AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum just turned ten years old! Where has all the time gone?

Author Topic: Cities adverse to 3dis  (Read 2938 times)

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4676
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:08:50 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2019, 11:45:47 AM »

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.).
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.
I am aware that I-705 is the last available I-x05 in CA, but I'd reserve that for a new freeway in SoCal (either in San Diego, Los Angeles, or somewhere in between). However, I agree with those points. CA 41 would've made a great I-705, and CA 58 could've used some sort of temporary designation until it was ready to be incorporated into the I-40 corridor.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3495
  • Last Login: Today at 09:31:16 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2019, 01:17:36 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.).


Considering that 210/905/15 still have yet to be signed as Interstates in their respective state route sections, years after 15/905 were approved as Interstate in San Diego and 210 was submitted east of 57...

I don't see California having any interest in adding new 3di routes at this point, and the freeways in Fresno all are part of longer state routes (41, 180, 168, and of course 99) that have been in place since the 1930s.
Logged
Chris Sampang

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1082
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: Today at 07:16:17 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #52 on: January 15, 2019, 09:13:29 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.
I remember reading years ago that M-14 was a proposed I-394 I guess that is dead now.
Logged

GaryV

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 865
  • Location: Southeast Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 10:19:40 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #53 on: January 15, 2019, 09:20:19 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.
I remember reading years ago that M-14 was a proposed I-394 I guess that is dead now.
Entrance ramps (one with a stop sign) and left exits leave it far short of Interstate standards.
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1939
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 11:50:09 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #54 on: January 15, 2019, 09:22:48 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.
I remember reading years ago that M-14 was a proposed I-394 I guess that is dead now.
I would say so. I've never heard of M-14 being a proposed I-394 before.
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2500
  • Last Login: Today at 10:22:03 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2019, 12:21:27 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.
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.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8398
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:54:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2019, 12:50:01 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.
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.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2894
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:58:54 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #57 on: February 01, 2019, 07:57:48 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.

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.).


Considering that 210/905/15 still have yet to be signed as Interstates in their respective state route sections, years after 15/905 were approved as Interstate in San Diego and 210 was submitted east of 57...

I don't see California having any interest in adding new 3di routes at this point, and the freeways in Fresno all are part of longer state routes (41, 180, 168, and of course 99) that have been in place since the 1930s.

i-15 will be signed in san diego after they fix that SR 94 interchange, which is supposed to happen very soon, I think this or next year. 
Logged

swhuck

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 36
  • Location: tx
  • Last Login: April 11, 2019, 07:08:59 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #58 on: February 07, 2019, 05:52:53 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.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.

From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.
Logged
Clinched: I-2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 37, 40, 43, 44, 45, 55, 59, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 76 (both), 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 (W), 85, 86 (W), 88 (W), 93, 94, 96, 97
US50, 101, 175, 199, 290, 380, 491/666
Clinched for now: I-11, 14, 49, 57

Mark68

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 272
  • Location: Parker, CO
  • Last Login: Today at 10:02:02 AM
    • My Travels over the years
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #59 on: February 07, 2019, 09:12:35 PM »

Colorado Springs
Portland (I-205 notwithstanding)
Logged
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2894
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:58:54 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #60 on: February 07, 2019, 09:30:59 PM »

Colorado Springs
Portland (I-205 notwithstanding)

Portland has 405 and 205. Co Springs just has 25, they have nothing that could be a 3 digit.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2894
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:58:54 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #61 on: February 07, 2019, 09:33:16 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.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.

From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.

where is CA 51?
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6113
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:12:58 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #62 on: February 07, 2019, 09:38:44 PM »

CA 51 is the eastern leg of the I-80 Business Loop in Sacramento, from US 50 north to I-80.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8398
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:54:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #63 on: February 07, 2019, 09:44:04 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.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.

From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.

where is CA 51?

Here you go:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/10/california-state-route-51-failed.html

Elm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16
  • Last Login: April 04, 2019, 12:40:48 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #64 on: February 07, 2019, 09:57:12 PM »

Colorado Springs
Portland (I-205 notwithstanding)

Portland has 405 and 205. Co Springs just has 25, they have nothing that could be a 3 digit.
There’s technically a plan for Powers Blvd (Hwy 21) to be turned into an interstate-grade freeway around/through Colorado Springs and Fountain, but it's largely faded away. Hypothetically, it’d connect to I-25 near the Northgate Blvd interchange (exit 156) and somewhere near Pikes Peak International Raceway (milepost 123, according to Fountain). Only the portion from Woodmen Rd north has a real chance of becoming a freeway right now, and there's been little to no discussion of any extension south past Mesa Ridge Pkwy (Hwy 16).

Although I’d be inclined to say the Springs isn’t against the concept of a 3DI—generally, I think they’d like to see Powers turned into a freeway, although the number probably isn’t significant—they have turned down most freeway proposals of the last few decades, including US 24 to Manitou, Woodmen Rd, and Constitution Ave. The planned Banning Lewis Parkway has also been downgraded to an arterial, but that didn’t really involve public input. A freeway upgrade to US 24 from I-25 to Powers is still on the books, but probably an impossibly low priority. Since it’s typically referred to as the MLK Bypass and Fountain Blvd, I suppose it wouldn’t be tremendously disruptive if a new freeway got a different number (as an interstate), but new freeways and new numbers aren’t really CDOT’s thing.
Logged

hobsini2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2131
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Bolingbrook, IL
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 10:36:44 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2019, 01:47:17 PM »

Don't forget Wis 30 in Madison (I-39/90/94 to US 151) and Wis 119 in Milwaukee.
Logged
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

MantyMadTown

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 563
  • UW-Madison

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 06:54:18 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #66 on: February 10, 2019, 06:27:14 PM »

Don't forget Wis 30 in Madison (I-39/90/94 to US 151) and Wis 119 in Milwaukee.

