The universe according to MMM

[MultiMillionMiler]

Or just double the width of both the Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road, and put a divider in between the sets of lanes. The outer roadway could be I-80, and the inner roadway could be I-90.

[J N Winkler]

Or just double the width of both the Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road, and put a divider in between the sets of lanes. The outer roadway could be I-80, and the inner roadway could be I-90.

Let's save some money on a facility that already has a satisfactory LOS and declare the left-hand lane in each direction to be I-80 while the right-hand lane is I-90.  Problem solved.

[Max Rockatansky]

And what do you propose for I-90 and I-94 multiplexing in downtown Chicago?  How is that not "bootleg"  by your definition?

[MultiMillionMiler]

And what do you propose for I-90 and I-94 multiplexing in downtown Chicago?  How is that not "bootleg"  by your definition?

Because an X-0 running along another random 2 digit Interstate isn't a big deal. I-35 runs along I-80 and I don't flip out over that. But two x0s that are parallel should not run along each other ever, common sense.

@J N Winkler

Because lane changing between the 2 interstates is unacceptable. They have to be 2 physically divided roads. Cross-overs could be built from one interstate to the other, but that's it. Also, all individual interstates should be a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction, even out in Nevada and Utah..etc to accommodate truck traffic and increasing population. So when 2 interstates run alongside each other, the entire roadway should be 12 lanes total (6 in each direction with each interstate separated by a physical barrier).

[Max Rockatansky]

This all sounds bootleg to me.  Where are the proposals to double deck I-90/I-94 onto separate grades in downtown Chicago?

[MultiMillionMiler]

It's only bootleg when two X0s or X5s run along each otherwise. Otherwise, my limit to concurrencies are 3 interstates on one road.

[kalvado]

I think I understood the root cause. Original MMM is a smart and intelligent person, but bootleg MMM with a driver license bearing at least two (first and last) or maybe even more names, and a MMM nickname on top of that is what we are dealing with.

[triplemultiplex]

Anyone else every buy bootleg VHS tapes?

Tapes or DVDs...no. A bowling center I worked in had a whole lot of that going on at one point though.

T-shirts and such, such as those sold in parking lots?: All the time.

I had a dude try and sell me a bootleg copy of "Snakes on a Plane" in the grocery store parking lot one time.

[Max Rockatansky]

Anyone else every buy bootleg VHS tapes?

Tapes or DVDs...no. A bowling center I worked in had a whole lot of that going on at one point though.

T-shirts and such, such as those sold in parking lots?: All the time.

I had a dude try and sell me a bootleg copy of "Snakes on a Plane" in the grocery store parking lot one time.

I've had with these mother fuggin bootleg Interstates on this mother fuggin fictional board!

[dlsterner]

It's only bootleg when two X0s or X5s run along each otherwise. Otherwise, my limit to concurrencies are 3 interstates on one road.

I would also be interested in hearing your plan for the I-75/I-85 multiplex in Atlanta.  By your definition, that would be "bootleg" as well.

Also, with your plans for double-decking the Ohio and Indiana turnpikes to "fix" I-80 "bootlegging" off of I-90, how would you handle this case.  A driver wishes to travel between Buffalo NY to Des Moines IA.  The obvious routing would be first I-90, then I-80.  If the turnpikes are double-decked, would this driver be able to "change decks" from I-90 to I-80, or would there be no connection between the two?

Or would you have helicopters on standby, waiting for a signal from the driver who wants to change decks, to grab the car with either grapple hooks or a huge magnet, and redeposit it on the other deck?

[Flint1979]

Yes, there would be either cross-overs or ramps between the decks/inner and outer roadways (jersey turnpike could use these as well). As for I-75/I-85, they should bounce off each other, and I-75 should head southwest, and I-85 is what should continue to Florida. Whoever signed those has no respect for the grid.

Bounce off each other? Do you realize how awkward of a route I-85 would go in if it went from Richmond to Miami? I-85 is a regional route anyway it doesn't matter if it runs out of the grid for 150 miles. With the amount of Michigan to Florida traffic I think having I-75 as the through route is better and before the internet was around people depended on maps to follow so it would be a lot easier to remember that I-75 goes to Florida and you don't have to change highways.

[Flint1979]

Yes, there would be either cross-overs or ramps between the decks/inner and outer roadways (jersey turnpike could use these as well). As for I-75/I-85, they should bounce off each other, and I-75 should head southwest, and I-85 is what should continue to Florida. Whoever signed those has no respect for the grid.

Bounce off each other? Do you realize how awkward of a route I-85 would go in if it went from Richmond to Miami? I-85 is a regional route anyway it doesn't matter if it runs out of the grid for 150 miles. With the amount of Michigan to Florida traffic I think having I-75 as the through route is better and before the internet was around people depended on maps to follow so it would be a lot easier to remember that I-75 goes to Florida and you don't have to change highways.

