The Only Interstate That Doesn't Follow Any Rules!
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 10. 2022
- Have you ever wondered why I-238 is labeled as such? It's Hella Stupid Dumby weird that there is an interstate in the Bay Area that is like no other in the nation. There's no I-38 so why is there an auxiliary interstate 238? I will answer this question and more in this video.
Music by: Prigida
Song: Moonshine
Let's not forget the I-80/I-580 reverse concurrency along the Bayshore Freeway just north of Oakland. When you travel out of the Bay Area on I-80 East, it's also technically part of I-580 West.
So, thanks to that weirdness, you're technically travelling east on one freeway and west on another freeway at the same time.
TOTALLY agree 💯%! When I first saw that as a kid, I got all excited about it and stuck out my arms, and said: "What am I gonna do? Go East and West at the same time and go nowhere?" LOL!
At the time I-238 was assigned, there was an I-480 (Embarcadero Freeway) and a proposed I-180. When I-480 was decommissioned after the 1989 Earthquake, AASHTO suggested to California to change the designation of I-238 to I-480. California refused, stating that the road was SR-238 and Interstate routes must match their corresponding state routes in California. Personally, the designation needs to be removed entirely and the route revert to a state route. But it won't, because California loves those Federal highway dollars.
Saying California loves its Federal funding is a little unfair. Not all Interstates are part of the original 42,000 mile system with the 90% funding. I-238 is funded through regular Federal Aid, just like other state and US highways. In effect, this is just branding.
California gives way more to the Federal Government than it gets, a redistribution of wealth, if you will. A lot of states that hate socialism are actually the beneficiaries of some of the wealth redistributed from California. I have no issues with this, as it makes the country stronger, but I feel it should be pointed out. Suggesting that California is getting fat off of Federal dollars is factually inaccurate.
@@caseycooper5615 In the case of I-238, they could easily had kept that a state highway. I don't think it's unfair at all since California insists that it can't change the route number to a x80 (as 180 and 480 are available) because it is part of California 238. But they won't change it to California 238 because it will lose federal highway dollars (which would have easily been corrected by changing the route number to an x80 variant). If their issue is that it would confuse drivers going from California 238 to I-x80, then multiplex the routes. Display California 238 along side whatever x80 variant you chose to use.
On the bright side, it could be worse. At least it's not I-180 in Wyoming. That road isn't even a divided highway and it gets an Interstate designation.
@Drive Tour (Robert T Kirton [KI5AOK]) Just to reiterate, signing a short section of freeway as I-238 instead of SR-238 does not mean it gets extra Federal funding. If an Interstate was not part of the original 42,000 mile network, it does not get the 90% funding, just Federal Aid, like other US and state highways. So, getting some extra Federal dollars was not the motive for signing Route 238 as an Interstate.
The other issues you bring up have been discussed for the past 25+ years. I will point out AASHTO at the time was keen on having the freeway portion of I-238 be an x80 Interstate and suggested a couple of costly options to make it work, including reassigning the number from SR-180, a route that had been in existence for over 50 years. At the time, SR-480 still existed and was not an option.
Whether having I-238 was the best solution is certainly up for debate. When given the context for its creation, I feel it's not unreasonable.
@@caseycooper5615 It does versus signing it a state highway. State highways are funded solely by the state it resides in. Only if it serves any of the x80 freeways it attaches to will it get federal funding, and that only happens if the road is improved on, not in maintenance, and only for a certain distance (but because I-238 is relatively short, it may get its entire length funded for improvements).
Well, it doesn't really matter at this point. AASHTO should have denied the request to begin with, but they approved it and nothing can be done about it. As I said before, at least it isn't I-180 in Wyoming.
@Drive Tour (Robert T Kirton [KI5AOK]) Negative. I-238 is a non-chargeable Interstate Highway as defined under 23 USC 103(c)(4)(A). It is outside the original 43,000 mile system that got the 90% Federal funding (charegeable Interstates). It is Federal Aid Primary, same as I-880 and other state routes under FAP. Additional examples of FAP routes include US 101, US 395, SR-99, etc. These routes get some degree of Federal funding, in addition to the state funding. Obviously, there are many state routes that get either less or no Federal funding.
In short, the fact I-238 is a Federal Aid Primary route dictates its funding source, not the fact it is a non-chargeable addition to the Interstate Highway System. Unlike other FAP routes, non-chargeable Interstates do need to meet the design criteria. I-238 woild have received the same funding, regardless of whether it carried an Interstate shield.
The Bay Area has to have some of the oddest interstate highways out of any major metro in the country. Seems like hardly any of them follow the rules.
