Interstate Highways Versus non-Interstate freeways

[bwana39]

Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.)  The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.

Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.

So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?

[ethanhopkin14]

Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may be within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.)  The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.

Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.

So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?

I am of the camp that is in the middle, but leaning more toward signing interstates.  I think that a good chunk of freeways that are not interstates should be upgraded.  The average motorist cannot tell you the difference between a county road, a state road or a US-Highway, but they will know the difference between them and an interstate.  Some are scared of them and others know they are getting a long distance freeway, and others just see it as a faster highway.  Whatever the reason is, when they see the shield on a map (or nowadays GPS) there is a certain expectation involved.   They know that there is a consistency found on interstates that not afforded on lesser roads.   I honestly believe this helps navigation.  If they see a state or US shield on a highway, they may not believe it is a full freeway because they have been burned before.  If more of the freeways in Texas had interstate shields on them, I think they would be used more for overall navigation, just to name one state. 

[JayhawkCO]

I agree with Ethan. It's easier for everyone, in my opinion, if people know that a certain sign means a certain quality of road. Interstates should be "the fast ones", so I think it's easier to just label anything interstate standard as an interstate.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, there are plenty of freeways in Arizona and California that aren't signed as Interstates.  In Arizona they are generally just localized corridors to the Phoenix area and in California just segments of State Highway.  If anything there is too many Auxiliary Interstates in California which probably could be paired down to something more reasonable so there isn't a billion X80 variants.  I kind of prefer how US 50 is signed over the otherwise hidden FHWA I-305 in Sacramento as an example.  I guess I'm of the opinion that signing as many 2D Interstates is fine but there is such a thing as over saturation on 3D corridors. 

[SEWIGuy]

I think every freeway of "significant length" should be an interstate.  Significant length is best determined by state DOTs.

[kphoger]

1.  To be an Interstate, it should connect to the rest of the Interstate network.  Isolated freeway segments shouldn't be designated as Interstates.

2.  An Interstate that is still in the process of filling in the gaps shouldn't be designated as an Interstate at all–except perhaps from one end to the beginning of the first gap.

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

4.  Freeways that don't meet current Interstate standards shouldn't be designated as Interstates (grandfathered ones excepted).  Just because something is a freeway, that doesn't mean it meets all the expectations that come with the blue and red shield.

5.  I have no problem with Interstate-quality freeways being mere state routes or US routes.  I also have no problem with downgrading all Interstates to state routes or US routes.  For most people, either the road goes where you want or it doesn't, you'll take it if it does, and you won't if it doesn't–no matter what color the shield is.  For truckers, they already have their own maps and dispatch and whatnot.

[skluth]

I think if a freeway crosses a state border and connects to the interstate system it should be an interstate. If a freeway is really short (<5 miles), I don't think it should be an interstate unless there is a compelling reason to make it one.  Otherwise, I don't care. Many rural interstates would be just fine as expressways and some interstates (e.g., I-10 in West Texas) are de facto expressways.

I wouldn't mind a way to quickly identify limited access highways much like marking some highways toll roads. Maybe having the shield colored hot pink or some other eye-catching way to signify limited access.

[bwana39]

I think if a freeway crosses a state border and connects to the interstate system it should be an interstate. If a freeway is really short (<5 miles), I don't think it should be an interstate unless there is a compelling reason to make it one.  Otherwise, I don't care. Many rural interstates would be just fine as expressways and some interstates (e.g., I-10 in West Texas) are de facto expressways.

I wouldn't mind a way to quickly identify limited access highways much like marking some highways toll roads. Maybe having the shield colored hot pink or some other eye-catching way to signify limited access.

I agree with you on this one. An in-law of mine LITERALLY goes from downtown Dallas to Longview via the following route: I-30 to I-635 to I-20. I think if there were differentiating signing on US-80 (from I-30 to Forney) and US-175 from I-45 to I-20 she wouldn't take such a dog-leg. 

If everything (excluding stubs and tollways ) in DFW were IH, You would need over 10 additional  3-DI numbers just for DFW. (US-80, US-175, US-67, US-287, SS-366, SH-114, SH-183, SH-121,  SH-360, SL-12 / SS-408 and surely some others. This assumes  I-45 would subsume both I-345 and US-75.

[ethanhopkin14]

I think if a freeway crosses a state border and connects to the interstate system it should be an interstate. If a freeway is really short (<5 miles), I don't think it should be an interstate unless there is a compelling reason to make it one.  Otherwise, I don't care. Many rural interstates would be just fine as expressways and some interstates (e.g., I-10 in West Texas) are de facto expressways.

