Interstate Standard: Close Enough!

[xonhulu]

Maybe NHS highways should be signed with a special marker.  Possibly a colored version of the US or state shield.  Look for the turquoise shield and you know you're on a major highway.  Or they could be signed using an additional sign underneath the route marker.

Waste of money.  Interstate shields mean something actually important to the motorist: multi-lane, controlled access, etc.  NHS designation doesn't mean anything significant: they can be freeways or regular roads, have intersections or interchanges, etc.  There isn't even necessarily a difference in quality between NHS and non-NHS routes.

What would be possibly useful is to identify which highways are freeways.  Even that could be problematic, though, as the freeway can end while the highway continues on.

[Revive 755]

Perhaps, 155 should've been extended to I-40 at Jackson or somewhere between there and Memphis.

I-155 was the trade for an I-24 Mississippi River crossing, and I think TN wanted I-155 to connect to I-40 around the time I-155 was first proposed.  There should be more details in the Google News Archive thread.

[golden eagle]

Perhaps, 155 should've been extended to I-40 at Jackson or somewhere between there and Memphis.

I-155 was the trade for an I-24 Mississippi River crossing, and I think TN wanted I-155 to connect to I-40 around the time I-155 was first proposed.  There should be more details in the Google News Archive thread.

I found an article on Wikipedia that said that I-155 was originally planned as I-24W and was going to connect to I-40 at Jackson. It was going to follow the same route as US 412.

BTW, that same Wikipedia entry links an article on TennDOT's plans to have I-69 intersect I-155 near Dyersburg and that 155 will be re-signed as I-69 from that point eastward.

[andytom]

With many freeways around the country on the verge of interstatehood, I've become frustrated with how strictly rules about when an interstate can be signed are applied.  We have hundreds of miles of interstate designations that are only being held back by some nitpicky rule about shoulders or medians or height clearances or other bullcrap.  Ever heard of close enough?  Can't we just get some of these bad boys signed with the understanding that the minor deficiencies will be corrected the next time that segment is resurfaced or whatever?

Shoulder's too narrow for I-22?
Need a few more miles of cable barrier for I-41?
Can't have a discontinuous I-49 down there in AR/LA?

I say, close enough!  We'll fix that in the next maintenance cycle.  They'll hook up eventually.  It's not like there's driveways and traffic signals.

There is a point to having a standard.  You either meet it or you don't.  None of this wishy-washy, 'close enough' BS.  If it's close enough, then why isn't it in the standard (there's usually some reason)?  What qualifies as 'close enough'?  What doesn't?  And, if you keep applying 'close enough' iteratively, you end up with nothing.  When does 'close enough' stop?

In the case of the Interstate System, exceptions to the standard have to be ruled on and have good reason for being in place.  Otherwise it has to meet the current standard in the current maintenance cycle, including the roadway's initial construction or initial upgrade to Interstate designation.  Next maintenance cycle isn't good enough.  That may not happen for 5, 10, 20 years.

--Andy

[TheStranger]

  When does 'close enough' stop?

The Gowanus Expressway.

[agentsteel53]

exceptions to the standard have to be ruled on and have good reason for being in place. 

I dispute this.  278?  99?  etc etc.  the absence of a 76/95 junction.  a lot of things are completely arbitrary and dominated by politics, to the detriment of the driving public that the government is ostensibly serving.

[mukade]

NHS

I was with you until that acronym.  The NHS is the ultimate example of what the average motoring public doesn't care about in the slightest.  Hell, a lot of roadgeeks have never heard of the NHS.  I barely know what it is, and couldn't tell you where to find a list of all NHS roads, and I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable about both the interstate and US route systems!

Regarding NHS, that was a suggestion of a possible criterion. If something like this ever happened, there would have to be a set of objective standards to avoid creating more of a mess. I don't care a bit about NHS myself either, but it is a system that is in place.

[mukade]

There is a point to having a standard.  You either meet it or you don't.  None of this wishy-washy, 'close enough' BS.  If it's close enough, then why isn't it in the standard (there's usually some reason)?  What qualifies as 'close enough'?  What doesn't?  And, if you keep applying 'close enough' iteratively, you end up with nothing.  When does 'close enough' stop?

In the case of the Interstate System, exceptions to the standard have to be ruled on and have good reason for being in place.  Otherwise it has to meet the current standard in the current maintenance cycle, including the roadway's initial construction or initial upgrade to Interstate designation.  Next maintenance cycle isn't good enough.  That may not happen for 5, 10, 20 years.

