This came from "Threads you'll never see on aaroads.com"
Quote from: 1 on March 23, 2019, 10:44:24 AM
Most 2dis violate standards at one point or another:
10, 20, 40: at-grade intersections in very rural areas
93: one lane in each direction through Franconia Notch
95: outdated design through NYC; several others throughout the Northeast also have outdated designs
5, 64: drawbridges
One more I can think of: I-180 in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Only standard it meets is number of lanes.
Any others you guys can think of?
In before Breezewood
Fairly certain we've had multiple threads on this subject.
Quote from: froggie on March 24, 2019, 06:18:01 PM
Fairly certain we've had multiple threads on this subject.
I said this came off the threads you'll never see page.
Quote from: X99 on March 24, 2019, 06:20:39 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 24, 2019, 06:18:01 PM
Fairly certain we've had multiple threads on this subject.
I said this came off the threads you'll never see page.
Nobody listed the topic of this thread as a thread you'll never see; it was just a side discussion.
I-75 on the Mackinac Bridge and on 5he exit to itself in downtown Detroit. Nothing else I can really think of in Michigan.
I-73 at Asheboro, NC
Quote from: X99 on March 24, 2019, 04:28:56 PM
This came from "Threads you'll never see on aaroads.com"
Quote from: 1 on March 23, 2019, 10:44:24 AM
Most 2dis violate standards at one point or another:
10, 20, 40: at-grade intersections in very rural areas
93: one lane in each direction through Franconia Notch
95: outdated design through NYC; several others throughout the Northeast also have outdated designs
5, 64: drawbridges
One more I can think of: I-180 in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Only standard it meets is number of lanes.
Any others you guys can think of?
Not a 2di
But anyway, I'd say "most" is a bit of an exaggeration. We've only come up with a few 2dis that break rules, out of the many that exist.
Quote from: Beltway on March 24, 2019, 08:38:45 PM
I-73 at Asheboro, NC
How?
I-74 between I-40 and High Point does not meet shoulder standards. FHWA approved the signing of the route after misunderstanding a memo sent to them on the route by NCDOT, so they relented with the agreement that NCDOT put in place a project to upgrade the shoulders. Guess which project was not listed among those for I-74 in the Draft 2020-2029 STIP?
I-81 in the Thousand Islands has a 2-lane bridge.
The I-10 at-grades in Texas are interesting because at least 3 of them are signed for people to access I-10 at them...
I-95's drawbridge wasn't mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).
I assume I-68 through Cumberland, with its 40-mph speed limit, probably violates some standards, though I don't know which one(s) and I haven't been through there in a couple of years.
I-76 thru Philly in numerous ways. Low bridge heights, lack of shoulders, & 1 lane at one point on 76 EB where the Schuylkill Expressway becomes the Walt Whitman Expressway are 3 examples.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 24, 2019, 09:27:51 PM
I-95's drawbridge wasn't mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).
And for that matter, the I-278 Hunt's Point drawbridge in the Bronx.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 24, 2019, 09:27:51 PM
I-95's drawbridge wasn't mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).
I don't see where a justified drawbridge violates Interstate standards, particularly one that has high enough clearance when closed that it only averages one opening per month.
Quote from: 1 on March 23, 2019, 10:44:24 AM
Most 2dis violate standards at one point or another:
10, 20, 40: at-grade intersections in very rural areas
I think we'll be adding I-11 to that list, at least between Wickenburg and I-40, assuming it's extended over that stretch of US 93. There are close to 35 ranch turnoffs in that stretch, and there is no way "legit" exits can be justified. Between Kingman and Hoover Dam, frontage roads with the appropriate exits can be built for those who live along that stretch, but not south of I-40. Too hilly and too many of them.
I-69 in Kentucky could count as being substandard.
Quote from: Beltway on March 24, 2019, 10:24:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 24, 2019, 09:27:51 PM
I-95's drawbridge wasn't mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).
I don't see where a justified drawbridge violates Interstate standards, particularly one that has high enough clearance when closed that it only averages one opening per month.
Especially when that bridge was just built within the last, what, decade? Decade and a half?
Quote from: abefroman329 on March 25, 2019, 09:13:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 24, 2019, 10:24:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 24, 2019, 09:27:51 PM
I-95's drawbridge wasn't mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).
I don't see where a justified drawbridge violates Interstate standards, particularly one that has high enough clearance when closed that it only averages one opening per month.
Especially when that bridge was just built within the last, what, decade? Decade and a half?
Opened in 2006 and 2008.
I-70 in Western PA between the turnpike and I-79
I-82 violates numbering standards as well as the SB bridge over the Columbia being 11 foot lanes and no shoulder (not confident about the 11 foot lanes).
I-84 has a gravel service road around mp 26 in the gorge.
LG-TP260
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 25, 2019, 10:30:18 AM
I-82 violates numbering standards as well as the SB bridge over the Columbia being 11 foot lanes and no shoulder (not confident about the 11 foot lanes).
I-82 is more of a relic number than a violation (i.e. I-99) from when I-84 was I-80N.
35E in St. Paul, MN. It's designed as more of a "parkway" with truck restrictions and a lower speed limit. It was a compromise with the area NIMBYS.
I wonder how not-up-to-standard I-69E between Kingsville and Harlingen will be with all that King Ranch acreage, as US 77 gets upgraded.
I-97 in Maryland for being the shortest 2di.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 25, 2019, 10:30:18 AM
I-84 has a gravel service road around mp 26 in the gorge.
(1) Where, exactly? I'm looking in that MP range and don't see it.
(2) How does a gravel service road violate Interstate standards?
Quote from: froggie on March 24, 2019, 06:18:01 PM
Fairly certain we've had multiple threads on this subject.
This one might be the most relevant:
What is the most substandard interstate? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20915.msg2250710#msg2250710)
Quote from: bing101 on March 25, 2019, 06:38:41 PM
I-97 in Maryland for being the shortest 2di.
No matter how long or short it might be, or how many you may want renumbered, there will
always be a 2di that is the shortest 2di. :poke:
Back on topic, adding I-70 at Wheeling WV (two lane tunnel).
I-78 in New Jersey. In Jersey City it becomes two surface streets. 12th Street EB from Jersey Avenue to the Holland Tunnel. Then Boyle Plaza WB from the tunnel exit to the viaduct beginning at Jersey Avenue.
I-376 through Pittsburgh, because it now intersects its parent twice, both east and (north)west of it. And also, for the same reasons as below...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2019, 10:08:25 PM
I-76 thru Philly in numerous ways. Low bridge heights, lack of shoulders, & 1 lane at one point on 76 EB where the Schuylkill Expressway becomes the Walt Whitman Expressway are 3 examples.
I-93 through Franconia Notch in NH. Two lanes and narrow shoulders.
Any Interstate within New York City limits. Narrow lanes and narrow shoulders and suicide entrance ramps.
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Quote from: Mark68 on March 26, 2019, 12:39:33 PM
I-93 through Franconia Notch in NH. Two lanes and narrow shoulders.
That was originally to preserve a rock formation next to the highway. The rocks collapsed in like 2003, so I'm kinda surprised they haven't done anything about that yet.
Quote from: X99 on March 26, 2019, 09:09:10 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on March 26, 2019, 12:39:33 PM
I-93 through Franconia Notch in NH. Two lanes and narrow shoulders.
