Projects That Even a Roadgeek Does Not Want

[wandering drive]

Not entirely the case.  I grew up in south Minneapolis off 60th and found 35W to be quite useful in heading into downtown or points further north.  There's also the little matter that, without this project, traffic would continue to divert onto local streets (Portland and Nicollet in particular for Minneapolis), and they wouldn't have gotten a shiny new transit center in the median at 46th.

I did not hear about the transit center, that's really nifty.  The past three years have been hell on the side streets, though, so I've heard.

[Grzrd]

Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built.  We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan....  Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.

Two of the cities I've lived in, Atlanta and Columbus, have had pipe dreams about an outer-outerbelt in the past.  Atlanta's ended up being cut back, then cancelled and in Columbus it was just editorial page talk, as far as I know.  Atlanta's planned path wouldn't really solve anything, given the area's growth, and let's face it, how many more interstates does Ohio need?

Above "historical - things actually turned out OK" comments helped me crystallize my thoughts regarding I-3.  I grew up in Gainesville, GA.  As a kid, I heard the following local lore re I-85 [I cannot vouch for accuracy]:

I-85 was originally slated to be routed to the west of the current route: from Atlanta through Gainesville, Toccoa and Clemson, S.C. up to Greenville.  However, the route was changed, not through NIMBY opposition, but by good ol' Georgia politics.  The Governor, Ernest Vandiver, was able to get the route changed to its current alignment.  By an uncanny coincidence, the new route happened to be adjacent to some land holdings of some guy with the last name of Vandiver.  The route was noted for a dangerous curve nicknamed the "Vandiver curve" (guess where the curve led), which was later cured to some degree.

Gainesville and the other jilted towns along the original route were given a political consolation: Georgia 365.  GA 365 was built as a limited-access highway from I-85 at Suwanee up to Gainesville (later converted to I-985).  North of Gainesville, in somewhat hillier country, GA 365 was built as a 4-lane unlimited access highway.

Today, the sentiment among many is that things actually worked out for the better.  Gainesville has the luxury of direct Interstate access to Atlanta, but without all of the I-85 through traffic.  My sense is that communities north of Gainesville are happy with GA 365 in its current form (easy for me to say).

Re I-3, I think my gut reaction against it was based on how not getting I-85 really did not hurt my home town.  Yes, quality 4-lane roads may be needed through the mountains from I-85 to Knoxville, but not Interstate-standard.

Take that, inner NIMBY 

[agentsteel53]

even Dale Earnhardt would agree that 3 is a silly number for a route in that location.

[mightyace]

Any project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.

I'd miss the old signs but not enough to oppose a project solely on that basis.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Any project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.

That's when you deluge the DOT in emails and see if they'll give you some of their old signs.

[flowmotion]

Let's see, I love driving and roads, yet so many road project seem to be nothing more than useless political pork or grotesque development sprawl. I would estimate that at least 25% of road projects have no real reason to exist, especially while core parts of the network are under-maintained.

Likewise, the history of urban freeway construction has been shameful, and I understand why citizens have so little trust in their local transportation experts to the point where they have become NIMBY knee-jerkers.

Any project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.

Cool, I guess I'm not a "roadgeek" either. You know, they have a place with lots of old signs; it is called The Third World. 

[froggie]

Any project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.

I'm with the last three posters on this one...

[Ian]

I guess you guys are right. Forget my last post.

[SP Cook]

I-73 / 74 foolishness:

It is not so much the road, certainly not parts of it, is unneeded, but the goofy zig-zagging of two out-of-place numbers that, more than anything just link unrelated local projects.

My solution:

North of North Carolina:

None of this road is ever going to be built, at least not to interstate standards, and whatever is is well-marked by simply using the existing US route numbers.

North Carolina:

From I-77, simply renumber it as a 3di in the 77 or the 40 series, continuing the numbering if/when US 52 is upgraded, forming a connection between I-77 at Mt. Airy and I-40 at Winston-Salem.

If/when US 311 as a four lane between Winston-Salem and US 220 near Randleman is ever finished, simply leave it as US 311, or if NC insists, use another 3di in the 40 series.

