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

"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

"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

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)

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.

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?

>>> 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.

> 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

> 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

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.