Can anyone think of highways that were built although the traffic levels didn't justify it? In other words, existing roads handled the traffic just fine and continue to do so. God bless.
Interstate 99. Altoona isn't that big you know.
So many roads, so little time! :sombrero:
Here's a few. I remember taking I-88 in NY from Binghamton to the Albany-Schenectady area in both '83 and '85. Back then, at least, the road screamed, "BOONDOGGLE! PORK!" as there was almost no one on it. (That may have changed in the last 25 years.)
I would say that most of the interstate highway system was not needed when it was built. That being said, it probably was a good thing it was built when it was because it's needed now and waiting until the need was there probably would have increased both the cost and time to completion.
Lets look at my state of WV.
North of Charleston, you have I-77, US 50-Corridor D/ and I-79 forming a triangle with Charleston, Parkersburg, and Clarksburg as the points. If I-79 had never been built, the distance from Charleston to Clarksburg would have only increased by a few miles. The existance of 79 makes 50 one of the least used roads in the east. 79 itself loses almost all of its through traffic to US 19-Corridor L, making its last 60 miles unneeded on a national basis. Much better had 79 gone to Beckley.
I-68 is one of the most pointless roads in the east. What does it do? Morgantown nowhere to Hancock nowhere, with I-70 paralleling it only 25 miles to the north and continuing on into the Midwest.
US 460 - Corridor Q just parallels I-77 less than three miles away. Serves no purpose at all.
Wheeling has to be the smallest city to get an interstate bypass. One or the other of 70 or 470 was totally unneeded.
Another one:
Interstate 95 north of Bangor, ME.
Look at how many cars are there and give me a good reason why it shouldn't be a freeway past there.
QuoteInterstate 99. Altoona isn't that big you know.
No, but neither was the old US 220 a quiet route. Many deride the choice of route number for I-99, but a 4-lane corridor is well justified.
QuoteI-68 is one of the most pointless roads in the east. What does it do? Morgantown nowhere to Hancock nowhere, with I-70 paralleling it only 25 miles to the north and continuing on into the Midwest.
However, it's quite useful for avoiding Breezewood and the segment of I-70 you mention, which is far substandard for a freeway, let alone an Interstate.
QuoteUS 460 - Corridor Q just parallels I-77 less than three miles away. Serves no purpose at all.
However, US 460 through that segment is in the 16-20K range for average daily traffic, which is well above the threshold (typically 10K or so) for needing a 4-lane highway.
QuoteInterstate 95 north of Bangor, ME.
Look at how many cars are there and give me a good reason why it shouldn't be a freeway past there.
Several Interstate segments in the western states would be comparable. But traffic isn't the primary reason for those. Continuity and connectivity are the reasons. Plus an updated rule Congress put in during the 1960s where Interstates had to be 4 lanes (prior to that, some Interstate segments were built with 2 lanes...one each way).
Going back to the original question, as a general rule, the 4-lane corridors in Mississippi are overbuilt compared to their traffic levels. Many segments don't even hit the 5K ADT level, let alone 10K or higher.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 26, 2009, 09:03:41 PM
I-68 is one of the most pointless roads in the east. What does it do? Morgantown nowhere to Hancock nowhere, with I-70 paralleling it only 25 miles to the north and continuing on into the Midwest.
Maybe if I-70 didn't use an overpriced and overloaded toll road.
Better candidates:
* NE 71/Heartland Expressway between Kimball and Scottsbluff: ADT tops out at 3070 before entering Scottsbluff, no way that route needs four laning currently. No speed limit bonus for a four lane route in that part of Nebraska either. An occasional passing lane would have been a more worthwhile investment. But if in five years the ADT is up around 10,000, I'll consider it a well-planned investment.
* L55W in Lincoln, NE: Mostly screws up the street grid. Granted it does have a decent ADT.
I-680 in Ohio. Youngstown is abandoned and so should I-680
How about I-180 in Illinois? Here is a list of my unnecessary highways:
-There are a lot of suffixes off of US 9 in NY that seem a little pointless and shouldn't be signed as routes. Those for me include NY 9R, NY 9P, and NH 9L.
-Outside of Albany in Thatcher State Park in the Helderberg Mts there is a very short NY state route, NY 157 and is the only state highway through the park. The rest are county highways. The route looks just like a county highway and IMHO, should be signed and maintained as such. And to make matters worse, there is a suffix loop off of it thats 1-2 miles, NY 157A.
I don't know of any other pointless routes at the moment, but Im sure more will come up.
Ian
Quote from: Hellfighter on July 26, 2009, 10:28:33 PM
I-680 in Ohio. Youngstown is abandoned and so should I-680
Although ODOT's ADT maps do show the volume dropping on I-680 since 2002, most of it still runs over 20,000 ADT, peaking at 53,450 just west of OH 193.
The OH 193/US 422/OH 7 loop in Youngstown
might be unnecessary today though.
I do see many 4 lane divided US Highways and State Routes where traffic levels absolutely does not warrant 4 lanes, mostly on the great plains, like eastern New Mexico, western Texas, parts of Iowa, etc. 2,000 - 6,000 really doesn't need 4 lanes. It's nice, but somewhat unnecessary.
Definitely unnecessary are:
- I-691: You have CT 72/CT 9 just a few miles north of there to avoid Hartford, and its eastern terminus just adds to the confusion where I-91 and CT 15 merge and intersect US 5.
-I-190 (Massachusetts): I really am not seeing the need for an Interstate-grade connection between I-290 and MA 2. Maybe I'm missing something here?
Quote from: SP Cook on July 26, 2009, 09:03:41 PM
Wheeling has to be the smallest city to get an interstate bypass. One or the other of 70 or 470 was totally unneeded.
I'm sure that has a lot to do with the Wheeling Tunnel. That creates restrictions for some trucks, and creates 1-thru lane sections. Since I-470 is signed the recommended thru route for interstate traffic, they probably should've just switched the numbers... but people seem to figure it out anyway.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 27, 2009, 12:30:30 AM
How about I-180 in Illinois?
I-180 continues as IL-6 to I-474 around Peoria. Then, you can continue towards Macomb and down IL-336 towards Quincy and I-172, and then onto I-72. They're slowly upgrading it to expressway standards without stop lights/signs.
Quote from: Chris on July 27, 2009, 03:28:59 AM
I do see many 4 lane divided US Highways and State Routes where traffic levels absolutely does not warrant 4 lanes, mostly on the great plains, like eastern New Mexico, western Texas, parts of Iowa, etc. 2,000 - 6,000 really doesn't need 4 lanes. It's nice, but somewhat unnecessary.
Sure, but with a lot of farm traffic, truck traffic, RVs, etc, it's nice to have an constant passing lane. Plus, Texas generally paves with really wide shoulders as well (generally 10'+), so they're rather large roadways to begin with. Some 2-lane roads should be 4-lanes with wide shoulders, or vice versa depending on traffic.
Athough, in Texas, the general traffic habbit is on a two-lane road with wide shoulders if you're going slow, you drive the shoulder to let people pass, acting as an auxilary lane.
Quote from: njroadhorse on July 27, 2009, 10:20:01 AM
Definitely unnecessary are:
-I-190 (Massachusetts): I really am not seeing the need for an Interstate-grade connection between I-290 and MA 2. Maybe I'm missing something here?
I've driven it, it's a nice alternate from Worcester to the northeast compared to I-290 to I-495 (or worse, I-90 to I-495 with the traffic backups). Plus, MA-2 from I-190 to MA-2 is rather well traveled. Even if it is a substandard freeway (more like a parkway, small non-existent median, horribly small I-70 in Pennsylvania-like on and off ramps, etc).
Sykotyk
Can't think of any really, and if we had more unnecessary highways then overly congested highways, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately many more are clogged then empty...
How about that rule in some states that county seats should be connected with 4 lane highways regardless of size?
Quote from: Chris on July 27, 2009, 12:57:19 PM
How about that rule in some states that county seats should be connected with 4 lane highways regardless of size?
We got that one here in Tennessee! :banghead: :banghead:
Quote from: Chris on July 27, 2009, 03:28:59 AM
I do see many 4 lane divided US Highways and State Routes where traffic levels absolutely does not warrant 4 lanes, mostly on the great plains, like eastern New Mexico, western Texas, parts of Iowa, etc. 2,000 - 6,000 really doesn't need 4 lanes. It's nice, but somewhat unnecessary.
Unfortunately Iowa is one of those states that requires an expressway to get a speed limit higher than 55. I'd also expect to see some of the corridors increase significantly in volume when they are fully completed, such as the Burlington - Des Moines corridor (especially when US 34 is widened in Illinois), US 20 (both across Iowa and to Rockford in Illinois). Congestion on I-80 is also likely to drive some through traffic to other corridors - I recall seeing somewhere the proposal to upgrade US 30 across the state as a relief route.
Quote from: Sykotyk on July 27, 2009, 12:39:35 PM
I-180 continues as IL-6 to I-474 around Peoria. Then, you can continue towards Macomb and down IL-336 towards Quincy and I-172, and then onto I-72. They're slowly upgrading it to expressway standards without stop lights/signs.
I'm not sure the spur part across the Illinois river was/is really needed. Now if it was to be the start of a future Chicago bypass interstate via Streator, Dwight, Kankakee, and Fort Wayne . . .
Quote from: froggie on July 26, 2009, 09:33:51 PM
...an updated rule Congress put in during the 1960s where Interstates had to be 4 lanes (prior to that, some Interstate segments were built with 2 lanes...one each way)....
I would like to have seen those two lane Interstates! Anyone got pictures?
Quote from: Michael on July 27, 2009, 06:02:50 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 26, 2009, 09:33:51 PM
...an updated rule Congress put in during the 1960s where Interstates had to be 4 lanes (prior to that, some Interstate segments were built with 2 lanes...one each way)....
I would like to have seen those two lane Interstates! Anyone got pictures?
I wish I did! I remember I-90 through the Badlands of South Dakota was two lanes back in 1972.
Michael Summa photo from 1976 that shows brilliantly the two-lanedness of this road:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ME/ME19720951i1.jpg)
Quote from: Hellfighter on July 26, 2009, 10:28:33 PM
I-680 in Ohio. Youngstown is abandoned and so should I-680
But it does save you a little cash if you are using it to avoid the bulk of I-76 on the Ohio Turnpike. Coming from Pittsburgh, you now only have to shell out 50 Cents to get to Cleveland, if you don't mind using the I-279/79/76 (Tpk)/680/76(Freeway)/77 combo.
And if nobody lives/works in Youngstown anymore, why cant ODOT bump up the speed limit on 680 beyond 50 MPH??? :)
Quote from: thenetwork on July 27, 2009, 08:36:17 PM
But it does save you a little cash if you are using it to avoid the bulk of I-76 on the Ohio Turnpike. Coming from Pittsburgh, you now only have to shell out 50 Cents to get to Cleveland, if you don't mind using the I-279/79/76 (Tpk)/680/76(Freeway)/77 combo.
I think you're a little off on your figure here. On the route you've chosen, you'll pass through the Gateway Toll Plaza on the PA Turnpike which is $3.75 plus the $.50 on the Ohio Tpk to I-680 which is $4.25 total.
