If you could go back in time once and influence a single decision...

[Max Rockatansky]

Michgan....never take US 10 off the Lodge or even put it back on Woodward.  A X0 US Route ought to end at a major city.

[Revive 755]

I would go back and have the Findlay, Ohio to Columbus corridor included in the original interstate system (with it lining up with and taking over what is now OH 315 between I-270 and I-70)

That might be stretching the premise too much, considering that corridor apparently wasn't even in the 78k system. But I would certainly lobby for access control and preservation of the future option of freeway conversion along US 23 between Worthington and Waldo. It would probably have been fully converted to freeway by 1999 if such steps had been taken.

The I-73 corridor in Ohio did appear in one of the Interregional Highway plans:  http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg

[Buck87]

I would go back and have the Findlay, Ohio to Columbus corridor included in the original interstate system (with it lining up with and taking over what is now OH 315 between I-270 and I-70)

That might be stretching the premise too much, considering that corridor apparently wasn't even in the 78k system. But I would certainly lobby for access control and preservation of the future option of freeway conversion along US 23 between Worthington and Waldo. It would probably have been fully converted to freeway by 1999 if such steps had been taken.

The I-73 corridor in Ohio did appear in one of the Interregional Highway plans:  http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg

Thanks. I knew I had seen the corridor on some early map. Where is that map originally from?

[GaryV]

Michgan....never take US 10 off the Lodge or even put it back on Woodward.  A X0 US Route ought to end at a major city.

What'cha got against Bay City?

Actually Bay City is pretty near the median size of cities where US 10 through 90 end.  There's plenty of smaller cities.

[vtk]

Here's a copy of an image of the 78K system, also from roadfan.com.

The I-73 corridor in Ohio did appear in one of the Interregional Highway plans:  http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg

The 48,300-mile system, consisting of the more important routes of the 78,800-mile system.

...plus a few more that aren't in the 78k system, apparently.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

I already noted that when froggie posted his take on the 77,700 km system, there are several routes there but not on the 126,800 km one, namely Rawlins WY-Livingstone MT (The one through Yellowstone), Walsenburg-Cortez both in CO, and Flagstaff AZ-St George UT. Neither include current I-77, though, which led me to ask what would have happened if it was never built only to find out it would have got built anyway.

Now I check again, other routes that were included in the 48.3k system but not in the 78.8k one are Nashville-Chicago, Charleston WV-Knoxville, Asheville-Greensboro, Atlanta-Augusta GA and Erie-Scranton. And current I-24 West of Hopkinsville wasn't included in either.

[vdeane]

I would certainly take Germany's road thickness over wider ROWs if I had to choose just one.

Didn'l Michigan try that and find it didn't fare much better than regular paving methods in the harsh winter?

[pianocello]

A couple Chicago-area decisions I would make:

• Make the I-90/I-290 interchange a stack, or at least make the NB-WB movement a flyover/turbine ramp. That was the original routing of I-90, after all.
• In downtown Chicago, I would limit the number of interchanges on the Kennedy. It doesn't even matter which cross streets get the interchanges, as long as it's only two or three. I understand IDOT's rationale for building an interchange every block, but I think it was a pretty stupid decision.
• More recent, but I'd prevent the residential development directly south of the I-355/I-80 interchange to account for a future expansion. I know it would never happen even if the neighborhood wasn't there, but it would still be a slight possibility.
• On the topic of the I-355/I-80 interchange, I would make the curve radii of the ramps a little bit bigger. Either that, or I would have made the footprint smaller. With the amount of space taken up, though, there's not much of an excuse not to have built four high-speed ramps.

[plain]

I know the completion of I-95 has been brought up but here's my take on it.. the moment the interstate highway system was created I would've definitely suggested to the FHWA and New Jersey that they designate the entire turnpike as I-95. Philly was already a major city and well established before the interstate highway system even existed so the Delaware Expressway could've been signed as something else, like a 3di. They really could've done without the I-95 designation.

