Renumbering of I-74 in the Carolinas

[Alps]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has said anything about this subject before, but wouldn't it make more sense for AASHTO to give in and use one of the "forbidden" numbers in the interstate numbering system? I mean, a designation of I-36 or something similar would fit in the grid so much more than taking I-74 so far out of the grid. It just makes more sense. Is there a way to contact AASHTO concerning this? This crap with just using any ol' number is ridiculous... like I-99.

What are the forbidden numbers and why are they forbidden?

I-50 & I-60 are the only "forbidden" ones that I know of.

That was based on the old rule of no US highway and Interstate highway having the same number in the same state.  US 50 and US 60 are near the center where those interstates would be.

Now that NC and now WI have set the precedent by breaking that rule, i would say those numbers are back in play.

50 was always in play in KY and 60 was always in play in NC, where those numbers could conceivably fit and not conflict with the US highway. Both states have freeways that would qualify - several KY parkways, and US 64.

[31E]

It just doesn't make sense to me to sign an Interstate that strays so far out of the grid and isn't even planned to be continuous - if it's continuous, like I-24 or I-26, then in my view a diagonal straying from the grid is no problem, but if it's discontinuous what is the point? Perhaps I-74 from South Carolina to Virginia should be given another number such as I-36 or I-38. Also, the long overlaps between I-73 and I-74 also seem pointless. If I were in charge I'd have I-73 end when it meets I-74 in Ohio or West Virginia, and have the independent segments of future I-73 changed to x74's. It would eliminate the long overlaps and it would fit the grid better too.

A long 80/90 overlap makes more sense than 73/74 because each one continues separately for over a thousand miles after the overlap ends.

[WashuOtaku]

It just doesn't make sense to me to sign an Interstate that strays so far out of the grid and isn't even planned to be continuous - if it's continuous, like I-24 or I-26, then in my view a diagonal straying from the grid is no problem, but if it's discontinuous what is the point? Perhaps I-74 from South Carolina to Virginia should be given another number such as I-36 or I-38. Also, the long overlaps between I-73 and I-74 also seem pointless. If I were in charge I'd have I-73 end when it meets I-74 in Ohio or West Virginia, and have the independent segments of future I-73 changed to x74's. It would eliminate the long overlaps and it would fit the grid better too.

A long 80/90 overlap makes more sense than 73/74 because each one continues separately for over a thousand miles after the overlap ends.

Well, the states didn't decide the numbers on their own, that is what was enacted by congress.  Doesn't matter if some states have this route on the back burner, it's still on the books and eventually, one day, they I-73 will reach Michigan and I-74 will connect to it's western half.

[silverback1065]

It just doesn't make sense to me to sign an Interstate that strays so far out of the grid and isn't even planned to be continuous - if it's continuous, like I-24 or I-26, then in my view a diagonal straying from the grid is no problem, but if it's discontinuous what is the point? Perhaps I-74 from South Carolina to Virginia should be given another number such as I-36 or I-38. Also, the long overlaps between I-73 and I-74 also seem pointless. If I were in charge I'd have I-73 end when it meets I-74 in Ohio or West Virginia, and have the independent segments of future I-73 changed to x74's. It would eliminate the long overlaps and it would fit the grid better too.

A long 80/90 overlap makes more sense than 73/74 because each one continues separately for over a thousand miles after the overlap ends.

Well, the states didn't decide the numbers on their own, that is what was enacted by congress.  Doesn't matter if some states have this route on the back burner, it's still on the books and eventually, one day, they I-73 will reach Michigan and I-74 will connect to it's western half.

I don't see either of those days happening any time soon!!!

[hbelkins]

Well, the states didn't decide the numbers on their own, that is what was enacted by congress.  Doesn't matter if some states have this route on the back burner, it's still on the books and eventually, one day, they I-73 will reach Michigan and I-74 will connect to it's western half.

Not going to happen. West Virginia is building US 52 as a surface route, and US 23 in Ohio is already built as a surface route.

[vtk]

Well, the states didn't decide the numbers on their own, that is what was enacted by congress.  Doesn't matter if some states have this route on the back burner, it's still on the books and eventually, one day, they I-73 will reach Michigan and I-74 will connect to it's western half.

Not going to happen. West Virginia is building US 52 as a surface route, and US 23 in Ohio is already built as a surface route.

Population growth means that's probably not the final version of either highway.  It may be well beyond the current planning horizons, but there's no reason to say it'll never happen.

[hbelkins]

I don't foresee a lot of growth in Mingo, Wyoming or McDowell counties in West Virginia.

[RoadMaster09]

Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?

[adventurernumber1]

Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?

You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.

[silverback1065]

Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?

You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.

Why is it forbidden again?  Is it because it's logical place is to close to US 60?

[adventurernumber1]

Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?

You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.

Why is it forbidden again?  Is it because it's logical place is to close to US 60?

Yep. Same deal w/ I-50.

[english si]

Only an issue if it goes in the same state as the others.

And I-49 in AR (opposite sides of the state), I-41 in WI (one number, one route), I-69 in TX (intersecting routes) and most egregiously I-74 in NC (multiplexing routes on different corridors) have all shown that this rule has been watered down somewhat.

And neither US50 or US60 enters the Carolinas, so not an issue in this thread...

