Loosening Interstate standards to designate more as one

[Revive 755]

^ We are going to have to wait and see then how this plays out then with the proposed I-490 around O'Hare.

[Rothman]

Edit:  Having looked into some of FHWA's bumf on MAP-21, I see that the phaseout of IM (as well as the overall consolidation of funding programs) passed me by, though I still occasionally see construction contracts advertised with federal-aid project designations that indicate IM funding.  I suspect funding for these projects was obligated before MAP-21 (signed in 2012) went into effect.

What is far more likely is that a state has unused old IM obligation authority to still use up.  I forget when the funds actually lapse, but I'm pretty sure that they have more time than all the fund sources that were folded into TAP (Safe routes to school, rec trails, etc.).   I doubt it's about the timing of the authorization; at least with FHWA's NY Division, anything three years beyond their most recent environmental designation (even if classified as a categorical exclusion) at least raises an eyebrow.

In regard to the issue of HBRR being folded into NHPP to the detriment of federal-aid facilities not on the NHS, it looks like there is some funding cover through STP, of course subject to the constraints on federal aid allocated to a state in total and by program category.  It has long been recognized that less-important rural roads show all the symptoms of investment starvation, such as low facility sufficiency ratings and high accident and fatality rates--I dimly remember reading a FHWA position paper years ago that sets out the case for spending more on them.  But with no change in the marginal fuel tax rates for 21 years, it becomes harder to justify not pulling the funding "dragnet" tighter around the fraction of the public road system in which the federal interest is strongest.

Some cover, but definitely not enough.  MAP-21 did set up STP-Off System Bridge funding (a relative pittance, but not like the joke that HSIP has become), but state DOTs are resorting to end-of-federal-fiscal-year fund transfers between NHP and STP based upon the argument I outlined previously -- and FHWA is approving them, essentially admitting the problem MAP-21 caused. 

Not sure how much longer FHWA will approve them, though.  At some point, they've got to stick to their guns and force funding authorizations on the NHS rather than on non-NHS facilities.

[US 41]

"Not everything needs to be an Interstate" - Almost nothing on this site irks me more than this argument being overdone to the extent of stopping the progress of the system. I'm not in favor of every freeway in the country becoming an Interstate by any means, but diminishing the worth of certain corridors just because of this argument is plain unfair. For example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't need to be an Interstate or have a number at all, but it would benefit the system and drivers if it were.

Well it doesn't take a genius to look at a map or type directions into a GPS. As long as the speed limit is 65 or 70 and doesn't have stop lights everywhere who cares if it is signed as an interstate or not. I sure don't care and most people don't care either.

As far as toll roads are concerned they are toll roads for a reason. They don't need an interstate symbol for someone to figure that out.

[hbelkins]

I'm not familiar with Kentucky ... do you mind very briefly listing the changes being made to the parkways to meet Interstate standards? I assume basic modifications such as shoulder and lane width changes, but are there others?

I'm betting median width.

Median width (mitigatable with guardrail), but also interchange ramp geometry and ramp tapers.

Regarding the variance/disparity in design standards, keep in mind that the Interstate system is almost 60 years old and standards change over time.  For example, shoulders on bridges weren't mandated in all cases until the late 1960s.  And most state DOTs have been slow in upgrading facilities after standards change (hence why we STILL have many bridges that lack shoulders).  It's been noted time and again that most state DOTS (and ESPECIALLY the politicians that fund them) would rather build new roads than upgrade what they already have.

As for those who think standards could/should be relaxed, that may be possible for some aspects.  But safety features (which IMO include shoulders) should NOT be compromised on.

The big projects on the Western Kentucky Parkway were lowering the road surface under two bridges to increase the bridge clearance, as well as the ongoing project to create high-speed movements for I-69 traffic at the Pennyrile Parkway interchange. There may have been an interchange converted from the old-style cloverleaf toll booth exit to a diamond along that stretch, but I can't recall. Last time I was on the WK, the signage had been replaced but nothing had been done about the median, which is narrower than even the Bluegrass or Mountain parkways.

On the Pennyrile, they've converted (or in the process of converting) at least one toll-booth cloverleaf to a full diamond, but one of the other projects eliminated a partial interchange by adding two ramps to make it a full interchange. It was said at the time that this was necessary for conversion to an interstate. I can think of a number of partial interchanges still left on the interstate system (one in Ohio along I-70 near Gratiot, and on I-65 in Kentucky for US 68/KY 80, among others).

Still, the average motorist can't tell the difference between an interstate and a Kentucky parkway.

