I'm sure I'm not the only one who has said anything about this subject before, but wouldn't it make more sense for AASHTO to give in and use one of the "forbidden" numbers in the interstate numbering system? I mean, a designation of I-36 or something similar would fit in the grid so much more than taking I-74 so far out of the grid. It just makes more sense. Is there a way to contact AASHTO concerning this? This crap with just using any ol' number is ridiculous... like I-99.
It's called I-74 because Congress designated it as part of the "I-73/74 High-Priority Corridor" (but didn't actually call it Interstate 74).
On the other hand, I-99 was numbered by Congress.
Someone, obviously high on LSD or PCP, envisioned that one day there would be an interstate extending from Cincinnati through southern Ohio, West Virginia and southwestern Virginia, to connect to that route known as I-74 in North Carolina.
Quote from: NE2 on November 23, 2012, 06:56:26 PM
It's called I-74 because Congress designated it as part of the "I-73/74 High-Priority Corridor" (but didn't actually call it Interstate 74).
On the other hand, I-99 was numbered by Congress.
This is true.... good ol' scholar Bud Schuster.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 23, 2012, 08:15:57 PM
Someone, obviously high on LSD or PCP, envisioned that one day there would be an interstate extending from Cincinnati through southern Ohio, West Virginia and southwestern Virginia, to connect to that route known as I-74 in North Carolina.
As it stands right now, to my knowledge, Ohio and WV do not plan on having the I-74 extended through their states, so it would be discontinuous. That would be the perfect excuse to renumber it to something that makes more sense.
If the eastern I-74 is renumbered, what excuse will Wisconsin use to get I-41? :spin:
Quote from: Big John on November 23, 2012, 09:21:42 PM
If the eastern I-74 is renumbered, what excuse will Wisconsin use to get I-41? :spin:
The fact that it fits perfectly in the grid and it's already called 41. Good luck to them.
Just renumber I-74 to I-34. For the most part, it would fit the grid. Better than having an I-74 SOUTH of I-40.
Long diagonal routes are never going to fit the grid. I-74 in its entirety makes perfect sense as one route, except perhaps for its easternmost part that turns due south or even southwest.
The only problem is the lack of a physically-constructed Interstate in the middle. But in my mind that's conceptually similar to US 10 crossing Lake Michigan.
I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.
Quote from: NE2 on November 24, 2012, 07:29:10 PM
I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.
The abuse of the US route numbering system should be a warning of how irrelevant a logical numbering system can become when it is used with reckless abandon. Diagonal routes will never fit the grid perfectly, and grid system isn't perfect, but it is what we have to deal with. That said, discontinuous diagonal routes (such as I-74) should have their separate sections as different numbers. Continuous ones (such as US-52, I-71) make more sense as one number.
As for US-10 (and for that matter, US-2), it makes more sense as it is not a discontinuous diagonal route. It is a discontinuous route that has both parts fitting into the grid where it is numbered. Ditto with I-76, ditto with I-86.
I-74 is not a diagonal. Were it built, it would be shaped like a flattened S.
Quote from: deanej on November 25, 2012, 11:16:15 AM
I-74 is not a diagonal. Were it built, it would be shaped like a flattened S.
However, it is diagonal in the sense that it is an even number crossing north to south across the grid just as I-85 does from west to east. I-81, I-82, I-44 and others are similar due to geography.
Quote from: deanej on November 25, 2012, 11:16:15 AM
I-74 is not a diagonal. Were it built, it would be shaped like a flattened S.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1d%2FInterstate_74_map.png%2F800px-Interstate_74_map.png&hash=2fc06a3085e3b135cddd4aa6d98517da5443f5b9)
It's no curvier than any other long Interstate. And yes, it's diagonal, because it crosses several I-x0's and I-x5's.
To the one who started this topic. I think we all agree that I-74 should be renumbered, but we roadgeeks cannot do anything to influence AASHTO to do the right thing. In many cases, and in today's hard times, no one wants to spend money as it does cost "millions" of our hard earned tax money to do a simple thing as change a route number.
