touring routes, I believe.
This reminds me of the Balto Beltway near the FSK Bridge, which is not an Interstate despite the I-695 shields on it.
Quote from: NE2 on February 14, 2012, 07:12:47 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 14, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
Also odd that they would have traffic counts for it, considering it is not their responsibility.
They have traffic counts for a bunch of locally-maintained touring routes, I believe.
They (NYSDOT) have traffic counts for <b>all</b> touring routes, locally-maintained or otherwise, as well as for all reference routes, NYSDOT-maintained or otherwise.
I haven't been in this part of New York in nearly ten years and I was upset to see that the Massena traffic circle was removed. That was a really interesting design. What a shame.
Quote from: empirestate on February 14, 2012, 04:29:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 10, 2012, 12:15:06 AM
Hey, there's a new route log: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf (NY 781?)
So far here's what I notice that's new:
-I-86 extended from Horseheads to Elmira (not yet mentioned in Broome County though)
-NY 283 truncated from NY 3 in Felts Mills back to NY 342 at "La Ray" [sic] (that doesn't seem to be news, probably just an overlooked update from years back)
-NY 343 no longer intersects US 44 at its west end (again, not news to this edition, but only just being updated)
-NY 495, per this topic, continues to show the gap between I-278 and I-678 (no change in this edition)
-NY 590 unchanged (contrary to the posted truncation at Titus Ave.)
-NY 631 unchanged; that is, not reflecting the extension between NY 31 and NY 370 (yet again, not new this year, but not updated either)
-NY 781 unchanged; that is, not updated to I-781
-NY 915J added for Round Lake Bypass
-NY 915L added for Maher Road (old piece of NY 85/Slingerlands Bypass)
-NY 915M added for Chrisler Ave. west of I-890 (which I never realized wasn't 915D...)
-NY 972E added for the new Seaway Int'l Bridge approach road replacing the Massena Traffic Circle (more news to me!)
-Some additions and updates to bicycle routes, including new Bicycle Route 517...(huh?)
-Ditto for commemorative bridges and highways...
Fixed quote -Alex
Quote from: HighwayMaster on March 27, 2012, 12:14:58 PM
This reminds me of the Balto Beltway near the FSK Bridge, which is not an Interstate despite the I-695 shields on it.
And right now, Md. 695 (signed as I-695) has gone back to its roots as a "Super-2" highway, because one of the draw spans over Curtis Creek is shut-down and the traffic is light enough to just have one lane in each direction (admittedly with a temporary Jersey wall to prevent head-on crashes).
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm
QuoteThe Long Island Expressway (I-495) was constructed as a six-lane facility between the Brooklyn-Queens (I-278) and Van Wyck (I-678) Expressways before the Interstate System and without Interstate Construction (IC) funding. It was incorporated into the Interstate System in September 1955, as part of the original 40,000-mile System. In 1963, FHWA approved additional lanes for the route. A 10-lane concept including 4 lanes elevated above the existing facility was adopted in the 1968 Interstate Cost Estimate and was eligible for IC funds.
On January 4, 1979, Governor Hugh L. Carey and Mayor Edward I. Koch joint requested the withdrawal from the Interstate System of this 4.7-mile section of the Long Island Expressway (I-495). New York's withdrawal value was based on the elevated additional lanes.
On June 29, 1979, Secretary Brock Adams approved the withdrawal under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4).
In accordance with Section 103(e)(4), New York's unobligated balance of IC funds was reduced by approximately $14.5 million on the date of the withdrawal.
Also: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page01.cfm
QuoteInterstate Route Additions Under 23 U.S.C. 139(a)
I-495 11/12/71 Queens-Midtown Tunnel
Fr: West end of tunnel in Manhattan
To: I-278/Brooklyn-Queens Expressway
(This plus the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had been removed from the system in 1969, at least by AASHO.)
So the cocked-up description is correct. I-495 is part of the IHS from the west end of the QMT to I-278 and from I-678 to NY 25 (yes, it's explicitly defined as NY 25, not CR 58).
Quote from: NE2 on January 22, 2015, 03:26:27 AM
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm
QuoteThe Long Island Expressway (I-495) was constructed as a six-lane facility between the Brooklyn-Queens (I-278) and Van Wyck (I-678) Expressways before the Interstate System and without Interstate Construction (IC) funding. It was incorporated into the Interstate System in September 1955, as part of the original 40,000-mile System. In 1963, FHWA approved additional lanes for the route. A 10-lane concept including 4 lanes elevated above the existing facility was adopted in the 1968 Interstate Cost Estimate and was eligible for IC funds.
On January 4, 1979, Governor Hugh L. Carey and Mayor Edward I. Koch joint requested the withdrawal from the Interstate System of this 4.7-mile section of the Long Island Expressway (I-495). New York's withdrawal value was based on the elevated additional lanes.
