Interstates in name only

[MrDisco99]

I've heard mention about some roads, particularly in the northeast, that were grandfathered into the Interstate system and thus don't need to abide by certain standards, such as lane/shoulder widths, presence of tolls, full service areas, etc, because they were and continue to be paid for with state and/or local funds.  The obvious ones being the turnpikes and thruways that were built in the 40s and 50s.

What other interstates fall into that category?  I thought I read I-95/MA-128 was grandfathered in and also has no federal funding, and thus continues to have service areas.  Is the Connecticut turnpike still fully state funded?  I wonder how much of the expressway systems in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. are like that as well considering when some of those were built.  I'm mainly just curious about which interstates have a higher possibility of being non-standard as a result of states refusing federal money and influence.

[Alps]

MA 128 is a special case because I-95 wasn't moved until the late 70s (if not even the 80s). I think it was part of the deal to create a continuous Interstate route that allowed the service areas to remain. (Check out historic aerials from 1955, by the way - 128 was four lanes with cross streets. Some of those openings persisted for decades!)

Most of the Interstates up here are non-standard. I-280 (NJ 58), I-278 (throughout NYC), I-87 (in NYC - shoulder widths, interchange spacing, even a gas station), the list goes on and on. You're hard pressed to find one that's actually up to standards 100%. There's usually something.

[NE2]

The examples you give are all pre-Interstate. Getting into the Interstate era (late 1950s-), Maryland decided to forgo Interstate funding for the Northeast Expressway (JFK Highway) and charge tolls.
I-26 in Tennessee near the North Carolina border was built with state and ARC funds, not quite to Interstate standards. Of course it wasn't intended to be an Interstate at the time.

[cpzilliacus]

I've heard mention about some roads, particularly in the northeast, that were grandfathered into the Interstate system and thus don't need to abide by certain standards, such as lane/shoulder widths, presence of tolls, full service areas, etc, because they were and continue to be paid for with state and/or local funds.  The obvious ones being the turnpikes and thruways that were built in the 40s and 50s.

What other interstates fall into that category?  I thought I read I-95/MA-128 was grandfathered in and also has no federal funding, and thus continues to have service areas.  Is the Connecticut turnpike still fully state funded?  I wonder how much of the expressway systems in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. are like that as well considering when some of those were built.  I'm mainly just curious about which interstates have a higher possibility of being non-standard as a result of states refusing federal money and influence.

Two that come to mind in Maryland:

I-95 (JFK Highway) between Md. 43 (White Marsh) and the Delaware border.  It is my understanding that the MdTA has been very careful to never spend any federal money on this part of I-95.

I-895 (Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway), its entire length.

Remember that some Interstates were built with non-Interstate dollars but have since been maintained and improved with federal Interstate dollars.

Roads that come under that category include Maryland's I-270 (originally built as U.S. 240) and U.S. 50 (John Hanson Highway, "secret" I-595) between Md. 410 at New Carrollton and Md. 450 at Annapolis.

In Virginia, the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (I-95 and the northernmost section of I-85) was built with non-federal dollars, but was detolled entirely by 1992 and is now a "regular" Interstate.

[MrDisco99]

Interesting... Yes I imagine there's plenty of roads that were originally state-funded that eventually got rolled into the interstate system.  I'm mainly curious about ones like in Maryland where no federal money has gone into it so therefore the state agency can still do what it wants with it.

I-87 and I-287 in NYC are some obvious examples of non-standard interstates.  I imagine NYCDOT has refused federal funding as well, or those gas stations would have to go, right?

Is this mainly a northeast thing?

[Takumi]

Would current I-40 Business in Winston-Salem fall into this category as a past example? It was built in 1957 as the East-West Expressway and was mainline I-40 for awhile.

[Duke87]

Subtlety: interstates initially built with federal funding can't have service areas. However, to my knowledge there is no reason why receiving federal funding for maintenance or expansion would force their removal. ConnDOT has used federal money for upgrades to I-95, and those service plazas aren't going away.

[Beltway]

Would current I-40 Business in Winston-Salem fall into this category as a past example? It was built in 1957 as the East-West Expressway and was mainline I-40 for awhile.

I would say yes, as the I-40 bypass opened 36 years after that, in 1993.

