Interstate System, What's Next?

[AlexandriaVA]

Apologies if similar threads have been started before, but it's a Sunday so whatever.

Please provide a concise description on where you see MAJOR developments in the US Interstate System in the next 25-50 years. I'll jump right to my general thoughts:

1) The 'bones' of the system are largely complete. I don't think we will see many, if any, new corridors built.
1a) Some current US Highway and state highways, if they are at freeway or near-Interstate standards, may be converted. However new rights-of-way will be rare.

2) There will be continued removal or trenching of Interstate spurs into central cities, but total lane-miles will increase due to expansion of routes in suburbs of main cities.
2a) The tradition of toll-free Interstates in urban areas will be eroded with the continued addition of toll lanes or HOT lanes, but not on a comprehensive basis.

3) Besides periodic maintenance, rural Interstates will see very few changes. Someone driving on a rural Interstate in 2060, particularly west of the Mississippi, will have much of the same experience as in 1960 (road-wise).
3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.

4) Interstates will slowly adopt technology-based services (i.e. GPS and Bluetooth recognition) into design and standards, but slow to adopt due to installation costs and maintenance schedules (i.e. traffic-prediction modeling in urban areas before rural areas).
4a) Rural interstates will be the first to allow computer-driven vehicles.

[coatimundi]

1) The 'bones' of the system are largely complete. I don't think we will see many, if any, new corridors built.

I-11 in Arizona is likely going to be partially be on new ROW. But the plan south of I-10 starts to erode, and the planned extension to the Mexican border is really a, IMHO, misguided longshot. And that's due to it trying to go on new ROW.

2) There will be continued removal or trenching of Interstate spurs into central cities, but total lane-miles will increase due to expansion of routes in suburbs of main cities.

2a) The tradition of toll-free Interstates in urban areas will be eroded with the continued addition of toll lanes or HOT lanes, but not on a comprehensive basis.

I think with the suburban trend reversing, there will be less demand for new suburban freeways. But I don't think the wealthy people moving into the cities will be accept new corridors there, either. In the end, I think the trends are pushing more toward public transit, especially with a younger generation that's very much more open to the concept than their parents were. This is more of a sociological discussion than I'm really qualified to talk about though, so it's really just speculation on my part.
I also think that HOT lanes are a fad that will pass within the next 15 years. Agencies will heavily invest in them, they won't return quite as well as predicted, and they'll start to be eliminated.

[hbelkins]

3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.

Impossible, since these were never federal highways to begin with and have always been state-owned. Besides, they are maintained with the help of federal dollars.

[AlexandriaVA]

3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.

Impossible, since these were never federal highways to begin with and have always been state-owned. Besides, they are maintained with the help of federal dollars.

90% federal capital subsidy

[nexus73]

Major for Oregon would see I-5 made a 6-lane from south Salem to just south of Eugene at the I5/SR 58 interchange.  What's needed is much more than that though. 

Rick

[kkt]

Agree with points 1, 1a, 2, 2a. 

Agree that the experience of rural interstate driving won't change much, however some of the busier rural interstates will continue to go from 4 lanes to 6.

Driverless cars will start on special applications.  Closed ROW, no general traffic, probably low speed or indoor.  Maybe golf carts, shuttle loops at airports.  The wide world of crazy acting other drivers, weather conditions is way too much for computerized cars and will remain so for a long time.

Poor states might try to give back interstates, but it's not going to happen.  The Feds don't have any money either.  They seem more likely to get the Feds out of the road business entirely, or possibly be a small organization setting standards and collecting statistics rather than funding any construction or maintenance.

[jwolfer]

I see VA, NC and SC tolling interstate 95 like Delaware at the state lines.  Other states around the country May do same

[sparker]