On June 29, 1979, Secretary Brock Adams approved the withdrawal under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4).
In accordance with Section 103(e)(4), New York's unobligated balance of IC funds was reduced by approximately $14.5 million on the date of the withdrawal.
Also: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page01.cfm
QuoteInterstate Route Additions Under 23 U.S.C. 139(a)
I-495 11/12/71 Queens-Midtown Tunnel
Fr: West end of tunnel in Manhattan
To: I-278/Brooklyn-Queens Expressway
(This plus the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had been removed from the system in 1969, at least by AASHO.)
So the cocked-up description is correct. I-495 is part of the IHS from the west end of the QMT to I-278 and from I-678 to NY 25 (yes, it's explicitly defined as NY 25, not CR 58).
This is entirely on paper. I was on there relatively recently, and the section between I-678 and I-278 is still signed as I-495. Doing otherwise would completely confuse.
Regarding NY 495 for the Lincoln Tunnel, the designation isn't signed anywhere. Some of the signs on the New York side have no route number at all, and others erroneously sign it as I-495. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them put up some NJ 495 shields on the New York side, since that way it would be consistent.
What was the Koch/Carey rationale for de-listing?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 22, 2015, 10:39:13 AM
What was the Koch/Carey rationale for de-listing?
Doesn't say. My guess would be that they wanted to use the mileage elsewhere and had no need for Interstate funding on that stretch. As to why the FHWA went along with creating an unnecessary gap in the system, who knows.
I would think that New York would want every penny they could get from the Feds, so decommissioning a stretch of freeway is like turning away a great subsidy considering that it helped them repair the Alexander Hamilton Bridge. NYC really only paid 10 percent of the bill while Uncle Sam paid the rest.
If they should decommission a freeway why not let it be the useless Sheridan Expressway in The Bronx.
Why do I get the feeling that Region 11 (or 10; not sure when the split happened) had something to do with this?
Honestly, if that it's not an interstate, why not decommission the rest of it to Manhattan and sign it NY 495? Then instead of having two routes each with two segments, you have two continuous routes.
It's possible Region 10/11 didn't want to pay for the upgrades or got tired of submitting explanations for substandard elements.
Quote from: dgolub on January 22, 2015, 09:00:34 AM
Regarding NY 495 for the Lincoln Tunnel, the designation isn't signed anywhere. Some of the signs on the New York side have no route number at all, and others erroneously sign it as I-495. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them put up some NJ 495 shields on the New York side, since that way it would be consistent.
I'm almost positive I remember NY 495 signed in Manhattan (actual NY state shield and not an I-495 or TO I-495 sign). For some reason I think I saw it (or them) along 42nd St., rather than 34th which would have made more sense. I can't find anything now in GSV, so if my memory is right they're long since gone. Does anyone else remember this?
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on January 22, 2015, 10:56:18 PM
Quote from: dgolub on January 22, 2015, 09:00:34 AM
Regarding NY 495 for the Lincoln Tunnel, the designation isn't signed anywhere. Some of the signs on the New York side have no route number at all, and others erroneously sign it as I-495. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them put up some NJ 495 shields on the New York side, since that way it would be consistent.
I'm almost positive I remember NY 495 signed in Manhattan (actual NY state shield and not an I-495 or TO I-495 sign). For some reason I think I saw it (or them) along 42nd St., rather than 34th which would have made more sense. I can't find anything now in GSV, so if my memory is right they're long since gone. Does anyone else remember this?
It's hypothetically possible that this was a sign goof in which they goofed by doing the right thing. Out on Long Island, there are a number of places where they have NY 495 shields, and they don't all date back to when it used to be NY 495 there! It's possible that they did the same thing here, except that here it's actually designated NY 495 but (partially) signed as I-495, so the goof was actually correct.
Shouldn't i-495 be 395 anyway? it's a spur since it just ends at a surface street and not another interstate.
It doesn't connect to the I-95 as origially planned. What number can it have?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 20, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
It doesn't connect to the I-95 as origially planned. What number can it have?
I was just curious, also what were the original plans, for it to cross Manhattan to connect with SR 495 on the other side?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 20, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
It doesn't connect to the I-95 as origially planned. What number can it have?
I-80. At least from I-678 eastward (I-80 then goes north along I-678 and concurrent with I-95 back to Fort Lee).
Quote from: Duke87 on February 14, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 14, 2012, 12:52:51 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 13, 2012, 08:42:09 PM
I've also always wondered why the NY 495 designation even exists for the Lincoln Tunnel, considering it's all PANYNJ maintained.
... that's still a state agency? I don't get why this is an issue. It's like saying the GWB and HT can't have route numbers either.
