With the completion of I-95 between Pennsylvania and New Jersey last year, the original plan of the Interstate Highway System is now complete. However, numerous other routes have been created and improved on between now and when much of the original interstate system was developed in the 50s and 60s. There has also been plenty of ideas for new interstates from those of us on the forum. So far, the US highway system has largely been superseded by the interstate system, so I imagine plenty of new interstate routes being created in the future. What I'm wondering is, when will we stop creating new routes for interstates? Will we ever?
This is also going off of my question of whether there would be new US highways: with the constant expansion and changing of our highway systems, how would we consider one to be "complete"?
As you have phrased it, I don't think that is a meaningful question to ask. "Completion" implies that at some point, all of our goals will be reached and we will be done, but as I'm sure you're aware, providing adequate transportation is a never ending chore.
However, as technology advances and changes, there will be a point in the future where no new Interstates will be built. Thus, I think it is more appropriate to ask "have we reached the maximum extent of the Interstate system?" And with the number of planned projects still in the various phases of development, that time is a long way off. Probably not in our lifetimes, IMO.
Probably never, but that's why we have all those great ideas floating around here...
Counterpoint: It'll also be the time when the US Highway system becomes totally obsolete. And once again, that'll never happen in our lifetimes either, no matter how badly FritzOwl wants it to happen.
Quote from: Henry on February 25, 2019, 02:00:00 PM
Probably never, but that's why we have all those great ideas floating around here...
Counterpoint: It'll also be the time when the US Highway system becomes totally obsolete. And once again, that'll never happen in our lifetimes either, no matter how badly FritzOwl wants it to happen.
Well unlike FritzOwl, I don't want the US Highway system to become obsolete. I think both the Interstate system and the US Highway system can be compatible with each other.
OTOH, if the original plan of the IHS is now complete, then I might consider the system to be complete already. All future expansions are just extra.
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2019, 03:09:35 PM
OTOH, if the original plan of the IHS is now complete, then I might consider the system to be complete already. All future expansions are just extra.
That pretty much sums it up from my POV. Boy did it take a long time to get the original layout completed! Since I was born in 1955 and the last section of I-95 was not completed until 2018, that is almost my entire lifetime.
Rick
You could look at all current proposals and guess when they will all be complete, not factoring in any future proposals, but with some proposals like I-73/74 being flat out ignored by some states, it won't ever be complete by this definition.
As long as fixable breaks like Breezewood exist, the interstate system will not be complete.
Quote from: skluth on February 26, 2019, 12:25:53 PM
As long as fixable breaks like Breezewood exist, the interstate system will not be complete.
Breezewood is a missing link in the original Interstate highway system.
A discontinuity in I-70.
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2019, 03:09:35 PM
OTOH, if the original plan of the IHS is now complete, then I might consider the system to be complete already. All future expansions are just extra.
Like I-57 in Arkansas, I-49 in Arkansas and Missouri, and the Bud Shuster Pork Barrel Pork Barrel Freeway ;)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 25, 2019, 03:48:20 AM
As you have phrased it, I don't think that is a meaningful question to ask. "Completion" implies that at some point, all of our goals will be reached and we will be done, but as I'm sure you're aware, providing adequate transportation is a never ending chore.
However, as technology advances and changes, there will be a point in the future where no new Interstates will be built. Thus, I think it is more appropriate to ask "have we reached the maximum extent of the Interstate system?" And with the number of planned projects still in the various phases of development, that time is a long way off. Probably not in our lifetimes, IMO.
Well when every road is an interstate, there won't be many more to build.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 26, 2019, 05:35:47 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 25, 2019, 03:48:20 AM
As you have phrased it, I don't think that is a meaningful question to ask. "Completion" implies that at some point, all of our goals will be reached and we will be done, but as I'm sure you're aware, providing adequate transportation is a never ending chore.
However, as technology advances and changes, there will be a point in the future where no new Interstates will be built. Thus, I think it is more appropriate to ask "have we reached the maximum extent of the Interstate system?" And with the number of planned projects still in the various phases of development, that time is a long way off. Probably not in our lifetimes, IMO.
Well when every road is an interstate, there won't be many more to build.
That will not happen. Local roads will still be local roads.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 26, 2019, 05:50:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 26, 2019, 05:35:47 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 25, 2019, 03:48:20 AM
As you have phrased it, I don't think that is a meaningful question to ask. "Completion" implies that at some point, all of our goals will be reached and we will be done, but as I'm sure you're aware, providing adequate transportation is a never ending chore.
However, as technology advances and changes, there will be a point in the future where no new Interstates will be built. Thus, I think it is more appropriate to ask "have we reached the maximum extent of the Interstate system?" And with the number of planned projects still in the various phases of development, that time is a long way off. Probably not in our lifetimes, IMO.
Well when every road is an interstate, there won't be many more to build.
That will not happen. Local roads will still be local roads.
I'm sure North Carolina will get around to them eventually.