First of all, the only 'main' Interstate in the Bay Area is Interstate 80. All other Interstate routes are three-digit routes related to I-80. "280", "680", and "880" are practically spurs of "80". Second, I-80 takes a big southward dip from Winnemucca, Nevada with I-80 being almost a diagonal route. San Francisco is surprisingly far south, at roughly the same latitude as Richmond, Virginia. Third, US 101 seems like a good approximate route for an Interstate 3 connecting some fairly large cities (including the gigantic San Jose) between SF and LA.
@@paulbrower For the proposed I-3, I also think some other routes in the area need some renumbering. I-280 should be renumbered I-603, SR 85 become I-403, and SR 87 become I-303.
From Wikipedia: "The I-238 number was specifically requested by the state of California so it could match the California Streets and Highways Code and because all three-digit combinations of I-80 (the primary two-digit Interstate in the Bay Area) were already being used in the state."
Yes that is correct! Thanks for watching and commenting
There was a 238 Bypass project that was supposed to connect 580 to 680 through Fremont and downtown Hayward. It was canceled because too many houses had already been built on the Hayward side.
Theres a weird stretch of road in Downtown Dallas called I-345 and it goes unsigned, I think its the weirdest thing to me as it only connects US-75 to I-45 in Downtown Dallas.
do you have access to "old" or original interstate mapping proposals? I know the interstate system we have now is a fraction of what was originally planned. I would be very interested to find the original proposal to see the differences. Thanks.
I know of a cool old map that Roosevelt himself hand wrote on showing where he wanted to see the main interstates go. It doesn't show much though in terms of all the original plans like you mentioned. I believe most of the scrapped interstate plans were ones that went through major cities. I'm going to look into this more though for sure. Thanks
Nice!
Thanks! I really appreciate it friend
Same goes to US-400 from Pueblo Colorado to Joplin Missouri which they have not have a parent of US-0, US-412 which run from Northeastern New Mexico to South of Nashville Tennessee, but the parent of US-12 which run from Aberdeen Washington to Downtown Detroit, near the Canadian border, and US-425 in Arkansas and Louisiana, while the parent of US-25 runs in the eastern states. Portions of US-412 from I-35 near Perry Oklahoma to I-49 in Springdale Arkansas is likely to be future I-48, and US-400 from Colorado to Missouri is likely to be future I-58, since Colorado uses US-50, Kansas uses US-50, US-54, and US-56, and Missouri uses US-50, US-54, US-56, US-60, and US-62, and it is a violation of the AASHTO rules to use the duplicate same road numbers within the state.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that at the moment they are calling the first part of the future limited access portion of 400 near Springdale, MO, future I-249. I've been curious about what it's going to be like when completed though. I know there has been talk of an I-66 extension from it's currently end point in northern VA at 81, to WVA and all the way thru southern KY and then into MO where it will probably tie into I-44 around Springfield. I bring that up because a while back I thought they may keep 66 going somehow through the NE Arkansas region and try to follow the old rte 66 path at some point further south west. But that's not going to be the case so I appreciate the info from you. There are a whole lot of options in that part of the country as far as numbering goes. They didn't use much between 30 and 64. Thanks again for the post.
Correction: I said 400 but I was referring to US 412 between Tulsa and Springdale.
I also have heard that future I-249 is just a spur to get to the airport in that region. But that doesn't make sense to me and it certainly doesn't follow the rules of interstate highway numbering.
@@cityskylines11 I lived in southern Illinois in the late 1980s and early 1990s and I remember a local TV newscaster saying something about plans to extend I-66 from VA through southern IL. This was 30+ years ago and they still haven't done anything!!
I'm seeing in the comments all the old canards from Usenet days back in the 90s. We had fantasy Interstates before we had fantasy football, the difference being that Interstates cost lots of money to build and extend. Never mind the country is not shaped like a square with evenly distributed populations, meaning that "violations" of the numbering convention are inevitable.
This was also never part of the original 42,000 mile system, so it is funded in the same way as other state highways and not the 90% Federal investment. It's basically a brand name and signed as such to look more consistent with I-580 and I-880. AASHTO, which approves numbering, did so reluctantly based on the reasons given in the video.
30+ years after its decommissioning, it would make sense to renumber its as I-480. However, given the expense, changes to maps, and confusion, it would hardly be worth it, except for a miniscule part of the population.
People complained about this 25 years ago, and they will 25 years from now. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
I agree that the Bay Area should have another mainline interstate and I will add that it should run through San Jose, which has more than a million people. US 101 from Los Angeles north to San Francisco should be Interstate 1. The highway is either interstate standard already or easily convertible. Furthermore, California Highway 156 can be upgraded to a freeway and together with part of what is now California Highway 1 can be used as a spur to Monterrey, maybe using the Interstate 301 number. California Highway 85 would be a natural bypass around downtown San Jose. How about Interstate 201 for this highway? California Highway 87 could be Interstate 601 and California Highway 237 could be signed as Interstate 401 with only the part between Interstate 880 and Interstate 680 to be upgraded. California Highway 25 from Gilroy to Hollister can be upgraded into Interstate 501 and California Highway 134 in the Los Angeles area can be numbered as Interstate 801. The Hollywood Freeway predates the Interstate Highway System and could be grandfathered in like many other highways have been.