Those crossings are part of posted interstates, so obviously the Port Authority signs them as such. But the Lincoln Tunnel is not, and NY 495 is unsigned (unless you count all the error I-495 signs), so it's therefore odd that NYSDOT would keep the number for it internally. Also odd that they would have traffic counts for it, considering it is not their responsibility.
IIRC, the Lincoln Tunnel hasn't been posted as an Interstate crossing in years. NJDOT has NJ-495 shields on the roadway through North Bergen and into Weehawken, and the PA doesn't post any route shields for it at all. I think most people think of 495 as only the roadway on the jersey side between 16E and the helix.
QuoteIt doesn't connect to the I-95 as origially planned. What number can it have?
There's precedent for 3-digit routes not directly connecting to their parent, but instead via another 3-digit route of that parent. I-105 CA, I-190 MA, I-380 CA, I-980 CA, and I-990 NY (amongst others) are all examples. Following that precedent, I-495 NY would connect back to I-95 via I-295.
Quote from: storm2k on May 20, 2015, 02:31:40 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 14, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 14, 2012, 12:52:51 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 13, 2012, 08:42:09 PM
I've also always wondered why the NY 495 designation even exists for the Lincoln Tunnel, considering it's all PANYNJ maintained.
... that's still a state agency? I don't get why this is an issue. It's like saying the GWB and HT can't have route numbers either.
Those crossings are part of posted interstates, so obviously the Port Authority signs them as such. But the Lincoln Tunnel is not, and NY 495 is unsigned (unless you count all the error I-495 signs), so it's therefore odd that NYSDOT would keep the number for it internally. Also odd that they would have traffic counts for it, considering it is not their responsibility.
IIRC, the Lincoln Tunnel hasn't been posted as an Interstate crossing in years. NJDOT has NJ-495 shields on the roadway through North Bergen and into Weehawken, and the PA doesn't post any route shields for it at all. I think most people think of 495 as only the roadway on the jersey side between 16E and the helix.
Interstate shields are posted here: https://www.google.com/maps?q=Weehawken,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.775122,-74.032955&spn=0.00219,0.005284&sll=40.276739,-74.345276&sspn=0.140133,0.338173&oq=weeha&hnear=Weehawken,+Hudson+County,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.77505,-74.033189&panoid=B1-U-8w57FCjvCWkW5W3sA&cbp=12,251.53,,1,1.38
Quote from: J Route Z on May 21, 2015, 01:12:03 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 20, 2015, 02:31:40 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 14, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 14, 2012, 12:52:51 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 13, 2012, 08:42:09 PM
I've also always wondered why the NY 495 designation even exists for the Lincoln Tunnel, considering it's all PANYNJ maintained.
... that's still a state agency? I don't get why this is an issue. It's like saying the GWB and HT can't have route numbers either.
Those crossings are part of posted interstates, so obviously the Port Authority signs them as such. But the Lincoln Tunnel is not, and NY 495 is unsigned (unless you count all the error I-495 signs), so it's therefore odd that NYSDOT would keep the number for it internally. Also odd that they would have traffic counts for it, considering it is not their responsibility.
IIRC, the Lincoln Tunnel hasn't been posted as an Interstate crossing in years. NJDOT has NJ-495 shields on the roadway through North Bergen and into Weehawken, and the PA doesn't post any route shields for it at all. I think most people think of 495 as only the roadway on the jersey side between 16E and the helix.
Interstate shields are posted here: https://www.google.com/maps?q=Weehawken,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.775122,-74.032955&spn=0.00219,0.005284&sll=40.276739,-74.345276&sspn=0.140133,0.338173&oq=weeha&hnear=Weehawken,+Hudson+County,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.77505,-74.033189&panoid=B1-U-8w57FCjvCWkW5W3sA&cbp=12,251.53,,1,1.38
That shield looks brand new too; it's also the same
bubble style 3dI-shield that one sees along I-495 in DE (trailblazer and reassurance signs only).
Quote from: J Route Z on May 21, 2015, 01:12:03 AM
Interstate shields are posted here: https://www.google.com/maps?q=Weehawken,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.775122,-74.032955&spn=0.00219,0.005284&sll=40.276739,-74.345276&sspn=0.140133,0.338173&oq=weeha&hnear=Weehawken,+Hudson+County,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.77505,-74.033189&panoid=B1-U-8w57FCjvCWkW5W3sA&cbp=12,251.53,,1,1.38
I'd guess that it's just a sign goof by Hudson County. All the signage on the major highways says NJ 495.
On the New York side, it's signed as I-495 but listed in state documents as NY 495.
Quote from: Brandon on May 20, 2015, 02:03:51 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 20, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
It doesn't connect to the I-95 as origially planned. What number can it have?
