How come there is no Interstate 1, 2, 3, ....31, 32, 33, 34, etc ?

[1995hoo]

....

That is, I think, a good sign patching over a dumb route number. (And I don't think "National Freeway" is unnecessary because it emphasizes that I-68 is a freeway, which is what most people would be looking for.)

....

Only thing is, though, most people on the East Coast don't use the word "freeway" in the generic sense in the way people in California use it. I'm not sure in this context the word "freeway" offers any better reinforcement than simply listing Cumberland and maybe Morgantown (the only two major municipalities I-68 passes along its brief length). No doubt part of the idea, though, is that they want to promote it as a thru route for longer-distance traffic. Elsewhere there's another sign recommending I-68 as an "alternate route" to Ohio and points west ("alternate" clearly referring to the "traditional" Pennsylvania Turnpike routing), so I'm sure there's a concern that listing control cities on this sort of sign might cause some people to think I-68 is a route for local traffic.

I guess what I'm saying is while I can kind of understand their thinking, I have never once heard anybody (BGSs don't count) refer to I-68 as the "National Freeway" aside from in forum posts such as this one. My point is simply this: If, as is likely the case, the sign was posted because of people who were exiting at Clear Spring onto the state route when they were seeking the Interstate because someone had told them to "take 70 west to 68," a sign that merely uses route shields without more is not likely to help those people in any great way because they probably didn't realize they were seeking an Interstate (because I think most people at least recognize the Interstate shield, even if they proceed to mess up the directions anyway!).


Edited to add: In other words, my point is simply that while the sign is well-intentioned and the people who posted it had the right idea, the sign could probably be made more helpful given that it's obviously directed at people who are unfamiliar with the roads in the area.

[kkt]

Interstate 1 exists but you have to be in South Korea to drive there.
Interstate 50 does exist too but its in South Korea.

Um, what?  The wikipedia articles call these Expressways, not Interstates.  Just because the shields are red, white, and blue doesn't make them interstates.

[roadman]

Some states like California have a "one road, one number" system. I-210 and CA-210 are the same road and, as a driver, I really don't care what the bureaucratic limbo reasons are for one shield or another. Then I show up in Maryland and they have a completely different 68? I would have a right to be confused.

Maryland could easily adopt that practice by multiplexing MD 68 over I-70 until it joins I-68 (which is a fairly short distance from this interchange).  OTOH, looking at the length of MD 68 (and the number of multiplexes with similar state route numbers), one could also make the argument for just re-designating MD 68 as something else, or eliminating it entirely.

[Brandon]

^^ Or one can accept that one is I-68 while the other is M- or SR-68 with entirely different shields and colors.

[hotdogPi]

M-

Wrong state.

[roadman]

^^ Or one can accept that one is I-68 while the other is M- or SR-68 with entirely different shields and colors.

As others have pointed out, that approach might work if the average person made the distinction between Interstate and state numbers in either giving directions or casual conservation.

[Brandon]

^^ Or one can accept that one is I-68 while the other is M- or SR-68 with entirely different shields and colors.

As others have pointed out, that approach might work if the average person made the distinction between Interstate and state numbers in either giving directions or casual conservation.

In some places [cough]Michigan[cough] they do.

[Zzonkmiles]

....

That is, I think, a good sign patching over a dumb route number. (And I don't think "National Freeway" is unnecessary because it emphasizes that I-68 is a freeway, which is what most people would be looking for.)

....

Only thing is, though, most people on the East Coast don't use the word "freeway" in the generic sense in the way people in California use it. I'm not sure in this context the word "freeway" offers any better reinforcement than simply listing Cumberland and maybe Morgantown (the only two major municipalities I-68 passes along its brief length). No doubt part of the idea, though, is that they want to promote it as a thru route for longer-distance traffic. Elsewhere there's another sign recommending I-68 as an "alternate route" to Ohio and points west ("alternate" clearly referring to the "traditional" Pennsylvania Turnpike routing), so I'm sure there's a concern that listing control cities on this sort of sign might cause some people to think I-68 is a route for local traffic.