That was originally to preserve a rock formation next to the highway. The rocks collapsed in like 2003, so I'm kinda surprised they haven't done anything about that yet.
It wasn't just any old rock formation, but The Old Man of the Mountain. I believe the parkway also passes through a state park.
All the freezing and thawing created cracks that thing was first noticed in 1805 so who knows how or when it was formed it's known that it collapsed in 2003 though.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 26, 2019, 05:52:13 PM
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Easy fix take the surface routes.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 27, 2019, 01:39:58 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 26, 2019, 05:52:13 PM
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Easy fix take the surface routes.
Ha!
I don't understand the I-68 hate. My father found it to be a great alternative to the Penna Turnpike, especially after he insisted on taking US 40 through the hairpin curve before Sideling Hill was cut!
Quote from: Rothman on March 27, 2019, 08:26:16 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 27, 2019, 01:39:58 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 26, 2019, 05:52:13 PM
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Easy fix take the surface routes.
Ha!
I don't understand the I-68 hate. My father found it to be a great alternative to the Penna Turnpike, especially after he insisted on taking US 40 through the hairpin curve before Sideling Hill was cut!
I-68 has been discussed as long as I have been on roads and highways online forums (1997), and favorable comments have in the vast majority. The old US-40 bypass in Cumberland is substandard and ought to be upgraded or bypass. The rest of it is very impressive.
Quote from: txstateends on March 25, 2019, 06:27:08 PM
I wonder how not-up-to-standard I-69E between Kingsville and Harlingen will be with all that King Ranch acreage, as US 77 gets upgraded.
For that stretch, make sure the shoulders are correct and treat it like I-10.
Frankly, I would have signed it already.
Quote from: Rothman on March 26, 2019, 09:23:48 PM
Quote from: X99 on March 26, 2019, 09:09:10 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on March 26, 2019, 12:39:33 PM
I-93 through Franconia Notch in NH. Two lanes and narrow shoulders.
That was originally to preserve a rock formation next to the highway. The rocks collapsed in like 2003, so I'm kinda surprised they haven't done anything about that yet.
It wasn't just any old rock formation, but The Old Man of the Mountain. I believe the parkway also passes through a state park.
That is correct...Franconia Notch State Park.
Nor is there a traffic need to "do anything about it", as has often been discussed on this forum and elsewhere. Traffic is not an issue.
Quote from: bing101 on March 25, 2019, 06:38:41 PM
I-97 in Maryland for being the shortest 2di.
Which doesn't as much violate technical Interstate standards as roadgeek sensibilities. What's interesting about I-97 is that its original configuration also included all of unsigned I-595 deployed over US 50 between I-495 and the I-97 junction; the route was meant to be a sideways "V" shaped route with the intent of connecting Annapolis and its Naval facilities to both Washington and Baltimore. Later, the southern (I-595) portion was to be the original iteration of I-68 before the hidden I-595 designation was applied. If that were to be signed as per its original format, I'm sure there would be a bit fewer objections about I-97's overall length -- but at the expense of new ones about its shape! Nevertheless,
all of I-97, current
and original, meets Interstate construction standards.
Quote from: sparker on March 27, 2019, 05:18:16 PM
Which doesn't as much violate technical Interstate standards as roadgeek sensibilities. What's interesting about I-97 is that its original configuration also included all of unsigned I-595 deployed over US 50 between I-495 and the I-97 junction; the route was meant to be a sideways "V" shaped route with the intent of connecting Annapolis and its Naval facilities to both Washington and Baltimore. Later, the southern (I-595) portion was to be the original iteration of I-68 before the hidden I-595 designation was applied. If that were to be signed as per its original format, I'm sure there would be a bit fewer objections about I-97's overall length -- but at the expense of new ones about its shape! Nevertheless, all of I-97, current and original, meets Interstate construction standards.
Correct. And technically it doesn't violate route numbering standards, because even as short as it is, it connects the state's largest metro (2.5 million) which also has a world port, with the state capital.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 25, 2019, 10:30:18 AM
I-82 violates numbering standards as well as the SB bridge over the Columbia being 11 foot lanes and no shoulder (not confident about the 11 foot lanes).
I-84 has a gravel service road around mp 26 in the gorge.
LG-TP260
Speaking of that I-82 bridge over the Columbia, is there an ETA for having that project done?
Has anyone mentioned I-78 on either side of the Holland Tunnel?
Quote from: Verlanka on March 25, 2019, 08:21:39 AM
I-69 in Kentucky could count as being substandard.
i think every parkway being signed as interstate in kentucky qualifies. first they have to fix several exits that were toll plazas, then they have to work on the median, or that thing that technically qualifies as a median.
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 28, 2019, 02:14:28 AM
Has anyone mentioned I-78 on either side of the Holland Tunnel?
Definitely:
Quote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2019, 12:01:55 AM
I-78 in New Jersey. In Jersey City it becomes two surface streets. 12th Street EB from Jersey Avenue to the Holland Tunnel. Then Boyle Plaza WB from the tunnel exit to the viaduct beginning at Jersey Avenue.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 26, 2019, 05:23:36 PM
Any Interstate within New York City limits. Narrow lanes and narrow shoulders and suicide entrance ramps.
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?
Quote from: 1 on March 28, 2019, 10:18:43 AM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?
It was applied to the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes in the 1960s, and then extended down to the Bailey Turnpike in the 1980s. So probably both.
Quote from: Verlanka on March 28, 2019, 10:23:25 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 28, 2019, 10:18:43 AM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?
It was applied to the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes in the 1960s, and then extended down to the Bailey Turnpike in the 1980s. So probably both.
Similar happened w/portions of I-95 in both DE & MD (Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway respectively). Even though such were designated as part of the Interstate System
from day one (other, older tolled facilities were grandfathered in); such were constructed as toll roads as a financial means of getting such built sooner rather than later.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 28, 2019, 11:36:02 AM
Quote from: Verlanka on March 28, 2019, 10:23:25 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 28, 2019, 10:18:43 AM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?
It was applied to the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes in the 1960s, and then extended down to the Bailey Turnpike in the 1980s. So probably both.
Similar happened w/portions of I-95 in both DE & MD (Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway respectively). Even though such were designated as part of the Interstate System from day one (other, older tolled facilities were grandfathered in); such were constructed as toll roads as a financial means of getting such built sooner rather than later.
The H.E. Bailey Turnpike looks like an addition to the original Interstate Highway System. It doesn't even connect to another Interstate highway at its western end.
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 01:41:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 28, 2019, 11:36:02 AM
Quote from: Verlanka on March 28, 2019, 10:23:25 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 28, 2019, 10:18:43 AM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?
It was applied to the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes in the 1960s, and then extended down to the Bailey Turnpike in the 1980s. So probably both.
Similar happened w/portions of I-95 in both DE & MD (Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway respectively). Even though such were designated as part of the Interstate System from day one (other, older tolled facilities were grandfathered in); such were constructed as toll roads as a financial means of getting such built sooner rather than later.
The H.E. Bailey Turnpike looks like an addition to the original Interstate Highway System. It doesn't even connect to another Interstate highway at its western end.
That's because it is – I-44 was only extended past I-35 in 1982, replacing the north half of I-240 in the process.
Quote from: 1 on March 28, 2019, 10:18:43 AM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?
Actually, Federal law for the past several years has allowed "new Interstates" to be toll roads.
