If you could go back in time once and influence a single decision...

[PHLBOS]

2)  Follow through with original I-95 plan in NJ to avoid decades of the stupid gap.

Agree with you 100%; however (and one good turn deserves another) the people of Hopewell, Montgomery & Princeton Townships would've assassinated you. 

[jeffandnicole]

If NJ simply signed 95 down the Turnpike, or if a direct connection between the PA Turnpike and 95 was built decades ago, this gap would rarely be talked about today.

Cases in point:  We bring up the 95 gap in DC, and the 95 gap in Boston, way, way less than we do the 95 gap in NJ.

[Rothman]

2)  Follow through with original I-95 plan in NJ to avoid decades of the stupid gap.

Agree with you 100%; however (and one good turn deserves another) the people of Hopewell, Montgomery & Princeton Townships would've assassinated you. 

I'd take the bullet and die a martyr.

[EdM]

Have Kappa Map Group adopt ADC's old graphics group-wide. Their present graphics are diuretic shit! 

Having two ST 97s in Pennsylvania, and a ST 97 and an I-97 in Maryland.  Now where else do you have two adjacent states that duplicate the SAME route number? 

[PHLBOS]

Cases in point:  We bring up the 95 gap in DC, and the 95 gap in Boston, way, way less than we do the 95 gap in NJ.

That's largely because three out of the four the I-95-Proper connections to the De-Facto-I-95s (Canton, MA; College Park, MD & Springfield, VA) already existed and the remaining connection (I-95/MA 128 in Peabody, MA) has long since been built (28-29 years ago).

To date & as we all know, the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange is only now being constructed; some 35 years after the Somerset Freeway was canned.

[Quillz]

I'd go back to the 1964 renumbering in California and find a way to make sure that US 99, US 299, and even US 60 had a future after the construction of the Interstates.  Really California giving to the boot to most of the US Routes had a huge negative effect on the west coast in it being a supplemental grid to the Interstate system.  While I'm at it all the gapped routes that really would have no chance of ever being connected would receive different route designations.

I agree with this. One thing that California hasn't been able to do since the '64 renumbering is use US Highways the way many other states do, in that they represent the best crossing of any given area. i.e. US-299 was a great example... It is easily the best crossing of the Coast Ranges, much better than CA-36, CA-20, etc. Driving on CA-299 one would know this, but looking at a map, there's no indication at all about road quality. I feel that had it remained as US-299, motorists might equate it to being on par with, say, US-101, that it's a good crossing and probably the best one to take.

I don't know if I would have completely undone the '64 renumbering, but I think it went too far in the other direction for the sake of simplification.

[Brandon]

One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'd go back to the 1964 renumbering in California and find a way to make sure that US 99, US 299, and even US 60 had a future after the construction of the Interstates.  Really California giving to the boot to most of the US Routes had a huge negative effect on the west coast in it being a supplemental grid to the Interstate system.  While I'm at it all the gapped routes that really would have no chance of ever being connected would receive different route designations.

I agree with this. One thing that California hasn't been able to do since the '64 renumbering is use US Highways the way many other states do, in that they represent the best crossing of any given area. i.e. US-299 was a great example... It is easily the best crossing of the Coast Ranges, much better than CA-36, CA-20, etc. Driving on CA-299 one would know this, but looking at a map, there's no indication at all about road quality. I feel that had it remained as US-299, motorists might equate it to being on par with, say, US-101, that it's a good crossing and probably the best one to take.

I don't know if I would have completely undone the '64 renumbering, but I think it went too far in the other direction for the sake of simplification.

Really I don't think California was alone at the time in thinking that with the Interstates getting close to being finished that US Routes would have much of a demand that still do today.  In regards to getting rid of the LRNs, that was a good decision as well as simplifying some of the highway alignments.  There was a couple wing and prayer routes like 168 that really stood no chance of ever being joined which could have received different designations.  Really if there was an opportunity for California renumber in a more grid-like design as Florida did in 1945 and Nevada did in 1976 it was during the 1964 renumbering.  Aside from that though there was some strange changes like 178 west of Bakersfield being changed for 58.

