Most Unnecessary Interstate

[Flint1979]

If I had to pick another 2di, it would be I-86. For the amount of traffic that actually travels that road, a 4-lane divided road (which would be US-30) would probably suffice. Most of the eastbound traffic at Burley ID heads southeast to Utah, so that they can either go south on 15 or east on 80.

I 100% agree that it doesn't need to be a 2di. A 3di like I-284 (or anything really) would be just fine, or just US-30 (but it's already interstate standard and connects to major interstates on both ends so might as well keep the designation I suppose). But traffic levels aren't that far off. Just east of where I-84 and I-86 split, I-84 has AADT of 9140 and I-86 has AADT of 7407. They're both quite low, really, but not significantly different. Got the info from here by the way: http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/roadwaydata/Maps/ATR_WIMmap_map.html

I think it should be an odd numbered spur route off either I-84 or I-15 like I-184 or I-115. I think anytime AADT drops below 10,000 on an Interstate that's a quite low number. I-75 dips as low as 3,200 AADT in the U.P. of Michigan and another one out west is I-82 that seems pretty useless to me it could be another spur off I-84 or off I-90 and it even has a spur route in the Tri-Cities area of Washington. I was thinking though that I-86 should just be U.S. 30.

Since it is at Interstate standards already though, I think it is better to leave it as a 3di. It wouldn't even be too long of a 3di at 62 miles, since I can find I-135 at 92 miles (and I'm sure there are probably more long 3dis that I don't know about or can't think of right now). I would suggest an I-x15 number since it was originally I-15W, but an I-x84 would work just as well.

I-82 just has a bad number since originally its south end was at I-80N which was renumbered to 84. Maybe it should have an odd number instead (perhaps I-11 in case they ever connect them?), but it should stay a 2di. It's actually a pretty important connector for traffic heading southeast from Seattle. And, it's 143 miles which is longer than any current 3di.

I agree leaving it as a 3di. At 62 miles it'd probably be around 20th in length for a 3di about the same length as I-285 around Atlanta. It seems like most of the longer ones are beltways or bypasses. Either I-x15 or I-x84 would work fine.

I-82 being part of the route between Seattle and Boise, ID and SLC it is needed I wouldn't say that's unnecessary but rather just numbered wrong so we agree. They should just switch I-82 and I-84 or I-7, I-9 or yeah connect with I-11. With there being no direct Interstate route between Las Vegas and Phoenix I'm thinking they will probably extend it south before they extend it north.

[Flint1979]

You could also keep the I-86 number and multiplex I-86 with I-84 and replace I-82's number with I-86. Then you eliminate I-82's number. Honestly though a I-x84 or I-x15 would be the best bet for I-86.

[Flint1979]

Cancel my above idea I didn't realize it was 418 miles from I-82's eastern terminus to I-86's western terminus. That'd be a pointless multiplex to just connect it with an expressway that's going to only go another 60 miles. When I look at map's out west I don't realize how many miles are between some points.

A better idea would be to switch I-82 and I-86 and run I-82 to I-84's current terminus at I-80 and run I-84 to I-15 in Pocatello.

[Road Hog]

I-530 in Arkansas. Concurrent with US 65 the whole way and a road to nowhere (no offense to Pine Bluff).

[FightingIrish]

I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.

I agree...

In fact now that the number  California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.

I agree on re-using I-480 for the Sacramento area. It's 2017 -- the "480" moniker is no longer the four-letter word it was in the 1970s and 80s in the Bay Area. It's stupid not to use an available number because some aging hippies the next town over don't like it.

That said, 480 should replace Biz 80, not mainline 80, because of how the exits are arranged. I'm also a fan of marking US-50 as I-305 from I-80 to Placerville, but that still leaves the Biz 80 designation on the eastern half.

It's not "aging hippies" that hated the Embarcadero. Pretty much everyone in San Francisco hated it, except for Chinatown businesses. But that whole section of town was opened up to more business and residential development, and became much more appealing.

[kkt]

Cancel my above idea I didn't realize it was 418 miles from I-82's eastern terminus to I-86's western terminus. That'd be a pointless multiplex to just connect it with an expressway that's going to only go another 60 miles. When I look at map's out west I don't realize how many miles are between some points.