I don't really have an issue with the Cumberland section of I-68, except for the underposted speed limit. Only time I drive the posted speed limit there is if it's raining. Otherwise, I'm comfortable doing 50-55 through it. In this case, you have a modern freeway on either side of a one-mile stretch, so I'm not going to get too worked up over it. Neither am I concerned about the Kentucky parkways that might have medians not quite as wide as some rural interstates.
Probably the one I'm most familiar with that bothers me is I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, with the stop signs at the end of on-ramps.
Lots of people don't like I-78, but that one never bothered me, either. I never figured out what was so unsafe about it.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 28, 2019, 03:08:17 PM
I don't really have an issue with the Cumberland section of I-68, except for the underposted speed limit. Only time I drive the posted speed limit there is if it's raining. Otherwise, I'm comfortable doing 50-55 through it. In this case, you have a modern freeway on either side of a one-mile stretch, so I'm not going to get too worked up over it.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I68_MD_CT.jpg
It is winding and has no shoulders and has a number of urban ramps. I can't really say that it is underposted.
I-580 between Oakland and Hayward does not meet interstate standards due to a truck ban between I-880 interchange to I-238.
Quote from: Beltway on March 24, 2019, 08:38:45 PM
I-73 at Asheboro, NC
The only real section that violates interstate standards is the left exit, if you even want to call it that. It's not up to "ideal" standards, though it doesn't have any substandard features. It has 12 foot lanes, 10 foot shoulders, barrier median. The left exit isn't prohibited under interstate standards, the median is permitted, etc.
What's substandard about it? Ideally, the exit be on the right, a grassy median, etc. but it's not against minimum standards.
Now, if you want to talk substandard, I-73 south of this location still has 4 foot shoulders! NCDOT signed it I-73 / I-74 and still hasn't added 10 foot outside shoulders yet. That's definitely substandard and against interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 28, 2019, 09:52:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 24, 2019, 08:38:45 PM
I-73 at Asheboro, NC
The only real section that violates interstate standards is the left exit, if you even want to call it that. It's not up to "ideal" standards, though it doesn't have any substandard features. It has 12 foot lanes, 10 foot shoulders, barrier median. The left exit isn't prohibited under interstate standards, the median is permitted, etc.
The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well. THSDOT needed to spend $345 million to bring that section up to full Interstate standards, but only spent $20 million. It should not have been signed as I-73.
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 09:59:32 PM
The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well.
It may well be, though it still meets interstate highway standards. There's no where defined where it states left exits are prohibited on the interstate system. They were to spend the $345 million to bring the section up to
ideal standards for safety reasons, but it's not prohibited.
The segment I described that has only 4 foot outer shoulders on the other hand is a clear violation, as the standards state a 10 foot outer paved shoulder must be provided.
Quote from: Verlanka on March 28, 2019, 10:15:28 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 28, 2019, 02:14:28 AM
Has anyone mentioned I-78 on either side of the Holland Tunnel?
Definitely:
Quote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2019, 12:01:55 AM
I-78 in New Jersey. In Jersey City it becomes two surface streets. 12th Street EB from Jersey Avenue to the Holland Tunnel. Then Boyle Plaza WB from the tunnel exit to the viaduct beginning at Jersey Avenue.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 26, 2019, 05:23:36 PM
Any Interstate within New York City limits. Narrow lanes and narrow shoulders and suicide entrance ramps.
Also in PA I-78 is not up to full standards from PA 100 to PA 61 west of Allentown. That was part of US 22 before the interstate system and was a four lane expressway with at grade intersections.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 28, 2019, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 09:59:32 PM
The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well.
It may well be, though it still meets interstate highway standards. There's no where defined where it states left exits are prohibited on the interstate system. They were to spend the $345 million to bring the section up to ideal standards for safety reasons, but it's not prohibited.
There is no Interstate standard for pavement thickness, but a 4 inch thickness would obviously not last long under Interstate highway traffic volumes and large truck percentages.
If there is nothing wrong with left ramps (not just exits) then why not have them at every interchange? They are clearly not standard as seen in their rarity and safety issues.
Just because something is not spelled out in black and white doesn't mean that it meets Interstate standards.
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 11:19:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 28, 2019, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 09:59:32 PM
The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well.
It may well be, though it still meets interstate highway standards. There's no where defined where it states left exits are prohibited on the interstate system. They were to spend the $345 million to bring the section up to ideal standards for safety reasons, but it's not prohibited.
There is no Interstate standard for pavement thickness, but a 4 inch thickness would obviously not last long under Interstate highway traffic volumes and large truck percentages.
If there is nothing wrong with left ramps (not just exits) then why not have them at every interchange? They are clearly not standard as seen in their rarity and safety issues.
Just because something is not spelled out in black and white doesn't mean that it meets Interstate standards.
I'm pretty sure sprjus4 is talking about the FHWA regulations on the minimum design standards allowable for an interstate highway unless grandfathered in, NOT what one would ideally look like. Unless I completely misread the point of this thread, it's for outright violations of the regulations, not stuff that is merely below average.
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2019, 01:04:36 PM
it's for outright violations of the regulations, not stuff that is merely below average.
Half the Interstate system is below average.
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2019, 01:04:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 11:19:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 28, 2019, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 09:59:32 PM
The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well.
It may well be, though it still meets interstate highway standards. There's no where defined where it states left exits are prohibited on the interstate system. They were to spend the $345 million to bring the section up to ideal standards for safety reasons, but it's not prohibited.
There is no Interstate standard for pavement thickness, but a 4 inch thickness would obviously not last long under Interstate highway traffic volumes and large truck percentages.
If there is nothing wrong with left ramps (not just exits) then why not have them at every interchange? They are clearly not standard as seen in their rarity and safety issues.
Just because something is not spelled out in black and white doesn't mean that it meets Interstate standards.
I'm pretty sure sprjus4 is talking about the FHWA regulations on the minimum design standards allowable for an interstate highway unless grandfathered in, NOT what one would ideally look like. Unless I completely misread the point of this thread, it's for outright violations of the regulations, not stuff that is merely below average.
Pretty much. This highway was built in the early 60s as a US 220 bypass, and was grandfathered in the system back in 2014. It used to have a raised 22 foot concrete median, and no shoulders. At least they replaced it with barrier in the median, some left shoulder, and paved a full outer shoulder.
Of course they shouldn't be built in new construction. The interchange was built apart of 60s construction, when left exits were acceptable, just like a lot of current interstate highways. Should we remove their designations until they are corrected?
For about 55 years after it was built ca. 1959, I-80 from Colfax east to Yuba Gap, CA lacked any inner shoulders (much less the 4' Interstate minimum); it was 2+2 with (originally) a steel beam barrier, later replaced by a K-rail. The substandard segment has since shrunk to about the first 3 miles east of Colfax itself to approximately where the twin UP trestles cross over the freeway. East of there, the median has been brought out to about the minimum; some of that length of widened median was part of a project to add a truck climbing lane EB. Coincidentally, a large paved area has been constructed south of the traffic lanes and gradually sloped up the adjacent hillside; this could be for either hillside ground stabilization or even snow management.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2019, 04:54:41 PM
Pretty much. This highway was built in the early 60s as a US 220 bypass, and was grandfathered in the system back in 2014. It used to have a raised 22 foot concrete median, and no shoulders. At least they replaced it with barrier in the median, some left shoulder, and paved a full outer shoulder.