You, in reality, would need to have input from the locals along the corridor it runs to hold hearings first. Then petition AASHTO, before finally reaching FHWA for finalizing prior to getting congress and state legislatures to warrant the funding. Most locals are not road geeks and could care less what number it is given, so I-74 would be okay for them. In NYC, it cost into the millions (this according to NYSDOT who I once emailed years ago about changing NY Interstates to mile based exits) just to change the name of the Innerborough Parkway to Jackie Robinson Parkway that is a very short freeway in Queens.
Great thought though as I-34, I-36, I-38, or even I-28 would all work and eliminate the useless US 74 and I-74 overlap. In my opinion, all of US 74 from Charlotte to Wilmington should be an interstate of its own, but leave that idea to fictional highways. Back on subject, it will never happen. Ohio and West Virginia would build its missing link before someone in Washington would change the number, and the OH- WV link is pretty much dead as you say. Even Obama changing his mind on his policies would happen before I-74 is completed, so you see.
Get used to the US numbering scheme to be unfair, just like US 6 being south of US 20, or even US 44 between the 2 and US 46 being a 74 mile short route between US 6 and US 22.
Quote from: Brandon on November 25, 2012, 06:11:34 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 25, 2012, 11:16:15 AM
I-74 is not a diagonal. Were it built, it would be shaped like a flattened S.
However, it is diagonal in the sense that it is an even number crossing north to south across the grid just as I-85 does from west to east. I-81, I-82, I-44 and others are similar due to geography.
Quote from: vtk on November 25, 2012, 06:59:27 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 25, 2012, 11:16:15 AM
I-74 is not a diagonal. Were it built, it would be shaped like a flattened S.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1d%2FInterstate_74_map.png%2F800px-Interstate_74_map.png&hash=2fc06a3085e3b135cddd4aa6d98517da5443f5b9)
It's no curvier than any other long Interstate. And yes, it's diagonal, because it crosses several I-x0's and I-x5's.
And almost all of I-74 east of Cincinnati is multiplexed with I-73.
Quote from: deanej on November 26, 2012, 11:43:55 AM
And almost all of I-74 east of Cincinnati is multiplexed with I-73.
No, it's not. There happens to be a N-S multiplex that's currently signed, but most of I-74, even in its current form, is independent.
Segment one (I-77 near Mt. Airy to I-40 in Winston-Salem):
option one - renumber as I-177.
option two - renumber the short connector section between I-77 and US 52 at Mt. Airy as US 52, and multiplex US 52 with I-77 south of Exit 8 in Virginia, renumber US 52 from Mt. Airy to Exit 8 as "ALT US 52 or a state route.
Piedmont Triad Metroplex:
Leave US 311 as US 311.
Renumber short segment from I-40 Exit 212 to US 220 as I-840.
South of that:
US 220, US 1, US 74.
IF SC 22 is ever connected all the way to I-95, renumber as I-195.
End of problem
Quote from: NE2 on November 24, 2012, 07:29:10 PM
I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.
And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.
Is I-74 in the Carolinas (built and proposed) more N-S or E-W?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 27, 2012, 09:32:11 PM
Is I-74 in the Carolinas (built and proposed) more N-S or E-W?
It's more N-S, but it's parallel to I-26. The grid skews to make the Appalachians the north-south line, sort of how Quebec makes the St. Lawrence River east-west.
If the two sections of I-74 will never be connected, it should not be I-74 in North Carolina.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 27, 2012, 09:32:11 PM
Is I-74 in the Carolinas (built and proposed) more N-S or E-W?
Assuming 3 options: a) N-S, b) E-W, and, c) diagonal it is option c.
By plan or by accident, the I-2x highways are diagonal so I-28 would fit nicely in that grid, wouldn't it?
Google map of the I-2x highways (https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213249388344738481670.0004cf85483521c222bfb&msa=0&ll=34.633208,-84.067383&spn=9.034717,21.643066)
I do agree with I-28.. it does fit the grid very well.. (while all I-22, I-24, I-26) could be used in the west coast to match with the grid even more.
but again, NC gets away with numbers for some reason.
I-28 would work very nicely. As I said before, the difference between I-74 and US-52 (or US-62 or US-79) is that I-74 is discontinuous and will be permanently unless Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia build their parts. I don't see that happening in any foreseeable future.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, just make I-74 in NC a Southern I-79. That way you can multiplex I-79 along I-77 and be done with it. :bigass:
So it seems a lot of people agree with my thoughts about renumbering I-74 in the south.