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2019, 07:33:02 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 26, 2019, 05:50:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 26, 2019, 05:35:47 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 25, 2019, 03:48:20 AM
As you have phrased it, I don't think that is a meaningful question to ask. "Completion" implies that at some point, all of our goals will be reached and we will be done, but as I'm sure you're aware, providing adequate transportation is a never ending chore.
However, as technology advances and changes, there will be a point in the future where no new Interstates will be built. Thus, I think it is more appropriate to ask "have we reached the maximum extent of the Interstate system?" And with the number of planned projects still in the various phases of development, that time is a long way off. Probably not in our lifetimes, IMO.
Well when every road is an interstate, there won't be many more to build.
That will not happen. Local roads will still be local roads.
I'm sure North Carolina will get around to them eventually.
I don't think you realize how impractical it would be for every single road to become an interstate. You have to have exits to somewhere, and it would require massive amounts of land to build all of the roads and interchanges to freeway standards, not to mention how expensive it would be.
For the sake of this thread, I'm talking about roads that could realistically be turned into interstates, not your pipe dream.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 26, 2019, 08:45:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2019, 07:33:02 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 26, 2019, 05:50:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 26, 2019, 05:35:47 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 25, 2019, 03:48:20 AM
As you have phrased it, I don't think that is a meaningful question to ask. "Completion" implies that at some point, all of our goals will be reached and we will be done, but as I'm sure you're aware, providing adequate transportation is a never ending chore.
However, as technology advances and changes, there will be a point in the future where no new Interstates will be built. Thus, I think it is more appropriate to ask "have we reached the maximum extent of the Interstate system?" And with the number of planned projects still in the various phases of development, that time is a long way off. Probably not in our lifetimes, IMO.
Well when every road is an interstate, there won't be many more to build.
That will not happen. Local roads will still be local roads.
I'm sure North Carolina will get around to them eventually.
I don't think you realize how impractical it would be for every single road to become an interstate. You have to have exits to somewhere, and it would require massive amounts of land to build all of the roads and interchanges to freeway standards, not to mention how expensive it would be.
For the sake of this thread, I'm talking about roads that could realistically be turned into interstates, not your pipe dream.
Whoosh?
As the population grows, there will never be an end to converting existing roads to freeways and/or building new freeways. There may come a point when those freeways stop being designated as interstates.
On February 30.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 27, 2019, 08:44:54 AM
On February 30.
This won't happen in the US, but:
...
2/28 UTC+12
2/29 UTC+12
2/30 UTC-12
3/1 UTC-12
...
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 27, 2019, 08:11:07 AM
As the population grows, there will never be an end to converting existing roads to freeways and/or building new freeways. There may come a point when those freeways stop being designated as interstates.
The first part is certainly correct. As long as the USA stays on the right track, the population will grow and prosperity will continue and we will need more and more roads.
As to stopping calling them interstates, I think this is a good idea, but people do not work that way. People know what (with exceptions so trivial they are only discussed here) an "interstate" is. It will always be easier to be for "building I-**" than "building a fully limited access stoplight free upgrade to US ** between X and Y". It is just a better sound bite.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 27, 2019, 08:58:43 AM
As to stopping calling them interstates, I think this is a good idea, but people do not work that way. People know what (with exceptions so trivial they are only discussed here) an "interstate" is. It will always be easier to be for "building I-**" than "building a fully limited access stoplight free upgrade to US ** between X and Y". It is just a better sound bite.
The FHWA definition of "freeway" has become much more widely known in the last 20 or 30 years. Just use that one-word term for that type of highway.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 27, 2019, 08:58:43 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on February 27, 2019, 08:11:07 AM
As the population grows, there will never be an end to converting existing roads to freeways and/or building new freeways. There may come a point when those freeways stop being designated as interstates.
The first part is certainly correct. As long as the USA stays on the right track, the population will grow and prosperity will continue and we will need more and more roads.
As to stopping calling them interstates, I think this is a good idea, but people do not work that way. People know what (with exceptions so trivial they are only discussed here) an "interstate" is. It will always be easier to be for "building I-**" than "building a fully limited access stoplight free upgrade to US ** between X and Y". It is just a better sound bite.
I disagree. Population growth need not imply personal automobile transportation growth. We can and should invest in public transit infrastructure, in coordination with walkable, higher-density, mixed-use communities, and safe bicycle transportation. Most of the developed world has gone in this direction, and so can North America. The Interstate Highway System served its purpose, but, as far as system expansion is concerned, let us consider it complete. New improvements should be only for safety and public transit accommodation, not for increased personal automobile traffic flow. Incomplete routes such as I-49, I-69, I-73, and I-74 should be reconsidered (some ideas here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24474.0).
Well, no. The job of government is to provide people with what they want, not to purposefully ignore needed improvements in order to force people into lifestyles they do not want.
There will be new cities in the future, and those cities will need good roads to connect to downtowns to the lifestyle the majority wants, the single family home in the suburb.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 27, 2019, 12:30:46 PM
the lifestyle the majority wants, the single family home in the suburb.