I guess what I'm saying is while I can kind of understand their thinking, I have never once heard anybody (BGSs don't count) refer to I-68 as the "National Freeway" aside from in forum posts such as this one. My point is simply this: If, as is likely the case, the sign was posted because of people who were exiting at Clear Spring onto the state route when they were seeking the Interstate because someone had told them to "take 70 west to 68," a sign that merely uses route shields without more is not likely to help those people in any great way because they probably didn't realize they were seeking an Interstate (because I think most people at least recognize the Interstate shield, even if they proceed to mess up the directions anyway!).


Edited to add: In other words, my point is simply that while the sign is well-intentioned and the people who posted it had the right idea, the sign could probably be made more helpful given that it's obviously directed at people who are unfamiliar with the roads in the area.

Even though the term "National Freeway" seems to distinguish I-68 from Maryland/SR-68 on that sign, I honestly think (as a layman) the only reason I-68 is referred to as "National Freeway" is simply because "Interstate Highway" won't fit on the sign. Maybe if they actually spelled out "State Route" for SR-68, the sign would be easier to understand. Or perhaps the sign should be redone with added control cities for further clarification.

[hbelkins]

Even though the term "National Freeway" seems to distinguish I-68 from Maryland/SR-68 on that sign, I honestly think (as a layman) the only reason I-68 is referred to as "National Freeway" is simply because "Interstate Highway" won't fit on the sign. Maybe if they actually spelled out "State Route" for SR-68, the sign would be easier to understand. Or perhaps the sign should be redone with added control cities for further clarification.

I think Maryland uses the term "National Freeway" for tourism reasons. Remember, it supplanted US 40, which is known as the National Highway.

[RoadPirate]

Been interested in this topic for a long time. definitely think US-101 should be I-3. Calif will never give up CA-1 and its freeway sections are so intermittent that unless the whole route is upgraded, not likely to be Interstate. So I-1 should be in Alaska. Some day that state will likely upgrade Denali Hwy from Anchorage to Fairbanks. Logical route number then. On the East Coast Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel is being widened in tunnel sections. Bridges are already divided multi lane. No reason US 13 can't be upgraded on Delmarva to I-101. NC recently designated US 64 to I-495. Could become I-48 someday all the way to Outer Banks. US-50 from DC to Delmarva could become I-66 with an extension to Dover. I-101 could be extended to Wilmington, Del via Del-1 and south to Wilmington, NC via new freeway. Then south to Myrtle Beach, Charleston and Savannah. There are many Freeways across the US that could be given Interstate route numbers. North Carolina and Wisconsin figured out that just designating a freeway as Interstate attracts investment such as factories, warehouses, motels, restaurants, malls etc.  Why can't Florida's Turnpike be I-79? In places where gaps occur such as I-66 in DC, surface street connections could be designated as Business Interstate Route (Bus I-66 on New York Ave NE.).

[kkt]

There are routes that could get interstate numbers, but should they?  Should any stretch of freeway be an interstate?

It seems like in most cases money would be better spent upgrading the interstates we've got.  Many are severely congested, have insufficient shoulders or geometry, structural deficiencies.  If we can't take care of the interstate system we've got, we have no business expanding it.

[RoadPirate]

Well you get no argument from me when it comes to fixing our existing infrastructure. But why does it have to be one or the other? Can't we do both? Can't we continue improving outdated sections while continuing to expand to keep up with population growth and traffic loads. Many Interstates have been added to the original system over the years. I-88 in Illinois, I-43 in Wisconsin, I-39 in Illinois, I-49 in LA and Mo to name a few. Yes it cost money to resign highways but that is a nominal investment when compared to the economic benefit. The Interstate System is the main transportation network of the nation. It carries 90% of the road traffic. It is vital that motorists understand that an Interstate is the chief artery through a city or region. That it meets the minimum standards of a superhighway and offers the safest travel route. In my opinion any highway that meets the standards of an Interstate and connects to the system directly should carry an Interstate route designation and be signed as such.

