Skip to main content

Let's just renumber EVERYTHING(No one will notice anyway)!

I've lived in New York about 10 years now, and let me tell you, some of the Metro NYC interstate numbers really bug me. Actually that predates my living here, but now that I live here I have the cred to whine about it.

Take Interstate 278 for example. Now, if things had gone according to plan it would have made sense. It would have been sort of an alternate to the wackiness that would have been NY Interstate 78, which would have been twitchier than a gecko's freshly shed tail. Now, however, it's high and dry-literally-in no wise coming within 5 miles of it's alleged parent. What it does do is link into the existing IH 95 at both ends. Since there's rumours that the silly Sheridan Expressway is gonna be cashiered anyway, why not take the IH 895 number and put it on the current IH 278? Nobody will really care, since the freeways that comprise the IH 278 aren't associated with the number anyway: Ask any New Yorker what the number for the Staten Island, Gowanus, BQE(Brooklyn-Queens Expressway) and the Bruckner is-I'll bet most wouldn't be able to tell you.

Ditto the Van Wyck/Whitestone(IH 678)-again, another orphan of the proposed Interstate 78. Now it is cool that the route number resolves consecutively(6-7-8)-I believe that it's the only 3 digit Interstate highway that does that, but it really doesn't fit in. IH 795 or IH 995 would be more suitable; and it wouldn't matter, anyway-since the freeway is known by name, not number.

And what of Interstate 78? End that sucker at the Turnpike-where for all intents and purposes, it ends now. If the Holland Tunnel extension has to have a number, let it be an odd 95 like, say IH 595. Carrying an interstate designation over Jersey City city streets is rather absurd, and given that the route will never be built up to standard(it's not really posted all that well, now), anyway, why bother, really?

Now that that's taken care of, let's move on to another silly freeway number. Interstate 287. Particularly the NJ section. As originally planned(as far as I can determine), it would have run it's current route, joining the IH 87 at Thruway junction 8, running east with Interstate 87 on the Cross-Westchester Expressway to j9A(then an un-numbered junction), then eastward to Interstate 95, which was pretty silly. The way things worked out isn't much better; it's one of 2 Interstates concurrent with it's parent that split off to different destinations(the other being the IH 580 in California) without linking back into the original highway. Now the concurrency makes a bit of sense-it links two widely disjointed sections of the highway with the same number. Just the same, it could be better.

Interstate 287 in it's entirety would make a fine Interstate 95. It would put a major Interstate number on what constitutes a bypass of NYC, which would be rather sensible-directing the majority of through traffic away from the city. It links other major highways to the north and west. There are very few turns- two really major ones at Thruway j15 and again at Thruway j8-the latter favours the Cross Westchester, anyway: 'Exit 8' is really the through movement south to east at Elmsford.

Alternately, the section from Perth Amboy to Mahwah(that name 'gets' me) could be renumbered as Interstate 87-which again, would make sense-since The current NJ IH 287 is as important as any two-digit Interstate. That would make the IH 87 a true 'Interstate' Interstate. The remnant east from Thruway j15 could remain IH 287(solo), or you could carry the future Interstate 86 down from Harriman, and extend that along the Cross-Westchester to Interstate 95. That would assign proper importance to that route. The only thing would be what to do with the then-orphaned section of the Thruway and the Major Deegan Expressway. That could be an IH x-87 or IH x-86, depending. Odd or even, it wouldn't matter. It's not really a major route anyway. I like this idea, better.

Another road that bugs me is the Long Island Expressway, which is an even-numbered 3 digit Interstate(495) that is a spur. The Interstate designation actually starts at Interstate 278-The junction with the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and runs eastward from there-linking into IH 678 and the IH 295-so it's sort of secondarily linked into it's parent. There are scattered IH 495 signs in NYC and NJ; but that's another link that won't be made. So what to do with it?

What I'd like to see is Interstate 80 carried across the George Washington Bridge, over the Cross Bronx Expressway, then over the Throg's Neck and the Clearview Expressway(which as of this writing has no Clearview Signs!) to the LIE(Clearview j4/LIE J 27), then out onto Long Island. The fly in the ointment is the transition from the Clearview to the LIE, which is currently accomplished via some nasty little bendy slips; any realignment to favour a thru IH 80 movement of any reasonable radius would likely would be both unpopular and hugely expensive. So it looks cool on paper, but is totally impractical in reality.

