Oregon and Idaho's 1957/8 push to rename Interstate 82 (and Interstate 82N & S)

[CanesFan27]

Over the holidays, I shared the Interstate 82S Utah photo on the Gribblenation Facebook page.  I decided to dig in a little bit more on why it changed so quickly to Interstate 80N.  Two things happened: one, the 40 or so mile corridor from Ogden to Echo Junction, UT was added, allowing for a direct connection to Interstate 80.

Yet also, Oregon and Idaho disliked the number 82.  They wanted a number for the new Interstate to connect their states to the transcontinental routes, like US 30 as part of the Old Oregon Trail. Both states saw the Interstate 82 designation as an "unwarranted discrimination against the Northwest," and a campaign to lobby the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) was undertaken by the Governor of Idaho, local community groups, and Oregon Congressman Al Ullman, who personally wrote to the AASHO Executive Secretary proposing an I-80N/S Split at Echo Junction.

Did the lobbying work? In Early July 1958, less than one year after Interstate 82 and its two branches - I-82N and 82S- were designated, all three routes were replaced by I-80N (I-82 and 82S) and I-15W (I-82N), respectively.  Whether or not the politicians and local communities had any sway is up to you to decide.

I go into more detail in the blog - plus I also found an early 1958 photo of an I-82 Oregon shield that was showcased when the original I-82 was designated.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2026/01/the-history-of-short-lived-interstate.html

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 82 would have been a good number for the present-day Interstate 84 corridor, instead of Interstate 80N as it was ultimately numbered. I always thought existing Interstate 82 should have been Interstate 7, 9, 11, or 13. I also notice then-proposed Interstate 82S would have ended at Interstate 15, and not continued to Interstate 80, like present-day Interstate 84 does.

[Bruce]

Interstate 82 would have been a good number for the present-day Interstate 84 corridor, instead of Interstate 80N as it was ultimately numbered. I always thought existing Interstate 82 should have been Interstate 7, 9, 11, or 13. I also notice then-proposed Interstate 82S would have ended at Interstate 15, and not continued to Interstate 80, like present-day Interstate 84 does.

I-82 serves an east-west corridor, so it was rightly assigned an even number. It's diagonal but the flow (Seattle to Boise) is more easterly than southerly.

[Molandfreak]

Wonder why this succeeded while the I-76 California renumbering proposal failed. Seems like they could have killed two birds with one stone.

[The Ghostbuster]

Which Interstate Highway in California was proposed to be renumbered to Interstate 76? Interstate 580?

[Molandfreak]

Which Interstate Highway in California was proposed to be renumbered to Interstate 76? Interstate 580?

*facepalm*

I-80. It was part of an alternate numbering California proposed to eliminate duplications of US/I-40 and US/I-80 which has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere

[roadman65]

I-82 should have been western I-86 and I-84 out there be I-82.

I-86 in Idaho could if been I-282 or x15.

[Molandfreak]

Does anyone have a real historical take or is this just gonna be another fictional numbering game?

[NE2]

I-580 should have been I-86SSE.

[CanesFan27]

Does anyone have a real historical take or is this just gonna be another fictional numbering game?

Yes, Tom has it covered for you.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/11/establishing-numbering-conventions-of.html


As for the second part of your question, it looks like a few of these people are gonna need some alone time with their renumbering thoughts.

[Max Rockatansky]

Does anyone have a real historical take or is this just gonna be another fictional numbering game?

Yes, Tom has it covered for you.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/11/establishing-numbering-conventions-of.html


As for the second part of your question, it looks like a few of these people are gonna need some alone time with their renumbering thoughts.

Essentially the Division of Highways tried to hardball AASHO into avoiding number duplication of US Routes in California.  If they would have gotten their way (far fetched) I doubt the 1964 State Highway Renumbering would have happened.  It wasn't an uncommon practice for the Division of Highways to muscle applications through with AASHO (like US 6 and US 466). 

[Molandfreak]

Does anyone have a real historical take or is this just gonna be another fictional numbering game?

Yes, Tom has it covered for you.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/11/establishing-numbering-conventions-of.html


As for the second part of your question, it looks like a few of these people are gonna need some alone time with their renumbering thoughts.