I wouldn't mind a way to quickly identify limited access highways much like marking some highways toll roads. Maybe having the shield colored hot pink or some other eye-catching way to signify limited access.

I agree with you on this one. An in-law of mine LITERALLY goes from downtown Dallas to Longview via the following route: I-30 to I-635 to I-20. I think if there were differentiating signing on US-80 (from I-30 to Forney) and US-175 from I-45 to I-20 she wouldn't take such a dog-leg. 

If everything (excluding stubs and tollways ) in DFW were IH, You would need over 10 additional  3-DI numbers just for DFW. (US-80, US-175, US-67, US-287, SS-366, SH-114, SH-183, SH-121,  SH-360, SL-12 / SS-408 and surely some others. This assumes US-75 would subsume both I-345 and US-75.

US-80 from Terrell to Dallas should never been demoted.  It should have become Interstate 220 years ago. 

[CoreySamson]

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

So you would propose that a lot of spur 3dis (I-530 AR, I-580 NV, and I-172 IL are some examples) shouldn't be interstates because they terminate at surface streets and don't connect to other interstates, or would you, say, terminate I-10 at I-405 instead of bringing the designation all the way to Santa Monica? Or am I understanding this wrong?

[kphoger]

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

So you would propose that a lot of spur 3dis (I-530 AR, I-580 NV, and I-172 IL are some examples) shouldn't be interstates because they terminate at surface streets and don't connect to other interstates, or would you, say, terminate I-10 at I-405 instead of bringing the designation all the way to Santa Monica? Or am I understanding this wrong?

Sorry, I should have excluded 3di spur routes explicitly.

No, I'm talking about, say, US-65 southbound out of Springfield, MO.  It's a freeway for a while, but then it starts getting at-grade intersections farther south.  The freeway portion should not be made into an Interstate for that reason.

[Dirt Roads]

I'm more concerned about the inability to quickly decipher which highways are part of (or should be part of) the National Highway System.  Obviously, the Interstate system is the backbone of the NHS.  But the rest of the NHS is cobbled together.  In most states, there is a rhyme-or-reason to state primary routes, secondary routes and perhaps "back roads".  But the logic behind the US Highway route numbering is approaching 100 years old, and is horribly obsolete.  Most of these routes are not deserving of NHS status, current or future.  There are several things that come to mind.

First off, the NHS shouldn't be driven by the existing (and somewhat arbitrary) highway routings.  Key locations that need to be connected to the NHS are as follows:

• Large/important cities
• Major airports and seaports
• Important military bases
• Major universities and research centers
• Major commercial and industrial centers
• National parks and larger towns/districts of historical importance
• Major agricultural centers
• Cities/towns of regional importance

The locations connected by the NHS should not include regional entities such as large suburbs that don't meet those other requirements.

I've done a bit of research on these topics in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, which don't fully represent the issues facing the entire nation.  But it seems that the current NHS is faced with the following issues:

• The existing NHS corridors (non-Interstate) are difficult to navigate using the current numbering system.
• The existing NHS corridors (including Interstate highways) do not include adequate information about the roadway status (in particular, freeway status and average speeds)
• There are still too many key locations and (potential) key locations that are not served by the NHS.
• Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS tend to have perpendicular routings rather than more logical diagonals.
• There are many destination pairs whereby commerical (truck) GPS routings do not utilize the NHS routes.
• Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS almost always have heavily congested developments surrounding the NHS connection

Although I would prefer a new numbering scheme superimposed over the Interstate and US routes, it seems like it would also be possible to improve the NHS using the grids implied by these two schemes.  However, it would be too complex address the freeway status/average speed issue using only the two grids.  (I'm using the word "grid" colloquially, and not necessarily wanting every route number to fit the grid perfectly).

[Hobart]

Honestly, I'd like to see a few more Interstate freeways, but I don't think every freeway needs to be an interstate. We don't really need the Minot Bypass to carry a blue and red shield because there's none in the area for it to connect to.

I think freeways that take a significant amount of traffic off of interstates, and serve to significantly augment their purposes, should definitely be assigned interstate highway numbers appropriately. Wis-441 handles a ton of traffic from Interstate 41, it might as well be an interstate because it effectively acts like one.

