AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Cities adverse to 3dis  (Read 2946 times)

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4111
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 15
  • Location: boston metro area
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 10:24:31 AM
    • Interstate plans
Cities adverse to 3dis
« on: January 05, 2019, 09:12:48 PM »

I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?
Logged
I'm a young roadgeek who has been interested in roads since I was a little kid.

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6649
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 10:18:19 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2019, 09:22:17 PM »

Albuquerque.
Orlando.

Side note: Did you mean "adverse" or "averse"? They both work here, but they have different meanings.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚127.141.159
NH 27,111A; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

Flickr

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8429
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:14:57 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2019, 09:25:56 PM »

I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?

I actually asked ADOT why that was.  The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.  I suppose now it really doesn't matter given that the Loop Freeways were completely State funded.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6137
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 10:53:56 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2019, 09:26:40 PM »

I noticed that Phoenix never gives freeways 3 digit interstate numbers. What other cities are like that?

Arizona is pretty meh about pursuing Interstate status instead of keeping new freeways as state routes. For Phoenix in particular, new freeways were built without using Federal highway funds, which meant less bureaucracy. Pursuing Interstate status would inflict some of the bureaucracy that was avoided by forgoing Federal funds.

For the cities 1 mentioned, the Albuquerque area has at most one freeway that might qualify for 3di status, and it's not very long. Orlando has a lot of freeways, but they are mostly toll roads, and like Phoenix they might've been built without Federal funds. Toll funding can also complicate getting Interstate status.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 09:20:22 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

roadman65

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8966
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:47 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2019, 10:07:20 PM »

Although St. Louis has plenty of 3 digits within its two state metro area, still both MO 370 and MO 364 both are freeways and do connect to the system and do not have such designations.  MO 370 especially, being its part of a bypass of the City of St. Louis for I-70.

Lakeland, FL has the infamous Polk Parkway that is a loop that begins and ends at I-4 and is not a 3 digit.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10366
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 02:06:38 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2019, 10:11:50 PM »

Quote from: Max Rockatansky
I actually asked ADOT why that was.  The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.

There's a bit of truth in this.  ADOT requested mileage for six supplemental Interstate routes in Phoenix and three in Tucson from the 1968 mileage addition.  Only two were approved...one in each city.  One became today's I-10 along the Papago Freeway between I-17 (Exit 143) and AZ 51/AZ 202.  The other was the cancelled I-710 in Tucson (today's South Kino Pkwy).

Quote from: Oscar
Toll funding can also complicate getting Interstate status.

Used to be the case, but no longer.  Under current Federal law (and going back at least to MAP-21), toll roads that meet Interstate standards can be added as non-chargeable Interstate.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9867
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 10:50:06 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2019, 10:12:51 PM »

….

Lakeland, FL has the infamous Polk Parkway that is a loop that begins and ends at I-4 and is not a 3 digit.

The east side of that is—or at least was the last time I was through there—a two-lane road with a toll plaza in the middle of the two-lane section. That part of the road wasn't remotely close to legitimate Interstate standards.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Big John

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1794
  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 11:40:02 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2019, 10:21:25 PM »

Wisconsin.  WI 172 (east of I-41), WI 441, and US45 (Richfield to West Bend) could be 3DIs.
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3553
  • Last Login: April 22, 2019, 10:45:59 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2019, 11:16:47 PM »

* Perhaps Tulsa, OK?  It has I-244, but I-444 is unsigned, and it wouldn't be too hard to have another even x44 as a southern bypass.

* Dallas, TX?  It has I-635, but I-345 is unsigned, TX 12 could easily be an x35, and I think many states would have had the US 80 freeway switched to a 3di when I-20 was relocated to the south.
Logged

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1574
  • David Carson

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 11:22:20 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2019, 01:18:54 AM »

Quote from: Max Rockatansky
I actually asked ADOT why that was.  The most common answer I got was that it probably was due to the fact that Phoenix and Arizona got the shaft in the early Interstate funding era regarding 3Ds.

There's a bit of truth in this.  ADOT requested mileage for six supplemental Interstate routes in Phoenix and three in Tucson from the 1968 mileage addition.  Only two were approved...one in each city.  One became today's I-10 along the Papago Freeway between I-17 (Exit 143) and AZ 51/AZ 202.  The other was the cancelled I-710 in Tucson (today's South Kino Pkwy).

That is really interesting. I always wondered why I-10 crossed I-17 in downtown Phoenix, and then immediately met it again at its southern terminus, making the shape of a small rectangle together.
Logged
Alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1872
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 11:14:49 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2019, 01:20:47 AM »

Salt Lake City has I-215, but has never pursued any further Interstate designations, despite the existence of other interstate-standard freeways like the east half of SR-201. The southeast quadrant of 215 was originally I-415, perhaps due to uncertainty over the final routing of that section; the two were later combined into one 215 designation.