Essentially the Division of Highways tried to hardball AASHO into avoiding number duplication of US Routes in California.  If they would have gotten their way (far fetched) I doubt the 1964 State Highway Renumbering would have happened.  It wasn't an uncommon practice for the Division of Highways to muscle applications through with AASHO (like US 6 and US 466). 

Did these correspondences take place around the same time? It seems to be a pretty clear pattern to me—Oregon and Idaho wanted I-80, and California didn't. I suppose Nevada could have thrown a fit or something, but other than that, an appealing numbering decision for all parties seems pretty clear.

[vdeane]

Interstate 82 would have been a good number for the present-day Interstate 84 corridor, instead of Interstate 80N as it was ultimately numbered. I always thought existing Interstate 82 should have been Interstate 7, 9, 11, or 13. I also notice then-proposed Interstate 82S would have ended at Interstate 15, and not continued to Interstate 80, like present-day Interstate 84 does.

I-82 serves an east-west corridor, so it was rightly assigned an even number. It's diagonal but the flow (Seattle to Boise) is more easterly than southerly.

Honestly, I don't understand the logic of setting directional by including mileage on other routes.  You're basically shimmying from I-90 to I-84 there, like moving between separate rail tracks at a switch.  Now, I-82 is slightly more east-west than north-south, but I would say that it should be set by what's best based on its own routing and the needs of the system overall (which may not have been a big factor back in the 60s but became one when suffixes were mostly eliminated).

Also, Seattle-Boise isn't much less diagonal than I-82 is.

Which Interstate Highway in California was proposed to be renumbered to Interstate 76? Interstate 580?

*facepalm*

I-80. It was part of an alternate numbering California proposed to eliminate duplications of US/I-40 and US/I-80 which has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere

Interesting.  Maybe they should have collaborated; if California was so eager to not have I-80, I'm sure Oregon and Idaho would have been willing to take it off their hands.  I wonder what would have happened to I-15W (I-86) in that scenario.

[Max Rockatansky]

Does anyone have a real historical take or is this just gonna be another fictional numbering game?

Yes, Tom has it covered for you.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/11/establishing-numbering-conventions-of.html


As for the second part of your question, it looks like a few of these people are gonna need some alone time with their renumbering thoughts.

Essentially the Division of Highways tried to hardball AASHO into avoiding number duplication of US Routes in California.  If they would have gotten their way (far fetched) I doubt the 1964 State Highway Renumbering would have happened.  It wasn't an uncommon practice for the Division of Highways to muscle applications through with AASHO (like US 6 and US 466). 

Did these correspondences take place around the same time? It seems to be a pretty clear pattern to me—Oregon and Idaho wanted I-80, and California didn't. I suppose Nevada could have thrown a fit or something, but other than that, an appealing numbering decision for all parties seems pretty clear.

California did their thing also in 1957/1958.

[Henry]

Wonder why this succeeded while the I-76 California renumbering proposal failed. Seems like they could have killed two birds with one stone.

Had this I-76 been approved in CA, what would've become of I-80S in Denver when it was renumbered? I feel that I-76 is a better fit in CO, given that it's the Centennial State (founded in 1876), so good sense definitely won out on that one.

[Molandfreak]

I suppose it's possible that the committee filed away the California submission as not realistic enough, when in reality they were trying to communicate two different things: how they wanted the remainder of their chargeable interstates numbered and the fact that they didn't want duplication for US 40 and US 80. The latter aspect of this communication had reasonable concerns, so it's a shame that these two particular issues weren't addressed.

[pderocco]

Honestly, I don't understand the logic of setting directional by including mileage on other routes.  You're basically shimmying from I-90 to I-84 there, like moving between separate rail tracks at a switch.  Now, I-82 is slightly more east-west than north-south, but I would say that it should be set by what's best based on its own routing and the needs of the system overall (which may not have been a big factor back in the 60s but became one when suffixes were mostly eliminated).

I-82 start to finish has a bearing of 146 degrees, so it's more N/S.

Frankly, I think it should have been I-190 or I-184, because it doesn't have any obvious likely extension in either direction.

[Scott5114]

I suppose it's possible that the committee filed away the California submission as not realistic enough, when in reality they were trying to communicate two different things: how they wanted the remainder of their chargeable interstates numbered and the fact that they didn't want duplication for US 40 and US 80. The latter aspect of this communication had reasonable concerns, so it's a shame that these two particular issues weren't addressed.

