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

[NWI_Irish96]

I would have prevented Bud Shuster from ever having been elected to Congress.

[PHLBOS]

The thing with inner and outer loop...while it makes sense when you're looking at a small, round circle, beltways aren't always true like that.  Use this example: https://goo.gl/maps/kSBD4i9C35k ...why would the inner loop be on the outside of the curve!

IMHO, that's no different than a north-south road heading in the opposite direction for a relatively short distance per this I-95/MA 128 example in Wakefield.

[roadman]

BGS application (no MASS PIKE text on shield):

Installed under the Mass. Turnpike Authority's re-signing program in the mid-1990s.  It should noted that the Authority's designer did not provide a sign summary or other spec sheets for BGS panels as part of the plans, but only showed the legend and overall panel dimensions for BGS panels on the sign location sheets.  As the Mass Pike shields shown on the sign legends did not include "Mass Pike", and as there was no detail for shields to be mounted on BGS signs in the contract documents, the shields were fabricated without the text.

White shield w/WEST panel & I-90 shield:

Installed under the same sign replacement projects as above.  However, sign summary and detail sheets showing the "Mass Pike" legend were provided for the confirmatory route markers.

Although, recent BGS installs now feature MASS PIKE text on the shield:

This sign reflects current MassDOT practice, which is to include the "Mass Pike" text on all new Mass Pike shields, whether they're mounted independently or on BGS panels.  Also, as older BGS panels on other Interstates and freeways that intersect the Turnpike (which are not being replaced under the current West Stockbridge to Boston projects)are being replaced, the use of white on green "Mass. Pike" text is being phased out in favor of the shields.

[1995hoo]

If people can't look at a map and see that I-495 makes a complete loop and connects to I-95 on both ends, I doubt that being confronted with I-95W and I-95E would help. Put it another way: A motorist is traveling eastbound from Toledo to NYC in 1970, and he knows he can take I-80 the entire way. Now approaching Akron, he has a choice: I-80 or I-80S? Apparently, Ohio Turnpike toll takers were perpetually redirecting confused travelers.

In theory this all makes sense, but the point of this thread is to speculate on what people would change if they back in time. Since people were speculating on the idea of not routing 2dis through city centers, and then someone wanted to know how you'd deal with a beltway, I suggested the suffix idea. I thought it was implicit in the concept behind this thread that idea was that they'd have used this different standard from the beginning. I daresay having beltways with paired suffixed numbers, such as I-95E and I-95W around DC or I-70N and I-70S around Columbus, as a routine standard of numbering might have been more easily grasped by the driver of average ignorance than the illogical I-80 and I-80S, which don't really seem to have anything to do with each other.

In other words, if suffixed Interstates had been used as a way to route 2dis around cities and had not been used for other purposes, you'd have known you were encountering an orbital route when you saw the suffixed numbers and you'd know either route would take you around to continue on the same 2di, again assuming the idea was that 2dis would not have run through the cities.

Of course, this doesn't address the problem of a city like Atlanta where three 2dis run through the city. Having a segment of the Perimeter signed as a concurrency of I-20N, I-75E, and I-85E all on the same segment would be rather confusing.....although who knows, if it'd been that way from the start maybe it would be less so.

[Eth]

Of course, this doesn't address the problem of a city like Atlanta where three 2dis run through the city. Having a segment of the Perimeter signed as a concurrency of I-20N, I-75E, and I-85E all on the same segment would be rather confusing.....although who knows, if it'd been that way from the start maybe it would be less so.

With three 2dis, if you have them all go around the city just right I think you have less of a need for a true beltway anyway. I'd probably imagine something closer to this scenario:



20, 75, and 85 together form a sort of triangular beltway, with some additional connectors to cut off mileage on the sharper corners. Though now that I look at it, I suppose we end up (to some extent, anyway) back at the original problem of mixing local and long-haul traffic on 175, 385, 585, and 720.

[froggie]

Though now that I look at it, I suppose we end up (to some extent, anyway) back at the original problem of mixing local and long-haul traffic on 175, 385, 585, and 720.

I admit that this is hindsight, but there are two ways to address this.  First is to limit the number of interchanges to primary roads and/or other freeways only.  The second is to have two sets of lanes...one local, one express, and severely limit access to the express lanes.