[citation needed]
https://www.builderonline.com/money/economics/80-percent-of-americans-prefer-single-family-homeownership_o
The idea that most people in the U.S. desire to live in an apartment above a commercial property (mixed-use) is laughable.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 25, 2019, 02:43:10 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 25, 2019, 02:00:00 PM
Probably never, but that's why we have all those great ideas floating around here...
Counterpoint: It'll also be the time when the US Highway system becomes totally obsolete. And once again, that'll never happen in our lifetimes either, no matter how badly FritzOwl wants it to happen.
Well unlike FritzOwl, I don't want the US Highway system to become obsolete. I think both the Interstate system and the US Highway system can be compatible with each other.
It won't. For example, US-101 between Eureka, CA and Brookings, OR is four-laned and effectively a freeway in many places, but not everywhere (due to geography). And even those freeway segments have 7% grades, not allowed for interstates. So no matter what, there will always be a need for a secondary national system, which the US routes provide.
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2019, 01:16:12 PM
https://www.builderonline.com/money/economics/80-percent-of-americans-prefer-single-family-homeownership_o
The idea that most people in the U.S. desire to live in an apartment above a commercial property (mixed-use) is laughable.
The idea of automobile-dependent suburban sprawl being sustainable is laughable. Sure, single-family homes work for some people but not all. And automobile dependency certainly doesn't work for everyone, from the standpoints of both individual and evironmental needs. You can provide single-family housing within the context of walkable, transit-friendly communities. It takes intelligent planning to provide the right balance. The problem here is, more and more spending on automobile infrastructure wastes precious resources that would be better spent on designing sustainable communities, and it serves to exacerbate the problem of sprawl.
These topics come up so often that I feel the AARoads Forum would benefit from an Urban Planning/Design sub-form in the "Non-Road Boards" section, so we can continue discussing these issues without derailing road-specific topics.
The idea that funds are easily transferred between spending on infrastructure and urban design is laughable.
The idea that we are totally going to bulldoze our current communities and build walkable and transit friendly communities for a cheaper amount of what we currently spend on infrastructure is also laughable.
All my electives in graduate school were in regional planning. I found the field more founded in mantras than actual science. The mantra of transit-above-all is a great example. Totally ignores families that have to run in thirty different directions a day and buy groceries to boot. It just isn't going to happen in suburbia and the idea that investment in roads should be replaced with investment in transit is just folly that would hamper travel rather than facilitate it.
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2019, 02:14:09 PM
The idea that we are totally going to bulldoze our current communities and build walkable and transit friendly communities for a cheaper amount of what we currently spend on infrastructure is also laughable.
The "idea that we are totally going to bulldoze our current communities..." is a straw man. You should try to learn about incremental urban development. We don't do tabula rasa urban renewal anymore (for the most part), nor should we.
Quote
All my electives in graduate school were in regional planning. I found the field more founded in mantras than actual science. The mantra of transit-above-all is a great example. Totally ignores families that have to run in thirty different directions a day and buy groceries to boot. It just isn't going to happen in suburbia and the idea that investment in roads should be replaced with investment in transit is just folly that would hamper travel rather than facilitate it.
I can relate, because my education in urban planning was disappointing to me as well. I wish I had studied architecture or landscape architecture (perhaps in addition to planning), but that will have to wait until I can afford it. At any rate--
How do you have investment in road network expansion without inducing demand? It's an unsustainable, vicious cycle, based more in political pressure than comprehensive science, and it's the wrong solution to the right problem.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 27, 2019, 02:03:58 PM
The idea of automobile-dependent suburban sprawl being sustainable is laughable. Sure, single-family homes work for some people but not all. And automobile dependency certainly doesn't work for everyone, from the standpoints of both individual and evironmental needs. You can provide single-family housing within the context of walkable, transit-friendly communities. It takes intelligent planning to provide the right balance. The problem here is, more and more spending on automobile infrastructure wastes precious resources that would be better spent on designing sustainable communities, and it serves to exacerbate the problem of sprawl.
Automobile-dependent suburban sprawl has been sustained for several decades thus far, hasn't it? Automobile dependency and a single-family home certainly appear to be what the majority of people want. If more people wanted to ride the bus, then there would be better bus service; the reason there isn't is that most people don't want to use it. If more people wanted to live in denser neighborhoods, then that's how new home construction would be designed, and existing dense neighborhoods would have higher demand; the reason it isn't and they aren't is that people want to live in spread-out areas.
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2019, 02:55:38 PM
Automobile-dependent suburban sprawl has been sustained for several decades thus far, hasn't it? Automobile dependency and a single-family home certainly appear to be what the majority of people want. If more people wanted to ride the bus, then there would be better bus service; the reason there isn't is that most people don't want to use it. If more people wanted to live in denser neighborhoods, then that's how new home construction would be designed, and existing dense neighborhoods would have higher demand; the reason it isn't and they aren't is that people want to live in spread-out areas.