[jeffandnicole]

"Not everything needs to be an Interstate" - Almost nothing on this site irks me more than this argument being overdone to the extent of stopping the progress of the system. I'm not in favor of every freeway in the country becoming an Interstate by any means, but diminishing the worth of certain corridors just because of this argument is plain unfair. For example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't need to be an Interstate or have a number at all, but it would benefit the system and drivers if it were.

Well it doesn't take a genius to look at a map or type directions into a GPS. As long as the speed limit is 65 or 70 and doesn't have stop lights everywhere who cares if it is signed as an interstate or not. I sure don't care and most people don't care either.

Actually, many do care. When glancing at a map or  possible route, interstates stand out as an almost guaranteed way to avoid lights and highest speeds. On BGSs, interstates tend to garner further advanced notice (I-95, 2 Mikes Ahead), and placement on Destination signage.  Truckers use them for long distance driving, as other routes can have weight limitations, right turns, etc.

There's a reason why maps with little detail still show Interstates, and few if any other routes. And if it doesn't take a genius, explain why people get lost all the time.

[hobsini2]

Your thoughts?

Could you give us an example of a route you had in mind?

I posted some news about an update to the CSVT project in Selinsgrove, and that got me thinking about a semi-related topic.

Take I-83, for example. I-83 is the de-facto replacement for former US 111 and the Susquehanna Trail. As numerous fictional highways threads and roadgeek sites have mentioned, there are some compelling arguments for extending I-83 northward via the current US 15 corridor, perhaps as far as Rochester.

But even after (if) the CSVT is completed around 2024, there will still be that pesky 29-mile gap between the Clarks Ferry Bridge and the end of the current freeway south of Selinsgrove–29 lousy miles out of what would otherwise be 347 continuous miles of freeway between Fayette Street in Baltimore and I-590 in Rochester. And yet the semi-limited access configuration between Amity Hall and Port Treverton, with no stop signs or traffic signals and very little turning traffic, serves the corridor well enough.

While I wouldn't be in favor of slapping standard Interstate shields on that section of 11/15, I think there is merit to having some kind of sub-Interstate shield (perhaps a hollow Interstate outline without the colors or the word "INTERSTATE" ) to bridge the numerical designation between sections of Interstate-quality freeway. And I don't think a state route marker is the answer, either. The marker should subconsciously suggest to the user: "You're following the I-83 corridor, but you're not getting an Interstate-standard experience in this section."  (Yes, I realize care is needed to avoid confusion with the Business shields.) If and when the gaps are closed through new construction or reconfiguration of the existing road, standard I shields would go up.

I could imagine this being used on an extended I-83, I-86, I-9 (CA 99), and maybe elsewhere.

Maybe something like this...

Actually, I like the idea of "gap" filling signage on a logical corridor. I would say have the shield be an interstate shield in white with black numbers. The shape is distinctive enough to differ from other black and white signs.

[hobsini2]

Interstates with narrow medians have been fitted with cable guards - a.k.a. "Wait-a-minute" cables.

Agreement on "not everything needs to be an Interstate." Politicians now often put designations on roads more as a commercial ploy these days (I-41 is a classic example of this) or as a pork grind (I-99) where neither one was required.  US-41 would have gotten the 70 mph designation even without the red-white-blue shield on it if WisDOT played their cards right.  What they DO need to consider is Control cities.  US-45 in Milwaukee had "Fond du Lac" as one - no Appleton.  I don't know about you, but what in Fond du Lac is commercially viable?  All they really need to to is re-route US-41... Done.

I have no problem with Fond du Lac being a control city because it is a major city in Wisconsin. In fact, I-41 should also use Oshkosh as a control city as well. I would base control cities on the population, the importance of it to commerce, number of exits that serve the area and distance from the next major city. I hate Pennsylvania's control cities on I-80 but between Youngstown and Newark, there are not any major cities or points of commerce so I reluctantly am ok with say DuBois and Clarion being used.

[US 41]

"Not everything needs to be an Interstate" - Almost nothing on this site irks me more than this argument being overdone to the extent of stopping the progress of the system. I'm not in favor of every freeway in the country becoming an Interstate by any means, but diminishing the worth of certain corridors just because of this argument is plain unfair. For example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't need to be an Interstate or have a number at all, but it would benefit the system and drivers if it were.

Well it doesn't take a genius to look at a map or type directions into a GPS. As long as the speed limit is 65 or 70 and doesn't have stop lights everywhere who cares if it is signed as an interstate or not. I sure don't care and most people don't care either.

