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

[Bickendan]

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

Eastbank Freeway, and through the Terwilliger Curves on the Baldock Freeway. Entire length of I-405 is at 50; non-50 portions of I-5 are at 55.
I-84 west of I-205 is at 55. I-205 north of Exit 6 is at 55.

I-5 between I-105/OR 126 and OR 569 is at 60 if not 55.

Oregon is slow.

ETA: Misread Froggie's post and thought he was referring to Portland.

[jakeroot]

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

The ATMs can change the speed limit down to 25 35? but nothing is permanent below 60.

[ekt8750]

I think 50 is the floor for urban areas. I-76 within Philly is 50 although the approach to the Walt Whitman Bridge is 45. (Not sure if that stretch is controlled by the DRPA or not. Their digital speed limit signs are posted there and their cops patrol it).

[1995hoo]

I think 50 is the floor for urban areas. I-76 within Philly is 50 although the approach to the Walt Whitman Bridge is 45. (Not sure if that stretch is controlled by the DRPA or not. Their digital speed limit signs are posted there and their cops patrol it).

I-395 in Washington, DC, is mostly posted at either 40 or 45 mph, but it has a short segment posted at 35. DC's I-695 is also posted at 45 mph. I suppose "lowest Interstate speed limit" is a separate thread (I think it's probably already been a thread at some point, too, though I'm not inclined to look for it).

[PHLBOS]

I think 50 is the floor for urban areas. I-76 within Philly is 50 although the approach to the Walt Whitman Bridge is 45. (Not sure if that stretch is controlled by the DRPA or not. Their digital speed limit signs are posted there and their cops patrol it).

IIRC, the appraoch to the Walt Whitman Bridge is controlled by the DRPA.

As far as posted urban speeds along Interstates are concerned; the Big Dig Tunnels for I-90 & 93 in Boston have posted speeds of 45 mph.  The old Central Artery (granted, its design predated the Interstate system) had a posted speed of 35.

[kkt]

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

You might be thinking of the "Reduced Sight Distance 50 MPH" warning sign on I-5 south just past the I-90 split.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=seattle&hl=en&ll=47.607176,-122.330221&spn=0.002488,0.008969&sll=47.302465,-122.25572&sspn=0.005515,0.008969&t=h&hnear=Seattle,+King+County,+Washington&z=17&layer=c&cbll=47.607178,-122.330224&panoid=0-ju6_8x-dbpk8NIfYkPOA&cbp=12,141.64,,1,3.34

[jakeroot]

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

You might be thinking of the "Reduced Sight Distance 50 MPH" warning sign on I-5 south just past the I-90 split.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=seattle&hl=en&ll=47.607176,-122.330221&spn=0.002488,0.008969&sll=47.302465,-122.25572&sspn=0.005515,0.008969&t=h&hnear=Seattle,+King+County,+Washington&z=17&layer=c&cbll=47.607178,-122.330224&panoid=0-ju6_8x-dbpk8NIfYkPOA&cbp=12,141.64,,1,3.34

What is this I don't even

[kkt]

What is this I don't even

What, is the link not working for you?  Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...

[jakeroot]

What is this I don't even

What, is the link not working for you?  Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...

No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?

[KEK Inc.]

What is this I don't even

What, is the link not working for you?  Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...

No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?

Blind corners and hills are common causes for accidents.  That's part of the reason why the state DOT wanted to install the variable speed signs, since I-5 and SR-520 have several blind corners.

[kkt]

What is this I don't even

What, is the link not working for you?  Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...

No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?

Yes, there's limited sightlines over the crest of the hill there, and someone who was booming along at 60+ and not paying much attention might rearend slower traffic.  Okay, it's rare indeed that you could be zooming along at 60 on that particular stretch of I-5, but just in case...

[Molandfreak]

What is this I don't even

What, is the link not working for you?  Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...

No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?

Yes, there's limited sightlines over the crest of the hill there, and someone who was booming along at 60+ and not paying much attention might rearend slower traffic.  Okay, it's rare indeed that you could be zooming along at 60 on that particular stretch of I-5, but just in case...

They should get out of the left lane, then.

[jakeroot]

What is this I don't even

What, is the link not working for you?  Granted, it's a warning sign, not a speed limit sign...

No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?

Yes, there's limited sightlines over the crest of the hill there, and someone who was booming along at 60+ and not paying much attention might rearend slower traffic.  Okay, it's rare indeed that you could be zooming along at 60 on that particular stretch of I-5, but just in case...

Fair enough. Maybe they should install a giant mirror so you can see the other side of the hill, like at blind corners in parkades.