(1) Past does not equal future.
(2) If bus service was better, then more people would want to ride the bus.
(3) If dense neighborhoods don't already have high demand, then why do they tend to be so expensive?
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2019, 01:16:12 PM
The idea that most people in the U.S. desire to live in an apartment above a commercial property (mixed-use) is laughable.
But isn't that what many residents of New York City want and utilize?
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 27, 2019, 03:25:36 PM
(2) If bus service was better, then more people would want to ride the bus.
That's not really the way markets work.
I personally think the American preference for SFRs (typically owned rather than rented) is very hard to dislodge for reasons that have nothing to do with transportation.
* Space is seen as a buffer against and mitigant for bad-neighbor problems, which Americans have come to expect because, as a country, we are very poorly socialized for living in a high-population-density environment.
* We lead the first world in medical bankruptcies and trail it in health care coverage. An owned house, especially in a state that has a homestead exemption for bankruptcy, is protection against being rendered homeless when the X-ray comes back with an odd shadow.
This is without even getting into things like the mortgage interest deduction, which (as Dolores Hayden notes in Building Suburbia) fell out of a process of developing housing policy between real estate agents and the Department of Commerce that favored nuclear families under a male head of household.
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2019, 04:08:02 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 27, 2019, 03:25:36 PM
(2) If bus service was better, then more people would want to ride the bus.
That's not really the way markets work.
Then perhaps a market-based economy is part of the problem.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 27, 2019, 04:21:30 PM
Then perhaps the government should spend everyone's money on projects they don't actually want.
Edited for clarity.
(Note: I am not against taxes assisting the funding of public transportation.)
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2019, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2019, 01:16:12 PM
The idea that most people in the U.S. desire to live in an apartment above a commercial property (mixed-use) is laughable.
But isn't that what many residents of New York City want and utilize?
I really wonder about this and how many people actually enjoy apartment living and how many wish for the single family home American Dream. I provided a link to at least one survey that would indicate most want the suburbs.
In terms of inducing traffic jams, I can find various areas in the country where demand was not induced as roads were expanded: Binghamton, NY; a decent chunk of West Virginia; I-35 in Duluth. MN; US 23/460 in eastern KY...
There are all sorts of places where highways are built and traffic jams didn't come to be.
And, if you're going to say that there are cars on the road and therefore there's induced demand, I'd say that's what roads are for. To have empty roads would be a true waste.
And to clarify my own position, I am not anti-transit and I do think transit is woefully underfunded. And, I do enjoy a good main street with decent restaurants and whatnot and do think big box development can be harmful.
However, I find the argument that we need to force people to live in ways they would not prefer while robbing roads to pay for transit and incrementally bulldozing as simply extreme. :D
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2019, 04:30:58 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 27, 2019, 04:21:30 PM
Then perhaps the government should spend everyone's money on projects they don't actually want.
Edited for clarity.
I hope the rest of this forum's readers are smart enough to understand the difference between what I actually wrote and this straw-man argument. I also hope the forum's readers are smart enough to understand the difference between autocratic government, which is accountable only to itself, and democratic government, which is accountable to the people who give it power.
Briefly stated, the problems with suburban sprawl--which is partially enabled by ongoing expansion of freeways and the Interstate Highway System--are well documented for their imposed hardships on citizens without access to private automobiles, and their detrimental effects on environmental sustainability with regards to energy-efficiency, climate change, flood mitigation, and forest management. Citizens in large numbers do want a more healthful, equitable, and sustainable built environment, and many of us with planning, engineering, and design interests wish to work to help shape the built environment in a more beneficial manner for all members of society.
I get that some people love new roads and don't want to think about their negative consequences. It can be very comforting to focus on something fascinating without worrying about the problems it entails. But people who do not wish to work toward solving the problem should be honest about it.
Quote
(Note: I am not against taxes assisting the funding of public transportation.)
Public transportation is great, but it isn't enough. You need denser, walkable, mixed-use communities to make it viable. This provides people with greater transportation options and a more healthful environment.
Again, I'm afraid this topic has been derailed, and I urge the Forum operators/moderators to consider opening an Urban Planning/Design board in the "Non-Road Boards" section, to provide a more appropriate space for these kinds of discussions, which inevitably come up rather frequently, as they should.
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2019, 05:06:56 PM
However, I find the argument that we need to force people to live in ways they would not prefer while robbing roads to pay for transit and incrementally bulldozing as simply extreme. :D
Many people are forced to live in ways they would not prefer by an unjust economic system. There will always be incentives that guide people toward certain ways of living, but those incentives can be made more just and equitable.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 27, 2019, 05:14:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2019, 05:06:56 PM
However, I find the argument that we need to force people to live in ways they would not prefer while robbing roads to pay for transit and incrementally bulldozing as simply extreme. :D
Many people are forced to live in ways they would not prefer by an unjust economic system. There will always be incentives that guide people toward certain ways of living, but those incentives can be made more just and equitable.