[RobbieL2415]

I would go back and say that I-91 should be routed east of the Connecticut River and away from downtown Hartford.  I've seen photos of its construction along the riverbank and it displaced thousands of people's homes and IMO contributed to the city's cultural decline through the end of the 20th Century.

[Bickendan]

Use Robert Moses' original routing for I-5 through Portland, which was several blocks inland, and was designed as either a sunken freeway, or as a cut and cover.

Could still happen. If the Portland City Council gets the itch to remove the Eastshore Freeway again, the study Vera Katz's administration put together said the Stadium/Eastshore Loops was too important to outright remove and recommended a tunnel under the river and SE 7th Ave...

My submission: Disallow Rand McNally from buying Thomas Bros.

[Buffaboy]

Connect NY-33 with I-190.

A secondary project would be the completion of NY-179 to the Lasalle Expressway.

[billpa]

One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.

I agree.  Long trips on motorways where that is common are very convenient. It's not like you can't exit at a town along the way if you want something else to eat.

HTC6525LVW

[CNGL-Leudimin]

One for Spain: I'd go back to the 80s, fight those who wanted untolled freeways, and proceed ahead with the previous (although from the dictatorship...) plan of tolled motorways. That way we wouldn't have the mess we have currently. However some regional corridors would remain toll free.

I'd go back to the 1964 renumbering in California and find a way to make sure that US 99, US 299, and even US 60 had a future after the construction of the Interstates.  Really California giving to the boot to most of the US Routes had a huge negative effect on the west coast in it being a supplemental grid to the Interstate system.  While I'm at it all the gapped routes that really would have no chance of ever being connected would receive different route designations.

I concur with this. I add US 6 could be still running to I-5, even if it requires a concurrency with US 395. Also, I'd renumber CA 180 to something else so I-180 could be designated and avoid the I-238 thing.

[Rothman]

One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.

I agree.  Long trips on motorways where that is common are very convenient. It's not like you can't exit at a town along the way if you want something else to eat.

HTC6525LVW

It is a dicey issue.  You can see commercial rest areas as federal-tax subsidized -- the taxes set up everything for the business.  That strikes me as unfair, despite the fact I like the convenience as well. 

Not sure what is fair, though.  I guess I will sit on the fence.

[billpa]

One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.

I agree.  Long trips on motorways where that is common are very convenient. It's not like you can't exit at a town along the way if you want something else to eat.

HTC6525LVW

It is a dicey issue.  You can see commercial rest areas as federal-tax subsidized -- the taxes set up everything for the business.  That strikes me as unfair, despite the fact I like the convenience as well. 

Not sure what is fair, though.  I guess I will sit on the fence.

To me it would be no different than allowing stores or restaurants in airport terminals or train stations.

HTC6525LVW

[cpzilliacus]

To date & as we all know, the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange is only now being constructed; some 35 years after the Somerset Freeway was canned.

At least they are going to finish the interchange at Bristol enough to complete I-95 (presuming  that the bridge over the Delaware River between New Jersey and Pennsylvania is repaired enough to re-open it to traffic later this year).

[MikeTheActuary]

One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.

I agree.  Long trips on motorways where that is common are very convenient. It's not like you can't exit at a town along the way if you want something else to eat.

HTC6525LVW

It is a dicey issue.  You can see commercial rest areas as federal-tax subsidized -- the taxes set up everything for the business.  That strikes me as unfair, despite the fact I like the convenience as well. 

Not sure what is fair, though.  I guess I will sit on the fence.

You could go a step further and change the decision that the interstate system would be free.  If planners of the day hadn't been so toll-phobic, we wouldn't have the old rules against interstate vs toll road interchanges, there would be a revenue source to maintain the highway system, and service plazas start to be easier to justify if lease revenues go towards highway maintenance.

I'm not a fan of tolls, but as long as they don't get too carried away, they're better than crumbling bridges and higher gas taxes.