Now I did put some further thought into it, and its position in the grid, and here's what I was thinking and why. I was thinking I-42 may work better, and here's why: Assuming the freeway is built in West Virginia (and it might), that would put most of the freeway north of I-40. In the US highway grid, US-42 does the same thing in reference to US-40, but only in the opposite direction. And even if it is not built in WV, it would still work.
Any thoughts on the logic of this numbering?
I looked into a southern I-79, but the only issue would be the big loop around the Appalachians, causing people to have to backtrack a couple hundred miles. That would be too inefficient from a travel time perspective.
In any case, if I'm crazy for mentioning I-42, I-28 would be very doable. Now how do we go about petitioning AASHTO to renumber the freeway so it makes sense?
I agree, any number from 28 to 38 would be an ideal number, as it lies between I-20 and I-40. I would take 34, 36 or even 38, but then extend it to Charlotte, Asheville and points west.
As for the part that's shared with I-73, call this I-79. It's east of I-77 and will never continue into WV, OH and MI for the same reason that I-74 will never connect to Cincinnati, so I'm all in favor of a southern extension of I-79, long multiplex with I-77 notwithstanding.
I'm in the process of doing a fantasy Interstate renumbering. Stay tuned...
Since the plans of completing 74 through WV and OH are pretty much dead, the remaining I-74 will mostly be an unnecessary parallel route to I-73.
- The US 52 portion from WS to I-77 in Mt. Airy should be a northerly extension of I-285 (assuming it ever gets upgraded to Interstate standards)
- The US 311 portion around High Point could either remain US 311, or become I-273.
- The I-73/US 220 portion would remain I-73/US 220.
- The US 74 portion could either stay US 74, or become an x73 or x95. (Preferably 473)
- The Carolina Bays Pkwy portion could also be I-173.
Actually, last week, I drove to and from just north of Madison, Wisconsin from my home in Greensboro, NC. I basically followed the I-74 alignment, picking up actual I-74 in both NC and Ohio/Indiana.
I-40 to I-40 BUS/US-421 to US-52 to I-74 to I-74/77 to I-77 to I-64 to KY-9 (AA Highway) to I-275 to I-471 to I-71/75 to I-74 which multiplexes with both US-52 (again) and US-421 on its way to Indianapolis - and then it was I-465 to I-65 to I-90 etc.
On the way back, instead of staying on I-64 to I-77, I actually took US-23 and then cut over KY-40 to US-52 and took that all the way through WV to pick up I-77 just north of the tunnel. So, basically, almost the exact I-74 route.
The whole time, I was thinking about how much sense it made to build the I-74 part that is missing, and how I-74 was the perfect number. Plus, it's interesting how I-74 kind of follows both the US-52 and US-421 corridor in multiple areas in multiple states.
I-74 makes sense to me. Even if WV or OH never builds their portion. I still wonder why Kentucky doesn't get in the act and build I-74 along the KY-9/AA corridor anyway.
I-99
Quote from: MBHockey13 on August 21, 2013, 11:46:48 AM
The whole time, I was thinking about how much sense it made to build the I-74 part that is missing, and how I-74 was the perfect number. Plus, it's interesting how I-74 kind of follows both the US-52 and US-421 corridor in multiple areas in multiple states.
West Virginia plans to build the route as a surface arterial, much like US 119 between Williamson and Charleston. And really, that's all that's needed. Really no reason to build a full freeway.
Quote from: MBHockey13 on August 21, 2013, 11:46:48 AM
I-74 makes sense to me. Even if WV or OH never builds their portion. I still wonder why Kentucky doesn't get in the act and build I-74 along the KY-9/AA corridor anyway.
Because it's not needed. That KY 9 corridor dates back only to the 1980s and is perfectly suitable for the amount of traffic it carries. There are stretches between Vanceburg or Grayson where you could fall asleep in the road and probably not get run over until you got a good nap in.
Shuster is deceased?
Quote from: DBR96A on August 21, 2013, 04:43:13 AM
I'm in the process of doing a fantasy Interstate renumbering. Stay tuned...
Oh fun...
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 21, 2013, 02:32:26 PM
Shuster is deceased?
