Useless Multiplexes

[Scott5114]

You have also seen firsthand how slow MDOT is on changing route signage when there's a change in route location.  I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've seen old signage linger.

ODOT is lucky they don't do that. If they did, I'd either call and complain, or go buy a bunch of trash bags and cover the signs up myself!

[algorerhythms]

One useless multiplex would be the US 40/I-68 multiplex through most of western MD. Instead of having an Alternate US 40 running alongside the freeway which carries both I-68 and US 40, it would make more sense to have US 40 follow the old road. On the other hand, the multiplex east of Cumberland makes sense, considering there are several gaps in the old alignment of US 40 there.

You have also seen firsthand how slow MDOT is on changing route signage when there's a change in route location.  I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've seen old signage linger.

ODOT is lucky they don't do that. If they did, I'd either call and complain, or go buy a bunch of trash bags and cover the signs up myself!

You're planning to do that the instant US 77 is realigned in Norman, aren't you?

[Scott5114]

You're planning to do that the instant US 77 is realigned in Norman, aren't you?

Maybe... 

[Bryant5493]

Quick question: I'm trying to produce a YouTube video, therefore, I need some information. Are MS-67 and MS-15 multiplexed north of I-110? Or is MS-67 over at the Woolmarket exit (I-10 exit 41)? I heard about the "new" Highway 67, but the signage is a little contradictory, I think.

Alex beat me to it, but yes, MS 15 and MS 67 will be cosigned for about a mile or so north of I-10/I-110.

You have also seen firsthand how slow MDOT is on changing route signage when there's a change in route location.  I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've seen old signage linger.

Okay, thanks.


Be well,

Bryant

[geoking111]

I think the entire proposed I-73/I-74 multiplex through West Virginia and North Carolina could be defined as useless, especially how their routes would braid together and apart for hundreds of miles.

It is going to be tough enough to get one of those routes completed, but two?  From what I have seen, they don't go thorugh or near many major cities south of the Ohio River.  No state has done anything with these routes, that I can see, north of the North Carolina line, and it takes years to get any route contructed these days, between chronic shortages of funding and the endlessly drawn out NEPA process.

Why not just stick with the I-74 extension and drop I-73 entirely, since an I-74 extension from Cincinnatti seems more feasible than the construction of an I-73 all the way to Michigan.

I also think the I-73/I-74 multiplex through Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina is completely useless. I would truncate I-74 to a junction with I-73 in southern Ohio. I would then route I-73 by itself to North Carolina. I-74 doesn't deserve to be in North Carolina, especially considering the fact that it has to be mulitplexed with I-73 to get there.

[vdeane]

Why does that multiplex even exist?  Surely there are even 2di numbers available in that area.

EDIT: This is, ironically, my 74th post.

[Voyager]

The 580-80 multiplex seems fairly useless. I never understood why it was extended across the San Rafael Bridge from the East Bay.

[TheStranger]

The 580-80 multiplex seems fairly useless. I never understood why it was extended across the San Rafael Bridge from the East Bay.

Since California doesn't duplicate route numbers, 180 (the preliminary FHWA designation for that former segment of Route 17 between San Rafael and Richmond, which was being upgraded to Interstate/freeway standards in the late 80s) could not be used.  So I-580 was extended west to US 101 instead

[Voyager]

They could have just used a state route though.

[SSOWorld]

or an interstate business route   (ala Sacramento)

[bugo]

Lots of them in OK...US 377/OK 99, OK 15/74, US 60/OK 51, OK 9/US 59-271, US 64/US 169 are but a few.

[TheStranger]

They could have just used a state route though.

The freeway replacement for Route 17/Hoffman Boulevard however was entirely built with Interstate funds; California's only hidden interstate (I-305) was originally signed as a portion of I-80 (with the segment from Jefferson Boulevard to Route 99 built as such). 

[ComputerGuy]

I-82/US 12/US 97

Originally, US 12/97 were on a different road, currently SR 22

[corco]

12/97 (and 410 for that matter) were never on SR 22. They followed what is now known as Yakima Valley Hwy and  Wine Country Road on the east side of the Yakima, which very closely parallel I-82, so there would be no reason to have both alignments as state highways

Pre 1964 SR 22 was SSH 3A and 97/410 was PSH 3

[ComputerGuy]

Oh...thanks for correcting me there, Corco!

[Terry Shea]

I see no reason why I-694 is multiplexed with I-94 north of Minneapolis.  Then again I have no idea why it's necessary to have two 3 digit interstates (I-694 and I-494) assigned to the beltway around the twin cities.  Why didn't they just number the entire roadway either I-494 or I-694?

[TheStranger]

Terry Shea: Probably due to the fact that the loop makes a "rectangle" as opposed to a perfect square/circle.  Similar example occurs in the San Francisco Bay Area, with I-280 and I-680.

[SSOWorld]

If I recall, wasn't I-94 to take a more direct route between downtown and it interchange on the beltway?  I believe it died of NIMBY complications.

[OracleUsr]

How about US 264 from Zebulon (IIRC) west to Raleigh?  Why doesn't it end at US 64 like it used to, and like it does at Mann's Harbor now?