[Captain Jack]

Complete the Bluegrass Parkway between US 60 and the interstate system.

That one has always been a real headscratcher..still is to this day.

Kentucky did the same thing with the Pennyrile, left a few key miles off at both ends. It took 40 years to get the 8 mile link on the south end to I-24, and the northern end is still about 4 miles too short. If those 4 miles had been built in '69, we wouldn't be having all of the dilemma on how to get 69 over the river.

It has never made any sense that KY would build miles and miles of a new highway, and cut them off just short of greatly increasing their productivity.

[brad2971]

I have a fairly recent one for South Dakota: Reroute the Heartland Expressway so that it goes through Hot Springs and Edgemont, and into Wyoming. Wyoming was, and still is today, much more willing to four-lane US 85 than Nebraska is willing to four-lane most of the rest of US 385.

[briantroutman]

Not sure if this counts as a "single decision" , but I'd go back to 1939 and make the Pennsylvania Turnpike's design specs more modern, setting a wider minimum median width, wider minimum ROW width, and higher-speed interchange geometry.

Since the Turnpike served as the archetype for Pennsylvania's limited access highways built in the ensuing two decades, it's possible that a broader and more modern Turnpike would have saved the older portions of I-70, I-83, the Schuylkill, etc. from being so unfortunately under built.

At the very least, had the ROWs and medians been wider, we'd have more space for modernization and capacity expansion.

[jakeroot]

Not sure if this counts as a "single decision" , but I'd go back to 1939 and make the Pennsylvania Turnpike's design specs more modern, setting a wider minimum median width, wider minimum ROW width, and higher-speed interchange geometry.

I'm not totally sold on any of these things being necessary for a road to be considered "modern". Narrow medians are ubiquitous throughout the rest of the world, and there doesn't seem to be a correlation between narrow medians and crash frequency. ROW width isn't really related to the design of the road (well-designed roads can have narrow ROWs); a broad ROW can allow for widening, but the freeway as-built can still be modern, regardless of ROW width. As for higher-speed interchanges, I can appreciate an interchange which allows high speeds, but the design of a junction is based on the needs of that particular junction. In the case of the Turnpike, most of the junctions needed to be trumpets because those are better at handling toll booths.

At any rate, Germany uses loop ramps at most interchanges, yet over 50% of their motorway network has no speed limit. My point being that modern ≠ long swooping interchange ramps. Though with that in mind, a well-designed freeway should not have sharp corners along the mainline. Germany takes the cake by having very wide turns. They also use a very thick layer of asphalt, which keeps the road in better shape.

I think the Turnpike, along with many other Northeastern freeways, suffers from corners that are too sharp, ascents and descents that are too sudden, pavement that is of poor quality, amongst other things. If they worked on those things, these roads could easily have 85 or 90 mph speed limits.

[billpa]

I would certainly take Germany's road thickness over wider ROWs if I had to choose just one.

HTC6525LVW

[vtk]

I would go back and have the Findlay, Ohio to Columbus corridor included in the original interstate system (with it lining up with and taking over what is now OH 315 between I-270 and I-70)

That might be stretching the premise too much, considering that corridor apparently wasn't even in the 78k system. But I would certainly lobby for access control and preservation of the future option of freeway conversion along US 23 between Worthington and Waldo. It would probably have been fully converted to freeway by 1999 if such steps had been taken.

[mgk920]

Two for Wisconsin:

- Route what is now I-41 to go via the present-day US 45 West Bend Spur and along the now-abandoned CNW railroad from West Bend to the south side of the present-day I-41 Fond du Lac bypass.  The present-day I-41 routing was first blazed as a high-grade two-lane highway in the late 1940s.  IMHO, the current split in the routes is wastefully duplicative.

- Build the Park and Stadium freeways as planned out to the end of the present-day WI 145 freeway at 67th/Fond du Lac in Milwaukee.

Mike

[Buffaboy]

I would certainly take Germany's road thickness over wider ROWs if I had to choose just one.

HTC6525LVW

There's nothing worse than pavement noise and road defects that makes driving less comfortable.