Did they have a proposed renumber of I-40? I don't know that I'd call worrying about duplicates 40s reasonable; the only realistic routing where someone would have seen both US-40 and I-40 without crossing a state line in between would have been US-99 to US-466 to Barstow. (I guess if I-11 had been a thing back then they could have fobbed I-40 off on Las Vegas and made the rest I-38, but that would have required the Hoover Dam Bypass to have been built 60 years early. That would have been a wise move in the long term, but in 1956 the idea of that one bit of US-91 being "the Las Vegas Strip" was brand new—the Flamingo, the DI, and the Sahara had all been open for less than ten years, the Hacienda and the Dunes had just opened, and the Tropicana was still under construction—so the thought probably would have been considered laughable at the time. Back then not even Carson City took Clark County seriously, so why would BPR have?)

Likewise, you'd have a solid day's worth of driving between US-80 and I-80. It's hard to see who would have confused them, given that at the same time we were well on our way to trusting people in the Northeast to not get the mess of I-295s mixed up.

I think the real reason for CDOH's crabbiness here was just that they didn't want to have to deal with the bookkeeping of having two routes with the same number.

[Max Rockatansky]

I suppose it's possible that the committee filed away the California submission as not realistic enough, when in reality they were trying to communicate two different things: how they wanted the remainder of their chargeable interstates numbered and the fact that they didn't want duplication for US 40 and US 80. The latter aspect of this communication had reasonable concerns, so it's a shame that these two particular issues weren't addressed.

Did they have a proposed renumber of I-40? I don't know that I'd call worrying about duplicates 40s reasonable; the only realistic routing where someone would have seen both US-40 and I-40 without crossing a state line in between would have been US-99 to US-466 to Barstow. (I guess if I-11 had been a thing back then they could have fobbed I-40 off on Las Vegas and made the rest I-38, but that would have required the Hoover Dam Bypass to have been built 60 years early. That would have been a wise move in the long term, but in 1956 the idea of that one bit of US-91 being "the Las Vegas Strip" was brand new—the Flamingo, the DI, and the Sahara had all been open for less than ten years, the Hacienda and the Dunes had just opened, and the Tropicana was still under construction—so the thought probably would have been considered laughable at the time. Back then not even Carson City took Clark County seriously, so why would BPR have?)

Likewise, you'd have a solid day's worth of driving between US-80 and I-80. It's hard to see who would have confused them, given that at the same time we were well on our way to trusting people in the Northeast to not get the mess of I-295s mixed up.

I think the real reason for CDOH's crabbiness here was just that they didn't want to have to deal with the bookkeeping of having two routes with the same number.

Yes, the Division of Highways proposed Renumbering I-40 as I-30. 

[Molandfreak]

I suppose it's possible that the committee filed away the California submission as not realistic enough, when in reality they were trying to communicate two different things: how they wanted the remainder of their chargeable interstates numbered and the fact that they didn't want duplication for US 40 and US 80. The latter aspect of this communication had reasonable concerns, so it's a shame that these two particular issues weren't addressed.

Did they have a proposed renumber of I-40? I don't know that I'd call worrying about duplicates 40s reasonable; the only realistic routing where someone would have seen both US-40 and I-40 without crossing a state line in between would have been US-99 to US-466 to Barstow. (I guess if I-11 had been a thing back then they could have fobbed I-40 off on Las Vegas and made the rest I-38, but that would have required the Hoover Dam Bypass to have been built 60 years early. That would have been a wise move in the long term, but in 1956 the idea of that one bit of US-91 being "the Las Vegas Strip" was brand new—the Flamingo, the DI, and the Sahara had all been open for less than ten years, the Hacienda and the Dunes had just opened, and the Tropicana was still under construction—so the thought probably would have been considered laughable at the time. Back then not even Carson City took Clark County seriously, so why would BPR have?)

Likewise, you'd have a solid day's worth of driving between US-80 and I-80. It's hard to see who would have confused them, given that at the same time we were well on our way to trusting people in the Northeast to not get the mess of I-295s mixed up.

I think the real reason for CDOH's crabbiness here was just that they didn't want to have to deal with the bookkeeping of having two routes with the same number.

