Routes 200-249

5 responses so far ↓

• 1 Mike Ard // 6 Jan 2006 at 4:24 pm Your numbering system seems to omit the spur freeway and bypass freeway designations currently used for interstates. (i.e. 3-digit designations starting with an even number indicate a bypass route that will re-join the main freeway, and 3-digit designations starting with a odd number indicate spurs that branch from the main freeway but do not rejoin.) How is this information to be communicated to drivers under your system?

• 2 MikeTheActuary // 6 Jan 2006 at 7:19 pm How is this information to be communicated to drivers under your system? For the most part it’s not. Such roads would generally be included in the 400-899 numbering series, if they aren’t already forming a part of a larger route. That’s intentional. First, in many areas, that numbering convention is already violated…or doesn’t cleanly fit…enough so as to be of limited value. Consider I-476 in Pennsylvania, or I-580 in California, both of which are major enough to merit (IMO) a designation independent of their parents. Second, it’s already been observed in this day and age of 911 calls made from cellphones of sometimes questionable quality, that emergency response can be facilitated if highway numbers in an area don’t sound similar. Consider the decision to assign the number 865 in Indiana rather than 665. Third, an intent of this numbering system is for the long-distance highway to follow the best route through/past metropolitan areas. As such, concern about whether routes rejoin their parents later is not that great a concern. And fourth, I never got that far when I was doodling this system out.

• 3 VI // 22 Sep 2006 at 4:53 pm The choice of routes to connect seems a bit forced and illogical. Just perusing the roadways that I am most familiar with, I notice your proposed 202X contains a large spectrum of roadway types, especially contrasting US26 from Cannon Beach over the coast ranges (a two-lane, dark, winding roadbed) with the entirety of the remaining route. Furthermore, the intersection of US26 and I84 is, at best convoluted in downtown Portland. A more consistent standard would follow US30 from the coast into Portland, with a simpler connection to I84 leaving east. Although the roadbed is almost exclusively undivided, large lengths of the road have two lanes in either or both directions; it posesses broad shoulders, and a relatively straight alignment (excepting a few miles near Astoria), and more closely adheres to the Super-4 interstate designation than much of US26.

• 4 Sam // 9 Dec 2006 at 9:28 am The designation for 200 is incorrect. I-80 goes from San Francisco to Teaneck, New Jersey where it then connects to I-95 to get to the George Washington Bridge. And besides, the GWB has a lot of traffic. It should be: I-80 San Francisco - Paterson, NJ NJ 21 Paterson, NJ - Clifton, NJ NJ 3/NJ 495/NY 495 Paterson, NJ - New York City, NY, 34th Street Lincoln Tunnel - Queens Midtown Tunnel, NY 495/I-495 Queens Midtown Tunnel - Suffolk County, NY NY 25 Suffolk County, NY - Orient Point, NY That would bring 200 into New York City, and also all the way to Orient Point, Long Island using the Long Island Expressway (all of it except the short segment between exits 72 and 73). Though that would bring it down to being a D-class road instead of an X, because 34th Street is not a freeway. If you want it to stay X-class, end it at 30th Street instead of continuing it through NYC.

• 5 Brad // 18 Dec 2006 at 10:26 pm Love the renumbering idea. Just wondering…why not connect your 213x and 229x (I-49 and I-29) into a single interstate? I have always wondered why the AASHTO has wanted to keep these routes separate.

Leave a Comment