A better idea would be to switch I-82 and I-86 and run I-82 to I-84's current terminus at I-80 and run I-84 to I-15 in Pocatello.

I-84 follows the greatest traffic flow.  I-84 and I-86 are in good relative positions, although I-86 would make a great 3di.  I-82 is a little out of grid, but it's not worth re-signing just to fix its grid position.

[vdeane]

I'd renumber I-82 to I-7 or I-9, I-86 to a 3di, and I-84 to I-82.  That would remove two duplicated 2dis.

[Flint1979]

I'd renumber I-82 to I-7 or I-9, I-86 to a 3di, and I-84 to I-82.  That would remove two duplicated 2dis.

It'd make sense to me and like you said you wouldn't have the eastern and western I-84 and I-86. I too think that I-82 should have an odd number and I-86 a 3di. I think your idea is the best one I could come up with.

[PHLBOS]

I'd rather have 305 signed than the 80 business loop.

I agree...

In fact now that the number  California I-480 is available again, maybe I'd make the bypass loop I-480 and restore I-80 to the original route.

I agree on re-using I-480 for the Sacramento area. It's 2017 -- the "480" moniker is no longer the four-letter word it was in the 1970s and 80s in the Bay Area. It's stupid not to use an available number because some aging hippies the next town over don't like it.

That said, 480 should replace Biz 80, not mainline 80, because of how the exits are arranged. I'm also a fan of marking US-50 as I-305 from I-80 to Placerville, but that still leaves the Biz 80 designation on the eastern half.

It's not "aging hippies" that hated the Embarcadero. Pretty much everyone in San Francisco hated it, except for Chinatown businesses. But that whole section of town was opened up to more business and residential development, and became much more appealing.

Actually, that's not correct.  There were many locals in the area that supported keeping the Embarcadero as an expressway.

Copied from Reply #160 of the Interstate 81 in Syracuse thread:

FWIW, here's the Wiki account with an excerpt (below) regarding the Embarcadero (bold emphasis added):

In the 1980s, opposition to the Embarcadero Freeway resurfaced in proposals to tear it down. On November 5, 1985, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway.   The proposal was put to the voters in 1987 and soundly defeated, opposed in particular by influential Chinatown community organizer Rose Pak, who feared that Chinatown would suffer catastrophic consequences if it would lose this fast crosstown connection.  The October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake significantly damaged the structure, causing it to be closed to traffic. Caltrans planned to retrofit and retain the double-decker freeway. Various groups in and outside the City supported the Caltrans plan, but there was a significant opinion within the City in favor of removing the freeway structure. Then-Mayor Art Agnos proposed demolishing the freeway in favor of a boulevard with an underpass at the Ferry Building to allow for a large plaza.

Opposition to demolishing the freeway mounted again, with over 20,000 signatures gathered to again create a ballot measure.   Prior to the earthquake, the Embarcadero Freeway carried approximately 70,000 vehicles daily in the vicinity of the Ferry Building. Another 40,000 vehicles per day used associated ramps at Main and Beale streets. The strongest opposition came from Chinatown and other neighborhoods north of downtown.  Merchants in Chinatown had suffered a dramatic decline in business in the months immediately following the earthquake and feared that if the freeway was not reopened they would not recover.

Agnos continued to negotiate with federal and state officials to win enough funding to make the demolition practical, and the opposition relented. Agnos argued that the city would squander "the opportunity of a lifetime" if it allowed the freeway to remain.  After months of debate, the Board of Supervisors narrowly voted in favor of demolition by a 6—5 margin.  Demolition began on February 27, 1991. That year, Agnos was defeated for re-election as Chinatown switched its support away from him.

Upshoot to the above IMHO:

1.  Had the 1989 earthquake not happened, the Freeway might be still standing & in use.

2.  Support for the keeping the freeway came from locals (i.e. voters) as well as commuters (i.e. outsiders).

3.  The Mayor who supported the freeway removal was shortly voted out of office.

[kkt]

It is true that there was some support for keeping the Embarcadero Freeway, even some for rebuilding it after it was seriously damaged.  But it was a minority, and Agnos's defeat was about a lot more than that issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/26/us/san-francisco-mayor-in-tough-bid-for-re-election.html

Frank Jordan defeated Agnos, and Jordan's campaign featured photos of homeless people, vandalism, litter, closed libraries.

