Interstate Standard: Close Enough!

[agentsteel53]

really, 17 and 46 don't have traffic signals?  Here I thought they had them occasionally, though not nearly as often as they have jughandles with undercrossings.

[huskeroadgeek]

What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.

There are many routes that are built for eventual conversion to Interstate-standard freeway, but have limited side-road and/or driveway access, few (if any) stoplights, and have speed limits that are the same as freeways. Wisconsin calls them "expressways", though this doesn't appear to be standard terminology.

Routes like most of US-30 in Ohio, WI-29 between Eau Claire and Green Bay, WI, or US-53 between Eau Claire and Superior, WI function much like Interstates, but there's no differentiation on most maps between them and other divided highways that are basically overgrown surface streets (US-30 between I-65 and Fort Wayne).

A notable exception is Wisconsin's own highway map; showing "expressway" segments very similarly to freeway segments, and much differently than surface divided highways. If this was much more common, and there was a standard way to designate these routes ("expressway" is so often used to refer to freeways that the distinction is meaningless), it would encourage greater use.

Nebraska has basically the same definiton of "expressway"(as do some other states), and I use the term too to distinguish between it and a fully controlled-access freeway. I wish it were a universal distinction, but unfortunately when you have places like Chicago that call their urban freeways "expressways", it can't really be one.

Nebraska's state highway map also shows "expressways" very similar to freeways in that they indicate where there are interchanges. One of my biggest problems with the way Rand McNally shows them is that they don't indicate interchanges. Rand McNally never shows interchanges except on freeways. I don't know why-an interchange on an expressway isn't different in any signifcant way from one on a freeway. If I'm going to be traveling on an expressway, I'd like to know whether there are interchanges at major road junctions.

[TheStranger]

really, 17 and 46 don't have traffic signals?  Here I thought they had them occasionally, though not nearly as often as they have jughandles with undercrossings.

46, I think there might have been one, but there were also a couple of interchanges in the section between the Turnpike and US 9W.

17, I remember that road being freeflowing with only one or two lights between 287/87 and Route 4.   My memory may be off because this was from a trip 12 years ago...

[Duke87]

NJ 17 has several lights south of I-80. Further north, it's full "Jersey Freeway".

Similarly, 46 has lights west of the Turnpike, but none on the final leg east of it.

[agentsteel53]

NJ 17 has several lights south of I-80. Further north, it's full "Jersey Freeway".

Similarly, 46 has lights west of the Turnpike, but none on the final leg east of it.

yep, those are the spots where I rememebr there being lights. 

[Sykotyk]

US1 from I-93 to I-95 is similar. No lights, but RIRO driveway access.

My issue is that motorists don't think 'well, I want to take I-22 because it has wide shoulders', they take it because it's the best route for their trip. The problem, then becomes, expressways that are underutilized simply because there's no distinction in quality.

I've always thought RM should label 2-lane expressways (i.e., no stops) in solid purple, and 4+lane expressways (i.e., no stops) in purple outline with orangish-red middle.

I've always thought state highway signs should differentiate from black/white (for those with black/white) signs when they're expressways or freeways and simply change color-shields when the freeway ends. For instance, OH-11 could be signed with a dark blue OH with white numbers to signify it's a freeway. US-30 could be dark green (white outline) with white numerals to indicate high-speed expressway, but not limited access.

Interstate shields should signify something 'high rate', but there's nothing to indicate a middle ground.

Sykotyk

[agentsteel53]

US1 from I-93 to I-95 is similar. No lights, but RIRO driveway access.

yep, the Northeast Expressway, which was at one point to become I-95 if I recall correctly.  Also, north of the 9 mile ring road, paralleling 95 to the NH state line is similar, but I think there are a few red lights.

in any case, an excellent example of 1940s expressway construction, essentially unchanged since then!

[mukade]

What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.

There are many routes that are built for eventual conversion to Interstate-standard freeway, but have limited side-road and/or driveway access, few (if any) stoplights, and have speed limits that are the same as freeways. Wisconsin calls them "expressways", though this doesn't appear to be standard terminology.