Quote from: Michael on July 27, 2009, 06:02:50 PM
I would like to have seen those two lane Interstates! Anyone got pictures?
I-93 through Franconia Notch in northern New Hampshire is an example of a 2-lane Interstate (basically a super-two).
Quote from: mightyace on July 28, 2009, 01:01:31 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 27, 2009, 08:36:17 PM
But it does save you a little cash if you are using it to avoid the bulk of I-76 on the Ohio Turnpike. Coming from Pittsburgh, you now only have to shell out 50 Cents to get to Cleveland, if you don't mind using the I-279/79/76 (Tpk)/680/76(Freeway)/77 combo.
I think you're a little off on your figure here. On the route you've chosen, you'll pass through the Gateway Toll Plaza on the PA Turnpike which is $3.75 plus the $.50 on the Ohio Tpk to I-680 which is $4.25 total.
Actually, the PA Turnpike barrier toll is only paid eastbound when coming into PA from Ohio, and then technically, it is a "free"way if you use the turnpike solely between I-79 and PA-60/Future I-376, as all the toll plazas have been removed between those three exits.
What I used to do to get to Pittsburgh "toll-free" from Youngstown was to follow I-680 south to SR-165. Then SR-165 south to SR 14, which becomes PA-51 in PA. Then PA-51 east would hook you up to PA-60 just south of the toll portion.
QuoteWheeling has to be the smallest city to get an interstate bypass. One or the other of 70 or 470 was totally unneeded.
I'm sure that has a lot to do with the Wheeling Tunnel. That creates restrictions for some trucks, and creates 1-thru lane sections. Since I-470 is signed the recommended thru route for interstate traffic, they probably should've just switched the numbers... but people seem to figure it out anyway.
I-470 exists in OH/WV primarily as a truck bypass and a thru route while I-70 is more for local traffic. On the whole, 470 is fastest way to get through the Wheeling area; hence the "Washington, Pa" / "Columbus" destinations. It's also a much safer road than I-70 - there's no narrow tunnel, the Ohio River bridge crossing is safer, there's no dangerous weaves/interchanges and the mountain grades are much easier on truckers. While I-470 is of greater interstate quality, there probably was some opposition that prevented the route through downtown Wheeling being designated as a 3di.
Quote from: worldtravelermsk on July 29, 2009, 06:18:25 PM
I-470 exists in OH/WV primarily as a truck bypass and a thru route while I-70 is more for local traffic. On the whole, 470 is fastest way to get through the Wheeling area; hence the "Washington, Pa" / "Columbus" destinations. It's also a much safer road than I-70 - there's no narrow tunnel, the Ohio River bridge crossing is safer, there's no dangerous weaves/interchanges and the mountain grades are much easier on truckers. While I-470 is of greater interstate quality, there probably was some opposition that prevented the route through downtown Wheeling being designated as a 3di.
I'd like to fervently refute that.
From near St. Clairsville, it's downhill to the Tunnel, relatively flat until you make the climb to Cabela Drive at Exit 9. I-470 requires a downhill to the river, a huge 5-6% grade, and a downhill grade that requires all trucks to file into one lane (the left) in order to stay on i-70. Secondly, there's a rough merge of that lane onto I-70, which is part of a righthand curve.
Hardly the safest or most efficient. Most will take their chances with the tunnel traffic than that hill on I-470 east bound.
Sykotyk
VA 895 for sure but IMHO it probably wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a toll road
Quote from: City on July 26, 2009, 09:19:51 PM
Another one:
Interstate 95 north of Bangor, ME.
Look at how many cars are there and give me a good reason why it shouldn't be a freeway past there.
Currently it link with NB-95 (recently upgraded to full freeway standards to TCH-2) but there was some groups who wants to have I-95 extended northernly to Aroostock county http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-095.html (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-095.html) and before the Interstate act pased, there was some plans to extend the Maine Turnpike northernly as well. http://web.archive.org/web/20010210013456/www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~mn2n/tollme.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20010210013456/www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~mn2n/tollme.html)
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 30, 2009, 07:40:49 PM
VA 895 for sure but IMHO it probably wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a toll road
I'm afraid that counts for most tolled bypasses... For instance, who would use Texas 8 (Sam Houston Tollway) to get around Houston from San Antonio towards Beaumont?
I'm not sure people would use Beltway 8 even if it were free; it's hardly an efficient bypass.
Quote from: mightyace on July 27, 2009, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Chris on July 27, 2009, 12:57:19 PM
How about that rule in some states that county seats should be connected with 4 lane highways regardless of size?
We got that one here in Tennessee! :banghead: :banghead:
Yes and it is getting worse. US 412 is four lanes from Hohenwald to the Maury County line now. US 70S is four lanes from Murfreesboro to Woodbury. Then it is four lanes from Woodbury to McMinnville. Why?
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 30, 2009, 07:40:49 PM
VA 895 for sure but IMHO it probably wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a toll road
Quote from: Chris on July 31, 2009, 06:19:16 AM
I'm afraid that counts for most tolled bypasses... For instance, who would use Texas 8 (Sam Houston Tollway) to get around Houston from San Antonio towards Beaumont?
I know we've been bashing the Pocahontas Parkway (VA-895) in another thread, since it is not very useful as a cutoff from I-85 to I-295 (via I-95 northbound) due to the tolls. But as someone else eluded, it functions very well for its intended purpose to route Virginia Beach summer traffic away from the I-95/I-64 split in downtown Richmond. Before the Pocahontas was opened, eastbound beach traffic on I-64 could take as much as 3 hours to get the roughly 25 miles from Richmond to New Kent. This often occurred on both Friday evenings and Saturday mornings every weekend. When I lived in the Cloverleaf area I worked on most weekends, so I quickly learned to avoid eastern Richmond during the summers (and my office was in the C&O Fulton railyards). Kept me out of the office on weekends.
Arkansas 369 near Paris is basically a state maintained half mile factory driveway. Arkansas has a number of those.
How about the Mon-Fayette Expressway south of Uniontown? It too closely parallels free I-79. Would have been better to focus on the far more important section north of PA-51. If they had to go south, a more useful route would have been to go southeast rather than southwest, paralleling US-40 and tying into I-68 around Friendsville, MD, or even as far as Keysers Ridge. That would make I-68 a more effective alternative to the PATP mainline -- while not missing out on any tolls!
I-40 BUS in Glenrio, TX :bigass:
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on November 06, 2020, 01:24:03 PM
I-40 BUS in Glenrio, TX :bigass:
That's not the only west Texas business route serving a small town in advanced stages of drying up and blowing away.
Quote from: oscar on November 06, 2020, 01:32:10 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on November 06, 2020, 01:24:03 PM
I-40 BUS in Glenrio, TX :bigass:
That's not the only west Texas business route serving a small town in advanced stages of drying up and blowing away.
I got off at that exit and was wondering if the Bus I-40 was for real.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 06, 2020, 01:39:06 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 06, 2020, 01:32:10 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on November 06, 2020, 01:24:03 PM
I-40 BUS in Glenrio, TX :bigass:
That's not the only west Texas business route serving a small town in advanced stages of drying up and blowing away.
I got off at that exit and was wondering if the Bus I-40 was for real.
I saw it on Google Maps while trying to take a virtual US-66 road trip during lockdown, and was wondering if the BUS I-40 was for real!
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on November 06, 2020, 01:24:03 PM
I-40 BUS in Glenrio, TX :bigass:
By the way, for anyone interested:
Quote from: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 12:07:55 PM
AADT (2018) = 39
That's an average of one vehicle every 37 minutes.
I-795 in Maryland seems like a spur to nowhere
I-180 in Illinois
What's the point of the OH 11 freeway? Youngstown to Buffalo traffic? Why does Youngstown have so many damn highways?
NY 690 seems pointless on a map
I-391 kinda just parallels I-91
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 19, 2020, 11:42:49 AM
What's the point of the OH 11 freeway? Youngstown to Buffalo traffic? Why does Youngstown have so many damn highways?
That area has declined in importance over time. It was more important when it was built.
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 11:45:22 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 19, 2020, 11:42:49 AM
What's the point of the OH 11 freeway? Youngstown to Buffalo traffic? Why does Youngstown have so many damn highways?
That area has declined in importance over time. It was more important when it was built.
How much traffic does that highway get today?
Most of the Hoosier Heartland Highway. I would drive the US-24 section from Ft. Wayne to Logansport at least 8 times a year from 2003-2008. Never did I encounter a need for that road to be 4-lane. I understand they did it as part of a larger project (even thought US-24 should connect to I-469), but the traffic volumes don't really justify its "bigness". Strategic passing lanes would have been more useful. The SR 25 section, I've driven about 20 times, between Delphi and Lafayette, and it seems even less traveled.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 19, 2020, 11:46:08 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 11:45:22 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 19, 2020, 11:42:49 AM
What's the point of the OH 11 freeway? Youngstown to Buffalo traffic? Why does Youngstown have so many damn highways?
That area has declined in importance over time. It was more important when it was built.
How much traffic does that highway get today?
OH 11 was originally conceived as the Lake-to-River Highway, taking traffic from Ashtabula, Ohio on Lake Erie south through the Youngstown area to the Ohio River cities of East Liverpool and Wellsville. Back in the 60's when the steel mills and other industrial factories in Eastern Ohio were humming this highway was considered important to the region's commerce.
Now, not so much. Although OH 11 does get a fair amount of local traffic as a major north-south artery from Cortland, just north of Warren, southward to Columbiana, its most northerly and southerly sections are sparsely traveled.
Youngstown doesn't necessarily have a lot of freeways, but consider it is the halfway point between Cleveland and Pittsburgh (PA turnpike and OH turnpike), and also the midway point between New York City and Chicago, via I-80, one of the most heavily traveled east-west interstates in the country.
QuoteI-795 in Maryland seems like a spur to nowhere
I am sure that commuters that would otherwise take MD 140 would say otherwise.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 19, 2020, 02:16:32 PM
QuoteI-795 in Maryland seems like a spur to nowhere
I am sure that commuters that would otherwise take MD 140 would say otherwise.
Speaking as someone who did commute on I-795 pre-COVID, I do indeed say otherwise! I-795 functionally is less a spur and more a bypass of MD 140, which is basically a continuous strip of shopping centers and traffic signals the entire distance from I-695 to Reisterstown. I-795's AADT tops out in the 120,000's on the initial stretch from I-695 to Owings Mills Blvd.
I've never really been able to see the point of I-790, other than perhaps a desire to shove a trumpet interchange off to one side instead of right at NY-12.
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 11:45:22 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 19, 2020, 11:42:49 AM
What's the point of the OH 11 freeway? Youngstown to Buffalo traffic? Why does Youngstown have so many damn highways?
That area has declined in importance over time. It was more important when it was built.
Youngstown's population has declined by 100,000 people, it's a mind blowing drop in population.
The interstate system is a good snapshot of what cities were considered important in the mid-20th century. There are a number of cities that have declined in the last 50 years but yet punch above their weight in terms of highway access.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 19, 2020, 03:52:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 11:45:22 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 19, 2020, 11:42:49 AM
What's the point of the OH 11 freeway? Youngstown to Buffalo traffic? Why does Youngstown have so many damn highways?