A wacky idea would be to carry the IH 78 south of NJTP j14 to j13(IH 278)-Over the Goethals Bridge via the Staten Island, Gowanus and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways to the current LIE junction(which might be easier to refit for a through main Interstate movement); and eastwards to Long Island. Hey, then, the remainder of the IH 278 and the IH 678 might make more sense!

Comments

James Mast said…
"The way things worked out isn't much better; it's one of 2 Interstates concurrent with it's parent that split off to different destinations(the other being the IH 580 in California) without linking back into the original highway"

There are three of those. You forgot about I-540 in Arkansas.
Steve A said…
You know, I-78 does come about 3 miles away from I-278. It's called I-478 (which ends within 2 miles of the end of 78 in Manhattan).
Steve A said…
And one more:
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-345_tx.html

So there is another consecutive interstate out there. Just sayin.
Anonymous said…
"Interstate 287 in it's entirety would make a fine Interstate 95. It would put a major Interstate number on what constitutes a bypass of NYC, which would be rather sensible-directing the majority of through traffic away from the city."

Two-digit interstates are bravely supposed to go through cities, not sneak around them like their weasely three-digit counterparts.
Anonymous said…
Like a lot of your ideas here. Always bugged me how easy and sensible I-87 designation would be in the current configuration for the BQE/Gowanus/SIE. Carry 87 across Triboro, instead of bringing 278 across the bridge, renumber Bruckner to a spur of 87 or 95. BQE/Gowanus cardinal directions can finally actually make sense (north/south).

Also such an easy way to fix a huge part of the 78 parent number issues, just finish it off by giving Van Wyck a X95 number. Bringing 87 down could fix the LIE 495 problem too, give it a 87 spur number, it basically starts at the interchange with BQE anyway.

Would also sort of make the NYS Thruway 87/90 combo more complete imo (although not actually the Thruway in the NYC part). Would bring 87 down to the southern most portion of the state (Staten Island). Any thoughts?

Popular posts from this blog

Legend of the Ridge Route; a history of crossing the mountains between the Los Angeles Basin and San Joaquin Valley from wagon trails to Interstates

Over the past two decades I've crossed the Interstate 5 corridor from Los Angeles north over the Sierra Pelona Mountains and Tehachapi Range to San Joaquin Valley what seems to be an immeasurable number of times.  While Interstate 5 from Castaic Junction to Grapevine via Tejon Pass today is known to most as "The Grapevine" it occupies a corridor which has been traversed by numerous historic highways.  The most notable of these highways is known as the "Ridge Route."  This article is dedicated to the Ridge Route and the various highways that preceded it.  This blog is part of the larger Gribblenation US Route 99 Page.  For more information pertaining to the other various segments of US Route 99 and it's three-digit child routes check out the link the below. Gribblenation US Route 99 Page Ridge Route corridor introdution The Ridge Route as originally envisioned was a segment of highway which was completed in 1915 between the northern Los Angeles city limit

Establishing the numbering conventions of California's chargeable Interstates

The Federal Highway Aid Act of 1956 brought the Interstate Highway System into existence which would largely be constructed by Federal Highway Administration fund matching.  The Interstate Highway System was deliberately numbered to run opposite the established conventions of the US Route System.  While the Interstate Highway numbering conventions are now well established there was a period during the late 1950s where they were still being finalized.  This blog examines the history of the establishing of the chargeable Interstate Highway route numbers in California.  The above blog cover depicts the Interstate Highway route numbers requested by the Division of Highways in the Los Angeles area during November 1957.  The establishment of the numbering conventions of California's chargeable Interstates The Interstate Highway System was not created in a vacuum by way of the passage of the 1956 Federal Highway Aid Act.  The beginning of the Interstate Highway System can be found in the

California State Route 210 (legacy of California State Route 30)

  California State Route 210 is a forty-mile-long limited access State Highway located in Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County.  California State Route 210 exists as a non-Interstate continuation of Interstate 210 and the Foothill Freeway between California State Route 57 in San Dimas east to Interstate 10 Redlands.  California State Route 210 was previously designated as California State Route 30 until the passage of 1998 Assembly Bill 2388, Chapter 221.  Since 2009 the entirety of what was California State Route 30 has been signed as California State Route 210 upon the completion of the Foothill Freeway extension.  Below westbound California State Route 210 can be seen crossing the Santa Ana River as the blog cover.  California State Route 30 can be seen for the last time on the 2005 Caltrans Map below.  Part 1; the evolution of California State Route 30 into California State Route 210 What was to become California State Route 30 (CA 30) entered the State Highway System duri