Actually, many do care. When glancing at a map or  possible route, interstates stand out as an almost guaranteed way to avoid lights and highest speeds. On BGSs, interstates tend to garner further advanced notice (I-95, 2 Mikes Ahead), and placement on Destination signage.  Truckers use them for long distance driving, as other routes can have weight limitations, right turns, etc.

There's a reason why maps with little detail still show Interstates, and few if any other routes. And if it doesn't take a genius, explain why people get lost all the time.

When I see a blue line (limited access Freeway) in my atlas I don't say to myself "I'm not going to take this road because it doesn't have an interstate shield on it." It has never bothered me to take Kentucky's parkways just because they "technically don't" meet interstate standards. They have exits, 0 stop lights, and a 70 mph speed limit." Most drivers do not give a crap whether or not there is a blue shield on a road. They just care to get to where they want to go fast.

If I was Kentucky I'd be an asshole and sign the Julian M Carrol and Pennyrile Parkways as Kentucky State Highway 69 rather than I-69. Same for the US 41 Bridge over the Ohio River. It's a big waste of money to redo what was done right the first time, just to stick an interstate shield on it.

[roadman65]

Interstates with narrow medians have been fitted with cable guards - a.k.a. "Wait-a-minute" cables.

Agreement on "not everything needs to be an Interstate." Politicians now often put designations on roads more as a commercial ploy these days (I-41 is a classic example of this) or as a pork grind (I-99) where neither one was required.  US-41 would have gotten the 70 mph designation even without the red-white-blue shield on it if WisDOT played their cards right.  What they DO need to consider is Control cities.  US-45 in Milwaukee had "Fond du Lac" as one - no Appleton.  I don't know about you, but what in Fond du Lac is commercially viable?  All they really need to to is re-route US-41... Done.

I have no problem with Fond du Lac being a control city because it is a major city in Wisconsin. In fact, I-41 should also use Oshkosh as a control city as well. I would base control cities on the population, the importance of it to commerce, number of exits that serve the area and distance from the next major city. I hate Pennsylvania's control cities on I-80 but between Youngstown and Newark, there are not any major cities or points of commerce so I reluctantly am ok with say DuBois and Clarion being used.

Do what Texas does, sign NYC going EB and sign Youngstown going west.  El Paso is used 500 miles out starting at San Antonio along the infamous I-10.

[hobsini2]

"Not everything needs to be an Interstate" - Almost nothing on this site irks me more than this argument being overdone to the extent of stopping the progress of the system. I'm not in favor of every freeway in the country becoming an Interstate by any means, but diminishing the worth of certain corridors just because of this argument is plain unfair. For example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't need to be an Interstate or have a number at all, but it would benefit the system and drivers if it were.

Well it doesn't take a genius to look at a map or type directions into a GPS. As long as the speed limit is 65 or 70 and doesn't have stop lights everywhere who cares if it is signed as an interstate or not. I sure don't care and most people don't care either.

As far as toll roads are concerned they are toll roads for a reason. They don't need an interstate symbol for someone to figure that out.

That argument could be made if it wasn't for the fact that so many US highways are on freeways and city streets with NOTHING to distinguish between the two. For example, US 41 in Chicago. It transitions from a 8 lane freeway to a major 4 lane boulevard to a 2 lane city street in a matter of 5 miles.

[TEG24601]

Toll roads as Interstates are a no-no in FHWA's view

From the way I understood their position, was that adding tolls to an existing Interstate was a no-no, but they have no issues designating an Interstate over an existing Toll Rd.  Otherwise there wouldn't be as many Interstates in Chicago.

[ekt8750]

A lot of people always bring up NJ 42 and the AC Expressway for examples.  Other than the shorter than normal accel/decal lanes, Rt. 42 appears to be interstate quality.  And  the AC Expressway - there's really nothing on there that's not interstate quality.  Now, there's a difference between not-interstate quality that needs to be updated, and NJ's unwillingness to allow those two routes to be given interstate status.

NJ 55 falls under this also - nothing there would be an issue, from my view.  Heck, they could extend I-76 a bit to Rt. 55 just so Rt. 55 can be a 3 di connecting to a 2 di.   

And the NJ Turnpike from 1 - 6?  No reason here either it's not an interstate.

In the examples above, it may not be that they're not interstate quality, but the state doesn't want to give them the interstate status.  There's obviously other examples throughout the country that could quality to be an interstate today, or need minor upgrades to become an interstate, but the state could have their reasons why they wouldn't want to give those highways interstate status.