Albuquerque.

That’s only because they’ve never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on.  NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn’t even connect to I-25 for a very long time — it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 01:28:18 AM by US 89 »
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14, 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444, 575, 985
US clinches: 491, 550

Flickr
Imgur

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5362
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 07:16:58 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2019, 01:33:21 AM »

Some larger TX cities seem to be curiously 3di averse; metro Austin being one and El Paso the other.  The first seems to take either a contrarian or, at best, a "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude toward Interstates in general, preferring their nascent network of toll facilities, whereas the latter does have the short and unremarked I-110 as a border connector, but has shown little interest in deploying a bypass (presumably around the north side of town).  And the TX cities that do have the rare 3di seem to be quite contented with their singular loops or arcs built during the chargeable era; adding to that doesn't seem to be in the cards, regardless of levels of development and/or growth.  Even the one relatively obvious place to put a 3di spur (Beaumont-Port Arthur) has yet to do so.  Not counting the two spurs stemming from the I-69 family tree (169, 369), the fact that there are only the four regularly signed loops/bypasses, all part of the original Yellow Book plans, attests to a general statewide indifference to the concept.
Logged

CNGL-Leudimin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2406
  • When in doubt, US 41

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Across the pond
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 04:18:57 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2019, 01:09:08 PM »

Albuquerque.

That’s only because they’ve never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on.  NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn’t even connect to I-25 for a very long time — it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.

Besides that, it seems NMDOT doesn't know what 3dis are. They have never even planned one, probably the only state DOT to have never planned a 3di (besides the Alaska DOT&PF).
Logged
I now have a YouTube channel. However the main purpose of it is to chat in BigRigTravels streams, so don't expect any videos from me (BTW, here I use the local time of where Steve is now, currently Central, instead of my real time unless noted).

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8429
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:14:57 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2019, 01:15:52 PM »

Albuquerque.

That’s only because they’ve never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on.  NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn’t even connect to I-25 for a very long time — it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.

Besides that, it seems NMDOT doesn't know what 3dis are. They have never even planned one, probably the only state DOT to have never planned a 3di (besides the Alaska DOT&PF).

The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces.  The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards. 

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1378
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 10:04:06 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2019, 02:29:40 PM »

If hypothetically the Phoenix area freeways can become 3dis, here is how I would number them:
  • Loop 101 - Interstate 410
  • Loop 202 - Interstate 610
  • Loop 303 - Interstate 217
  • SR 51 - Interstate 510
  • SR 143 - Interstate 110
  • US 60 - Interstate 317 (replaces I-17 south of I-10 and concurrent with freeway portion of US 60 from Phoenix to Apache Junction)
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 02:34:03 PM by Pink Jazz »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8429
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:14:57 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2019, 02:55:25 PM »

If hypothetically the Phoenix area freeways can become 3dis, here is how I would number them:
  • Loop 101 - Interstate 410
  • Loop 202 - Interstate 610
  • Loop 303 - Interstate 217
  • SR 51 - Interstate 510
  • SR 143 - Interstate 110
  • US 60 - Interstate 317 (replaces I-17 south of I-10 and concurrent with freeway portion of US 60 from Phoenix to Apache Junction)

303 and 143 have a ways to go to meet Interstate standards.  I’m not sure where the US 60 interchange is at but that would obviously need to be replaced along with all the at-grade intersections east of there.  143 would need a real interchange with I-10 instead of the dinky stop light/partial interchange it has now. 

Also doesn’t ADOT have a policy about one highway ending in the middle of another?  Wouldn’t that be a detriment to signing US 60 on the Red Mountain Freeway as really anything other than what it is?  I think ADOT put a more useful system in place with the Loop Freeways, considering the early snub for Federal funding on 3Ds it’s no wonder they aren’t interested. 

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1872
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 11:14:49 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2019, 03:55:07 PM »

The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces.  The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards.

There’s also the US 84/285 freeway in Santa Fe, but it’s an at-grade expressway between the freeway section and the I-25 interchange, and I’d bet it isn’t interstate standard anyway. Took me forever to figure out the exit numbers on that; they’re based on a N/S US 84 with milepost zero at the US 60 junction in Fort Sumner.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14, 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444, 575, 985
US clinches: 491, 550

Flickr
Imgur

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 909
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:05:11 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2019, 03:59:32 PM »

Durham, NC with the Durham Freeway (NC 147) but it's planned to become I-885 in the near future.
Also all of the U.S. 421 freeway extending from I-40 and crossing I-77 in the middle to end up Wilkesboro. It's not fully up to interstate standards though and would require wider shoulders, but that's about it.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 04:01:53 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8429
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:14:57 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2019, 04:18:11 PM »

The only other freeway that comes to mind in the state is US 70 east of I-25 in Las Cruces.  The is an at-grade interchange and I would highly doubt any part of the freeway meets Interstate standards.

