I know when the US Hwy system was created, cities demanded to get a road ending in 0 or 5. Would anyone care anymore? I would think now they want less traffic in town. 35E in Saint paul should be 135 anyway since they banned trucks and dont want traffic in the neighborhood. Was thinking about this when I proposed I-10 running to San Diego, that Phoenix & LA would be outraged to not be on I-10 :P
the US highways had x0 and x1 as the primaries. it is interstates that used x5.
the demand for primary routes was much stronger for US than for interstate. the most egregious example is routing US-80 in a serpentine fashion so that it passes through Phoenix.
Tell that to Minneapolis-St. Paul and Dallas-Fort Worth.
Even the earliest US highways didn't pay much attention to the "primary" numbering, though, at least on the West Coast. US-99 was arguably the most important north-south highway in California, Oregon and Washington, more so than either US-91 or US-101. I also believe the mentality was different: the US highways were designed to pass directly through major cities, the original intent with Interstates was to provide access to them but necessarily through them. (Such as how I-12 exists as a long bypass around New Orleans.)
Quote from: deanej on March 07, 2012, 11:35:52 AM
Tell that to Minneapolis-St. Paul and Dallas-Fort Worth.
Saint Paul has a 45-mph stretch of I-35E, where no trucks are allowed. They don't deserve to be part of 35 anymore. And does anyone in Dallas really care that thru traffic would go thru Fort Worth? Does anyone drive through on 35E and say "hey I never knew this beautiful city was here lets spend some time here".
Quote from: Quillz on March 07, 2012, 12:07:20 PM
Even the earliest US highways didn't pay much attention to the "primary" numbering, though, at least on the West Coast. US-99 was arguably the most important north-south highway in California, Oregon and Washington, more so than either US-91 or US-101. I also believe the mentality was different: the US highways were designed to pass directly through major cities, the original intent with Interstates was to provide access to them but necessarily through them. (Such as how I-12 exists as a long bypass around New Orleans.)
Maybe in 1926 this was true. In 2012 it really doesn't mean anything. Austin would not suffer if I-37 ran thru it instead of I-35
At the risk of drifting off-topic, Atlanta has two interstate x5s (75 & 85), and one interstate x0 (20) (Atlanta also has an interstate xx5 (285), but I will not count that). Are there any cities with a combination of four or more interstate x0s and x5s?
QuoteSaint Paul has a 45-mph stretch of I-35E, where no trucks are allowed. They don't deserve to be part of 35 anymore. And does anyone in Dallas really care that thru traffic would go thru Fort Worth? Does anyone drive through on 35E and say "hey I never knew this beautiful city was here lets spend some time here".
I think that does happen, but probably fairly rarely. I became interested in Kansas City only after driving through it on I-70 on my way to somewhere else. I always knew it was there, but never thought of it as "oh hey, I should go there for fun" until I drove through it
Dallas: 20, 30, 35E, 45.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2012, 01:58:43 PM
Dallas: 20, 30, 35E, 45.
Close:
Greater LA has 5, 15, 10, 40
Greater Chicago has 55, 65, 80, 90
Quote from: Steve on March 07, 2012, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2012, 01:58:43 PM
Dallas: 20, 30, 35E, 45.
Close:
Greater LA has 5, 15, 10, 40
Greater Chicago has 55, 65, 80, 90
40 in "Greater Los Angeles" is a real stretch seeing as it is 72 miles from I-40 to get to I-10/I-15 Jct. Barstow to Downtown LA is 113 miles.
I can accept 15 althought the closest that comes to the LA city limits is 38 miles.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 07, 2012, 08:02:37 PM
Quote from: Steve on March 07, 2012, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2012, 01:58:43 PM
Dallas: 20, 30, 35E, 45.
Close:
Greater LA has 5, 15, 10, 40
Greater Chicago has 55, 65, 80, 90
40 in "Greater Los Angeles" is a real stretch seeing as it is 72 miles from I-40 to get to I-10/I-15 Jct. Barstow to Downtown LA is 113 miles.
