Interstate Highway Numbering Nonsense

[MultiMillionMiler]

That would imply I have multiple accounts or something? No, I am new to this site and haven't seen that thread before. Looks interesting though, will check it out. He does have some similar points to me.

[Scott5114]

I do believe the entire population of the country that knows the numbering convention is also smart enough to travel with a paper map in the car.

(I always travel with a paper map in the car. Of course, it's a Kansas official map that I snagged from the Belle Plaine welcome center and have been too lazy to bring inside, so it's of limited use since I don't live in Kansas. But I have it, dang it!)

[MultiMillionMiler]

Are those maps detailed enough in local roads?

[Scott5114]

Are those maps detailed enough in local roads?

They show all the numbered highways, so they're at least as good as knowing numbering conventions would be.

[MultiMillionMiler]

That's spaghetti.
I need my zoom function to identify exit numbers and what side of the road the exits are on. Can't exactly zoom in on a paper map, and don't keep microscopes in my backseat either.

[Scott5114]

Well, it won't run out of battery, won't turn itself off when you're trying to look at it, always has service, doesn't make me enter my code to unlock it while I'm driving, doesn't crash, and the data comes straight from the state DOT so it's (usually) as accurate as you can get...

I don't mind the small numbers if I don't have to worry about all that annoying shit. And besides, I do have a zoom function for the paper map. My eye doctor sold them to me and they sit on my face at all times.

(And what do you mean what side of the road the exits are on? That's what the exit tab on the sign is for.)

[Scott5114]

What makes you think I open the car windows? I live in Oklahoma.

Also, I will note we haven't had a need for a 96-page thread on this forum called "Paper maps just fucking SUCK now".

[SEWIGuy]

It can affect drivers. Let's say a driver is on I-84, trying to get to I-82, and their phone is dead and they don't know where to go. Knowing the numbering convention, they might decide to head south thinking they will eventually run into I-82 because it should be south of I-84. So they do that. Not knowing they are going completely the wrong way. That's a reason the numbering should be followed. There's only 99 numbers, so about 50 in each compass direction, it shouldn't be that hard to follow.

So your response to this extremely rare hypothetical is to remove the interstate designation completely?  How would that help the guy with the dead phone figure out where he is going?

[MultiMillionMiler]

He may not even try to ask for directions thinking he knows the numbering scheme, but at least if it had no designation, he would actually have to know the name and location relative to his current position. But my main point was if designating roads as interstates is so costly, and tedious, and unnecessary, than why do they go through the trouble of designating them, especially since they don't even fit the existing grid?

[Scott5114]

But my main point was if designating roads as interstates is so costly, and tedious, and unnecessary, than why do they go through the trouble of designating them, especially since they don't even fit the existing grid?

oh shit guys Arizona DOT is here

[SEWIGuy]

He may not even try to ask for directions thinking he knows the numbering scheme, but at least if it had no designation, he would actually have to know the name and location relative to his current position. But my main point was if designating roads as interstates is so costly, and tedious, and unnecessary, than why do they go through the trouble of designating them, especially since they don't even fit the existing grid?

So your new line is why designate ANY interstates if you can't designate ALL freeways as interstates?  This is just nonsensical logic.

And I-82 fit the grid when it was designated.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Well if "I-80N" was properly numbered, this issue wouldn't exist in the first place. It would have been I-82, the next one north I-84, the next one north I-86, I-88, I-90..etc, but when they start out with BS like letters, and then come to their senses and change them back, the numbers are all out of place, go figure. Lord only knows what would have happened if other places followed Texas's illogic and threw in "C" on top of that.

[MATraveler128]

Well if "I-80N" was properly numbered, this issue wouldn't exist in the first place. It would have been I-82, the next one north I-84, the next one north I-86, I-88, I-90..etc, but when they start out with BS like letters, and then come to their senses and change them back, the numbers are all out of place, go figure. Lord only knows what would have happened if other places followed Texas's illogic and threw in "C" on top of that.

I-82 was assigned in 1957 and I-80N was renumbered to I-84 in 1980, so there weren't any numbers available. Too bad Idaho wasted I-86 on such a short route.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Just noticed you're saying about the thruway, since some exits are 15 miles apart, wouldn't the exit numbering appear to be almost random, vs thr way it us now? I understand urban interstates doing that because the exits are only about a mile apart anyway, but roads like the thruway shouldn't be numbered like that.