I think WIS 30 is actually a stub of the former highway that used to link Madison and Milwaukee before it was replaced with I-94. Since the 1960s (when that segment of I-94 was completed), it's been the shortest 2 digit state highway in Wisconsin. I also don't think either of the state highways you mentioned (as well as 441 and 172) were ever meant to be re-designated as interstates when they were built.

If they were to be re-designated as interstates, then I would make WIS 30 and 119 I-394 and 194 respectively. 441 would become I-441; I'm not sure about 172. That would have to depend on whether Wisconsin would designate 3dis that connect two interstates but don't connect with the original interstate with an odd or even first digit. There's no examples like that in Wisconsin, so this would be new.
Logged
Forget the I-41 haters

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2094
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 01:11:33 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #67 on: February 15, 2019, 03:11:41 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.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.

From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.

If the freeway in Stockton becomes an interstate, CA-4 should be moved back to Charter Way.
Logged

swhuck

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 36
  • Location: tx
  • Last Login: April 11, 2019, 07:08:59 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #68 on: February 15, 2019, 04:42:46 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.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.

From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.

If the freeway in Stockton becomes an interstate, CA-4 should be moved back to Charter Way.

It's California. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Logged
Clinched: I-2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 37, 40, 43, 44, 45, 55, 59, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 76 (both), 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 (W), 85, 86 (W), 88 (W), 93, 94, 96, 97
US50, 101, 175, 199, 290, 380, 491/666
Clinched for now: I-11, 14, 49, 57

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8398
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:54:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #69 on: February 15, 2019, 04:49:53 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.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.

From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.

If the freeway in Stockton becomes an interstate, CA-4 should be moved back to Charter Way.

It's California. I wouldn't hold my breath.

The last thing the State Highway system needs is another gapped Route by Interstate like CA 16.

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 64
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:14 AM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #70 on: February 16, 2019, 05:06:24 PM »

Quote
Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80.

Related to that, there used to be an 880 postmile on the current I-80 alignment north of downtown just west of the I-5 interchange. I have a picture of it around here somewhere, but I couldn't find it the last time I was on the north end of town.
Logged

Roadwarriors79

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 201
  • Location: Coast to coast, border to border
  • Last Login: Today at 04:12:08 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #71 on: February 20, 2019, 03:11:56 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).

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.

Originally, the current east-west leg of I-17 (south of downtown Phoenix) was planned to be part of I-10, before being moved to its current alignment.

Some of the current freeways in the Phoenix area were planned with different numbers (either AZ x10 or AZ x17). AZ 51 was once planned as I-510, then SR 510, for example.

The best chance of a 3di in Arizona is probably going to be in the Tucson area. There are plans for a highway bypass called the Sonoran Corridor (AZ 410) and a possible freeway extension of AZ 210 to connect to I-10 near Alvernon Way. Could portions of either highway, if built, get an interstate shield? Possibly, but realistically unlikely right now.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2894
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 09:58:54 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #72 on: February 20, 2019, 06:12:25 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).

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.

Originally, the current east-west leg of I-17 (south of downtown Phoenix) was planned to be part of I-10, before being moved to its current alignment.

Some of the current freeways in the Phoenix area were planned with different numbers (either AZ x10 or AZ x17). AZ 51 was once planned as I-510, then SR 510, for example.

The best chance of a 3di in Arizona is probably going to be in the Tucson area. There are plans for a highway bypass called the Sonoran Corridor (AZ 410) and a possible freeway extension of AZ 210 to connect to I-10 near Alvernon Way. Could portions of either highway, if built, get an interstate shield? Possibly, but realistically unlikely right now.

don't think az 210 will become an interstate or be connected to 10 on the northside of downtown. 
Logged

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1574
  • David Carson

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:01:06 AM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #73 on: February 20, 2019, 07:13:22 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.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.

From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.

I always assumed that the I-7 (or I-9) designation would follow CA 99 North all the way to Sacramento, but I had failed to realize until now just how substandard CA 99 is between Stockton and Sacramento (for interstate standards). It will indeed be interesting to see if that ever changes in the future.
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

Roadwarriors79

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 201
  • Location: Coast to coast, border to border
  • Last Login: Today at 04:12:08 PM
Re: Cities adverse to 3dis
« Reply #74 on: February 20, 2019, 07:53:37 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).

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.

Originally, the current east-west leg of I-17 (south of downtown Phoenix) was planned to be part of I-10, before being moved to its current alignment.

Some of the current freeways in the Phoenix area were planned with different numbers (either AZ x10 or AZ x17). AZ 51 was once planned as I-510, then SR 510, for example.

The best chance of a 3di in Arizona is probably going to be in the Tucson area. There are plans for a highway bypass called the Sonoran Corridor (AZ 410) and a possible freeway extension of AZ 210 to connect to I-10 near Alvernon Way. Could portions of either highway, if built, get an interstate shield? Possibly, but realistically unlikely right now.

don't think az 210 will become an interstate or be connected to 10 on the northside of downtown.

Any freeway plans for AZ 210 are for an extension that is southeast of downtown Tucson.
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.