3DI’s that shouldn’t have an interstate designation?

[Roadgeek Adam]

I-790 should at least be rerouted along NY 43 to serve as more than a glorified C-D road. But hey, at least it's actually a freeway now. Used to be a super 2.

Boy that's quite an extension of I-790.

[Alps]

What? I think you may need to reread the post.

How you haven't yet been nominated for a Darwin Award is beyond me.

[kphoger]

Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?

What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.

Who said that I-115 is not signed

This is getting good.
Pass the pretzels.

[Bickendan]

Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?

What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.

It would help if you addressed the correct person in your quote then. NE2 was making the 'singed' comment; Corco, not NE2, mentioned Butte (the reference to I-115).
It's not smart to doggedly correct the person who hadn't made a reference to the point you're correcting.

[corco]

Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?

What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.

It would help if you addressed the correct person in your quote then. NE2 was making the 'singed' comment; Corco, not NE2, mentioned Butte (the reference to I-115).
It's not smart to doggedly correct the person who hadn't made a reference to the point you're correcting.

Where did I mention I-115

[Takumi]

Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?

What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.

Who said that I-115 is not signed

This is getting good.
Pass the pretzels.

* Takumi passes the pretzels and popcorn

[Bickendan]

Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?

What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.

It would help if you addressed the correct person in your quote then. NE2 was making the 'singed' comment; Corco, not NE2, mentioned Butte (the reference to I-115).
It's not smart to doggedly correct the person who hadn't made a reference to the point you're correcting.

Where did I mention I-115

Indirectly, when you said Butte.

[Kacie Jane]

No, corco was just correcting the OP, who incorrectly said that I-315 was in Butte.  No one said anything about 115 until Billy, which I'm guessing was a typo on his part.

[Bickendan]

Why Context Matters™

[TEG24601]

I-375 in Detroit really should just be the final leg of M-10.


I-705 in Tacoma really should just be an extension of SR-7.


I-190 in Chicago should just be the "Airport Freeway" like it would be in nearly every other state.


I-194 in Battle Creek, should just me M-66.

[bing101]

What about the 710 stub near the 210 at 134 interchange in Pasadena. It's still under interstate designation but the 710 gap is still around

[NE2]

What about the 710 stub near the 210 at 134 interchange in Pasadena. It's still under interstate designation

No it's not. It's never been an Interstate from I-10 to I-210 (despite signage at Valley Boulevard).

[bing101]

What about the 710 stub near the 210 at 134 interchange in Pasadena. It's still under interstate designation

No it's not. It's never been an Interstate from I-10 to I-210 (despite signage at Valley Boulevard).

Right its hidden CA-710 former CA-7. But the Pasadena Gap was supposedly going to take I-710 designation though but since the Pasadena Gap was not connected its CA-710.

[NE2]

Wrong on almost all counts. It's never been an Interstate north of I-10. It's never been a future Interstate. FHWA has only ever recognized the part of I-710 south of I-10.

(Why do I bother?)

[sbeaver44]

I-579 in Pittsburgh, while I get that it serves an important purpose, could just be a continuation of PA 885.
I-370 in Maryland (although now a little more important with the completion of MD 200) is a glorified connector to a Metro station, although I do appreciate its function.

[mrsman]

I-579 in Pittsburgh, while I get that it serves an important purpose, could just be a continuation of PA 885.
I-370 in Maryland (although now a little more important with the completion of MD 200) is a glorified connector to a Metro station, although I do appreciate its function.

Agreed, interstates that are extensions of longer state routes (or US routes) should become secret desingations or non-designations.

Another example: I-980 in Oakland should be CA-24

And as far as metro areas where there are both state highway and interstate highway freeways, I would say (generally speaking) that the interstate freeways probably still do more as servicing interstate traffic then the state route

MODIFIED TO ADD:

For example, Greater L.A. has 2 2dis, I-5 and I-10.  Essentially, connecting L.A. with Sacramento, San Diego, and San Bernardino.  The roads that connect these control cities should be 3dis.  So I-405 connects Sacramento to San Diego via coastal LA (and uses the control cities to boot).  I-210 connects Sacramento to San Bernardino.  I-215 connects San Diego to San Bernardino.  The other 3dis in LA aren't really interstate and could just as easily be signed as interstate quality state roads. So I-110 could become CA-11 again, I-710 could become CA-7 again, I-605 could become CA-35 (the old routing for Pioneer / Norwalk), and I-105 could be either CA-42 or CA-90.

So while most of the above 3dis are local in nature, I-405 , I-215, and I-210 are definitely appropriate Interstate highways, and within the metro area have the same importance as I-10, I-5 and I-15.

In many other cities, the only freeways of significant size are the interstates.  A beltway certainly provides the function of bypass to move interstate traffic.  Look at Atlanta.  I-285's control cities are all major towns distant from Atlanta, the same controls as the 2dis, as opposed to local suburbs.

And many odd 3di spurs, while short, serve  an important function of bringing the city closer to the 2di. This is certainly true of Pittsburgh and Rochester.