[wdcrft63]

Well you get no argument from me when it comes to fixing our existing infrastructure. But why does it have to be one or the other? Can't we do both? Can't we continue improving outdated sections while continuing to expand to keep up with population growth and traffic loads. Many Interstates have been added to the original system over the years. I-88 in Illinois, I-43 in Wisconsin, I-39 in Illinois, I-49 in LA and Mo to name a few. Yes it cost money to resign highways but that is a nominal investment when compared to the economic benefit. The Interstate System is the main transportation network of the nation. It carries 90% of the road traffic. It is vital that motorists understand that an Interstate is the chief artery through a city or region. That it meets the minimum standards of a superhighway and offers the safest travel route. In my opinion any highway that meets the standards of an Interstate and connects to the system directly should carry an Interstate route designation and be signed as such.

I agree, but then I'm from NC, where these ideas have pretty much become official policy (I-73, I-74, I-274, I-285, I-785, I-885). I can tell you that not everyone in these forums agrees.

[roadman65]

Not every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards.  I-99, for example, was fine as just US 220 as it served the same purpose.  Having US 220 as a freeway between Bedford and State College was plenty.  Bud Schuster did not have to get congress to spend our tax money to make it I-99 as there are better things that the money could be used for in this society then add some freeway to the federal funding list.

States need to carry their weight as well and fund some of their own freeway networks, and not make every freeway that there is (NC you are one of them like I-795 which goes to Goldsboro a city that no one really goes to) just so that 90 percent of the repairs can be paid by us.  It is all absurd to have the hard earning population pay for roads outside of their state, let some of the states take care of some of their own.

[wdcrft63]

Not every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards.  I-99, for example, was fine as just US 220 as it served the same purpose.  Having US 220 as a freeway between Bedford and State College was plenty.  Bud Schuster did not have to get congress to spend our tax money to make it I-99 as there are better things that the money could be used for in this society then add some freeway to the federal funding list.

States need to carry their weight as well and fund some of their own freeway networks, and not make every freeway that there is (NC you are one of them like I-795 which goes to Goldsboro a city that no one really goes to) just so that 90 percent of the repairs can be paid by us.  It is all absurd to have the hard earning population pay for roads outside of their state, let some of the states take care of some of their own.

Sorry, I missed I-795 in my list. I'm not defending any particular highway. But I'll say this. NC has built 691 miles of freeways on US and state highways, expanding its interstate system by more than 50%. Adding some of that mileage to the interstate system doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[slorydn1]

Not every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards.  I-99, for example, was fine as just US 220 as it served the same purpose.  Having US 220 as a freeway between Bedford and State College was plenty.  Bud Schuster did not have to get congress to spend our tax money to make it I-99 as there are better things that the money could be used for in this society then add some freeway to the federal funding list.

States need to carry their weight as well and fund some of their own freeway networks, and not make every freeway that there is (NC you are one of them like I-795 which goes to Goldsboro a city that no one really goes to) just so that 90 percent of the repairs can be paid by us.  It is all absurd to have the hard earning population pay for roads outside of their state, let some of the states take care of some of their own.

Actually I have used I-795 3 times now since it was built/designated and I have found I to be quite helpful as it has saved me as much as 20 minutes on trips north of my location, versus having to go all he way to Selma on US-70 to I-95.


You are technically correct that Goldsboro is not a destination in and of itself, however, I-795 is the closest Interstate connection to those of us up and down the Crystal Coast. The combined population of 10 counties, close to probably 500k people have paid their fair share in taxes to fund construction of Interstates in everyone else's state, we deserved to have a decent connection of our own.


Now, if only we could get a decent connection to points south we will be all set

[english si]

Not every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards.

But on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with signing interstate-standard freeways that form part of the network as interstates.

The issues people ought to have with I-99 is the pork and the numbering. That an interstate quality freeway has interstate shields should not be an issue.

[RoadPirate]

Not every freeway should be interstate because its a super highway or has standards.

But on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with signing interstate-standard freeways that form part of the network as interstates.

