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

[ElPanaChevere]

I'm more upset about the I-73/I-74 thingy in North Carolina. I can remember being 14-15 years old, so this was eight years ago, and reading articles that they were going to extend I-73 into South Carolina, up to meet I-81 in Virginia or something. I feel that with the I-69 project, albeit in different sections, has gotten farther that I ever anticipated. Yeah, it's disjointed for now, but they've shown that they have gotten somewhere. What have they done in North Carolina? One section of I-73 from I-85 north up to I-40? That's it?

I like coming back onto sites like AAroads or reading articles that say "new section of I-69 has opened". It's suspenseful for me, since with I-69, I keep thinking "okay, what are they going to open next? What day? How long of a segment? How many new exits? Trust me, I was in awe when they opened up the sections from Evansville to Crane, Ind. and the two sections in Houston. I was not expecting that.

The other thing that I personally don't have a problem with, but some might have (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there's this confusion now with US 74/I-74. How do you give directions to someone who's going from Wilmington to Charlotte? Go down to US 74 to I-74 back to US 74...ugh...too much.

[Arkansastravelguy]

I-73 got the airport connector built and will eventually be built to Roanoke. 220 is a train wreck between Roanoke and Collinsville. Also now there's an interstate to Rockingham. I-74 got the Mt Airy bypass built, 52 will be upgraded, and 311/High Point Bypass is done. 73/74 has come a lot further than 69 has. For now at least. I also doubt 69 through Arky and MS and the 69 Mississippi River bridge will be built in 25 years.


iPhone

[hbelkins]

I-73 got the airport connector built and will eventually be built to Roanoke. 220 is a train wreck between Roanoke and Collinsville. Also now there's an interstate to Rockingham. I-74 got the Mt Airy bypass built, 52 will be upgraded, and 311/High Point Bypass is done. 73/74 has come a lot further than 69 has. For now at least. I also doubt 69 through Arky and MS and the 69 Mississippi River bridge will be built in 25 years.

I don't look for Virginia to take significant action to build 73. 220 isn't that bad between Roanoke and Martinsville. It's a four-lane arterial that handles traffic just fine.

[roadman65]

I have a feeling that I-69 in Texas will default into I-369 for a long while as TexDOT won't build the further part if LA is not going to build their portion yet.  That should satisfy truckers as they can use I-30 and I-40 between there and Memphis and won't be in too much of a hurry to get the rest done.

[Arkansastravelguy]

I-73 got the airport connector built and will eventually be built to Roanoke. 220 is a train wreck between Roanoke and Collinsville. Also now there's an interstate to Rockingham. I-74 got the Mt Airy bypass built, 52 will be upgraded, and 311/High Point Bypass is done. 73/74 has come a lot further than 69 has. For now at least. I also doubt 69 through Arky and MS and the 69 Mississippi River bridge will be built in 25 years.

I don't look for Virginia to take significant action to build 73. 220 isn't that bad between Roanoke and Martinsville. It's a four-lane arterial that handles traffic just fine.

I don't see it going fast but I don't see Mississippi going fast either. 220 is 4 lane but there are several tight turns and 220 between 419 and the BRP is a nightmare


iPhone

[billtm]

Is I-69 through Arkansas really necessary? Texarkana to Memphis already has a well established route (30 to 40).

[Scott5114]

Mainline I-69 doesn't pass through Texarkana. It will cross I-20 at Shreveport.

[US 41]

Is I-69 through Arkansas really necessary? Texarkana to Memphis already has a well established route (30 to 40).

No. It's a huge waste of money. If you want to get to Shreveport from Memphis it might be faster to go
I-40 to Little Rock, cut down I-30 to Texarkana and then go south on I-49.

Actually the whole project is a huge waste of money. Indy - Memphis already has a route. I-70 to I-57 to I-55. Multilane highways in Texas are already fast. From Houston to Laredo already has a route. I-10 to I-35 via San Antonio.

Also the current route from Indianapolis to Mexico will be 70 miles shorter than I-69 and faster. 

[english si]

Parts are alright though:

SW Indiana is rather cut off from the State Capital and had been pushing for an interstate for decades (sour grapes from you that it isn't US41 heading south from Terre Haute to Evansville?)
Kentucky's bit is basically modernisation of existing freeways and a bypass for Hendersonville
Turning 4-lanes into Freeways improves safety, and many of the routes in TX have lots of truck traffic now.
The Lower Rio Grande deserves an Interstate.