The new southern bypass of Greensboro is a 3di in the 40 series, with appropriate multiplex of 85 as needed.

US 220 is, well, US 220.  If they every get a bypass of Rockingham with a direct connection to US 74, then it is US 220 as well, ending the road at US 74 rather than at US 1.

The rest of the road is simply US 74 to the ocean and then US 17 remains the coastal road.

South Carolina:

Simply use SC 22, and probably name it something like "Myrtle Beach Highway", or find an appropriate 3dUS in the 01 series for a road from US 74 to Myrtle Beach.

[Stephane Dumas]

South Carolina:

Simply use SC 22, and probably name it something like "Myrtle Beach Highway", or find an appropriate 3dUS in the 01 series for a road from US 74 to Myrtle Beach.

SC-22 could be an extension of I-20 from I-95 or act as a gap of a future I-101 along with DE-1 or being some I-x95 if it extends to reach I-95.

[hbelkins]

Any project that replaces old signs would definetely be a project that a roadgeek would not want.

I'd miss the old signs but not enough to oppose a project solely on that basis.

It's fun to find old signs out in the field, but there are safety issues involved if the signs become illegible or lose their reflectivity.

Most all of the old-style signs in Kentucky have been replaced with signs faced with reflective sheeting, but I can remember when the old-style signs were still pretty common. Some of them were nearly impossible to read at night.

[agentsteel53]

It's fun to find old signs out in the field, but there are safety issues involved if the signs become illegible or lose their reflectivity.

Most all of the old-style signs in Kentucky have been replaced with signs faced with reflective sheeting, but I can remember when the old-style signs were still pretty common. Some of them were nearly impossible to read at night.

certainly for STOP and other high-criticality signs this is an issue, but a route marker (which is the best find of them all), having an older-spec trailblazer lying around isn't the end of the world.

[english si]

surely STOP's unique shape (designed to be distinguishable when covered in snow) would make it less highly-critical?

[agentsteel53]

surely STOP's unique shape (designed to be distinguishable when covered in snow) would make it less highly-critical?

it is uniquely shaped because it is so critical!  STOP signs should always be in top-notch condition. 

[english si]

my point was that the unique shape would make them not so critical in replacing due to wear and tear - the shape conveys the message as well. They are uniquely shaped so that something has to be very severely wrong before you can't go "that's a STOP sign" - they are designed so that they don't have to be in tip top condition in order to yet the point across.

[thenetwork]

how many more interstates does Ohio need?

All they need is one more -- A true-interstate linking Toledo @ I-280 to Huntington, WV @ I-64.  US-23 is pure driving hell between Delaware (, OH) and Columbus (and south of Columbus to a lesser extent) due to constant small towns with multiple traffic lights & business districts, and the NIMBYS in and around Delaware are to blame.  I'd like to say that those businesses along US-23 between Delaware & I-270 think they are one big Breezewood, and if ANY Interstate bypasses the current US-23 corridor or reroutes traffic over to I-71 North of Columbus, then the game is over for many of those businesses.  And because the majority of those businesses are just a short drive from the capitol, the NIMBY's have their megaphone.

[dfilpus]

how many more interstates does Ohio need?

All they need is one more -- A true-interstate linking Toledo @ I-280 to Huntington, WV @ I-64.  US-23 is pure driving hell between Delaware (, OH) and Columbus (and south of Columbus to a lesser extent) due to constant small towns with multiple traffic lights & business districts, and the NIMBYS in and around Delaware are to blame.  I'd like to say that those businesses along US-23 between Delaware & I-270 think they are one big Breezewood, and if ANY Interstate bypasses the current US-23 corridor or reroutes traffic over to I-71 North of Columbus, then the game is over for many of those businesses.  And because the majority of those businesses are just a short drive from the capitol, the NIMBY's have their megaphone.

And this is the Ohio segment of I 73, defeated by those same forces.

