I sometimes feel like Rip Van Winkle. After I got out of the Army, I haven't really spent much time outside of the Northeast. It's been a surprise sometimes to look at this place and other road info online as well as a recent atlas. (In my mind, I still sometimes think that this is the entire Interstate Highway System: https://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/interstate_sys_map_1974.jpg .) But what are the biggest changes? I can think of a few changes, OTTOMH.
1.)I-69,
2.)I-22,
3.)Various new roads in the Triad and other parts of the Carolinas,
4.)Gradual reduction of tolled mileage and newer forms of tolling,
5,)Bridge architecture (like the Tobin,)
6.)Rumble strips,
7.)VMS (which is often misused, IMO,) and
8.)Sign supports, like gantries.
1) ETC (in places with tolling, especially Chicago).
2) Left Exit Flags
3) Our Wonderful Friend Clearview (you didn't say it had to be positive)
4) Increased speed limits above 55/60 in most rural areas.
5) I-2
The increasing focus on massive widening and reconstruction projects.
In my region the chief ones were the I-495 HOT Lanes project which reconstructed 11 miles of highway and its interchanges and provided 12 lanes, the I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Bridge project which replaced the bridge and reconstructed 8 miles of highway and its interchanges and provided 10 to 12 lanes, the Springfield Interchange Project to rebuild and upgrade the interchange of I-95/I-395/I-495/VA-644, and the I-95 HOT Lanes project which widened 12 miles of reversible roadway to 3 lanes and extended the reversible roadway 7 miles further south.
The upcoming expansion of the I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel is another example.
QuoteThe increasing focus on massive widening and reconstruction projects.
In some parts of the country, perhaps. But I'd argue that focus hasn't been increasing on this recently...it's been quite prevalent for 40 years now.
If anything, there's been a shift in several states away from expansion and new roads and towards preservation. Transportation budgets not keeping up with inflation has no small part to do with this.
Quote from: froggie on June 02, 2018, 02:12:18 PM
QuoteThe increasing focus on massive widening and reconstruction projects.
In some parts of the country, perhaps. But I'd argue that focus hasn't been increasing on this recently...it's been quite prevalent for 40 years now.
If anything, there's been a shift in several states away from expansion and new roads and towards preservation. Transportation budgets not keeping up with inflation has no small part to do with this.
The biggest changes I recall recently in Connecticut were widening projects. Even I-291 is 24 years old and outside the scope of my question.
That expansion of the system ground to a halt on the West Coast.
More or less in line with what's been stated in the above replies, I'd say the application of pure political will in those cases where new Interstate corridors have actually materialized as either completed facilities or viable corridors. It got I-22 built (but not without political "hiccups" along the way), arguably the most fully realized of the latter-day corridors, actually functioning as a useful interregional connector. And, of course, there's the seemingly endless Interstate development in NC, which has drawn plenty of derision as wasteful and unnecessary (but likely a bit of envy as well) -- but eminently doable in that state due to the higher-than-average gas tax rate (a rarity in the South) and the seeming coordination of NCDOT, the state legislature, and the state's congressional delegation regarding getting their corridors planned, designated, and under way (their state "master plan" doesn't hurt in that respect, either!). Abetting this is NC's view that they are still growing, and wish to encourage the continuation of that phenomenon. To a lesser extent, this applies to states such as TX as well -- but there the efforts seem to be initiated by very specific entities (the Alliance for I-69/Texas being one of the largest and oldest of its kind) or coalitions (the various cities pressing for I-14 typify this approach) with rather specific aims. Other states, particularly those with limited revenue availability, not so much; sometimes it's just disinterest (CA) or in-state prioritizations lying elsewhere (take your pick!).
The bottom line seems to be that Interstate additions tend to thrive in welcoming atmospheres (in both political and fiscal terms), but are viewed with skepticism outside those areas or circles -- possibly either because of disinterest, disdain, or both (or maybe just the "sour grapes" syndrome manifesting itself). Absent any national push for such, these new additions will be concentrated in areas where top-to-bottom support is present.
Quote from: sparker on June 02, 2018, 03:37:57 PM
And, of course, there's the seemingly endless Interstate development in NC, which has drawn plenty of derision as wasteful and unnecessary
The only complaint I've heard about the corridors themselves being wasteful and unnecessary is that NC's I-87 isn't direct enough, and that I-95 to US 58 is faster. I'm mostly hearing complaining about the
numbering being wasteful and unnecessary (74, 87, and to a lesser extent, 73).
Quote from: 1 on June 02, 2018, 03:43:24 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 02, 2018, 03:37:57 PM
And, of course, there's the seemingly endless Interstate development in NC, which has drawn plenty of derision as wasteful and unnecessary
The only complaint I've heard about the corridors themselves being wasteful and unnecessary is that NC's I-87 isn't direct enough, and that I-95 to US 58 is faster. I'm mostly hearing complaining about the numbering being wasteful and unnecessary (74, 87, and to a lesser extent, 73).