Interesting... I thought FHWA had stopped grandfathering in newly designated interstate highways?
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2019, 08:47:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2019, 04:54:41 PM
Pretty much. This highway was built in the early 60s as a US 220 bypass, and was grandfathered in the system back in 2014. It used to have a raised 22 foot concrete median, and no shoulders. At least they replaced it with barrier in the median, some left shoulder, and paved a full outer shoulder.
Interesting... I thought FHWA had stopped grandfathering in newly designated interstate highways?
Certain sections of older freeways can be incorporated. Long bridges with a right shoulder at least 3 feet wide can be incorporated, substandard features such as left exits (though still technically not against interstate standards), etc.
If an existing freeway is serving fine without any issues, there's no point to completely reconstruct it just to have "ideal" and "modern" designs. This is why these substandard, yet workable features can still be incorporated.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2019, 09:47:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2019, 08:47:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2019, 04:54:41 PM
Pretty much. This highway was built in the early 60s as a US 220 bypass, and was grandfathered in the system back in 2014. It used to have a raised 22 foot concrete median, and no shoulders. At least they replaced it with barrier in the median, some left shoulder, and paved a full outer shoulder.
Interesting... I thought FHWA had stopped grandfathering in newly designated interstate highways?
Certain sections of older freeways can be incorporated. Long bridges with a right shoulder at least 3 feet wide can be incorporated, substandard features such as left exits (though still technically not against interstate standards), etc.
If an existing freeway is serving fine without any issues, there's no point to completely reconstruct it just to have "ideal" and "modern" designs. This is why these substandard, yet workable features can still be incorporated.
Depends on the definition of "serving fine without any issues". They shouldn't be accepted into a 21st century Interstate highway just because some local politician gets his jollies by the red-white-and-blue sign.
I-180 in Illinois violates the general standard of being important.
In response to Brandon: I-82 also violates the numbering standard by primarily being a N/S interstate instead of E/W interstate (caused by the original plan to come from Tacoma and over Naches Pass).
In response to KP Hoger: I will admit that I haven't been through there since September, so my memory might be a little foggy. I'm also not going through a good time in my life right now in all aspects. All I remember was it was around the Rooster Rock area (if it exists). It might not be against standards but I thought it was.
Did anyone mention the Interstate bridge or Marqum bridge yet? Both have narrower lanes, and no shoulders. Also the Freemont Bridge is borderline but I think it makes the cut of being standard.
And there are no plans to widen the I-82 bridge.
And can I add I-5 in the Willamette Valley for that ridiculous 65T60 limit? :bigass:
LG-TP260
Since the I-280 and NJ 21 interchange project is completed, is I-280 now finally up to standards non widthstanding the Stickle Drawbridge?
Quote from: thspfc on March 30, 2019, 02:17:44 PM
I-180 in Illinois violates the general standard of being important.
But it's still up to interstate standards, though.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 30, 2019, 03:22:13 PM
And can I add I-5 in the Willamette Valley for that ridiculous 65T60 limit? :bigass:
LG-TP260
Sure, go, ahead. :nod:
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 24, 2019, 07:57:16 PM
I-75 on the Mackinac Bridge and on 5he exit to itself in downtown Detroit. Nothing else I can really think of in Michigan.
I suspect the curve in I-75 at 9 mile in Hazel Park doesn't meet FHWA standards. There's been some serious accidents there. Currently, there's a section where you can't legally change lanes because of the tightness of the curve.
Quote from: 23skidoo on March 31, 2019, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 24, 2019, 07:57:16 PM
I-75 on the Mackinac Bridge and on 5he exit to itself in downtown Detroit. Nothing else I can really think of in Michigan.
I suspect the curve in I-75 at 9 mile in Hazel Park doesn't meet FHWA standards. There's been some serious accidents there. Currently, there's a section where you can't legally change lanes because of the tightness of the curve.
I think that curve is up to interstate standards but it slows down to 50 or 55 I can't remember which right now but you can't change lanes on the curve the Big Beaver curve is like that too well at least for now it's under construction right now.
As far as the solid white lines go that is just discouraging you from changing lanes it doesn't mean that you can't change lanes I think we had a discussion and another post about an S curve on US-131 in downtown Grand Rapids.
50 MPH is permitted on urban interstate highways, so that segment of I-75 would meet interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2019, 11:14:37 AM
50 MPH is permitted on urban interstate highways, so that segment of I-75 would meet interstate standards.
Heck in St. Paul I-35E goes down to 45 mph.
Actually backing up to the serious accidents that have happened there. The entire bridge collapsed about 5 or so years ago. That was the 9 Mile bridge and there has been flooding in that area too.
The collapse was due to a tanker explosion
I also remember another tanker explosion that happened on one of the ramps from I-94 to I-75 about 20 years ago I went down there about a week later and you could still smell the gas from the explosion
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 30, 2019, 03:22:13 PM
In response to Brandon: I-82 also violates the numbering standard by primarily being a N/S interstate instead of E/W interstate (caused by the original plan to come from Tacoma and over Naches Pass).
Not if you consider it part of the Seattle-Boise corridor, even if it has a lot of N/S movement, and is entirely N/S (and technically wrong-way E/W) in Oregon.
QuoteIn response to KP Hoger: I will admit that I haven't been through there since September, so my memory might be a little foggy. I'm also not going through a good time in my life right now in all aspects. All I remember was it was around the Rooster Rock area (if it exists). It might not be against standards but I thought it was.
Eastbound or westbound?
QuoteDid anyone mention the Interstate bridge or Marqum bridge yet? Both have narrower lanes, and no shoulders. Also the Freemont [sic] Bridge is borderline but I think it makes the cut of being standard.
I believe both were up to Interstate Standards when they were built. Standards since have gotten better.
Edit: I'm not counting the left exits on both bridges, as they were built expressly with respective thru routes in mind. Eastbound US 30 left exits from the Fremont Bridge as it was a left entrance on the otherside; the double deck configuration puts the westbound lanes as a right entrance and a right exit. The westside interchange is a full on Wye; clearance to dip the I-405 N -> US 30 W ramp under the viaduct probably isn't there to also clear the ground level structures and streets.
Arguable violation: Weaving needed for I-405 S -> NW Glisan/Everett/15th; Glisan/Everett/14th -> US 30 W.
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
QuoteAnd there are no plans to widen the I-82 bridge.
Certainly not from ODOT. I doubt WSDOT is considering it, however.
QuoteAnd can I add I-5 in the Willamette Valley for that ridiculous 65T60 limit? :bigass:
:meh:
Now these are violations:
I-5 Baldock Freeway: Terwilliger Curves
Built as such due to political grandstanding. ODOT has the fix drafted out, but would require nasty ROW acquistion, and be a NIMBY and political fraught battle. Also, expensive.
I-205 Abernathy Bridge. In the pipeline to be addressed with the seismic retrofit accompanying the widening of I-205 from OR 99E to
Wanker's Corner Stafford.
I-5 Pacific Hwy: South Salem Hills.
Possibly. There's one narrow overpass south of Keubler, and there are truck climbing lanes. I believe ODOT has long range plans to widen the freeway from Keubler down toward Albany at some point.
I-405/US 26: 6th Ave -> 12th Ave. Horrendous weaving that can back up traffic onto the Marquam Bridge, and through the Ross Island Maze. Southbound isn't much better with the Montgomery St onramp interacting with the US 26 W onramp and offramp, though that doesn't get nearly as much use.
