Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're thinking of U.S. 50 (CA to MD), not Interstate 50. I believe the poster is talking about a hypothetical interstate that would run diagonally across the country, in a west-southwest to east-northeast orientation, between New York and Los Angeles. In other words, one single highway that would cross the country and connect our two biggest cities.
If such a road ever were to be built, any number that one could give it would violate the numbering convention that has east-west interstates go from lower numbers to higher numbers as you go from south to north. But this hypothetical road would cross or intersect with I-10, I-40, I-70, and I-80, among others. Since no number would work, we might as well call it I-50, since that number will otherwise never be used for an interstate, due to the risk of overlapping with U.S. 50.
IOW, an Interstate analogue for US 6, which once ran diagonally from Provincetown, Mass., to Long Beach, Calif. Its eastern end is still Provincetown, but it now ends on the west in Bishop, Calif.
This hypothetical I-50 would indeed cross US 50, probably somewhere in western Kansas. Or it could become the upgraded version of the Chicago-Kansas City Expressway (IL/MO 110), dividing the trapezoid formed by Interstates 35, 55, 70 and 80 down its middle*, then follow either the Kansas Turnpike (giving the segment now numbered as I-335 from Topeka to Emporia its own 2-digit route number) or I-35 to Emporia, then multiplex with US 50 west from there to, say, Garden City before dropping southwest.
Of course, a routing employing CKC would mean Interstate 50 would also follow Interstate 80 into NYC. It would also make the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike west of Toledo a three-route Interstate (50/80/90).
The problem with just about any routing of a hypothetical I-50 east of Chicago/St. Louis is that there's no corridor it could serve that isn't already adequately served by an existing or nearby Interstate. That only becomes a possibility west of Chicago, using the routing I suggest here, or west of the Mississippi, using a route that might otherwise be a westward extension of I-72 across Missouri to St. Joseph, then meandering southwestward across Kansas.
Like US 6, this I-50 would ba a highway that really serves no major travel corridor not already served by existing Interstates (US highways in Route 6's case).
*Apparently, in the early stages of planning, there was to have been an Interstate running directly between Chicago and Kansas City, bypassing Des Moines and St. Louis. But that road was dropped from the system adopted in 1956. Given that one of the major transcontinental railroad routes, that of the Santa Fe (now BNSF), does this, it might have made sense to include it.
Pacific Coast highway 1 won’t be renumbered. Highway 101 could be renumbered interstate 3 between SF and LA. Interstate 3 would end/begin at the current US 101/I-80 interchange. 101 would remain north of the junction. We will never see a interstate north of San Francisco along the coast. Not enough commerce to justify a four lane interstate.
Have you ever driven Highway 101 north of San Francisco? I think you are confusing Highway 101 and Highway 1. US-101 carries more traffic north of San Francisco, then it does south of San Jose. Highway 101 north of San Francisco is a six to eight lane wide freeway for the first 50 miles, then a four lane freeway for the next 50 miles. Then it turns into a patchwork of freeway and two lane highway. Almost half of US-101 between San Francisco and Oregon, is already built to Interstate standards, and the other half is badly in need of upgrading. It wouldn't make any sense not to include it in a proposed I-3.
Last edited by Cloudy Dayz; 09-25-2020 at 06:05 AM..
The problem with just about any routing of a hypothetical I-50 east of Chicago/St. Louis is that there's no corridor it could serve that isn't already adequately served by an existing or nearby Interstate. That only becomes a possibility west of Chicago, using the routing I suggest here, or west of the Mississippi, using a route that might otherwise be a westward extension of I-72 across Missouri to St. Joseph, then meandering southwestward across Kansas.
Actually, there is -- and it is already numbered 50. Specifically, U.S. 50. Try this on for size:
Our new Interstate 50 would start in New York on the existing I-78 (whose number would be dropped) and follow it all the way to where it ends at I-81 east of Harrisburg, PA. I-50 would then multiplex with I-81 as far as Chambersburg, PA. From there, it would follow a new highway running to the southwest, crossing I-68 near Hancock, MD and joining U.S. 50 around where it intersects with U.S. 220 at New Creek, WV.
From there, U.S. 50 would be upgraded to an interstate highway, and the new road -- a multiplex of I-50 and U.S. 50 -- would head west, intersecting I-79 in Clarksburg, WV, I-77 at Parkersburg, WV, I-75 in Cincinnati, I-65 in Seymore, IN, I-69 in Washington, IN, I-57 in Salem, IL, and I-55 in St. Louis. This entire corridor, from Chambersburg to St. Louis via the cities named (including the major city of Cincinnati), is unserved by an east-west interstate highway. I-50 would plug the gap quite nicely.
If it's going to throw off the numbering convention then I'll stick with I-1. Has a nice ring to it.
This is what South Korea did. Their expressway system follows the same numbering convention as ours: north-south highways have odd numbers that get bigger as you go from west to east, and east-west highways have even numbers that get bigger as you go from south to north. But their longest and most important expressway, the one that connects four of the country's five largest cities in a north-northwest to south-southeast direction, is known as Highway 1.
