Worst control city on an interstate in your state

[Terry Shea]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

[Flint1979]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.

[Terry Shea]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.

They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit.  Or so I thought.

[Flint1979]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.

They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit.  Or so I thought.

I think it's still applies with 3dis too.

[Terry Shea]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.

They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit.  Or so I thought.

I think it's still applies with 3dis too.

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

[kphoger]

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

[Terry Shea]

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

That would make much more sense.  Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.

[kphoger]

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

That would make much more sense.  Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.

No, it would make less sense to have some northbound/eastbound highways count up and other northbound/eastbound highways count down.  Consistency makes much more sense than that.

[kirbykart]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.

They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit.  Or so I thought.

Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.

[kphoger]

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

I-170 (MO) says hello.

So does I-376.

[Flint1979]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.

They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit.  Or so I thought.

Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.

It's never been a spur to Grand Rapids. It was originally a spur to Muskegon before it got switched with it's parent route.

[bluecountry]

'Trenton' on the NJTP, when 'Trenton' is not a major city, is not a DMA, is not on the route, and 'Philadelphia' is.

Also, 'New York' in MD, skipping over 'Wilmington' and 'Philadelphia'.

[Terry Shea]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.

They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit.  Or so I thought.

Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.

It's never been a spur to Grand Rapids. It was originally a spur to Muskegon before it got switched with it's parent route.

After it got switched it was indeed a spur into Grand Rapids, Wyoming and Grandville, where it ended.  This was the case for about a dozen years.  There was another I-196 spur routed along the freeway portion of US-31 between Benton Harbor and Holland.  There was no freeway segment in between these 2.  Thru traffic had to use M-21 (now M-121, which really makes no sense).  It was like this from 1964-1976.

[Terry Shea]

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

That would make much more sense.  Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.

No, it would make less sense to have some northbound/eastbound highways count up and other northbound/eastbound highways count down.  Consistency makes much more sense than that.

Then why not have it be an I-x94 route since the route starts at I-94?

[kphoger]

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

That would make much more sense.  Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.

No, it would make less sense to have some northbound/eastbound highways count up and other northbound/eastbound highways count down.  Consistency makes much more sense than that.

Then why not have it be an I-x94 route since the route starts at I-94?

The highway doesn't "start" anywhere.  Rather, it has two endpoints–one at I-94 and the other at I-96.  Neither one is its "beginning" or "ending" point.

When an Interstate first appeared as a dashed line on the map, I-94 had already been completed in Michigan–the major Chicago—Detroit corridor–and had been for a few years already.  The more northerly, secondary Chicago—Detroit corridor (which would split off at Benton Harbor) was still being built in stages:  the Grand Rapids—Lansing portion was already completed, but not east of Lansing, nor southwest of Grand Rapids.  That whole secondary corridor was to become I-96.  Unless I have my timeline wrong, a spur route from Grand Rapids to Muskegon had already been completed.

Thus, when the number I-196 was first introduced, the highway with that number was indeed to be a spur route from I-96, with no connection to any other Interstate.

The numbers were flipped before all of the Benton Harbor—Grand Rapids section of (formerly) I-96 had even been opened as an Interstate.  That is to say, not all of current I-196 ever existed as anything else.

Now, you can look at the map and say that current I-196 is a spur route from the main Chicago—Detroit corridor up to Grand Rapids.  But I can just as easily look at the same map and say that it's a spur route down from the Detroit—Grand Rapids corridor down to Benton Harbor.  And we'd both be right.

You know, the more I look at this, the more I think they should have just left the numbers the way they were on the 1962 map:

[Terry Shea]

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

That would make much more sense.  Especially after MDOT removed signage on I-296 because they said having multiple I-x96 routes in the same area is too confusing to us stupid people in West Michigan.

No, it would make less sense to have some northbound/eastbound highways count up and other northbound/eastbound highways count down.  Consistency makes much more sense than that.

Then why not have it be an I-x94 route since the route starts at I-94?

The highway doesn't "start" anywhere.  Rather, it has two endpoints–one at I-94 and the other at I-96.  Neither one is its "beginning" or "ending" point.

When an Interstate first appeared as a dashed line on the map, I-94 had already been completed in Michigan–the major Chicago—Detroit corridor–and had been for a few years already.  The more northerly, secondary Chicago—Detroit corridor (which would split off at Benton Harbor) was still being built in stages:  the Grand Rapids—Lansing portion was already completed, but not east of Lansing, nor southwest of Grand Rapids.  That whole secondary corridor was to become I-96.  Unless I have my timeline wrong, a spur route from Grand Rapids to Muskegon had already been completed.

Thus, when the number I-196 was first introduced, the highway with that number was indeed to be a spur route from I-96, with no connection to any other Interstate.

The numbers were flipped before all of the Benton Harbor—Grand Rapids section of (formerly) I-96 had even been opened as an Interstate.  That is to say, not all of current I-196 ever existed as anything else.

Now, you can look at the map and say that current I-196 is a spur route from the main Chicago—Detroit corridor up to Grand Rapids.  But I can just as easily look at the same map and say that it's a spur route down from the Detroit—Grand Rapids corridor down to Benton Harbor.  And we'd both be right.

You know, the more I look at this, the more I think they should have just left the numbers the way they were on the 1962 map:

Well, yes it does start and end somewhere.  As a matter of fact, until the recent interchange update between I-96 and I-196, there was a sign at the end of I-196 where it joined I-96 stating: End I-196   Begin I-96.  No such sign existed where I-196 joins I-94. 

