Abandon the concept of interstate highway designations?

[Roadgeek Adam]

So, the recent decisions to create I-42 and I-87 in North Carolina have re-sparked a problem I have had with the interstate highway system for a while. A lot of it was instigated by the eastern Interstate 86, and the fact that the designation's completion will be delayed for god knows how long, especially with the problem that still is coming up with Hale Eddy, NY. That said, this is not a discussion I want about I-86 specifically, but the interstate highway system in general.

The idea of the interstate highway system was created in by Pres. Eisenhower to help build freeways across our nation and the government gave them designations. To some degree, we take these designations with a grain of salt as regular drivers with varying levels of interest. People like us roadgeeks obsess (sometimes unhealthily) over them, and some don't even know their numbers (such as around NYC, where most have other names.)

Since Eisenhower's day, we have expanded interstate highways across the country, and while it would be absolutely silly to remove the designations, it does leave one to wonder what real value these designations have. Do we need interstates everywhere in America? We can still build freeways without interstate designations and still work on getting federal funding. A reason I pick on I-86 and the Hale Eddy situation is because there is no reason to upgrade that section of NY 17 to interstate standards cause there are not high volumes of traffic using it. However, AASHTO in their genius wisdom, has standards for what is an interstate highway and I-86 cannot go from end to end without an upgrade of that stretch.

I know marketing is a big piece of this, but does it make a serious difference? The federal government has also, with the state of North Carolina and especially Texas, worked itself into a major hole with the system. Originally, they went to the trouble of making sure that suffixed interstates were abandoned, but now we have a threesome in Texas of I-69s and a pathetic Interstate 2 to go with it. We are at the point where the numbers are chosen almost esoterically to fit a grid that no longer works. So the question I have is this: Is it time to end the interstate designations? Can the idea of federally-funded freeways work without them?

[GaryV]

Certainly some states are more apt to build freeways without requiring them to have an Interstate designation.  Michigan and Ohio are good examples.  The freeway may not run border to border, but it is built where it is most needed.

Non-Interstate routes are eligible for Federal money.

I agree, this penchant for adding Interstate numbers is not necessary.  Some routes justify a number.  The I-69 extension comes to mind, provided you accept the proposition that a new Mexico to Canada route was needed.

But some of the recent additions are just window dressing.  Who needed I-41 and the I-73/I-74 nonsense?  (Let alone I-99.)  Only the states that wanted a fancy shield.

[kalvado]

Interstate designation means some consistency in travel condition. Limited access divided highway, 2 travel lane minimum for direction .
State/US designation can be anything from better than interstate to almost dirt road (yes, a bit of exaggeration, but still) - and change from being a great road to god knows what in a matter of mile. So for someone out of area, I-XX shield carried a bit of informational value.
I don't think there are lots of people who would choose to take I-87 in NC to Montreal based on the number only, so those are only a small issue (unlike I-95 mess, which can be problem locally)
Numbering pattern (same as IP addresses, SSNs, phone area codes and 2-digit year in dates) is running low in capacity, but revisiting any of those has a potential to create a huge mess. Maybe some new designation like "intrastate freeway" need to emerge to give some consistency?

[peterj920]

Personally, I think the federal gas tax should be abolished and leave that up to the states.  With our current system funds raised by states are redistributed to other states. Some states benefit while others lose aid and pay more than they get back.  By having the states raise their own fuel taxes, it all stays within the state and every state is ensured that the transportation funding doesn't leave that state. 

On interstate designations, they keep standards consistent throughout the country which is a huge benefit of the system.  Wisconsin and Michigan build their non-interstate freeways to interstate standards, but Iowa nearby does not.  US 20 has large segments that are freeway, but are not interstate standard and has a 65 mph speed limit, while interstates are at 70.  If interstate designations would be removed, would states like Iowa cut corners on freeway projects?

Another example is Alabama.  If you're not on an interstate in that state, it is miserable to drive.  Would US 78 be upgraded to interstate standards if it weren't for the incentive for I-22, or would it be a miserable 4 lane road like US 231 if it didn't have the interstate incentive?

[texaskdog]

As OCD as I am, I think the grid system is ridiculous.  Everything is out of order, I-29 and I-49 are the same road, I-40 just curves into I-81.  Without the ridiculous grid numbering, roads would make a whole lot more sense.

[kalvado]

Personally, I think the federal gas tax should be abolished and leave that up to the states.  With our current system funds raised by states are redistributed to other states. Some states benefit while others lose aid and pay more than they get back.  By having the states raise their own fuel taxes, it all stays within the state and every state is ensured that the transportation funding doesn't leave that state.