California Highway 1 from Dana Point to San Francisco can swap places with US 101 with no problem.
That said, it would be great if the state drops it’s ridiculous hatred of co-signing highways together. This caused the state to eliminate most of its US Highway routes, with only US 95, US 97 and US 199 intact. The others that remain, US 6, 50, 101, and 395 are all truncated and most were eliminated, including US 66 and US 99.
Thank you! That's exactly what I have said for years. I actually lived in San Jo for a little while and it's a city with a population of 1million and that just the city limits. When you include Santa Clara, Mnt. View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Gatos and so on, you have a really large pocket of densely populated cities. There needs to be an interstate that runs through and maybe even concurrent with 101 for a period of time.
I like your idea of using 156 and 580 to 101 also.
@@cityskylines11
Retrospectively, the problem is that I-580 shouldn’t have been signed as an auxiliary but as a main route (originally proposed by the state as I-72 per Kurumi). Or as an auxiliary to I-5 which is really how it functions. Then 238 could have been an auxiliary of I-72 or I-5 as well.
They should resign I-238 to I-480 since the old I-480 in California doesn’t exist anymore.
There is a bit of an oddity in South Carolina. If I understand the rules a 3-digit spur starts with an odd number followed by the main interstate number it spurs off of. They did not do this in Greenville SC with 385. That highway is NOT an I-85 spur, it is an I-26 spur to Greenville. In fact other than crossing I 85, I 385 has nothing to do with I 85.
You are correct, it does seem more like a spur off of I-26 than it does I-85. I'm not sure but I believe it may have something to do with the Greenville portion being built first. I know that I-185 was built as a spur well before it was extended and made to meet 385 as a toll road. I will have to take a look at this one and refresh my memory. Thanks so much for the comment friend.
@@cityskylines11 I 185 is named correctly. I 385 is not. This is coming from the same DOT that spent 10s of millions paving many miles of I 85 in Anderson County and then about 18 months later tore it all up to add another lane. To this day I think somebody should be in prison for that!
I can agree with you on that for sure!
Caltrans has done a lot of silly things; this is just one of them. I was looking at Sacramento, where an original I-180 might have gone, and it looks like it might have been. I-80 was originally to go right through downtown, but was later rerouted around to the north. Instead of I-80, it became BR-80, with a train wreck interchange with CA 99 and US 50. CA 238 (Foothill Blvd.) just goes straight north into the 580 interchange. Obviously, Caltrans had to get a waiver from the feds to get this done, with the odds of an I-38 coming through the mountains into the Bay Area being very long.
Originally, I-80 followed the current business route path. In the late 60s I-880 was built as a bypass to the north of Sacramento. Circa 1980 they were renamed with I-880 becoming I-80 and I-80 becoming business route 80. Which led to the weirdness of taking a two lane off ramp from a four lane highway to stay on the main road in West Sacramento or in Sacramento to stay on BR 80. If you stay on the widest freeway as you head East into Sacramento and through Sacramento you end up on US 50. At some point in the 80s the I-880 designation was reused in Oakland though the freeway so named had been there since the 60s. I don’t remember what it was originally called. After much of 880 collapsed in the 1989 earthquake, most of it was torn down and it was rebuilt in industrial areas closer to the bay and its former path through low income black neighborhoods was turned into a boulevard with a wide grassy median.
number shortage? they could have an Interstate 1 for Los Angeles; and an Interstate 3 for the San Fran area an interstate 7 for the Inland Empire.
It should have just remained CA-238, but received federal funding. Interestingly enough, there is (or was, when I lived there) an erroneous I-238 shield in Fremont, CA. It should be a CA-238 shield and it's nowhere near I-238
That's interesting. Never heard that. Going to have to check that out thanks.
There used to be an Interstate 480 named the Embarcadero Freeway but it was destroyed in an earthquake and demolished.
I take back my previous comment. There was an I-480 shield. I had only seen the CA-480 ones.
@@passatboi 👍
As well as more interstate highways, I’d like to see some restoration of US Highway routes in California. US 6 should replace California Highway 14 and then use one of the major thoroughfares and reach a relocated US 101. US 97 should be extended to the Bay Area as should US 50. US 395 should connect to US 95 and US 101 should reach the US/Mexico border again. And the US highways don’t have to meet interstate standard and don’t even have to be freeways or expressways.
It is all about the money. You rebuild a state highway to interstate standards so you can put it in the Interstate system and get federal funds for construction and maintenance. Just all about the money.
