Unpopular Route Opinions

[OCGuy81]

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.

Would I-73 even exist afterwards?

[SkyPesos]

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.

Would I-73 even exist afterwards?

I-73 is 101 mi, so it makes the cut. Also, there's the planned extension to Roanoke.

[jmacswimmer]

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.

You could also free up I-390 if it ever gets subsumed into I-99 (or I-83)

I-99 (98 mi): May be extended later on, but I-170 if not

Even if/when I-99 is fully built, here's my (fictional) scheme:

-I-170 between I-70/I-76 & I-80
-Renumber I-180 to I-280 and extend along US 220 back to I-80
-Move I-180 to between now-I-280 & I-86

The other idea I've seen several times is running I-83 up to Rochester (the biggest obstacle to this, once the CSVT is finished, would be the stretch of US 11/15 between US 22/322 & Selinsgrove that is expressway-grade but not freeway).

I-97 (17 mi): Combine with I-83 via concurrency with I-695 western loop

Overly-complicated fictional scheme here (although having I-83 along I-695 would give I-70 a "proper" ending at another 2di):

-Move I-195 over to I-97 (in line with posts I've seen recently about 3di's with lower leading digits being more important/longer)
-Turn current I-195 near BWI into I-995 (if for no reason than bringing my avatar to life )

To quote a certain fictional poster: "I think this is needed"

[Life in Paradise]

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

I think if you have a specific construction plan for a route that will be over 100 miles, that should exempt those above (ie-I-11, and I-99..perhaps even I-2 if they are going to solidify the Laredo plan)  I-97 creation was just plain silly, and I-12 fits the definition of why you have an even 3d.

[formulanone]

Unpopular - I know all about that!

*** contradictions may apply ***

Scenic two lane roads with lots of curves are why I'm interested in this hobby. Interstates are great for making up time, but they're usually dull (and I don't really find the discussion about them all that interesting, either).

I don't really care about fantasy improvements nor wish to comment on them. The idea that Senator Goofball and Representative Busybody and the Lollypop Guild had a hand in stopping the completion of the Overbite Expressway and championed an exit to their mistress' hometowns rarely interests me.

I-99 isn't perfect, but any other lower "logical" odd number would have been too far away in the other direction.

I-238 makes more logical sense for people who have to drive on it frequently and they probably don't care.

On that note, I'd prefer that unused 3dis get deployed rather than the several I-110s or 220s (et al) already in use. I rather like that they have an "identity" to a city or region, similar to a local area code.

Renumbering is usually not a great idea, unless they're in very close proximity. Transportation agencies have computers now, and many people have them in their pockets.

This silly hobby still releases dopamine, but usually only when driving. I'm not interested in long-distance Street View trips. I actually get lost sometimes, and if I'm not pressed for time, it actually makes it a bit of an adventure. Not always knowing where you're going an headed, and not knowing what you'll encounter is part of the thrill.

I like maps when I'm at home, but GPS in the field (that is, if and when I need it).

Sorry, I'm not a big fan of road videos - if it's longer than 5 minutes, I'm bored.

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

Look I like my numbers as much as anyone here, but it's less than a mile, has no exits, and the area (nor state) isn't lacking for numbered routes. It could literally be "To I-81" or "to US 11" and I'd be good. If they gave it "PA 911" tomorrow, or "I-981", I wouldn't mind, either.

Sure, the Miami Downtown Connector gets an SR number than nobody refers to, but most glorified ramps do not.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

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

Look I like my numbers as much as anyone here, but it's less than a mile, has no exits, and the area (nor state) isn't lacking for numbered routes. It could literally be "To I-81" or "to US 11" and I'd be good. If they gave it "PA 911" tomorrow, or "I-981", I wouldn't mind, either.

Sure, the Miami Downtown Connector gets an SR number than nobody refers to, but most glorified ramps do not.

Yeah, I agree, it is kinda strange. The Morgantown Expressway Spur is still even worse, being absolutely numberless. I have already laid out plans for a Central/North Scranton Expressway connection, but I won't get into them here.

[OCGuy81]

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

Look I like my numbers as much as anyone here, but it's less than a mile, has no exits, and the area (nor state) isn't lacking for numbered routes. It could literally be "To I-81" or "to US 11" and I'd be good. If they gave it "PA 911" tomorrow, or "I-981", I wouldn't mind, either.

Sure, the Miami Downtown Connector gets an SR number than nobody refers to, but most glorified ramps do not.

Yeah, I agree, it is kinda strange. The Morgantown Expressway Spur is still even worse, being absolutely numberless. I have already laid out plans for a Central/North Scranton Expressway connection, but I won't get into them here.

How long did it take Wisconsin to brand the Mitchell Intl freeway as WI-119?

[jmacswimmer]

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

Look I like my numbers as much as anyone here, but it's less than a mile, has no exits, and the area (nor state) isn't lacking for numbered routes. It could literally be "To I-81" or "to US 11" and I'd be good. If they gave it "PA 911" tomorrow, or "I-981", I wouldn't mind, either.

Sure, the Miami Downtown Connector gets an SR number than nobody refers to, but most glorified ramps do not.

Yeah, I agree, it is kinda strange. The Morgantown Expressway Spur is still even worse, being absolutely numberless. I have already laid out plans for a Central/North Scranton Expressway connection, but I won't get into them here.

How long did it take Wisconsin to brand the Mitchell Intl freeway as WI-119?

*I-395 from Baltimore enters the chat*

[kphoger]

I don't really care about fantasy improvements nor wish to comment on them.

On that note, I'd prefer that unused 3dis get deployed rather than the several I-110s or 220s (et al) already in use. I rather like that they have an "identity" to a city or region, similar to a local area code.