Jokes aside, they should put the warning sign overhead or install more variable speed signs (which, knowing WSDOT, is something they will more than likely do).

[dfwmapper]

No it works fine, I just don't understand the point of the sign. I'm guessing traffic might back up over the crest of the hill and they want you to go slower?

NTTA has several of those posted on the southern portion of the Dallas North Tollway, which has really awful geometrics. The road is mostly at grade level, but it dips down below the cross streets that also run at grade level so the overpasses and vertical curves limit visibility. Not that it does anything to slow the typical 75+mph traffic (speed limit 65), but the warnings feel like they should be there.
http://goo.gl/maps/83zXp http://goo.gl/maps/3HuPj

[jhuntin1]

I-865. Should be "to I-65 north" and "to I-465 east".

Actually, I think it should be part of I-465, and the mileposts should start at I-65 in the northwest corner of the loop and go clockwise back to where I-465 would meet itself.  I fully disagree with FHWA that all full loops like I-465 should start their mileposts and exit numbering at the south end of the loop.  Mileposts and exit numbering should start where it makes logical sense, and on I-465, that's at the northwest corner.

I know I'm late jumping in here, but vtk's suggestion was pretty much how they were originally signed along with being signed I-465. INDOT changed it to prevent an intersection of 3 I-465s in the northwest corner.

[tdindy88]

They could always number the stretch of I-865 as US 52 since it shares the highway with I-865. As it is, no one else is taking the I-865 number and it's not I-238, so it could be worse.

[ajlynch91]

I see nothing wrong with I-865 but I-465 Intersecting with itself didn't make any sense. There are much more insignificant corridors that are numbered. I-381 and I-587 come to mind.

[rickmastfan67]

I think 50 is the floor for urban areas. I-76 within Philly is 50 although the approach to the Walt Whitman Bridge is 45. (Not sure if that stretch is controlled by the DRPA or not. Their digital speed limit signs are posted there and their cops patrol it).

I-395 in Washington, DC, is mostly posted at either 40 or 45 mph, but it has a short segment posted at 35. DC's I-695 is also posted at 45 mph. I suppose "lowest Interstate speed limit" is a separate thread (I think it's probably already been a thread at some point, too, though I'm not inclined to look for it).

I-279 in Pittsburgh has a segment posted at 40mph. http://goo.gl/maps/UAyU5

[TEG24601]

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.

Is there something wrong with a J-Shaped Route?


As for I-190, you are correct it is longer, but it has only one job, and is about as long as the Sea-Tac Access Road/Freeway, which has no state/federal designation other than "Sea-Tac Access Road".


Unless I missed it, I didn't see anyone mention I-180 in Cheyenne.


I would add I-110 in LA.  They have half-assed the roadway by making it both I-110 and CA-110, fix you stuff then do one or the other, using both is dumb.  If it is adequate as a State Route, make the whole thing a state route.

[jakeroot]

Unless I missed it, I didn't see anyone mention I-180 in Cheyenne.

OP Post:

3DI's like I-180 in Wyoming...

[Revive 755]

As for I-190, you are correct it is longer, but it has only one job, and is about as long as the Sea-Tac Access Road/Freeway, which has no state/federal designation other than "Sea-Tac Access Road".

I see two:  It connects to O'Hare, and provides access from the Kennedy to US 12-45 and N. River Road.  It would also be easier for a visitor to Chicagoland to figure out how to access the interstate system from O'Hare by looking for I-190 shields versus however "O'Hare Access Road" would be signed.

[jakeroot]

As for I-190, you are correct it is longer, but it has only one job, and is about as long as the Sea-Tac Access Road/Freeway, which has no state/federal designation other than "Sea-Tac Access Road".

I see two:  It connects to O'Hare, and provides access from the Kennedy to US 12-45 and N. River Road.  It would also be easier for a visitor to Chicagoland to figure out how to access the interstate system from O'Hare by looking for I-190 shields versus however "O'Hare Access Road" would be signed.

FWIW, the freeway to Seatac Airport doesn't actually have any named signed. All the signs leading towards the freeway just have "SeaTac Airport" as the road/control city. In the case of I-190, instead of Kennedy Expressway, you could call it the O'Hare Expressway and drop a highway designation entirely. People might catch on.

[kphoger]

Nope. Without a blue shield, nobody would ever make it to or from the airport. That's why all airports have Interstates going to them.

[jakeroot]

Nope. Without a blue shield, nobody would ever make it to or from the airport. That's why all airports have Interstates going to them.

Sarcasm translates poorly across the interwebs.

[Molandfreak]

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.

I-190: I-90✈
WIS 119: I-94✈

This way, there won't be a limit to the amount of airport spurs a state can have.