I-35/70, Kansas City.
I-295/76 connection in NJ (currently being fixed)
I-676 (The traffic lights, depending on your view of if 676 actually uses the bridge or not. Or the general narrowness of the death star trench run section)
I-55 crossing between TN and AR on the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge. No shoulders, and that cloverleaf for through traffic on the TN side. AR side is adequate.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 01, 2019, 04:53:44 AM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.
Quote from: X99 on April 01, 2019, 10:57:46 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 01, 2019, 04:53:44 AM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.
Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
What about I-74 in the quad cities?
The bridge over the Mississippi R. Is VERY narrow, and DEFINITLY not to standard.
Quote from: MCRoads on April 04, 2019, 10:53:43 AM
What about I-74 in the quad cities?
The bridge over the Mississippi R. Is VERY narrow, and DEFINITLY not to standard.
That bridge's replacement is under construction so maybe that's why it was omitted.
I just thought up another one: I-520! I don't care that it exists in two states, but as a half-loop around Augusta, it needs a more appropriate number like I-420 or I-620.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 01, 2019, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: X99 on April 01, 2019, 10:57:46 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 01, 2019, 04:53:44 AM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.
Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
I still have access to one of those pages, but only to move the entries to their respective road pages. I am not allowed to give anyone else access to it.
Quote from: X99 on April 05, 2019, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 01, 2019, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: X99 on April 01, 2019, 10:57:46 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 01, 2019, 04:53:44 AM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.
Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
I still have access to one of those pages, but only to move the entries to their respective road pages. I am not allowed to give anyone else access to it.
There are no private Wikipedia pages. Even if you are an admin (and therefore are able to see deleted pages), so are Scott5114, Bruce, and seicer.
Quote from: 1 on April 05, 2019, 08:34:03 PM
Quote from: X99 on April 05, 2019, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 01, 2019, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: X99 on April 01, 2019, 10:57:46 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 01, 2019, 04:53:44 AM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.
Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
I still have access to one of those pages, but only to move the entries to their respective road pages. I am not allowed to give anyone else access to it.
There are no private Wikipedia pages. Even if you are an admin (and therefore are able to see deleted pages), so are Scott5114, Bruce, and seicer.
The page I am talking about is currently a child page (if I'm using that term right) of my own user page.
I-94 through Detroit is substandard with no inner shoulder, short on-off ramps. and left entrances/exits. It's one of the few freeways in Michigan posted for 55 mph. Granted, this stretch dates from the late 1940s and early 1950s. MDOT is working to upgrade some portions of the highway: https://i94detroit.org/
Additionally, I-94 between Parma, MI and east of Jackson, MI (Sargent Rd), the ramps are very short, and between US-127 North and Elm Ave there is only a few inches of inner shoulder before you hit the hard barrier. This stretch also dates from the late 1940s and early 1950s.
MDOT has made a number of minor changes over the past 40 years to improve safety (removing exits, installation of center barrier, etc). But they are making their largest effort to bring the stretch up to modern standards with replacement of the bridges over the Grand River, and reconstruction of the highway between US-127 North and US-127 South. https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11008_86278---,00.html
I 90 has almost direct turns off the freeway in South Dakota....I think they do in Wyoming as well. Also I-75 just south of the Mackinac Bridge at James Street just has a sharp turn.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 07, 2019, 08:34:44 PM
I 90 has almost direct turns off the freeway in South Dakota.
Which exits are you talking about here?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 26, 2019, 05:52:13 PM
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Slow your roll through there.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 29, 2020, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 26, 2019, 05:52:13 PM
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Slow your roll through there.
It's a whole 5 MPH faster than the speed limit in Breezewood! :D
Quote from: Buck87 on March 25, 2019, 10:06:08 AM
I-70 in Western PA between the turnpike and I-79
Going back in time:
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 11, 2017, 10:12:57 AM
I think I-70 in Pennsylvania between the West Virginia border and Washington is pretty infamous for its abhorrent roadway quality.
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 11, 2017, 10:21:46 AM
That part of I-70 is fine. It's Washington, PA to New Stanton that has issues.
Update on this issue from a post I made on MTR many years ago. When I lived in Greensburg, I was roadtripping west on I-70 in my relatively new 1985 Pontiac Firebird. After crossing the Smithton Bridge over the Yough, I encountered a work crew "improving" the pavement quality on the westbound lanes. The left lane had been tar-and-chipped earlier in the day, and the right lane was closed doing the same thing. I was behind a semi-truck for the entire zone up to the Speers Bridge over the Mon. Tried to stay back far enough, but the constant stream of chips literally shredded the paint on the plastic with millions of divots.
Spin forward. A colleague at work begged me to let him buy the car in 1995 when we moved out west of Dulles and didn't have a garage to store it. I asked him to let me know if he ever wanted to sell. A few years later, I show up to work with a newly purchased (year-old) pickup truck when he comes into my office out-of-the-blue and announces that he is getting transferred to Florida and he apologized since I just bought something else. But he gives me an offer I couldn't refuse and when I bought it back, it still had all of the divots. Still have the rust bucket and those divots have long faded away.
I've always wondered who was crazy enough to approve tar-and-chip on the Interstate.
Do these service roads on the interchange violate interstate standards? I feel like they do because they bother the time to increase your speed before merging on the freeway.
You can see these a lot on older freeways that have not been improved when built in the early days.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5570966,-78.2022868,303m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 29, 2020, 07:02:06 PM
I've always wondered who was crazy enough to approve tar-and-chip on the Interstate.
<New Mexico has entered the chat>
Has I-95 in SW Connecticut been mentioned yet? I've used it off an on to visit my family in Pennsylvania and we try to avoid it if we can. It has very substandard lanes, service plazas on the sides which I believe is prohibited on free Interstates. Of course it was part of the old Connecticut Turnpike, so that can be excused.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 07, 2019, 08:34:44 PM
I 90 has almost direct turns off the freeway in South Dakota....I think they do in Wyoming as well. Also I-75 just south of the Mackinac Bridge at James Street just has a sharp turn.
Very small error there. The exit with the sharp turn south of the Mackinac Bridge is Jamet Street.
I-70 through Glenwood Canyon in Colorado required Congressional approval for design exceptions that made the road substandard.
Also, aren't there a couple of RIRO intersections on I-90 in the area just west of Gillette, WY?
Ditto one on WB I-80 in the Delaware Water Gap in New Jersey?
Mike
I feel like it would be worthwhile to have a list somewhere of exactly why various sections of interstates are substandard - whether it's traffic lights, two-lane sections, bridge widths, ramp lengths, or whatever else.
Quote from: mgk920 on January 05, 2022, 03:17:47 PM
I-70 through Glenwood Canyon in Colorado required Congressional approval for design exceptions that made the road substandard.
Also, aren't there a couple of RIRO intersections on I-90 in the area just west of Gillette, WY?
Ditto one on WB I-80 in the Delaware Water Gap in New Jersey?
Mike
And along I-80 in Wyoming
I-75 in Cincy has one
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 08, 2022, 01:34:58 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 05, 2022, 03:17:47 PM
I-70 through Glenwood Canyon in Colorado required Congressional approval for design exceptions that made the road substandard.
Also, aren't there a couple of RIRO intersections on I-90 in the area just west of Gillette, WY?
Ditto one on WB I-80 in the Delaware Water Gap in New Jersey?