I drove the I-40 Business Loop a couple weeks ago, and about 4 miles in the downtown has a design speed of about 35 to 45 mph depending on the section.

I-64 in Hampton, VA was built pre-Interstate as part of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel project and opened in 1957.  Some of the overpass clearances were lower than Interstate standards.  Since the late 1980s, all of it has been widened and rebuilt to Interstate standards.

[hbelkins]

The Kentucky Turnpike portion of I-65 and the Watterson Expressway, originally built as US 60. Both have been extensively rebuilt.

[Alps]

The examples you give are all pre-Interstate. Getting into the Interstate era (late 1950s-), Maryland decided to forgo Interstate funding for the Northeast Expressway (JFK Highway) and charge tolls.
I-26 in Tennessee near the North Carolina border was built with state and ARC funds, not quite to Interstate standards. Of course it wasn't intended to be an Interstate at the time.

I-87 is not pre-Interstate at all.

[NE2]

I-87 is not pre-Interstate at all.

Sure it is: http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=4.14730061637516E-05&lat=40.8889474550264&lon=-73.8909447612165&year=1954
(I was actually replying to MrDisco99, but you ever-so-rudely posted first )

[deathtopumpkins]

I-64 in Hampton, VA was built pre-Interstate as part of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel project and opened in 1957.  Some of the overpass clearances were lower than Interstate standards.  Since the late 1980s, all of it has been widened and rebuilt to Interstate standards.

Not all of it. I remember when VDOT released their proposals for the HRBT replacement last year the plans called for the reconstruction of multiple ramps on the Hampton side whose radii did not meet interstate standards and had too short of merge areas, or something to that effect, so not all of it was rebuilt.

[Alps]

I-87 is not pre-Interstate at all.

Sure it is: http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=4.14730061637516E-05&lat=40.8889474550264&lon=-73.8909447612165&year=1954
(I was actually replying to MrDisco99, but you ever-so-rudely posted first )

Aha. Mostly accurate, even at that. But I'm going by a "Major Deegan Blvd." reference on a period map, complete with divided-highway (as opposed to freeway) symbology. I'd need to see an aerial in the 1956-1958 range to know if that was a mapo or fact.

[Beltway]

I-64 in Hampton, VA was built pre-Interstate as part of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel project and opened in 1957.  Some of the overpass clearances were lower than Interstate standards.  Since the late 1980s, all of it has been widened and rebuilt to Interstate standards.

Not all of it. I remember when VDOT released their proposals for the HRBT replacement last year the plans called for the reconstruction of multiple ramps on the Hampton side whose radii did not meet interstate standards and had too short of merge areas, or something to that effect, so not all of it was rebuilt.

What ramps are those?  They upgraded I-64 to within 1/3 mile of the HRBT.  The Mallory Street interchange area was a rebuild, as a major curve on I-64 there was relocated onto a more gradual curve.

[NE2]

I-87 is not pre-Interstate at all.

Sure it is: http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=4.14730061637516E-05&lat=40.8889474550264&lon=-73.8909447612165&year=1954
(I was actually replying to MrDisco99, but you ever-so-rudely posted first )

Aha. Mostly accurate, even at that. But I'm going by a "Major Deegan Blvd." reference on a period map, complete with divided-highway (as opposed to freeway) symbology. I'd need to see an aerial in the 1956-1958 range to know if that was a mapo or fact.

It's obvious that construction started pre-Interstate, which is what really matters.

[Mark68]

I-180 in Cheyenne (which is actually Central Ave, complete with traffic lights).

The Terwilliger curves on I-5 in Portland (50 MPH substandard curves).

I-25 thru downtown Pueblo (50 MPH).

[SidS1045]

One of the more obvious examples is I-93 through Franconia Notch NH.  It's a narrow two-lane parkway (signed, IIRC, at 45mph) that was built that way to correct a discontinuity in the route but leave alone, as much as possible, the environment in the notch.  There were many concerns about building a standard Interstate through the notch, one of which was the possibility of increased damage and eventual failure of the rock formation The Old Man of the Mountain (on the south face of Cannon Mountain), which was being held together at the time with epoxy, chains, steel rods and turnbuckles.  However, The Old Man broke apart in 2003 following a thunderstorm and sudden freeze, not having anything to do with the I-93 parkway.