I can accept 15 althought the closest that comes to the LA city limits is 38 miles.
In Chicagoland, I-65 never makes it to Illinois and I believe I-80 doesn't quite make it to the Chicago city limits (although both make Chicago suburbia).
35E has the suffix, but even if you discount it, Dallas has more x0s and x5s within its city limits than Atlanta: 3 1/2? :hmm:
Now, to maybe drift further off-topic, is the interchange in Atlanta among the I-75/I-85 overlap and I-20 the only place in a U.S. city where a total of three x0s and x5s meet in one interchange? Or, does Dallas rise to the challenge where 30, 35E, and 45 come close together (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=dallas+tx&hl=en&ll=32.775584,-96.792898&spn=0.025727,0.038581&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.223579,79.013672&hnear=Dallas,+Texas&t=h&z=15)? In other words, can the Dallas "meeting point" be considered a single interchange?
Grzrd said: "Now, to maybe drift further off-topic, is the interchange in Atlanta among the I-75/I-85 overlap and I-20 the only place in a U.S. city where a total of three x0s and x5s meet in one interchange? Or, does Dallas rise to the challenge where 30, 35E, and 45 come close together? In other words, can the Dallas "meeting point" be considered a single interchange?"
The 3 1/2 in Dallas (20, 30, 45, 35E) do not meet in the same location. I-20 is really a southern Bypass of Dallas. And I-35E and I-45 never meet.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 07, 2012, 09:10:12 PM
The 3 1/2 in Dallas (20, 30, 45, 35E) do not meet in the same location. I-20 is really a southern Bypass of Dallas. And I-35E and I-45 never meet.
Agreed. Also, I'm beginning to think that Atlanta is the only city to have a total of three non-suffixed, non-"intrastate interstate" x0s and x5s within its city limits. :happy:
Quote from: texaskdog on March 07, 2012, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: deanej on March 07, 2012, 11:35:52 AM
Tell that to Minneapolis-St. Paul and Dallas-Fort Worth.
Saint Paul has a 45-mph stretch of I-35E, where no trucks are allowed. They don't deserve to be part of 35 anymore. And does anyone in Dallas really care that thru traffic would go thru Fort Worth? Does anyone drive through on 35E and say "hey I never knew this beautiful city was here lets spend some time here".
Remind me not to put you in charge of highway numberings... at any rate, there is a thread in Fictional Highways that deals with the 35 split in the Cities; in the end, the suffixes don't matter.
As far as the the importance of US highways, the Cities do have US 10 and 61. And 12, 52, 169 and 212. And historically 8 and 65.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 07, 2012, 10:55:43 AM
I know when the US Hwy system was created, cities demanded to get a road ending in 0 or 5. Would anyone care anymore? I would think now they want less traffic in town. 35E in Saint paul should be 135 anyway since they banned trucks and dont want traffic in the neighborhood. Was thinking about this when I proposed I-10 running to San Diego, that Phoenix & LA would be outraged to not be on I-10 :P
What's the point of changing I-8 to I-10? They have had their current designations for over 50 years now? All it would do is to cause confusion and make all maps be instantly obsolete.
Quote from: corco on March 07, 2012, 01:58:05 PM
QuoteSaint Paul has a 45-mph stretch of I-35E, where no trucks are allowed. They don't deserve to be part of 35 anymore. And does anyone in Dallas really care that thru traffic would go thru Fort Worth? Does anyone drive through on 35E and say "hey I never knew this beautiful city was here lets spend some time here".