That area has declined in importance over time. It was more important when it was built.
Youngstown's population has declined by 100,000 people, it's a mind blowing drop in population.
The interstate system is a good snapshot of what cities were considered important in the mid-20th century. There are a number of cities that have declined in the last 50 years but yet punch above their weight in terms of highway access.
Youngstown is also a good example of the oft-forgotten other aspect of the Interstate system–"Interstate
and Defense Highways." Youngstown had a very significant steel industry in the 1940s and 1950s, perhaps best-remembered now due to the famous Supreme Court opinion from 1952 regarding President Truman's seizure of the Youngstown steel mills to prevent the workers from going on strike during the Korean War. The statute authorizing the Interstate system was enacted in 1956, so Youngstown's steel mills were presumably regarded as a major industry relevant to the "defense" aspect. The steel industry didn't experience serious decline until the 1970s.
Quote from: coldshoulder on November 19, 2020, 01:44:09 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 19, 2020, 11:46:08 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 11:45:22 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 19, 2020, 11:42:49 AM
What's the point of the OH 11 freeway? Youngstown to Buffalo traffic? Why does Youngstown have so many damn highways?
That area has declined in importance over time. It was more important when it was built.
How much traffic does that highway get today?
OH 11 was originally conceived as the Lake-to-River Highway, taking traffic from Ashtabula, Ohio on Lake Erie south through the Youngstown area to the Ohio River cities of East Liverpool and Wellsville. Back in the 60's when the steel mills and other industrial factories in Eastern Ohio were humming this highway was considered important to the region's commerce.
Now, not so much. Although OH 11 does get a fair amount of local traffic as a major north-south artery from Cortland, just north of Warren, southward to Columbiana, its most northerly and southerly sections are sparsely traveled.
Youngstown doesn't necessarily have a lot of freeways, but consider it is the halfway point between Cleveland and Pittsburgh (PA turnpike and OH turnpike), and also the midway point between New York City and Chicago, via I-80, one of the most heavily traveled east-west interstates in the country.
Oh, I can think of a much less useful Route 11: CT 11 aka the Highway to Nowhere. For 48 years, it has served the town of Salem, CT, and little else. Also, CT 25 is pretty useless, as is I-384. All are examples of cancelled freeways that lead to nowhere.
Quote from: cbalducc on July 26, 2009, 06:53:24 PM
Can anyone think of highways that were built although the traffic levels didn't justify it? In other words, existing roads handled the traffic just fine and continue to do so. God bless.
No roads I can think of in Indiana that don't need to exist at all, but a few 4-lane segments that could have reasonably stayed 2:
IN 3 between Carroll Rd and US 6
IN 9 between CR 800 S and Etna Rd
IN 67 between I-69 and IN 3
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 19, 2020, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on July 26, 2009, 06:53:24 PM
Can anyone think of highways that were built although the traffic levels didn't justify it? In other words, existing roads handled the traffic just fine and continue to do so. God bless.
No roads I can think of in Indiana that don't need to exist at all, but a few 4-lane segments that could have reasonably stayed 2:
IN 3 between Carroll Rd and US 6
IN 9 between CR 800 S and Etna Rd
IN 67 between I-69 and IN 3
912 in its current form?
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 04:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 19, 2020, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on July 26, 2009, 06:53:24 PM
Can anyone think of highways that were built although the traffic levels didn't justify it? In other words, existing roads handled the traffic just fine and continue to do so. God bless.
No roads I can think of in Indiana that don't need to exist at all, but a few 4-lane segments that could have reasonably stayed 2:
IN 3 between Carroll Rd and US 6
IN 9 between CR 800 S and Etna Rd
IN 67 between I-69 and IN 3
912 in its current form?
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 04:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 19, 2020, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on July 26, 2009, 06:53:24 PM
Can anyone think of highways that were built although the traffic levels didn't justify it? In other words, existing roads handled the traffic just fine and continue to do so. God bless.
No roads I can think of in Indiana that don't need to exist at all, but a few 4-lane segments that could have reasonably stayed 2:
IN 3 between Carroll Rd and US 6
IN 9 between CR 800 S and Etna Rd
IN 67 between I-69 and IN 3
912 in its current form?
I didn't mention that because it was necessary when built, and will still be necessary if they ever fix it so it's more of a temporary condition.
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2020, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on November 06, 2020, 01:24:03 PM
I-40 BUS in Glenrio, TX :bigass:
By the way, for anyone interested:
Quote from: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 12:07:55 PM
AADT (2018) = 39
That's an average of one vehicle every 37 minutes.
Seems like "Business" I-40 is an oxymoron in this case.
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 19, 2020, 04:57:22 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 04:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 19, 2020, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on July 26, 2009, 06:53:24 PM
Can anyone think of highways that were built although the traffic levels didn't justify it? In other words, existing roads handled the traffic just fine and continue to do so. God bless.
No roads I can think of in Indiana that don't need to exist at all, but a few 4-lane segments that could have reasonably stayed 2:
IN 3 between Carroll Rd and US 6
IN 9 between CR 800 S and Etna Rd
IN 67 between I-69 and IN 3
912 in its current form?
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 04:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 19, 2020, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on July 26, 2009, 06:53:24 PM
Can anyone think of highways that were built although the traffic levels didn't justify it? In other words, existing roads handled the traffic just fine and continue to do so. God bless.
No roads I can think of in Indiana that don't need to exist at all, but a few 4-lane segments that could have reasonably stayed 2:
IN 3 between Carroll Rd and US 6
IN 9 between CR 800 S and Etna Rd
IN 67 between I-69 and IN 3
912 in its current form?
I didn't mention that because it was necessary when built, and will still be necessary if they ever fix it so it's more of a temporary condition.
There's still an operating segment between 90/ITR and 80/94 anyway, which isn't useless at all.
Quote from: njroadhorse on July 27, 2009, 10:20:01 AM
Definitely unnecessary are:
- I-691: You have CT 72/CT 9 just a few miles north of there to avoid Hartford, and its eastern terminus just adds to the confusion where I-91 and CT 15 merge and intersect US 5.
-I-190 (Massachusetts): I really am not seeing the need for an Interstate-grade connection between I-290 and MA 2. Maybe I'm missing something here?
-Strongly disagree with this. CT 9/72 brings you through New Britain and to a particularly congested stretch of I-84. 691 lets trucks bypass all of that.
- Then everyone would have to shoe-horn onto I-495 if they wanted to get to MA 2.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 20, 2020, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: njroadhorse on July 27, 2009, 10:20:01 AM
Definitely unnecessary are:
- I-691: You have CT 72/CT 9 just a few miles north of there to avoid Hartford, and its eastern terminus just adds to the confusion where I-91 and CT 15 merge and intersect US 5.
-I-190 (Massachusetts): I really am not seeing the need for an Interstate-grade connection between I-290 and MA 2. Maybe I'm missing something here?
-Strongly disagree with this. CT 9/72 brings you through New Britain and to a particularly congested stretch of I-84. 691 lets trucks bypass all of that.
- Then everyone would have to shoe-horn onto I-495 if they wanted to get to MA 2.
But what demand is there for Worcester to MA 2 traffic?
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 19, 2020, 05:15:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2020, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on November 06, 2020, 01:24:03 PM
I-40 BUS in Glenrio, TX :bigass:
By the way, for anyone interested:
Quote from: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 12:07:55 PM
AADT (2018) = 39
That's an average of one vehicle every 37 minutes.
Seems like "Business" I-40 is an oxymoron in this case.
I am surprised that the count isn't higher just for the buffs that want to get their kicks on route 66. I know I drove it just to drive part of US 66.
I don't understand why MN 308 exists (especially as a state-maintained route rather than a county one). It's an independently numbered leg of a Y to shave off one mile of shortcut between MN 11 and MN 89 when they decided to reroute 89 to junction 11 a little further to the east.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 19, 2020, 03:52:20 PM
The interstate system is a good snapshot of what cities were considered important in the mid-20th century. There are a number of cities that have declined in the last 50 years but yet punch above their weight in terms of highway access.
Likewise, there are a bunch of decent-sized cities that grew a lot in recent years and as a result don't have nearly the level of interstate or freeway access you might expect.
A great example: compare Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Albuquerque. All three actually have similar metropolitan populations, but Tulsa and OKC obviously have much more robust freeway networks. Hell, even Wichita arguably has better freeway service than ABQ, and it's about half the size.
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 06, 2020, 12:46:33 AM
How about the Mon-Fayette Expressway south of Uniontown? It too closely parallels free I-79. Would have been better to focus on the far more important section north of PA-51. If they had to go south, a more useful route would have been to go southeast rather than southwest, paralleling US-40 and tying into I-68 around Friendsville, MD, or even as far as Keysers Ridge. That would make I-68 a more effective alternative to the PATP mainline -- while not missing out on any tolls!
The Mon-Fayette was built for economic development, not to serve through traffic. It's useful in segments, not as a through route. Between Uniontown and the current northern end, unless it's bad weather, PA 51 is about as fast, shorter, and toll-free. South of Uniontown, the road has decent utility and utilization in connecting Morgantown and Uniontown. Frankly, US 119 probably should be re-routed onto it instead of its current alignment.
US 40 has traffic counts to support widening out to at least the PA 381/Nemacolin Woodlands area. Widening the existing corridor to 5 lanes makes the most sense as the stuff people are trying to get to is largely along US 40. Building an all-new alignment through here is probably a non-starter due to cost with the hilly terrain.
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 06, 2020, 12:46:33 AM
How about the Mon-Fayette Expressway south of Uniontown? It too closely parallels free I-79. Would have been better to focus on the far more important section north of PA-51. If they had to go south, a more useful route would have been to go southeast rather than southwest, paralleling US-40 and tying into I-68 around Friendsville, MD, or even as far as Keysers Ridge. That would make I-68 a more effective alternative to the PATP mainline -- while not missing out on any tolls!
Ouch. I think I wore out PA-857 when I worked in Connellsville and wanted this road desperately. But I'll agree, since I don't remember many days that it was busy enough to warrant a four-lane alternative. Always wondered if the road would be busy on game days, as many kids from Uniontown not only go to West Virginia University but also make it onto the football team.
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 20, 2020, 07:37:01 PM
The Mon-Fayette was built for economic development, not to serve through traffic. It's useful in segments, not as a through route. Between Uniontown and the current northern end, unless it's bad weather, PA 51 is about as fast, shorter, and toll-free. South of Uniontown, the road has decent utility and utilization in connecting Morgantown and Uniontown. Frankly, US 119 probably should be re-routed onto it instead of its current alignment.
It's a perfect example of my pet peeve. Many states want to keep close to their "historic" US route alignments for political purposes. So we've got some poor US routes parallel to much better state and local routes. Yet the vaunted Interstate system has too high of standards to be practicable for many important routes (including some of the new and approved Interstate corridors). The National Highway System needs one or two intermediate levels to bridge the gap (and create affordable transportation goals).
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 04:35:19 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 19, 2020, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on July 26, 2009, 06:53:24 PM
Can anyone think of highways that were built although the traffic levels didn't justify it? In other words, existing roads handled the traffic just fine and continue to do so. God bless.
