News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

The "Freeway" Sign

Started by edwaleni, November 09, 2019, 09:55:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

edwaleni

I have seen these all over Illinois in my travels, I always assumed it simply meant the road was federally funded by some designation made in 1943.



Is that accurate, or is their a more substantial meaning to it?


MNHighwayMan

I'm pretty sure what it means is that property owners adjacent to the freeway can't build their own connections/driveways to the freeway. (Or, there are some other requirements of adjacent property.) Why that needs a sign, who knows.

sprjus4

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 09, 2019, 10:00:20 PM
I'm pretty sure what it means is that property owners adjacent to the freeway can't build their own connections/driveways to the freeway. (Or, there are some other requirements of adjacent property.) Why that needs a sign, who knows.
Isn't that what limited-access fencing is for?

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 09, 2019, 10:06:46 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 09, 2019, 10:00:20 PM
I'm pretty sure what it means is that property owners adjacent to the freeway can't build their own connections/driveways to the freeway. (Or, there are some other requirements of adjacent property.) Why that needs a sign, who knows.
Isn't that what limited-access fencing is for?

You would think so.

Revive 755

^ Fencing has to be maintained - more work than putting up one sign.

sprjus4

Quote from: Revive 755 on November 09, 2019, 10:55:05 PM
^ Fencing has to be maintained - more work than putting up one sign.
Fencing is much more effective though. It's also a continuous boundary / barrier, not signs placed at each property.

J N Winkler

Quote from: edwaleni on November 09, 2019, 09:55:14 PMI have seen these all over Illinois in my travels, I always assumed it simply meant the road was federally funded by some designation made in 1943.

The 1943 enactment referred to is almost certainly Illinois' access-control statute, which provides the legal machinery to build a road as a freeway to which abutters have no right of access.  Each state has its own such law--Kansas did not have one until 1953.

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 09, 2019, 10:09:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 09, 2019, 10:06:46 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 09, 2019, 10:00:20 PMI'm pretty sure what it means is that property owners adjacent to the freeway can't build their own connections/driveways to the freeway. (Or, there are some other requirements of adjacent property.) Why that needs a sign, who knows.

Isn't that what limited-access fencing is for?

You would think so.

I am not sure how many of the 50 states use signs on freeway fences advising that the facility thus confined is controlled-access.  This is difficult to investigate online with any confidence since, although such signs are formatted as traffic signs with use of the FHWA alphabet series and so on, some state DOTs don't list them in their sign drawings books, perhaps because they are not considered traffic signs per se.  This photo, however, does confirm that Illinois uses these signs.  Indiana does as well (they have appeared in a sign drawings book), as do Nebraska and California.  I think I have seen such signs used in Kansas, but have not documented them by photo, and am having difficulty tracking down examples in StreetView.

As an aside, it is conceptually possible to have a freeway without fencing.  The early German Autobahnen were unfenced.  What has to happen is that the abutters must be informed, in a way that complies with all applicable notice requirements for the jurisdiction, that they do not have access rights.

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 09, 2019, 10:58:11 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 09, 2019, 10:55:05 PM^ Fencing has to be maintained - more work than putting up one sign.

Fencing is much more effective though. It's also a continuous boundary / barrier, not signs placed at each property.

I don't think each property frontage is necessarily posted in states that do post signs.  And while fences are typically continuous along the mainline, there are breaks at ramp termini at service interchanges.  Fence continuity can cause problems when wildlife gets in and then can't get out, which is one reason fences are being upgraded with one-way spring doors in some areas.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

cwm1276

Here is a faded one on IL 26 between Orangeville and Cederville.  I have always wondering about them.
Definitely not limited access and if you turn the street view 180 degrees to the other side of the there is no fence.  If you turn the the street view back to 2012, you can make out the text better.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4018084,-89.6335279,3a,15y,90.78h,82.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4kmP57pC2QBegvJEO_sNfQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Revive 755

I think Missouri has an access control variant of this sign that may be found on some of the 'Missouri Super 2' highways.

I am not sure the name, but somewhere there was a map with corridors that had this "freeway" designation, possibly before the interstates were built.  I seem to recall one of them being US 45 between Mattoon and Effingham.

Brandon

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 09, 2019, 10:58:11 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 09, 2019, 10:55:05 PM
^ Fencing has to be maintained - more work than putting up one sign.
Fencing is much more effective though. It's also a continuous boundary / barrier, not signs placed at each property.