Commie. :D
I get that not everyone wants to live in the central city, but I don't like the idea of vast suburban sprawl either. I for one do not want to live in a large house in a bland subdivision, but living in a high-rise downtown sounds pretty stressful too. I think we should make suburbs more walkable and transit-friendly, providing the greater density and access to amenities that cities provide while also building single-family homes for those that want it. We shouldn't force everyone to depend on car travel, and we should build infrastructure to support those who don't want to or can't afford to drive. Many people still want to drive cars, so we should still support some road infrastructure, but I want to support car-free travel as well.
Speaking of Interstates. FHWA has updated its route log as of Dec. 31, 2018. Includes entries for I-11, and also I-165 in KY. Still has errors carried over from previous editions, including that I-495 in Maine is still 50 miles long and that I-74 only runs with I-73 in NC for 17 miles. I-140 in NC is listed as 12.7 miles long, but has been 20 since last summer.
Table 1 at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)
Quote from: bob7374 on February 27, 2019, 06:01:57 PM
Speaking of Interstates. FHWA has updated its route log as of Dec. 31, 2018. Includes entries for I-11, and also I-165 in KY. Still has errors carried over from previous editions, including that I-495 in Maine is still 50 miles long and that I-74 only runs with I-73 in NC for 17 miles. I-140 in NC is listed as 12.7 miles long, but has been 20 since last summer.
Table 1 at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)
I hope FHWA extends I-11 soon to the interchange with I-15 in Las Vegas.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 27, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 27, 2019, 06:01:57 PM
Speaking of Interstates. FHWA has updated its route log as of Dec. 31, 2018. Includes entries for I-11, and also I-165 in KY. Still has errors carried over from previous editions, including that I-495 in Maine is still 50 miles long and that I-74 only runs with I-73 in NC for 17 miles. I-140 in NC is listed as 12.7 miles long, but has been 20 since last summer.
Table 1 at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)
I hope FHWA extends I-11 soon to the interchange with I-15 in Las Vegas.
Why stop there? Extend it to the CC 215 Beltway. The at-grades at that interchange are on 215, not 95
Quote from: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 06:33:24 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 27, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 27, 2019, 06:01:57 PM
Speaking of Interstates. FHWA has updated its route log as of Dec. 31, 2018. Includes entries for I-11, and also I-165 in KY. Still has errors carried over from previous editions, including that I-495 in Maine is still 50 miles long and that I-74 only runs with I-73 in NC for 17 miles. I-140 in NC is listed as 12.7 miles long, but has been 20 since last summer.
Table 1 at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)
I hope FHWA extends I-11 soon to the interchange with I-15 in Las Vegas.
Why stop there? Extend it to the CC 215 Beltway. The at-grades at that interchange are on 215, not 95
I think so far NDOT had plans to extend I-11 along 515 until it reaches the I-15 interchange. They might have plans to later continue it along US 95 until it reaches the Beltway, but I have no idea what the at-grades have anything to do with it.
Quote from: kphogerAutomobile-dependent suburban sprawl has been sustained for several decades thus far, hasn't it?
Since this question hasn't actually been answered...
The inability of governments at all levels to keep up with increases in traffic, or in many cases to even keep up with potholes, pavement, and bridges, even with tax increases over the years, strongly suggests that the answer is no...it has not been sustained.
Quote from: ilpt4u on February 27, 2019, 06:33:24 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 27, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 27, 2019, 06:01:57 PM
Speaking of Interstates. FHWA has updated its route log as of Dec. 31, 2018. Includes entries for I-11, and also I-165 in KY. Still has errors carried over from previous editions, including that I-495 in Maine is still 50 miles long and that I-74 only runs with I-73 in NC for 17 miles. I-140 in NC is listed as 12.7 miles long, but has been 20 since last summer.
Table 1 at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table01.cfm)
I hope FHWA extends I-11 soon to the interchange with I-15 in Las Vegas.
Why stop there? Extend it to the CC 215 Beltway. The at-grades at that interchange are on 215, not 95
Yeah they should just take the whole freeway from the AZ line to the Skye Canyon Park Drive exit (exit 95 on US 95), maybe even have the Summerlin Parkway as I-111.
More than likely I-11, I-42 and the NC part of I-87 will probably be completed within the next ten years. I don't see I-73 ever extending to Myrtle Beach, it will probably get as far as I-95 and terminate there.
I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.
Next 10 years seems like a stretch. Next 20, possibly.
Quote from: vdeane on February 27, 2019, 09:30:47 PM
Next 10 years seems like a stretch. Next 20, possibly.
I was being optimistic. I don't expect to see any major interstate construction at all after 2030.
Quote from: DeaconG on February 27, 2019, 09:12:50 PM
I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.
Man, I really want them to be completed.