Routes like most of US-30 in Ohio, WI-29 between Eau Claire and Green Bay, WI, or US-53 between Eau Claire and Superior, WI function much like Interstates, but there's no differentiation on most maps between them and other divided highways that are basically overgrown surface streets (US-30 between I-65 and Fort Wayne).

Well, that section of US 30 is an odd beast in that it is expressway in places, and stoplight alley in others. All the more reason to formalize the expressway standard and possibly allow some sort of distinguished marking for full routes that meet a higher standard (i.e. not that part of US 30).

Also, Indiana also does have real expressways, but unfortunately the term is used in different ways. For example the Borman Expressway is actually a freeway, and the Fort Wayne Airport Expressway is probably a lower standard that a real expressway. SR 63 north of Terre Haute, the Hoosier Heartland (US 24 and SR 25), and US 231 south of I-64 are examples of true expressways. The official INDOT definition can be found in the FAQ on the SR 25 upgrade web site at http://www.in.gov/indot/div/projects/sr25study/developments/framefaq.htm. It says the following:
"The major difference between an expressway and a freeway is that a freeway has no access points other than at interchanges (usually spaced no closer than 1 to 3 miles apart). All roads that cross a freeway must be via overpass or underpass. An expressway can have at-grade intersections, usually with a traffic signal, and access at most US or state routes. Based on these criteria, the project will be designed as an expressway. After an alignment is chosen, INDOT will decide which roads will have direct access, and which will have to use either frontage roads or access the new road by means of those roads that do have access. Community input will be taken into consideration in making such decisions. In no case will resident or business driveways have direct access to the new road. "

[mukade]

What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.

indeed.  also, maps have an obsession with differentiating between divided highways and non-divided ones, which to me is much less important a distinction than the absence of traffic lights.  Rand McNally will label in orange a high-speed expressway without a red light for 75 miles, with ranch access turnoffs, the same way that it labels a suburban arterial, four red lights per mile.  Which would I rather drive??

I also completely agree that RM does a horrible job distinguishing every highway type except freeways. If you look at the legend in the RM road atlas, the orange-yellow with red outline signifies "other multilane highway", not necessarily divided highways. A representation for expressways showing interchanges would be very useful.

[3467]

I agree on RM and other maps Some distinguish between diveded and undivided and passing lane sections are usually listed as 2 lanes even though thye are tecnically multilane undivided. In MO the divided could be debated

[flowmotion]

I don't own a recent Rand-McNally, but it was maddening how they used the "divided highway" symbol for any divided street, even low-speed landscaped streets or park roads.

And I agree with the premise of this thread. It is ridiculous that Business-80 in Sacramento doesn't qualify for a blue I sign, so it is given a green I sign instead. Does this provide useful information to the traveler? Does it make any sense to the average commuter? I doubt it.

The point of road numbering should be for travelling convenience. When it becomes a inventory system for the bureaucracy is usually where it goes wrong, in my opinion.

[TheStranger]

And I agree with the premise of this thread. It is ridiculous that Business-80 in Sacramento doesn't qualify for a blue I sign, so it is given a green I sign instead. Does this provide useful information to the traveler? Does it make any sense to the average commuter? I doubt it.

The point of road numbering should be for travelling convenience. When it becomes a inventory system for the bureaucracy is usually where it goes wrong, in my opinion.

Ironically, Business 80 I think was designated for motorist convenience, to retain the existing route number after the mainline was moved to then-880 due to the funding for the North Sacramento 80 realignment being shifted to light rail.

Yeah, I think in retrospect, having the 51 designation signed would be easier, but then again, California introduced quite a few unsigned routes in 1964 (i.e. 164, 112) so this is nothing new...

[agentsteel53]

Ironically, Business 80 I think was designated for motorist convenience, to retain the existing route number after the mainline was moved to then-880 due to the funding for the North Sacramento 80 realignment being shifted to light rail.

