If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
> Scott en Aztlán said in rec.autos.driving:
> There's a boo-boo in the "America's 24 Worst Highway Bottlenecks" list > on the following page: > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0931285.html > > Can you spot it? Hint: it's in one of the listings for Southern > California. I'm not from SoCal (obviously), but I'm going to hazard a guess: one of the intersections listed doesn't exist? -- Aunt Judy demonstrates its lack of understanding of the concept of "</killfile>," and "<killfile>," and what a "thread," is: "Now that takes nerve. You claim to killfile me TWICE in the same thread and you expect people to take you seriously???" Ref: http://tinyurl.com/r5qp9 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
> , necromancer > wrote: > >>> Scott en Aztlán said in rec.autos.driving: >>> There's a boo-boo in the "America's 24 Worst Highway Bottlenecks" list >>> on the following page: >>> >>> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0931285.html >>> >>> Can you spot it? Hint: it's in one of the listings for Southern >>> California. >> >>I'm not from SoCal (obviously), but I'm going to hazard a guess: one of >>the intersections listed doesn't exist? > > OK... But which one? Anybody? Looking at Google Maps, it appears that I15 and I805 don't cross - I15 actually ends at I8 and CA18 continues on to the I15. FloydR |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
> "Floyd Rogers" > wrote: >>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote >>> OK... But which one? Anybody? >> >>Looking at Google Maps, it appears that I15 and I805 don't cross - >>I15 actually ends at I8 and CA18 continues on to the I15. > > BINGO!! > > Although there are allegedly plans to extend I-15 farther south, > currently the 15 ends at the 8 and the freeway becomes a state route > (although IIRC it becomes CA-15, not CA-18). Just a miss-type there... One gripe I've always had with the Interstate numbering system is that it's really east-coast centric. It's ridiculous that I80 ends in SF rather than Portland: I80 & I90 are about 100 miles apart on the east coast (NYC/Boston north-south axis), but 800 miles out here. FloydR |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
Floyd Rogers wrote:
> > One gripe I've always had with the Interstate numbering system > is that it's really east-coast centric. It's ridiculous that I80 ends > in SF rather than Portland: I80 & I90 are about 100 miles apart on > the east coast (NYC/Boston north-south axis), but 800 miles out > here. How many east-west interstates end *between* SF and Portland? There are numbers for four (82, 84, 86, and 88); how many could they really use? You'll notice not many E-W interstates end in the Carolinas, either. More of those highways skew south in the west and north in the east because that's where the population is. They skew closer together in the northeast for the same reason: the population is more dense. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; knew that) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
Floyd Rogers wrote in r.a.d:
> One gripe I've always had with the Interstate numbering system > is that it's really east-coast centric. It's ridiculous that I80 ends > in SF rather than Portland: I80 & I90 are about 100 miles apart on > the east coast (NYC/Boston north-south axis), but 800 miles out > here. This is mainly because the Interstate numbering system was designed to avoid duplicating US route numbers that pass through any of the same states. If the Interstate numbers had been assigned sensibly, "from scratch": * I-94 would be a "major" (multiple of 5) route. I-30 would not. * I-70 would extend to San Francisco via US 50 (even though part of that route would probably always remain non-freeway). * The numbers 30, 45, 50, and 60 would not have been skipped in the series of major routes. * Routes on the "grid" would be as straight as possible given the set of freeways that exist. For instance, I-10 should follow the present I-12 (in LA) and I-8 (CA and AZ). The New Orleans route then becomes a 3di "loop", while the Los Angeles route becomes a "western I-20". * There would be a separate numbering sequence for diagonal routes. I would have handled this problem using the hundreds prefixes, something like this: 1-99 = Major routes (as now but excluding diagonals) 101-199 = Diagonal routes 201-299 = Loops (numbers can still be reused in each state, but the last two digits need not match a major route) 301-399 = Spurs (ditto) 401-499 = Toll routes (?) Added m.t.r because this topic is more their purview. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
John David Galt wrote: > Floyd Rogers wrote in r.a.d: > > One gripe I've always had with the Interstate numbering system > > is that it's really east-coast centric. It's ridiculous that I80 ends > > in SF rather than Portland: I80 & I90 are about 100 miles apart on > > the east coast (NYC/Boston north-south axis), but 800 miles out > > here. > > This is mainly because the Interstate numbering system was designed to > avoid duplicating US route numbers that pass through any of the same > states. > > If the Interstate numbers had been assigned sensibly, "from scratch": > > * I-94 would be a "major" (multiple of 5) route. I-30 would not. > > * I-70 would extend to San Francisco via US 50 (even though part of > that route would probably always remain non-freeway). > > * The numbers 30, 45, 50, and 60 would not have been skipped in the > series of major routes. > > * Routes on the "grid" would be as straight as possible given the > set of freeways that exist. For instance, I-10 should follow the > present I-12 (in LA) and I-8 (CA and AZ). The New Orleans route > then becomes a 3di "loop", while the Los Angeles route becomes a > "western I-20". > > * There would be a separate numbering sequence for diagonal routes. > I would have handled this problem using the hundreds prefixes, > something like this: > > 1-99 = Major routes (as now but excluding diagonals) > 101-199 = Diagonal routes > 201-299 = Loops (numbers can still be reused in each state, but > the last two digits need not match a major route) > 301-399 = Spurs (ditto) > 401-499 = Toll routes (?) > > Added m.t.r because this topic is more their purview. Does this explain why IL and WI snagged numbers 39 and 43 which are numbered closer to 35 but are located nastily close to 55? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