Mike
And along I-80 in Wyoming
I-75 in Cincy has one
There's also this pair on I-75 at the North Baltimore exit (168).
https://goo.gl/maps/6Z9UNKLjs17bFNQ6A
I-75 also has one or two RIROs in Mackinaw City.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2022, 03:05:42 PM
I-75 also has one or two RIROs in Mackinaw City.
The rest area entrance and exit ramps just north of the Mackinac Bridge toll booths are also RIRO.
Not to mention the Mackinac Bridge itself is far from Interstate highway standards. Granted, there's no need for it to be. However, had construction taken place 20 or 30 years later when it was clear it would be part of an Interstate, it would likely have had interstate-compatible shoulder width, higher guard rails, and possibly a higher speed limit.
The traffic volumes on the Mackinac Bridge, however, are pretty low by Interstate highway standards. If it wasn't for the 20 mph truck speed limits, it could have gotten away with 2 lanes most of the year. They're certainly not high enough that one would ever see a twinning.
The ramp for I-70 EB exit 37A in MO (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0085622,-93.9724104,3a,60y,124.75h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_jsv4y4GBdtxeqrsNQIX2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) sems even more substandard than a bunch of RIROs posted in this thread already.
I-74 from Union Cross to high Point. Seems like NCDOT rushed to sign I-74 on this and not upgrading it to Interstate standarsd.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0326689,-80.0764859,3a,75y,308.09h,86.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DyyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D38.06065%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 15, 2022, 08:55:36 PM
I-74 from Union Cross to high Point. Seems like NCDOT rushed to sign I-74 on this and not upgrading it to Interstate standarsd.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0326689,-80.0764859,3a,75y,308.09h,86.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DyyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D38.06065%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
That looks like they pulled an I-26 in Asheville. Maybe it should’ve been future I-74. And I should also mention I-70 across parts of Missouri.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 15, 2022, 09:01:07 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 15, 2022, 08:55:36 PM
I-74 from Union Cross to high Point. Seems like NCDOT rushed to sign I-74 on this and not upgrading it to Interstate standarsd.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0326689,-80.0764859,3a,75y,308.09h,86.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DyyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D38.06065%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
That looks like they pulled an I-26 in Asheville. Maybe it should've been future I-74. And I should also mention I-70 across parts of Missouri.
It's currently signed as FUTURE I-26, until the connector gets built and I-26 will be operational once it's finished.
Does the I-90 Mass. Pike extension (Newton to Boston) count? Narrow lanes, substandard interchanges, no shoulder in parts.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on January 16, 2022, 12:36:38 PM
Does the I-90 Mass. Pike extension (Newton to Boston) count? Narrow lanes, substandard interchanges, no shoulder in parts.
I would say so. I had driven on it last Memorial Day, and was like "Wow, this road sucks!" If you've ever tried to get on the Pike from the Pru, it's a blind entrance and I thought I was playing with my own life.
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 15, 2022, 08:08:45 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2022, 03:05:42 PM
I-75 also has one or two RIROs in Mackinaw City.
The rest area entrance and exit ramps just north of the Mackinac Bridge toll booths are also RIRO.
Not to mention the Mackinac Bridge itself is far from Interstate highway standards. Granted, there's no need for it to be. However, had construction taken place 20 or 30 years later when it was clear it would be part of an Interstate, it would likely have had interstate-compatible shoulder width, higher guard rails, and possibly a higher speed limit.
The traffic volumes on the Mackinac Bridge, however, are pretty low by Interstate highway standards. If it wasn't for the 20 mph truck speed limits, it could have gotten away with 2 lanes most of the year. They're certainly not high enough that one would ever see a twinning.
I had mentioned the Mackinac Bridge awhile back in post #5. But you are right there really isn't any need for it to be up to Interstate standards and it only has a 45 mph speed limit. I think it could have been built differently and have higher speeds but I think it was built pretty good the way it is as it has to withstand the brutal Michigan winter's and cross a path 4 miles long. That is one thing I have never understood about the Mackinac Bridge, they have for years said it's 5 miles long but I have countless times measured it and it comes out to 4 miles long no matter the method I have tried.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 15, 2022, 08:55:36 PM
I-74 from Union Cross to high Point. Seems like NCDOT rushed to sign I-74 on this and not upgrading it to Interstate standarsd.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0326689,-80.0764859,3a,75y,308.09h,86.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DyyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D38.06065%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Because that section will get upgraded once Winston-Salem Northern Beltway section of I-74 is finished.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 16, 2022, 02:42:36 PMThat is one thing I have never understood about the Mackinac Bridge, they have for years said it's 5 miles long but I have countless times measured it and it comes out to 4 miles long no matter the method I have tried.
Exit 339 to exit 344 - boom, 5 miles. :-D
Seriously, I suspect they count anything that was built to accommodate access to the Bridge. Wherever the roadway is no longer at the original land elevation, that's part of the Bridge.
Quote from: GaryV on January 17, 2022, 07:44:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 16, 2022, 02:42:36 PMThat is one thing I have never understood about the Mackinac Bridge, they have for years said it's 5 miles long but I have countless times measured it and it comes out to 4 miles long no matter the method I have tried.
Exit 339 to exit 344 - boom, 5 miles. :-D
Seriously, I suspect they count anything that was built to accommodate access to the Bridge. Wherever the roadway is no longer at the original land elevation, that's part of the Bridge.
Exit 339 is about 1,000 feet south of the bridge and exit 344 is about 3,000 feet north of the bridge. The bridge is considered from mile marker 339.252 to 343.349. There is also an exit 343 on the SB side just before you get to the toll booth. I'm pretty sure they count it from the toll booth to where it crosses Huron Avenue on the Mackinaw City side where it has about a 10 foot clearance over Huron Avenue.
This is where I consider the Mackinac Bridge starting on the Lower Peninsula side.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7864015,-84.7323118,3a,86.9y,273.27h,87.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stV26tFrispZb6yatfkJXQA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DtV26tFrispZb6yatfkJXQA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D288.76907%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 17, 2022, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: GaryV on January 17, 2022, 07:44:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 16, 2022, 02:42:36 PMThat is one thing I have never understood about the Mackinac Bridge, they have for years said it's 5 miles long but I have countless times measured it and it comes out to 4 miles long no matter the method I have tried.
Exit 339 to exit 344 - boom, 5 miles. :-D
Seriously, I suspect they count anything that was built to accommodate access to the Bridge. Wherever the roadway is no longer at the original land elevation, that's part of the Bridge.
Exit 339 is about 1,000 feet south of the bridge and exit 344 is about 3,000 feet north of the bridge. The bridge is considered from mile marker 339.252 to 343.349. There is also an exit 343 on the SB side just before you get to the toll booth. I'm pretty sure they count it from the toll booth to where it crosses Huron Avenue on the Mackinaw City side where it has about a 10 foot clearance over Huron Avenue.
My first post was in jest.
I can see arguments for your endpoints. Another possibility would be for where there is no longer any median barrier. That would be from a few yards north of the Jamet exit until a few yards north of the tollbooths.
For a long time, I-95 through Jacksonville, Florida (drawbridge) and I-59 through Laurel, Mississippi (sharp S-curve with 40 mph speed limit) were substandard, but they were fixed.