Except that most of these signs are on two-lane roads, not freeways as we currently know them.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

sprjus4

Quote from: Brandon on November 10, 2019, 01:01:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 09, 2019, 10:58:11 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 09, 2019, 10:55:05 PM
^ Fencing has to be maintained - more work than putting up one sign.
Fencing is much more effective though. It's also a continuous boundary / barrier, not signs placed at each property.

Except that most of these signs are on two-lane roads, not freeways as we currently know them.
Still, if a roadway has any type of limited-access, even if it simply prohibits driveway connections but still allows intersecting roadways, whether it be a two-lane, four-lane, or full interstate highway, it should still have appropriate limited-access lines and fencing to denote this.

wanderer2575

Even with fencing, and the idea that ignorance of the law is no excuse, it probably comes from someone's legal opinion that taking action against a violation is easier when a warning is posted.  I liken this to the frequent posting of "Zoning Enforced" signs at town limits.  Are they really concerned that some mischievous soul is going to sneak out during the night and erect a 10-story office building in the middle of Farmer Bob's beanfield?  But if it happens, said soul can't claim he wasn't warned.

Anyway, I shot this photo about 15 years ago on the US-24 expressway near Napoleon.



3467

Yes it was exactly like the Ohio sign. IDOT  had a map of them in its annual report. It was about controlling access on certain routes. It was not related to the supplemental freeways or Interstates.
Someone from a local government told me they are basically trying to do it on their whole system now.I think they were trying to get a new intersections turn lane.

sprjus4

US-17 in rural Southern Chesapeake, on the outskirts of Hampton Roads, VA, is a limited-access 4-lane expressway practically built to rural interstate standards with private driveway access prohibited though allowing at-grade intersections with public roadways, all minor access points with low traffic volumes. When the road was constructed 15 years ago, an exception was made that allowed 3-4 breaks in limited-access fencing to provide access to a large farm tract.

The city is now planning a megasite / warehouse facility down on the southern part of the tract, and wants to utilize one of the pre-existing farm access points and convert it into a major entrance & talked about putting a traffic signal on the rural highway that is signal-free for 10+ miles each way.

Seems like a clever way to abuse a previously granted break in limited-access for the wrong purposes.

IMO, if they want this mega site, either A) build a frontage road up to the nearest public road that intersects US-17, or B) build an interchange directly with US-17. No signals, no new major access points.

hbelkins

I've seen signs in places saying "access by permit only." This would appear to be somewhat similar.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Beltway

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 09, 2019, 11:07:15 PM
I am not sure how many of the 50 states use signs on freeway fences advising that the facility thus confined is controlled-access. 
VDOT by policy installs limited access fencing on all highways that have limited access rights-of-way, which would include freeways as well as expressways.

Farm fence in rural areas and chain-link fence in urbanized areas.

This is not to say that every single highway has fencing 100% of the way, I have no way to verify that without visiting every such highway.

I have never seen any signs posted on the fences, and the 2016 Road and Bridge Standards does not show any.

See Sheet 503.02 and several pages after that --
http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/LocDes/Electronic_Pubs/2016_Road%20and%20Bridge/CS500.pdf
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

KeithE4Phx

Quote from: edwaleni on November 09, 2019, 09:55:14 PM
I have seen these all over Illinois in my travels, I always assumed it simply meant the road was federally funded by some designation made in 1943.



Is that accurate, or is their a more substantial meaning to it?

Indiana posted an almost identical sign along IN 37 north of Bloomington in the 1960s, before the west side bypass (now I-69) was built and the signed section was also 4-laned. 

As a kid at the time, I thought that Bloomington was finally getting a real freeway!  Too bad it took until last year to finally get it built as one.  :wow:  :)
"Oh, so you hate your job? Well, why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called "EVERYBODY!" They meet at the bar." -- Drew Carey

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on November 10, 2019, 11:24:21 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 09, 2019, 11:07:15 PM
I am not sure how many of the 50 states use signs on freeway fences advising that the facility thus confined is controlled-access. 
VDOT by policy installs limited access fencing on all highways that have limited access rights-of-way, which would include freeways as well as expressways.

Farm fence in rural areas and chain-link fence in urbanized areas.

This is not to say that every single highway has fencing 100% of the way, I have no way to verify that without visiting every such highway.

I have never seen any signs posted on the fences, and the 2016 Road and Bridge Standards does not show any.