>>> One gripe I've always had with the Interstate numbering system
>>> is that it's really east-coast centric. It's ridiculous that I80 ends >>> in SF rather than Portland: I80 & I90 are about 100 miles apart on >>> the east coast (NYC/Boston north-south axis), but 800 miles out >>> here. >> This is mainly because the Interstate numbering system was designed to >> avoid duplicating US route numbers that pass through any of the same >> states. >> >> If the Interstate numbers had been assigned sensibly, "from scratch": >> >> * I-94 would be a "major" (multiple of 5) route. I-30 would not. >> >> * I-70 would extend to San Francisco via US 50 (even though part of >> that route would probably always remain non-freeway). >> >> * The numbers 30, 45, 50, and 60 would not have been skipped in the >> series of major routes. >> >> * Routes on the "grid" would be as straight as possible given the >> set of freeways that exist. For instance, I-10 should follow the >> present I-12 (in LA) and I-8 (CA and AZ). The New Orleans route >> then becomes a 3di "loop", while the Los Angeles route becomes a >> "western I-20". >> >> * There would be a separate numbering sequence for diagonal routes. >> I would have handled this problem using the hundreds prefixes, >> something like this: >> >> 1-99 = Major routes (as now but excluding diagonals) >> 101-199 = Diagonal routes >> 201-299 = Loops (numbers can still be reused in each state, but >> the last two digits need not match a major route) >> 301-399 = Spurs (ditto) >> 401-499 = Toll routes (?) >> >> Added m.t.r because this topic is more their purview. > Does this explain why IL and WI snagged numbers 39 and 43 which are > numbered closer to 35 but are located nastily close to 55? Yup. The actual policy for diagonal routes seems to be to "shoehorn" them in using any 2-digit number available. I'm surprised they haven't started grabbing low numbers such as 13, 11, 9, and 3 rather than reuse 2-digit numbers that already exist. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
> Floyd Rogers said in rec.autos.driving:
> One gripe I've always had with the Interstate numbering system > is that it's really east-coast centric. It's ridiculous that I80 ends > in SF rather than Portland: I80 & I90 are about 100 miles apart on > the east coast (NYC/Boston north-south axis), but 800 miles out > here. More like Northeast Coast centric. That's one reason why they are considering Interstate 3 for the proposed Savannah River Parkway (from Savannah, GA to Knoxville, TN). All the numbers that would fit into the grid system even remotely (for a north-south highway) are taken. Thanks, Bud Schuster! -- "If the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Buc's," And the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jag's," Then what does that make the Tennessee Titans?" --George Carlin |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
> John David Galt said in rec.autos.driving:
> Yup. The actual policy for diagonal routes seems to be to "shoehorn" > them in using any 2-digit number available. I'm surprised they haven't > started grabbing low numbers such as 13, 11, 9, and 3 rather than reuse > 2-digit numbers that already exist. Actually, I-3 is the proposed designation for the proposed Savannah River Parkway. See: http://tinyurl.com/mnk4p -- "You can't spell unethical with out U.N." --unknown |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of Boo-Boos...
John David Galt wrote: > >>> One gripe I've always had with the Interstate numbering system > >>> is that it's really east-coast centric. It's ridiculous that I80 ends > >>> in SF rather than Portland: I80 & I90 are about 100 miles apart on > >>> the east coast (NYC/Boston north-south axis), but 800 miles out > >>> here. > > >> This is mainly because the Interstate numbering system was designed to > >> avoid duplicating US route numbers that pass through any of the same > >> states. > >> > >> If the Interstate numbers had been assigned sensibly, "from scratch": > >> > >> * I-94 would be a "major" (multiple of 5) route. I-30 would not. > >> > >> * I-70 would extend to San Francisco via US 50 (even though part of > >> that route would probably always remain non-freeway). > >> > >> * The numbers 30, 45, 50, and 60 would not have been skipped in the > >> series of major routes. > >> > >> * Routes on the "grid" would be as straight as possible given the > >> set of freeways that exist. For instance, I-10 should follow the > >> present I-12 (in LA) and I-8 (CA and AZ). The New Orleans route > >> then becomes a 3di "loop", while the Los Angeles route becomes a > >> "western I-20". > >> > >> * There would be a separate numbering sequence for diagonal routes. > >> I would have handled this problem using the hundreds prefixes, > >> something like this: > >> > >> 1-99 = Major routes (as now but excluding diagonals) > >> 101-199 = Diagonal routes > >> 201-299 = Loops (numbers can still be reused in each state, but > >> the last two digits need not match a major route) > >> 301-399 = Spurs (ditto) > >> 401-499 = Toll routes (?) > >> > >> Added m.t.r because this topic is more their purview. > > > Does this explain why IL and WI snagged numbers 39 and 43 which are > > numbered closer to 35 but are located nastily close to 55? > > Yup. The actual policy for diagonal routes seems to be to "shoehorn" > them in using any 2-digit number available. I'm surprised they haven't > started grabbing low numbers such as 13, 11, 9, and 3 rather than reuse > 2-digit numbers that already exist. I've seen some unofficial proposals: I-9 for CA 99, 11 or 13 for the Las Vegas-Reno stretch. I noticed I-1 is available, a good argument for the US 101 corridor in CA since Santa Barbara is a failry large city without an Interstate link. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Speaking of emergency vehicles... | John Harlow | Driving | 17 | March 22nd 05 08:02 PM |
Speaking of mufflers and 4.6's | CobraJet | Ford Mustang | 2 | February 16th 05 11:54 PM |
speaking of 74 beetles and batteries | Kafertoys | VW air cooled | 16 | December 7th 04 02:54 PM |