The ACE's big issue is overpass height. Lots of them that are way under 14ft. I agree if 76 ever gets extended to at least Deptford, they should make 55 a 3di of it.

[CentralPAGal]

When I was briefly doing North Carolina highway maps on Wikipedia, I noticed that sections of I-73/I-74 barely have any shoulder but the whole reason I-26 can't be continuous is pretty much due to one interchange in Asheville. Why do some roads get "grandfathered in" (like the former example in frickin' 2013) while others have to wait for expensive upgrades?

I seem to recall somewhere that AASHTO and FHWA OK'd that part of 74 mistakenly, but agreed to let it slide on the condition that NC eventually widen the shoulders.

[Rover_0]

Your thoughts?

Could you give us an example of a route you had in mind?

I posted some news about an update to the CSVT project in Selinsgrove, and that got me thinking about a semi-related topic.

Take I-83, for example. I-83 is the de-facto replacement for former US 111 and the Susquehanna Trail. As numerous fictional highways threads and roadgeek sites have mentioned, there are some compelling arguments for extending I-83 northward via the current US 15 corridor, perhaps as far as Rochester.

But even after (if) the CSVT is completed around 2024, there will still be that pesky 29-mile gap between the Clarks Ferry Bridge and the end of the current freeway south of Selinsgrove–29 lousy miles out of what would otherwise be 347 continuous miles of freeway between Fayette Street in Baltimore and I-590 in Rochester. And yet the semi-limited access configuration between Amity Hall and Port Treverton, with no stop signs or traffic signals and very little turning traffic, serves the corridor well enough.

While I wouldn't be in favor of slapping standard Interstate shields on that section of 11/15, I think there is merit to having some kind of sub-Interstate shield (perhaps a hollow Interstate outline without the colors or the word "INTERSTATE" ) to bridge the numerical designation between sections of Interstate-quality freeway. And I don't think a state route marker is the answer, either. The marker should subconsciously suggest to the user: "You're following the I-83 corridor, but you're not getting an Interstate-standard experience in this section."  (Yes, I realize care is needed to avoid confusion with the Business shields.) If and when the gaps are closed through new construction or reconfiguration of the existing road, standard I shields would go up.

I could imagine this being used on an extended I-83, I-86, I-9 (CA 99), and maybe elsewhere.

Maybe something like this...

I made other shields that flip the colors around, all-blue, reversed, all-red, or white w/colored letters:



As for standards, anything in terms of limited-access expressway standards work, be it an occasional Super-2 or a minimization of at-grade intersections.

[CentralPAGal]

Your thoughts?

Could you give us an example of a route you had in mind?

I posted some news about an update to the CSVT project in Selinsgrove, and that got me thinking about a semi-related topic.

Take I-83, for example. I-83 is the de-facto replacement for former US 111 and the Susquehanna Trail. As numerous fictional highways threads and roadgeek sites have mentioned, there are some compelling arguments for extending I-83 northward via the current US 15 corridor, perhaps as far as Rochester.

But even after (if) the CSVT is completed around 2024, there will still be that pesky 29-mile gap between the Clarks Ferry Bridge and the end of the current freeway south of Selinsgrove–29 lousy miles out of what would otherwise be 347 continuous miles of freeway between Fayette Street in Baltimore and I-590 in Rochester. And yet the semi-limited access configuration between Amity Hall and Port Treverton, with no stop signs or traffic signals and very little turning traffic, serves the corridor well enough.

While I wouldn't be in favor of slapping standard Interstate shields on that section of 11/15, I think there is merit to having some kind of sub-Interstate shield (perhaps a hollow Interstate outline without the colors or the word "INTERSTATE" ) to bridge the numerical designation between sections of Interstate-quality freeway. And I don't think a state route marker is the answer, either. The marker should subconsciously suggest to the user: "You're following the I-83 corridor, but you're not getting an Interstate-standard experience in this section."  (Yes, I realize care is needed to avoid confusion with the Business shields.) If and when the gaps are closed through new construction or reconfiguration of the existing road, standard I shields would go up.

I could imagine this being used on an extended I-83, I-86, I-9 (CA 99), and maybe elsewhere.

Maybe something like this...