That leaves:
Houston-Laredo - not much shorter than via San Antonio. However it does take traffic away from that Met Area, and the Katy Freeway.
AR and MS - a bit porky, sure
TN - upgrading US51 doesn't look hard, and why not.

So that gives two meta SIU's of Indy-Memphis and Texarkana/Shreveport - Brownsville (if you are going to moan about longer, you can't complain about I-369, which cuts off quite a few miles). Arkansas and Mississippi have some sections that are justifiable on their own, ditto upgrading US281 and US59 s of Houston.

[US 41]

Honestly it would've been a waste of money had it come to Terre Haute. US 41 is already a pretty nice highway south of Terre Haute. SR 641 would've and is going to solve a lot of problems south of town. A NE bypass around Terre Haute would be nice. Terre Haute is really the only bad part on US 41 / SR 63. Although the St. Johns area is bad (Illiana will solve that). I-164 is a good way to get around Evansville, although I usually just stay on 41.

The lower Rio Grande has an interstate (35). I-2 is also there now, which it already was there as US 83. US 281 and 77 were good enough. US 59 north of Houston is good enough. US 51 is good until the northern part of Memphis. Yes interstates are nice but they aren't needed everywhere. Interstate quality bypasses around small towns on multilane highways is the answer.

[ElPanaChevere]

Actually the whole project is a huge waste of money. Indy - Memphis already has a route. I-70 to I-57 to I-55. Multilane highways in Texas are already fast. From Houston to Laredo already has a route. I-10 to I-35 via San Antonio.

Also the current route from Indianapolis to Mexico will be 70 miles shorter than I-69 and faster.

For Houston-Laredo,  I used GoogleMaps and it gave me two options. The one where it shows US 59 (which practically makes a beeline), and the one you mentioned, using I-10 W to I-410, to I-35 S (which makes an arc, essentially).

US 59 (mind you, the new sections of I-69 might make this shorter)= 311 miles.
I-10->I-410->I-35= 350 miles.

Also, one should consider that between Laredo and Houston, there aren't really any major cities, well those that would cause any traffic jams, etc. So 350 miles, with a chance of running into traffic in San Antonio, a major U.S. city, or 311 miles of just beelining straight from point A to point B?

Lastly, what about people from Corpus Christi who want to go to Laredo? It'd be very impractical to go up to San Antonio and come back down I-35. So, I guess I-69 helps out in that regard too. This is my reflection on this, no harm intended. 

[Avalanchez71]

Honestly it would've been a waste of money had it come to Terre Haute. US 41 is already a pretty nice highway south of Terre Haute. SR 641 would've and is going to solve a lot of problems south of town. A NE bypass around Terre Haute would be nice. Terre Haute is really the only bad part on US 41 / SR 63. Although the St. Johns area is bad (Illiana will solve that). I-164 is a good way to get around Evansville, although I usually just stay on 41.

The lower Rio Grande has an interstate (35). I-2 is also there now, which it already was there as US 83. US 281 and 77 were good enough. US 59 north of Houston is good enough. US 51 is good until the northern part of Memphis. Yes interstates are nice but they aren't needed everywhere. Interstate quality bypasses around small towns on multilane highways is the answer.

I agree with this statement.  This would be a prudent spend of the taxpayer coin.

[billtm]

IMHO, I-69 from Memphis to Shreveport is a huge waste of money that won't get heavy traffic anyway. I would end I-69 south of Memphis at US-61. and then redesignate Future 369/69 in Texas from Texarkana south past Carthage as I-47. This would get rid of the need for the Great River Bridge, which would save a lot of time and money. But it looks like Arkansas is already starting to build I-69, whether the bridge will be completed or not. 

[triplemultiplex]

All that branching, the waste of resources for a Memphis to Shreveport freeway and the Ohio River Bridge miles from anything make I-69 worse.  Although I-74's ridiculous double-back-on-itself end at the coast makes it a tough choice.  Seriously, how stupid is that?  It's on the way to a logical end in Wilmington, then is going abruptly take off through the swamp, turn around and go to Myrtle Beach.  How hard is it to see the best way for Myrtle to get an interstate is to bring I-20 over from Florence?

As for I-69 in Texas, I believe the great Walter Sobchak said it best: "Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?!?!"

[english si]

Ohio River Bridge miles from anything?

Not sure that's right - it's 2-3 miles east of the US41 bridge, basically forming a Henderson bypass, and connecting to the Evansville area pretty centrally a couple of miles north of the bridge. Certainly, if you are in Evansville and going south to anywhere but Henderson and the small towns west of there, you'd use I-69 rather than the existing route!