Quote from: DeaconG on February 27, 2019, 09:12:50 PM
More than likely I-11, I-42 and the NC part of I-87 will probably be completed within the next ten years. I don't see I-73 ever extending to Myrtle Beach, it will probably get as far as I-95 and terminate there.
I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.
Unless I missed something I-2 is already completed.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 28, 2019, 09:10:35 AM
Quote from: DeaconG on February 27, 2019, 09:12:50 PM
More than likely I-11, I-42 and the NC part of I-87 will probably be completed within the next ten years. I don't see I-73 ever extending to Myrtle Beach, it will probably get as far as I-95 and terminate there.
I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.
Unless I missed something I-2 is already completed.
The extension to Laredo isn't off the table yet. When it does get waved off, then we can say I-2 is complete.
Never, it is an evolving system that I'm sure will undergo major changes over the course of its lifetime.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 28, 2019, 03:33:02 AM
Quote from: DeaconG on February 27, 2019, 09:12:50 PM
I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.
Man, I really want them to be completed.
And they will, eventually, primarily because Arkansas has somewhat swam against the current and by referendum taxed ourselves for road improvements, which is the main reason why I-49 (and projects all over the state) has had the work done over the last several years. Trouble is, we don't have the tax base that other states do, but it is constantly growing. However, it can only go so far so fast, but it's more progress than is being seen in many other areas of the country right now.
The major cities will be different 100 years from now. There might be large growth in Idaho, necessitating an Interstate north and south from Boise, in addition to a beltway. Or North Dakota, with Minot to Bismarck. If Colorado grows, Boulder CO to Fort Collins CO. Existing cities might become larger, so that Atlanta needs a second beltway, or any number of cities along CA 99 or US 101 need a first beltway. Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.
Future development of the Interstate System, under current processes, will be completely dependent upon state and local activities toward establishing corridors as deemed necessary by their progenitors and, over time, amassing the necessary funds for construction. It would have been nice if there were an orderly and cohesive nationwide progress -- as indicated historically by the 1968 nationwide addition program -- 10 years after the system was being "gelled" into its first iteration and ostensibly prompted by (1) population growth and (2) demographic changes. True, some of the 1500 miles of '68 additions were clearly politically motivated (I-72 in IL and I-88 in NY as examples), but most of the others were logical additions to the system (I-15 extension to San Diego, I-75 likewise to greater Miami, I-40 east through Raleigh). This, IMO, should have remained the expansion process: on a regular basis (10 years seemed reasonble back then -- and still does today) states/regions submit corridors based upon their perceived need; they're vetted at the USDOT level (with FHWA and AASHTO chiming in, of course), and the most warranted corridors added to the chargeable system. Alas, after '73 it was not meant to be with the Nixonian shift to block grants and the Feds relegated to the role of determining standards. The goal of those who formulated this change was, simply, to abrogate much of LBJ's "Great Society" undertakings -- which undoubtedly did result in the expansion of the federal bureaucracy, for better or worse -- and to ensure that such major programs didn't reemerge. However, the end result was that any number of worthy activities and goals were swept into oblivion along with those that particularly irked those formulators; at that point, any expansion of the Interstate system -- essentially inevitable with the demographic changes since the early '70's -- was the parvenu of those at the state & local level who were most competent at manipulating the various levels of governance into manifested action. Some of these were actually worthy projects that did address demographics and/or the shortcomings of the original system configuration (I-49, I-22, possibly the southern half of I-39); some were obviously local "pork" or manifestations of longstanding resentment about being left out of the network in the past (I-99, I-73/74, the new I-87, the I-14 proposal) -- and some were Frankenroads cobbled up to get national attention for "serialized" local projects (I-69, obviously). But, to reiterate a cliche': it is what it is. Since 1991 the various comprehensive national infrastructure legislative efforts (ISTEA and its successors) have provided a convenient path for the establishment of new Interstate corridors (albeit lacking any specific funding source): the High Priority Corridor, which can be "tweaked" with a little legislative moxie to designate a specific corridor as a future Interstate, often with a number attached. That's how we got every 2di designated after 1992 (with the exception of I-2 -- but even that was "piggybacked" as an adjunct connector to extant HPC-originated corridors) : the promise of the maximum 80% federal funding (albeit without guarantee) -- of course dependent upon Congressional apportionment plus state/local-originated matching funds, which has proved to be a pretty high bar to overcome. There's a pathway for future Interstate development -- but the present one has just created an ever-increasing "backlog" of possible future projects. Right now promoters of new Interstates can take a slight measure of solace in the fact that the process exists and has produced corridors (the viability of which can vary widely) -- but those who decry any incursion of more freeways into urban areas can also be thankful that most of the proposals to date have been rural/intercity in nature, with very little developmental activity in urban areas (OK, NC's the exception, as it is with developmental policy in general). Otherwise, no major parties have gone out of their way (some of our posters excepted!) to plan and deploy new urban Interstates; the writing seems to be indelibly on the wall for that type of activity.