Also I would've suggested that an interchange be built on the turnpike at NJ 42, or at least secure the ROW to make the interchange of I-295/I-76/NJ 42 a complete one. There is no way in hell I would use US 40 to reach Atlantic City from the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

Also I would've asked Virginia to think hard before removing tolls from certain facilities. While they made a good decision by taking the tolls off of I-95 and VA 44 (they really didn't have much of a choice with I-95 anyway because of I-295), they should've left them in place on many of the bridges and tunnels in the eastern part of the state. Very expensive infrastructure being maintained by the state's general highway fund. That money could've been spent on other roads across the state. Matter of fact, the Coleman Bridge and the Downtown and Midtown tunnels are tolled all over again due to the needed expansions/renovations, something that could've happened sooner if the original tolls would've stayed in place.

Also Virginia could've considered a limited access highway instead of just an arterial along US 58 from Hampton Roads to I-85 (I hear people saying to I-95 but that's not good enough in my eyes as I-85 is the more important route south of Virginia because it connects to a larger population). Even in it's 4 laned configuration, US 58 is hazardous along this entire stretch because of increasing long distance traffic on a road with many at-grades and private entrances, leading to numerous accidents including many fatal ones over the years.

[froggie]

As a US 58 veteran, I'd argue that it's not as crazy dangerous as you're making it out to be.  US 460 is a far more dangerous route.

[jeffandnicole]

I know the completion of I-95 has been brought up but here's my take on it.. the moment the interstate highway system was created I would've definitely suggested to the FHWA and New Jersey that they designate the entire turnpike as I-95. Philly was already a major city and well established before the interstate highway system even existed so the Delaware Expressway could've been signed as something else, like a 3di. They really could've done without the I-95 designation.

This ignores the entire premise of interstate highways which was to link cities.  3dis were to go around or spur away from cities.  A fair argument would be to make the NJ Turnpike a 3di, not the other way around.  Or, if we are to go back in time, we could say that interstate highways should get people close to cities, with 3dis taking people into the city.  In fact, that's not really a bad way of looking at it!

With few exceptions, nearly every city in America was well established before the interstate highway system was created.

Also I would've suggested that an interchange be built on the turnpike at NJ 42, or at least secure the ROW to make the interchange of I-295/I-76/NJ 42 a complete one. There is no way in hell I would use US 40 to reach Atlantic City from the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

I can only imagine the original intention of the 295/76/42 interchange was the belief at the time that motorist's primary intention on those various highways was to head outside of New Jersey towards Philadelphia.  The planning was pretty involved with a lot of far-reaching dreams, but there were several other bridges planned north of the Ben Franklin Bridge over the river to I-95.  South of this interchange, there was passenger ferries to get people across the river, along with a vehicle ferry for US 322.  To me, this explains why there was a express/local division for motorists to access I-76 West from 295 North, and the ability for motorists on I-76 East to use the express or local lanes to get to 295 South - motorists' options to cross the Delaware were limited to the Ben Franklin and Delaware Memorial Bridges, with the Walt Whitman Bridge being built as a 3di across the Delaware to supplement traffic. Motorists north of I-76 were going to have numerous other options, thus those north of 76 weren't going to have the option of accessing both the I-76 express and local lanes; they could only use the local lanes.

This is further exhibited by the next 3 interchanges on 295 south of 76: Exit 25 (NJ 47), Exit 24B (CR 551) and Exit 24A (NJ 45) are all partial interchanges to and from the North.

By the 1980's, I think it was apparent that the beliefs of those designing 295 didn't materialize or changed dramatically.  A bridge replaced the vehicle ferry for US 322.  The passenger ferries ceased to exist.  But by then, 30 years later, anyone involved with the original 295 most likely didn't work for NJDOT anymore, and the history of such was mostly forgotten.   