I think that does happen, but probably fairly rarely. I became interested in Kansas City only after driving through it on I-70 on my way to somewhere else. I always knew it was there, but never thought of it as "oh hey, I should go there for fun" until I drove through it
I used to live in KC. There's a lot of neat stuff there if you know where to look.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2012, 01:58:43 PM
Dallas: 20, 30, 35E, 45.
so if Dallas "lost" 35, 45 could still run through on the northern end of the "old" 35E, whereas the southern part could be a freeway extending north on US 75
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2012, 02:45:33 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 07, 2012, 10:55:43 AM
I know when the US Hwy system was created, cities demanded to get a road ending in 0 or 5. Would anyone care anymore? I would think now they want less traffic in town. 35E in Saint paul should be 135 anyway since they banned trucks and dont want traffic in the neighborhood. Was thinking about this when I proposed I-10 running to San Diego, that Phoenix & LA would be outraged to not be on I-10 :P
What's the point of changing I-8 to I-10? They have had their current designations for over 50 years now? All it would do is to cause confusion and make all maps be instantly obsolete.
And we American cannot accept change (or everything would be metric)
You must hate the fictional highway posts
Quote from: texaskdog on March 08, 2012, 10:19:43 AM
And we American cannot accept change (or everything would be metric)
It's not that though.
Just like area code splits/overlays, the impact of a major route's renumbering has to be understood from the perspective of maps becoming obsolete, brochures having to be reprinted for local businesses, etc., never mind the cost of signage to the DOT.
If CalTrans made a point of NOT freeing Route 180 in the 1964 renumbering for potential 3di use (as 180 was one of the original 1934 state routes), it makes sense that drastic number changes for long highways are not particularly sought out except as last resort by most jurisdictions.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 10:39:50 AM
If CalTrans made a point of NOT freeing Route 180 in the 1964 renumbering for potential 3di use (as 180 was one of the original 1934 state routes), it makes sense that drastic number changes for long highways are not particularly sought out except as last resort by most jurisdictions.
interestingly, they had no problem giving up 5, 10, 15, and they bounced 7 around in the LA area, which had to be more confusing than having 180 end up moderately far away.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 08, 2012, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 10:39:50 AM
If CalTrans made a point of NOT freeing Route 180 in the 1964 renumbering for potential 3di use (as 180 was one of the original 1934 state routes), it makes sense that drastic number changes for long highways are not particularly sought out except as last resort by most jurisdictions.
interestingly, they had no problem giving up 5, 10, 15, and they bounced 7 around in the LA area, which had to be more confusing than having 180 end up moderately far away.
Trust me, I agree with you 100%.
10 was given up several years before...
8 was given up in Stockton too. So I don't know why 180 got the special treatment, but not the above numbers listed.
Maybe they simply only thought of the one and two digit numbers and never thought they'd run out of x80 routes? At 1964, IIRC only 280, 480, 580, 680, and the original 880 existed, whether on the drawing board or in the field - 380 was still State Route 186, 780 had not been conceived (as it was still 680 at the time with 21 running from Benicia to Fairfield) and 980 was still proposed Route 24 extension.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 12:07:10 PM
10 was given up several years before...
do you know the exact year? I've seen a 1961 sign with a 42 outline shield. (next-3-exits sign in the median on 5 northbound.)
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 10:39:50 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 08, 2012, 10:19:43 AM
And we American cannot accept change (or everything would be metric)
It's not that though.
Just like area code splits/overlays, the impact of a major route's renumbering has to be understood from the perspective of maps becoming obsolete, brochures having to be reprinted for local businesses, etc., never mind the cost of signage to the DOT.
If CalTrans made a point of NOT freeing Route 180 in the 1964 renumbering for potential 3di use (as 180 was one of the original 1934 state routes), it makes sense that drastic number changes for long highways are not particularly sought out except as last resort by most jurisdictions.
Realizing none of us would be confused :) and the GPS crowd will do whatever their machines tell them to.
So I guess 90% of this nations drivers would be up shit creek then.
Yet another brilliant idea.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2012, 11:25:34 AM
the US highways had x0 and x1 as the primaries. it is interstates that used x5.
