Unpopular Route Opinions

[I-55]

Number of concurrent routes on a particular stretch should be limited to 2 maximum.

Guess we'll truncate I-64 back to its former East St Louis terminus then

Since the new I-70 bridge removed I-70 from the concurrency I-64 would be fine as is.

[SkyPesos]

Number of concurrent routes on a particular stretch should be limited to 2 maximum.

Guess we'll truncate I-64 back to its former East St Louis terminus then

Since the new I-70 bridge removed I-70 from the concurrency I-64 would be fine as is.

How about it's part with US 40/61 in MO?

Also, PSB is 3 routes too, with I-55/64/US 40.

[TravelingBethelite]

Number of concurrent routes on a particular stretch should be limited to 2 maximum.

Guess we'll truncate I-64 back to its former East St Louis terminus then

Since the new I-70 bridge removed I-70 from the concurrency I-64 would be fine as is.

Let's say, perhaps, no more than 2 of a kind per concurrency?

[froggie]

No freeway should lack a numeral designation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Central Scranton Expressway.

SR 3022

[CNGL-Leudimin]

I would renumber US 97 as US 420 because it's southern terminus is at Weed, CA . Also, it meets US 20, so numbering makes sense that way.

It also passes through Grass Valley OR

[OCGuy81]

I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.

[hotdogPi]

I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.

In the case of I-4, what number would you give it, or would you still sign it as I-4?

[Max Rockatansky]

Most of CA 1 in Southern California should be decommissioned and relinquished and the section from Malibu to Oxnard should be given a different route number.

I don't think that is an unpopular opinion in the road community.  Most people in the know in the California road circles I've noticed tended to be of the opinion that should have reverted to CA 3. 

[sprjus4]

A Houston to Austin interstate makes more sense than I-69 in Texas.

That doesn't really seem like an unpopular opinion here, especially when looking at the disgusting I-69 suffixed spurs. Though I would say that the section of I-69 and I-369 between Houston and Texarkana is useful for travel from Houston to the Midwest and Northeast.

Actually I don't think it is. I haven't been to Houston in 7 years and the last time I went there US-59 was still the route to take between Texarkana and Houston and you could drive 75 mph on US-59 so making it into an Interstate isn't getting you to Houston any quicker really.

While many of the rural segments of US-59 are 75 mph, it's no perfect corridor. The route passes through a number of towns, has various speed zones below 70 mph, etc. At minimum the route needs to be upgraded to a free-flowing 75 mph uniform corridor in many areas. As serving the primary link between the Houston metro area and I-20 / 30, there's also definitely merit to have a fully controlled access route to the northeast.

[OCGuy81]

I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.

In the case of I-4, what number would you give it, or would you still sign it as I-4?

It's not that long. Could be an X75 or X95

[kphoger]

- US 550 is 50's best child route. 

An awesome parent had an awesome child!   

[Max Rockatansky]

I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.

In the case of I-4, what number would you give it, or would you still sign it as I-4?

It's not that long. Could be an X75 or X95

Thing is that I-4 was a direct replacement for an east/west US 92.  I always assumed that was taken into consideration as to why it was an east/west Interstate.  However, in what world does I-4 need to be another three digit Interstate?  I-4 is one of the most consistently busy Interstates out there. 

But I guess that would be an unpopular opinion...  Conversely the popular road community opinion on I-17 and I-19 is; they should be one route or three digit Interstates.  Both in my opinion are fine.

[kphoger]

Mileage-based exit numbering is grossly overrated.

I agree that it's overrated, but I don't think it's grossly overrated.  Slightly, yes.

- I think 4di interstates should exist.

That's one of my unpopular opinions as well. I-1090 for the I-90 loop through Albany!

I think the system should be open to 4di (and 4dus) numbers–but only if all other numbers below 1000 have already been used up.  Yes, this means numbers will break the grid and parent-child relationships will be disrupted.  I don't care.  I think those rules are dumb anyway.

[jmacswimmer]

I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.

I've gone back & forth on I-82, but to play devil's advocate here:  Because it serves traffic that on a larger scale is mostly heading east-west (coming up from I-84 to I-90 to then reach Seattle, and vice versa), the east-west numbering makes sense even if I-82 itself is more north-south.

[I-55]

Mileage-based exit numbering is grossly overrated.

I agree that it's overrated, but I don't think it's grossly overrated.  Slightly, yes.

- I think 4di interstates should exist.

That's one of my unpopular opinions as well. I-1090 for the I-90 loop through Albany!

I think the system should be open to 4di (and 4dus) numbers–but only if all other numbers below 1000 have already been used up.  Yes, this means numbers will break the grid and parent-child relationships will be disrupted.  I don't care.  I think those rules are dumb anyway.

In my fictional country I allow 4di to be used in multiple circumstances, relevant to this discussion is when either the first digit odd or first digit even routes have all been used up to allow auxiliary routes to continue to follow standard numbering conventions. (My states are big enough to warrant needing more than 4 of each type in a state).

One could also argue that 4di could be used for routes that don't connect to their parent or act as spurs of a 3di (ex. I-795 MD, I-380 CA)

I see no reason why we shouldn't use 4di or 4dus (though the latter will likely never be needed/desired). They wouldn't be overwhelmingly confusing and could be put to a variety of uses.