I-80. At least from I-678 eastward (I-80 then goes north along I-678 and concurrent with I-95 back to Fort Lee).
How about I-78? Route it onto the turnpike South between exits 14 and 13, then via I-278 to the present day I-495. This gets rid of the 78/x78 disconnect, the non-freeway section of 78, and the random ending of 78 at city streets. Renumber the Newark Bay Extension to 178 or something if it needs an interstate number.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 20, 2015, 01:38:19 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 20, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
It doesn't connect to the I-95 as origially planned. What number can it have?
I was just curious, also what were the original plans, for it to cross Manhattan to connect with SR 495 on the other side?
You can see some plans for the Mid-Manhattan Expressway at http://www.nycroads.com/roads/mid-manhattan/
I posted this map to Interstate-Guide (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-495_nj.html) today too (and updated the write-up to reflect NE2's research on the mileage gap), which shows roughly where it would have run:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fmaps%2Fmanhattan_ny_1961.jpg&hash=760318133cff3411ae6f49b4923be3efaeacdd4b) (http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/manhattan_ny_1961.jpg)
Quote from: Alex on May 21, 2015, 01:56:11 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 20, 2015, 01:38:19 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 20, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
It doesn't connect to the I-95 as origially planned. What number can it have?
I was just curious, also what were the original plans, for it to cross Manhattan to connect with SR 495 on the other side?
You can see some plans for the Mid-Manhattan Expressway at http://www.nycroads.com/roads/mid-manhattan/
I posted this map to Interstate-Guide (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-495_nj.html) today too (and updated the write-up to reflect NE2's research on the mileage gap), which shows roughly where it would have run:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fmaps%2Fmanhattan_ny_1961.jpg&hash=760318133cff3411ae6f49b4923be3efaeacdd4b) (http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/manhattan_ny_1961.jpg)
Thanks for the info. Wow, there were a lot of state highways in NYC that are no longer around.
We can thank Eleanor Roosevelt for the Lower Manhattan Expressway not being built. I understand it had been fully approved but when she came out against it at the last minute, it was scrapped.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 21, 2015, 03:17:20 PM
We can thank Eleanor Roosevelt for the Lower Manhattan Expressway not being built. I understand it had been fully approved but when she came out against it at the last minute, it was scrapped.
Never knew that. Of course, it was because of Eleanor Roosevelt's direct intervention that the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel became a tunnel instead of a suspension bridge.
Quote from: bzakharin on May 21, 2015, 01:05:06 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 20, 2015, 02:03:51 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 20, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
It doesn't connect to the I-95 as origially planned. What number can it have?
I-80. At least from I-678 eastward (I-80 then goes north along I-678 and concurrent with I-95 back to Fort Lee).
How about I-78? Route it onto the turnpike South between exits 14 and 13, then via I-278 to the present day I-495. This gets rid of the 78/x78 disconnect, the non-freeway section of 78, and the random ending of 78 at city streets. Renumber the Newark Bay Extension to 178 or something if it needs an interstate number.
Looking at the map, NYC and Long Island could seriously use more logic in their interstate numbering.
Actually it was Jane Jacobs, Eleanor died in 1962.
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/lower-manhattan/
Quote from: Brandon on May 21, 2015, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 21, 2015, 01:05:06 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 20, 2015, 02:03:51 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 20, 2015, 01:20:46 PM
It doesn't connect to the I-95 as origially planned. What number can it have?
I-80. At least from I-678 eastward (I-80 then goes north along I-678 and concurrent with I-95 back to Fort Lee).
How about I-78? Route it onto the turnpike South between exits 14 and 13, then via I-278 to the present day I-495. This gets rid of the 78/x78 disconnect, the non-freeway section of 78, and the random ending of 78 at city streets. Renumber the Newark Bay Extension to 178 or something if it needs an interstate number.
Looking at the map, NYC and Long Island could seriously use more logic in their interstate numbering.
Yeah, it's all for historical reasons. I-78 was supposed to go through Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, so I-278, I-678, and NY 878 (which would have been I-878) would have connected to it. I-495 was supposed to continue across Manhattan and follows NJ 495 to end at the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95).
Even if all the highways had been built, NYC's numbers would have still be wonky... just slightly less wonky. Also, I-878 still exists, it's just unsigned (and not acknowledged by most NYSDOT documents, but the function class viewer betrays I-878's interstate status).
Quote from: vdeane on May 21, 2015, 08:59:05 PM
Even if all the highways had been built, NYC's numbers would have still be wonky... just slightly less wonky. Also, I-878 still exists, it's just unsigned (and not acknowledged by most NYSDOT documents, but the function class viewer betrays I-878's interstate status).
Well, NYSDOT considers it to be NY 878 and signs it as such, while FHWA considers it to be I-878.