Actually, US highways used x0, x1 AND x5 as primaries.
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 08, 2012, 01:07:33 PM
So I guess 90% of this nations drivers would be up shit creek then.
Yet another brilliant idea.
Today's average driver would be lost if the GPS system went down. Pretty soon they wont even print maps anymore.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 08, 2012, 12:52:14 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 12:07:10 PM
10 was given up several years before...
do you know the exact year? I've seen a 1961 sign with a 42 outline shield. (next-3-exits sign in the median on 5 northbound.)
I don't know if Mark F.'s site is still up but he had some late 50s maps and I think 1961 probably was the time of the switchover.
My guess as to why 10 was moved way before the other routes (5, 8, 15) - the Santa Monica Freeway was a new-terrain route that only roughly paralleled Route 26/Olympic Boulevard, while the other three were well-represented by existing US routes (101, 99, 395/66/91, 80).
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 03:29:02 PM
My guess as to why 10 was moved way before the other routes (5, 8, 15) - the Santa Monica Freeway was a new-terrain route that only roughly paralleled Route 26/Olympic Boulevard, while the other three were well-represented by existing US routes (101, 99, 395/66/91, 80).
do we know when the first 35 and 7 shields started going up? (replacing 5 and 15)
7 was a complex case; when was the 405 routing signed solely as 405? I know 405 shields were up as early as 1958, but was that cosigned with 7?
I had always thought the main reason CA-10 was dropped so quickly was because I-10 was so closeby and paralleling it. Only about 8 miles away.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 08, 2012, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 03:29:02 PM
My guess as to why 10 was moved way before the other routes (5, 8, 15) - the Santa Monica Freeway was a new-terrain route that only roughly paralleled Route 26/Olympic Boulevard, while the other three were well-represented by existing US routes (101, 99, 395/66/91, 80).
do we know when the first 35 and 7 shields started going up? (replacing 5 and 15)
I'm not sure at all, though I know both routes are post-1964. What IS interesting is that the routes chosen for recycling both were corridors that had become interstates (pre-1964 35 -> 605, pre-1964 7 -> 405) and that was true for 26 replacing 8 in Stockton as well.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 08, 2012, 03:45:59 PM
7 was a complex case; when was the 405 routing signed solely as 405? I know 405 shields were up as early as 1958, but was that cosigned with 7?
I've always assumed the routes were never co-signed, as unlike say 99/5 (or 101/5), the entirety of post-1942 Route 7 was to be supplanted by 405.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 08, 2012, 03:45:59 PM
I had always thought the main reason CA-10 was dropped so quickly was because I-10 was so closeby and paralleling it. Only about 8 miles away.
That makes sense, though 7 was recycled what, a few miles away from the Sepulveda corridor to today's 710?
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 03:29:02 PM
I don't know if Mark F.'s site is still up but he had some late 50s maps and I think 1961 probably was the time of the switchover.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110514003726/http://members.cox.net/mkpl2/hist/hist.html
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 03:49:58 PM
the entirety of post-1942 Route 7 was to be supplanted by 405.
post-1942? I had thought that 7 was truncated first in 1935 (US-395 taking it over from the Oregon line to Brady) and then 1938 (US-6 taking over it from Brady to Sylmar or so where Sepulveda Blvd began). Is there a third intermediate truncation I am not aware of?
(alternately - when did the 107 designation come into play? I had thought that was early, like 1935 or so.)
Quote
That makes sense, though 7 was recycled what, a few miles away from the Sepulveda corridor to today's 710?
they intersected, even - at or near what is now a 405/710 junction in Long Beach. though if old 7 was unsigned by 1958, and new 7 started getting signed in 1964, that would have been a long enough interval to leave people unconfused.
the implication is that there were two 15s between 1958-1964 or so. they are separated by about 50 miles, so that doesn't seem too problematic.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 08, 2012, 03:24:56 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 08, 2012, 01:07:33 PM
So I guess 90% of this nations drivers would be up shit creek then.