I don't get why the 880 number had to be scrapped?  There were two perfectly good freeways - 80 and 880 - and just because future funding was lost doesn't mean that 80 had to suddenly be demoted.  Wasn't it grandfathered in, like 84 in Connecticut or (horrors!) 278 in New York?

[US71]

It's silly to build a new highway, give it a state route number, then change the number to an Interstate later down the road.  It's confusing and illogical.  They should go ahead and sign the Interstate numbers now.

Like I-49 instead of AR 549?

[TheStranger]

Ironically, Business 80 I think was designated for motorist convenience, to retain the existing route number after the mainline was moved to then-880 due to the funding for the North Sacramento 80 realignment being shifted to light rail.

I don't get why the 880 number had to be scrapped?  There were two perfectly good freeways - 80 and 880 - and just because future funding was lost doesn't mean that 80 had to suddenly be demoted.  Wasn't it grandfathered in, like 84 in Connecticut or (horrors!) 278 in New York?

That's the thing I've always wondered, because the section of today's Business 80 between West Sacramento and E Street, which I think corresponds to unsigned I-305, IS interstate standard (the segment between Route 275 and E Street was built as I-80 and either State Route 99 or US 99E, while the segment west of Route 275 that was once I-80/US 40/US 99W has been widened over the years to be interstate-standard)...and the segment of the 40 and 99E freeways from E Street to Watt Avenue was signed as I-80 as you noted.

For that matter, it's in some ways more Interstate-standard than the equally grandfathered-in segment of I-80 in San Francisco that was built as US 40/50 (which the feds have not considered part of I-80 since 1968, but which CalTrans has always signed as I-80 since the late 1950s).  Yeah, confusing isn't it?

I do find it amusing that the proposed 80 realignment along the railroad ROW would have actually taken the freeway a mile or two away from one of the key traffic generators in the area, one of the main reasons Business 80 is as busy as it is now - the Arden Fair Mall, which has become a regional powerhouse in the last 15-20 years.  Instead of being located right at the edge of the Cal Expo and Arden areas, the realigned I-80 would have skirted the dilapidated Del Paso Heights much more closely. 

In the long term, while there are houses and a few businesses on the Auburn Boulevard frontage road (former 40/99E) near the Marconi Curve, I don't think widening and straightening on the current alignment is as impossible as CalTrans thought it was.

[andytom]

exceptions to the standard have to be ruled on and have good reason for being in place. 

I dispute this.  278?  99?  etc etc.  the absence of a 76/95 junction.  a lot of things are completely arbitrary and dominated by politics, to the detriment of the driving public that the government is ostensibly serving.

My response to this died somewhere in transmission so I'll submit it again.  The freeways that became 278 probably met some freeway building standard at the time that they were built.  At the inception of the Interstate System, they chose to grandfather them in.  As for 99, what is the problem with it (aside from the numbering issue which is not part of the standard)?  And for the 76(276?)/95 crossing, I don't recall there being anything in the standard that says that crossing Interstates must be connected (although, if they are, they must do so with an interchange).

Remember what is (was) actually in the standard before commenting on it.

--Andy

[Scott5114]

I don't think I-99 directly connects to either I-70/76 or I-80, does it?

[agentsteel53]

My response to this died somewhere in transmission so I'll submit it again.  The freeways that became 278 probably met some freeway building standard at the time that they were built.  

when I last drove the 278 northbound (Sept 2007) there were many sections that were one lane.  That can't possibly be a freeway standard, even in the 1940s or 1950s.  I remember there being one-lane sections in 2003 and the late 80s as well.  So it must be a permanent feature.  There is a good reason for, whenever interstates failing to meet standard are discussed, my bringing up I-278.  Not 99 or 238 as a primary example, or even the Cleveland Death Curve or the various substandard sections of I-70.  All of those are significantly better than 278 in Queens.

