What pisses you off the worst:The I-69 mess in Texas or the I-73-74 clusterfuck?

[ElPanaChevere]

2004: what pisses you off more, I-99 or I-238?
2014: what pisses you off more, I-69W/C/E or I-73/74?

I love it. 


I'm going to have to go with 69 simply because 69C is ridiculous. I honestly don't mind 69E and 69W but the center route should be just plain 69.

Meanwhile, for 73/74 I just shrug and say "because North Carolina". They may be ambitious while adjacent states are not, but there is nothing really wrong in theory with what they've done there.

This I agree with. I'm all for suffixed routes, but the "C" just seems out of place.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

[vdeane]

I-238 needs to be signed.  It has a couple of exits in between 580 and 880.

The interchange between the Whitestone Expressway (I-678) and the Grand Central Parkway in NYC includes a freeway that has five exits.  It is not signed.  I think I-238's lone folded diamond and ramps slapped in the middle of a freeway-freeway interchange can manage.  Up here in NY, we only recently (past five years) began signing freeway numbers between the last interchange and the terminus.  Even to this day, I-490 is mainly signed as "To I-90/Thruway" starting at Eastview Mall, with two miles, a county line crossing, and one more (major) interchange to go.

The Adirondack Northway stub from I-90 to US 20 is not signed as anything either and it has an interchange.

[kkt]

I-238 needs to be signed.  It has a couple of exits in between 580 and 880.

The interchange between the Whitestone Expressway (I-678) and the Grand Central Parkway in NYC includes a freeway that has five exits.  It is not signed.  I think I-238's lone folded diamond and ramps slapped in the middle of a freeway-freeway interchange can manage.  Up here in NY, we only recently (past five years) began signing freeway numbers between the last interchange and the terminus.  Even to this day, I-490 is mainly signed as "To I-90/Thruway" starting at Eastview Mall, with two miles, a county line crossing, and one more (major) interchange to go.

The Adirondack Northway stub from I-90 to US 20 is not signed as anything either and it has an interchange.

So when there's an accident, someone whips out their cell phone and calls 911 and says "I'm on a road without a number" and the dispatcher tries to get useful information out of the panicky person to tell where the hell they are?

[kj3400]

I-238 needs to be signed.  It has a couple of exits in between 580 and 880.

The interchange between the Whitestone Expressway (I-678) and the Grand Central Parkway in NYC includes a freeway that has five exits.  It is not signed.  I think I-238's lone folded diamond and ramps slapped in the middle of a freeway-freeway interchange can manage.  Up here in NY, we only recently (past five years) began signing freeway numbers between the last interchange and the terminus.  Even to this day, I-490 is mainly signed as "To I-90/Thruway" starting at Eastview Mall, with two miles, a county line crossing, and one more (major) interchange to go.

The Adirondack Northway stub from I-90 to US 20 is not signed as anything either and it has an interchange.

So when there's an accident, someone whips out their cell phone and calls 911 and says "I'm on a road without a number" and the dispatcher tries to get useful information out of the panicky person to tell where the hell they are?

Usually roads without a number have a name. I don't think I've ever seen a road without either a name or a number. Even if it's just a connector or a stub, I would think it would be associated with the road(s) it connects or stubs off of.

[roadman65]

NYS has reference route numbers on its unnamed and unnumbered roads, but people generally do not know them.  The connector between NY 281 and I-81 at Homer, NY is one good example of one as well as the NY 9N connector at Lake George that spurs from Exit 22 of I-87.

[vdeane]

So when there's an accident, someone whips out their cell phone and calls 911 and says "I'm on a road without a number" and the dispatcher tries to get useful information out of the panicky person to tell where the hell they are?