I would consider the I-55 / EH Crump Blvd / Riverside Dr interchange in Memphis, Tennessee to be substandard myself. I-55 north has to slow down to approximately 25 mph and round a cloverleaf ramp. Absolutely not an ideal situation. Granted, I-55 is not as major a truck route as some routes, and there is an alternative to by-pass that (the Hernando Desoto Bridge. although it's had problems lately), but still.
Tennessee has several interchanges where they have used partial cloverleafs where they should have used stack interchanges. I would have thought they would have used a stack interchange for I-24 and I-840 personally for example, a flyover would have been better than a cloverleaf for I-24 from Chattanooga to I-840 toward Franklin.
The I-495 Capital Beltway, outer loop, between the US-50 and MD-450 interchanges. The distance between the on-ramp of the former and the first off-ramp of the latter is really too short for the volume (and speed) of that roadway, resulting in an unsafe weave. It doesn't help that the exit to 450 often backs up during rush hour.
I would say the same for the Beltway's interchange with the B/W Parkway, in both directions. A tight cloverleaf with no C/D lanes.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 15, 2022, 08:55:36 PM
I-74 from Union Cross to high Point. Seems like NCDOT rushed to sign I-74 on this and not upgrading it to Interstate standards.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0326689,-80.0764859,3a,75y,308.09h,86.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DyyLryNhrVOXETi0ZQv4LAA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D38.06065%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
The violation of standards is more FHWA's fault than a rush by NCDOT. The FHWA's regional office misinterpreted an April 2012 letter from NCDOT that referenced two different segments of I-74, the then recently completed East Belt project that NCDOT wanted signed as I-74 and the Forysth County US 311 freeway built in the 1970s, which NCDOT asked to be designated Future I-74. The letter stated that the 'requested sections of I-74 were built to Interstate Standards at the time of construction.' The FHWA office in Raleigh misinterpreted this as meaning both sections were up to current standards. When the mistake was realized later, the FHWA gave NCDOT permission to keep the signs up as long as the agency planned to upgrade the segment to interstate standards as part of a future rehabilitation project for the roadway. This is presumed to be part of the final I-74 Beltway contract.
Quote from: lepidopteran on January 17, 2022, 02:38:21 PM
The I-495 Capital Beltway, outer loop, between the US-50 and MD-450 interchanges. The distance between the on-ramp of the former and the first off-ramp of the latter is really too short for the volume (and speed) of that roadway, resulting in an unsafe weave. It doesn't help that the exit to 450 often backs up during rush hour.
That whole area between Exits 16 and 20 needs to be fixed, IMO.
There needs to be fully barrier separated local lanes (along with 4 through lanes) and much better signage.
May have missed some references to these, but how about I-70 through the tunnels in Wheeling, I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, and I-68 through downtown Cumberland? And the section of I-64 between Covington and Clifton Forge?
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:35:38 PM
And the section of I-64 between Covington and Clifton Forge?
How does this section violate interstate standards?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2022, 05:23:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:35:38 PM
And the section of I-64 between Covington and Clifton Forge?
How does this section violate interstate standards?
Median width. First few times I was on it, I was very shocked at how narrow the median was without any sort of divider. VDOT finally got around to installing a cable barrier several years ago.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 18, 2022, 01:23:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2022, 05:23:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:35:38 PM
And the section of I-64 between Covington and Clifton Forge?
How does this section violate interstate standards?
Median width. First few times I was on it, I was very shocked at how narrow the median was without any sort of divider. VDOT finally got around to installing a cable barrier several years ago.
A divider has since been installed, but this was the median size on I-39/90/94 north of Madison up until about ten years ago.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2085002,-89.3579694,3a,75y,137.02h,108.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0AbPfm3EaAu1mKE3I16CTw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Quote from: lepidopteran on January 17, 2022, 02:38:21 PM
The I-495 Capital Beltway, outer loop, between the US-50 and MD-450 interchanges. The distance between the on-ramp of the former and the first off-ramp of the latter is really too short for the volume (and speed) of that roadway, resulting in an unsafe weave. It doesn't help that the exit to 450 often backs up during rush hour.
I would say the same for the Beltway's interchange with the B/W Parkway, in both directions. A tight cloverleaf with no C/D lanes.
NJ has plenty of these...on highways signed for 65 mph!
Quote from: hbelkins on January 18, 2022, 01:23:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2022, 05:23:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:35:38 PM
And the section of I-64 between Covington and Clifton Forge?
How does this section violate interstate standards?
Median width. First few times I was on it, I was very shocked at how narrow the median was without any sort of divider. VDOT finally got around to installing a cable barrier several years ago.
Regarding median width on Interstate's. The median should have a width of least 50 feet and 10 feet plus a barrier in urban or mountainous areas. There is a barrier there so I think that it would be fine the way it is.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 18, 2022, 05:38:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 18, 2022, 01:23:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2022, 05:23:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:35:38 PM
And the section of I-64 between Covington and Clifton Forge?
How does this section violate interstate standards?
Median width. First few times I was on it, I was very shocked at how narrow the median was without any sort of divider. VDOT finally got around to installing a cable barrier several years ago.
Regarding median width on Interstate's. The median should have a width of least 50 feet and 10 feet plus a barrier in urban or mountainous areas. There is a barrier there so I think that it would be fine the way it is.
But for years, there wasn't a barrier.
A substandard feature, though I wouldn't say it necessarily violates interstate standards. It's in a mountainous area, and the physical roadway meets standards - lane widths, shoulders, etc.
I believe the median barrier was installed when the speed limit was increased from 65 mph to 70 mph.
I-49 in Arkansas has 2 sets of mile markers that duplicate from 20-42. It doesn't result in duplicate exit numbers within the state, and they are far enough away from each other that it won't result in issues with 911 calls for accidents, but it needs to be addressed at some point. Unfortunately, it looks like ARDOT doubled-down on the dumb as they removed the correct exit numbers on the newly opened BVB portion and put numbers that didn't result in a big jump from Bella Vista/Bentonville to the Gravette exit. So now, Exit 284, which was correct when considering mileage from the Louisiana border, has become Exit 99. Apparently, they don't hold out a lot of hope that the gap from Alma to Barling across the Arkansas River will be funded anytime soon as FutureI-49/AR-549 in Chaffee Crossing mileages and exits are correct to the Louisiana border as well, which will result in another jump that will need correcting. The portion from Alma to Bella Vista is what should have been changed/corrected.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 15, 2022, 08:49:32 PM
The ramp for I-70 EB exit 37A in MO (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0085622,-93.9724104,3a,60y,124.75h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_jsv4y4GBdtxeqrsNQIX2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) sems even more substandard than a bunch of RIROs posted in this thread already.
Wow... that's stupendously bad, and totally unnecessary. They couldn't spend a couple bucks and realign the frontage road and existing ramp for Hwy 131 to feed the (now apparently defunct) shopping center? No way that off-ramp traffic should be forced to stop or yield at that point - put the damn stop signs on the frontage road!
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 16, 2022, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on January 16, 2022, 12:36:38 PM
Does the I-90 Mass. Pike extension (Newton to Boston) count? Narrow lanes, substandard interchanges, no shoulder in parts.
I would say so. I had driven on it last Memorial Day, and was like "Wow, this road sucks!" If you've ever tried to get on the Pike from the Pru, it's a blind entrance and I thought I was playing with my own life.
In fact, if you look at some older photos, you can aww "To I-90" at the entrance ramps to the Boston Extension of the Mass. Pike in Boston.