[kirbykart]

Just noticed you're saying about the thruway, since some exits are 15 miles apart, wouldn't the exit numbering appear to be almost random, vs thr way it us now? I understand urban interstates doing that because the exits are only about a mile apart anyway, but roads like the thruway shouldn't be numbered like that.

What point are you trying to make? Isn't any interstate with mile-based exit numbers in a rural area going to have this problem, to an extent?  For example, new Mass Pike exit numbers, between old Exits 2 & 3 is a 30 mile gap, now they are numbered 10 and 41.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Most rural interstates shouldn't be mile based. That is one serious flaw in the numbering system. There is no logic or benefit in that whatsoever, just pure OCD. It's like saying I-90 must have exactly 90 exits in each state, or that I-70 must have exactly 70 exits in each state.

[webny99]

Most rural interstates shouldn't be mile based. That is one serious flaw in the numbering system. There is no logic or benefit in that whatsoever, just pure OCD. It's like saying I-90 must have exactly 90 exits in each state, or that I-70 must have exactly 70 exits in each state.

I'm not sure you understand what mile based exit numbers are. It has nothing to do with the route number; they're based on the mileage of the route in that state.


When heading north or east:
Exit 1 ➜ 1 mile from the state line
Exit 15 ➜ 15 miles from the state line

When heading south or west:
Exit 1 ➜ 1 mile to the state line
Exit 15 ➜ 15 miles to the state line

[MultiMillionMiler]

Yes I know that's what they mean, and there's no point to that. Why do they need to match the mile markers?

[jt4]

Most rural interstates shouldn't be mile based. That is one serious flaw in the numbering system. There is no logic or benefit in that whatsoever, just pure OCD. It's like saying I-90 must have exactly 90 exits in each state, or that I-70 must have exactly 70 exits in each state.

What happens when rural areas get big enough to justify new exits? Do you renumber all the old exits or make a suffix? Or just refuse to build an exit there? Mileage-based numbering eliminated the need to replace the other exit signs or have a bunch of suffixed exits.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Great point. Never thought of that. I guess they should keep it that way. Although what do they do when it is between the markers, do they round up or down?

[kphoger]

I do believe the entire population of the country that knows the numbering convention is also smart enough to travel with a paper map in the car.

This.

If a person is dumb enough to head out for a 200-mile trip (I'm imagining Portland to Yakima) without bothering to get directions from someone or consult a map ahead of time, then they probably aren't knowledgeable enough to understand highway numbering conventions to begin with.

[GaryV]

Yes I know that's what they mean, and there's no point to that. Why do they need to match the mile markers?

If you know you are going to get off at Exit 243 (mileage based) and you are currently at mile marker 197, you know you have 46 miles to your exit.

If you know you are getting off at Exit #17 (numerically based) and you are currently at mile marker 197, how many miles to your exit?

Edit:

Although what do they do when it is between the markers, do they round up or down?

In most states, when an exit is between the state line and Mile Marker 1, it is Exit 1. Between MM1 and MM2 it is Exit 2. Etc.

There are a few Exit 0's. I'm sure there's a separate thread on that.

[jt4]

Great point. Never thought of that. I guess they should keep it that way. Although what do they do when it is between the markers, do they round up or down?

This is determined by state DOTs. I believe most commonly it's to round to the nearest mile marker, except when that mile marker is 0.

[kphoger]

Yes I know that's what they mean, and there's no point to that. Why do they need to match the mile markers?

Well, they don't have to.  But, if you're looking for Exit #114, and you're at mile marker 127, it's a handy way of figuring out you're 13 miles from your exit.

How is that not blatantly obvious?

[SEWIGuy]

Well if "I-80N" was properly numbered, this issue wouldn't exist in the first place. It would have been I-82, the next one north I-84, the next one north I-86, I-88, I-90..etc, but when they start out with BS like letters, and then come to their senses and change them back, the numbers are all out of place, go figure. Lord only knows what would have happened if other places followed Texas's illogic and threw in "C" on top of that.

It was properly numbered according to the 1950s standard.  In the 1970s, they decided it wasn't and changed it.  It really isn't that big of a deal.