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 2950 times)

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2410
  • Roadgeek Forever.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 02:49:28 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2019, 10:52:16 AM »

I've always liked the Rochester- (or Pittsburgh-) type of situation where the 2dis stay well away from the urban core, which is instead served by 3dis. It makes sense for the 3dis to serve the local and commuter traffic, while long-distance traffic stays on a consistent route, thereby maintaining higher speeds and avoiding typical peak-hour congestion. It also keeps that traffic out of the city, instead of dumping it on urban freeways that are already at capacity.

Imagine, for example, if I-90 went right through downtown Rochester, how much more inconvenient it would be to get from Buffalo to Syracuse. The current setup is a win-win for both long-distance traffic and commuters. I-90 in Buffalo, on the other hand, is a lose-lose for both long distance traffic and commuters.
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!
Threads Started
Counties Clinched

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3501
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 07:56:16 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2019, 01:22:12 PM »

I've always liked the Rochester- (or Pittsburgh-) type of situation where the 2dis stay well away from the urban core, which is instead served by 3dis. It makes sense for the 3dis to serve the local and commuter traffic, while long-distance traffic stays on a consistent route, thereby maintaining higher speeds and avoiding typical peak-hour congestion. It also keeps that traffic out of the city, instead of dumping it on urban freeways that are already at capacity.

Imagine, for example, if I-90 went right through downtown Rochester, how much more inconvenient it would be to get from Buffalo to Syracuse. The current setup is a win-win for both long-distance traffic and commuters. I-90 in Buffalo, on the other hand, is a lose-lose for both long distance traffic and commuters.

I think it really depends too on geography more than anything else:

Rochester is not on the direct east-west trajectory between the Buffalo area and Albany, but a bit further north.  A similar but somewhat differently handled situation is I-10 in Louisiana, where I-610 is the direct route and I-10 dips into the New Orleans CBD - but one could also then argue that I-12 itself is the bypass east-west corridor and I-10 already is diverging to get into the New Orleans area in the first place.

In California, I-5 following former US 99 and US 101 in Los Angeles is the most as-the-crow-flies route through that metro area, even if that skirts downtown Los Angeles somewhat.  (I-405 is also not noticeably much of a bypass either).  I-15 through Ontario instead of Riverside/San Bernardino and I-80 in Natomas rather than downtown and midtown Sacramento are the two examples of the mainline interstate on a bypass in California, and both were not the originally planned designations.
Logged
Chris Sampang

bzakharin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1521
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 03:31:08 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2019, 05:33:01 PM »

The toll roads in NJ. The portions that do have Interstate designations are all 2dis. Atlantic City could use an interstate of some sort. Yes, I know the ACE would need to be upgraded to meet interstate specs.
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 999
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 01:07:26 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2019, 10:26:23 PM »

The toll roads in NJ. The portions that do have Interstate designations are all 2dis. Atlantic City could use an interstate of some sort. Yes, I know the ACE would need to be upgraded to meet interstate specs.
Why a 3di for the ACE? Why not just continue I-76 to Atlantic City?

The NJTP should be an x95 south of Exit 6, but I could understand why not - having a 295/695 or 895 split at the Southern NJ border could be confusing
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8967
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:13 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2019, 11:41:11 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.
[/quote]
….

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.
It still is, but assuming that FDOT soon will upgrade that portion as with both Lakeland and Auburdale building warehouses galore near the road, it should be at least on the four lane divided part and proposed for the two lane part.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

texaskdog

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2428
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:28 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2019, 11:44:29 PM »

Mopac (loop 1) with 360/290 on the south and 45 on the north should be an x35
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8967
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:13 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2019, 11:48:31 PM »

I've always liked the Rochester- (or Pittsburgh-) type of situation where the 2dis stay well away from the urban core, which is instead served by 3dis. It makes sense for the 3dis to serve the local and commuter traffic, while long-distance traffic stays on a consistent route, thereby maintaining higher speeds and avoiding typical peak-hour congestion. It also keeps that traffic out of the city, instead of dumping it on urban freeways that are already at capacity.

Imagine, for example, if I-90 went right through downtown Rochester, how much more inconvenient it would be to get from Buffalo to Syracuse. The current setup is a win-win for both long-distance traffic and commuters. I-90 in Buffalo, on the other hand, is a lose-lose for both long distance traffic and commuters.
Keep in mind originally I-79 was to go through Pittsburgh and I-76 for a bit used I-376 when I-80S had a revision to just be the eastern end of the Ohio Turnpike and the western end of the PA Turnpike.  I-279 was to be where I-79 is now.

Even Cleveland, OH had early plans for I-80 to leave the OH Turnpike and use what is today I-480.

As far as Rochester goes its because the Thruway was built outside most cities it served.  The Thruway precedes the interstate system with I-90 getting lucky from the PA/ NY Line and its eastern terminus (its original one pre Ted Williams Tunnel) where it was applied to existing toll facilities minus the free I-90 in Albany of course.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6377
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 05:27:20 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2019, 02:56:06 PM »

The toll roads in NJ. The portions that do have Interstate designations are all 2dis. Atlantic City could use an interstate of some sort. Yes, I know the ACE would need to be upgraded to meet interstate specs.
While many have mentioned designating the ACE as an extension of I-76; you're probably one of the first to suggest a 3di for such.

