Pseudo-3-digit Interstates: Why?

[Molandfreak]

Why doesn't IDOT submit a request to AASHTO for IL 255 to become I-255? Why doesn't TDOT submit a request to AASHTO for TN 840 to become I-840? I get that they weren't built with federal funds, but these corridors were essentially built to Interstate standards, to serve the purpose of Interstates themselves. Postage stamps are cheap, so why not send in these requests? I'm not trying to bash all state route freeways, nor am I trying to bash other state routes like these that are not to Interstate standards. It just makes no sense that these two corridors, in particular, are not Interstates.

[Scott5114]

Postage stamps are cheap, but signs and labor aren't. Presumably IDOT/TDOT feels that whatever benefit there is to these roads being signed as an Interstate is less than the cost of getting things changed over.

And really, what benefit is there to changing them, other than "it's nice when Interstate-grade freeways have Interstate designations"?

[Molandfreak]

I see what you're saying, but why didn't the DOT's in question submit requests while the roads were being built? As much sense as it makes to leave them as they are, it doesn't make any sense to do nothing at the time.

[oscar]

I see what you're saying, but why didn't the DOT's in question submit requests while the roads were being built? As much sense as it makes to leave them as they are, it doesn't make any sense to do nothing at the time.

Doesn't that subject the roads to additional paperwork (including costly environmental reviews), that the DOTs might be trying to avoid by passing up Interstate designation (or even Federal funding)?  IIRC, that is one major reason why the state-funded-only loop freeways in Phoenix were never considered for Interstate designation.

[Duke87]

Indeed, I am sure there are plenty of cases where states have intentionally decided not to seek an interstate designation for a new freeway because it brings no practical benefit (other than satisfying roadgeeks with OCD), but would mean more headache filing paperwork and possibly even additional restrictions which the state does not want to agree to. VA 895, for example, is not an interstate because Virginia was not allowed to put both tolls and an interstate designation on the road. They chose the tolls.

Usually if an new interstate designation is assigned, it is because federal funding is being used to build the road and/or because it coincides with the road being improved to bring it up to interstate standards and the state wants to advertize that fact.

[hotdogPi]

Sometimes the people won't call a road by its new number if an Interstate is added. (MA 128 / I-95)
Sometimes the Interstate is completely multiplexed with another route. (I-393 / US 202 and I-587 / NY 28)


If both are true, the Interstate is useless.

[hbelkins]

Unless I've misunderstood, Tennessee does plan to seek an interstate designation for 840. They just haven't done it yet.

[Revive 755]

I see what you're saying, but why didn't the DOT's in question submit requests while the roads were being built? As much sense as it makes to leave them as they are, it doesn't make any sense to do nothing at the time.

Doesn't that subject the roads to additional paperwork (including costly environmental reviews), that the DOTs might be trying to avoid by passing up Interstate designation (or even Federal funding)?  IIRC, that is one major reason why the state-funded-only loop freeways in Phoenix were never considered for Interstate designation.

IL 255 went through the EIS process.  I have four guesses as to why IL 255 is not an interstate:

1) IDOT doesn't like interstates that don't end at other interstates.  Sure there are I-172, I-180, and I-190 (and I-55 if you don't consider that Lake Shore Drive was to be an I-494 at one time) but there are other potential spur routes that haven't come about such as US 34 west of Galesburg, the US 20 bypass of Rockford (could have been an I-x39), the IL 92 freeway in Rock Island, the IL 53 freeway in northern Cook County, and the Elgin O'Hare once it is connected to I-290.

2) Technically, any interstate designation for IL 255 should start with an odd number, and IDOT may have not wanted to have the number change at I-270 from I-255 to a possible I-555 or I-570.

3) IDOT doesn't consider US 67 an important enough terminus for an interstate - could change if the US 67 expressway between Godfrey and Monmouth is ever finished.

4) Alton was just happy to get a freeway and didn't lobby hard enough.


Any federally fund highway project has to go through the environmental process.  Even if the project does not federal funds, there can still be environmental hurdles from the national laws (endangered species act, whatever law I can't recall the name of now but requires 404 permits, etc.)  Depending upon the states, there can be laws at the state level that are just as onerous as some of the federal ones.

