4 ms·

I'll agree with @Mikestew that this is pretty familiar territory. But it did get me looking to see how well the original Interstate planners did, in terms of le

by GCA10 10y ago

I'll agree with @Mikestew that this is pretty familiar territory. But it did get me looking to see how well the original Interstate planners did, in terms of leaving unallocated numbers available for future expansion. Surprise, surprise: regional economies expand at different rates, which forecasters don't always get right. It's not as messy as Social Security numbers or area codes, but there are definite pockets of congestion. For example, the East-West corridors between I-80 and I-90 have been graced with more highways than expected. We've had to come up with two versions apiece of I-84, I-86 and I-88 in different parts of the country, along with one I-82. By contrast, there's been no East-West build-out whatsoever between I-30 and I-40. More details are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Interstate_Highways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Interstate_Highways

labster 10y ago
As to how we're planning to use up the numbers for future expansion, there's this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Interstate_Highways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Interstate_Highways Of course if you want to take the I-7 to Fresno, the future is now because it's called 99 but not yet built to interstate standards.
- amyjess 10y ago
  Which is funny because once that's done, that road will have been a US Route, a State Route, and an Interstate in that order. SR 99 was originally part of US Route 99, but when I-5 was built AASHTO decided to decommission Route 99 since the whole thing paralleled I-5 so closely that it was considered redundant. The states, however, decided to continue to maintain (most of) the road, and it was assigned a number of state highway designations, including SR 99 in the Central Valley (the states, particularly Washington, did give up on a few portions of it, which are now maintained as local roads in various cities). And now they want to make it an Interstate. (Also, speaking of future Interstates, I'm kinda shocked that I-66 was cancelled. They upgraded a bunch of roads to Interstate standards, and they even signed the Cumberland Pkwy. in Kentucky as "Future I-66 Corridor" (you can even see it on Google Street View), only to give up on it.)

by GCA10 10y ago

labster 10y ago

As to how we're planning to use up the numbers for future expansion, there's this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Interstate_Highways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Interstate_Highways Of course if you want to take the I-7 to Fresno, the future is now because it's called 99 but not yet built to interstate standards.

amyjess 10y ago
Which is funny because once that's done, that road will have been a US Route, a State Route, and an Interstate in that order. SR 99 was originally part of US Route 99, but when I-5 was built AASHTO decided to decommission Route 99 since the whole thing paralleled I-5 so closely that it was considered redundant. The states, however, decided to continue to maintain (most of) the road, and it was assigned a number of state highway designations, including SR 99 in the Central Valley (the states, particularly Washington, did give up on a few portions of it, which are now maintained as local roads in various cities). And now they want to make it an Interstate. (Also, speaking of future Interstates, I'm kinda shocked that I-66 was cancelled. They upgraded a bunch of roads to Interstate standards, and they even signed the Cumberland Pkwy. in Kentucky as "Future I-66 Corridor" (you can even see it on Google Street View), only to give up on it.)