[1995hoo]

I like froggie's second solution better simply because it's easy to ignore or discard interchange restrictions by adding more interchanges later. Adding exits from express lanes isn't necessarily as straightforward.

[jwolfer]

The thing with inner and outer loop...while it makes sense when you're looking at a small, round circle, beltways aren't always true like that.  Use this example: https://goo.gl/maps/kSBD4i9C35k ...why would the inner loop be on the outside of the curve!

I like how Jacksonville's beltway is called the East and West beltway.. It works.. Signage on i95 shows NORTH EAST BELTWAY and NORTH WEST BELTWAY comjnt in from the south. And for the hyper technical comint the otherway they say SOUTH.

However it wouls not work with multiple 2di's or if not a full beltway or just shaped real odd

LGMS428

[kphoger]

If I could go back in time (and somehow had the power to make this kind of decision), I would nix the idea of having any sort of E-W or N-S numbering scheme for highways.  None of this "running out" of numbers nonsense, no need for bypasses or spurs to somehow resemble a supposed parent's number, no roadgeek fights over numbers like 99 or 101 or 238 or 400, no quibbles about whether a diagonal route should get an even or an odd number.  Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.  By my count, we wouldn't even be a third of the way to "running out" of Interstate highway numbers.

[briantroutman]

Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.

I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.

[kkt]

Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.

I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.

This.

[cpzilliacus]

West Virginia is easy.  Statewide policy that there will be NO stoplights, NO new driveway permits or connections, and NO annexation by municipalities allowed on any Appalachian Corridor or other route built to the Corridor standard.

I agree with the no signals part, as well as the ban on driveways and other connections.    I am not familiar enough with annexation law in West Virginia (nor the implications of same) to make a statement about that. 

Were you discussing Virginia, I would want any annexation of any corridor by a city  or town to include the requirement that VDOT (and not the municipality) will retain all maintenance responsibility and that VDOT (and not the municipality) also controls access (with the intent of not allowing driveways, at-grade crossings and the like).

[vtk]

Pittsburgh says hello.

[Bruce]

I'd have convinced Seattle voters to approve the Virgil Bogue plan in 1911 and the Forward Thrust rapid transit plan of 1968. Both would have massively changed the city's transportation system, though the former would have also included a lot of parkways and urban changes.

[compdude787]

Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.

I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.

I used to think that was the case with the US Highway System, especially considering how US 20, 26, and 30 don't follow the grid at all in Oregon.

[Max Rockatansky]

If I could go back in time (and somehow had the power to make this kind of decision), I would nix the idea of having any sort of E-W or N-S numbering scheme for highways.  None of this "running out" of numbers nonsense, no need for bypasses or spurs to somehow resemble a supposed parent's number, no roadgeek fights over numbers like 99 or 101 or 238 or 400, no quibbles about whether a diagonal route should get an even or an odd number.  Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.  By my count, we wouldn't even be a third of the way to "running out" of Interstate highway numbers.

Wouldn't have putting 50 and 60 from the get-go solved most of those problems?.....aside from some more minor out of grid discrepancies in the odd numbers out east.

[hotdogPi]

If I could go back in time (and somehow had the power to make this kind of decision), I would nix the idea of having any sort of E-W or N-S numbering scheme for highways.  None of this "running out" of numbers nonsense, no need for bypasses or spurs to somehow resemble a supposed parent's number, no roadgeek fights over numbers like 99 or 101 or 238 or 400, no quibbles about whether a diagonal route should get an even or an odd number.  Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.  By my count, we wouldn't even be a third of the way to "running out" of Interstate highway numbers.

Wouldn't have putting 50 and 60 from the get-go solved most of those problems?.....aside from some more minor out of grid discrepancies in the odd numbers out east.

They probably saw no difference between 10-20-30-40-70-80-90 and 10-20-30-40-60-80-90 at the time. Unless maybe it went 10-20-30-40-60-70-80, with 90 being current 94. (In any of these cases, 50 could have been the combination of current 44 and 64, but that would have made no difference.)

[jwolfer]

Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.

I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.

