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

The Bayshore Freeway (US Route 101)

The Bayshore Freeway is a 56.4-mile component of US Route 101 located in the San Francisco Bay Area.  The Bayshore Freeway connects the southern extent of San Jose to the Central Freeway in the city of San Francisco.  The corridor was originally developed as the Bayshore Highway between 1923 and 1937.  The Bayshore Highway would serve briefly as mainline US Route 101 before being reassigned as US Route 101 Bypass in 1938.  Conceptually the designs for the Bayshore Freeway originated in 1940 but construction would be delayed until 1947.  The Bayshore Freeway was completed by 1962 and became mainline US Route 101 during June 1963.   Part 1; the history of the Bayshore Freeway Prior the creation of the Bayshore Highway corridor the most commonly used highway between San Jose and San Francisco was El Camino Real (alternatively known as Peninsula Highway).  The  American El Camino Real  began as an early example of a signed as an Auto Trail starting in 1906.  The era of State Highway Mainte

The Central Freeway of San Francisco (US Route 101)

The Central Freeway is a 1.2-mile elevated limited access corridor in the city of San Francisco.  As presently configured the Central Freeway connects from the end of the Bayshore Freeway to Market Street.  The Central Freeway carries the mainline of northbound US Route 101 from the Bayshore Freeway to Mission Street. The Central Freeway has origins with the establishment of Legislative Route Number 223 and is heavily tied to the history of the once proposed Panhandle Freeway.  The Central Freeway between the Bayshore Freeway and Mission Street was completed during 1955.  The corridor was extended to a one-way couplet located at Turk Street and Golden Gate Avenue in 1959 which served to connect US Route 101 to Van Ness Avenue.  The Central Freeway was damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and has since been truncated to Market Street.   The Central Freeway as pictured on the blog cover was featured in the May/June 1959 California Highways & Public Works.  The scan below is fro

Former US Route 101 and California State Route 41 through Paso Robles

Paso Robles is a city located on the Salinas River of San Luis Obispo County, California.  As originally configured the surface alignments of US Route 101 and California State Route 41 converged in downtown Paso Robles.  US Route 101 originally was aligned through Paso Robles via Spring Street.  California State Route 41 entered the City of Paso Robles via Union Road and 13th Street where it intersected US Route 101 at Spring Street.  US Route 101 and California State Route 41 departed Paso Robles southbound via a multiplex which split near Templeton.   Pictured above is the cover of the September/October 1957 California Highways & Public Works which features construction of the Paso Robles Bypass.  Pictured below is the 1935 Division of Highways Map of San Luis Obispo County which depicts US Route 101 and California State Route 41 intersecting in downtown Paso Robles.   Part 1; the history of US Route 101 and California State Route 41 in Paso Robles Paso Robles ("Pass of the