Actually, some of US 22/322 between I-81 and the end of the freeway at Clarks Ferry is substandard as well. One or two parts of the highway lack a 4 ft median shoulder, and there is a railroad bridge just immediately south of the Dauphin bypass that is not wide enough for full exterior shoulders. Can't remember for certain, but there might be some shorter ramps along the older parts too. In any case, it seems to me that (in the unlikely event of an I-83 extension) a waiver might be granted for those issues though, due the the fact that the RR bridge was an existing structure, and that the lack of the median shoulder is where the highway wedged, along with a rail line, between the mountain and the river.

[jakeroot]

Actually, many do care. When glancing at a map or  possible route, interstates stand out as an almost guaranteed way to avoid lights and highest speeds.

Congratulations, you've defended the ten non-roadgeeks who still use paper maps.

Truckers use them for long distance driving, as other routes can have weight limitations, right turns, etc.

Even so, truckers use the most efficient route, regardless of designation.

On BGSs, interstates tend to garner further advanced notice (I-95, 2 Mikes Ahead), and placement on Destination signage. 

But they don't have to? To my knowledge, the FHWA does not require Interstates to be more heavily advertised than state highways.

[Pink Jazz]

Speaking of that all red Interstate shield, in another thread I actually had that idea for a potential "Alternate" Interstate designation, similar to how Business Interstates use green shields.  I also made an Alternate Interstate shield in brown as well.

[cpzilliacus]

Toll roads as Interstates are a no-no in FHWA's view

That was formerly the case, but FHWA was an active participant in the design, eventual approval (FEIS and ROD) and funding of Maryland's Route 200 (ICC) toll road.

[Zeffy]

Not only that, but I heard Connecticut might get a waiver from the FHWA to try an experimental tolling program on I-95 to raise funding for upgrades on it.

[Rothman]

Not only that, but I heard Connecticut might get a waiver from the FHWA to try an experimental tolling program on I-95 to raise funding for upgrades on it.

HA!  Tolling on the Connecticut Turnpike returns...

[cpzilliacus]

Not only that, but I heard Connecticut might get a waiver from the FHWA to try an experimental tolling program on I-95 to raise funding for upgrades on it.

As long as they get the tolling right (high enough to assure free-flow traffic most of the time) and do not squander all of the revenue on public transit projects, I think that is a great idea.

[Rothman]

Not only that, but I heard Connecticut might get a waiver from the FHWA to try an experimental tolling program on I-95 to raise funding for upgrades on it.

As long as they get the tolling right (high enough to assure free-flow traffic most of the time) and do not squander all of the revenue on public transit projects, I think that is a great idea.

Actually, I think the United States lacks a real comprehensive perspective on funding highway maintenance and improvements in general.  Our hodgepodge of toll roads and "free" roads comes across to me as horrifically disorganized from a financial perspective.

I've often grumbled that I ought to be tolled or taxed, but not both.  Add on top of that the fact we've tried the "let's toll everything" route before (i.e., why the East has so many "turnpikes" and "shunpikes" and whatever other kind of "pike"), I really lean towards a more centralized funding of infrastructure.

[Zeffy]

Actually, I think the United States lacks a real comprehensive perspective on funding highway maintenance and improvements in general.  Our hodgepodge of toll roads and "free" roads comes across to me as horrifically disorganized from a financial perspective.

I've often grumbled that I ought to be tolled or taxed, but not both.  Add on top of that the fact we've tried the "let's toll everything" route before (i.e., why the East has so many "turnpikes" and "shunpikes" and whatever other kind of "pike"), I really lean towards a more centralized funding of infrastructure.

The New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway are easily the best quality roads in this state. I'm pretty confident that the money the Turnpike Authority collects goes to improving those roads only, and it shows based on all the construction they get versus everywhere else in the state.

As long as they get the tolling right (high enough to assure free-flow traffic most of the time) and do not squander all of the revenue on public transit projects, I think that is a great idea.

Yes, as do I, but I do NOT wish to see a New York City to New Haven busway being built with toll funding. Nope. That money should be air-tight locked down to prevent it from being used from anything BUT the toll road improvements.

[Alex4897]

Yes, as do I, but I do NOT wish to see a New York City to New Haven busway being built with toll funding.

Shh, you're just giving Connecticut more ideas.

[noelbotevera]

The ironic factor here in Pennsylvania is two laws, PTC, and the Turnpike. Act 44 and Act 89 meant to draw toll money from PTC's rewards to pay off bonds and maintenance. Toll rates on the turnpike were jacked up for the PTC to be a good neighbor to PennDOT. That's the backstory. The ironic part is here: Despite the two acts, the freeways in Pennsylvania are still in horrid condition, and PTC's rewards are practically the same pre-Act 44, and the Turnpike is in even more deplorable condition.