That would put sparsely populated mid-continent (fly-over) states  at great disadvantage.  They are not doing great as-is, and putting another handicap on connectivity... You may get to same result in a different way - just split country into East Coast States, West Coast States, and donate land between those to Mexico.

[Quillz]

At this point, interstates have become a brand name (to borrow from another site). Even with GPS, Google Maps, etc, there are still people who get easily lost or confused. Them being on an interstate highway can give them some confidence. And even then, interstate highways still mean a certain minimum design standard. There's still no guarantee when getting on a state or US highway that there will be a consistent standard all the way.

[peterj920]

Personally, I think the federal gas tax should be abolished and leave that up to the states.  With our current system funds raised by states are redistributed to other states. Some states benefit while others lose aid and pay more than they get back.  By having the states raise their own fuel taxes, it all stays within the state and every state is ensured that the transportation funding doesn't leave that state.

That would put sparsely populated mid-continent (fly-over) states  at great disadvantage.  They are not doing great as-is, and putting another handicap on connectivity... You may get to same result in a different way - just split country into East Coast States, West Coast States, and donate land between those to Mexico.

Not necessarily.  I'm from Wisconsin where the state kept getting robbed of federal funding when the initial interstate system was proposed by only having 2 interstates with a lengthy overlap.  To the south, Illinois pretty much got every interstate that it wanted.  I-180 is proof of that.  I-43 between Green Bay and Milwaukee was eventually approved, but Wisconsin had to independently build I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit, I-39 and I-41.  Was pretty easy to give those interstate designations after Wisconsin did the heavy lifting by using its funds to construct those freeways.  All the federal government did was put interstate signs on them. 

Since the 1990s federal funding for highways has poured into Wisconsin, but that is because the legislatures elected were more aggressive at obtaining federal funding than the previous members of congress from the state and Congressman Petri was a high ranking member of the Transportation Committee.  The sad reality of the current federal transportation funding model is that funding is based on how aggressive each state's congressional delegation is and it all comes down to politics.   

[kalvado]

Personally, I think the federal gas tax should be abolished and leave that up to the states.  With our current system funds raised by states are redistributed to other states. Some states benefit while others lose aid and pay more than they get back.  By having the states raise their own fuel taxes, it all stays within the state and every state is ensured that the transportation funding doesn't leave that state.

That would put sparsely populated mid-continent (fly-over) states  at great disadvantage.  They are not doing great as-is, and putting another handicap on connectivity... You may get to same result in a different way - just split country into East Coast States, West Coast States, and donate land between those to Mexico.

Not necessarily.  I'm from Wisconsin where the state kept getting robbed of federal funding when the initial interstate system was proposed by only having 2 interstates with a lengthy overlap.  To the south, Illinois pretty much got every interstate that it wanted.  I-180 is proof of that.  I-43 between Green Bay and Milwaukee was eventually approved, but Wisconsin had to independently build I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit, I-39 and I-41.  Was pretty easy to give those interstate designations after Wisconsin did the heavy lifting by using its funds to construct those freeways.  All the federal government did was put interstate signs on them. 

Since the 1990s federal funding for highways has poured into Wisconsin, but that is because the legislatures elected were more aggressive at obtaining federal funding than the previous members of congress from the state and Congressman Petri was a high ranking member of the Transportation Committee.  The sad reality of the current federal transportation funding model is that funding is based on how aggressive each state's congressional delegation is and it all comes down to politics.

Well, it boils down to "what is fair?" Who should pay for the road which serves local traffic mostly? And if that is mostly through traffic? 
On the other hand, think about Montana, which has 1/5 of WI population, and 2/3 of WI share of interstates (742 miles ) in I-90 alone(550 mi in MT).
Guess what would happen to that stretch of I-90 without federal dollars? My bet is heavy tolling and eventual downgrade to super-2 and below.
CA would happily ditch northern stretch of I-5, I-95 bypasses everything it can bypass in SC.
It would be somewhat workable for commerce if railroads keep running, though...

[SteveG1988]

Personally, I think the federal gas tax should be abolished and leave that up to the states.  With our current system funds raised by states are redistributed to other states. Some states benefit while others lose aid and pay more than they get back.  By having the states raise their own fuel taxes, it all stays within the state and every state is ensured that the transportation funding doesn't leave that state.

That would put sparsely populated mid-continent (fly-over) states  at great disadvantage.  They are not doing great as-is, and putting another handicap on connectivity... You may get to same result in a different way - just split country into East Coast States, West Coast States, and donate land between those to Mexico.