There’s also the US 84/285 freeway in Santa Fe, but it’s an at-grade expressway between the freeway section and the I-25 interchange, and I’d bet it isn’t interstate standard anyway. Took me forever to figure out the exit numbers on that; they’re based on a N/S US 84 with milepost zero at the US 60 junction in Fort Sumner.

Completely forgot that one was even a thing.   

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1083
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 09:26:58 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2019, 04:47:49 PM »

Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6367
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 03:48:02 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2019, 05:20:54 PM »

I-695 was to be constructed in & adjacent to Boston (aka the Inner Belt); but such never became reality.  As a matter of fact, there's no 3di whatsoever inside I-495 in eastern MA.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 993
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 11:04:36 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2019, 09:09:46 PM »

Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Would you switch the I-76 and I-376 designations, to send I-76 into the city? Same with I-79 and I-279? With a short Multiplex of I-76 and I-79 to get back to the current I-79 SE of Downtown?

Seems a bit silly to me.
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3553
  • Last Login: April 22, 2019, 10:45:59 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2019, 09:27:17 PM »

Albuquerque.

That’s only because they’ve never even had a highway to put a pretty shield on.  NM 423 is the only other freeway...and it didn’t even connect to I-25 for a very long time — it ended at Jefferson. When it did finally get extended, the 25/423 interchange was built on the cheap, adding a couple direct ramps instead of a full system as originally planned.

Based on Page A19 of https://books.google.com/books?id=1442AQAAMAAJ&dq=albuquerque%20metronet&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q=albuquerque%20metronet&f=false, it looks like Albuquerque did several studies for a beltway though.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3498
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 08:25:13 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2019, 09:49:15 PM »

Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Would you switch the I-76 and I-376 designations, to send I-76 into the city? Same with I-79 and I-279? With a short Multiplex of I-76 and I-79 to get back to the current I-79 SE of Downtown?

Seems a bit silly to me.

Corrected:
Amusingly enough, at one point I-70   covered I-79 between today's I-70 and I-376, then I-376 east to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and finally down the turnpike to join up with I-70S (the current I-70).

I-376 between I-279 and the Turnpike was part of I-76 at one point, and all of I-279 and the portion of I-376 that used to be part of I-279 also were once part of I-79.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2019, 01:43:13 AM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5362
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 23, 2019, 07:16:58 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2019, 01:39:40 AM »

Pittsburgh is adverse to 2dis.
Would you switch the I-76 and I-376 designations, to send I-76 into the city? Same with I-79 and I-279? With a short Multiplex of I-76 and I-79 to get back to the current I-79 SE of Downtown?

Seems a bit silly to me.

Amusingly enough, at one point I-70 had a branch route (I-70N) that covered I-79 between today's I-70 and I-376, then I-376 east to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and finally down the turnpike to join up with I-70S (the current I-70).

I-376 between I-279 and the Turnpike was part of I-76 at one point, and all of I-279 and the portion of I-376 that used to be part of I-279 also were once part of I-79.

There was never a I-70N in western PA; before the 1961 southern extension of I-79 into WV, mainline I-70 was to utilize present I-79 north of Washington to present I-376, then east over I-376 to the PA Turnpike, which was I-80S coming in from Ohio.  At that time I-79 and I-279 were reversed, with I-79 coming in to town and terminating at I-70, while I-279 was the western bypass.  I-70S was the current I-70 east of Washington to the Turnpike at New Stanton.  Of course, that partially changed in '61; I-79 was to multiplex with I-70 from central Pittsburgh down to Washington and then strike out on its extended course south from there paralleling US 19 into WV.  The configuration further changed in '64 with the commissioning of I-76; at that time I-70 was rerouted over former I-70S; I-79 became the sole occupant of the Washington-Pittsburgh segment, and I-76 was designated over former I-70 (the Penn-Lincoln Parkway) from downtown Pittsburgh east to the Turnpike at Monroeville; I-80N was truncated back to that point, with I-76 taking over its former route east of there.  The 79/279 "swap" came later, as did the rerouting of I-76 onto the Turnpike west of Monroeville, commensurate with the designation of I-376 over the former I-76 route into downtown -- as well as the full deletion of I-80S in PA and OH. 
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.