[Brandon]

Only an issue if it goes in the same state as the others.

And I-49 in AR (opposite sides of the state), I-41 in WI (one number, one route), I-69 in TX (intersecting routes) and most egregiously I-74 in NC (multiplexing routes on different corridors) have all shown that this rule has been watered down somewhat.

And neither US50 or US60 enters the Carolinas, so not an issue in this thread...

It was also watered down from the beginning with I-24 and US-24 at opposing ends of Illinois.  That said, a minor number (non I-x0 or I-x5) should be used for these interstates in North Carolina.

[RoadMaster09]

Given that it is diagonal, any mid-number (42 to 62 being mostly north of, or at least near, I-40) even would suffice, but I-74 definitely should not be in the Carolinas, it should be north of the Mason-Dixon Line. If a minor number, the best I can think of are I-58 and I-62. One number should be preserved for US 64 from Raleigh eastward as well though (perhaps I-48?). There are no odd numbers that would fit very well though...unless you duplicate a number from the Northeast.

I-74 is perfectly fine in the western section from OH westward, but I don't see them connecting easily, and why have a long multiplex with 73 anyway?

[I94RoadRunner]

It's called I-74 because Congress designated it as part of the "I-73/74 High-Priority Corridor" (but didn't actually call it Interstate 74).

On the other hand, I-99 was numbered by Congress.

And it is sad in my opinion that I-99 exists in NY now too .....

[I94RoadRunner]

I-74 is not a diagonal.  Were it built, it would be shaped like a flattened S.

However, it is diagonal in the sense that it is an even number crossing north to south across the grid just as I-85 does from west to east.  I-81, I-82, I-44 and others are similar due to geography.

I-74 is not a diagonal.  Were it built, it would be shaped like a flattened S.

It's no curvier than any other long Interstate.  And yes, it's diagonal, because it crosses several I-x0's and I-x5's.

And almost all of I-74 east of Cincinnati is multiplexed with I-73.

My opinion on I-73/74 is to pick one or the other. If they are to connect, then use 74 if not then 73. then the other route would be a 3di through NC and SC. We all know how much NC likes to add to their interstate system!

[I94RoadRunner]

I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.

And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.

US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?

[silverback1065]

I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.

And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.

US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?

US 52 is weird, it zig-zags everywhere

[Molandfreak]

I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.

And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.

US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?

52 is signed on I-94 in ND, though. 52 in ND should remain on the U.S. route system as it's a NHS route with a good amount of truck traffic. It should be U.S. 39, echoing U.S. 57 in TX.

[Molandfreak]

Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?

You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.

No, dude. Just because nobody's ever used it doesn't mean nobody can use it.

[silverback1065]

Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?

You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.

No, dude. Just because nobody's ever used it doesn't mean nobody can use it.

I think they are forbidden, if it's not an actual rule, it's definitely an unwritten one.  I don't see them ever using them unless everything else is taken.

[I94RoadRunner]

I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.

And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.

US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?

52 is signed on I-94 in ND, though. 52 in ND should remain on the U.S. route system as it's a NHS route with a good amount of truck traffic. It should be U.S. 39, echoing U.S. 57 in TX.

US 110 was my thought (based on the thought that MSR 200 should be renumbered as US 10 IMO), however nothing wrong with 39 either .....

[Molandfreak]

Given its length and diagonal nature, how about use I-60?

You can't use I-60. It is a forbidden number.

No, dude. Just because nobody's ever used it doesn't mean nobody can use it.

I think they are forbidden, if it's not an actual rule, it's definitely an unwritten one.  I don't see them ever using them unless everything else is taken.

Show me a file where AASHTO has explicitly rejected an application for I-50 or I-60, or I will continue to call bs. They are NOT forbidden. No number is forbidden...

[Molandfreak]

I-74 fits the grid better than US 52. Suck it.

And U.S. 52 in Minnesota and North Dakota is no less illogical than U.S. 62 in Pennsylvania and New York, or U.S. 79 in Kentucky.

US 52 should be truncated at Rochester, MN IMHO. Why Rochester .....? The section of US 52 between I-90 and the Twin Cities is eventually going to be interstate standards so maybe an I-x90. Then from there all US 52 does between downtown St Paul and the middle of Nebraska is follow I-94 as a hidden designation. So what is the point of all of a sudden having US 52 magically reappear in central ND after the last US 52 sign you see east of there is on the Lafayette bridge .....?

52 is signed on I-94 in ND, though. 52 in ND should remain on the U.S. route system as it's a NHS route with a good amount of truck traffic. It should be U.S. 39, echoing U.S. 57 in TX.

US 110 was my thought (based on the thought that MSR 200 should be renumbered as US 10 IMO), however nothing wrong with 39 either .....

What would you renumber the current 10?

[The Nature Boy]

Back to I-74:

I'd be okay with getting rid of it, completing everything between Rockingham and I-95 and renumbering it I-173. That seems like the most sensible solution.

Alternatively, I would say to go full force, expand what we have now into I-38 and connect Knoxville, TN to Wilmington, NC. That'll take a lot of money but it would at least provide a way to go from Asheville to Charlotte to Wilmington (and by way of I-95 Fayetteville) without leaving the Interstate system.