The issues people ought to have with I-99 is the pork and the numbering. That an interstate quality freeway has interstate shields should not be an issue.

Agreed! In fact many Interstates don't even qualify for Federal funding and are entirely state funded. Those that were toll roads like the Pennsylvania Turnpike or the George Washington Bridge, San Francisco Bay Bridge were assigned Interstate route numbers for the convenience of the motorists but get no Fed dollars. The signage is for the benefit of drivers so that they know it is a superhighway that is connected to the rest of the system. The current network of highways is now a convoluted mess that makes it harder for many people to understand and navigate. It could be simplified by making more freeways Interstates. I mean a lot of Americans have a hard time just dealing with simple geography. Our system could really use some route cleaning.

By the way I do agree that naming US 220 in Penn to I-99 was really stupid. But again that is a separate issue. It could have been numbered I-580 or I-776 instead of wasting it that way. Same with I-97 which should be a 3DI.

[hbelkins]

Those who bash I-99 for the number need to remember that it will eventually connect to I-86 at Corning, NY, and really should be extended up I-390 to Rochester. And, it was originally planned to run south to connect to I-68 at Cumberland, Md. At the length it will run when it's finished in Pennsylvania, it's too long to be a 2DI.

And if you want to call it pork, then so is all of US 23 from Columbus to Asheville, all of OH 32/US 50 from Cincinnati to Clarksburg, and any other Appalachian Regional Commission corridor.

[roadman65]

I-99 is pork as it was created to serve the ego of a particular politician even so for locally naming the road after himself.  Whether it has an interstate shield on it or not, it does not change the quality of the road.

That is why I think upgrading US 77 in Kenedy County, Texas is also pork as with I-69C running nearby and the fact even with US 77 not being interstate grade there, it still can transport commerce as easily and efficient as it being an interstate.   We have too many other issues going on that could use that money.

Plus, talk about being part of a network.  Is I-2 that?  So far it is isolated from the rest of the system, thanks to ole Buddy setting precident with his signing interstates into law, congress did it again. 

Also did you notice that I-69C does not go directly to Mexico? 

[RoadPirate]

I actually don't have a problem with the upgrade of US-220 (I-99) or its designation as an Interstate. It's the numbering that is a problem. The original Interstate numbering scheme was logical and fairly simple. It it was very easy to understand and should remain that way. I-99 was chosen because there were no other odd 2DI's available in the east. Bad choice though because it is situated between I-79 and I-81. At the present I-99 is an intrastate highway. If if is ever extended south to Cumberland then it may deserve a 2DI designation. There may be plans to extend I-99 up US-15 to NY, but again until that happens then it should be a 3DI. In any case I-99 is a bad number for that location. A more logical designation for I-390 would be I-83. US-15 through the Susquehanna Valley should be upgraded from Harrisburg and redesignated I-83 all the way to Rochester. While we're on the topic of Penn Interstates, PA-28 has been greatly improved in Pittsburgh. The eastern part could be upgraded as far as I-80 and PA-28 could be designated as an interstate. That would provide an excellent connection between Pittsburgh and NYC eliminating the need to use the Penn Tpke for that route.

[roadman65]

I never had the problem of upgrade of US 220 in PA either.  In fact I saw it get built through Altoona.  Back in 1984 it ended near Sproul and you had to use a two lane arterial to get to Duncansville where US 220 and US 22 had a brief concurrency eastward to Holidaysburg.  One year later in 1985 another segment opened from Newry to the current Plan Road interchange near the Logan Valley Mall while north of there to Tyrone was under construction.

I could not wait to see it all open as I always liked PA building freeways for US routes or even some of its state roads.  So I am in total favor of it, but they all do not need interstate designations on them.  Sure it would be nice.

As far as I-83 goes, yes it should connect to I-390.  Try going from DC to Buffalo directly by freeway.  You just cannot and that should be a priority to have one interstate quality road between two such major cities.

[RoadPirate]

I-99 is pork as it was created to serve the ego of a particular politician even so for locally naming the road after himself.  Whether it has an interstate shield on it or not, it does not change the quality of the road.