As for 99, what is the problem with it (aside from the numbering issue which is not part of the standard)?

that is it.  It's a perfectly good freeway - but there is a problem with the fact that a fatcat politician gets to override geographic and arithmetic sensibilities and slap a new number on the perfectly well-built US-220 freeway.  that's an insult to the interstate and the US highway systems!

And for the 76(276?)/95 crossing, I don't recall there being anything in the standard that says that crossing Interstates must be connected (although, if they are, they must do so with an interchange).

it may not be a standard but it is certainly common sense - especially from the perspective of the driver.  When you see two big blue lines on the map, and you note the historical importance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and of I-95 - wouldn't you think that it makes sense to build an interchange between the two?  

Grade separations without interchanges are completely jarring to the driving population - they see the highway that they desire to take pass by without any sort of obvious connection.  There is a very good reason why 99.9% of freeways have connections to each other.  The usual exception is when the freeway departs with an angle greater than about 60 degrees and a "reverse" connection makes no sense - but to have absolutely no connection between any pair of directions is just not supported by hundreds of examples of sane freeway design, from the 1940s to today.

[TheStranger]

  The usual exception is when the freeway departs with an angle greater than about 60 degrees and a "reverse" connection makes no sense - but to have absolutely no connection between any pair of directions is just not supported by hundreds of examples of sane freeway design, from the 1940s to today.

One of the few non-toll examples of no-connection would be Route 87 and I-880 in San Jose, much of that more a result of the proximity to San Jose International Airport and US 101 making it hard to build ramps in that area.

Another was US 281 and I-410 in San Antonio, which has since been given an interchange.

One that may come in the future will be 710 and 110 in Pasadena, though at one point it was planned.

[flowmotion]

Ironically, Business 80 I think was designated for motorist convenience, to retain the existing route number after the mainline was moved to then-880 due to the funding for the North Sacramento 80 realignment being shifted to light rail.

Either that or "Well if you'd rather have a rail line, then we're demoting you to the green signs. So there. *sniff* "

Despite what some bureaucrat may have said, having two 80 freeways violates common sense, and therefore is not in the interest of motorist convenience.

Motorists think of the Interstate System in terms of the functions it provide, not shoulder widths or funding pools. (Although technical standards contribute to the road's functionality.) When you have a limited access freeway loop that serves the central business district of a major city, it simply should be signed as Interstate.

[TheStranger]

Either that or "Well if you'd rather have a rail line, then we're demoting you to the green signs. So there. *sniff*

This is basically what happened to once-planned-as-I-470 in Denver (now being built and mostly complete as a state route).

When you have a limited access freeway loop that serves the central business district of a major city, it simply should be signed as Interstate.

Business 80 as a "loop route", or even as an effective through route, has always been debatable though - even had 80 been retained on that routing with the improved, railroad ROW through North Sacramento and north of E Street in midtown...I-80 did "exited itself" on small right-hand ramps in Oak Park, just as it "exits itself" now in West Sacramento (on larger ramps that once were I-880).  (The Oak Park interchange has the through movement from 99 north to Business 80 east/hidden Route 51 north, as that was once simply the US 99E mainline!)  Really, the US 50 and the Route 99/Route 51 pathways are two separate corridors in function.

Of course, this "creative" Business Loop inspired the DOTs in North and South Carolina, with Business I-40/85 and Business I-85 both emerging in the last 20 years...

[andytom]

My response to this died somewhere in transmission so I'll submit it again.  The freeways that became 278 probably met some freeway building standard at the time that they were built.  

when I last drove the 278 northbound (Sept 2007) there were many sections that were one lane.  That can't possibly be a freeway standard, even in the 1940s or 1950s.  I remember there being one-lane sections in 2003 and the late 80s as well.  So it must be a permanent feature.  There is a good reason for, whenever interstates failing to meet standard are discussed, my bringing up I-278.

A cursory look showed this in 3, possibly 4, locations, all where the designation is changing from one freeway to another.  This is relatively common in such situations througout the system, i.e. considered highly exceptionable until recently.