No roads I can think of in Indiana that don't need to exist at all, but a few 4-lane segments that could have reasonably stayed 2:
IN 3 between Carroll Rd and US 6
IN 9 between CR 800 S and Etna Rd
IN 67 between I-69 and IN 3
912 in its current form?
the gaps been filled, and will open soon!
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 20, 2020, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 20, 2020, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: njroadhorse on July 27, 2009, 10:20:01 AM
Definitely unnecessary are:
- I-691: You have CT 72/CT 9 just a few miles north of there to avoid Hartford, and its eastern terminus just adds to the confusion where I-91 and CT 15 merge and intersect US 5.
-I-190 (Massachusetts): I really am not seeing the need for an Interstate-grade connection between I-290 and MA 2. Maybe I'm missing something here?
-Strongly disagree with this. CT 9/72 brings you through New Britain and to a particularly congested stretch of I-84. 691 lets trucks bypass all of that.
- Then everyone would have to shoe-horn onto I-495 if they wanted to get to MA 2.
But what demand is there for Worcester to MA 2 traffic?
50,000 AADT on both the southern and northern ends of I-190. MA 12 in Worcester and Leominster already have a lot of traffic, and that is the sole option if no 190.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 20, 2020, 08:19:08 PM
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 06, 2020, 12:46:33 AM
How about the Mon-Fayette Expressway south of Uniontown? It too closely parallels free I-79. Would have been better to focus on the far more important section north of PA-51. If they had to go south, a more useful route would have been to go southeast rather than southwest, paralleling US-40 and tying into I-68 around Friendsville, MD, or even as far as Keysers Ridge. That would make I-68 a more effective alternative to the PATP mainline -- while not missing out on any tolls!
Ouch. I think I wore out PA-857 when I worked in Connellsville and wanted this road desperately. But I'll agree, since I don't remember many days that it was busy enough to warrant a four-lane alternative. Always wondered if the road would be busy on game days, as many kids from Uniontown not only go to West Virginia University but also make it onto the football team.
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 20, 2020, 07:37:01 PM
The Mon-Fayette was built for economic development, not to serve through traffic. It's useful in segments, not as a through route. Between Uniontown and the current northern end, unless it's bad weather, PA 51 is about as fast, shorter, and toll-free. South of Uniontown, the road has decent utility and utilization in connecting Morgantown and Uniontown. Frankly, US 119 probably should be re-routed onto it instead of its current alignment.
It's a perfect example of my pet peeve. Many states want to keep close to their "historic" US route alignments for political purposes. So we've got some poor US routes parallel to much better state and local routes. Yet the vaunted Interstate system has too high of standards to be practicable for many important routes (including some of the new and approved Interstate corridors). The National Highway System needs one or two intermediate levels to bridge the gap (and create affordable transportation goals).
Route 119 onto I-68 at Exit 1 and then on to the Mon-Fayette and into Pennsylvania to Uniontown. Make existing 119 either Business or Alternate 119 and you're golden. (Or, in Pennsylvania, Toll 119 and Free 119.)
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2020, 07:38:45 PM
Route 119 onto I-68 at Exit 1 and then on to the Mon-Fayette and into Pennsylvania to Uniontown. Make existing 119 either Business or Alternate 119 and you're golden. (Or, in Pennsylvania, Toll 119 and Free 119.)
I could have swore that I saw an article where West Virginia (or at least someone in WV) wanted that to happen prior to the WV section opening (obviously, that didn't happen).
I also agree with the idea though. And not to get too off-topic, if doing that set the precedent, I would have 119 take over TPK-66 bypassing Greensburg. Thereby creating a 4-lane (some freeway, some just arterial) US-119 corridor (give or take some one-lane ramps) from Morgantown WV, to a bit north of Indiana, PA - relatively hugging the western base of Chestnut Ridge.
Looking back through this thread, I'm mildly surprised nobody has mentioned the Akron Innerbelt.
i-69 from memphis to the texas state line is a completely useless boondoggle. it only exists so indiana and texas could get their portions.
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2020, 10:23:54 AM
i-69 from memphis to the texas state line is a completely useless boondoggle. it only exists so indiana and texas could get their portions.
I get Texas but with I-69 already existing in Indiana, did it really need to be designated in Tennessee and Mississippi in order to build the Indy-Evansville section?
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2020, 09:15:26 AM
Looking back through this thread, I'm mildly surprised nobody has mentioned the Akron Innerbelt.
That one is definitely a white elephant: IIRC, it took nearly 10-15 years to (partially) direct connect it with I-76/77 to the south after the Innerbelt opened. And now the original northern end is being taken out if it hasn't already.
Like nearby Youngstown, both cities started building downtown-centered freeways just after their main industries peaked (Akron: Tires, Y-Town: Steel) and were completed not too long before both industries collapsed when the factories were closed and/or relocated elsewhere. Both cities wound up with stub freeways that were never fully completed as a result.
Had the Innerbelt actually connected I-76/77 and SR-8, it may not have suffered the fate that it now has (especially with the recent rebuilds of the Central Interchange and the freeways just to the north and west of it) and could've been a much more useful thoroughfare.
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 29, 2020, 10:39:31 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2020, 10:23:54 AM
i-69 from memphis to the texas state line is a completely useless boondoggle. it only exists so indiana and texas could get their portions.
I get Texas but with I-69 already existing in Indiana, did it really need to be designated in Tennessee and Mississippi in order to build the Indy-Evansville section?
the only reason why 69 goes to mexico at all is because of indiana. in order to get the feds on board they sold the idea of a country to country connection. and the only reason why it goes through miss is because of trent lott. miss can barely afford the roads they do have and now theyre stuck with this waste of time and money. perhaps they should have invested in a freeway to replace us 45.
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 29, 2020, 10:39:31 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2020, 10:23:54 AM
i-69 from memphis to the texas state line is a completely useless boondoggle. it only exists so indiana and texas could get their portions.
I get Texas but with I-69 already existing in Indiana, did it really need to be designated in Tennessee and Mississippi in order to build the Indy-Evansville section?
No, it didn't need to be designated farther south, but for some reason this needed a political push in the 80s to get going, and the other states were needed. The funding has changed since then from some federally spent on roads to mostly state spent. Honestly, with what I have heard about traffic volumes on I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas, if I-69 were built it could help out significantly, but even if they started today to physically build it at full speed, you wouldn't see it completed for 15 years (again-at completely full speed). It may be our country's 300th birthday until it gets done, or even half way completed, and they'll need help to get at that pace.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on November 30, 2020, 01:56:01 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 29, 2020, 10:39:31 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2020, 10:23:54 AM
i-69 from memphis to the texas state line is a completely useless boondoggle. it only exists so indiana and texas could get their portions.
I get Texas but with I-69 already existing in Indiana, did it really need to be designated in Tennessee and Mississippi in order to build the Indy-Evansville section?
No, it didn't need to be designated farther south, but for some reason this needed a political push in the 80s to get going, and the other states were needed. The funding has changed since then from some federally spent on roads to mostly state spent. Honestly, with what I have heard about traffic volumes on I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas, if I-69 were built it could help out significantly, but even if they started today to physically build it at full speed, you wouldn't see it completed for 15 years (again-at completely full speed). It may be our country's 300th birthday until it gets done, or even half way completed, and they'll need help to get at that pace.
How is I-69 going to cut the traffic issues? Who is going to use it to go around the world in lieu of using the existing roadways? Why build I-69 if we already have interstates serving the corridor anyway?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 30, 2020, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on November 30, 2020, 01:56:01 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 29, 2020, 10:39:31 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 29, 2020, 10:23:54 AM
i-69 from memphis to the texas state line is a completely useless boondoggle. it only exists so indiana and texas could get their portions.
I get Texas but with I-69 already existing in Indiana, did it really need to be designated in Tennessee and Mississippi in order to build the Indy-Evansville section?
No, it didn't need to be designated farther south, but for some reason this needed a political push in the 80s to get going, and the other states were needed. The funding has changed since then from some federally spent on roads to mostly state spent. Honestly, with what I have heard about traffic volumes on I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas, if I-69 were built it could help out significantly, but even if they started today to physically build it at full speed, you wouldn't see it completed for 15 years (again-at completely full speed). It may be our country's 300th birthday until it gets done, or even half way completed, and they'll need help to get at that pace.
How is I-69 going to cut the traffic issues? Who is going to use it to go around the world in lieu of using the existing roadways? Why build I-69 if we already have interstates serving the corridor anyway?
In other words...Pork?
Quote from: thenetwork on November 29, 2020, 12:26:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2020, 09:15:26 AM
Looking back through this thread, I'm mildly surprised nobody has mentioned the Akron Innerbelt.
That one is definitely a white elephant: IIRC, it took nearly 10-15 years to (partially) direct connect it with I-76/77 to the south after the Innerbelt opened. And now the original northern end is being taken out if it hasn't already.
Like nearby Youngstown, both cities started building downtown-centered freeways just after their main industries peaked (Akron: Tires, Y-Town: Steel) and were completed not too long before both industries collapsed when the factories were closed and/or relocated elsewhere. Both cities wound up with stub freeways that were never fully completed as a result.
Had the Innerbelt actually connected I-76/77 and SR-8, it may not have suffered the fate that it now has (especially with the recent rebuilds of the Central Interchange and the freeways just to the north and west of it) and could've been a much more useful thoroughfare.
God, the Akron Innerbelt. I commuted to a job in Akron for a year and would get off at the Main St. Exit on 76 rather than the Innerbelt. More convenient, and too creepy to drive on a basically abandoned highway during regular commuting hours.
What are everyones' thoughts about I-15 between Idaho Falls, ID and Butte, MT? Like with I-70 through the 'Swell' in Utah and I-95 in northern Maine, it opened as a Super Two on a four lane ROW, later upgraded to a full four lanes. IIRC, it still boasts the lowest or near lowest AADT of all 2DIs.
Me? IMHO, It would likely be much busier if the border checkpoints were no longer there at Sweetgrass, MT/Coutts, AB as there are a couple of very sizable metro areas (Calgary and Edmonton, AB) directly in line beyond its north end.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on December 11, 2020, 01:32:56 AM
What are everyones' thoughts about I-15 between Idaho Falls, ID and Butte, MT? Like with I-70 through the 'Swell' in Utah and I-95 in northern Maine, it opened as a Super Two on a four lane ROW, later upgraded to a full four lanes. IIRC, it still boasts the lowest or near lowest AADT of all 2DIs.
There are a number of stretches of I-15 that could have remained Super 2 with regular passing sections. It's been a while since I've been south of Butte, but north of US 2 at Shelby is pretty empty usually and would be fine as a Super 2.
Quote from: mgk920 on December 11, 2020, 01:32:56 AM
Me? IMHO, It would likely be much busier if the border checkpoints were no longer there at Sweetgrass, MT/Coutts, AB as there are a couple of very sizable metro areas (Calgary and Edmonton, AB) directly in line beyond its north end.