He's very much still alive, just retired.
Quote from: myriad1973 on November 23, 2012, 06:08:25 PM
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has said anything about this subject before, but wouldn't it make more sense for AASHTO to give in and use one of the "forbidden" numbers in the interstate numbering system? I mean, a designation of I-36 or something similar would fit in the grid so much more than taking I-74 so far out of the grid. It just makes more sense. Is there a way to contact AASHTO concerning this? This crap with just using any ol' number is ridiculous... like I-99.
What are the forbidden numbers and why are they forbidden?
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 22, 2013, 06:59:29 PM
Quote from: myriad1973 on November 23, 2012, 06:08:25 PM
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has said anything about this subject before, but wouldn't it make more sense for AASHTO to give in and use one of the "forbidden" numbers in the interstate numbering system? I mean, a designation of I-36 or something similar would fit in the grid so much more than taking I-74 so far out of the grid. It just makes more sense. Is there a way to contact AASHTO concerning this? This crap with just using any ol' number is ridiculous... like I-99.
What are the forbidden numbers and why are they forbidden?
I-50 & I-60 are the only "forbidden" ones that I know of.
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 22, 2013, 06:59:29 PM
Quote from: myriad1973 on November 23, 2012, 06:08:25 PM
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has said anything about this subject before, but wouldn't it make more sense for AASHTO to give in and use one of the "forbidden" numbers in the interstate numbering system? I mean, a designation of I-36 or something similar would fit in the grid so much more than taking I-74 so far out of the grid. It just makes more sense. Is there a way to contact AASHTO concerning this? This crap with just using any ol' number is ridiculous... like I-99.
What are the forbidden numbers and why are they forbidden?
1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 92, 98
I wouldn't call them 'forbidden', they've just never been used. Tend to be lower numbers, due to the fact that they're reserved for roads to the south and west. (Where there are less people)
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 22, 2013, 07:52:46 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 22, 2013, 06:59:29 PM
Quote from: myriad1973 on November 23, 2012, 06:08:25 PM
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has said anything about this subject before, but wouldn't it make more sense for AASHTO to give in and use one of the "forbidden" numbers in the interstate numbering system? I mean, a designation of I-36 or something similar would fit in the grid so much more than taking I-74 so far out of the grid. It just makes more sense. Is there a way to contact AASHTO concerning this? This crap with just using any ol' number is ridiculous... like I-99.
What are the forbidden numbers and why are they forbidden?
I-50 & I-60 are the only "forbidden" ones that I know of.
That was based on the old rule of no US highway and Interstate highway having the same number in the same state. US 50 and US 60 are near the center where those interstates would be.
Now that NC and now WI have set the precedent by breaking that rule, i would say those numbers are back in play.
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 22, 2013, 08:26:50 PM
1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 92, 98
39 and 41 are used.
Quote from: mukade on August 22, 2013, 09:10:58 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 22, 2013, 08:26:50 PM
1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 92, 98
39 and 41 are used.
Whoops, edited my post.
Isn't North Carolina the only state that cares about I-73/74? Last I heard there are no plans for 73 or 74 in Ohio and WV
I suspect 73/74 might be resurrected in Ohio, after Democrats come back to power... is what I'd be saying if expanded passenger rail weren't at the top of the hip new progressive infrastructure wish list.
Quote from: Henry on December 14, 2012, 11:01:20 AM
I agree, any number from 28 to 38 would be an ideal number, as it lies between I-20 and I-40. I would take 34, 36 or even 38, but then extend it to Charlotte, Asheville and points west.
As for the part that's shared with I-73, call this I-79. It's east of I-77 and will never continue into WV, OH and MI for the same reason that I-74 will never connect to Cincinnati, so I'm all in favor of a southern extension of I-79, long multiplex with I-77 notwithstanding.
That's an interesting idea. I-74 becomes I-34 and connects to Charlotte and Asheville while I-79 is extended along I-77 and I-74 down to this new I-34.
An I-79 extension would be a good idea if not for the fact that there would be a nearly 175 mile concurrency between I-77 and I-79, along a route that already has a fairly long concurrency with I-64.
