The Interstate Highways That Don’t Follow the Rules

[Grzrd]

I almost did not start this thread because the subject matter of this blog post has been thoroughly hashed out in this Forum, but I decided to go ahead because it is interesting to see these matters discussed in the outside world. 

[freebrickproductions]

What? No mention of I-238?

[Henry]

I did a quick scan through, and I saw some obvious choices for it, like I-170, the two I-180s (IL and Cheyenne), I-99 and I-69. However, where are I-97, I-73, I-74 and the potential I-85 extension? I think these deserve mention as well, although in the case of I-85, it already broke the rule south of Atlanta.

All in all, it's an interesting read!

[oscar]

The blog post's discussion of I-69 overlooks how the route splits into three suffixed routes (I-69W, I-69C, I-69E) in south Texas. And that is a new exception to the rules, unlike the old I-35W/I-35E splits which were discussed.

[MrDisco99]

What? No mention of I-238?

California, right?  I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it.  Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.

[bzakharin]

They did not mention the discontinuity of I-95 either. That is a surprise. And then there's the subtext throughout the article, summarized by the last sentence: "But unlike high-speed rail, the federal government loves building freeways–even if they don't go anywhere or they destroy neighborhoods in the process." In other words, a certain hostility toward freeways in general. You need freeways to get around effectively. A missing freeway is often a huge inconvenience for the very residents of these neighborhoods whose character has been preserved (it's harder for them to get to other places they might want to go) as well as for longer distance travelers.

[Quillz]

What? No mention of I-238?

California, right?  I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it.  Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.

I-238 is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's considered a non-chargeable interstate, which means it's basically state funded and not really a federal interstate. Second, AASHTO suggested the possibility of I-238 being part of I-580 if Caltrans designated the portion that is now 580 from San Rafael to Richmond I-180. But because California doesn't allow route duplication, I-238 it became.

[vdeane]

They described I-80 in Nevada as "no trees, no curves, nothing" (also flat) and then used a picture with hills and a curve. 

What? No mention of I-238?

California, right?  I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it.  Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.

I-238 is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's considered a non-chargeable interstate, which means it's basically state funded and not really a federal interstate. Second, AASHTO suggested the possibility of I-238 being part of I-580 if Caltrans designated the portion that is now 580 from San Rafael to Richmond I-180. But because California doesn't allow route duplication, I-238 it became.

If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180".  Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.

[Quillz]

They described I-80 in Nevada as "no trees, no curves, nothing" (also flat) and then used a picture with hills and a curve. 

What? No mention of I-238?

California, right?  I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it.  Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.

I-238 is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's considered a non-chargeable interstate, which means it's basically state funded and not really a federal interstate. Second, AASHTO suggested the possibility of I-238 being part of I-580 if Caltrans designated the portion that is now 580 from San Rafael to Richmond I-180. But because California doesn't allow route duplication, I-238 it became.

If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180".  Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.

I'd agree. They also could have renumbered 238 to 980 and just left CA-24 alone.

[Pete from Boston]

Who bullied AASHTO into this consent and how?  I'm all for thoughtful flexibility, but 238 was not that.

[froggie]

You guys keep forgetting that, Federal law notwithstanding, it's FHWA that has final say on Interstate route numbers...

[hbelkins]

You guys keep forgetting that, Federal law notwithstanding, it's FHWA that has final say on Interstate route numbers...

And I don't think that one got legislated the way 99 did, did it?

[The Nature Boy]

I'm surprised at the lack of mention of I-93 through Franconia, New Hampshire.

[oscar]

Who bullied AASHTO into this consent and how?  I'm all for thoughtful flexibility, but 238 was not that.

Actually, sweet reason might've done the trick. I-238 had the advantage of not renumbering the freeway being upgraded from state to Interstate. Not insisting on I-180 or I-480 (the only I-x80s then unused in California) meant no need to renumber CA 180 (Fresno's cross-town freeway, and gateway to Kings Canyon Nat'l Park) or CA 480 (major San Francisco freeway, before its later demise after the Loma Prieta earthquake).

[jwolfer]

They did not mention the discontinuity of I-95 either. That is a surprise. And then there's the subtext throughout the article, summarized by the last sentence: "But unlike high-speed rail, the federal government loves building freeways–even if they don't go anywhere or they destroy neighborhoods in the process." In other words, a certain hostility toward freeways in general. You need freeways to get around effectively. A missing freeway is often a huge inconvenience for the very residents of these neighborhoods whose character has been preserved (it's harder for them to get to other places they might want to go) as well as for longer distance travelers.

I noted the same hatin' on freeways.  Constructing a high speed rail line can disrupt a neighborhood as well. It all depends where they are built, not whether the vehicle  used is a train or automobiles/trucks

[brycecordry]

I regularly design all of my facilities to the most inexpensive standard, which can sometimes mean that they are slightly against the standards, but would be generally overlooked by the general public. For example, on my Missouri I-70 plan, the inside shoulder is 5-6 feet instead of the standard 10-12 feet, in order to allow the third lane to fit underneath the existing overpasses, which do not allow any expansion to the right. My I-45 plan (especially the stretch through Missouri) is another example, as much of the route follows Missouri Expressways, on which the older road (which follows the lay of the land) would not be rebuilt to modern interstate standards for hills and such until it is time to reconstruct.

[kkt]

What? No mention of I-238?

California, right?  I actually just saw this on a map for the first time yesterday and was going to ask about it.  Looks like they just pulled a number out of thin air.

Not really out of the air, it's the old state route number for that highway.