[agentsteel53]

The Terwilliger curves on I-5 in Portland (50 MPH substandard curves).

I-25 thru downtown Pueblo (50 MPH).

I-84 in Hartford is similarly substandard.

[PHLBOS]

MA 128 is a special case because I-95 wasn't moved until the late 70s (if not even the 80s). I think it was part of the deal to create a continuous Interstate route that allowed the service areas to remain. (Check out historic aerials from 1955, by the way - 128 was four lanes with cross streets. Some of those openings persisted for decades!)

I-95 shields started appearing on 128 from Canton to Lynnfield/Peabody (Exit 44/old Exit 30) in 1975.  First as trailblazer signs then gradually on ramp and pull-through signs until 1988 when the north 95-128 split interchange (Exit 45) in Peabody was finally completed.  After that, the majority of the green guidance signs simply use '95' with a supplemental '128' trailblazer signs; essentially the reverse of what one saw circa 1975.

I'm not positive of this but I do believe that most if not all construction-related project along the I-95 & I-93 stretches of 128 (Yankee Division Highway) since 1975 were and are eligible for interstate funding despite the two service plazas (Newton-southbound, Lexington-northbound) remaining.

IIRC, the stretches of highway portion of 128 (not the pre-highway segments) that had at-grade street crossings were along the upper-northern stretches that is still just 128 today.  Until the mid-1970s, there was a traffic light intersection with Forest Street in Peabody.

[hm insulators]

One of the more obvious examples is I-93 through Franconia Notch NH.  It's a narrow two-lane parkway (signed, IIRC, at 45mph) that was built that way to correct a discontinuity in the route but leave alone, as much as possible, the environment in the notch.  There were many concerns about building a standard Interstate through the notch, one of which was the possibility of increased damage and eventual failure of the rock formation The Old Man of the Mountain (on the south face of Cannon Mountain), which was being held together at the time with epoxy, chains, steel rods and turnbuckles.  However, The Old Man broke apart in 2003 following a thunderstorm and sudden freeze, not having anything to do with the I-93 parkway.

Aah, there's the problem: They forgot the duct tape!

[Perfxion]

I-78 in Jersey City to the Holland Tunnel. It still currently has street lights on it. It is interstate in the sense of going into another state, but I wouldn't call it a freeway.

[vdeane]

Would anyone?  I'm not even sure why they don't truncate it back; it's not like NY ever built it's portion of I-78 (or even decided what its portion of I-78 was going to be).

[Alps]

Would anyone?  I'm not even sure why they don't truncate it back; it's not like NY ever built it's portion of I-78 (or even decided what its portion of I-78 was going to be).

They're not truncating it because of the politics of getting another 2di to terminate in NYC. It's even signed as I-78 in the city (not on the mainline of course, since it's in a tunnel and all) and has exit numbers. I sketched something up in my spare time, but theoretically I-78 could totally be built as a freeway to connect to the tunnel, with the one problem that the closest street to the tunnel would have to be blocked off at 12th and 14th. The other streets would more than handle the traffic once all the cross-traffic (and green time) is elevated or depressed.

[roadman65]

Did not the I-295/ US 130 overlap in New Jersey originally have tight grade exit ramps that were not standard?  All the ramps were brought up to standards when it was widened from 4 to 6 lanes in the late 80's and early 90's.

I-80 through the Delaware Water Gap with a side road and narrow roadway that was built for US 611 and not intended for interstate mileage.

Then the I-280 in Newark at the Stickle Drawbridge which the bridge itself in addition to the non standard freeway is against interstate guidelines.  Remember that was for NJ 58 as a crosstown expressway.

[PHLBOS]

Did not the I-295/ US 130 overlap in New Jersey originally have tight grade exit ramps that were not standard?  All the ramps were brought up to standards when it was widened from 4 to 6 lanes in the late 80's and early 90's.

It did.  When I first moved into the Delaware valley in 1990, NJDOT was just starting to upgrade that stretch of I-295/US 130.  My guess would be that stretch was originally built as just US 130 and the 295 branch-offs came later.  For all I know, there may have been, at one time, a plan to build a separate I-295 corridor in that area but it never materialized.

It's just as well, the current upgraded road works fine.