[TheStranger]

MODIFIED TO ADD:

For example, Greater L.A. has 2 2dis, I-5 and I-10.  Essentially, connecting L.A. with Sacramento, San Diego, and San Bernardino.  The roads that connect these control cities should be 3dis.  So I-405 connects Sacramento to San Diego via coastal LA (and uses the control cities to boot).  I-210 connects Sacramento to San Bernardino.  I-215 connects San Diego to San Bernardino.  The other 3dis in LA aren't really interstate and could just as easily be signed as interstate quality state roads. So I-110 could become CA-11 again, I-710 could become CA-7 again, I-605 could become CA-35 (the old routing for Pioneer / Norwalk), and I-105 could be either CA-42 or CA-90.

110 and 710 each connect downtown Los Angeles with the ports (San Pedro, Long Beach).  Could argue that 605 links San Bernardino with Long Beach (210 to 605 to 405)
105 provides indirect airport access from downtown via 110 or 710, and airport connections as Interstate routes are absolutely common (380 as the other California example...190 in Chicago, 678 in Queens, 635 for DFW, 215 in Las Vegas, 580 in Reno, etc.)

[Brandon]

I-375 in Detroit really should just be the final leg of M-10.

Then M-10 would be a J-shaped route.

I-190 in Chicago should just be the "Airport Freeway" like it would be in nearly every other state.

I-190 is fine as it is.  It's a bit over 2 miles long, longer than many other 3dis.  If anything, Wis-119 should be I-594.

[bing101]

Umm how about split I-580 into 3 parts in the Bay Area
CA-480 can go from San Rafael to I-80. Then CA-580 can be used between Oakland and Hayward

We can remove wrong way concurrency between Albany to Emeryville where I-580 is co signed with I-80.

Then the I-205 designation can expand from Tracy and connect to I-880 and I-580 in Castro Valley/Hayward area. Then I-305 can be reused between the current I-205 @ 580 interchange to I-5.

[jakeroot]

I-705 in Tacoma really should just be an extension of SR-7.

Maybe. But at least as an interstate, they have to post 60mph as the speed limit. As a state highway they could lower it, and as a regular driver of it, that's the last thing I want.

[kkt]

Umm how about split I-580 into 3 parts in the Bay Area
CA-480 can go from San Rafael to I-80. Then CA-580 can be used between Oakland and Hayward

We can remove wrong way concurrency between Albany to Emeryville where I-580 is co signed with I-80.

Then the I-205 designation can expand from Tracy and connect to I-880 and I-580 in Castro Valley/Hayward area. Then I-305 can be reused between the current I-205 @ 580 interchange to I-5.

Splitting 580 into so many parts would not improve the situation.  The major trip intention is SoCal and Central Valley-Oakland for car drivers.  Now, that's one route: 580.  Under this proposal, it would be three routes, 305-205-580.  More confusing for most people.

I don't think a wrong-way concurrency is that big a deal.  It's pretty clearly signed.

If I-238 is such a big deal, it could be changed to I-480 without having to renumber so many existing routes for so many miles.

[corco]

I-705 in Tacoma really should just be an extension of SR-7.

Maybe. But at least as an interstate, they have to post 60mph as the speed limit. As a state highway they could lower it, and as a regular driver of it, that's the last thing I want.

Wait what? Where did you see that 60 MPH is the minimum interstate speed limit in Washington? I mean, I don't think any interstates are posted less than 60, but I think it's coincidental, not statutory, though I could be missing something.

None of the three speed limit statutes that seem relevant mention that:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.405
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.410

[roadman65]

I think that New York's I-695 is a waste of a number.  It was always the north leg of I-295 and I-78 previously.  Plus the signs have if for I-95 north on NB I-295 and I-295 SB for I-95 Southbound anyway as that is the vital information that is needed.

NY could use an unsigned reference route to that and free up I-695 for something else in the area.

I already mentioned I-895 here and will not again if one wants to ask why I did not include that here as it is the same thing, but with no real purpose being that the Sheridan north of I-95 was cancelled decades ago.  At least I-695 is connecter, though a glorified ramp between I-95 and I-295, serves a major connection between two vital freeways.

[jakeroot]

I-705 in Tacoma really should just be an extension of SR-7.

Maybe. But at least as an interstate, they have to post 60mph as the speed limit. As a state highway they could lower it, and as a regular driver of it, that's the last thing I want.

Wait what? Where did you see that 60 MPH is the minimum interstate speed limit in Washington? I mean, I don't think any interstates are posted less than 60, but I think it's coincidental, not statutory, though I could be missing something.

None of the three speed limit statutes that seem relevant mention that:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.405
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.410

There is no law, just from my experience, 60 is the de facto speed limit for interstates. Freeways around here that are not interstates seem to have greater variation in speed limit (SR-16 and SR-410 are posted at 55 for certain portions, for example, and not for any particular reason it would seem).

[froggie]

Isn't there a stretch of 5 in Seattle that's posted at 55 or less?