Yes, the Division of Highways proposed Renumbering I-40 as I-30. 

Which would also have been reasonable, and would have stopped DFW from being as ridiculous as it got with its game of collect-em-all.

Then again, if I-40 weren't used, we would have a whole slew of DOT officials who are dumb as rocks thinking there are three numbers that are completely out of the question no matter what circumstances arise.

Perhaps the best realistic solution might have been to consider building I-22 early and sending I-30 down there, with I-40 ending in Memphis.

[Max Rockatansky]

I suppose it's possible that the committee filed away the California submission as not realistic enough, when in reality they were trying to communicate two different things: how they wanted the remainder of their chargeable interstates numbered and the fact that they didn't want duplication for US 40 and US 80. The latter aspect of this communication had reasonable concerns, so it's a shame that these two particular issues weren't addressed.

Did they have a proposed renumber of I-40? I don't know that I'd call worrying about duplicates 40s reasonable; the only realistic routing where someone would have seen both US-40 and I-40 without crossing a state line in between would have been US-99 to US-466 to Barstow. (I guess if I-11 had been a thing back then they could have fobbed I-40 off on Las Vegas and made the rest I-38, but that would have required the Hoover Dam Bypass to have been built 60 years early. That would have been a wise move in the long term, but in 1956 the idea of that one bit of US-91 being "the Las Vegas Strip" was brand new—the Flamingo, the DI, and the Sahara had all been open for less than ten years, the Hacienda and the Dunes had just opened, and the Tropicana was still under construction—so the thought probably would have been considered laughable at the time. Back then not even Carson City took Clark County seriously, so why would BPR have?)

Likewise, you'd have a solid day's worth of driving between US-80 and I-80. It's hard to see who would have confused them, given that at the same time we were well on our way to trusting people in the Northeast to not get the mess of I-295s mixed up.

I think the real reason for CDOH's crabbiness here was just that they didn't want to have to deal with the bookkeeping of having two routes with the same number.

Yes, the Division of Highways proposed Renumbering I-40 as I-30. 

Which would also have been reasonable, and would have stopped DFW from being as ridiculous as it got with its game of collect-em-all.

Then again, if I-40 weren't used, we would have a whole slew of DOT officials who are dumb as rocks thinking there are three numbers that are completely out of the question no matter what circumstances arise.

Perhaps the best realistic solution might have been to consider building I-22 early and sending I-30 down there, with I-40 ending in Memphis.

Or...the Division of Highways could have just decided trying to avoid number duplication from Sign Routes was stupid.  They sure burned a lot of man hours trying to renumber everything for 1964 along with putting absurd amounts of AASHO applications in.

[RoadWarrior56]

IMO, for what it is worth, I-84 was the best possible number to give to the regional Interstate that was previously designated as I-80N.  If you look at the grid, E-W Interstate highways that end in a "4" are long/important routes that don't quite earn ending in a "0", but longer and more important than routes that end in "2", "6", or "8".  For example, I-24, I-44, I-64, I-74, the eastern I-84 and I-94 are all important routes that serve multiple regions.  Western I-84 fits this criteria perfectly. 

[vdeane]

IMO, for what it is worth, I-84 was the best possible number to give to the regional Interstate that was previously designated as I-80N.  If you look at the grid, E-W Interstate highways that end in a "4" are long/important routes that don't quite earn ending in a "0", but longer and more important than routes that end in "2", "6", or "8".  For example, I-24, I-44, I-64, I-74, the eastern I-84 and I-94 are all important routes that serve multiple regions.  Western I-84 fits this criteria perfectly. 

That's not an actual rule in the numbering system though - it's just roadgeek fanon.

[RoadWarrior56]

True, using a 4 digit is not  an official rule that I have ever heard about, but if you look at the existing routes and where they are located, it is consistent with the reality on the ground.  I suspect that when the system was laid out and numbers assigned, it appeared that unoffically the next-most important E-W routes from the "0" routes tended to have a "4" as its second digit.

[vdeane]

True, using a 4 digit is not  an official rule that I have ever heard about, but if you look at the existing routes and where they are located, it is consistent with the reality on the ground.  I suspect that when the system was laid out and numbers assigned, it appeared that unoffically the next-most important E-W routes from the "0" routes tended to have a "4" as its second digit.

I-4?  I-24?