Not necessarily.  I'm from Wisconsin where the state kept getting robbed of federal funding when the initial interstate system was proposed by only having 2 interstates with a lengthy overlap.  To the south, Illinois pretty much got every interstate that it wanted.  I-180 is proof of that.  I-43 between Green Bay and Milwaukee was eventually approved, but Wisconsin had to independently build I-43 between Milwaukee and Beloit, I-39 and I-41.  Was pretty easy to give those interstate designations after Wisconsin did the heavy lifting by using its funds to construct those freeways.  All the federal government did was put interstate signs on them. 

Since the 1990s federal funding for highways has poured into Wisconsin, but that is because the legislatures elected were more aggressive at obtaining federal funding than the previous members of congress from the state and Congressman Petri was a high ranking member of the Transportation Committee.  The sad reality of the current federal transportation funding model is that funding is based on how aggressive each state's congressional delegation is and it all comes down to politics.   

Stuff like this is why I-95 in MD/DE is tolled. They got shafted on the funding.

I feel that the system should be flexible, having it rigid at first to prevent confusion of route numbers with US routes made sense. But now, you have spots where a interstate would be a good idea, but numbering requires a reuse, or a creative use of an out of grid number.

[SP Cook]

IMHO,

Interstates do have a "brand".  When speaking of new construction, it is far easier for the common layperson to understand "build I-27" than "build a road to interstate design standards between Stumptown and Dumptruckville".  When driving (with trivial exceptions only relevant on this board) the common layperson understands how interstates work in terms of speeds, lanes, rules, lights and so on.  Explaining that "well US 2 is just like an interstate between Rustberg and Burning River City" is more difficult.  And the increasing map illiteracy and over reliance on GPS is making that worse. 

A lot of people on this board are more "numbering geeks" than roadgeeks.  All kinds of fixation on things like I-99 and I-73/74 and this whole pointless deal on "fictional highways" of which 95% of the discussion is trying to make numbering systems conform to some kind of rules, rather than the real world discussions of how growth and demand cause an actual need for a better road in parts of the south and southwest.  Just for one example, look at the consternation about I-99 (US 220), with nothing written about the equally pointless US 219, just one mountain over.  Because of a fixation on numbering.  Or the crazy attempts to make I-74 make sense, while had NC simply just improved US 220 and called it that, nothing would be said outside of the region and the regional board.

As to funding, there is, of course, a national need for good roads and therefore a justification for national funding.  As pointed out, many states are getting less from particular roads than they cost, but the nation is benefitting.  And, of course, there remains plenty of money to build roads and maintain roads.  Government is simply spending on other things.  Things that are not government's job.

[jeffandnicole]

As OCD as I am, I think the grid system is ridiculous.  Everything is out of order, I-29 and I-49 are the same road, I-40 just curves into I-81.  Without the ridiculous grid numbering, roads would make a whole lot more sense.

Everything isn't out of order.  There are exceptions, but for the most part route numbers go up as you go from West to East, and from South to North.  Perfect?  No. Reasonably accurate?  Yes.

[roadman65]

Yeah but US 6 is south of US 20.  US 44 is between the two of them.  You have US 46 between US 20 and US 22, with this one being a one stater in one of the smallest US states by land mast too!

Not perfect, but generally speaking you do have US 90 and 98 in the south with US 2, US 4 (even though that one is short and not linear), US 10, US 12, and so on in the northern reaches.

[dgolub]

Abandoning the designations now would just confuse people.  There might be something to be said for allowing exceptions to interstate standards in a place like Hale Eddy.  However, that seems like it could be a slippery slope.  I feel like we have a number of them that are unwarranted.  There is simply no reason why people should have to go through traffic lights to stay on I-70 in Breezewood, Pennsylvania.  The traffic lights on I-78 in Jersey City also really shouldn't be there, although I recognize they'd be much more difficult to get rid of.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Abandoning the designations now would just confuse people.  There might be something to be said for allowing exceptions to interstate standards in a place like Hale Eddy.  However, that seems like it could be a slippery slope.  I feel like we have a number of them that are unwarranted.  There is simply no reason why people should have to go through traffic lights to stay on I-70 in Breezewood, Pennsylvania.  The traffic lights on I-78 in Jersey City also really shouldn't be there, although I recognize they'd be much more difficult to get rid of.

Short of a couple changes (a la 86 or 69), there just would be no further additions,

[epzik8]

I was just thinking of this issue and this is a really good point.