[Roadgeekteen]

I-384 is a spur to nowhere. I do know that it is what was built of I-84 east of Hartford. Could a more informed roadgeek tell me what it is used for now? How much traffic is on it?

[jp the roadgeek]

I-384 is a spur to nowhere. I do know that it is what was built of I-84 east of Hartford. Could a more informed roadgeek tell me what it is used for now? How much traffic is on it?

It's basically used as a bypass of, and to get to, downtown Manchester.  ConnDOT uses Providence as a control city where it exits I-84 East on the East Hartford/Manchester town line, but the better option to get to Providence from Hartford is I-84 to Exit 69, then CT 74 to US 44 to CT/RI 101 to US 6.  It's mostly used by commuters from the eastern exburbs of Hartford along US 6 or US 44 east of the split (Bolton, Coventry, Andover) and to get to and from the Willimantic area.  It can also be used as an alternate route to UConn's campus if I-84 or CT 195 is backed up after a game at Gampel. Traffic thins out especially east of CT 83, where one could safely drive 75 MPH were it legal.     

[adventurernumber1]

Interstate 73 may be a bit of a clusterfunk, but I actually think a lot of it is decent. The most important part of the theorized I-73 is probably the proposed section from Columbus, Ohio to Interstate 75. That seems like it would be an incredibly useful interstate corridor, at least to me. The least needed part is probably the proposed section in and near West Virginia. Regarding I-73 in North Carolina, I personally think it is probably not such a bad idea to have an interstate corridor radiating directly south from Greensboro. So I actually do agree with the I-73 concept somewhat, but I can't say so much the same regarding the proposed I-74 extension (even though both the I-73 and I-74 ideas and projects are quite highly associated with eachother). 


As desolate as it may be, I think I-15 in northern Montana actually serves a pretty good purpose. I'd say it is justified, being part of a direct route from the United States to (eventually) one of the largest cities in Canada, north of the border (Calgary) - not to mention that even more north of that, Edmonton is also a pretty big city.


I-99, I-97, and I-238 all have terrible numbering, but the highways themselves, I agree, are actually all really important.

I'd renumber I-82 to I-7 or I-9, I-86 to a 3di, and I-84 to I-82.  That would remove two duplicated 2dis.

That is a really, really good idea! I think I-82 has silly numbering as well - not only is it a moderately north-south interstate corridor, but it is also not in the grid correctly, as the "82" interstate number is supposed to be located south of I-84, not north of it. I think I-7 and I-9 would be great Interstate designations to assign to I-82 and limited-access CA 99. I've actually never thought about it before, but I guess a 3di number is a good bit more fitting for I-86 in Idaho. And should all of the above happen, then let's redesignate I-84 as I-82, and our work is done (at least over there)! 




Now, to get to my true pick for the most unnecessary interstate, I simply truly cannot decide. As I said in the "Most and Least Important 3dis?" thread, I just personally can't narrow down all the choices to one. There are so, so many different candidates for the "most unnecessary interstate," with practically all of them being 3dis. Unsigned 3dis are also something to think about, as someone else said. So unfortunately, as a result, especially due to my indecisiveness, I personally have no pick for the most unnecessary interstate as of now, but I think that if I think very hard on it for ages I could probably reach my conclusion and personal pick.   

[Roadgeekteen]

Interstate 73 may be a bit of a clusterfunk, but I actually think a lot of it is decent. The most important part of the theorized I-73 is probably the proposed section from Columbus, Ohio to Interstate 75. That seems like it would be an incredibly useful interstate corridor, at least to me. The least needed part is probably the proposed section in and near West Virginia. Regarding I-73 in North Carolina, I personally think it is probably not such a bad idea to have an interstate corridor radiating directly south from Greensboro. So I actually do agree with the I-73 concept somewhat, but I can't say so much the same regarding the proposed I-74 extension (even though both the I-73 and I-74 ideas and projects are quite highly associated with eachother). 


As desolate as it may be, I think I-15 in northern Montana actually serves a pretty good purpose. I'd say it is justified, being part of a direct route from the United States to (eventually) one of the largest cities in Canada, north of the border (Calgary) - not to mention that even more north of that, Edmonton is also a pretty big city.