[Scott5114]

my point was that the unique shape would make them not so critical in replacing due to wear and tear - the shape conveys the message as well. They are uniquely shaped so that something has to be very severely wrong before you can't go "that's a STOP sign" - they are designed so that they don't have to be in tip top condition in order to yet the point across.

But if they are in tip top condition they are easier to see from farther away, thus aiding in conveying their message.

[english si]

But if they are in tip top condition they are easier to see from farther away, thus aiding in conveying their message.

I'm not disputing that they ought to be in tip top condition and there being so is a good thing. I'm disputing that they _have_ to _always_ be in tip top condition - after all they are designed to be recognisable when completely illegible through snow covering it.

Bare in mind, I'm in a country where STOP is rarely used, with Give Way (Yield) being a lot more popular - it's much more important (with the average STOP sign placement) to be able to see the sign and STOP here than in the states. I know how important for safety STOP signs are, but I also can see how they are a great bit of design, and have engineered in a lack of a need to clean them if defaced, replace them if faded, or to clear them if covered in snow. It's a good thing to keep them as clear and as possible, but not essential.

[J N Winkler]

Simon, you are also in a country where STOP signs are routinely illuminated using overhead fluorescent fixtures, which is never the case in the USA (the closest equivalent is experimental LED-enhanced STOP signs).  So the insistence on STOP signs having retroreflective sheeting in good condition does not necessarily imply a more conservative approach in the US.

[D-Dey65]

Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built.  We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan....  Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.

To be honest, the only one in New York City I wouldn't have liked is the Queens-Interborough Expressway:
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/queens-interboro/


As for Philadelphia, I think I can live without the Cross Town Expressway and most of the Girard Avenue Expressway(except between I-95 and the formerly proposed North Penn Expressway).

http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/PA-309/
http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/girard/

[Grzrd]

Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built.  We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan....  Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.

To be honest, the only one in New York City I wouldn't have liked is the Queens-Midtown Expressway:
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/queens-interboro/


As for Philadelphia, I think I can live without the Cross Town Expressway and most of the Girard Avenue Expressway(except between I-95 and the formerly proposed North Penn Expressway).

http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/PA-309/
http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/girard/

From a Memphis Daily News review of the "Interstate 69: The Unfinished History of the Last Great American Highway"  book:

"...any book about highway development in Memphis should include a conversation with attorney Charles Newman, a Little Tea Shop regular who in the late 1960s and early 1970s worked with the Citizen to Preserve Overton Park ... That was the grassroots group responsible for keeping I-40 from tearing through the park, a watershed moment for Memphis, yet an antithetical one considering the rash of highway construction at that time in the U.S."

Anyone have enough "local knowledge" to weigh in with a historical verdict on this event?

[Quillz]

My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.

A more pressing need in this area is completion of the US 64/US 74 corridor between Chattanooga and Asheville, which does not need to be built to full freeway standards.

Exactly. I don't mind the idea behind I-3, but really? Interstate 3? At least I-99 is SOMEWHAT located in the east... I-3 is nowhere near the West Coast, and even then, Hawaii already has an "I-3" of sorts.

Is there really no other number(s) available for the proposed routing?

[Eth]

My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.

Exactly. I don't mind the idea behind I-3, but really? Interstate 3? At least I-99 is SOMEWHAT located in the east... I-3 is nowhere near the West Coast, and even then, Hawaii already has an "I-3" of sorts.

Is there really no other number(s) available for the proposed routing?

Well, if we can have two I-84/86/88s, why not apply the same concept for north-south routes?  I-89 (or maybe I-83) sounds fine to me.

[Brandon]

My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.

Exactly. I don't mind the idea behind I-3, but really? Interstate 3? At least I-99 is SOMEWHAT located in the east... I-3 is nowhere near the West Coast, and even then, Hawaii already has an "I-3" of sorts.

Is there really no other number(s) available for the proposed routing?

Well, if we can have two I-84/86/88s, why not apply the same concept for north-south routes?  I-89 (or maybe I-83) sounds fine to me.

Most agreed.  I-87, I-89, I-91, and I-93 aren't getting out of  New England/New York anytime soon.