Indiana 912 in its prime would be another example; it was a very important spur between 80/94 and the industries at its current north end; it also had the potential to be an important connector between 80/94 and the toll road. If people actually used it for its intended purpose, I would totally understand giving it an I-x94 number. It's the same case with the part of US 41 north of the Edens spur. It's effectively an extension of the Edens Expressway. Why doesn't it have a number?

[hbelkins]

Any limited-access freeway that connects to an Interstate should be signed as an Interstate, even if it has some features that aren't quite up to the modern standards. That means that yes, I would sign I-26 all the way from Asheville to Johnson City, and not leave the section between Asheville and Mars Hill as only US routes with a "Future I-26" label.

The standard would be if a lay person could reasonably be expected to know whether the route they were on was an Interstate or merely a state- or US-route-signed freeway without looking at signage.

The example I used to use before I-65 in Kentucky was widened was this:You're a passenger in a vehicle, traveling for the first time between Bowling Green and Lexington. You doze off somewhere around Bonnieville or Upton, and then wake up somewhere between Elizabethtown and Bardstown. You're not going to know that you have left the Interstate system (I-65) for a state freeway (the Bluegrass Parkway).

I'd sign all the four-lane Kentucky parkways as Interstates because they all connect to the system. The Mountain Parkway would become I-164 despite a couple of substandard interchanges.

[wanderer2575]

I agree with Ethan. It's easier for everyone, in my opinion, if people know that a certain sign means a certain quality of road. Interstates should be "the fast ones", so I think it's easier to just label anything interstate standard as an interstate.

"Certain sign means a certain quality of road."  Got it.

[3467]

The NHS was supposed to be something. The head Rodney Slater of FHWA at the time wanted some standard not necessarily a 4 lane maybe passing lanes.
Sadly now it's just the FAP routes. Dirt Roads has a great post.

[bwana39]

I'm more concerned about the inability to quickly decipher which highways are part of (or should be part of) the National Highway System.  Obviously, the Interstate system is the backbone of the NHS.  But the rest of the NHS is cobbled together.  In most states, there is a rhyme-or-reason to state primary routes, secondary routes and perhaps "back roads".  But the logic behind the US Highway route numbering is approaching 100 years old, and is horribly obsolete.  Most of these routes are not deserving of NHS status, current or future.  There are several things that come to mind.

First off, the NHS shouldn't be driven by the existing (and somewhat arbitrary) highway routings.  Key locations that need to be connected to the NHS are as follows:

• Large/important cities
• Major airports and seaports
• Important military bases
• Major universities and research centers
• Major commercial and industrial centers
• National parks and larger towns/districts of historical importance
• Major agricultural centers
• Cities/towns of regional importance

The locations connected by the NHS should not include regional entities such as large suburbs that don't meet those other requirements.

I've done a bit of research on these topics in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, which don't fully represent the issues facing the entire nation.  But it seems that the current NHS is faced with the following issues:

• The existing NHS corridors (non-Interstate) are difficult to navigate using the current numbering system.
• The existing NHS corridors (including Interstate highways) do not include adequate information about the roadway status (in particular, freeway status and average speeds)
• There are still too many key locations and (potential) key locations that are not served by the NHS.
• Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS tend to have perpendicular routings rather than more logical diagonals.
• There are many destination pairs whereby commerical (truck) GPS routings do not utilize the NHS routes.
• Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS almost always have heavily congested developments surrounding the NHS connection

Although I would prefer a new numbering scheme superimposed over the Interstate and US routes, it seems like it would also be possible to improve the NHS using the grids implied by these two schemes.  However, it would be too complex address the freeway status/average speed issue using only the two grids.  (I'm using the word "grid" colloquially, and not necessarily wanting every route number to fit the grid perfectly).

This implies that there are actually ONE set of national priorities.  Even when they are set, it doesn't mean the states will actually follow through.

[Rothman]

The NHS was supposed to be something. The head Rodney Slater of FHWA at the time wanted some standard not necessarily a 4 lane maybe passing lanes.
Sadly now it's just the FAP routes. Dirt Roads has a great post.

This isn't true.  One need only look at NYSDOT's functional class viewer in urban areas in particular to see this.

Come to think of it, no one really cares about FAP or FAS routes any longer when it comes to capital project programming.  There's the Interstates, NHS, off-NHS-but-still-FA-Eligible (collquially known as the Flex system) and then whatever is on or off the State system that isn't FA-eligible.  There's been so much tinkering by the states that they're pretty customized now.

[plain]

I agree with Ethan. It's easier for everyone, in my opinion, if people know that a certain sign means a certain quality of road. Interstates should be "the fast ones", so I think it's easier to just label anything interstate standard as an interstate.

