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.

Popular posts from this blog

Former California State Route 1 over Old Pedro Mountain Road

California State Route 1 in western San Mateo County traverses the Montara Mountain spur of the Santa Cruz Mountains.  In modern times California State Route 1 passes through Montara Mountain via the Tom Lantos Tunnels and the highway is traditionally associated with Devils Slide.  Although Devils Slide carries an infamous legacy due it being prone landslides it pales in comparison to the alignment California State Route 1 carried prior to November 1937 over Old Pedro Mountain Road.   Old Pedro Mountain Road opened to traffic in 1915 and is considered one of the first major asphalted highways in California.  Old Pedro Mountain Road clambers over a grade from Montara towards Pacifica via the 922 foot high Saddle Pass.  Pictured above an overlook of Old Pedro Mountain Road facing southward towards Montara as it appears today.  Pictured below it the same view during June 1937 when it was part of the original alignment of California State Route 1.  Today Old Pedro Mountain sits abandoned a

Former US Route 101 and California State Route 1 in San Luis Obispo

Originally US Route 101 upon descending Cuesta Pass southbound entered the City of San Luis Obispo via Monterey Street.  From Monterey Street US Route 101 utilized Santa Rosa Street and Higuera Street southbound through downtown San Luis Obispo.  Upon departing downtown San Luis Obispo US Route 101 would have stayed on Higuera Street southward towards Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande.  Notably; beginning in 1934 US Route 101 picked up California State Route 1 at the intersection of Monterey Street/Santa Rosa Street where the two would multiplex to Pismo Beach.  Pictured below is the 1 935 Division of Highways Map of San Luis Obispo County depicting the original alignments of US Route 101 and California State Route 1 in the City of San Luis Obispo.   Part 1; the history of US Route 1 and California State Route 1 in San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo lies at the bottom of the Cuesta Pass (also known as the Cuesta Grade) which has made it favored corridor of travel for centuries.  Cuesta Pass

California State Route 232

This past month I drove the entirety of California State Route 232 in Ventura County. CA 232 is an approximately 4 miles State Highway aligned on Vineland Avenye which begins near Saticoy at CA 118 and traverses southwest to US Route 101 in Oxnard.  The alignment of CA 232 was first adopted into the State Highway System in 1933 as Legislative Route Number 154 according to CAhighways.org. CAhighways.org on LRN 154 As originally defined LRN 154 was aligned from LRN 9 (future CA 118) southwest to LRN 2/US 101 in El Rio.  This configuration of LRN 154 between CA 118/LRN 9 and US 101/LRN 2 can be seen on the 1935 California Division of Highways Map of Ventura County. 1935 Ventura County Highway Map According to CAhighways.org the route of LRN 154 was extended west from US 101/LRN 2 to US 101A/LRN 60 in 1951.  Unfortunately State Highway Maps do not show this extension due to it being extremely small. During the 1964 State Highway Renumbering LRN 154 was assigned CA 232.  Of n