Vigorously agree re I-87; I still think the numbering choice was an effect of an open bar at the 2016 Des Moines SCOURN meeting (should have been an even number: 46, 54, or 56 were available for both states affected). 73: out of place, but not completely ludicrous. 74: a result of political maneuvering; should have been truncated back to Portsmouth, Ohio, with the remaining sections renumbered. But try convincing legislators that they've made a mistake -- generally ineffective! But maybe if & when NC does a Columbus-Charlotte-Rockingham corridor, they'll get it right (any even
unused number from 28 to 38, take your pick!).
Quote from: froggie on June 02, 2018, 02:12:18 PM
QuoteThe increasing focus on massive widening and reconstruction projects.
In some parts of the country, perhaps. But I'd argue that focus hasn't been increasing on this recently...it's been quite prevalent for 40 years now.
In Maryland and Virginia as I used, they were among the pioneers of Interstate widening and reconstruction projects (see Shirley Highway 1965-1975) and have had many such projects over the last 40 years.
Nevertheless, the recent projects I listed took things to a considerably higher level of complexity and scope and cost, than in the past.
The original 6-lane Woodrow Wilson Bridge was a modern Interstate era bridge in its own right when it was built (opened 1961). It is only recently that such bridges are being replaced due to high age and obsolescence, and those are very expensive and complex projects.
Biggest change overall?
Higher speed limits, although unfortunately NY hasn't caught the bug yet :meh:
There's a button copy thread that someone revived and linked a blogpost that mentioned the demise of callboxes. Not a big change, but I figured I'd throw that one out there. But a bigger one that I forgot about was I-99. I already covered Conn., but I'll throw out some changes in someother states.
Biggest change in RI: Re-routing I-195 in Providence.
Biggest change in Mass.: The Big Dig. (It started over 20 years ago, but was still ongoing for quite some time.)
Biggest change in Maine: renumbering the Maine Turnpike to I-95?
Biggest change in NY: No clue, but rebuilding the Tappan Zee Bridge was big, AFAICT.
Another change I noticed since the last time I drove on I-78 in Penn. wasn't on the road, but off of it. Those huge distribution centers in the Lehigh Valley seem to be new since I last took that route.
QuoteBiggest change in Maine: renumbering the Maine Turnpike to I-95?
Switching to milepost-based exit numbers. Still the only state in New England to have fully done so (though it doesn't hurt that there were only two highways with exit numbers to begin with).
I mainly know exits by which road they go to so mileage vs sequential numbering stands out less to me than shields.
Systemwide, I'm thinking that the biggest change is the trend strongly away from cloverleaf interchanges.
Mike
The new additions to the system -- 2, 14, 22, 69 and its branches, 73, 74, etc.
I-580 to Carson
The rise and fall of the Columbia River Crossing, representing a botched what-could-have-been.
Conversion of I-90's express lanes to light-rail
Quote from: froggie on June 02, 2018, 09:21:33 PM
QuoteBiggest change in Maine: renumbering the Maine Turnpike to I-95?
Switching to milepost-based exit numbers. Still the only state in New England to have fully done so (though it doesn't hurt that there were only two highways with exit numbers to begin with).
This probably also qualifies as Georgia's biggest change of the past 20 years (just getting in under the wire; it happened in 1999-2000). It's either that or the introduction of HOT lanes in metro Atlanta. The I-520 extension was almost entirely in South Carolina, so I don't think it really counts.
How about DMSes and Real Time Traffic Travel Times from sensors?
The only IL changes, other than widenings and tech upgrades, in the last 20 years, would be the I-355 Southern Extension to I-80, and I-70's new alignment in East St Louis and the Stan Musial Bridge, eliminating the Interstate Triplex on the Poplar Street Bridge (which created another Interstate Bump, with I-64 and I-70). I hardly think either is a major system change
ISTHA also added Exit Numbers, finally. And I believe I-90 and I-94, even on the ISTHA segments, use Mileage based on the State Line, instead of ISTHA's segments. And on I-90, the Mileage was directionally swapped, going to Zero towards Wisconsin, instead of going to Zero towards O'Hare
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2018, 11:07:31 PM
Systemwide, I'm thinking that the biggest change is the trend strongly away from cloverleaf interchanges.
Mike
This is probably for another thread, but I love cloverleafs.
Quote from: jon daly on June 03, 2018, 07:23:16 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 02, 2018, 11:07:31 PM
Systemwide, I'm thinking that the biggest change is the trend strongly away from cloverleaf interchanges.
This is probably for another thread, but I love cloverleafs.