I-238 is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it's considered a non-chargeable interstate, which means it's basically state funded and not really a federal interstate.

Yes, California wanted to encourage truckers to think of it as an important route suitable for through trucks, as opposed to 580 from Oakland to Castro Valley which bans trucks.

Second, AASHTO suggested the possibility of I-238 being part of I-580 if Caltrans designated the portion that is now 580 from San Rafael to Richmond I-180. But because California doesn't allow route duplication, I-238 it became.

That doesn't make sense.  What would have happened to the Castro Valley to Oakland maze section -- 180 also?  Terrible idea confusing people by moving the 580 route number to a parallel route just a couple of miles away.

If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180". 

What an arrogant reaction that would have been.  Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.

Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.

Well, they didn't anticipate numbering so many short highways as 3dis.  380, 880, and 980 weren't on the drawing boards in 1964.

You could also call AASHTO short-sighted for not approving conversion of US 101 from L.A. to S.F. to an interstate when California asked.  Then there would be no shortage of numbers.

[vdeane]

If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180". 

What an arrogant reaction that would have been.  Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.

I would say that it was arrogant of CA to spit all over the numbering rules of a FEDERAL highway system just because they didn't want to renumber a route.

Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.

Well, they didn't anticipate numbering so many short highways as 3dis.  380, 880, and 980 weren't on the drawing boards in 1964.

Regardless, they should have cleared out all potential 3di children of all their interstates regardless of whether they would have been used or not, just in case.  Just because you're planning something now, doesn't mean that you never will 50-100 years from now.  It's best to not leave yourself in a position to be screwed if the future doesn't go as you expect.  Did they think that the interstates were going to be replaced in 20 years like the US routes were?  That's the only reason I can think of for not allowing for more numbers to be added later.

[TheStranger]

If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180". 

What an arrogant reaction that would have been.  Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.

I would say that it was arrogant of CA to spit all over the numbering rules of a FEDERAL highway system just because they didn't want to renumber a route.

I don't see the "arrogance" in wanting to maintain a route number that had been in place for 30 years, though they DID renumber several state routes as a result of the Interstate system's establishment (Route 5 in the Bay Area became today's Route 35, Route 8 in Stockton is now Route 26, former Route 15 became Route 7/now I-710).

[Quillz]

That doesn't make sense.  What would have happened to the Castro Valley to Oakland maze section -- 180 also?  Terrible idea confusing people by moving the 580 route number to a parallel route just a couple of miles away.

From what I understand, yes... AASHTO suggested I-180 from the 101 to the Oakland maze. And then 580 beginning on what is now the 238. This would have turned the 580 (formerly part of US-50) into two different numbered highways. Had CA-180 been a much shorter route than it was, I actually think this may have happened.

As I stated earlier, I think the best solution would have been to leave CA-24 alone, and renumbered CA-238 to I-980. Given that the actual 980 is only about 2 miles long, it barely affected CA-24, which is entirely freeway, anyway.

[Quillz]

If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180". 

What an arrogant reaction that would have been.  Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.

I would say that it was arrogant of CA to spit all over the numbering rules of a FEDERAL highway system just because they didn't want to renumber a route.

Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.

Well, they didn't anticipate numbering so many short highways as 3dis.  380, 880, and 980 weren't on the drawing boards in 1964.

Regardless, they should have cleared out all potential 3di children of all their interstates regardless of whether they would have been used or not, just in case.  Just because you're planning something now, doesn't mean that you never will 50-100 years from now.  It's best to not leave yourself in a position to be screwed if the future doesn't go as you expect.  Did they think that the interstates were going to be replaced in 20 years like the US routes were?  That's the only reason I can think of for not allowing for more numbers to be added later.

Seems Caltrans was on a furious Interstate push in the Bay Area. There are just as many freeways in SoCal, and yet most of them are retained as state routes. (There are no crazy proposals to turn something like CA-57 into I-510, or anything like that). There were plenty of (I assume) well-known state routes in the Bay Area that would have been perfectly fine left alone as freeways (9, 17, 21, all come to mind), but were renumbered as interstates due to brand name recognition. Thus, I don't think California would have ever truly run out of x80 numbers, it was just Caltrans logic at the time. I think other states like New York do a better job of spacing out their 3di, not cramming all of them into one urban area.

[jbnati27]

A few more:
      - I-26, especially North of Asheville
      - I-24, North of Nashville
      - I-71, South of Cincinnati
      - I-59, North of Birmingham
      - I-81, South of Wytheville, VA
      - I-74, South of Indianapolis

I'll have to say I-238, though, is in a league of its own.

[Quillz]

Would I-82 be considered not following the rules? It's almost entirely a north-south route, and has been out of alignment since 1980 (although it was once in the proper grid when 84 was still 80N).

[vdeane]

How did I-580 get designated in the first place?  IMO if it doesn't allow trucks, it shouldn't be an interstate.

I-82 isn't the only one that's the wrong direction for its number.  The same is true for I-26 and I-85, though I suspect the latter two are a result of tilting the grid so that the Appalachians are defined as "north" (kinda like how Quebec defines the St. Lawrence as "east").

[myosh_tino]

How did I-580 get designated in the first place?  IMO if it doesn't allow trucks, it shouldn't be an interstate.

From Wikipedia...

"The truck prohibition has been in effect since the freeway was built in 1963 as part of U.S. 50. Both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) imposed the restriction, partly because the City of Oakland already had a truck ban through the area prior to the freeway's construction. Since then, the restriction was grandfathered in when the freeway was both renumbered and added to the Interstate Highway System."