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 23, 2013, 08:18:44 AM
An I-79 extension would be a good idea if not for the fact that there would be a nearly 175 mile concurrency between I-77 and I-79, along a route that already has a fairly long concurrency with I-64.
What about the long I-80/ I-90 concurrency from the Chicagoland area to Metro Cleveland? Then the three interstate I-90/I-94/ I-39 concurrency along with the future I-69/ I-74/ I-465 three pack around Indy is another three route overlap that are and will all be in practice.
Ok, shouldn't this thread be moved over to "fantasy land" by now?
I think it is known as Alanland by some of the one's here.LOL! :-D
If Ohio or West Virginia were to build their parts of I-74 along the US 52 corridor or near it, then there would really be no issue with the route number. There are quite a few diagonal interstates in the system (and US 52 is a severe diagonal across the eastern half of the country), and those will never perfectly fit the grid for obvious reasons. But it looks like Ohio has no plans to build it, and West Virginia isn't reconstructing US 52 to interstate standards.
As it looks like right now, I-74 does seem redundant, and I wonder if it will actually be numbered long-term. I don't live there, so I really don't know much about how much is constructed, how much will be constructed and how concurrent it will be with I-73.
I try not to stress too much over numbering violations, since those are bound to happen no matter what. As long as people can find the damned thing, that's good enough.
Quote from: Big John on August 22, 2013, 08:52:49 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 22, 2013, 07:52:46 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 22, 2013, 06:59:29 PM
Quote from: myriad1973 on November 23, 2012, 06:08:25 PM
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has said anything about this subject before, but wouldn't it make more sense for AASHTO to give in and use one of the "forbidden" numbers in the interstate numbering system? I mean, a designation of I-36 or something similar would fit in the grid so much more than taking I-74 so far out of the grid. It just makes more sense. Is there a way to contact AASHTO concerning this? This crap with just using any ol' number is ridiculous... like I-99.
What are the forbidden numbers and why are they forbidden?
I-50 & I-60 are the only "forbidden" ones that I know of.
That was based on the old rule of no US highway and Interstate highway having the same number in the same state. US 50 and US 60 are near the center where those interstates would be.
Now that NC and now WI have set the precedent by breaking that rule, i would say those numbers are back in play.
50 was always in play in KY and 60 was always in play in NC, where those numbers could conceivably fit and not conflict with the US highway. Both states have freeways that would qualify - several KY parkways, and US 64.
It just doesn't make sense to me to sign an Interstate that strays so far out of the grid and isn't even planned to be continuous - if it's continuous, like I-24 or I-26, then in my view a diagonal straying from the grid is no problem, but if it's discontinuous what is the point? Perhaps I-74 from South Carolina to Virginia should be given another number such as I-36 or I-38. Also, the long overlaps between I-73 and I-74 also seem pointless. If I were in charge I'd have I-73 end when it meets I-74 in Ohio or West Virginia, and have the independent segments of future I-73 changed to x74's. It would eliminate the long overlaps and it would fit the grid better too.
A long 80/90 overlap makes more sense than 73/74 because each one continues separately for over a thousand miles after the overlap ends.
Quote from: 31E on August 25, 2013, 09:29:25 AM
It just doesn't make sense to me to sign an Interstate that strays so far out of the grid and isn't even planned to be continuous - if it's continuous, like I-24 or I-26, then in my view a diagonal straying from the grid is no problem, but if it's discontinuous what is the point? Perhaps I-74 from South Carolina to Virginia should be given another number such as I-36 or I-38. Also, the long overlaps between I-73 and I-74 also seem pointless. If I were in charge I'd have I-73 end when it meets I-74 in Ohio or West Virginia, and have the independent segments of future I-73 changed to x74's. It would eliminate the long overlaps and it would fit the grid better too.
A long 80/90 overlap makes more sense than 73/74 because each one continues separately for over a thousand miles after the overlap ends.