"Certain sign means a certain quality of road."  Got it.

Ahh hahaha 

[Dirt Roads]

This implies that there are actually ONE set of national priorities.  Even when they are set, it doesn't mean the states will actually follow through.

Excellent point, and one that I suspect that I've not been consistent on myself.  (Or perhaps consistent from a country boy point-of-view).  It seems natural to deem "locations" as important based on how the particular state deems those locations, which generally is based on the highways already connecting them.  In states like North Carolina, "important locations" tend to be connected by freeways.  In states like West Virginia, "important locations" tend to be connected improved two-lane highways that go through in both directions (not including the Appalachian Corridors).  States like Georgia tend to connect "important locations" with shorter four-lane highway spurs that plug perpendicular to the Interstates (not including the radial freeways/highways spiraling away from the Atlanta Perimeter.  Kentucky has it's own Parkway system, plus some long-distance improved two-lane highways.  Virginia has all of those four-lane highways where the new straight lanes run alongside the old, curvy/hilly lanes. 

More to your point is how the existing NHS seems to be ignored by some states.  It seems like Kentucky and Alabama were pushing hard to upgrade certain NHS routes to a minimum standard.  Perhaps there are others outside of my current area of interest.

Anyhow, I am more interested in signage of the NHS corridors (current and future).  It doesn't make sense that US-421 in North Carolina (mostly NHS) is signed the same as a lesser US-158 (also mostly NHS) and even lesser US-311 (a road of less importance than many of the state routes).  There's no way from the signage that I can tell that I can average nearly 70 MPH on one of these and average less than 40 MPH on another.

[ethanhopkin14]

Anyhow, I am more interested in signage of the NHS corridors (current and future).  It doesn't make sense that US-421 in North Carolina (mostly NHS) is signed the same as a lesser US-158 (also mostly NHS) and even lesser US-311 (a road of less importance than many of the state routes).  There's no way from the signage that I can tell that I can average nearly 70 MPH on one of these and average less than 40 MPH on another.

This is my point with signing freeways as interstates.  Its the inconstancy of US and state routes that's the issue.  I know you can pull up all sorts of crappy condition interstates, but for the most part, you are going to get a wide open freeway with a high speed limit.  That to me means a lot when I am traveling long distance.  I know by the 10th hour of driving, I don't want to put up with a sub-freeway road.  Those little things are tiring and hard to deal with when you have a lot of fatigue behind you.  There have been a lot of times I opt to go the interstate route to a place when the interstate route is more of an "L" shape, but the direct route is an expressway at it's best and a 2-lane highway at it's worst.  I will especially do it when calculating a route knowing when I get to this part of the journey I will have several hours of driver fatigue behind me.  When I start to wear down, The less I want to suffer red lights, bad sightlines, 45 mph zones, bad merging areas, waiting on a 2-lane highway for a passing zone to pass grandpa, driveways and streets directly connecting the highway, two nice yellow stripes on the pavement separating me and an oncoming vehicle, buildings too close to the road obscuring stuff I need to look out for and the absence of shoulders.  I know some people out there don't really think about how dangerous these things are and how many of the roads they picture as being "safer" have all these things and are not safer at all.  I tend to investigate all these things when I plan a long road trip because first off, I want to live during my trip.  Like a lot of things, I don't think I am alone in this vein of thinking. 

[GaryV]

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.

[kphoger]

3.  A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate:  its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.

So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.

Two options here:

  1.  Do exactly that.  The northern terminus of I-896 (or whatever you want to number it) would be at I-96 on the north side of Grand Rapids.

  2.  Count Cadillac as a major city.  Then you could terminate the Interstate there–similar to the southern terminus of I-27 or the western terminus of I-44.

Of the two, I'd prefer #1, because I can't stomach a town of less than 12k population being considered a major city worthy of an I- terminus.  But that's just me.

[skluth]

I'm more concerned about the inability to quickly decipher which highways are part of (or should be part of) the National Highway System.  Obviously, the Interstate system is the backbone of the NHS.  But the rest of the NHS is cobbled together.  In most states, there is a rhyme-or-reason to state primary routes, secondary routes and perhaps "back roads".  But the logic behind the US Highway route numbering is approaching 100 years old, and is horribly obsolete.  Most of these routes are not deserving of NHS status, current or future.  There are several things that come to mind.