As for 99, what is the problem with it (aside from the numbering issue which is not part of the standard)?

that is it.  It's a perfectly good freeway - but there is a problem with the fact that a fatcat politician gets to override geographic and arithmetic sensibilities and slap a new number on the perfectly well-built US-220 freeway.  that's an insult to the interstate and the US highway systems!

That doesn't make it any more a part of the standard.

And for the 76(276?)/95 crossing, I don't recall there being anything in the standard that says that crossing Interstates must be connected (although, if they are, they must do so with an interchange).

it may not be a standard but it is certainly common sense - especially from the perspective of the driver.  When you see two big blue lines on the map, and you note the historical importance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and of I-95 - wouldn't you think that it makes sense to build an interchange between the two?  

Only when the 2 lines are actually blue.  When one of them is green (and has been for a long time), anything can be expected.

Grade separations without interchanges are completely jarring to the driving population - they see the highway that they desire to take pass by without any sort of obvious connection.  There is a very good reason why 99.9% of freeways have connections to each other.  The usual exception is when the freeway departs with an angle greater than about 60 degrees and a "reverse" connection makes no sense - but to have absolutely no connection between any pair of directions is just not supported by hundreds of examples of sane freeway design, from the 1940s to today.

The original standard probably said that new freeways would not be directly connected to the old toll roads, or the decision was left to the state DOT's and the individual toll road authorities.  They've only started correcting that in the last 20 years.

--Andy

[agentsteel53]

One of the few non-toll examples of no-connection would be Route 87 and I-880 in San Jose, much of that more a result of the proximity to San Jose International Airport and US 101 making it hard to build ramps in that area.

there is a reasonably easy way to get from 87 to 880 (via 101), though.  As opposed to the Penna Turnpike to 95, where you're scratching your head wondering how the Hell you're going to turn north when your other car is the General Lee.

One that may come in the future will be 710 and 110 in Pasadena, though at one point it was planned.

ugh, don't get me started on the 710 in south Pasadena.  Along with the 95 in Somerset County, New Jersey - significantly below standard!  I think even Andy would agree that "right of way still has active residences on it" is completely contrary to the goals and design objectives of a limited-access multilane highway.

[TheStranger]

One of the few non-toll examples of no-connection would be Route 87 and I-880 in San Jose, much of that more a result of the proximity to San Jose International Airport and US 101 making it hard to build ramps in that area.

there is a reasonably easy way to get from 87 to 880 (via 101), though.  As opposed to the Penna Turnpike to 95, where you're scratching your head wondering how the Hell you're going to turn north when your other car is the General Lee.|

What surprises me - actually, in this day and age, really doesn't now that I think of it - is that a TEMP I-95 connection along US 1 and other surface roads was never established to make the 276-95 transition easier while the relatively simple interchange design gets built...more than 30 years after it was proposed.

One that may come in the future will be 710 and 110 in Pasadena, though at one point it was planned.

ugh, don't get me started on the 710 in south Pasadena.  Along with the 95 in Somerset County, New Jersey - significantly below standard!  I think even Andy would agree that "right of way still has active residences on it" is completely contrary to the goals and design objectives of a limited-access multilane highway.

Since 95 was rerouted on the turnpike, does that make it "up to standards" now?  Basically, the same thing that happened to 95 in Boston and in Washington DC, rerouting onto a bypass.

[agentsteel53]

Since 95 was rerouted on the turnpike, does that make it "up to standards" now?  Basically, the same thing that happened to 95 in Boston and in Washington DC, rerouting onto a bypass.

is it clearly signed, or does one still have to take 295 (either from the south end, bypassing Philly entirely, or the north end, looping southwards) to 195, and then to the NJ Turnpike?  ... and just know to do that by some sheer intuition?  If sheer intuition is needed, because the signage is not there then no, it is not up to standard.

especially if southbound, 95 is signed to continue on the NJ Turnpike past 195 (as it was the last time I was there), which basically implies two parallel non-converging branches.  Even Euclid himself would have a hell of a time with that one.