The NJTP should be an x95 south of Exit 6, but I could understand why not - having a 295/695 or 895 split at the Southern NJ border could be confusing.
How is such any different/confusing than the I-95/295/495 spilt in Wilmington, DE?
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1120
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:01:01 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2019, 06:42:17 PM »

Mopac (loop 1) with 360/290 on the south and 45 on the north should be an x35
Austin isn't as much averse to 3di's as TxDOT is averse to building one for them. Hence all the toll roads.
Logged

michravera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 319
  • Location: Northern California
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 10:54:16 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2019, 11:05:27 PM »

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

Sacramento has only one that is unsigned (I-305) and got rid of the former I-880. Stockton, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Visalia, and Bakersfield all have no 3dis at all. Modesto sort of has a 3di, but no 2di. Merced, Fresno, Madera, Visalia, and Bakersfield's 2di are all on the far west side of the county from where the cities are located.

Santa Cruz, Monterey, Salinas, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, and Santa Barbara, and (San Buena)Ventura have no 2dis anywhere in their respective counties, much less 3dis.

San Jose is served ONLY by 3dis.
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Last Login: Today at 04:45:56 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2019, 03:33:05 AM »

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.

Thereís also the US 84/285 freeway in Santa Fe, but itís an at-grade expressway between the freeway section and the I-25 interchange, and Iíd bet it isnít interstate standard anyway. Took me forever to figure out the exit numbers on that; theyíre 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.   
Don't forget the NM 599 expressway around Santa Fe.
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2026
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:45:09 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2019, 03:51:56 AM »

Seattle, given that there's only two (I-405 and I-705, the latter doesn't really count).

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7984
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:55 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2019, 04:49:44 AM »

* 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.

The Creek Turnpike was actually added to the Interstate System by a federal transportation bill, but the Oklahoma Transportation Commission has never pursued an Interstate designation for it, so it's never been numbered as such. I supposed that would make it a 0di. When it was decided to  finally give it a number of some kind, it got a meat cleaver and the number 364.
Logged

index

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 484
  • Pry my suffixed routes from my cold, dead hands

  • Age: 16
  • Location: Indian Trail, N.C.
  • Last Login: April 22, 2019, 09:10:18 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2019, 08:12:37 AM »

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.


Adding on to this, formerly the Piedmont Triad. Going away from this trend with the lack of 3DIs, though, with the introduction of 285 and the slow progression of I-785 and I-840, which still don't play too big a role in the area's network, IIRC, although they'll eventually do that.


The Miami/Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale/blah blah blah there's a lot of these cities area, although it has I-595 and I-195, don't have their 3DIs servicing the metro area as a whole, focusing on more localized routes. So they could count as 3DI-averse, I guess. Most of the stuff they've got is state highways, in that regard it's similar to Phoenix.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 08:17:11 AM by index »
Logged
North Carolinian born in Fairfax County, VA. Advocate for slapping an interstate shield over every single freeway and U.S. route corridor in NC.



State under shield (2DI/US only) = partial clinch.

wanderer2575

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 638
  • Location: Farmington Hills, MI
  • Last Login: Today at 07:56:45 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2019, 09:45:18 AM »

Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 10:42:55 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2019, 10:16:12 PM »

Detroit really doesn't have many 3-di's.
I-75 has I-275 and I-375.
I-94 has none.
I-96 only has I-696.
I-94's bypass is really I-69 though for long distance travel, they meet near Marshall and end together in Port Huron.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4692
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 11:22:47 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2019, 11:25:10 AM »

Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2898
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 07:27:19 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2019, 12:26:05 PM »

the 3d freeways in Pittsburgh shouldn't even be allowed to be interstates, they're hot garbage
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10251
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 07:15:20 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2019, 01:34:39 PM »

Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.

Historically, they've had a few, most notably BS-696 along the Lodge.  However, there is BS-375 Downtown between the end of the Chrysler and the end of the Lodge, along Jefferson.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Screw the KSA; Stand with Canada.

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 10:42:55 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2019, 05:11:17 PM »

Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.
Just I-75's in Pontiac, I-375's unsigned downtown and formerly I-96's and I-696's.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8438
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:18:34 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #45 on: January 14, 2019, 05:39:12 PM »

Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.
Just I-75's in Pontiac, I-375's unsigned downtown and formerly I-96's and I-696's.

Everyone forgetting when I-696 Business was on the Lodge Freeway?

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 10:42:55 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2019, 08:19:03 PM »

Somewhat hijacking this thread, Detroit is averse to business routes.
Just I-75's in Pontiac, I-375's unsigned downtown and formerly I-96's and I-696's.

Everyone forgetting when I-696 Business was on the Lodge Freeway?
I know of it but I think it was decommissioned by the time I was born. Crazy that they would have a business route on the Lodge.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 923
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:38:50 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #47 on: January 14, 2019, 08:23:38 PM »

Corpus Christi, TX.

Has Interstate 37 running to downtown, but also has two major freeways through the area, TX-286 / U.S. 181 and TX-358, none of which are signed as interstates. Both connect to I-37.

Another one in the area, TX-44, once it's fully upgraded to Robstown, it would also connect to Interstate 69.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 08:26:28 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1574
  • David Carson

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:17:10 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #48 on: January 14, 2019, 10:37:30 PM »

Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.

So the question is, if/when I-7 or I-9 is designated along the CA 99 freeway corridor, will there be some three-digit interstates designated (either that of I-x07 or I-x09) within or near those respective cities along the corridor (Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.).
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

michravera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 319
  • Location: Northern California
  • Last Login: April 25, 2019, 10:54:16 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2019, 10:38:18 PM »

Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.
I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.
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.