Mike
Do you mean if there were no border controls between the two countries? The border controls really aren't a restriction, at least for freight traffic, and aren't a burden on the average tourist. I'd love to see an open border between the US and Canada like in Europe, but likely won't happen any time soon due to politics and love of import tax money in both countries.
I live in a town right off I-15 near Great Falls, MT, and a sizeable percentage of the trucks that pass through here are Canadian registered. It's a pretty important corridor for freight between Calgary and Edmonton, and Salt Lake City, Los Vegas, and southern California cities. In normal years, there are lots of Canadian cars as well.
US 90 from Mobile to Pensacola. 98 and I-10/I-110 are way faster and the dip in Pensacola is pretty much useless. It should just follow Alternate 90.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on December 11, 2020, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 11, 2020, 01:32:56 AM
What are everyones' thoughts about I-15 between Idaho Falls, ID and Butte, MT? Like with I-70 through the 'Swell' in Utah and I-95 in northern Maine, it opened as a Super Two on a four lane ROW, later upgraded to a full four lanes. IIRC, it still boasts the lowest or near lowest AADT of all 2DIs.
There are a number of stretches of I-15 that could have remained Super 2 with regular passing sections. It's been a while since I've been south of Butte, but north of US 2 at Shelby is pretty empty usually and would be fine as a Super 2.
In my experience coming up to Montana from Salt Lake, traffic does drop off a bit at Idaho Falls but there is still enough traffic - especially trucks - to keep it four lanes at least to I-90. I've never been north of Butte so I don't know how that compares to the rest of 15.
Quote from: US 89 on December 11, 2020, 11:11:38 AM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on December 11, 2020, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 11, 2020, 01:32:56 AM
What are everyones' thoughts about I-15 between Idaho Falls, ID and Butte, MT? Like with I-70 through the 'Swell' in Utah and I-95 in northern Maine, it opened as a Super Two on a four lane ROW, later upgraded to a full four lanes. IIRC, it still boasts the lowest or near lowest AADT of all 2DIs.
There are a number of stretches of I-15 that could have remained Super 2 with regular passing sections. It's been a while since I've been south of Butte, but north of US 2 at Shelby is pretty empty usually and would be fine as a Super 2.
In my experience coming up to Montana from Salt Lake, traffic does drop off a bit at Idaho Falls but there is still enough traffic - especially trucks - to keep it four lanes at least to I-90. I've never been north of Butte so I don't know how that compares to the rest of 15.
I just checked the
traffic counts (2018) [.pdf warning] (https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/Planning/atr/atrbook18.pdf) at Lima (MT) to get an idea of how true that is by the numbers. (I used 2018 rather than 2019, because the count site was in operation 10 months that year, rather than just the 7 it was open in 2019.)
AADT is only 3131 at that location, but roughly one-third of it is trucks.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on December 11, 2020, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 11, 2020, 01:32:56 AM
What are everyones' thoughts about I-15 between Idaho Falls, ID and Butte, MT? Like with I-70 through the 'Swell' in Utah and I-95 in northern Maine, it opened as a Super Two on a four lane ROW, later upgraded to a full four lanes. IIRC, it still boasts the lowest or near lowest AADT of all 2DIs.
There are a number of stretches of I-15 that could have remained Super 2 with regular passing sections. It's been a while since I've been south of Butte, but north of US 2 at Shelby is pretty empty usually and would be fine as a Super 2.
Quote from: mgk920 on December 11, 2020, 01:32:56 AM
Me? IMHO, It would likely be much busier if the border checkpoints were no longer there at Sweetgrass, MT/Coutts, AB as there are a couple of very sizable metro areas (Calgary and Edmonton, AB) directly in line beyond its north end.
Mike
Do you mean if there were no border controls between the two countries? The border controls really aren't a restriction, at least for freight traffic, and aren't a burden on the average tourist. I'd love to see an open border between the US and Canada like in Europe, but likely won't happen any time soon due to politics and love of import tax money in both countries.
I live in a town right off I-15 near Great Falls, MT, and a sizeable percentage of the trucks that pass through here are Canadian registered. It's a pretty important corridor for freight between Calgary and Edmonton, and Salt Lake City, Los Vegas, and southern California cities. In normal years, there are lots of Canadian cars as well.
Also, I think the fastest way for trucks from Calgary to the big eastern Canadian cities involves dropping into the States at Sweetgrass/Coutts and re-entering Canada at Port Huron/Sarnia as large portions of the TCH, especially in northern Ontario, are still two lanes AFAIK
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 30, 2020, 09:35:15 PM
Who is going to use it to go around the world in lieu of using the existing roadways?
Nobody's going to use it to go around the world, it doesn't even leave the United States!
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 04, 2020, 02:23:32 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 27, 2009, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: Chris on July 27, 2009, 12:57:19 PM
How about that rule in some states that county seats should be connected with 4 lane highways regardless of size?
We got that one here in Tennessee! :banghead: :banghead:
Yes and it is getting worse. US 412 is four lanes from Hohenwald to the Maury County line now. US 70S is four lanes from Murfreesboro to Woodbury. Then it is four lanes from Woodbury to McMinnville. Why?
And yet, badly needed upgrades such as US 31 between Franklin and Spring Hill and SR 96 between Franklin and Murfreesboro continue to remain mostly two lanes, though they just broke ground on widening a section of the latter.
Some examples of unnecessary/overbuilt highways I can think of.
Illinois:
1. I-180
2. I-172/IL-336
3. US 51 south of Decatur
Wisconsin:
1. WIS 26 between Janesville and Watertown
2. US 10 Marshfield spur (and arguably, the entirety of US 10 between Appleton and Steven's Point)
3. US 141 north of Abrams
4. US 51 north of Wausau
5. WIS 23 between Sheboygan and Fond du Lac (should have been 5 lane undivided road)
Multi-state:
1. The entire I-69 corridor between Indianapolis and Mexico. Huge waste of time and resources. It will never be completed entirely and it is super redundant to existing Interstates. Shame it went forward.
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
Wisconsin:
1. WIS 26 between Janesville and Watertown
2. US 10 Marshfield spur (and arguably, the entirety of US 10 between Appleton and Steven's Point)
3. US 141 north of Abrams
4. US 51 north of Wausau
5. WIS 23 between Sheboygan and Fond du Lac (should have been 5 lane undivided road)
1. Ever driven it?
2. Not sure, maybe it is overbuilt
3. Ever driven it?
4. Ever driven it? Especially in the summer?
Quote from: thspfc on December 13, 2020, 06:19:03 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
Wisconsin:
1. WIS 26 between Janesville and Watertown
2. US 10 Marshfield spur (and arguably, the entirety of US 10 between Appleton and Steven's Point)
3. US 141 north of Abrams
4. US 51 north of Wausau
5. WIS 23 between Sheboygan and Fond du Lac (should have been 5 lane undivided road)
1. Ever driven it?
2. Not sure, maybe it is overbuilt
3. Ever driven it?
4. Ever driven it? Especially in the summer?
1. Should've been 5 lane undivided, freeway was total overkill
2. It most certainly is
3. Passing lanes would've been sufficient here
4. Passing lanes would've been sufficient here
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 07:01:48 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 13, 2020, 06:19:03 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
Wisconsin:
1. WIS 26 between Janesville and Watertown
2. US 10 Marshfield spur (and arguably, the entirety of US 10 between Appleton and Steven’s Point)
3. US 141 north of Abrams
4. US 51 north of Wausau
5. WIS 23 between Sheboygan and Fond du Lac (should have been 5 lane undivided road)
1. Ever driven it?
2. Not sure, maybe it is overbuilt
3. Ever driven it?
4. Ever driven it? Especially in the summer?
1. Should’ve been 5 lane undivided, freeway was total overkill
2. It most certainly is
3. Passing lanes would’ve been sufficient here
4. Passing lanes would’ve been sufficient here
1 - It needed that upgrade - WI 26 is a Chicagoland bypass route for traffic to and from the northeast part of the state and carries a high percentage of big-rig trucks.
2 - US 10 between Appleton and Stevens Point needed that upgrade, including a full freeway to end at I-39 (Grrrr Stevens Point NIMBYs...). Its traffic level well warrants its four lanes and in fact, I can easily foresee the part that is combined with US 45 being upgraded to six lanes within my lifetime.
3 - US 141 needed that upgrade and WisDOT was very wise to include that four lane pavement stub just north of WI 64. I can also easily foresee US 41/141 between the Abrams Interchange (US 41/141 split) and the I-41/43 Howard Interchange being upgraded to six lanes.
4 - US 51 is a major tourist route as far north as the Lakeland area. Solid traffic in the prevailing direction every weekend during warm weather.
5 - The locals would dispute your opinion on WI 23, as do I.
Mike
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
1. The entire I-69 corridor between Indianapolis and Mexico. Huge waste of time and resources. It will never be completed entirely and it is super redundant to existing Interstates. Shame it went forward.
Most of us would agree that the stretch of I-69 between Tenaha and Memphis would fit this description. However other sections have their merits, which shows when you look at which states are building their portion of I-69 (Texas, Kentucky, Indiana) and which (except for a couple short exceptions) aren't (Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee).
Tennessee is actively building significant portions of Interstate 69, but progress is slow because of how their financing model works.
Quote from: mgk920 on December 14, 2020, 01:26:23 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 07:01:48 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 13, 2020, 06:19:03 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
Wisconsin:
1. WIS 26 between Janesville and Watertown
2. US 10 Marshfield spur (and arguably, the entirety of US 10 between Appleton and Steven's Point)
3. US 141 north of Abrams
4. US 51 north of Wausau
5. WIS 23 between Sheboygan and Fond du Lac (should have been 5 lane undivided road)
1. Ever driven it?
2. Not sure, maybe it is overbuilt
3. Ever driven it?
4. Ever driven it? Especially in the summer?
1. Should've been 5 lane undivided, freeway was total overkill
2. It most certainly is
3. Passing lanes would've been sufficient here
4. Passing lanes would've been sufficient here
1 - It needed that upgrade - WI 26 is a Chicagoland bypass route for traffic to and from the northeast part of the state and carries a high percentage of big-rig trucks.
2 - US 10 between Appleton and Stevens Point needed that upgrade, including a full freeway to end at I-39 (Grrrr Stevens Point NIMBYs...). Its traffic level well warrants its four lanes and in fact, I can easily foresee the part that is combined with US 45 being upgraded to six lanes within my lifetime.
3 - US 141 needed that upgrade and WisDOT was very wise to include that four lane pavement stub just north of WI 64. I can also easily foresee US 41/141 between the Abrams Interchange (US 41/141 split) and the I-41/43 Howard Interchange being upgraded to six lanes.
4 - US 51 is a major tourist route as far north as the Lakeland area. Solid traffic in the prevailing direction every weekend during warm weather.
5 - The locals would dispute your opinion on WI 23, as do I.
Mike
1. It's still primarily local traffic. You already have both I-43 and US 151 that serve effectively the same purpose. Plus, they didn't even finish and put a freeway to freeway connection at I-39/90 or I-94. A reconstructed 5 lanes undivided WIS 26 would have been fine.