Even Route 55, which is a late comer to the highway scene in South Jersey, didn't follow its original routing.  If you read far back, the original route appears to take it into the West Deptford area, connecting with 295.  I've never seen a map or figured out the exact plan.  Any mention of it since the 70's always took it towards Route 42.

As far as the NJ Turnpike/Route 42 goes, definitely a missed opportunity there.

[Rothman]

Thought of another one:

I would have prevented the "recent" name and shield changes to Kentucky's parkways (i.e., except for the years-ago addition of Bert T. Combs to the Mountain Parkway).

[PHLBOS]

To date & as we all know, the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange is only now being constructed; some 35 years after the Somerset Freeway was canned.

At least they are going to finish the interchange at Bristol enough to complete I-95 (presuming  that the bridge over the Delaware River between New Jersey and Pennsylvania is repaired enough to re-open it to traffic later this year).

The primary point of my bringing up the above was in response to J&N's comment regarding why many are still talking about the I-95 gap in NJ and/or the proposed reroute via the PA Turnpike but not about I-95's rerouting onto the Capital Beltway (I-495) nor its rerouting on MA 128 (Yankee Division Highway). 

All connections (such that they are) for the latter two regions have existed for at least 28-29 years.  Note: plans are in the works to reconfigure the I-95 interchange in Canton, MA to eliminate the single-lane cloverleaf carrying through-I-95 northbound traffic (such should've been done decades ago) but such is another story for another thread.

[plain]

As a US 58 veteran, I'd argue that it's not as crazy dangerous as you're making it out to be.  US 460 is a far more dangerous route.

Yes I would definitely consider US 460 very dangerous (I'm still mad about Virginia fouling that up by the way) but I am also a US 58 veteran myself, well at least from Danville eastward, and at one point traveled it once or twice a week because of my job when I lived in Norfolk. I have seen some pretty serious accidents in Brunswick and Southampton Counties and in Suffolk west of the bypass, including ones involving tractor trailers.

Thought of another one:

I would have prevented the "recent" name and shield changes to Kentucky's parkways (i.e., except for the years-ago addition of Bert T. Combs to the Mountain Parkway).

Agreed, especially in the case of the Daniel Boone Pkwy smdh.

[plain]

Also I would've suggested that an interchange be built on the turnpike at NJ 42, or at least secure the ROW to make the interchange of I-295/I-76/NJ 42 a complete one. There is no way in hell I would use US 40 to reach Atlantic City from the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

I can only imagine the original intention of the 295/76/42 interchange was the belief at the time that motorist's primary intention on those various highways was to head outside of New Jersey towards Philadelphia.  The planning was pretty involved with a lot of far-reaching dreams, but there were several other bridges planned north of the Ben Franklin Bridge over the river to I-95.  South of this interchange, there was passenger ferries to get people across the river, along with a vehicle ferry for US 322.  To me, this explains why there was a express/local division for motorists to access I-76 West from 295 North, and the ability for motorists on I-76 East to use the express or local lanes to get to 295 South - motorists' options to cross the Delaware were limited to the Ben Franklin and Delaware Memorial Bridges, with the Walt Whitman Bridge being built as a 3di across the Delaware to supplement traffic. Motorists north of I-76 were going to have numerous other options, thus those north of 76 weren't going to have the option of accessing both the I-76 express and local lanes; they could only use the local lanes.

This is further exhibited by the next 3 interchanges on 295 south of 76: Exit 25 (NJ 47), Exit 24B (CR 551) and Exit 24A (NJ 45) are all partial interchanges to and from the North.

I always wondered why those 3 exits were set up like that... to me it never made any sense.

[Rothman]

Agreed, especially in the case of the Daniel Boone Pkwy smdh.

I am all for the Kentuckian worship of the explorer that abandoned his family and was just not that nice of a guy.

I suppose somebody had to find the way through the mountains...too bad it had to be him.