(1)  I see most corridors connecting metro areas of greater than 500K expanding from 4 to 6+ lanes by 2050 if they haven't done so already.
(2)  I see new Interstate corridors being established -- on a regular basis -- in states where the political will to do so is high and ongoing -- and where funding, by whatever methodology the state uses to do so, seems consistently available (NC, TX as examples).  States with the political will but without such funding success (e.g., AR, MO) will only do so -- and very incrementally --  when available funds trickle in.  Development of multistate corridors will depend upon the will/funding "matrix" of the "weakest link" of the states involved (unless loans and/or subsides are part of the package). 
(3)  Political maneuvering will be part & parcel of any attempt to decommission and remove urban Interstate mileage.  Some states will undoubtedly attempt to transfer the "value" of the truncated facility to other routes or projects; an example would be if the "value" of a removed I-81 in Syracuse would be applied to construction of I-86 east of Binghamton (in a similar manner re the transfer of funds from cancelled New Orleans I-loops to I-49 development in LA). 
(4)  Tolling will remain a political "hot potato" on both state and national levels.  In metro regions, HOT lanes will likely find their way to a high percentage of both radial routes and beltways.  As far as "price of admission" tolling at state lines, such has been discussed since the turn of the century -- and despite states' cries of impoverishment, has yet to be manifested (and is unlikely to occur, at least near-term).  I-95 was a tolled facility for much of its DE mileage since day one, and despite its on/off history as such, is publicly recognized as an "original" tolled road, attracting less controversy as a result.  Measures -- even draconian ones -- would be needed to forestall shunpiking -- and it's not likely that any state wants the negative publicity endemic to such activities.

This thread is a good "jumping off" point for more detailed discussion of future Interstate specifics.  If I have the time in the next few days, I'll probably initiate a thread where posters, including myself, can speculate -- with an eye toward realistic projections -- about what Interstate developmental activities -- specific as to routes and regions -- might be expected in the foreseeable future, given the presently available info that could provide the basis for such projections.   Since it IS speculative, I'll most likely be posting in the fictional section -- at least for the time being.   

[Brandon]

3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.

Impossible, since these were never federal highways to begin with and have always been state-owned. Besides, they are maintained with the help of federal dollars.

90% federal capital subsidy

That was the original agreement about splitting the costs, not about ownership.  The 90-10 split is long done, and most money comes from the states for maintenance.

[froggie]

It's hard to say for sure without going through each state's transportation budget line by line, but empirical evidence in the few states I'm familiar with suggests that a majority of Interstate maintenance funding still comes from FHWA.

That said, the statement that the Interstates are state-owned and not Federally-owned is mostly correct.  There are a few oddballs here and there, like I-83 in Baltimore belonging to the city vice MD SHA.

[SP Cook]

IMHO,

Tolling currently "free" interstates remains a goal of a certain segment, but at the end of the day it will take national and the state political action of which there does not seem to be a current majority in favor.  I do not see it happening.  As with anything a political solution to road funding will happen, over and over.

However "HOT" lanes will continue to proliferate and many new highways will be built via tolls.  As cities grow, one should expect that their new suburbs will be served by toll roads.

I see more lanes being added to overburdened interstates like 81, 95 and 85 in the east. 

As to new construction on new ground, really the key is to look at the population in 1955, the population today, and what the population will be in future times.  The nation continues its move south.  A new move to the mountain states is well underway.  While not losing total population, California finally seems "full" and is experiencing a massive brain drain as skilled workers are leaving and being replaced by unskilled immigrants.  Texas is booming as are the Carolinas.  Several cities are expanding outward to engulf their beltways and bypasses and thus becoming unavoidable.  New cities are becoming large enough to need their first beltway or bypass.    New bypasses of entire metro areas, such as Atlanta, via a toll will be needed.  The economy is becoming more intergrated to northern Mexico and the stuff Texas is doing is SE Texas will have to be finished.

As to rural new construction.

Phoenix-Las Vegas
Jacksonville-Gainesville-I-75
Fort Myers-Orlando
Tampa-Tallahassee (the desire to retire to Florida remains strong and the so-called "Forgotten Coast" is the next place to be developed)
I-95- Myrtle Beach
Rocky Mount-Norfolk
Rocky Mount-Nags Head (again the original 95 was built in an era where the Carolina coasts were undeveloped, new roads to allow that area to grow are needed)

[kalvado]

IMHO,

Tolling currently "free" interstates remains a goal of a certain segment, but at the end of the day it will take national and the state political action of which there does not seem to be a current majority in favor.  I do not see it happening.  As with anything a political solution to road funding will happen, over and over.

Seems that the root cause is not enough funding for transportation. So in order to keep things going, either driving has to get more taxed (gas, mileage, tolls, whatever) or general fund (which is also not doing good) has to be diverted to road funding.
None of these actions are a way to win elections, though. So I wouldn't be surprised to see more road degradation.

[US 41]

IMHO,

Tolling currently "free" interstates remains a goal of a certain segment, but at the end of the day it will take national and the state political action of which there does not seem to be a current majority in favor.  I do not see it happening.  As with anything a political solution to road funding will happen, over and over.