I-785/I-840 between I-40/I-85 and US-70 in Greensboro. There is no guardrail and the median is too narrow.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.0896762,-79.697819/36.0600953,-79.6868/@36.0752941,-79.6945042,5573m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0
I-17 in Phoenix - substandard lane width south of Dunlap.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 02, 2022, 01:03:29 PM
I-785/I-840 between I-40/I-85 and US-70 in Greensboro. There is no guardrail and the median is too narrow.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.0896762,-79.697819/36.0600953,-79.6868/@36.0752941,-79.6945042,5573m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0
Neither of those things violate interstate standards.
It has a 46 foot median and cable guardrail.
I-85 between Lexington and Greensboro has a minor violation - Is 6 lanes and does not have full left shoulders.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2022, 01:45:25 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 02, 2022, 01:03:29 PM
I-785/I-840 between I-40/I-85 and US-70 in Greensboro. There is no guardrail and the median is too narrow.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.0896762,-79.697819/36.0600953,-79.6868/@36.0752941,-79.6945042,5573m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0
Neither of those things violate interstate standards.
It has a 46 foot median and cable guardrail.
Oh, I thought it reminded me of I-85 between Henderson and Norlina. That has a extremely narrow median and I thought it did not meet interstate standards.
I feel like this has to take the cake. They obviously didn't think straight when they were building this highway. It has no shoulders AT ALL!!!
https://goo.gl/maps/5KDWzhKTFzfdY55S7
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 15, 2022, 03:02:06 PM
I feel like this has to take the cake. They obviously didn't think straight when they were building this highway. It has no shoulders AT ALL!!!
https://goo.gl/maps/5KDWzhKTFzfdY55S7
How does this take the cake?
Yes, it lacks full 10 foot paved shoulders but it isn't substandard by a large extent.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2022, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 15, 2022, 03:02:06 PM
I feel like this has to take the cake. They obviously didn't think straight when they were building this highway. It has no shoulders AT ALL!!!
https://goo.gl/maps/5KDWzhKTFzfdY55S7
How does this take the cake?
Yes, it lacks full 10 foot paved shoulders but it isn't substandard by a large extent.
Because the right shoulders are not 10 feet.
Also my guess they purposely made it narrow to 2 lanes cause they expected large volumes of traffic from Capital Blvd to jump onto westbound I-540. That way so they can merge freely.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 15, 2022, 03:17:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2022, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 15, 2022, 03:02:06 PM
I feel like this has to take the cake. They obviously didn't think straight when they were building this highway. It has no shoulders AT ALL!!!
https://goo.gl/maps/5KDWzhKTFzfdY55S7
How does this take the cake?
Yes, it lacks full 10 foot paved shoulders but it isn't substandard by a large extent.
Because the right shoulders are not 10 feet.
Also my guess they purposely made it narrow to 2 lanes cause they expected large volumes of traffic from Capital Blvd to jump onto westbound I-540. That way so they can merge freely.
But how does it "take the cake" ? There's far worse violations.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 15, 2022, 03:02:06 PM
I feel like this has to take the cake. They obviously didn't think straight when they were building this highway. It has no shoulders AT ALL!!!
https://goo.gl/maps/5KDWzhKTFzfdY55S7
I-180 WY: Am I a joke to you?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2022, 03:17:40 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 15, 2022, 03:17:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2022, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 15, 2022, 03:02:06 PM
I feel like this has to take the cake. They obviously didn't think straight when they were building this highway. It has no shoulders AT ALL!!!
https://goo.gl/maps/5KDWzhKTFzfdY55S7
How does this take the cake?
Yes, it lacks full 10 foot paved shoulders but it isn't substandard by a large extent.
Because the right shoulders are not 10 feet.
Also my guess they purposely made it narrow to 2 lanes cause they expected large volumes of traffic from Capital Blvd to jump onto westbound I-540. That way so they can merge freely.
But how does it "take the cake" ? There's far worse violations.
Ok, so maybe it doesn't take the cake. I guess you can say I-78 in Jersey City as well as I-70 in Breezewood. Otherwise this is just a minor flaw.
If a lack of shoulders were such a big deal, then quite a few urban freeways would be major violators. Not to mention sections in the mountains.
Quote from: Bruce on February 15, 2022, 03:45:06 PM
If a lack of shoulders were such a big deal, then quite a few urban freeways would be major violators. Not to mention sections in the mountains.
Yes, I-40 west of Waynesville has access to dirt roads as they struggled to build it in the 50s. It took a while to open to traffic during that time. That's something they cannot fix.
Quote from: Buck87 on March 25, 2019, 10:06:08 AM
I-70 in Western PA between the turnpike and I-79
That's slowly but surely changing.
Six lanes on the concurrency with I-79 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.186762,-80.2372072,3a,75y,110.29h,89.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHRivEOZkXK0g2wWt-O1DjA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHRivEOZkXK0g2wWt-O1DjA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D64.88908%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Eight lanes on the concurrency with I-79 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1811288,-80.2246136,3a,75y,151.9h,88.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxUxISrBDUkCtFqsLpdTq_w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
New flyover ramp for I-79 northbound traffic at the east junction of the concurrency (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1624023,-80.1956663,3a,75y,105.85h,92.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1satBlNzh6g_Kc0F4NmSTv7Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Rebuilt segment east of the I-79 concurrency (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1663917,-80.1702059,3a,75y,106.15h,88.64t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svG-7ewbJCrLzvbbtxQuEbA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvG-7ewbJCrLzvbbtxQuEbA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D36.508263%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Exit 25 rebuilt with much longer acceleration and deceleration lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1568493,-80.1383097,3a,75y,88.92h,88.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0U7PBPWJ57Eb39_4IKpNSQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Exits 32A-B rebuilt with much longer acceleration and deceleration lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1332063,-80.0008737,3a,75y,88.96h,85.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx-oQiK1OCLQDTRFFuPrQLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Exit 35 rebuilt with much longer acceleration and deceleration lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1276464,-79.9607954,3a,75y,145.58h,90.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq7XhWnLk5h6Vz6pGtAaUFw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Exit 49 rebuilt with much longer acceleration and deceleration lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1666733,-79.7376947,3a,75y,71.86h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW68vqYy6JgpHUCjRJxOWBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Exit 51 rebuilt with much longer acceleration and deceleration lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1869288,-79.7056629,3a,75y,49.81h,89.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD0WJs6JOLMyH5NWm3kg_3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Segment west of the Pennsylvania Turnpike currently being rebuilt (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2052836,-79.6792032,3a,75y,23.75h,92.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_6QHDEHfKGFfVsrRM8fNKg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D_6QHDEHfKGFfVsrRM8fNKg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D142.67206%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Exit 57 rebuilt with much longer acceleration and deceleration lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2154426,-79.620909,3a,75y,76.5h,86.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saY0vJt89NKL5ubFSfTd8Sg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Do not be fooled by the angle either. Even the interchanges rebuilt with asphalt during the economic recession of the late 2000s were rebuilt with
adequate interior shoulder width (https://i.imgur.com/A14ibii.png) on the mainline. The minimum standard on a four-lane interstate is 4', and the mainline meets that standard on every rebuilt segment. Also, new overpasses are being built with
piers that are far enough apart to support proper six-lane expansion (https://i.imgur.com/y1tV6YP.png) in the future, including 10' interior and 12' exterior shoulders.