[Brandon]

A couple Chicago-area decisions I would make:

• Make the I-90/I-290 interchange a stack, or at least make the NB-WB movement a flyover/turbine ramp. That was the original routing of I-90, after all.
• In downtown Chicago, I would limit the number of interchanges on the Kennedy. It doesn't even matter which cross streets get the interchanges, as long as it's only two or three. I understand IDOT's rationale for building an interchange every block, but I think it was a pretty stupid decision.
• More recent, but I'd prevent the residential development directly south of the I-355/I-80 interchange to account for a future expansion. I know it would never happen even if the neighborhood wasn't there, but it would still be a slight possibility.
• On the topic of the I-355/I-80 interchange, I would make the curve radii of the ramps a little bit bigger. Either that, or I would have made the footprint smaller. With the amount of space taken up, though, there's not much of an excuse not to have built four high-speed ramps.

A: There was never any real room for a stack there.  Even the new ramp had to be shoehorned in.  And that new ramp is a flyover ramp.

B: IDOT didn't build that.  IDOT didn't even exist at the time it was planned and built.  That would be the Cook County Department of Highways.  It was turned over to the Illinois Department of Public Works which became IDOT.

C: That was built after the challenges to I-355 that delayed the tollway extension for a decade.  Blame the Sierra Club for that bullshit.

D: What are you talking about!?!  The I-80/I-355 ramps are high-speed.  For some dumbass reason IDOT and ISTHA post the advisory speed at 40 mph when they can easily be taken at 60 mph with a semi.  Hell, I take them at 70 mph.

[jp the roadgeek]

Here's a few I would have completed

One bridge or tunnel linking Long Island and New Haven, CT, and another linking Orient Point and the Greater New London area, with the LIE being completed east of Riverhead.

A 3DI link from I-95 in South County to Newport parallel to RI 138 west of US 1.

Connected CT 2 to I-95 and had it link in to the missing portion of CT/RI 78 (look at casino traffic on two lane roads now).  Also built an expressway along the CT 164 corridor linking from CT 2 to I-395.

Extended I-84 along the MA 49 corridor, then have it bend around and take over the E-W portion of I-290, and extend it to I-95/MA 128 near Lexington.

Built an expressway link from Buzzard's Bay linking MA 25 and MA 3/US 6. It becomes part of I-82 that would have followed the I-84 to Providence route, and I-195 and MA 25 to that point.

[PHLBOS]

A 3DI link from I-95 in South County to Newport parallel to RI 138 west of US 1.

That link was originally part of an overall I-895 plan.

[jakeroot]

I know the completion of I-95 has been brought up but here's my take on it.. the moment the interstate highway system was created I would've definitely suggested to the FHWA and New Jersey that they designate the entire turnpike as I-95. Philly was already a major city and well established before the interstate highway system even existed so the Delaware Expressway could've been signed as something else, like a 3di. They really could've done without the I-95 designation.

This ignores the entire premise of interstate highways which was to link cities.  3dis were to go around or spur away from cities.  A fair argument would be to make the NJ Turnpike a 3di, not the other way around.  Or, if we are to go back in time, we could say that interstate highways should get people close to cities, with 3dis taking people into the city.  In fact, that's not really a bad way of looking at it!

That's a much better idea, and I'm stunned that the founding fathers of the interstates thought that plowing a long-haul interstate directly through a city center was a good idea. Who thought for even a brief second that mixing long-haul traffic with short-haul, city-bound traffic was a good idea? Long-haul 2dis should link regions, not cities. A drive from one city to another city 800 miles away shouldn't involve switching to a 3di bypass ten times.

In the US, when a bypass road around a city opens, it's pretty common for the new road to take over the old designation (with the old route receiving an all-new or business designation). But for some reason, this practice does not extend to interstates, where the bypass road gets a three digit designation. If the bypass road carried the 2di designation, you'd get a lot more people using it, and perhaps we'd have a lot less traffic in our inner cores.