I-99, I-97, and I-238 all have terrible numbering, but the highways themselves, I agree, are actually all really important.

I'd renumber I-82 to I-7 or I-9, I-86 to a 3di, and I-84 to I-82.  That would remove two duplicated 2dis.

That is a really, really good idea! I think I-82 has silly numbering as well - not only is it a moderately north-south interstate corridor, but it is also not in the grid correctly, as the "82" interstate number is supposed to be located south of I-84, not north of it. I think I-7 and I-9 would be great Interstate designations to assign to I-82 and limited-access CA 99. I've actually never thought about it before, but I guess a 3di number is a good bit more fitting for I-86 in Idaho. And should all of the above happen, then let's redesignate I-84 as I-82, and our work is done (at least over there)! 




Now, to get to my true pick for the most unnecessary interstate, I simply truly cannot decide. As I said in the "Most and Least Important 3dis?" thread, I just personally can't narrow down all the choices to one. There are so, so many different candidates for the "most unnecessary interstate," with practically all of them being 3dis. Unsigned 3dis are also something to think about, as someone else said. So unfortunately, as a result, especially due to my indecisiveness, I personally have no pick for the most unnecessary interstate as of now, but I think that if I think very hard on it for ages I could probably reach my conclusion and personal pick.   

A simpler plan would be to just switch I-82 and I-84.

[jwolfer]

A lot of talk about I-82 being out of grid.. remember I-84 was originally I-80N, so 82 fit in the grid when it was numbered back in 1950s

Z981

[Roadgeekteen]

I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.

[adventurernumber1]

A lot of talk about I-82 being out of grid.. remember I-84 was originally I-80N, so 82 fit in the grid when it was numbered back in 1950s

Z981

That is a very good point. I knew about I-84 being I-80N, but I actually did not know the time period in which Interstate 82 came to be, which was evidently back during the same time. That makes a lot of sense now; I did always wonder why the heck that interstate had the number "82," since nowadays, it is out of the grid, but I never thought about the fact that historically it was perfectly fine - but then again, I-82 does have some north-south tendencies, which is another hit to its justification (the number) in modern times - so with that said (and call me a grid nazi, which I am), I don't think it would be such a bad idea to renumber I-82 to something like I-7 in these times. Thank you very much for the information and the insight, jwolfer! 

[Rothman]

I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.

You might have a point now, but there was a time before MAP-21 when states would receive federal funds for interstate maintenance.  The designation of interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico was partially a means of ensuring equity.

[Roadgeekteen]

I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.

You might have a point now, but there was a time before MAP-21 when states would receive federal funds for interstate maintenance.  The designation of interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico was partially a means of ensuring equity.

Could any of them become signed if they were upgraded to interstate standards?

[Rothman]

I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.

You might have a point now, but there was a time before MAP-21 when states would receive federal funds for interstate maintenance.  The designation of interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico was partially a means of ensuring equity.

Could any of them become signed if they were upgraded to interstate standards?

I suppose, but that may just cause confusion with the already established state route designations.

[Flint1979]

I-73 most likely isn't going to happen. Michigan has no interest in it and I don't think Ohio does either.

[Flint1979]

Or just switch I-82 and I-84's number west of their interchange together.

[hotdogPi]

82 is not unnecessary. It just has a bad number.

[Flint1979]

I can agree that I-82 is needed. It provides part of the route between Seattle to Boise and SLC and vice versa, I-84 provides the route to Portland so both are needed but the numbers should just be switched around or give I-82 an odd number. I can see why it has an even number though since the middle of the route goes east and west and the two other legs of the route go north and south. To me it appears to go just as far north and south as it does east and west. At least it's not like I-69 in Michigan between Lansing and Port Huron which is even signed east and west.

[kphoger]

I see no point to the Alaska and Puerto Rico interstates. If it is not signed, it might as well not exist.

You might have a point now, but there was a time before MAP-21 when states would receive federal funds for interstate maintenance.  The designation of interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico was partially a means of ensuring equity.

Could any of them become signed if they were upgraded to interstate standards?

I suppose, but that may just cause confusion with the already established state route designations.

Could they be signed right now, even without meeting Interstate standards?
After all, they're already designated.