What I'd expect to see in the future are (a) connectors to and between areas unserved by the present system, including efficiency enhancers, (b) "relief" corridors for present overused portions of the Interstate network, and (c) "spot" projects intended to alleviate localized discrepancies. Most of the proposed TX corridors, including the peripatetic "Port-to-Plains", fit into category (a) -- certainly not much of (b), considering the sparse use of I-10 west of San Antonio!; the midsection (Shreveport-Memphis) of I-69 is more (b) than anything else, considering the traffic on I-30 and especially I-40 Little Rock-Memphis. (C) projects crop up all over the place; I-269 and I-840 in TN (and MS in the case of the former) could be considered both (b) and (c); 269 as a "real" bypass loop considering the urban inundation of I-240, 840 relieving movements in and around Nashville. But DOT's need to be very careful to configure the terminal miles of any of these nascent intercity corridors so as not to promote sprawl (i.e., avoid the temptation to take developer $$ to put interchanges along the routes).
How all this will work out in the future is anyone's guess. Those who want to do a major societal reconfiguration will likely be disappointed that what will likely be built won't do anything to suppress the individualistic tendencies that drive what passes for our "culture" -- but it also won't be a problem to those who want to create urban "reservations" relatively free from commercial considerations -- no one is proposing to raze major city areas for massive new freeway projects (teardowns are another story altogether!). But despite the wishes of some, this will be a commercially based societal structure for at least the near future, geared toward both the individual and groups forming from social instinct (and occasionally common duress!) rather than a "forced march" toward a predetermined standard.
Quote from: DeaconG on February 27, 2019, 09:12:50 PM
More than likely I-11, I-42 and the NC part of I-87 will probably be completed within the next ten years. I don't see I-73 ever extending to Myrtle Beach, it will probably get as far as I-95 and terminate there.
I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.
There is an expressway to Myrtle Beach that can easily be upgraded to Interstate standards, so I-73 should be built from there to Rockingham in order to facilitate a high-speed drive from Greensboro to the Beach. I do agree, though, that I-74 will never be completed, at least not in any of our lifetimes.
As the exit numbers on I-2 suggest that the terminus will be in Laredo, hopefully I can see it get done, even if it takes many years to do so. Same deal with I-49 and I-69.
Quote from: 1 on February 28, 2019, 12:24:27 PM
Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.
I don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan. There are two ferries across Lake Michigan (including one that stops at my hometown) that bring in tourist revenue for the communities involved, and building bridges in place of them would drive away tourists that would otherwise take one of the two ferries.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 28, 2019, 05:32:14 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 28, 2019, 12:24:27 PM
Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.
I don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan. There are two ferries across Lake Michigan (including one that stops at my hometown) that bring in tourist revenue for the communities involved, and building bridges in place of them would drive away tourists that would otherwise take one of the two ferries.
How would making crossing Lake Michigan
easier drive away tourists? I cannot imagine that the ferries themselves are that huge a tourist draw. And if that's the only thing your city has going for it, well...
I know when Rochester had the fast ferry, there were people who traveled on it to Toronto just to ride the ferry.
Quote from: vdeane on March 01, 2019, 12:39:20 PM
I know when Rochester had the fast ferry, there were people who traveled on it to Toronto just to ride the ferry.
And yet it still went under.
That's what happens when you bank your ferry's ability to make money on freight trucks even with no deal to actually allow them with US/Canadian customs in place.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 28, 2019, 05:32:14 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 28, 2019, 12:24:27 PM
Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.
I don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan. There are two ferries across Lake Michigan (including one that stops at my hometown) that bring in tourist revenue for the communities involved, and building bridges in place of them would drive away tourists that would otherwise take one of the two ferries.
I think it would be impossible to build anyway.
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2019, 04:53:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 27, 2019, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2019, 01:16:12 PM
The idea that most people in the U.S. desire to live in an apartment above a commercial property (mixed-use) is laughable.
But isn't that what many residents of New York City want and utilize?
I really wonder about this and how many people actually enjoy apartment living and how many wish for the single family home American Dream. I provided a link to at least one survey that would indicate most want the suburbs.
Don't discount the gap between what people ideally want and what people can realistically attain. There are a decent number of people living in apartments who would, in a perfect world, love nothing more than to own their own home, but will never be able to afford one.
There are also plenty of people who own a condo or shares in a co-op, and are thus able to reap the financial benefits of homeownership, but still live in a building that contains multiple households.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 27, 2019, 08:44:54 AM
On February 30.
Fitting the entire Interstate system into a DeLorean would be difficult. That would be the only way to get to the real February 30 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_calendar).
Quote from: 1 on February 28, 2019, 12:24:27 PM
Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.
I also don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan. You might as well also build a bridge across the Grand Canyon, and then continue FritzOwling the whole nation. To paraphrase the late Andy Rooney, I like that there are some natural obstacles preventing a road from running straight between points A and B.
