Interstates 97, 99, and 238: Honestly, who cares?

[roadman65]

I do not see why people get upset over I-78 in Jersey City, NJ where it is aligned on 12th Street and Boyle Plaza with four at grade intersections when that is actually at the route's terminus.  If, say, I-78 were freeway east of there (I would hardly count the Holland Tunnel as a freeway for this purpose as it acts in everybody's mind as a crossing) then it would be noteworthy.   However, it is only freeway west of there with I-78 not being signed east of the NJ Turnpike freeway end, so we can actually think of it as sort of ending a Jersey Avenue.

When I lived in NJ, I had no idea that I-78 went into the tunnel and emptied out onto the NYC streets.  It was until I started to get into roads on the internet, when I found out that I-78 does indeed make it into NY via the two one way Jersey City Streets.  Being that it is the home stretch of the interstate, it does not bother me much as I-676 in Philadelphia having one signal (actually two as its one in each direction) as I-676 is freeway on both sides of the lights.   Nonetheless, though, it does not bother me to the point of losing sleep or a boycott (like some  users here are doing with Breezewood, PA for its fight  against  both PennDOT and PTC to let I-70 and the PT get connected) the City of Philadelphia for it.

[kkt]

I-97 and i-99 don't bother me too much.  They were the closest numbers to the grid that were available.

I-238 doesn't bother me too much either, because no 3dis were available at the time.  Now it would have to be changed.  No, it shouldn't have been an unsigned interstate, because the bay area needed to advertise that it's the preferred route for trucks.  Maybe it should be I-480 now, but Caltrans has so many things to spend money on I can see why it's not at the top of the list.

I-180 in Wyoming is really bad.

I-69EWC bother me more because they were completely unnecessary, being great candidates for 3di. 

[NE2]

I-69EWC bother me more because they were completely unnecessary, being great candidates for 3di. 

Not 3DIs. Way too long for 3DIs. But there are several 2DIs available (duplicating Wisconsin if necessary). I-69 entering eastern Texas bothers me period, due to intersecting and probably overlapping US 69. I'd make I-39 on US 59 from Laredo to Texarkana, I-41 on US 281, and I-47 on US 77. Silly bonus: last digit stays the same.

[kkt]

Way too long for 3DIs.

Everything is bigger in Texas, 3dis included.

[vdeane]

I-238 doesn't bother me too much either, because no 3dis were available at the time.  Now it would have to be changed.  No, it shouldn't have been an unsigned interstate, because the bay area needed to advertise that it's the preferred route for trucks.  Maybe it should be I-480 now, but Caltrans has so many things to spend money on I can see why it's not at the top of the list.

The FHWA COULD have forced CA to renumber CA 180 or repeal the route number duplication ban.  CalTrans was certainly lacking foresight in not renumbering 180 when all the other state highways got renumbered to accommodate the interstates.

[TheStranger]

The FHWA COULD have forced CA to renumber CA 180 or repeal the route number duplication ban.  CalTrans was certainly lacking foresight in not renumbering 180 when all the other state highways got renumbered to accommodate the interstates.

The state highways that did get renumbered were generally shorter than 180:

15 (Long Beach Freeway)
10 (Manchester Avenue/Firestone Boulevard)
5 (Skyline Boulevard)
8 (today's Route 26)

I get the logic in keeping 180 (major route through Fresno and an original 1934 state route) even if it created problems later on.  At the time it was retained...380, 780, 980 were not even on the radar yet.

[hbelkins]

Is there a formal prohibition on using four-digit interstate numbers? Turn I-238 into I-1080 if not.

[Brandon]

Is there a formal prohibition on using four-digit interstate numbers? Turn I-238 into I-1080 if not.

I've never seen one, but I do know that four "digits" are in use for I-H201 on the shields.  So, it could be done on the shields, but I don't know if there is a formal prohibition or not.

[amroad17]

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

[Molandfreak]

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

It technically will never break the grid, unless I-40 gets extended anywhere beyond I-5.

[kkt]

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

[amroad17]

Of course, it would be a lot less expensive to renumber I-238 as I-480 (or even I-1080, as someone has suggested).  Just throwing a "what if" option to the conversation.

[Brandon]

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

[Molandfreak]

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

Kurumi's I-338, anyone?

[roadman65]

What interests me the most is the fact that I-2 is longer than I-369 which each are both longer than I-97.

So having a two digit interstate in the bay area is not a bad idea.  It is also not that it would be the greatest thing for the Bay Area in general even so , but it does fall under the "who cares" thing as it seems like anything goes in the world of highways.

If Caltrans did it it is fine by me, but it is not really something that important to campaign for other than suggest it to Sacramento, but ideally it would work as I-2 and I-97 both exist.

[kkt]

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

That could be an upside.  However if a 2di were to be added to the Bay Area, I think US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, then I-880 to Oakland, then I-580 to San Rafael becoming I-3 would be a much better candidate.

[Brandon]

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

That could be an upside.  However if a 2di were to be added to the Bay Area, I think US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, then I-880 to Oakland, then I-580 to San Rafael becoming I-3 would be a much better candidate.

It's an area that has a lot of freeways and lacks a large amount of interstate numbers due to having only one 2di (I-80) enter the area.  As such, the number of interstates is maxed out at 10 (I-80 through I-980).  It really could use another 2di that is not I-5 to augment the system in the area.  I-3 (above) is one idea.  Mine would be to use two of them.

A. I-3 along I-505, I-80, I-880, and US-101.

This would start at I-5 and go south.  If US-101 is ever made all freeway to LA, it could be extended south.  Why I-3 and not I-1?  No conflict with CA-1, a famous route in its own right.

B. I-58 along I-205 and I-580.  I-238 becomes I-258.

A change would mean just blue-outing the "0" on the signs to start.  It's north of I-40, south of I-80, and most of CA-58 east of I-5 might become I-40 anyway someday.  It makes the I-238 a simple sticker coverup with a "5" over the "3" to start.  The remnant I-580 (I-5 to I-205) becomes the new I-205.

[english si]

The conversion of I-5W to I-505 and I-580 was a mistake - the Bay Area needed another 2di.

I-15W got a 2di number, why didn't I-5W?

[Alps]

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

Kurumi's I-338, anyone?

Send all the viatologists at 85 mph.

[Brandon]

I-238 could be legitimized by making I-580 become I-38.  I know the total mileage of the route isn't overly long (around 76 miles), however, it would be longer than I-86(western), I-19, and, of course, I-97.  As far as "the grid", it does not seem to matter much anymore, does it?

So they should legitimize the parentless I-238 by renumbering a 76 mile long stretch of 580 carrying 400,000 vehicles per day, rather than renumbering the 2 mile stretch of I-238 to be I-480?

However, the upside of this is that the Bay Area would get another 2di to use for 3di purposes.

Kurumi's I-338, anyone?

Send all the viatologists at 85 mph.

http://instantrimshot.com/