Yet another brilliant idea.
Today's average driver would be lost if the GPS system went down. Pretty soon they wont even print maps anymore.
10% of cars in this nation are equipped with GPS. Cell phone coverage is not whole over the country either.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 08, 2012, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2012, 03:29:02 PM
My guess as to why 10 was moved way before the other routes (5, 8, 15) - the Santa Monica Freeway was a new-terrain route that only roughly paralleled Route 26/Olympic Boulevard, while the other three were well-represented by existing US routes (101, 99, 395/66/91, 80).
do we know when the first 35 and 7 shields started going up? (replacing 5 and 15)
7 was a complex case; when was the 405 routing signed solely as 405? I know 405 shields were up as early as 1958, but was that cosigned with 7?
I had always thought the main reason CA-10 was dropped so quickly was because I-10 was so closeby and paralleling it. Only about 8 miles away.
CA-7 and CA-35 (Northern CA) are 1964 changes to 15 and 5, respectively. Original CA-35 went away at the same time because it was so close to I-605. The CA-10 to CA-42 transition did occur around 1960 due to the proximity of Manchester Avenue and the new Santa Monica Freeway, as you indicate. I have extremely early recollections of the first pieces of the San Diego Freeway in West L.A. being signed as CA-7, but I-405 came very shortly thereafter and the two were never co-signed that I saw.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 08, 2012, 03:24:40 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2012, 11:25:34 AM
the US highways had x0 and x1 as the primaries. it is interstates that used x5.
Actually, US highways used x0, x1 AND x5 as primaries.
Source? By the time you get to the west, the 3-digit routes are just as important as any of the other ones anyway. Come to think of it, except for US 3-9, most of the 2-digit highways are about as important/long as the others regardless of the ending digit, at least north-south.
x5 was a sort of secondary level of primary: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/numbers.cfm
"The principal north-south routes were given numbers ending in 1, with U.S. 1 along the East Coast. The north-south routes of considerable length but secondary importance were given numbers ending in 5."
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 08, 2012, 04:21:16 PM
post-1942? I had thought that 7 was truncated first in 1935 (US-395 taking it over from the Oregon line to Brady) and then 1938 (US-6 taking over it from Brady to Sylmar or so where Sepulveda Blvd began). Is there a third intermediate truncation I am not aware of?
(alternately - when did the 107 designation come into play? I had thought that was early, like 1935 or so.)
Earliest I've seen 107 - what I refer to as the "third truncation" - is on a 1942 map. Haven't seen it any earlier than that.
I get that the Sepulveda-to-Lincoln route at Westchester was way more direct, but why was 107 not only explicitly retained post-1964, but also planned to be freeway on its own? It seems like 405 supplanted that route as well.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 08, 2012, 04:21:16 PM
they intersected, even - at or near what is now a 405/710 junction in Long Beach. though if old 7 was unsigned by 1958, and new 7 started getting signed in 1964, that would have been a long enough interval to leave people unconfused.
the implication is that there were two 15s between 1958-1964 or so. they are separated by about 50 miles, so that doesn't seem too problematic.
When was 15 first signed in California? I know it was definitely in existence by 1964 as the California Highways and Public Works editions of that era referred to the northern segment as 15/91/466.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 07, 2012, 09:10:12 PM
Grzrd said: "Now, to maybe drift further off-topic, is the interchange in Atlanta among the I-75/I-85 overlap and I-20 the only place in a U.S. city where a total of three x0s and x5s meet in one interchange? Or, does Dallas rise to the challenge where 30, 35E, and 45 come close together? In other words, can the Dallas "meeting point" be considered a single interchange?"
The 3 1/2 in Dallas (20, 30, 45, 35E) do not meet in the same location. I-20 is really a southern Bypass of Dallas. And I-35E and I-45 never meet.