As mentioned, we have reference markers that can be referenced, though they don't necessarily correspond to the road they're on (it would be too much effort to change our highway inventory records).  Also, around here nobody cares what NYSDOT calls a road.  People don't navigate by number, they navigate by name.  That road in NYC is considered to be a connector, not a freeway in and of itself (it's exit numbers are actually exits 13 A-D for I-678) and everyone just calls that bit of the Northway I-87, and I-87 south of the I-90 interchange might as well not exist as far as most people are concerned (the Thruway is simply the Thruway; in the western part of the state, if people know I-90 at all, they most certainly don't know that it's a transcontinental interstate, or that it enters other states at all).  Near where I grew up, US 20 and NY 5 have a long multiplex.  None of my relatives know that US 20 and NY 5 are separate designations.  They're like US 1 and US 9 in northern New Jersey.  Nobody calls I-86 anything other than "route 17", even though NY 17 has been slowly disappearing from signs for years.

[Billy F 1988]

I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway and I don't typically navigate through Missoula using numbers. I do it by name just as vdeane mentioned. The way I see it is that why waste your time being so pissed off about a crapshoot number of an interstate or US highway when we have other, more important things to be pissed off about like why we solve other country's problems instead of our own, that kind of thing. If there is a way to end this topic, I would close with the fact that I-69C, 73 and 74 are just numbers. To emphasise, why be so pissed off about a stupid number when we have other things to be "rightfully" pissed off about like high gas prices or workers not getting the due they deserve or our veterans not getting the care they deserve after fighting for our freedoms and such?

[hotdogPi]

73 is not that much of a problem.

74, however, is "stupid as food".


2 will be more reasonable when it connects to the main part of the Interstate system.

[Scott5114]

I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway and I don't typically navigate through Missoula using numbers. I do it by name just as vdeane mentioned. The way I see it is that why waste your time being so pissed off about a crapshoot number of an interstate or US highway when we have other, more important things to be pissed off about like why we solve other country's problems instead of our own, that kind of thing. If there is a way to end this topic, I would close with the fact that I-69C, 73 and 74 are just numbers. To emphasise, why be so pissed off about a stupid number when we have other things to be "rightfully" pissed off about like high gas prices or workers not getting the due they deserve or our veterans not getting the care they deserve after fighting for our freedoms and such?

Because Interstate numbering is on topic on this board and the other issues you mention aren't. Besides, complaints aren't a zero sum game. Being disgruntled about I-69C doesn't preclude you from having opinions about other things.

[Billy F 1988]

I mean, I'm not a fan of I-69C or the chaotic traffic congestion of I-73/74 but I'm in no position to be pissed off about it. My position, I believe, was made clear, but having said that, my only offering is that we make petitions to the state of Texas to reconsider in using a number that makes sense. That'd mean using something like "169" or "469". Instead of being pissed off about I-69C, we need to come up with some solutions that I'd suggest talking to the Texas state officials. Call any one of them you know about I-69C, the DPS, DOT, whatever, make some conservative effort to make your opinion known to them. As for the I-73/74 bucket of junk, my only suggestion is find routes to bypass them. You're better off on the side roads connecting I-73/74. It's like me using Highway 10 West instead of Interstate 90. So, instead of being pissed about this godawful traffic nightmare of I-73/74, maybe look up some alternate routes to go around it. Why does Nashville, TN have I-440? It's there so that if people don't like the clusterfuck of I-40, 24, or 65, they can use 440 to cut around it. Huntsville's got I-565 that people use to bypass I-65.

[bugo]

The state of Texas has nothing to do with I-69C's numbering (lettering?)  The number was written into legislation passed by the dumbfuck Congress.

[kkt]

I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway and I don't typically navigate through Missoula using numbers. I do it by name just as vdeane mentioned.

So maybe we should spend our time being pissed off because the manual now says highway names shouldn't be placed on BGSs? 

[Billy F 1988]

I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway and I don't typically navigate through Missoula using numbers. I do it by name just as vdeane mentioned.

So maybe we should spend our time being pissed off because the manual now says highway names shouldn't be placed on BGSs? 

Well, poo poo! Put the dadgum highway name on it anyway!   