That is why I think upgrading US 77 in Kenedy County, Texas is also pork as with I-69C running nearby and the fact even with US 77 not being interstate grade there, it still can transport commerce as easily and efficient as it being an interstate.   We have too many other issues going on that could use that money.

Plus, talk about being part of a network.  Is I-2 that?  So far it is isolated from the rest of the system, thanks to ole Buddy setting precident with his signing interstates into law, congress did it again. 

Also did you notice that I-69C does not go directly to Mexico? 

Roadman65 you make some good points here. The whole I-69 project has plenty of critics as well as supporters. I-m a bit conflicted about this route number. In Indiana it makes sense and if does get built down to Memphis then ok extend the route number. The planned route from Memphis to Texas is more east-west and could actually be designated I-32 perhaps. From Houston to Mexico it could be designated I-4 or I-6 as it parallels the Gulf Coast . The idea of splitting it into three branches in south Texas is just dumb. Planned I-69W could easily be I-4. The south Texas section could also be an odd number such as I-31 or I-33 or both if they meet Interstate standards. Either way there should be a direct freeway from Laredo to Corpus Christi. As far as I-2 goes, that number makes perfect sense since it will be directly linked to the rest of the system once I-69 is connected from Houston to Brownsville. Then it would be logical for I-2 to continue north along the Rio Grande to Laredo.

[roadman65]

What irks me is that I-69E and I-69C are too close together serving the same region.  Pharr and Brownsville are very near each other and part of the same regional area.  Yet its getting two freeways aligned near each other to serve the very same purpose.  Just like I-73 and I-74 both going to Myrtle Beach when only one of them is needed.

Yes, I-2 someday will reach Laredo, but not in our lifetimes.  It is way shorter than I-369 and thus right now should be x69 until that day arrives.  As far as I-69 in Arkanas goes, I-49 is top priority there and of course LA (not the city) is waiting for AR to build their short segment, so it will be a long while for the two ends to tie together.  Yes, all these should be numbered differently just as I-74 in NC should be I-32, I-34, I-36, or even I-38.

[english si]

Those who bash I-99 for the number need to remember that it will eventually connect to I-86 at Corning, NY, and really should be extended up I-390 to Rochester. And, it was originally planned to run south to connect to I-68 at Cumberland, Md. At the length it will run when it's finished in Pennsylvania, it's too long to be a 2DI.

You mean a 3di - but, given the dates, it could have been a less out-of-place I-73.

But, yes, even this is debatable as to whether it's awful.

And if you want to call it pork, then so is all of US 23 from Columbus to Asheville, all of OH 32/US 50 from Cincinnati to Clarksburg, and any other Appalachian Regional Commission corridor.

I don't see them all being Interstate standard freeway with the name of the person on it. That said, it does provide a useful link, and a freeway suits it in many ways. And yes, the pork is a debatable thing.

What ought not be debatable is that an interstate standard road has an interstate number - that's my point.

What irks me is that I-69E and I-69C are too close together serving the same region.  Pharr and Brownsville are very near each other and part of the same regional area.  Yet its getting two freeways aligned near each other to serve the very same purpose.

They serve very different purposes and different traffic flows into the highly populated region (especially when you account for the other side of the Rio Grande).

Just like I-73 and I-74 both going to Myrtle Beach when only one of them is needed.

Likewise, though the 74 route is a bizarre one with the swamp u-turn. Only I-73 is needed, but US74 and US17 sections of I-74 are worth building (along with the rest of those corridors to Wilmington), just the swamp u-turn and numbering are rubbish.

Yes, I-2 someday will reach Laredo, but not in our lifetimes.

And where else would the I-2 number go? What harm is it doing being I-2, rather than I-169?

It is way shorter than I-369 and thus right now should be x69 until that day arrives.

And if Arkansas hadn't bothered with their I-69 segment, then Shreveport would be the spur of I-47 (Texarkana - Mexico), though you'd be moaning that I-147 would be longer than I-2.