Interstate 99 was named so only because the congressman who got it funded wanted to name it after a streetcar he used to ride in some sort of twisted irony.
Solution for the oddity: Strike the "zero" in I-580 east of Oakland and turn I-238 into I-258. I-58 would fit the Interstate grid well when I-40 well supplants most of CA-58 through Bakersfield, Mojave, and Barstow. "580" remains for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
I like that idea. Thanks
Why not use 1080 or 1180?
As far as I know the US interstate highway system only goes up to 3 digits. If they raised it then we would have a lot more options. Not a bad idea to be honest. Thanks
So really the whole point of I-238 is that it goes from Route 238. Albany/Troy, NY has an I-787 which drops to Route 787 before ending. So not *that* unusual. Perhaps California thought it'd be confusing starting with Route 238 leading to I-580 especially for such a short distance.
The unusual part is that it doesn't follow any of the rules of a US interstate. In order for there to be a 3 digit number interstate, there must be a 2 digit parent interstate. Since there is no such thing as I38 it makes no sense to have a I 238. Also, the beginning part of 238 is a state rd and the interstate system part is not the same.(one has stop lights and intersections and the other doesn't ) 787 in Albany/troy is a spur interstate off of I87 so it makes perfect sense. I am being brief in this explanation but I hope it helped explain the uniqueness of I 238 to you.
Also being that the only parent interstate in the entire bay area is I-80, the only options are some 3 digit form of 80. This is just how the US interstate system is set up.
Here’s how to make I-238 an actual spur without any numbering oddities: (This is just a joke don’t get mad at me)
So I-38 would begin at the junction with I-280, 680 and 880 and continue until I-5 near Los Banos, at this point it would turn southeast until Fresno and after that follow CA-99 until Bakersfield, Here, it would continue through through the Tehachapi mountains and through The Mojave Desert, eventually reaching Lancaster and Victorville. You can either end I-38 here or have it go all the way across the Colorado until Blythe, where it would end at I-10. You just have to extend I-238 East to CA-99 in Modesto, and then southeast along CA-99 to Fresno.
Nice idea!
I-1080 😂
It doesn't follow any rules because it's in California!
This video needs a narrator. Why don’t you have a narrator for this? Why is there music instead?
At the time I didn't have a real mic so I did what I could. Since then I bought one so I've been thinking about going back and narrating it so I can upload it again.
@@cityskylines11 Yes please. It’s an interesting subject
@@goodtutt4733 thanks for the input and for watching.
Please use your voice
I just bought a mic so I will be starting very soon! Thanks
@@cityskylines11 ok thank you
There should be another mainline interstate through the SF Bay Area, I nominate Interstate Route 3 to run initially from Santa Cruz along Route 17 / I-880 to the Richmond San Rafael Bridge. Then I-238 becomes I-403 and I-980 / Route 24 can become I-603. The existing Route 3 gets redesignated as Route 17.
By flashing maps and text make your story hard to follow! It sucks!
Well I'm sorry that it's like that for you. I'm not anything close to a professional so I'm just figuring this out as I go. Hope you check back in the future and maybe I'll be a little better by then. Have a good one and be safe out there.
Another lazy millennial CZcamsr who decided to just play music with captions instead of commutation the video.. in case you're wondering, yes I can read but I oftentimes just listen to the videos because I'm often times can't watch them .
I'm definitely not a millennial but thanks for the input and for watching.
Also this is all new for me. Last year was the first time I ever made a video and I'm sure it's not hard to tell. I just got a mic for this reason and I am working on using it for my up coming vids. I've tried recording before but it sounded awful so I chose to wait until I got the right equipment. Thanks again and stay safe out there bud.
You just listening to videos is a disservice to the content provider. Do you think it's cheap to put together the content? City Skylines put a lot of time and effort to create the video, the least you could do is respect their work and watch the video.
@@cityskylines11 I started mine last year as well. I got one person requesting me to narrate. I tried it for two videos. For now, narration is out of the question for me (my voice doesn't sound good at all). You have to run the channel the way you want to, otherwise you'll have a segment of your audience trying to dictate to you the content and style of your videos.
@@ki5aok thanks friend, I appreciate that a lot
you could also just sign it as a non-contiguous section of I-380 since that's nearly directly on the other side of the bay, and both that freeway and 238 are so short.
That a interesting idea. I've often wondered why they didn't just have it signed as a spur or something similar to what I-270 is like in the Washington DC area. When it gets almost to the beltway it splits and one stays as 270 and the other becomes spur 270. For such a short road it just seems like it would be easy to do something similar to that. Thanks for the comment.
@@cityskylines11 there has been talks of building a new bridge in the bay area for a very long time and this proposed "Southern Crossing" at the time was to be built connecting I-380 and I-238 together at opposite ends but that has never come to fruition because now it's ridiculously expensive, too much enviromental concerns and no one will support that idea.