Well, the states didn't decide the numbers on their own, that is what was enacted by congress. Doesn't matter if some states have this route on the back burner, it's still on the books and eventually, one day, they I-73 will reach Michigan and I-74 will connect to it's western half.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on August 25, 2013, 08:12:05 PM
Quote from: 31E on August 25, 2013, 09:29:25 AM
It just doesn't make sense to me to sign an Interstate that strays so far out of the grid and isn't even planned to be continuous - if it's continuous, like I-24 or I-26, then in my view a diagonal straying from the grid is no problem, but if it's discontinuous what is the point? Perhaps I-74 from South Carolina to Virginia should be given another number such as I-36 or I-38. Also, the long overlaps between I-73 and I-74 also seem pointless. If I were in charge I'd have I-73 end when it meets I-74 in Ohio or West Virginia, and have the independent segments of future I-73 changed to x74's. It would eliminate the long overlaps and it would fit the grid better too.
A long 80/90 overlap makes more sense than 73/74 because each one continues separately for over a thousand miles after the overlap ends.
Well, the states didn't decide the numbers on their own, that is what was enacted by congress. Doesn't matter if some states have this route on the back burner, it's still on the books and eventually, one day, they I-73 will reach Michigan and I-74 will connect to it's western half.
I don't see either of those days happening any time soon!!!
Quote from: WashuOtaku on August 25, 2013, 08:12:05 PM
Well, the states didn't decide the numbers on their own, that is what was enacted by congress. Doesn't matter if some states have this route on the back burner, it's still on the books and eventually, one day, they I-73 will reach Michigan and I-74 will connect to it's western half.
Not going to happen. West Virginia is building US 52 as a surface route, and US 23 in Ohio is already built as a surface route.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 25, 2013, 09:58:07 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on August 25, 2013, 08:12:05 PM
Well, the states didn't decide the numbers on their own, that is what was enacted by congress. Doesn't matter if some states have this route on the back burner, it's still on the books and eventually, one day, they I-73 will reach Michigan and I-74 will connect to it's western half.
Not going to happen. West Virginia is building US 52 as a surface route, and US 23 in Ohio is already built as a surface route.
Population growth means that's probably not the final version of either highway. It may be well beyond the current planning horizons, but there's no reason to say it'll never happen.
I don't foresee a lot of growth in Mingo, Wyoming or McDowell counties in West Virginia.
Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 04, 2014, 12:34:06 AM
Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?
You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 06, 2014, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 04, 2014, 12:34:06 AM
Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?
You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.
Why is it forbidden again? Is it because it's logical place is to close to US 60?
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 06, 2014, 10:56:46 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 06, 2014, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 04, 2014, 12:34:06 AM
Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?
You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.
Why is it forbidden again? Is it because it's logical place is to close to US 60?
Yep. Same deal w/ I-50.
Only an issue if it goes in the same state as the others.
And I-49 in AR (opposite sides of the state), I-41 in WI (one number, one route), I-69 in TX (intersecting routes) and most egregiously I-74 in NC (multiplexing routes on different corridors) have all shown that this rule has been watered down somewhat.
And neither US50 or US60 enters the Carolinas, so not an issue in this thread...
Quote from: english si on August 07, 2014, 04:46:59 AM
Only an issue if it goes in the same state as the others.
And I-49 in AR (opposite sides of the state), I-41 in WI (one number, one route), I-69 in TX (intersecting routes) and most egregiously I-74 in NC (multiplexing routes on different corridors) have all shown that this rule has been watered down somewhat.
And neither US50 or US60 enters the Carolinas, so not an issue in this thread...
It was also watered down from the beginning with I-24 and US-24 at opposing ends of Illinois. That said, a minor number (non I-x0 or I-x5) should be used for these interstates in North Carolina.
Given that it is diagonal, any mid-number (42 to 62 being mostly north of, or at least near, I-40) even would suffice, but I-74 definitely should not be in the Carolinas, it should be north of the Mason-Dixon Line. If a minor number, the best I can think of are I-58 and I-62. One number should be preserved for US 64 from Raleigh eastward as well though (perhaps I-48?). There are no odd numbers that would fit very well though...unless you duplicate a number from the Northeast.
I-74 is perfectly fine in the western section from OH westward, but I don't see them connecting easily, and why have a long multiplex with 73 anyway?
Quote from: NE2 on November 23, 2012, 06:56:26 PM
It's called I-74 because Congress designated it as part of the "I-73/74 High-Priority Corridor" (but didn't actually call it Interstate 74).
On the other hand, I-99 was numbered by Congress.
And it is sad in my opinion that I-99 exists in NY now too .....