First off, the NHS shouldn't be driven by the existing (and somewhat arbitrary) highway routings.  Key locations that need to be connected to the NHS are as follows:

• Large/important cities
• Major airports and seaports
• Important military bases
• Major universities and research centers
• Major commercial and industrial centers
• National parks and larger towns/districts of historical importance
• Major agricultural centers
• Cities/towns of regional importance

The locations connected by the NHS should not include regional entities such as large suburbs that don't meet those other requirements.

I've done a bit of research on these topics in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, which don't fully represent the issues facing the entire nation.  But it seems that the current NHS is faced with the following issues:

• The existing NHS corridors (non-Interstate) are difficult to navigate using the current numbering system.
• The existing NHS corridors (including Interstate highways) do not include adequate information about the roadway status (in particular, freeway status and average speeds)
• There are still too many key locations and (potential) key locations that are not served by the NHS.
• Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS tend to have perpendicular routings rather than more logical diagonals.
• There are many destination pairs whereby commerical (truck) GPS routings do not utilize the NHS routes.
• Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS almost always have heavily congested developments surrounding the NHS connection

Although I would prefer a new numbering scheme superimposed over the Interstate and US routes, it seems like it would also be possible to improve the NHS using the grids implied by these two schemes.  However, it would be too complex address the freeway status/average speed issue using only the two grids.  (I'm using the word "grid" colloquially, and not necessarily wanting every route number to fit the grid perfectly).

The NHS isn't perfect. It will never be perfect. But it works. It's also tangential to the OP which is about Interstate vs non-Interstate, not another opportunity to rant about your perceived inadequacies of the NHS. However, if you'd like to start a new topic about this, please repeat this rant so it can be properly discussed without deflecting the current discussion.

[Dirt Roads]

Anyhow, I am more interested in signage of the NHS corridors (current and future).  It doesn't make sense that US-421 in North Carolina (mostly NHS) is signed the same as a lesser US-158 (also mostly NHS) and even lesser US-311 (a road of less importance than many of the state routes).  There's no way from the signage that I can tell that I can average nearly 70 MPH on one of these and average less than 40 MPH on another.

This is my point with signing freeways as interstates.  Its the inconstancy of US and state routes that's the issue.  I know you can pull up all sorts of crappy condition interstates, but for the most part, you are going to get a wide open freeway with a high speed limit.  That to me means a lot when I am traveling long distance.  I know by the 10th hour of driving, I don't want to put up with a sub-freeway road.  Those little things are tiring and hard to deal with when you have a lot of fatigue behind you.  There have been a lot of times I opt to go the interstate route to a place when the interstate route is more of an "L" shape, but the direct route is an expressway at it's best and a 2-lane highway at it's worst.  I will especially do it when calculating a route knowing when I get to this part of the journey I will have several hours of driver fatigue behind me.  When I start to wear down, The less I want to suffer red lights, bad sightlines, 45 mph zones, bad merging areas, waiting on a 2-lane highway for a passing zone to pass grandpa, driveways and streets directly connecting the highway, two nice yellow stripes on the pavement separating me and an oncoming vehicle, buildings too close to the road obscuring stuff I need to look out for and the absence of shoulders.  I know some people out there don't really think about how dangerous these things are and how many of the roads they picture as being "safer" have all these things and are not safer at all.  I tend to investigate all these things when I plan a long road trip because first off, I want to live during my trip.  Like a lot of things, I don't think I am alone in this vein of thinking.

Indeed, the Interstate designation helps.  I've got a friend in Charlotte who travels to the Tri-Cities a great deal.  He has found that the easiest route (for him, using your 10th hour logic) is using US-421 to I-77 (if he is going to hit Charlotte at a decent hour).  Even using a map, there's no way to come up with that kind of logic without running the route a few times.  Most of the time, he still prefers to use other, much shorter routes.  In my study, I simply zoom in on a congested area and count stoplights to guess the average (non-rush hour) speeds.  But my main goal was that the NHS routings need to currently support a continuous 45 MPH capability.  Many of them do not.  The freeway approach is much easier, but doesn't help much Out West or in poorer states that can't afford "them fancy roads".

In the United Kingdom, they sign the arterials with a tag (M) that designates the road requiring motorway rules:  think Route A1(M).  That helps a little bit, but you still get no clues as to what the condition of "plain ole' A1" is when the motorway ends up ahead.

I'd recommend an upgraded US Route shield (different color) which indicates that the route is a continuous freeway to the next "important location".  The rest of my recommendations have been redacted, as some of them may fall outside the "freeway" category.