[vdeane]

The state of Texas has nothing to do with I-69C's numbering (lettering?)  The number was written into legislation passed by the dumbfuck Congress.

I'm sure Texas had the option of not signing it as an interstate at all.  The law designates the I-69 corridor.  A corridor is a general routing, not an exact one.  Thus, they only needed to build one leg, not three.

A good question would be, is who lobbied for a split corridor?  This would have been a lot less ambiguous if congress had just picked one, instead of leaving it to Texas to decide (and then for Texas to say "f*** it, let's just build everything").

[jbnv]

I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway

I agree. We should argue about stuff that really matters, like Clearview.   

[Bobby5280]

Regarding the topic subject line, I'd vote the I-73/74 thing being a worse issue than I-69 in Texas. I don't like I-73/74 because the route numbering, short segments and odd-ball routing has to be confusing for a lot of motorists. There's next to no chance at all I-74 in North Carolina will connect to the other existing I-74. There is a logical path I-73 could take into Virginia, but I don't see that being built anytime soon. However, I-69 in Texas is the least of that route's problems.

At least the Texas portion of I-69 has a good chance of being completed over the next 10-15 years. The same can't be said for portions of the route in some other states, particularly Mississippi's portion as well as the Great River Bridge.

The biggest thing I can't stand about I-69 is just how crooked the route is in Southern Indiana and Kentucky. The proposed alignment in Arkansas and Mississippi is not much better. Most other Interstate highways are far more direct and time saving than I-69. They only get crooked in certain areas when something big like a mountain range is in the way. If the proposed I-69 route is ever completed fully between the Canadian & Mexican borders a lot of long haul truckers and other motorists traveling long distances will choose other far more straight Interstate routes.

At least in Texas I-69 is following a somewhat more direct path (even though the alignment could have been better). I don't have any problem with the "W," "C," & "E" suffixes. If anything a number besides I-69 should have been chosen. I-47 would have made more sense -running from Shreveport down to Houston, Corpus Christi & Laredo. I-369 into Texarkana could have been I-747 instead. I-69E could have been an extension of I-37 (although that re-routing might have drawn the ire of people in Corpus Christi). I-69C could have been I-33, or just an Interstate quality version of US-281. Dual Interstate routes into South Texas seems justifiable considering well over 1 million Americans live down there. BTW, I would have preferred I-2 to be a 3 digit Interstate route if there are no plans of any extension. I-2 would be more legit if it was extended up to Laredo at least.

I don't like I-66 in Kentucky since there's hardly any chance it will be connected to the existing route in Virginia.

I-97 sucks for its short length. It should have been a 3 digit Interstate, if it was signed as an Interstate highway at all. The same goes for I-86 in Idaho. That's another one that should have been a 3 digit Interstate.

I don't like I-39 for a number of reasons. As far as the grid goes, what was wrong with I-53? The I-39 designation should have been reserved for a more western location. I-41 seems pretty unnecessary. The designation seems more motivated by politics. The number won't help motorists any more than US-41.

[hotdogPi]

I think what makes me irk the most is the fact that people make such a big deal out of some silly nilly number of a roadway

I agree. We should argue about stuff that really matters, like Clearview.   

Clearview doesn't even matter that much. Misleading information does.

[Scott5114]

The biggest thing I can't stand about I-69 is just how crooked the route is in Southern Indiana and Kentucky. The proposed alignment in Arkansas and Mississippi is not much better. Most other Interstate highways are far more direct and time saving than I-69. They only get crooked in certain areas when something big like a mountain range is in the way. If the proposed I-69 route is ever completed fully between the Canadian & Mexican borders a lot of long haul truckers and other motorists traveling long distances will choose other far more straight Interstate routes.

If you compare the Google output of "Port Huron MI to Brownsville TX" to a map of proposed I-69, the I-69 corridor is actually straighter.

[hbelkins]

Indiana's alignment needed to connect Evansville to Indianapolis via Bloomington and Crane. There are some environmental reasons why that route is on the corridor it is.