Did you mean Mississippi Bridge?

[Arkansastravelguy]

We could use another Mississippi River bridge downstream... Just in case the faultline acts up again


iPhone

[Duke87]

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.

[roadman65]

No you are right about having the interstate freeway's built north of Rockingham, but the numbers could be a I-36, I-38, or an x85, x40, or x77.

[Arkansastravelguy]

 I-73 fits better than the I-99 BS. 74 is a joke. The best number for it in light of recent events? I-26E


iPhone

[roadman65]

74 is a joke only because WV and OH will not build their section of the road that would connect it to the existing I-74 that is in the grid proper.  74 would be a lot like 69 where you have its extension west of I-45 and I-37 in Texas.

[rickmastfan67]

I-74 in NC should have just been a Southern I-79.  Would have solved all the problems as you could have just added I-79 shields along I-77 and then you would have it all connected with no problems.

[FightingIrish]

I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

Yeah, but the only x80 number that was available was I-180, and CA-180 was established in 1934 according to CAhighways. 

I-580 was proposed as I-72 and briefly signed as I-5W before it was finally renumbered as I-580.  US-101 from Los Angeles to San Francisco was proposed as an interstate and would probably have become I-3.  Either of those would have given several possible 3di options for I-238 that would have fit the numbering scheme.

I always thought it was stupid that I-580 wasn't signed as a stand-alone 2di. It would most certainly clean up the x80 glut. I-72 is a fine number for that, even I-48, since there is no other route 48 in the state system. The I-580 designation never really made much sense.

And if I were in charge of renumbering, I'd have it replace the whole I-580 route from I-5 to US 101. As for I-238, it could be a 3di of I-580's replacement, or just an unsigned connector from I-880 to the mother route.

[roadman65]

I-74 in NC should have just been a Southern I-79.  Would have solved all the problems as you could have just added I-79 shields along I-77 and then you would have it all connected with no problems.

You would copy WI with its three interstate concurrency then.

[TheStranger]

I always thought it was stupid that I-580 wasn't signed as a stand-alone 2di. It would most certainly clean up the x80 glut. I-72 is a fine number for that, even I-48, since there is no other route 48 in the state system. The I-580 designation never really made much sense.

Interestingly, part of today's 580 (specifically Altamont to Route 238) corresponds to the original US 48. 

580/505 both seem to be compromise designations derived from the former 5W number (a renumbering which led to the unintended consequence of a 3di designation shortage 20 years later).

[kkt]

I-238 is annoying, but the alternatives at the time all had problems with them too.  If AASHTO had approved the interstates California applied for, there wouldn't be such a shortage of x80 numbers.  California shouldn't have to renumber a major state highway dating back to its beginnings.

238 doesn't date back to the beginning of California state route numbers though; the still-state highway portion only received that number in 1964 and the east-west freeway segment didn't exist before then, if I am not mistaken.  (The portion of 238 south of 580 to 680 in Fremont was originally Route 9; the portion of decommissioned 238 from 262 in Fremont to 101 in San Jose is former Route 17 (with the segment from 262 to 237 basically former Route 9/Route 17 on surface streets).

Yeah, but the only x80 number that was available was I-180, and CA-180 was established in 1934 according to CAhighways. 

I-580 was proposed as I-72 and briefly signed as I-5W before it was finally renumbered as I-580.  US-101 from Los Angeles to San Francisco was proposed as an interstate and would probably have become I-3.  Either of those would have given several possible 3di options for I-238 that would have fit the numbering scheme.

I always thought it was stupid that I-580 wasn't signed as a stand-alone 2di. It would most certainly clean up the x80 glut.

Well, they failed to anticipate how many 3dis would be added to the system.  At the time the interstates were created, they thought that would be it.  Foolish, maybe, but there was no allowance for nonchargeable interstate miles and Congress wasn't in the business of legislating individual route numbers back then.

I-72 is a fine number for that,

I-72 would have been a fine number for that.  However, since then, CA-72 has been created out of former El Camino in part of L.A.

even I-48, since there is no other route 48 in the state system. The I-580 designation never really made much sense.

It makes sense as a mnemonic, from 5 to 80.

And if I were in charge of renumbering, I'd have it replace the whole I-580 route from I-5 to US 101. As for I-238, it could be a 3di of I-580's replacement, or just an unsigned connector from I-880 to the mother route.

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

I-580 is now a very well known route number, and it's really too late to change its number.  I-238 becoming I-480 seems like the way to go, if we change it at all.