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

[Bickendan]

Nobody has mentioned the obvious yet?  Okay, here goes.

I-238

:drops mic, walks off:

Not needing a number is different from needing its number changed.

Just going with the OP here.  A 3di that shouldn't have an interstate designation.  I think 238 fits this.  It could easily just stay CA-238.

Not really.

1. I-238 is built to interstate standards and carries a lot of out-of-area traffic, especially trucks as I-580 does not allow trucks through Oakland.  Interstate status makes it clearer that it's a good through route.  CA 238 is a surface street boulevard.

2. If you follow CA 238 north to its end you don't end up on I-238.  To get on I-238 you must turn and go a couple of blocks on other streets to get to the freeway entrance.  Likewise if you follow I-238 to its east end if you don't take an exit you end up on I-580, not CA 238.

3.  I-238's upgrade to interstate standards was built with interstate funds.

I-238 should have an interstate number, just not that one.  I-480 is the obvious choice, now that it's been decades since the Embarcadero Freeway was open.

Better yet -- Truncate I-880 from the MacArthur Maze down to I-238.
Eliminate I-238.
Reroute I-580 off the MacArthur Freeway and onto I-238 and the Nimitz Freeway north to the Maze.
Establish I-480 onto the MacArthur Freeway.

That will eliminate not one but two mainline switches I-580 currently does, and the mainline switch it would do at current 238/880 would be obvious enough, presenting a logical through route from Castro Valley to Oakland, for both trucks and cars, and on a single number. However, that will mean that I-880 would lose its direct connection to I-80, but I-280 says hi. The downside is forcing the public to acclimate to the changes and the original I-5W routing taking up another number (580-480-80-505).

[kphoger]

Didn't all the 3di's on this thread receive their shields due to funding? I don't see that as a legitimate reason to sign Hawaii's Interstates with blue shields. I'm also not in favor of putting I-A1 shields on the Richardson Highway--Ladd AFB notwithstanding.

What's the point? Hawaii doesn't deserve to sign Interstates that they built to standards? and who suggested signing I-A1 on the Richardson?

My point ... [deep breath] ... was that all the points you made about the H-# Interstates--funding, freeway standards, military base--could also be made about at least one highway in Alaska. I see the blue shield in Honolulu as just as unnecessary as I would see the blue shield in Fairbanks. [/vortex]

[NE2]

One major difference: the Hawaiian Interstates were (mostly) explicitly built as Interstates. They didn't have other numbers.

[Lyon Wonder]

Though not signed as 3DI's, I-69C on US 281 and I-69E on US 77 in Texas should be decommissioned too since, if it weren't for the signing of I-2 along US 83's freeway alignment, I swear that Texas wants to number every new or proposed interstate corridor in that state as part of I-69.

[dfwmapper]

Better yet -- Truncate I-880 from the MacArthur Maze down to I-238.
Eliminate I-238.
Reroute I-580 off the MacArthur Freeway and onto I-238 and the Nimitz Freeway north to the Maze.
Establish I-480 onto the MacArthur Freeway.

That will eliminate not one but two mainline switches I-580 currently does, and the mainline switch it would do at current 238/880 would be obvious enough, presenting a logical through route from Castro Valley to Oakland, for both trucks and cars, and on a single number. However, that will mean that I-880 would lose its direct connection to I-80, but I-280 says hi. The downside is forcing the public to acclimate to the changes and the original I-5W routing taking up another number (580-480-80-505).

Better better yet, the current I-238+the north part of I-880 becomes I-580, and the current I-580 between I-238 and the Maze loses its Interstate designation entirely and becomes CA 238 (as a logical northward extension of that corridor). No trucks, no Interstate designation for you.

[vtk]

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



Hawaii's Interstates deserve to be called such because they facilitate interstate commerce. Surely tourists are aided in getting around Oahu by the presence of the Interstates.

[kkt]

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



Hawaii's Interstates deserve to be called such because they facilitate interstate commerce. Surely tourists are aided in getting around Oahu by the presence of the Interstates.

Not to mention getting goods to boats to take them elsewhere in the world.

[english si]

Need to add I-296 (US-131) - and it's not even signed.

I was going by Clinched Highway Mapping, where it isn't entirely concurrent, with a bit not concurrent at its north end, but you are right - they look like slip roads.

[ajlynch91]

I-180 in WY and IL
I-172 in IL
I-587 in NY
I-790 in NY *shudders*
I-381 in VA
I-115 in MT
I-088 in IL;)
I-878 in NY
I-345 in TX
I-894 in WI
I-235 in IA (Why couldn't either I-35 or I-80 be routed onto here?)


I disagree with an earlier poster that I-190 shouldn't exist, it may be short but it provides a very important interstate connection. Some interstates are truly pointless.

[bing101]

Even better move the I-305 designation to Los Angeles. I can see the CA-134 In Glendale and Burbank meeting to interstate standards.

[Brandon]

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.

[hotdogPi]

I-088 in IL;)

I-086, of both types.

One of them is fine as US 30, and the other must remain NY 17 at all costs.

[Henry]

While I agree that I-238 was a bad number choice because there is no I-38, I still feel that it is perfectly fine for an Interstate connector. That being said, I'm all for reviving the I-480 number for it.

[ajlynch91]

I-088 in IL;)

I-086, of both types.

One of them is fine as US 30, and the other must remain NY 17 at all costs.

Why the western I-86 isn't a 3di, like I-384, is beyond me.

[vtk]

Why the western I-86 isn't a 3di, like I-384, is beyond me.

It was originally I-15W, and it really should have been changed to I-115 or I-184.

[Zeffy]

Why the western I-86 isn't a 3di, like I-384, is beyond me.

It was originally I-15W, and it really should have been changed to I-115 or I-184.

I personally think any duplicated Interstate number should have to be renumbered (personally to a 3di). I don't like the multiple 76s, 84s, 86s, and 88s. Heck, I'd even advocate restoring the old suffixed routes over duplicated ones.

[ajlynch91]

^Totally agree. As long as Texas gets to do it, I don't see why the other 49 states can't as well...

[CNGL-Leudimin]

^Totally agree. As long as Texas and Minnesota get to do it, I don't see why the other 48 states can't as well...

FTFY.

BTW, I-097 . At least not with this number.

[SD Mapman]

SD I-190 (US16)

No. It stays.

[Billy F 1988]

I-315 isn't "singed"...

Or in Butte

Disagree, NE2. I-115 near Butte has signs. Here's why I-315 isn't signed. It's known as I-15 Business multiplexed with Montana 200 and Montana 3, US 89. I-315 may as well be terminated, but then, you'd take out the third shortest interstate in the country, but, you know, what can you do in this regard? Montana better think of something soon to sign I-315 or it won't be there anymore.

[NE2]

Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?

[kphoger]

whoosh

[cl94]

I-790 should at least be rerouted along NY 43 to serve as more than a glorified C-D road. But hey, at least it's actually a freeway now. Used to be a super 2.

I'll nominate I-478. Consists solely of a tunnel and its toll booths.

[Billy F 1988]

Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?

What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.

[corco]

Disagree with what? That I-315 isn't signed? Or that it isn't "singed"?

What? I think you may need to reread the post. You may have missed something. So, let me put it differently so to not jog your brain cells even further. I've said "disagree" in short form of saying I disagree that I-115 is not signed.

Who said that I-115 is not signed