2. I'll give you US 10 between Appleton and Steven's Point, but the Marshfield spur was not necessary.
3. Other than some summer weekends, it doesn't get super busy here. Passing lanes would have been sufficient
4. See the above answer.
5. This is a local traffic route. I'm not disputing it should be upgraded, but it can do with a 5 lane undivided highway and not an elaborate freeway/expressway grade highway.
WisDOT needs to stop getting so gung ho about making every major corridor an elaborate freeway/expressway grade roadway. It costs more money to build and maintain, and their maintenance costs are going to go through the roof in the future maintaining all these highway structures.
Meanwhile, they've largely neglected their Interstates and local roads as well as any sort of alternative transportation methods.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on December 14, 2020, 08:31:48 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
1. The entire I-69 corridor between Indianapolis and Mexico. Huge waste of time and resources. It will never be completed entirely and it is super redundant to existing Interstates. Shame it went forward.
Most of us would agree that the stretch of I-69 between Tenaha and Memphis would fit this description. However other sections have their merits, which shows when you look at which states are building their portion of I-69 (Texas, Kentucky, Indiana) and which (except for a couple short exceptions) aren't (Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee).
What purpose does I-69 serve between Indianapolis and Memphis that existing Interstates couldn't handle?
Quote from: I-39 on December 14, 2020, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on December 14, 2020, 08:31:48 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
1. The entire I-69 corridor between Indianapolis and Mexico. Huge waste of time and resources. It will never be completed entirely and it is super redundant to existing Interstates. Shame it went forward.
Most of us would agree that the stretch of I-69 between Tenaha and Memphis would fit this description. However other sections have their merits, which shows when you look at which states are building their portion of I-69 (Texas, Kentucky, Indiana) and which (except for a couple short exceptions) aren't (Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee).
What purpose does I-69 serve between Indianapolis and Memphis that existing Interstates couldn't handle?
It's more direct than I-70/57/55 and eliminates both Mississippi River crossings. Plus it directly serves Evansville - I-64 comes close but misses it to the north.
Obviously the KY/TN portions are less necessary, but as mentioned above that is why they haven't been built yet. Indianapolis-Evansville likely has a lot of traffic that justified an upgrade, otherwise Indiana wouldn't have been so quick to upgrade that portion of IN 37.
Quote from: I-39 on December 14, 2020, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on December 14, 2020, 08:31:48 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
1. The entire I-69 corridor between Indianapolis and Mexico. Huge waste of time and resources. It will never be completed entirely and it is super redundant to existing Interstates. Shame it went forward.
Most of us would agree that the stretch of I-69 between Tenaha and Memphis would fit this description. However other sections have their merits, which shows when you look at which states are building their portion of I-69 (Texas, Kentucky, Indiana) and which (except for a couple short exceptions) aren't (Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee).
What purpose does I-69 serve between Indianapolis and Memphis that existing Interstates couldn't handle?
building i-69 from indy to eville fills a glaring gap in freeway coverage, i find it crazy that a highway was never built there until now. not even a us highway. anything south of memphis is a waste of time and money. the texas portions are meh.
i-880 in iowa. why was this built exactly?
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 22, 2020, 06:57:42 PM
i-880 in iowa. why was this built exactly?
If you are coming from Sioux Falls/Sioux City down I-29 and are looking to head east on I-80, it avoids going down to Council Bluffs and saves a few dozen miles. I used it in 1992 coming from Montana to Ohio in a U-haul with a car trailer in the I-680 days. Helped keep me away from the bulk of the Chicago Tollways.
I'll go out on a wimp and mention both I-180 in IL and WY.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 22, 2020, 06:57:42 PM
i-880 in iowa. why was this built exactly?
Think it's built as part part of the I-29 detour route for when I-29 gets flooded by the Missouri River in Council Bluffs. As a long distance bypass, the one use has been mentioned above, but that's pretty much it. I can think of much more for NE-2, which is part of the fastest route from cities on the I-64 and I-70 corridors in the Midwest to Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Portland (thanks I-70 in Utah for going in the opposite direction). St Louis to Salt Lake City on I-70/I-29/NE-2/I-80 beats out I-70/I-25/I-80 by about half an hour. This goes into fictional territory, but if I-880 is an interstate, NE-2 can be signed as I-829, with the 8 first digit representing 80.
Quote from: I-39 on December 14, 2020, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on December 14, 2020, 08:31:48 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
1. The entire I-69 corridor between Indianapolis and Mexico. Huge waste of time and resources. It will never be completed entirely and it is super redundant to existing Interstates. Shame it went forward.
Most of us would agree that the stretch of I-69 between Tenaha and Memphis would fit this description. However other sections have their merits, which shows when you look at which states are building their portion of I-69 (Texas, Kentucky, Indiana) and which (except for a couple short exceptions) aren't (Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee).
What purpose does I-69 serve between Indianapolis and Memphis that existing Interstates couldn't handle?
Bypasses Louisville and Nashville.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 22, 2020, 08:10:01 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 14, 2020, 02:06:44 PM
What purpose does I-69 serve between Indianapolis and Memphis that existing Interstates couldn't handle?
Bypasses Louisville and Nashville.
So does the Indy<->Memphis route of I-70<->I-57<->I-55
Heck, forget the West Tennessee upgrades, and just build I-69 New Terrain between I-24 at Paducah and I-57 near Cairo, IL or Charleston, MO
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 14, 2020, 08:56:39 PM
Quote from: I-39 on December 14, 2020, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on December 14, 2020, 08:31:48 AM
Quote from: I-39 on December 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM
1. The entire I-69 corridor between Indianapolis and Mexico. Huge waste of time and resources. It will never be completed entirely and it is super redundant to existing Interstates. Shame it went forward.
Most of us would agree that the stretch of I-69 between Tenaha and Memphis would fit this description. However other sections have their merits, which shows when you look at which states are building their portion of I-69 (Texas, Kentucky, Indiana) and which (except for a couple short exceptions) aren't (Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee).
What purpose does I-69 serve between Indianapolis and Memphis that existing Interstates couldn't handle?
building i-69 from indy to eville fills a glaring gap in freeway coverage, i find it crazy that a highway was never built there until now. not even a us highway. anything south of memphis is a waste of time and money. the texas portions are meh.
My thoughts on the I-69 corridor:
- 69C shouldn't exist at all, as 69E parallels it 20 miles to the east. I don't have an opinion on 69W yet
- Section between Victoria and Tenaha, as well as all of I-369 is needed imo, as Houston's lack of a connection to its southwest and especially the northeast seems like another glaring gap in the system to me. Jumping to fictional territory a bit here, but I had this as I-47.
- Section between Tenaha and Memphis is a waste to me, as I-369/I-30/I-40 parallels it a bit to the north, and looks like a straighter path than I-69.
- Agree with you that Indianapolis to Evansville is necessary, especially since the route goes through Bloomington, which is where IU is, and the city was at some point one of the largest in the US without an interstate connection.
- And then there's Memphis to Evansville. I'm going to pull I-71 into here because I view it as a branch of the I-69 corridor. It continues the NE-SW trajectory of I-69 and brances it from points south to Ohio and the Northeast. Both Memphis-Indianapolis and Memphis-Cincinnati are served well by existing interstates (I-55/57/70 for the former and I-40/65/71 for the latter), but a corridor between both of what I mentioned via Paducah to serve both cities is a nice to have, relieves the other 2 routings, and for the case of the combined I-69/71 corridor, bypasses Nashville.
Only one I can think of in Pennsylvania is I-99 between Altoona and Bedford, which could probably get away with being two lanes. But generally, Pennsylvania isn't that generous with lanes to begin with, so most four-lane routes badly need it and many could use six.
Because this is my 400th post, I figured it would be an appropriate time to state my opinion here: US 400 has no reason to exist.
For one, its number implies that it branches off or connects with US 0, which doesn't exist (and even if it did, it would presumably be a lot further north).
However, that's not the biggest problem I have with US 400: rather, it's the fact that almost two-thirds of its total mileage is concurrent with other US highways, and the multiplex with US 50 - which the westernmost 130 miles of US 400 (about a quarter of its total length!) overlaps with - is completely pointless.
The blog post linked here (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error) explains it in depth, but basically, it says that in 1994, the highway was commissioned as a means of connecting Wichita with Garden City, Dodge City, and I-44. As the linked article explains, the reason it was a US route in the first place, instead of a state route, is because of the need to briefly enter Missouri to connect to I-44 (at least, that was KDOT's rationale). At the same time, US 400 (which originally had its western end it Garden City) was functionally an intrastate route, which - as the article points out - contravened a 1937 policy from AASHTO which supposedly discouraged such highways. (I guess New Jersey with US 130, and Texas with US 57 and US 96, didn't get the memo. But I digress.)
Anyway, because of that, KDOT eventually decided to designate US 400 along a completely redundant multiplex all the way to the Colorado border. In fact, according to the linked article, the only reason that it goes into Colorado at all is because AASHTO didn't allow a US route to end at a state line (or so KDOT believed, anyway). For their part, Colorado wanted no part of the whole charade, unceremoniously dumping the US 400 designation at the first possible opportunity (namely, the US 50/US 385 junction in Granada).
Because of all this, I believe that US 400 should be decommissioned. Most of it overlaps with existing highways (in the case of US 50, pointlessly so); as far as the standalone sections, those could easily be state routes. I think the short solo stretch between US 50 east of Dodge City and US 54 at Mullinville should have a number that alludes to either route (I'm thinking either K-350 or K-354); as for the section between Leon (where US 54 splits off east of Wichita) and US 69 near Pittsburg, we can renumber that to K-171, which is the road that goes east from that US 69 junction, eventually becoming MO 171 going into Joplin. (Alternatively, if KDOT still thinks that Dodge City, Wichita, and I-44 should be linked with a single number, they can call the whole stretch K-400, overlapping with US 54 along the way.) Regardless, in my opinion, there's no need for such a designation to extend along US 50 west of Dodge City (to say nothing of Garden City).
Quote from: KCRoadFan on August 24, 2021, 11:30:00 PM
as for the section between Leon (where US 54 splits off east of Wichita) and US 69 near Pittsburg, we can renumber that to K-171, which is the road that goes east from that US 69 junction, eventually becoming MO 171 going into Joplin.
It used to be K-96.
But, anyway, AADT counts along that stretch range between 3400 and 6530, with the average being 4647. By way of comparison, US-54 between the same longitudes gets down to 1190 AADT between Eureka and Yates Center, and the only locations with counts over 3000 AADT are (1) just outside El Dorado, (2) the short stretch between Iola and La Harpe, and (3) just outside Fort Scott. To me, it's a strange suggestion that 54 should keep its US Route shield but 400 should not, when 400 is the busier highway of the two.
But here's the real kicker: more than half of the count locations between Leon and US-69 report more than 25% "Heavy Commercial" traffic. Having driven the highway numerous times, I can assert that it's a popular corridor for long-distance traffic–long-haul truckers, regional farm trucks, vacationing RVs, boats on trailers... In fact, with it having so few towns along the route, I daresay it's more important as a cross-country route than it is as a local route.