May I remind you that I-20 DOES enter the Dallas city limits and DOES cross both I-35E and I-45? Take that into consideration.
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 08, 2012, 04:37:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 08, 2012, 03:24:56 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 08, 2012, 01:07:33 PM
So I guess 90% of this nations drivers would be up shit creek then.
Yet another brilliant idea.
Today's average driver would be lost if the GPS system went down. Pretty soon they wont even print maps anymore.
10% of cars in this nation are equipped with GPS. Cell phone coverage is not whole over the country either.
That's it?? maybe I hang out with the rich crowd then.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 07, 2012, 09:10:12 PM
Grzrd said: "Now, to maybe drift further off-topic, is the interchange in Atlanta among the I-75/I-85 overlap and I-20 the only place in a U.S. city where a total of three x0s and x5s meet in one interchange?
80/90 has an interchange with 75 in Toledo, OH.
Also, similar to 30/35E and 30/45 in Dallas, the 65/80 and 65/90 interchanges are only a mile apart in Gary, IN.
Quote from: Greybear on March 09, 2012, 02:46:05 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 07, 2012, 09:10:12 PM
Grzrd said: "Now, to maybe drift further off-topic, is the interchange in Atlanta among the I-75/I-85 overlap and I-20 the only place in a U.S. city where a total of three x0s and x5s meet in one interchange? Or, does Dallas rise to the challenge where 30, 35E, and 45 come close together? In other words, can the Dallas "meeting point" be considered a single interchange?"
The 3 1/2 in Dallas (20, 30, 45, 35E) do not meet in the same location. I-20 is really a southern Bypass of Dallas. And I-35E and I-45 never meet.
May I remind you that I-20 DOES enter the Dallas city limits and DOES cross both I-35E and I-45? Take that into consideration.
I believe though the question was if they all met at the same junction. In the sense no. If it is just a question of if in the city limits, then you are correct Kdog
Quote from: Grzrd on March 07, 2012, 09:36:30 PM
Agreed. Also, I'm beginning to think that Atlanta is the only city to have a total of three non-suffixed, non-"intrastate interstate" x0s and x5s within its city limits. :happy:
Toledo has I-80, I-90, I-75, I-280, and I-475 through the city limits.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 09, 2012, 01:28:53 AM
When was 15 first signed in California? I know it was definitely in existence by 1964 as the California Highways and Public Works editions of that era referred to the northern segment as 15/91/466.
at the 15/40 junction this 1960 sign survives, with the 91 greened out, and the 15 moved over.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19580151i1.jpg)
sign may indeed be older than 1960. photo is 1960.
somewhere I have more modern photos. the 66 and 40 were similarly covered up and moved over, respectively. that sign got replaced around 2008 to accommodate a retroreflective sign with an exit tab (your tax dollars at work!) but, as of last week, the 15 survives with a big patch covering the 91.
it is a shame because the I-40 shield was the rarely seen 30x27 size, which CA had as a standard from 1958-1962, for two full-width digits (I-40, as opposed to I-15, which was "one and a half" digits).
as far as I know, the only 30x27 shields which survive are at the MacArthur Maze for I-80.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 09, 2012, 10:22:28 AM
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 08, 2012, 04:37:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 08, 2012, 03:24:56 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 08, 2012, 01:07:33 PM
So I guess 90% of this nations drivers would be up shit creek then.
Yet another brilliant idea.
Today's average driver would be lost if the GPS system went down. Pretty soon they wont even print maps anymore.
10% of cars in this nation are equipped with GPS. Cell phone coverage is not whole over the country either.
That's it?? maybe I hang out with the rich crowd then.
I'm amazed it's actually as much as 10%. I have a new car (2011 model) that only has bluetooth, no GPS.
As for cell phone coverage, it used to be lacking on the north side the Keweenaw Peninsula (MI) up by Mt Brockway due to the terrain.