[kkt]

Interstates mean different things to different people.  To some, it's all about who paid for the road, and if it was the state it should have a state route sign.

[hbelkins]

The states paid for the interstates. They weren't 100 percent built by the feds.

[bing101]

Interstates mean different things to different people.  To some, it's all about who paid for the road, and if it was the state it should have a state route sign.

I thought the states fund the interstate system and the feds give guidelines on interstate standards or us routes standards. I know that interstates were a defense project to ensure tanks and trucks can pass at times of war.

[Pete from Boston]

Interstates mean different things to different people.  To some, it's all about who paid for the road, and if it was the state it should have a state route sign.

I thought the states fund the interstate system and the feds give guidelines on interstate standards or us routes standards. I know that interstates were a defense project to ensure tanks and trucks can pass at times of war.

Tanks?  We had some similarly-treaded equipment replacing bridges on I-93 here 2-3 years ago.  The result required a sign reading "grooves in pavement." 

The users (gas and other tax payers) pay the state and federal governments, who then distribute highway moneys.  The "who pays" question from there can easily plunge us all into a swirling, unproductive debate over the nature of government and public moneys, at least one side of which always seems to be "there is no debate!"

[english si]

The Interstate system is a network of decent standard routes (exceptions of course), so for a route to be an Interstate it needs to be part of the network and up-to-standards.

A question is whether IL255, etc form useful parts of the network, or just meet it.

Another is also whether I-255 ending at US67 would need renumbering as an odd route (which is MO370's issue - wrong first digit)!

[kkt]

The states paid for the interstates. They weren't 100 percent built by the feds.

Right, just 90% the feds (in the original interstate system).

[kkt]

Interstates mean different things to different people.  To some, it's all about who paid for the road, and if it was the state it should have a state route sign.

I thought the states fund the interstate system and the feds give guidelines on interstate standards or us routes standards. I know that interstates were a defense project to ensure tanks and trucks can pass at times of war.

The original interstate system was 10% state funded and 90% federal... the routes were collaborative, the feds specifying the overall network and the states coming up with routes for their parts for the feds to approve.  Movement of military trucks was one of the purposes of the interstates... I don't think tanks were expected to run along them.  Maybe in a truck, with more axles to spread the load.

[Tom958]

Tanks?  We had some similarly-treaded equipment replacing bridges on I-93 here 2-3 years ago.  The result required a sign reading "grooves in pavement." 

Surely he means tanks on lowboy trailers. From what I've read, a tank will generally suffer some kind of mechanical breakdown before it runs out of fuel. Moving tanks strategic distances on their tracks would constitute military incompetence (or desparation?) of an epic order. 

[WashuOtaku]

Well, there are cases like SC 277 in Columbia, South Carolina, where the original plan was to connect I-77 to I-26 and likely become I-277.  But that never happened thanks to neighborhood protests.  Today, it's a state highway spur into the downtown area from I-77.

[Revive 755]

The Interstate system is a network of decent standard routes (exceptions of course), so for a route to be an Interstate it needs to be part of the network and up-to-standards.

IIRC, one of the articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch around the time the I-270 to IL 143 portion of IL 255 opened specifically noted that IL 255 was built to interstate standards but would not be part of the interstate system.

A question is whether IL255, etc form useful parts of the network, or just meet it.

It couldn't be any worse than I-180 in Illinois - the north-south portion of which might not have been as bad if the expressway grade extension to the Peoria area was ever built.

[Henry]

Well, there are cases like SC 277 in Columbia, South Carolina, where the original plan was to connect I-77 to I-26 and likely become I-277.  But that never happened thanks to neighborhood protests.  Today, it's a state highway spur into the downtown area from I-77.

And then there's MD 295, which turns into the NPS-maintained Baltimore-Washington Parkway; this is one of the many reasons you'll never see I-295 extend northward from the nation's capital to the largest city in the state (despite an I-295 shield that was put up near Camden Yards; I'll bet someone has a picture of that!).