(https://i.imgur.com/auGIej9.jpg)
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 22, 2020, 08:50:50 PM
My thoughts on the I-69 corridor:
- 69C shouldn't exist at all, as 69E parallels it 20 miles to the east. I don't have an opinion on 69W yet
- Section between Victoria and Tenaha, as well as all of I-369 is needed imo, as Houston's lack of a connection to its southwest and especially the northeast seems like another glaring gap in the system to me. Jumping to fictional territory a bit here, but I had this as I-47.
- Section between Tenaha and Memphis is a waste to me, as I-369/I-30/I-40 parallels it a bit to the north, and looks like a straighter path than I-69.
Agreed for the most part, but I think there might be some value to a Houston-to-Memphis corridor. A corridor from Houston to Memphis might be more easily accomplished, though, by providing a link from Houston to Texarkana via I-69, I-369, and maybe I-49 if Shreveport gets involved...then using existing I-30 and I-40 the rest of the way. In any case, I-69C is a ridiculous idea and a ridiculous designation (and I-69W if built should be designated I-6).
Quote from: KCRoadFan on August 24, 2021, 11:30:00 PM
Because this is my 400th post, I figured it would be an appropriate time to state my opinion here: US 400 has no reason to exist.
In short, I agree.
^ Agree for the need of a Memphis-Houston corridor, particularly to provide a redundancy in the system and alleviate congestion / heavy truck on I-30 and I-40 by providing a direct shot on a dedicated route to the northeast from southern Texas. However, I can understand why this is a lower priority than the rest of the corridor, and is evident by its lack of progress.
As for I-69C, I'd argue it's more of a priority than I-69 north of Shreveport. It's seen as "redundant" to I-69E by some roadgeeks, however the reality on the ground is that both highways are major freight corridors, carry large truck volumes, and are both warranting of a freeway design. They go to different places in the Valley, different border crossings, etc.
I'd argue I-69W is more useless than I-69C, given I-10 and I-35, and given that actual traffic volumes are much lower.
I think in Wisconsin I'd look at concurrencies(like WI-34 with WI-13)......many of those not needed. Highways like WI-127 seems unnecessary to have and could be a county trunk instead
Quote from: KCRoadFan on August 24, 2021, 11:30:00 PM
Because this is my 400th post, I figured it would be an appropriate time to state my opinion here: US 400 has no reason to exist.
For one, its number implies that it branches off or connects with US 0, which doesn't exist (and even if it did, it would presumably be a lot further north).
However, that's not the biggest problem I have with US 400: rather, it's the fact that almost two-thirds of its total mileage is concurrent with other US highways, and the multiplex with US 50 - which the westernmost 130 miles of US 400 (about a quarter of its total length!) overlaps with - is completely pointless.
The blog post linked here (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error) explains it in depth, but basically, it says that in 1994, the highway was commissioned as a means of connecting Wichita with Garden City, Dodge City, and I-44. As the linked article explains, the reason it was a US route in the first place, instead of a state route, is because of the need to briefly enter Missouri to connect to I-44 (at least, that was KDOT's rationale). At the same time, US 400 (which originally had its western end it Garden City) was functionally an intrastate route, which - as the article points out - contravened a 1937 policy from AASHTO which supposedly discouraged such highways. (I guess New Jersey with US 130, and Texas with US 57 and US 96, didn't get the memo. But I digress.)
Anyway, because of that, KDOT eventually decided to designate US 400 along a completely redundant multiplex all the way to the Colorado border. In fact, according to the linked article, the only reason that it goes into Colorado at all is because AASHTO didn't allow a US route to end at a state line (or so KDOT believed, anyway). For their part, Colorado wanted no part of the whole charade, unceremoniously dumping the US 400 designation at the first possible opportunity (namely, the US 50/US 385 junction in Granada).
Because of all this, I believe that US 400 should be decommissioned. Most of it overlaps with existing highways (in the case of US 50, pointlessly so); as far as the standalone sections, those could easily be state routes. I think the short solo stretch between US 50 east of Dodge City and US 54 at Mullinville should have a number that alludes to either route (I'm thinking either K-350 or K-354); as for the section between Leon (where US 54 splits off east of Wichita) and US 69 near Pittsburg, we can renumber that to K-171, which is the road that goes east from that US 69 junction, eventually becoming MO 171 going into Joplin. (Alternatively, if KDOT still thinks that Dodge City, Wichita, and I-44 should be linked with a single number, they can call the whole stretch K-400, overlapping with US 54 along the way.) Regardless, in my opinion, there's no need for such a designation to extend along US 50 west of Dodge City (to say nothing of Garden City).
US 400 (as well as
US 412 and
US 425) was developed as a specific numbered corridor designated for possible future improvements/upgrades. Having the corridor be a single number would make it easier for motorists to navigate. Someone (AASHTO, FHWA, or some government agency) chose to use US Highways with 4xx, maybe to follow Canada's preference of having their major freeways having 4xx numbers.
Unfortunately, US 400 will be signed just like the similar "one corridor number"
CKC 110, mainly overlapping existing signed highways just so there is "one number for motorists to remember".
As for my (partial fictional/somewhat suggesting) take, US 400, I believe, was supposed to be the placeholder number for the I-66 Transcontinental Corridor that was supposed to, at its greatest extent, start in Fresno, CA and somehow connect to the existing I-66 near Strasburg, VA. The current routing through Kansas was supposed to be part of that corridor. As we now know, that project is dead. What I believe would be a better routing would be to truncate US 54 near Leon, KS and have US 400 replace it to El Paso. The independent sections west and east of Dodge City could become an extension of K-34 with the section from K-34 to US 54 becoming K-434. This would at least give some credence for having a US 400 in the system without unnecessary overlaps.
...or get rid of US 400 altogether.
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 07:04:08 AM
...or get rid of US 400 altogether.
I'll drink to that, :cheers:
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 25, 2021, 05:26:01 PM
^ Agree for the need of a Memphis-Houston corridor, particularly to provide a redundancy in the system and alleviate congestion / heavy truck on I-30 and I-40 by providing a direct shot on a dedicated route to the northeast from southern Texas. However, I can understand why this is a lower priority than the rest of the corridor, and is evident by its lack of progress.
As for I-69C, I'd argue it's more of a priority than I-69 north of Shreveport. It's seen as "redundant" to I-69E by some roadgeeks, however the reality on the ground is that both highways are major freight corridors, carry large truck volumes, and are both warranting of a freeway design. They go to different places in the Valley, different border crossings, etc.
I'd argue I-69W is more useless than I-69C, given I-10 and I-35, and given that actual traffic volumes are much lower.
I'd say there's a need for completing the Houston to Shreveport (if incorporating I-49 as part of the corridor) or Texarkana freeway corridor. There's a completely good freeway connection already from Texarkana to Memphis. A third Mississippi crossing at Memphis would be a bonus and certainly more
useful needed than the proposed I-69 crossing (which I believe is near Rosedale MS, but I'm too lazy to look up right now). That no complete freeway goes north/northeast from Houston to I-20 and I-30 is currently a gap that I-69 should fix whenever it's actually complete in Texas.
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 07:04:08 AM
...or get rid of US 400 altogether.
It still doesn't make sense to me that a route recently slated for upgrade to
Interstate corridor should instead be downgraded to
state route.
I'd nominate West Bengal's state highways for their tortured routings. If differing segments were renumbered, they'd make sense, but with massive overlaps with Indian National Highways and Alternate routes with no relation to their parent route...
At some point I should make a map and propose a renumbered scheme.
CA 77 comes to mind in Oakland. Unlike many of the freeways in the Bay Area that were built CA 77 actually had a half mile segment constructed between CA 185 and I-880. Really the CA 77 freeway doesn't serve anyone and could easily be converted to a locally maintained surface street. I'm not really even sure if the entire planned route of CA 77 would have been all that useful beyond providing another connection between I-880 and I-580.
I'd ask Milwaukee folks to defend I-794. Is it really necessary? One highway was torn down, a WI state rt. Will there be a future removal of this, in my opinion, white elephant? :coffee: :hmmm: Glad there is no I-494 viaduct on Chicago's Lakefront, :-D
Quote from: kphoger on August 25, 2021, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on August 24, 2021, 11:30:00 PM
as for the section between Leon (where US 54 splits off east of Wichita) and US 69 near Pittsburg, we can renumber that to K-171, which is the road that goes east from that US 69 junction, eventually becoming MO 171 going into Joplin.
It used to be K-96.
But, anyway, AADT counts along that stretch range between 3400 and 6530, with the average being 4647. By way of comparison, US-54 between the same longitudes gets down to 1190 AADT between Eureka and Yates Center, and the only locations with counts over 3000 AADT are (1) just outside El Dorado, (2) the short stretch between Iola and La Harpe, and (3) just outside Fort Scott. To me, it's a strange suggestion that 54 should keep its US Route shield but 400 should not, when 400 is the busier highway of the two.
But here's the real kicker: more than half of the count locations between Leon and US-69 report more than 25% "Heavy Commercial" traffic. Having driven the highway numerous times, I can assert that it's a popular corridor for long-distance traffic–long-haul truckers, regional farm trucks, vacationing RVs, boats on trailers... In fact, with it having so few towns along the route, I daresay it's more important as a cross-country route than it is as a local route.
(https://i.imgur.com/auGIej9.jpg)
I am going to concur here on this one. I just recently drove this route from El Dorado to Parsons. I took a side trip into OK then back up Joplin. There was considerable RV and truck traffic along this route. I noticed that there are fewer towns along this route then up northern KS say along US 36. I remember driving US 36 and noting the further east I drove that more and more towns were popping up. Not so much on US 400.
While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.
the only reason that I can think of for why the kentucky segment of I 69 exists is because compared to other states we barely spent anything for it since 100% of it was redesignated existingparkway. other than converting 2 major interchanges and upgrading the few old tolled exits along the way the entire route was already built with no other upgrades made. had 164 in evansville not been used as part of 69 I don't think 69 ever would have existed in kentucky at all.
I'm not sure why 69 exists outside of indiana and texas since if the purpose was to connect indy to memphis you could do that already.
US 150, have no idea why this highway ever existed. most of its route overlaps with state highways.
Arkansas eliminated 2 sections of AR 180 in Fayetteville a few years bac, but there are still plenty of 1/2 mile "corporate driveways"
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 16, 2021, 09:04:24 AM
US 150, have no idea why this highway ever existed. most of its route overlaps with state highways.
In IL, it is next to Interstate 74, can be a state highway. Kind of how I think of US-6, :spin:
I-376 Between I-80 & I-76, I-79 is paralleling the highway less then 15-20 miles away, could be used for people on I-80 to get to the philly airport but even then I-79 is still right there from erie to charleston, WV
And someone explain what's the Real Purpose for I-990?
I-990 was intended to go all the way to Lockport. Some plans even had it extend along the NY 31 corridor and take over NY 531 to I-490 near Rochester. However, it was never completed, and it doesn't strike me as particularly likely that it will (the northern stub is really more of a traffic calming device than a provision for a future extension; note that there is no stub SB). Even as-is, it at least provides a freeway bypass of NY 263 around SUNY Buffalo on the busy Buffalo-Lockport corridor.
I can see a case where it would make more sense for it to be a state route freeway rather than an interstate, but it would seem that a similar case could be made for things like I-795 in MD, so I-990 is hardly unique there.