Quote from: sparker on February 28, 2019, 02:00:20 PM
Future development of the Interstate System, under current processes, will be completely dependent upon state and local activities toward establishing corridors as deemed necessary by their progenitors and, over time, amassing the necessary funds for construction. It would have been nice if there were an orderly and cohesive nationwide progress -- as indicated historically by the 1968 nationwide addition program -- 10 years after the system was being "gelled" into its first iteration and ostensibly prompted by (1) population growth and (2) demographic changes. True, some of the 1500 miles of '68 additions were clearly politically motivated (I-72 in IL and I-88 in NY as examples), but most of the others were logical additions to the system (I-15 extension to San Diego, I-75 likewise to greater Miami, I-40 east through Raleigh). This, IMO, should have remained the expansion process: on a regular basis (10 years seemed reasonble back then -- and still does today) states/regions submit corridors based upon their perceived need; they're vetted at the USDOT level (with FHWA and AASHTO chiming in, of course), and the most warranted corridors added to the chargeable system.
Agreed. I feel like most of the recent additions (I-2; I-11; I-14; I-41; I-73, I-74, and I-87 in NC; I-99) aren't on the basis of merit and really fitting into a national system as much as they are the result of states paying off the right people just to get those Interstate shields posted.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 03, 2019, 10:01:22 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 28, 2019, 12:24:27 PM
Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.
I also don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan. You might as well also build a bridge across the Grand Canyon, and then continue FritzOwling the whole nation. To paraphrase the late Andy Rooney, I like that there are some natural obstacles preventing a road from running straight between points A and B.
I can't envision what kind of new technology would reduce the massive amounts of concrete and steel needed to build a bridge across Lake Michigan.
From a purely traffic engineering standpoint, an extension of I-96 to I-94 in Milwaukee would be the most logical place to put it, and it is 83 miles from shore to shore, and most of the waters on that route are about 300 feet deep.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 03, 2019, 10:01:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 28, 2019, 02:00:20 PM
Future development of the Interstate System, under current processes, will be completely dependent upon state and local activities toward establishing corridors as deemed necessary by their progenitors and, over time, amassing the necessary funds for construction. It would have been nice if there were an orderly and cohesive nationwide progress -- as indicated historically by the 1968 nationwide addition program -- 10 years after the system was being "gelled" into its first iteration and ostensibly prompted by (1) population growth and (2) demographic changes. True, some of the 1500 miles of '68 additions were clearly politically motivated (I-72 in IL and I-88 in NY as examples), but most of the others were logical additions to the system (I-15 extension to San Diego, I-75 likewise to greater Miami, I-40 east through Raleigh). This, IMO, should have remained the expansion process: on a regular basis (10 years seemed reasonble back then -- and still does today) states/regions submit corridors based upon their perceived need; they're vetted at the USDOT level (with FHWA and AASHTO chiming in, of course), and the most warranted corridors added to the chargeable system.
Agreed. I feel like most of the recent additions (I-2; I-11; I-14; I-41; I-73, I-74, and I-87 in NC; I-99) aren't on the basis of merit and really fitting into a national system as much as they are the result of states paying off the right people just to get those Interstate shields posted.
I still feel that I-41 was warranted. I know it may not make sense to you as an interstate, but imo it's the most logical thing you could do with that corridor. To clarify, much of I-43 was built from the former US 141 corridor from Milwaukee to Green Bay (running close to Lake Michigan). There were always two major north-south routes between those two cities, with the western Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton route being the more populous of the two, compared to the eastern Sheboygan-Manitowoc route that was built as I-43. Also, I-43 wasn't part of the original interstate system, not being completed until 1981. Similar to I-43 originally being built as a freeway along US 141, US 41 was also converted to a freeway over the years.
If they could build an interstate along highway 141, along the less major route, then why can't there be an interstate along the more major highway serving more population centers?
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2019, 09:01:02 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 27, 2019, 08:44:54 AM
On February 30.
Fitting the entire Interstate system into a DeLorean would be difficult. That would be the only way to get to the real February 30 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_calendar). (Fixed link)
That is my way of saying "never". I was aware of that one-time Swedish thing. OTOH I didn't get this:
Quote from: 1 on February 27, 2019, 08:50:18 AM
This won't happen in the US, but:
...
2/28 UTC+12
2/29 UTC+12
2/30 UTC-12
3/1 UTC-12
...
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 04, 2019, 08:49:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2019, 09:01:02 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 27, 2019, 08:44:54 AM
On February 30.
Fitting the entire Interstate system into a DeLorean would be difficult. That would be the only way to get to the real February 30 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_calendar). (Fixed link)
That is my way of saying "never". I was aware of that one-time Swedish thing. OTOH I didn't get this:
Quote from: 1 on February 27, 2019, 08:50:18 AM
This won't happen in the US, but:
...
2/28 UTC+12
2/29 UTC+12
2/30 UTC-12
3/1 UTC-12
...
Samoa (not American Samoa) skipped a day due to a time zone change across the International Date Line. What I posted above would be a change in the other direction, adding a day.