And yes, they did change the I-196 designation from 1 route to another.  All that means is that a poor job was done in numbering these highways in the first place.  Both freeways should have been renumbered.  The original plans did call for I-96 to leave I-94 at Benton Harbor and circle back to I-94 in Detroit.  But that makes no sense for a 2-digit interstate, and nobody would use such a long route to get to Detroit.  A long, even numbered, 3-digit interstate would make more sense.  Or possibly I-94N, which wouldn't be a valid designation now, but was used somewhat in the early 60's. 

And once again, when the I-196 designation was moved to present day I-196, it existed as 2 discontinuous spur segments for about a dozen years.  At that time, the I-196 segment through Grand Rapids made sense in that it was indeed a spur off from I-96 that ended in Grandville at M-21 (present day M-121).  But most of us here in the Grand Rapids area weren't even aware that US-31 between Holland and Benton Harbor had also been designated as I-196 (information was slow and hard to come by in those days).  I remember taking a trip to Chicago as a kid, traveling on I-196 to where it ended at M-21, continuing down M-21 to US-31, and being very surprised to see I-196 signs along US-31.  We didn't know when or if that gap was going to be completed, but for a dozen or so years there was no reason to believe that MDOT was ever going to fill that gap.

BTW, that's a nice map!

[kirbykart]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.

They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit.  Or so I thought.

Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.

It's never been a spur to Grand Rapids. It was originally a spur to Muskegon before it got switched with it's parent route.

It should have stayed that way. Grand Rapids is the larger city and deserves to have the 2di running through it.

[Flint1979]

Keep in mind I-196 is N-S where it's parent is E-W.  Plus I-196 acts as a de facto spur of I-94 anyway.

270 should have an odd first digit. It clearly goes inward/outward from Washington.

155 is correct as is. It's not a loop of anything.

It ends at I-495, it's not a spur.

Now enough, as the thread is to be about bad choice of control cities, not the validity of the three digit interstates.

I-196 like I have already mentioned was a spur to Muskegon not no spur to I-94. Then the highways got flipped and we have what we have today.

Another weird thing about I-196 is that if it's supposed to be a spur off from I-96, why do the mile markers and exit numbering begin at I-94 and end at I-96?

The mile markers start at a highways southern or western terminus.

They do for single or 2 digits, but they usually start at where they leave the parent route for a 3 digit.  Or so I thought.

Nope, quite wrong in fact. I-290 in Buffalo, or how about I-279 in Pittsburgh?

At any rate, if the numbering starts at I-94, you'd think it would be an I-x94 child route.

No, I wouldn't.

I had to look this up in Google Maps, and, this is interesting. It sort of acts as a spur into Downtown Grand Rapids for I-96, but also as a spur from I-94 along the SW coast of Michigan up to Grand Rapids.

It's never been a spur to Grand Rapids. It was originally a spur to Muskegon before it got switched with it's parent route.

It should have stayed that way. Grand Rapids is the larger city and deserves to have the 2di running through it.

Grand Rapids already has a 2di running through it. Besides the size of a city doesn't necessarily determine where a 2di goes.

[jt4]

'Trenton' on the NJTP, when 'Trenton' is not a major city, is not a DMA, is not on the route, and 'Philadelphia' is.

Also, 'New York' in MD, skipping over 'Wilmington' and 'Philadelphia'.

Whether a city has a TV market should be irrelevant for signage. What matters is where traffic is going. Also, the NJTP doesn't go to Philadelphia either. That said, southbound NJTP should be Trenton/Philadelphia until I-195, then Philadelphia/Wilmington until I-95 leaves.

[JoePCool14]

Here's my idea: I propose I-196 be renumbered I-438.

[kphoger]

Well, yes it does start and end somewhere.  As a matter of fact, until the recent interchange update between I-96 and I-196, there was a sign at the end of I-196 where it joined I-96 stating: End I-196   Begin I-96.  No such sign existed where I-196 joins I-94.

That's a ridiculous argument.  It's a missing sign, not an determination of which end is the "beginning".

Also, there is an END sign at the I-94 junction anyway.

At that time, the I-196 segment through Grand Rapids made sense in that it was indeed a spur off from I-96 ...

That's really all the argument I need.  It made sense then, and there's no convincing need for it to have changed.

[GaryV]

At that time, the I-196 segment through Grand Rapids made sense in that it was indeed a spur off from I-96 ...

That's really all the argument I need.  It made sense then, and there's no convincing need for it to have changed.

Please note that before the switch of the freeway numbers west and south of Grand Rapids, there was some signing in the field:

• The portion from Grand Rapids to Muskegon was signed as I-196.
• A small section north of I-94 near Benton Harbor was signed as I-96.

When it was decided that what is now I-196 would not be completed for many years, they recognized that there was a meaningless change of numbers on the east side of Grand Rapids. So the Muskegon portion was renumbered as I-96, and they reused the I-196 number for the route that has it now. If they had wanted to follow convention and consider assigning it as an even first digit, it would have had to be I-896, since 2, 4, and 6 were already in use or planned.

Here's my idea: I propose I-196 be renumbered I-438.

Nah, it would have been I-121, a spur from M-21. Or maybe, I-137, a spur off of M-37. I-150 anyone? (M-50 used to be routed on what is now M-45.)

[Flint1979]

Here's my idea: I propose I-196 be renumbered I-438.

The difference with I-238 is that it was numbered as a continuation of a state highway with the same number.

[kphoger]

I-69M

[Flint1979]

I-69M

I would hope that MDOT would never do that.