Likewise US 117 near Wilson.  It's apparently multiplexed with US 264 to I-95 (nice road, though, south of US 264)

[Terry Shea]

I see no reason why I-694 is multiplexed with I-94 north of Minneapolis.  Then again I have no idea why it's necessary to have two 3 digit interstates (I-694 and I-494) assigned to the beltway around the twin cities.  Why didn't they just number the entire roadway either I-494 or I-694?

Can't answer the former, but can answer the latter:  it's because the two parts of the Twin Cities beltway serve completely different travelsheds.  I-694 is a true "central cities bypass", while I-494 is a standard southern loop/beltway.

Well, I don't really understand that explanation or why it would make a difference.  It's all the same loop around the twin cities metro area so why shouldn't it all have the same highway number? 

[74/171FAN]

from OracleUsr: How about US 264 from Zebulon (IIRC) west to Raleigh?  Why doesn't it end at US 64 like it used to, and like it does at Mann's Harbor now?

Likewise US 117 near Wilson.  It's apparently multiplexed with US 264 to I-95 (nice road, though, south of US 264)

US 117 is now I-795 along the freeway section north of US 70 in Goldsboro and US 117 was supposed to be moved onto its old alignment, but AASHTO and NCDOT can't understand each other.  Also US 117 is still signed on BGS's and I-795 uses US 117 exit numbers as of December 2008.

[froggie]

If I recall, wasn't I-94 to take a more direct route between downtown and it interchange on the beltway?  I believe it died of NIMBY complications.

In the very early planning, yes there was consideration to take I-94 along the "Northwest Arterial" (which would've roughly paralleled or followed West Broadway and County 81).  However, by 1959 (only 3 years after Congress officially created the Interstates), I-94 was planned more or less along its present-day alignment.

Well, I don't really understand that explanation or why it would make a difference.  It's all the same loop around the twin cities metro area so why shouldn't it all have the same highway number?

It makes a difference because one half of the loop (i.e. I-694) is considerably shorter than the other half (i.e. I-494).  Much easier to tell I-94 drivers..."if you want to bypass the downtowns, take I-694".  If the loop were all one number, you'd have potential confusion from folks following the loop number to bypass the downtowns, but potentially in the wrong direction.  Sure, they'd eventually make it back to I-94, but only after adding 10 miles to their trip (I-694 is 31 miles, vice 41 miles for I-494) and going through the most congested part of the Beltway (I-494 through Bloomington).

[Terry Shea]

If I recall, wasn't I-94 to take a more direct route between downtown and it interchange on the beltway?  I believe it died of NIMBY complications.

In the very early planning, yes there was consideration to take I-94 along the "Northwest Arterial" (which would've roughly paralleled or followed West Broadway and County 81).  However, by 1959 (only 3 years after Congress officially created the Interstates), I-94 was planned more or less along its present-day alignment.

Well, I don't really understand that explanation or why it would make a difference.  It's all the same loop around the twin cities metro area so why shouldn't it all have the same highway number?

It makes a difference because one half of the loop (i.e. I-694) is considerably shorter than the other half (i.e. I-494).  Much easier to tell I-94 drivers..."if you want to bypass the downtowns, take I-694".  If the loop were all one number, you'd have potential confusion from folks following the loop number to bypass the downtowns, but potentially in the wrong direction.  Sure, they'd eventually make it back to I-94, but only after adding 10 miles to their trip (I-694 is 31 miles, vice 41 miles for I-494) and going through the most congested part of the Beltway (I-494 through Bloomington).

I'm sorry, but that explanation still doesn't make any sense to me.  Anyone consulting a map or atlas can plainly see which route is shorter regardless of what the highway number is, and those not consulting a map or atlas and not familiar with the area are likely to stay on I-94 through the Twin Cities.  If they're astute enough to realize that I-494 and I-694 are bypasses, they still won't know which route is shorter unless it's signed which way thru traffic is supposed to go, which once again means that the loop having 2 distinct route numbers would have no bearing whatsoever on travelers.

The whole Twin Cities metro area looks confusing as far as the highway numbering goes.  You have I-35E and I-35W which is confusing enough in itself.  Then it appears as if many freeway numbers in the area (especially I-35W) exit onto other freeway segments several different times and serpentine through town.

I could understand the necessity of having the dual loop designation if I-94 followed the routing of I-394 to the west and then north along the I-494 routing.  The bypass wouldn't make a complete loop in that case, except they'd probably multiplex  I-494 with I-94 like they did with I-694 and I-94.  Actually I could understand the dual loop designation if I-694 wasn't multiplexed with I-94, because in that case the bypass wouldn't be making a full loop either, but they did multiplex it, so I see no reason why a continuous bypass loop needs 2 separate 3 digit interstate designations.

[Hellfighter]

The I-696 and Mound Road stacker interchange is now useless. Designed for a full fledged interstate, now just for local traffic. What a waste!

[Terry Shea]

The I-696 and Mound Road stacker interchange is now useless. Designed for a full fledged interstate, now just for local traffic. What a waste!

I agree, but what does that have to do with useless multiplexes?