Seems that the root cause is not enough funding for transportation. So in order to keep things going, either driving has to get more taxed (gas, mileage, tolls, whatever) or general fund (which is also not doing good) has to be diverted to road funding.
None of these actions are a way to win elections, though. So I wouldn't be surprised to see more road degradation.

Our highways aren't even in that bad of shape. I honestly don't see what everyone is complaining about.

[kalvado]

Our highways aren't even in that bad of shape. I honestly don't see what everyone is complaining about.

One thing to remember - they need maintenance to stay that way, and getting old is not making maintenance cheaper.
And problem may not be apparent to the driver. Remember per DOT about 20% of US bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete

[vdeane]

Yep.  Even a bridge that looks brand new because the deck has been replaced in the last few years can look really scary when you look at the substructure in the right places.

[Avalanchez71]

I hope tolling is not the wave of the future.  I will be shunpiking.

[Rothman]

3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.

Impossible, since these were never federal highways to begin with and have always been state-owned. Besides, they are maintained with the help of federal dollars.

90% federal capital subsidy

That was the original agreement about splitting the costs, not about ownership.  The 90-10 split is long done, and most money comes from the states for maintenance.

Partially true.  Yes, interstates were never owned by the federal government, but the 90-10 split is definitely still around.  Despite IM (Interstate Maintenance) funds being done away with when MAP-21 was enacted, the funds were essentially absorbed into the National Highway Performance Program (renewed by FAST) which does still allow the 90-10 split for interstate projects.

[AlexandriaVA]

When I say "own", I'm not talking about the actual title/charter, I'm talking about the initial equity. If a party puts up 90% of the capital costs of something, it was "their" asset, even if they deed/title/gift it away immediately.

In other words, how many Interstates would have been built if not for the 90% subsidy?

[Rothman]

When I say "own", I'm not talking about the actual title/charter, I'm talking about the initial equity. If a party puts up 90% of the capital costs of something, it was "their" asset, even if they deed/title/gift it away immediately.

Your definition of ownership is not one I have ever heard during my career at NYSDOT, especially since there was never transfer of ownership at all between the feds and states.  The states owns the facility and it was merely funded with reimbursable funds from the Feds.  Keep in mind that federal funds have been and are first-instanced by the states.

That said, there's no stopping you from writing your own dictionary.

[AlexandriaVA]

Again, take my counterfactual if the 90% subsidy weren't in place. How many of these "state-owned" Interstates would have been built?

[SP Cook]

Again, take my counterfactual if the 90% subsidy weren't in place. How many of these "state-owned" Interstates would have been built?

That is kind of a "fictional highways" type post, in reverse.  Probably we would have seen many states go the toll road route.  We would also have seen a lot of states go with lesser standards (at-grades, stop lights) especially in the west.  Mostly we would just have a poorer society, with businesses still bound to railroad monopolist and people to urban slumlords.

[Rothman]

Again, take my counterfactual if the 90% subsidy weren't in place. How many of these "state-owned" Interstates would have been built?

No need for the quotes, they were and are state-owned.

Very few would have been built if the Feds hadn't reimbursed the states for them, but that has no relevance whatsoever as to who actually owns them and is responsible for them.

[roadman65]

HOT Lanes!  Considering GPS travel among careless drivers these will be implemented in all major metro areas as they can charge whatever they want and get an endless supply of customers.

[2Co5_14]

As the technology improves enough for autonomous (self-driving) vehicles to start being used by mainstream consumers, there will start to be a demand for exclusive lanes for them so that vehicles could travel at higher speeds with shorter distances between them.  This role will be initially filled by converting HOT/HOV lanes to autonomous vehicles only.  Later on, as the proportion of autonomous vehicles increases to become the majority of all vehicles on the road, there may be a movement to convert most or all interstates (and other freeways) to the exclusive use of autonomous vehicles.  The limited access, higher design speeds, and relative uniformity of design features on interstates are all important factors in providing a safe and efficient guideway for autonomous vehicles, and given the expense of providing a brand new system just for them, I imagine it would be much more likely that existing highways would be converted to autonomous use instead.  This would enable much higher speed long-distance travel, and also allow much higher densities on urban interstates without congestion.

[kkt]

Just because the money was federal doesn't mean it just appeared by magic.  If the Feds hadn't put in the 90% match, there would probably have been no Federal gas tax, or at least much lower.  So most states would probably have higher state gas taxes and be funding major routes out of that.

However, the low-traffic rural interstates would have been built to lower standards:  some cross traffic, perhaps only 2 lanes instead of 4.