Yes, freeway standards are necessary, but they are getting confused with numbering schemes. That was  the point of having a secondary standard with different markers so the existing standard stays in place. This isn't really without precedant anyway. The green business shields recognized business connections to the freeways, and signing them with the Interstate highway number and shield. Why can't connections that meet some other standard also be marked with the same marker shape and number this same way? The difference is that these connections would also have to meet a certain expressway standard unlike the business routes which don't.

The reason why this really makes sense now is that many unfinished sections are years or decades away from completion. For example, I read the completion target for I-69 from Bloomington to Indy is 2030. With the financial shape of both the country and so many states, many unfinished sections may not even be completed in our lifetimes.

[hbelkins]

The current widening of I-64 near Winchester, Ky. means I will never be able to use this argument again, but this is the one I always used.

Close your eyes and go to sleep as you travel east on I-64 near Exit 96. Wake up 10 minutes later. If you don't know the lay of the land, you will be hard-pressed to tell if you are still on I-64 or if you are on the Mountain Parkway.

[TheStranger]

For example, I read the completion target for I-69 from Bloomington to Indy is 2030. With the financial shape of both the country and so many states, many unfinished sections may not even be completed in our lifetimes.

Considering it took at least 3.5 decades to complete I-70...yeah, this is where reviving the "TEMP I-xx" designation NEEDS to be used much more often.

[mukade]

Considering it took at least 3.5 decades to complete I-70...yeah, this is where reviving the "TEMP I-xx" designation NEEDS to be used much more often.

Agreed, but I think the issue is that one of several things happen depending on the mood of the FHWA and various policies of the different states:

• No FWHA permision but signed anyway (like I-64 west of I-270)
• Signing is allowed and possibly exemptions granted (like I-73, I-74, I-86)
• Signed is allowed with "Future" (like was granted for I-69 in Indiana)
• Signed with "TEMP" (as was common back in 1970s)
• Signed with "TO" (as was common back in 1970s)
• Remain only signed with old state or US designation  (like I-22, I-164)
• Signed with state route number matching future Interstate number (like I-265/SR 265 in Indiana)
• Signed with some other number with ""Future I-xxx Corridor" supplemental signage (like I-269, I-74)
  

It is often confusing. I guess any one option would be better than the unpredictability and inconsistency that exists today.

[bugo]

There is a point to having a standard.  You either meet it or you don't.  None of this wishy-washy, 'close enough' BS.  If it's close enough, then why isn't it in the standard (there's usually some reason)?  What qualifies as 'close enough'?  What doesn't?  And, if you keep applying 'close enough' iteratively, you end up with nothing.  When does 'close enough' stop?

Because the current Interstate standards are so high.  Most Interstates don't meet these standards.  I understand if a freeway is new that it should be built to these standards, but I don't understand why they can't grandfather in roads like Future I-26 near Asheville, NC.  I can understand if the road had at-grades on it, but narrow shoulders (most should-be Interstates aren't Interstates because of shoulders) aren't a good enough reason to deny the I-shield.  As for discontinuous Interstates, that's the way it was done in the 1950s through the 1970s and it should be done that way now.  It's ridiculous to build a road and give it a number you plan on changing in the future.  Just go ahead and sign it already.  For places like US 71 in Missouri, sign the freeway segments as I-49 and sign the expressway segments as TO I-49.  Then as the road is upgraded to freeway standards, the TO signs can simply be removed.  At the very least, sign the highway as a state route with the same number as the future Interstate.

[bugo]

Another point I didn't make in the above post is that it's silly to spend millions of dollars to widen shoulders from 8 to 10 feet when there are much more pressing needs.  Sure 10 foot wide shoulders are nice, but are they really necessary?  I'd rather see the money go towards new road projects or more important improvements like resurfacing projects and 2 to 4 lane highway widening.

[froggie]

Given the relatively minor cost of shoulder widening, about the only thing on your list that you could instead in any fair quantity is resurfacing.

[The Premier]

I'd rather see the money go towards new road projects or more important improvements like resurfacing projects and 2 to 4 lane highway widening.

Such as building new highways.

[bugo]

Given the relatively minor cost of shoulder widening, about the only thing on your list that you could instead in any fair quantity is resurfacing.

Is left shoulder widening more expensive than right shoulder widening?  I would think so.

[froggie]

Only if a median barrier is required.  But then again, a left shoulder wider than 4 feet is only required when you A) have a narrow median to begin with or B) have 3 or more lanes in each direction.