I am usually opposed to busting up a cloverleaf and creating one or more signalized intersections in lieu of a loop(s).
The increasing amount of Express Toll/HOT Lanes being constructed in metro areas such as Washington D.C, Los Angeles, Houston, Seattle, Charlotte, and more.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 03, 2018, 09:43:56 PM
The increasing amount of Express Toll/HOT Lanes being constructed in metro areas such as Washington D.C, Los Angeles, Houston, Seattle, Charlotte, and more.
I believe Denver and the Twin Cities are on that list
ISTHA was/is throwing around the idea of Higher Toll Express Lanes, possibly, on existing Toll Roads
The replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. That cleared up a major bottleneck on i-95
Interstate 70 at St Louis getting a seperate bridge without using tolls.
The fixing of the i-65/64/71 junction in Louisville.
Chicago removing "to" 90 on the skyway.
Interstate 41: showing us that old rules can be bent/broken due to two states not playing nice with extending a decent number north.
The Introduction of the "TOLL" banner for reassurance markers.
AASHTO actually caring about what the Nj turnpike does for signs.
I-895 becoming NY 895, paving the way for future interstate de-designations.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 03, 2018, 10:54:00 PM
I-895 becoming NY 895, paving the way for future interstate de-designations.
Hopefully, only when the Interstate segment in question is either useless or superfluous; not because some ideologically-motivated or NIMBY-oriented group wants to make a point!
Cloverleafs are fine for low-volume interchanges, such as the Natcher/WK parkway interchange in Kentucky.
When you get high volumes of traffic with short merge/weave areas, such as the I-64/I-265 interchange, they fail.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 01:06:45 PM
Cloverleafs are fine for low-volume interchanges, such as the Natcher/WK parkway interchange in Kentucky.
When you get high volumes of traffic with short merge/weave areas, such as the I-64/I-265 interchange, they fail.
Yeah, there's three on my ride from Mystic, Conn. to Providence. Two work fine, but one in a suburban area backs up; even with a C/D lane.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 01:06:45 PM
Cloverleafs are fine for low-volume interchanges, such as the Natcher/WK parkway interchange in Kentucky.
When you get high volumes of traffic with short merge/weave areas, such as the I-64/I-265 interchange, they fail.
Full cloverleafs do fine under high volumes of traffic with long merge/weave areas.
I mistakenly wrote this for I-64/I-295 (Richmond) before I realized the above is the Louisville outer loop. It is still worth posting so I will leave it --
Neither I-64/I-295 interchange has short merge/weave areas. The western interchange has only one loop. The eastern interchange has long merge/weave areas and they are on C-D roadways where the volumes are not high.
I have noticed that some of the cloverleafs in New York and Illinois have decent-sized footprints, and C/D lanes can help alleviate some of the issues.
The 265 cloverleafs at 64, and 71 for that matter, don't have either adequate weaving space or C/D lanes. It becomes a mess during rush hour, especially traffic going east on 64 to north on 265, and that traffic has to weave with northbound 265 traffic exiting to 64 westbound.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 04:06:31 PM
I have noticed that some of the cloverleafs in New York and Illinois have decent-sized footprints, and C/D lanes can help alleviate some of the issues.
The 265 cloverleafs at 64, and 71 for that matter, don't have either adequate weaving space or C/D lanes. It becomes a mess during rush hour, especially traffic going east on 64 to north on 265, and that traffic has to weave with northbound 265 traffic exiting to 64 westbound.
That one suuucks in a truck, if i cannot get over in to the weave in the truck i just bypass it for 264.
Also I-90/290 in Schaumburg, IL.
:wow:
Mike
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2018, 04:06:31 PM
I have noticed that some of the cloverleafs in New York and Illinois have decent-sized footprints, and C/D lanes can help alleviate some of the issues.
The 265 cloverleafs at 64, and 71 for that matter, don't have either adequate weaving space or C/D lanes. It becomes a mess during rush hour, especially traffic going east on 64 to north on 265, and that traffic has to weave with northbound 265 traffic exiting to 64 westbound.
I find the cloverleaf at US-131 and M-6 on the south side of Grand Rapids to be adequate (both roads have C/D lanes and the loop ramps seem larger than most other cloverleaves I've been through)
The additions of I-2, I-11, I-22, I-42, I-73 and the southern I-87, plus the extensions of I-69 and I-74.
Quote from: Henry on June 05, 2018, 09:32:30 AM
The additions of I-2, I-11, I-22, I-42, I-73 and the southern I-87, plus the extensions of I-69 and I-74.
11, 42, and southern 87 aren't big additions yet (neither is 14, which you didn't mention). However, 41 and the 49 extension are.
As of this fall, the elimination of the I-95 gap in New Jersey.
Enhanced reference markers, larger presence of managed lanes (HOV/HOT lanes), travel time message signs and sensors