Who here wouldn't rather there be an I-835 than two I-235s?

Renumbering is usually not a great idea, unless they're in very close proximity. Transportation agencies have computers now, and many people have them in their pockets.

Agreed.  If it ain't really and actually broke, don't fix it.  Theoretically broke is not a good reason.

[empirestate]

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.

I did three things wrong. Does that make me right? 

[kphoger]

You're thinking of three lefts.

[skluth]

All highways should be rerouted to use freeway bypasses rather than run through cities, if available. E.g., every highway through my original hometown of Green Bay should be transferred to the de facto beltline of I-41, I-43, and WI 172. WI 29 and WI 32 would use I-41 and WI 172. WI 57 would use WI 172 and I-43. WI 54 would use I-41 and I-43. (US 141 should just be truncated at Abrams, but that's a different argument.)

They could also be routed onto freeways going through a city, like US 40 should be routed onto I-70 through Columbus, OH.

Obviously, I don't really care about concurrencies as long as they're signed.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

All highways should be rerouted to use freeway bypasses rather than run through cities, if available. E.g., every highway through my original hometown of Green Bay should be transferred to the de facto beltline of I-41, I-43, and WI 172. WI 29 and WI 32 would use I-41 and WI 172. WI 57 would use WI 172 and I-43. WI 54 would use I-41 and I-43. (US 141 should just be truncated at Abrams, but that's a different argument.)

MnDOT has been very proactive about eliminating urban surface mileage. Ideally, the only surface mileage in the metro that will remain in the future will be Snelling Avenue (which the state constitution doesn't allow them to get rid of) and Hiawatha Avenue. The vast majority of Duluth's surface mileage was axed in the 90s, and US 63 was taken off Broadway in Rochester in the last 10 years.

[SkyPesos]

They could also be routed onto freeways going through a city, like US 40 should be routed onto I-70 through Columbus, OH.

So like moving US 67 in the St Louis area from Lindbergh onto I-270 and MO 367? Or onto I-255/IL 255 as the eastern routing option?

Or for Cincinnati, rerouting US 22/42 onto I-71, or US 127 onto I-75/OH 129?

[I-55]

They could also be routed onto freeways going through a city, like US 40 should be routed onto I-70 through Columbus, OH.

So like moving US 67 in the St Louis area from Lindbergh onto I-270 and MO 367? Or onto I-255/IL 255 as the eastern routing option?

Or for Cincinnati, rerouting US 22/42 onto I-71, or US 127 onto I-75/OH 129?

US-22 and US-25 would probably just get truncated to I-275

[JayhawkCO]

My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates.  In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway.  kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. 

Chris

[I-55]

My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates.  In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway.  kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. 

Chris

I'm indifferent to this as if this happened I likely wouldn't notice. I think the nearest business interstate shield to me is in Napoleon, OH, and that's just a signage error for business US-6 (I do think we should keep BUS/BYP/ALT US routes).

[kenarmy]

US routes are in general given a bad name (but I imagine that that's a pretty commonly held belief on this board).

I'm not giving them a "bad name."  I just don't think they are anything more than state routes with a common numbering scheme.  So for instance, if we turned them all into state routes but kept the numbering in place, I don't think most people would know much difference.  And even if they did, it wouldn't harm navigation in a substantial way.

I mean, I think they're cool.  But I also realize that's just roadgeek sentimentality.  I've told this story before, but I once worked with someone who grew up on a ranch off of US-12 in Montana.  Our workplace was located on US-12 in Wisconsin.  She had no idea it was the same highway, and even when I pointed it out, didn't really care.  I'm pretty sure she is way more representative of the public at large than we care to admit.

I think some of that has to do with people calling US routes "highways" . In most places number duplication isn't an issue so anything with a number is lumped under the same roof, even interstates sometimes.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Business Interstates would still be used for bypassed tires, like I-81 in Syracuse.

[interstatefan990]

US 180 should be broken up into state routes.

[SkyPesos]

Since the title of the unpopular US routes opinions thread got changed to just routes in general, if a mod sees this, mind merging this thread with the other one?

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 58 is perfectly adequate from Bakersfield east to Barstow.  All the extra crap needed to make it I-40 isn't necessary. 

[vdeane]

My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates.  In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway.  kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. 

Chris

Preach it!

Business Interstates would still be used for bypassed tires, like I-81 in Syracuse.

Honestly, I'd rather not.  IMO it should be a 3di (aka a REAL interstate) with a state route extension, not a business interstate.

(personal opinion)

[SkyPesos]

US routes are in general given a bad name (but I imagine that that's a pretty commonly held belief on this board).

I'm not giving them a "bad name."  I just don't think they are anything more than state routes with a common numbering scheme.  So for instance, if we turned them all into state routes but kept the numbering in place, I don't think most people would know much difference.  And even if they did, it wouldn't harm navigation in a substantial way.

I mean, I think they're cool.  But I also realize that's just roadgeek sentimentality.  I've told this story before, but I once worked with someone who grew up on a ranch off of US-12 in Montana.  Our workplace was located on US-12 in Wisconsin.  She had no idea it was the same highway, and even when I pointed it out, didn't really care.  I'm pretty sure she is way more representative of the public at large than we care to admit.

I think some of that has to do with people calling US routes “highways”. In most places number duplication isn’t an issue so anything with a number is lumped under the same roof, even interstates sometimes.

Where I am, most people leave off the prefix for the route numbers and just call the number. I don't mind that, as Ohio doesn't duplicate route numbers anyways. So you have '75' for I-75, '50' for US 50 and '4' for OH 4.

[Ned Weasel]

My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates.  In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway.  kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. 

Chris

Smartphones are rubbish, and I'd rather not become computer-dependent.

Not Chris