See Sheet 503.02 and several pages after that --
http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/LocDes/Electronic_Pubs/2016_Road%20and%20Bridge/CS500.pdf
When Chesapeake built VA-168 South and the Dominion Blvd freeway / expressway upgrade, they kept with VDOT policy and both facilities are fully lined with limited-access fencing.

Not sure of any other roads in the city that utilize official limited-access fencing, with the exception of the other VDOT maintained interstates. Moses Grandy Trl was built in 2005 as a 4-lane 50 mph limited-access relocation of Cedar Rd west of Dominion Blvd. Not sure if there's any official fencing along it. It has two intersections, one that is signalized.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 11, 2019, 02:06:04 AM
When Chesapeake built VA-168 South and the Dominion Blvd freeway / expressway upgrade, they kept with VDOT policy and both facilities are fully lined with limited-access fencing.
Not sure of any other roads in the city that utilize official limited-access fencing, with the exception of the other VDOT maintained interstates. Moses Grandy Trl was built in 2005 as a 4-lane 50 mph limited-access relocation of Cedar Rd west of Dominion Blvd. Not sure if there's any official fencing along it. It has two intersections, one that is signalized.

Do you know in fact whether it actually is limited access?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on November 11, 2019, 06:48:16 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 11, 2019, 02:06:04 AM
When Chesapeake built VA-168 South and the Dominion Blvd freeway / expressway upgrade, they kept with VDOT policy and both facilities are fully lined with limited-access fencing.
Not sure of any other roads in the city that utilize official limited-access fencing, with the exception of the other VDOT maintained interstates. Moses Grandy Trl was built in 2005 as a 4-lane 50 mph limited-access relocation of Cedar Rd west of Dominion Blvd. Not sure if there's any official fencing along it. It has two intersections, one that is signalized.
Do you know in fact whether it actually is limited access?
Limited-access in the sense there's been no private driveway connections added to it since it opened in 2005, and none exist that I know of.

Can't say that I know if it's officially limited access though, I'd have to dig through old documents.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 11, 2019, 12:37:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 11, 2019, 06:48:16 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 11, 2019, 02:06:04 AM
Not sure of any other roads in the city that utilize official limited-access fencing, with the exception of the other VDOT maintained interstates. Moses Grandy Trl was built in 2005 as a 4-lane 50 mph limited-access relocation of Cedar Rd west of Dominion Blvd. Not sure if there's any official fencing along it. It has two intersections, one that is signalized.
Do you know in fact whether it actually is limited access?
Limited-access in the sense there's been no private driveway connections added to it since it opened in 2005, and none exist that I know of.
Can't say that I know if it's officially limited access though, I'd have to dig through old documents.
What about this --?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Moses+Grandy+Trail,+Chesapeake,+VA+23323/@36.7312654,-76.3128273,90m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89baa45c02c825e7:0x62c92cf5a915274!8m2!3d36.73731!4d-76.3212192
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

edwaleni

Answering some of my own question.

The Freeway Act of 1943 in Illinois established the Illinois Department of Transportation and gave it the powers to establish routes of highways in the state.  The powers granted by the act were significant because it granted the state not only the right to claim parcels by eminent domain, but also the right to restrict access to said road if access didn't meet a certain set of parameters. Before this act, any road considered "public" was allowed to be connected.

This was heavily challenged in court as it completely usurped the power of road building by counties and certain townships within them.

Counties believed at the time that any and all public road building in their domain were subject to their control since it was their tax dollars.

Illinois established that for roads to be able to succeed they needed to be able to allow the free flow of commerce without the interruption or disruption by a local authority with a different purpose.

To maintain that flow, they established access standards which allowed the term "freeway", meaning it was subject to only the controls permitted by state law.

The Freeway Act of 1943 went all the way to the Supreme Court as counties found it in theory to be unconstitutional.  Since it gave to much authority over public land use and access to an administrative bureaucracy (IDOT), instead of an elected group of officials.

The Supreme Court ruled that since road building required funding from the state legislature to be effective, and that the legislature was in fact elected by the people, the act was ruled constitutional.

So by putting up those signs, it is basically saying that this road was funded and built under those rules and any connection to it falls under it guidelines.

Yes, there are grandfather clauses for routes that fell under state control but already had roads, driveways and industrial types of access on them. But access to them built thereafter are subject to the act. This protected the farmers and county highway departments who had already made connectivity.






Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.