[3467]

I wanted to add a little on NHS history. I think more was hoped for the NHS. Some thought they should be all future interstates or 4 lanes. Rodney Slater,then FHWA Head, envisioned a mix but mostly  improved 2 lanes with lost of passing lanes and other improvements.
Rand McNally considered labeling them in the Atlas. Then nothing no real plan just another funding catagory of no real interest to anyone but a state highway budget staff. There is only one good thing They are in the Federal highway volume stats. Unlike the principle arterials in the old stats you can at least find a map...Though an actual map of traffic volmes would be more useful

If Congress would put in a better planning provision like give us a specific plan of improvemnet for these routes thye might become relevant otherwise AASTOs regulation of the US routes is more meaniingful

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I know Andy Field did a bunch of research on the NHS in the forerunner of what became this site 12-14 years ago.  I don't know if you guys have kept it or mothballed it, or sent that work "elsewhere" (I know Andy stopped updating those pages once this decade began).  For those of you who are having trouble understanding the NHS, locating those pages could possibly help you in that endevor.

[3467]

I think I remember those. Except for a few Midwestern States(IL IA MO) that had Supplemenatl Freeway plans there was no real post Interstate Highway vision . I had hoped the NHS might become that vision It didnt and we still need one Of course we all have fictionla highways here.............

[J N Winkler]

What would be possibly useful is to identify which highways are freeways.  Even that could be problematic, though, as the freeway can end while the highway continues on.

One option I have toyed with in my head is to use a marker based on the British "chopsticks" symbol (used on start-of-motorway-restrictions signs in the UK) to indicate lengths of state or US route which are built to full freeway standard.  But even this can cause problems.  Take, for example, a pull-through sign with route marker, chopsticks symbol, and control city.  Does the chopsticks symbol mean that freeway standard continues all the way to the control city, or stops at some indeterminate point between the sign and the control city?

To my mind, the main potential payoff of some explicit mechanism for indicating freeway standard (either through signs or mapping) is to allow motorists to avoid commitment to time-consuming or otherwise frustrating itineraries.  For example, suppose I am thinking of going between Raleigh and the Atlantic beaches in North Carolina, but have no interest in sitting at more than 10 stoplights on the interurban portion of the itinerary.  It would therefore be useful for me to have information which tells me simply "don't do it" (at least until US 70, which is the logical route, is upgraded to full freeway standard).  To my mind this application almost implies a mapping-based solution since interurban stoplights can be indicated using a point symbol while there is no efficient way to indicate continuity (or otherwise) of freeway standard on signs in a form which can be easily and safely absorbed at 60 MPH.

In the narrow context of freeway standard as a qualification for Interstate shields, I actually don't want new Interstate shields.  I have no particular love for the Interstate shield and think its usefulness as an indicator of improvement to a defined standard is grossly overstated.  By all means build new I-69 as I-69, new I-74 as I-74, etc., but let's not waste time making US 59 I-535, K-96 I-735, etc.

[froggie]

Michael Adams had developed a routing system that fits that bill, but alas was taken down with the rest of his site.

I'll contact him to see if he still has the pages.

[JREwing78]

What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.

There are many routes that are built for eventual conversion to Interstate-standard freeway, but have limited side-road and/or driveway access, few (if any) stoplights, and have speed limits that are the same as freeways. Wisconsin calls them "expressways", though this doesn't appear to be standard terminology.

Routes like most of US-30 in Ohio, WI-29 between Eau Claire and Green Bay, WI, or US-53 between Eau Claire and Superior, WI function much like Interstates, but there's no differentiation on most maps between them and other divided highways that are basically overgrown surface streets (US-30 between I-65 and Fort Wayne).

A notable exception is Wisconsin's own highway map; showing "expressway" segments very similarly to freeway segments, and much differently than surface divided highways. If this was much more common, and there was a standard way to designate these routes ("expressway" is so often used to refer to freeways that the distinction is meaningless), it would encourage greater use.

[agentsteel53]

What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.

indeed.  also, maps have an obsession with differentiating between divided highways and non-divided ones, which to me is much less important a distinction than the absence of traffic lights.  Rand McNally will label in orange a high-speed expressway without a red light for 75 miles, with ranch access turnoffs, the same way that it labels a suburban arterial, four red lights per mile.  Which would I rather drive??

[TheStranger]

What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.

indeed.  also, maps have an obsession with differentiating between divided highways and non-divided ones, which to me is much less important a distinction than the absence of traffic lights.  Rand McNally will label in orange a high-speed expressway without a red light for 75 miles, with ranch access turnoffs, the same way that it labels a suburban arterial, four red lights per mile.  Which would I rather drive??

I know that the California State Automobile Association maps tend to label "arterial divided highways" (two black or red lines) differently from an expressway-grade road (similar to the freeway double-line, but in orange instead of red).  Not sure this is still done, but I've always liked the differentiation.

It annoys me to look in an atlas at maps of New Jersey and see Route 17 and US 1/9/46 appear as if they were simply urban arterials, when they are what I've described as "Jersey freeways" (business driveway access + interchanges for all major roads with no intersections).