I am still amazed that people who drive a road everday do not know the posted US, SR or CR number. In my area the main road is Blanding Blvd (Florida SR 21) its signed very well and i know people who are surprised to learn that

LGMS428

[Quillz]

Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.

I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.

I am still amazed that people who drive a road everday do not know the posted US, SR or CR number. In my area the main road is Blanding Blvd (Florida SR 21) its signed very well and i know people who are surprised to learn that

LGMS428

I think it has to do with both length and how many local names the route carries. For example, here in the Valley, almost no one ever refers to CA-27 as anything other than "Topanga Canyon." Because CA-27 is only about 20 miles long, and its local name never changes. Conversely, almost everyone refers to CA-23 as, well, "the 23," because it has multiple local names, is a bit longer (around 30 miles), and has a significant freeway alignment.

Perhaps SR-21 is short and only carries one name?

[jwolfer]

Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.

I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.

I am still amazed that people who drive a road everday do not know the posted US, SR or CR number. In my area the main road is Blanding Blvd (Florida SR 21) its signed very well and i know people who are surprised to learn that

LGMS428

I think it has to do with both length and how many local names the route carries. For example, here in the Valley, almost no one ever refers to CA-27 as anything other than "Topanga Canyon." Because CA-27 is only about 20 miles long, and its local name never changes. Conversely, almost everyone refers to CA-23 as, well, "the 23," because it has multiple local names, is a bit longer (around 30 miles), and has a significant freeway alignment.

Perhaps SR-21 is short and only carries one name?

It's not short. But in Jacksonville and the populated parts of Clay County it's all called Blanding Boulevard. But what surprises me even with big green signs and reassurance markers all along some people have no idea it's State Road 21

LGMS428

[hm insulators]

I would have widened I-5 between downtown Los Angeles and the Orange County line decades ago. Like in the '70s. 

[ARMOURERERIC]

The early 1950's PA supreme Court decision that declared the state highway access control regulations unconstitutional.  It would have kept McKnight road and William Penn Highway in Monroeville virtually signal free.

[TML]

Sorry for bumping this old topic, but...

Now that I've had time to study expressways in Toronto after taking a trip there this summer, I'll add this one:

I would have ensured that 400 extended all the way to Downtown Toronto.

[Beltway]

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.

I would revise that decision to setting more modern standards on the -extensions- of the Turnpike starting in 1950. 

I will grant that the original 160 miles that was opened in 1940 had ok standards for the day, and nobody really knew how successful it would be trafficwise.

That way the extensions could have served as the model for other superhighways in the state.

[Beltway]

Also I would've asked Virginia to think hard before removing tolls from certain facilities. While they made a good decision by taking the tolls off of I-95 and VA 44 (they really didn't have much of a choice with I-95 anyway because of I-295), they should've left them in place on many of the bridges and tunnels in the eastern part of the state. Very expensive infrastructure being maintained by the state's general highway fund. That money could've been spent on other roads across the state. Matter of fact, the Coleman Bridge and the Downtown and Midtown tunnels are tolled all over again due to the needed expansions/renovations, something that could've happened sooner if the original tolls would've stayed in place.

That could have been handled toll-free by extending the funding for the Interstate system.  The Midtown Tunnel should have been part of the extension of Route 164, all of which should have been Interstate 164, with 90% FHWA funding for the Western Freeway, Pinners Point Interchange, Parallel Midtown Tunnel, and Norfolk Interchange.

I-164 would be an Interstate spur route connecting I-664 to downtown Norfolk and Hampton Boulevard.  I-664 and I-164 would comprise an appropriately designated Interstate highway connector between Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth and Norfolk. 

The Martin Luther King Freeway between the Pinners Point Interchange and I-264 near downtown Portsmouth, would be designated as Interstate I-764 and funded with 90% FHWA funds.  This is a short but vital freeway that connects Route 164 and the Midtown Tunnel to I-264 and the Downtown Tunnel / Berkley Bridge complex.

These projects also should have been funded and completed much earlier, like by 1995.

The tunnel renovations should also have been funded with something like the old FHWA 4R funding system(resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction), with 90% FHWA funding.

The I-664 bridge-tunnel and the parallel I-64 bridge tunnel were funded with 90% FHWA funds and federal law at the time prohibited tolls on them.