[Revive 755]

Short of a couple changes (a la 86 or 69), there just would be no further additions,

Very strongly disagree.  If certain links eventually get brought up to interstate standards (Highway 2 between I-80 at Lincoln, Nebraska, and I-29 in Iowa; the Avenue of the Saints corridor, parts of the I-66 corridor in Missouri and Kansas; and a few other corridors), they should be eligible to get an interstate shield.  Having these roads be denied interstate designations if they could have them because they were upgraded after some arbitrary cut off date is ridiculous.

If some states want to get fancier shields to indicate a road that does not turn into a stoplight infested disaster after you turn onto it, let them, but just have AASHTO and FHWA be more careful with assigning numbers.

[vdeane]

Around here, nobody gives a crap if a road is an interstate or not.  They care if it's a freeway.  Aside from a few ancient substandard ones, interstates and other freeways look identical to each other to a layperson.  Only engineers can tell if shoulder issues, curvature, etc. cause a road to not meet interstate standards.

Plus how many people just blindly drive around?  Most people either have a route planned already or are using GPS.  And even if we assume that that number is enough to justify a zillion additions to the system, it doesn't help if a road is incomplete, as the vast majority (all?) of the additions beyond the original system are; how does it help people to navigate if they're on I-81, try to get on I-86 to NYC, and then wonder why it ends 10 miles later?  It's just confusing.  And most of those roads will probably never be completed.

[kalvado]

Around here, nobody gives a crap if a road is an interstate or not.  They care if it's a freeway.  Aside from a few ancient substandard ones, interstates and other freeways look identical to each other to a layperson.  Only engineers can tell if shoulder issues, curvature, etc. cause a road to not meet interstate standards.

Plus how many people just blindly drive around?  Most people either have a route planned already or are using GPS.  And even if we assume that that number is enough to justify a zillion additions to the system, it doesn't help if a road is incomplete, as the vast majority (all?) of the additions beyond the original system are; how does it help people to navigate if they're on I-81, try to get on I-86 to NYC, and then wonder why it ends 10 miles later?  It's just confusing.  And most of those roads will probably never be completed.

What do you have in mind speaking about non-interstate freeways? I cannot think of too many roads, and none longer than 10 miles in upstate

[vdeane]

NY 7, the state route extensions of multiple interstates, NY 17, US 219, NY 400, NY 104, etc.  I didn't even know that I-590 and NY 590 were parts of different systems until I was in middle school, and I'm a roadgeek.  Such tends to happen when everything is "Route X" or "the Thruway", even the interstates (unlike the Capital District, Rochester doesn't differentiate, and the word "interstate" isn't even used by anyone other than DOT employees in the entire metro area).

[SP Cook]

Short of a couple changes (a la 86 or 69), there just would be no further additions,

Problem with that is the nation is changing.  Always has, always will. So you, with trivial exceptions, a road system designed for 1955.  Since then the nation has moved south and southwest, coasts have become occupied, and cities have grown out to and beyond what were supposed to be bypasses. 

As the nation grows and puts more and more wasteland into productive use, roads must be built.

[kalvado]

NY 7, the state route extensions of multiple interstates, NY 17, US 219, NY 400, NY 104, etc.  I didn't even know that I-590 and NY 590 were parts of different systems until I was in middle school, and I'm a roadgeek.  Such tends to happen when everything is "Route X" or "the Thruway", even the interstates (unlike the Capital District, Rochester doesn't differentiate, and the word "interstate" isn't even used by anyone other than DOT employees in the entire metro area).

I guess this is really glass half-full vs glass half-empty.
rt. 7 goes from an interstate-grade stretch to a 2-lane street within 5 miles, same I-787 becomes state 787, and if Cohoes gets their way you would have to walk along the state rt, since driving will be banned there.
With lots of highway branding in the area - Thruway, Northway, Masspike, etc - "interstate" brand apparently weakens...

[Roadgeek Adam]

Short of a couple changes (a la 86 or 69), there just would be no further additions,

Problem with that is the nation is changing.  Always has, always will. So you, with trivial exceptions, a road system designed for 1955.  Since then the nation has moved south and southwest, coasts have become occupied, and cities have grown out to and beyond what were supposed to be bypasses. 

As the nation grows and puts more and more wasteland into productive use, roads must be built.

Roads should be built. Linear designations should not be required.

[vdeane]

I guess this is really glass half-full vs glass half-empty.
rt. 7 goes from an interstate-grade stretch to a 2-lane street within 5 miles, same I-787 becomes state 787, and if Cohoes gets their way you would have to walk along the state rt, since driving will be banned there.
With lots of highway branding in the area - Thruway, Northway, Masspike, etc - "interstate" brand apparently weakens...

I believe NY 787 is the only interstate extension in NY that isn't at least partially a freeway.