As for Kentucky, they made the decision here to use the existing almost-to-interstate-standards former toll roads. Apparently it's just as fast to get from the Calvert City area to Henderson via I-24, the WK and Pennyrile parkways at 70 mph than it is US 60 at 55 mph or less, and it's a whole lot cheaper to make spot improvements to bring the parkways up to interstate standards than it is to build 60 or so miles of new terrain freeway.

[english si]

The section of I-69 most blatantly out of the way is the bit north of Fort Wayne already in existence: the direct way is via US24, I-75 and I-94. While the 'Fort to Port' US24 corridor is being upgraded, it does seem strange that they don't bring it into the I-69 pork barrel.

Of course this section of I-69 makes a big Detroit bypass and performs a useful regional route in Michigan, linking up cities. Similar to Arkansas's bit, but with bigger cities.

[Brandon]

The section of I-69 most blatantly out of the way is the bit north of Fort Wayne already in existence: the direct way is via US24, I-75 and I-94. While the 'Fort to Port' US24 corridor is being upgraded, it does seem strange that they don't bring it into the I-69 pork barrel.

I don't think Ohio was invited to the I-69 trough.

[Zzonkmiles]

I'll vote for I-73/74 in North Carolina. I would never drive on I-74 because it is broken up into so many tiny segments and I feel that it would be too easy for me to get lost once one of the segments ends. Also, if you drive northbound on I-77 north of I-40 in NC to where I-74 splits off, I-77 is signed as both I-77 north and I-74 west for a few miles before the I-74 shields completely disappear even though no other road carried I-74.

As for I-73, I was always against that road and wish that South Carolina opted instead to extend I-20 east of Florence to Myrtle Beach or Wilmington (NC). If the SC legislature was so worried about losing tax revenue from tourists to Wilmington, they could have extended I-20 to Wilmington, but used the control city of Myrtle Beach.

[Strider]

I'm fine with I-73 routing (because once it is built and done, it will only go from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach), but not the I-74 one. I voted for the I-69 mess though. Really, it is just a number. No big deal. There is no such thing as a perfect grid these days.

[cl94]

I-73/74 just annoys me. Not because of the numbering, but because it wouldn't take too much work to connect the two sections of 74. Make it concurrent with I-77 to Charleston and use an upgraded US 35 and OH SR 32, both of which are high-quality roads that need a few driveways and crossroads cut off (save a short 2 land stretch of US 35 and immediately east of I-275). Don't build a new alignment through WV if it's too expensive and make due with what you have. I-73 is a tad trickier. While not as blatant of an AASHTO violation as I-99, it won't be remotely close to its place until it's west of I-77, as the next west would be I-71. Up to Roanoke is set. The route from there would be a wrong-way concurrency on I-81 to the Smart Road extension and up US 460, a divided highway, from there to I-77. If it stayed concurrent with I-74 and remained on US 32 until US 23, it could follow US 23, I-270, OH SR 15, I-75, and US 23 again to Flint. Projects are underway to bridge minor roads over and SR 15 is Interstate quality except for a couple of RIROs.

73/74 annoys me because, with relatively little effort, both could be extended up existing routes to Ohio and Michigan, yet neither has gotten out of North Carolina.

[US 41]

Indiana's alignment needed to connect Evansville to Indianapolis via Bloomington and Crane. There are some environmental reasons why that route is on the corridor it is.

As for Kentucky, they made the decision here to use the existing almost-to-interstate-standards former toll roads. Apparently it's just as fast to get from the Calvert City area to Henderson via I-24, the WK and Pennyrile parkways at 70 mph than it is US 60 at 55 mph or less, and it's a whole lot cheaper to make spot improvements to bring the parkways up to interstate standards than it is to build 60 or so miles of new terrain freeway.

Monroe County (Bloomington) is still fighting the interstate. If they go to the south end of town I think they will find that they have lost that battle.