Then it shouldn't matter if my I-90 runs 150 miles through Canada either.

I-90 is an Interstate. Canada is not part of the United States and doesn't have their highway systems. This isn't even a good example.

[kkt]

Yes, there would be either cross-overs or ramps between the decks/inner and outer roadways (jersey turnpike could use these as well). As for I-75/I-85, they should bounce off each other, and I-75 should head southwest, and I-85 is what should continue to Florida. Whoever signed those has no respect for the grid.

Bounce off each other? Do you realize how awkward of a route I-85 would go in if it went from Richmond to Miami? I-85 is a regional route anyway it doesn't matter if it runs out of the grid for 150 miles. With the amount of Michigan to Florida traffic I think having I-75 as the through route is better and before the internet was around people depended on maps to follow so it would be a lot easier to remember that I-75 goes to Florida and you don't have to change highways.

Then it shouldn't matter if my I-90 runs 150 miles through Canada either.

That's not a bad idea because it's out of grid.  It's a bad idea because Canada and the United States are separate countries.

[Max Rockatansky]

Look into why US 97 wasn't extended to Alaska via like-numbered highways in Canada and you'll have your answer.  Getting multiple groups (much less governments) to agree on anything is a tall order.

[Roadgeekteen]

I agree with that, but even that would be much further than my 261 miles across Canada. They could simply agree to the highway being an American road and they could keep the rest of their territory.

So you want Canada to basically give away some of their actual territory so that we can build a road? Would there be passport checks for drivers on the road? How would this work?

[kkt]

The point being if we can make exceptions for such a fixed, rigid, and universal system like the grid, why can't we with borders of countries that are already allies?

We'd probably stop being allies pretty damn quick if we demanded a right of way across some of the most valuable land in their country.

[Roadgeekteen]

The point being if we can make exceptions for such a fixed, rigid, and universal system like the grid, why can't we with borders of countries that are already allies?

We'd probably stop being allies pretty damn quick if we demanded a right of way across some of the most valuable land in their country.

They already like us less than we like them, and this would likely start if not a giant crisis a war. And I would probably support the fellas up north in the war.

[kkt]

People are always unhappy when their houses or businesses are acquired through eminent domain.  How much angrier will the Canadians be when they find out it is for an American road?

[MultiMillionMiler]

People are always unhappy when their houses or businesses are acquired through eminent domain.  How much angrier will the Canadians be when they find out it is for an American road?

The road would run along existing roads on Canada and no houses/businesses would need to be relocated. The highway would just need to be converted to full limited Access and the interstate signs installed.

[bm7]

People are always unhappy when their houses or businesses are acquired through eminent domain.  How much angrier will the Canadians be when they find out it is for an American road?

The road would run along existing roads on Canada and no houses/businesses would need to be relocated. The highway would just need to be converted to full limited Access and the interstate signs installed.

And then the Canadians who normally use the road have to go through customs in order to use it. Why would they agree to that?

[J N Winkler]

During World War II, the Alaska Highway was built by the US Army entirely at US expense, which Canada agreed to on condition that the portion on their soil be turned over to them after the war ended, as indeed happened.  There is a story that at the headquarters of the engineers building the road, the phone was answered, "Army of occupation in the north."

This is US-Canada relations in a nutshell--the alliance is predicated on each side not taking liberties with the other's territory.

[Flint1979]

The point being if we can make exceptions for such a fixed, rigid, and universal system like the grid, why can't we with borders of countries that are already allies?

Because it's not the United States. What is the point? Those routes already have route numbers.

[Flint1979]

I agree with that, but even that would be much further than my 261 miles across Canada. They could simply agree to the highway being an American road and they could keep the rest of their territory.

So you want Canada to basically give away some of their actual territory so that we can build a road? Would there be passport checks for drivers on the road? How would this work?

Since the entire road would be American, there would be no customs to enter it. Only at the exits, would there be customs booth, just like Toll booths at the exits of highways. I-90 has a right to its own territory as well.

Stop acting as if highways have feelings.

[Flint1979]

People are always unhappy when their houses or businesses are acquired through eminent domain.  How much angrier will the Canadians be when they find out it is for an American road?

The road would run along existing roads on Canada and no houses/businesses would need to be relocated. The highway would just need to be converted to full limited Access and the interstate signs installed.

This makes no sense at all.

[Max Rockatansky]

I agree with that, but even that would be much further than my 261 miles across Canada. They could simply agree to the highway being an American road and they could keep the rest of their territory.

So you want Canada to basically give away some of their actual territory so that we can build a road? Would there be passport checks for drivers on the road? How would this work?

Since the entire road would be American, there would be no customs to enter it. Only at the exits, would there be customs booth, just like Toll booths at the exits of highways. I-90 has a right to its own territory as well.

Stop acting as if highways have feelings.

Seems on brand for the guy who doesn't understand how people work to give inanimate objects feelings.