Talk:Interstate 84 (Oregon–Utah)

Changing the renumbering date

The date of 1980 for the changeover between I-80N and I-84 may be wrong. The Utah Department of transportation has a copy of a scanned memo from AASHTO. This memo lists July 7th 1977 as the date the change was approved. But also gave the states until July 1st 1980 as a deadline for the states (time given to co-ordinate the change). At a minimum this is a better source than what's used, so I'll change that, this may warrant some more discussion. Also interesting in the AASHTO memo, the change was initiated by Idaho, seconded by Utah, and opposed by Washington and Oregon. the scanned memo is here: http://www.dot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=200609181109591 Dave (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Federal regulations regarding the suffixes to interstate freeways

If this is a rule gone into place, then why does I-35 still retain its suffixes in cities such as Minneapolis/St Paul and Dallas/Ft Worth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.212.33 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not a mandate to remove suffixed interstates, it was a change in guidelines. To the best of my knowledge the I-35 split is the last remaining, and I doubt it will ever get removed. I'm sure if AASHTO tried to enforce the guideline on those two states, political infighting would take place over which city gets the "real I-35" and which city gets the "stub route". However, guidelines can be and often are ignored when it is not practical to follow them. Dave (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay... that makes more sense now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brackofthemountain (talk • contribs) 09:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Freeway vs. Highway

The Banfield in Portland is referred to by locals as "The Banfield", "The Banfield Freeway", or "The Banfield Expressway". The last term is the one most frequently used in older maps of the area, "Freeway" is the term most often used in traffic reports. "Banfield Highway" is not in common use, and should be changed to one of the other common terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.73 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Two I84's?

Why are there two I84's? How can there be two interstate highways that are completely seperate yet have the same name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.70.47 (talk • contribs)

They have never intersected and it was decided there was little chance for confusion between them, and they both had no other number that would work in the numbering plan...so AASHTO decided it would be okay. Same for I-82, I-88, and I-76. —Scott5114↗ 20:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

so we need to merge the articles of I-84 west and I-84 east. see, If you readDonghae Expressway, it is one article, not two articles, because of same numbers-Cheongryang —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

I'm not entirely opposed to a merge. However, this is not even close to the same situation. In the Donghae expressway, the two discontinuous pieces were and are intended to connect, there is just an unbuilt section between them. However, in the case of I-84 the two are literally separate highways that have nothing to do with each other (aside from sharing the same number). It's highly unlikely that the two sections of I-84 will ever connect. Last, the fact that they share the same number owes more to the lack of suitable numbers left in the system than any intent to connect them. With that said, I think we do have single articles for U.S. Highways that do not connect, so I could be persuaded to support a merge, but am currently opposed to it with the argument presented. Dave (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a merger. The only similar situation in the US Highway System is US 2. That has a single article, and that should be considered for a split for the same reasons as I-76, I-82, I-84 and I-88. Imzadi 1979 → 06:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your logic, however, would like to play Devil's advocate. One difference is that the western and eastern piece of US-2 were planned at the same time, with the gap known and understood from the first day. However in the case of I-84 the western piece was part of the 1956 first iteration of the Interstate Highway system (as I-80N) while the eastern piece was not created until many years later. Dave (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, and that's a point to consider should the US 2 article come up for such a discussion. It's very likely that at some point, the national-detail article will grow in length, and then be ripe for a east–west split. In the case there though, neither I-84 was planned together. The reason for the "gap" between them isn't a foreign country, but a different historical evolution. My opinion remains, these two articles don't have enough common ground to justify a merger. The same number isn't sufficient. After all, we don't merge all of the State Route 1 articles together because the number is the same. Imzadi 1979 → 07:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for playing devil's advocate where it makes sense, but it really doesn't here. The two I-84's are not related in any way other than roughly being on the same latitude thousands of miles apart, which is why they share a number. The same latitude means that they fall in the same place in the national numbering grid, and being thousands of miles apart means that the general public won't confuse the two, which is why the number is reused for I-84 and a few other numbers. What's next, merging all of the Interstate 290s together? Absolute oppose. – TMF 12:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to merging together the two I-84 articles (or I-76, I-86, I-88) as these two interstates are unrelated roads at other ends of the country that were simply assigned the same number when suffixed interstates such as I-80N were eliminated or when a new interstate was built and no other numbers in that part of the grid were available. Dough4872 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons outlined above. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)