This is what South Korea did. Their expressway system follows the same numbering convention as ours: north-south highways have odd numbers that get bigger as you go from west to east, and east-west highways have even numbers that get bigger as you go from south to north. But their longest and most important expressway, the one that connects four of the country's five largest cities in a north-northwest to south-southeast direction, is known as Highway 1.
Have you ever driven Highway 101 north of San Francisco? I think you are confusing Highway 101 and Highway 1. US-101 carries more traffic north of San Francisco, then it does south of San Jose. Highway 101 north of San Francisco is a six to eight lane wide freeway for the first 50 miles, then a four lane freeway for the next 50 miles. Then it turns into a patchwork of freeway and two lane highway. Almost half of US-101 between San Francisco and Oregon, is already built to Interstate standards, and the other half is badly in need of upgrading. It wouldn't make any sense not to include it in a proposed I-3.
101 are surface streets in San Francisco. You cannot have a through interstate from Los Angeles through San Francisco to points north. Once you reach Steele Lane in Santa Rosa the traffic greatly drops off.
I could say the same for US 287 in Texas. Multi laned corridor with a ton of trucks. There are far more priorities than trying to make 101 a interstate north of San Francisco. 101 was a two lane highway just north of Cloverdale up until recently. Not needed.
101 are surface streets in San Francisco. You cannot have a through interstate from Los Angeles through San Francisco to points north. Once you reach Steele Lane in Santa Rosa the traffic greatly drops off.
So that is your reason we can not have an Interstate north of San Francisco, because there is not enough traffic north of Santa Rosa? I believe US-101 and US-199 carry more traffic at the California Oregon border then any of the Interstates across the Midwest, except maybe I-80. US-101 and US-199 are projected to have major traffic congestion by 2040. They will need to be upgraded to freeways whether they become an Interstate or not.
I will say it again, I think you are confusing US-101 with CA SR-1. You don't seem to have any idea about the traffic situation north of San Francisco.
Where are these large cities that 101 would serve or eventually terminate at? Eureka has a population of 26,000. The next largest city between Eureka and Port Angeles is Coos Bay with a population of 16,000. Most other cities are considerably under that. The volume of commerce that transverse 101 is minuscule compared to most interstates in the US.
CA 99 in California goes through Fresno a city of 500,000 and has FAR more traffic and commerce than 101 and it’s not a interstate. Neither is CA 58 east of Bakersfield.
I have driven 101 many times up north. Went to Tillamook in 2016. There is no need for a interstate shield north of San Francisco. 101 south of San Francisco is more justified for a interstate than points north. Traffic volume alone doesn’t condone the need for a interstate.
How do you figure? It ends on the east coast in OC, MD and on the West Coast in Northern Cali. I would think I 80 would make sense since it already ends at the foot of NYC on the eastern end so only the western end in Northern Cali would have to be amended.
Interstate 50 would be a different from US Route 50, which is not an interstate.
Actually, there is -- and it is already numbered 50. Specifically, U.S. 50. Try this on for size:
Our new Interstate 50 would start in New York on the existing I-78 (whose number would be dropped) and follow it all the way to where it ends at I-81 east of Harrisburg, PA. I-50 would then multiplex with I-81 as far as Chambersburg, PA. From there, it would follow a new highway running to the southwest, crossing I-68 near Hancock, MD and joining U.S. 50 around where it intersects with U.S. 220 at New Creek, WV.
From there, U.S. 50 would be upgraded to an interstate highway, and the new road -- a multiplex of I-50 and U.S. 50 -- would head west, intersecting I-79 in Clarksburg, WV, I-77 at Parkersburg, WV, I-75 in Cincinnati, I-65 in Seymore, IN, I-69 in Washington, IN, I-57 in Salem, IL, and I-55 in St. Louis. This entire corridor, from Chambersburg to St. Louis via the cities named (including the major city of Cincinnati), is unserved by an east-west interstate highway. I-50 would plug the gap quite nicely.
And from there west?
US 50, US 40 and I-70 all run between St. Louis and Kansas City - the latter two, which run parallel or often multiplexed with each other from Wheeling, W. Va., west to Denver, via Columbia and the state university's flagship campus; US 50 via Jefferson City and the state capital, coming close to hitting Bagnell Dam, the start of the Lake of the Ozarks.
I-44 heads southwest from St. Louis into the Ozarks.That suggests that I-50 and US 50 continue to run in tandem across Missouri via US 50's route, giving Jeff City, which is big enough now, its own Interstate. Then, I guess, they'd follow the route I outlined above west/southwest from Kansas City, with US 50 following I-35 as it does now and I-50 following the Kansas Turnpike to Emporia.
From there, it should head across southern Kansas, perhaps even going to Wichita and paralleling US 60, then head southwest. Again, at this point, there's really no corridor in the Mountain West that isn't adequately served by an existing Interstate — unless we're talking about the corridor US 50 runs through, including the "loneliest highway in America," the 225-mile stretch with no services across northern Nevada. And that corridor doesn't need an Interstate, and besides, it's too far north to suit our NY-to-LA goal.
It seems to me that our efforts to build an Interstate that would run much as US 6 does are really somewhat redundant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