Quote from: SeriesE on September 15, 2021, 11:47:29 AM
While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.
They are actually quite useful: they are major trucking routes that lead to US-Mexico bridges; and the Rio Grande Valley Region is growing very fast.
I do agree that it would have been totally fine for I-69, with the other two being I-x69s...or make I-69E into I-37, turn the current I 37 from I69E/US77 in to Corpus Christi into I-137; then have Interstate 69 head along US 59 to Laredo, and have the stretch to Pharr (69C) be I-169. Renumber the current 169 to I-369 and renumber the I-369 near Texarkana to I-969.
Quote from: achilles765 on September 21, 2021, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on September 15, 2021, 11:47:29 AM
While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.
They are actually quite useful: they are major trucking routes that lead to US-Mexico bridges; and the Rio Grande Valley Region is growing very fast.
I do agree that it would have been totally fine for I-69, with the other two being I-x69s...or make I-69E into I-37, turn the current I 37 from I69E/US77 in to Corpus Christi into I-137; then have Interstate 69 head along US 59 to Laredo, and have the stretch to Pharr (69C) be I-169. Renumber the current 169 to I-369 and renumber the I-369 near Texarkana to I-969.
I don't really like a 9xx being use on possibly the longest 3di, and a pretty important one too.
Quote from: vdeane on September 21, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
I-990 was intended to go all the way to Lockport. Some plans even had it extend along the NY 31 corridor and take over NY 531 to I-490 near Rochester. However, it was never completed, and it doesn't strike me as particularly likely that it will (the northern stub is really more of a traffic calming device than a provision for a future extension; note that there is no stub SB). Even as-is, it at least provides a freeway bypass of NY 263 around SUNY Buffalo on the busy Buffalo-Lockport corridor.
I can see a case where it would make more sense for it to be a state route freeway rather than an interstate, but it would seem that a similar case could be made for things like I-795 in MD, so I-990 is hardly unique there.
that still doesn't sound very useful :-D
"... makes the connection [to parent 90] by way of a "sibling" highway (I-290). I-990 is the highest numbered Interstate..." :nod
More 9## 3di's are coming I am sure.
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 21, 2021, 07:02:40 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on September 21, 2021, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on September 15, 2021, 11:47:29 AM
While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.
They are actually quite useful: they are major trucking routes that lead to US-Mexico bridges; and the Rio Grande Valley Region is growing very fast.
I do agree that it would have been totally fine for I-69, with the other two being I-x69s...or make I-69E into I-37, turn the current I 37 from I69E/US77 in to Corpus Christi into I-137; then have Interstate 69 head along US 59 to Laredo, and have the stretch to Pharr (69C) be I-169. Renumber the current 169 to I-369 and renumber the I-369 near Texarkana to I-969.
I don't really like a 9xx being use on possibly the longest 3di, and a pretty important one too.
But it makes sense since it is the last possible 3di in the state.
Wis 127 should be a county highway. It parallels Wis 16 between Wis Dells and Portage and reaches no unique towns in between. I believe it is also longer by a mile or two than 16.
Only reason it is a state highway IMO is because it was at one point US/Wis 16.
Quote from: achilles765 on September 30, 2021, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 21, 2021, 07:02:40 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on September 21, 2021, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on September 15, 2021, 11:47:29 AM
While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.
They are actually quite useful: they are major trucking routes that lead to US-Mexico bridges; and the Rio Grande Valley Region is growing very fast.
I do agree that it would have been totally fine for I-69, with the other two being I-x69s...or make I-69E into I-37, turn the current I 37 from I69E/US77 in to Corpus Christi into I-137; then have Interstate 69 head along US 59 to Laredo, and have the stretch to Pharr (69C) be I-169. Renumber the current 169 to I-369 and renumber the I-369 near Texarkana to I-969.
I don't really like a 9xx being use on possibly the longest 3di, and a pretty important one too.
But it makes sense since it is the last possible 3di in the state.
569? 769? All 4 even first digits? There's plenty of x69 numbers in TX available.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 08:32:19 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on September 30, 2021, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 21, 2021, 07:02:40 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on September 21, 2021, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on September 15, 2021, 11:47:29 AM
While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.
They are actually quite useful: they are major trucking routes that lead to US-Mexico bridges; and the Rio Grande Valley Region is growing very fast.
I do agree that it would have been totally fine for I-69, with the other two being I-x69s...or make I-69E into I-37, turn the current I 37 from I69E/US77 in to Corpus Christi into I-137; then have Interstate 69 head along US 59 to Laredo, and have the stretch to Pharr (69C) be I-169. Renumber the current 169 to I-369 and renumber the I-369 near Texarkana to I-969.
I don't really like a 9xx being use on possibly the longest 3di, and a pretty important one too.
But it makes sense since it is the last possible 3di in the state.
569? 769? All 4 even first digits? There's plenty of x69 numbers in TX available.
Texas has, in the past, organized their 3dis based on their placement in the state, which is why San Antonio has 410 and Houston has 610 despite there never having been a planned 210, why they have a 635 but no 235 or 435, etc.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 08:32:19 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on September 30, 2021, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 21, 2021, 07:02:40 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on September 21, 2021, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on September 15, 2021, 11:47:29 AM
While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.
They are actually quite useful: they are major trucking routes that lead to US-Mexico bridges; and the Rio Grande Valley Region is growing very fast.
I do agree that it would have been totally fine for I-69, with the other two being I-x69s...or make I-69E into I-37, turn the current I 37 from I69E/US77 in to Corpus Christi into I-137; then have Interstate 69 head along US 59 to Laredo, and have the stretch to Pharr (69C) be I-169. Renumber the current 169 to I-369 and renumber the I-369 near Texarkana to I-969.
I don't really like a 9xx being use on possibly the longest 3di, and a pretty important one too.
But it makes sense since it is the last possible 3di in the state.
569? 769? All 4 even first digits? There's plenty of x69 numbers in TX available.
Isn't the I-369 route going to eventually be a giant loop. I feel like I read that somewhere. In that case, it can be I-869. I want to preserve 369,569,769 for the hundreds and hundreds of miles between Brownsville and Texarkana. We really should get at least one I-X69 in both Corpus Christi and Houston
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 02:11:44 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 08:32:19 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on September 30, 2021, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 21, 2021, 07:02:40 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on September 21, 2021, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on September 15, 2021, 11:47:29 AM
While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.
They are actually quite useful: they are major trucking routes that lead to US-Mexico bridges; and the Rio Grande Valley Region is growing very fast.
I do agree that it would have been totally fine for I-69, with the other two being I-x69s...or make I-69E into I-37, turn the current I 37 from I69E/US77 in to Corpus Christi into I-137; then have Interstate 69 head along US 59 to Laredo, and have the stretch to Pharr (69C) be I-169. Renumber the current 169 to I-369 and renumber the I-369 near Texarkana to I-969.
I don't really like a 9xx being use on possibly the longest 3di, and a pretty important one too.
But it makes sense since it is the last possible 3di in the state.
569? 769? All 4 even first digits? There's plenty of x69 numbers in TX available.
Texas has, in the past, organized their 3dis based on their placement in the state, which is why San Antonio has 410 and Houston has 610 despite there never having been a planned 210, why they have a 635 but no 235 or 435, etc.
Though now there's a chance for an I-210 in El Paso, TX 130 could be I-235, SH 45 could be I-435.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 02:11:44 PM
Texas has, in the past, organized their 3dis based on their placement in the state, which is why San Antonio has 410 and Houston has 610 despite there never having been a planned 210, why they have a 635 but no 235 or 435, etc.
That seems unusual to me, compared to just using the lowest first digit available when needed. Like Ohio's 3di are planned from west to east, or south to north initially (similar to TX here), as seen with the x80s in the state, but after that, it's just numbered based on when it was designated. Like for the x75s, chronologically, 275 came first, 475 came second, and 675 is the most recent one, and going from south to north on I-75, you meet 275, then 675, then 475.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 02, 2021, 08:28:54 PM
Wis 127 should be a county highway. It parallels Wis 16 between Wis Dells and Portage and reaches no unique towns in between. I believe it is also longer by a mile or two than 16.
Only reason it is a state highway IMO is because it was at one point US/Wis 16.
Think it serves as an alternate route of sorts......but yeah I'd agree should be a county trunk, not a state highway
Currently sitting on US-151 on my way back to Platteville (not driving, don't worry). As nice as it is having this expressway to get us here and down to Dubuque... it's probably unnecessary. US-20 needed this more.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 05, 2021, 05:19:53 PM
Currently sitting on US-151 on my way back to Platteville (not driving, don't worry). As nice as it is having this expressway to get us here and down to Dubuque... it's probably unnecessary. US-20 needed this more.
US 20 doesn't go through Wisconsin. Illinois can build their own roads (and probably will make you pay for it). I agree the US 151 expressway through the Driftless Area is nice.
FWIW, I never understood why Illinois doesn't just build a new toll road from Freeport to Galena.
"... Illinois can build their own roads (and probably will make you pay for it)..."
Well, at least I-39, 72 [extension], 172 and 255 are free. These are recent non-toll Interstates.
The Toll Authority is based in Downers Grove, mainly for Northern IL.
I could argue that QC-191 (in Rivière-du-Loup) is useless, but that's only if there was a direct connection from A-20 WB to A-85 SB and A-85 NB to A-20 EB.
Additionally, QC-158 overlapping QC-148 between their junction in Mirabel and downtown Lachute seems useless (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/45.6574261,-74.3319687/45.6796448,-74.1901858/@45.6661058,-74.2939947,13z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0?hl=en), but that's because QC-148 originally went south of Lachute on Avenue Béthany, Chemin Charles-Léonard and Chemin Charles-Parent... well, that overlap is still useless.
Quote from: skluth on October 05, 2021, 06:18:23 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 05, 2021, 05:19:53 PM
Currently sitting on US-151 on my way back to Platteville (not driving, don't worry). As nice as it is having this expressway to get us here and down to Dubuque... it's probably unnecessary. US-20 needed this more.
US 20 doesn't go through Wisconsin. Illinois can build their own roads (and probably will make you pay for it). I agree the US 151 expressway through the Driftless Area is nice.
FWIW, I never understood why Illinois doesn't just build a new toll road from Freeport to Galena.
I'm aware US-20 has nothing to do with Wisconsin. I'm just saying that it should have been four-laned before US-151.
I don't think building a toll road from Freeport to Galena would go over very well. I also am not sure how much revenue it would really generate.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2021, 01:54:54 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 05, 2021, 06:18:23 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 05, 2021, 05:19:53 PM
Currently sitting on US-151 on my way back to Platteville (not driving, don't worry). As nice as it is having this expressway to get us here and down to Dubuque... it's probably unnecessary. US-20 needed this more.
US 20 doesn't go through Wisconsin. Illinois can build their own roads (and probably will make you pay for it). I agree the US 151 expressway through the Driftless Area is nice.
FWIW, I never understood why Illinois doesn't just build a new toll road from Freeport to Galena.
I'm aware US-20 has nothing to do with Wisconsin. I'm just saying that it should have been four-laned before US-151.
One state is broke and the other is not.