[briantroutman]

^ I've heard varying assessments of how relevant the "Defense"  aspect of the Interstate and Defense Highways Act truly was back in 1956, but assuming that it was indeed a top priority in planning the system, let's entertain the following:

One of the Interstates' main purposes was to serve as evacuation routes from major population centers in case of nuclear attack. Additionally, the Interstates would link key industrial centers, ports, etc. with defense facilities in a war scenario. Prior to the rampant suburbanization that, ironically, accelerated in earnest around the time of the 1956 Act, both population and industrial centers were still heavily concentrated within the limits of the cities themselves.

So in that scenario, it would make sense to devote the greatest possible capacity to getting the greatest number of people–who then lived in the cities–straight out of the city in any safe direction as quickly and as simply as possible. Having 2DIs radiating directly outward from the city center helps serve this goal. Civil defense evacuation warnings can carry the simplest messages possible ("North Ward: Take I-25 North" ), and if interchange geometry favors the 2DI to/from the city center, it inherently prioritizes the higher volume traffic from the city over the (then) lower volumes from 3DI spurs and loops in the suburbs.

(edited to add:)

[In the US, when a bypass road around a city opens, it's pretty common for the new road to take over the old designation (with the old route receiving an all-new or business designation). But for some reason, this practice does not extend to interstates, where the bypass road gets a three digit designation.

I see where you're going with that line of reasoning, but I don't think the practice of numbering 2DIs through a city was as bass-ackwards as you're suggesting, at least not in historical context.

An urban 2DI is the bypass–of the maze of city streets that carried its US Route predecessor though the urban area. It's my impression that highway planners actually believed (perhaps naïvely) that urban Interstates would be free-flowing routes serving both local and through traffic adequately. And since the point of a bypass, arguably, is not to avoid the city per se but to avoid stopping, the idea of a "bypass"  running directly through town isn't so outlandish.

Or at least it would be, provided that the urban Interstate was free-flowing...which we know in hindsight is basically impossible considering the unbridled increase in demand that followed the freeways' construction.

[pianocello]

A couple Chicago-area decisions I would make:

• Make the I-90/I-290 interchange a stack, or at least make the NB-WB movement a flyover/turbine ramp. That was the original routing of I-90, after all.

A: There was never any real room for a stack there.  Even the new ramp had to be shoehorned in.  And that new ramp is a flyover ramp.

Whoops, I should have specified the interchange in Schaumburg. I'm aware the Circle was built about as well as it could have been given the amount of space available. I'm glad that they were able to fit the flyover in, though.

• On the topic of the I-355/I-80 interchange, I would make the curve radii of the ramps a little bit bigger. Either that, or I would have made the footprint smaller. With the amount of space taken up, though, there's not much of an excuse not to have built four high-speed ramps.

D: What are you talking about!?!  The I-80/I-355 ramps are high-speed.  For some dumbass reason IDOT and ISTHA post the advisory speed at 40 mph when they can easily be taken at 60 mph with a semi.  Hell, I take them at 70 mph.

Admittedly, I've only been on the SB-EB ramp once, but I pass it on I-80 quite frequently. When I saw the advisory speeds, I assumed it was a curve radius thing.

[Rothman]

Anyone say finish CT 11 to I-95/I-395 yet?

(Actually, with CT 11 and I-84 to Providence, have to say we've lived well enough without them)

[Quillz]

I do like the idea of interstates being more used to link regions, not necessarily city centers. It's one of the reasons that I-5 was built the way it was through the Central Valley, I think. It's not a bad idea and I believe even represents Eisenhower's original vision for the interstates.

Of course, I think one of the biggest downsides is it would have caused many interstates to be built on entirely new alignment, rather that upgrading US highways. Depending on how you feel about environmental intrusion and other factors, this may or may not be a bad thing.

[TML]

I would have ensured that 70 met up with 95.