(This would be a great fictional thread, I'm guessing there already is one)

[jmacswimmer]

In my fictional country I allow 4di to be used in multiple circumstances, relevant to this discussion is when either the first digit odd or first digit even routes have all been used up to allow auxiliary routes to continue to follow standard numbering conventions. (My states are big enough to warrant needing more than 4 of each type in a state).

One could also argue that 4di could be used for routes that don't connect to their parent or act as spurs of a 3di (ex. I-795 MD, I-380 CA)

I see no reason why we shouldn't use 4di or 4dus (though the latter will likely never be needed/desired). They wouldn't be overwhelmingly confusing and could be put to a variety of uses.

(This would be a great fictional thread, I'm guessing there already is one)

Don't let Fritzowl see this

[empirestate]

Mileage-based exit numbering is grossly overrated.

I agree that it's overrated, but I don't think it's grossly overrated.  Slightly, yes.

Well, that's the idea–if everyone agreed with my opinion, it wouldn't be unpopular!

I think the system should be open to 4di (and 4dus) numbers–but only if all other numbers below 1000 have already been used up.

That's the case with I-1090. All other I-x90s in New York have been assigned–and it even fits the nice west-to-east geographic progression, broken only by I-990.

I see no reason why we shouldn't use 4di or 4dus (though the latter will likely never be needed/desired). They wouldn't be overwhelmingly confusing and could be put to a variety of uses.

(This would be a great fictional thread, I'm guessing there already is one)

I think there is. This is far from my first time suggesting it over the years, even to the point of a dedicated topic on the idea.

[OCGuy81]

I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.

I've gone back & forth on I-82, but to play devil's advocate here:  Because it serves traffic that on a larger scale is mostly heading east-west (coming up from I-84 to I-90 to then reach Seattle, and vice versa), the east-west numbering makes sense even if I-82 itself is more north-south.

Maybe it'd be better as a long x90?

[OCGuy81]

How about this one?

Any 2-dis < 100 miles should be a 3-di?

[SkyPesos]

How about this one?

Any 2-dis < 100 miles should be a 3-di?

So with that...
I-99 (98 mi): May be extended later on, but I-170 if not
I-12 (85 mi): I-410
I-83 (85 mi): Combine with I-97 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-66 (76 mi): I-181
I-19 (63 mi): I-110 or combine with I-17
I-86 W (62 mi): I-284 or I-415
I-2 (46.8 mi): Shouldn't exist in the first place
I-14 (25 mi): I-135
I-11 (22 mi): Will get extended later on, but I-515 is a good number for the time being
I-97 (17 mi): Combine with I-83 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-87 S (13 mi): Will get extended later on

[OCGuy81]

How about this one?

Any 2-dis < 100 miles should be a 3-di?

So with that...
I-99 (98 mi): Will be extended later on, but I-170
I-12 (85 mi): I-410
I-83 (85 mi): Combine with I-97 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-66 (76 mi): I-181
I-19 (63 mi): I-110 or combine with I-17
I-86 W (62 mi): I-284 or I-415
I-2 (46.8 mi): Shouldn't exist in the first place
I-14 (25 mi): I-135
I-11 (22 mi): Will get extended later on, but I-515 is a good number for the time being
I-97 (17 mi): Combine with I-83 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-87 S (13 mi): I-495

What to do with I-2...short of leaving it US 83??

I-169E? 😬

[kphoger]

I think the system should be open to 4di (and 4dus) numbers–but only if all other numbers below 1000 have already been used up.

That's the case with I-1090. All other I-x90s in New York have been assigned–and it even fits the nice west-to-east geographic progression, broken only by I-990.

(fixed quote attribution)

You're missing my point.  1090 shouldn't be used on any Interstate anywhere, because I-13, I-131, I-346, and I-719 remain unused.

And that's because (the part you snipped)...

Yes, this means numbers will break the grid and parent-child relationships will be disrupted.  I don't care.  I think those rules are dumb anyway.

Which is to say, my unpopular opinion is that the whole concept of I-x90 should be jettisoned.

[kphoger]

How about this one?

Any 2-dis < 100 miles should be a 3-di?

I bet plenty of people here would get behind you on that.

[sprjus4]

I-87 S (13 mi): I-495

The route will be 180 miles long when completed between I-40 and the Virginia state line. Assuming it is extended into Virginia to connect to I-64, it will be 197 miles long.

With that distance and traversing 2 states, it seems reasonable as a two-digit. I-495 would not work due to I-495 in Northern Virginia.

[SkyPesos]

Also for NY's x90s, if they really need another 3di, they could first remove current I-790, which is pretty much a ramp that is concurrent with other routes, and reuse that number somewhere else.

What to do with I-2...short of leaving it US 83??

I-169E? 😬

I was thinking of leaving it US 83. Considering Houston-Austin doesn't have an interstate number, US 83 doesn't need an interstate number either

But if you insist, I-269 could work, as it keeps the 2 from I-2 in the first digit.

I-87 S (13 mi): I-495

The route will be 180 miles long when completed between I-40 and the Virginia state line. Assuming it is extended into Virginia to connect to I-64, it will be 197 miles long.

With that distance and traversing 2 states, it seems reasonable as a two-digit. I-495 would not work due to I-495 in Northern Virginia.

Forgot to mention 'will get extended' for I-87 southern, like what I did for I-11.