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2012, 11:43:55 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 25, 2012, 06:11:34 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 25, 2012, 11:16:15 AM
I-74 is not a diagonal. Were it built, it would be shaped like a flattened S.
However, it is diagonal in the sense that it is an even number crossing north to south across the grid just as I-85 does from west to east. I-81, I-82, I-44 and others are similar due to geography.
Quote from: vtk on November 25, 2012, 06:59:27 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 25, 2012, 11:16:15 AM
I-74 is not a diagonal. Were it built, it would be shaped like a flattened S.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1d%2FInterstate_74_map.png%2F800px-Interstate_74_map.png&hash=2fc06a3085e3b135cddd4aa6d98517da5443f5b9)
It's no curvier than any other long Interstate. And yes, it's diagonal, because it crosses several I-x0's and I-x5's.
And almost all of I-74 east of Cincinnati is multiplexed with I-73.
My opinion on I-73/74 is to pick one or the other. If they are to connect, then use 74 if not then 73. then the other route would be a 3di through NC and SC. We all know how much NC likes to add to their interstate system!
Quote from: Charles2 on November 27, 2012, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 24, 2012, 07:29:10 PM
I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.
And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.
US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 13, 2014, 07:57:25 PM
Quote from: Charles2 on November 27, 2012, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 24, 2012, 07:29:10 PM
I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.
And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.
US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?
US 52 is weird, it zig-zags everywhere
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 13, 2014, 07:57:25 PM
Quote from: Charles2 on November 27, 2012, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 24, 2012, 07:29:10 PM
I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.
And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.
US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?
52 is signed on I-94 in ND, though. 52 in ND should remain on the U.S. route system as it's a NHS route with a good amount of truck traffic. It should be U.S. 39, echoing U.S. 57 in TX.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 06, 2014, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 04, 2014, 12:34:06 AM
Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?
You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.
No, dude. Just because nobody's ever used it doesn't mean nobody can use it.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 13, 2014, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 06, 2014, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 04, 2014, 12:34:06 AM
Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?
You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.
No, dude. Just because nobody's ever used it doesn't mean nobody can use it.
I think they are forbidden, if it's not an actual rule, it's definitely an unwritten one. I don't see them ever using them unless everything else is taken.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 13, 2014, 11:02:34 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 13, 2014, 07:57:25 PM
Quote from: Charles2 on November 27, 2012, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 24, 2012, 07:29:10 PM
I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.
And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.
US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?
52 is signed on I-94 in ND, though. 52 in ND should remain on the U.S. route system as it's a NHS route with a good amount of truck traffic. It should be U.S. 39, echoing U.S. 57 in TX.
US 110 was my thought (based on the thought that MSR 200 should be renumbered as US 10 IMO), however nothing wrong with 39 either .....
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 13, 2014, 11:15:32 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 13, 2014, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 06, 2014, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 04, 2014, 12:34:06 AM
Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?
You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.
No, dude. Just because nobody's ever used it doesn't mean nobody can use it.
I think they are forbidden, if it's not an actual rule, it's definitely an unwritten one. I don't see them ever using them unless everything else is taken.
Show me a file where AASHTO has explicitly rejected an application for I-50 or I-60, or I will continue to call bs. They are NOT forbidden. No number is forbidden...
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 13, 2014, 11:17:52 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 13, 2014, 11:02:34 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 13, 2014, 07:57:25 PM
Quote from: Charles2 on November 27, 2012, 09:00:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 24, 2012, 07:29:10 PM
I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.
And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.
US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?
52 is signed on I-94 in ND, though. 52 in ND should remain on the U.S. route system as it's a NHS route with a good amount of truck traffic. It should be U.S. 39, echoing U.S. 57 in TX.
US 110 was my thought (based on the thought that MSR 200 should be renumbered as US 10 IMO), however nothing wrong with 39 either .....
What would you renumber the current 10?
Back to I-74:
I'd be okay with getting rid of it, completing everything between Rockingham and I-95 and renumbering it I-173. That seems like the most sensible solution.
Alternatively, I would say to go full force, expand what we have now into I-38 and connect Knoxville, TN to Wilmington, NC. That'll take a lot of money but it would at least provide a way to go from Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington (and by way of I-95 Fayetteville) without leaving the Interstate system.