Interstate Standard: Close Enough!

[triplemultiplex]

With many freeways around the country on the verge of interstatehood, I've become frustrated with how strictly rules about when an interstate can be signed are applied.  We have hundreds of miles of interstate designations that are only being held back by some nitpicky rule about shoulders or medians or height clearances or other bullcrap.  Ever heard of close enough?  Can't we just get some of these bad boys signed with the understanding that the minor deficiencies will be corrected the next time that segment is resurfaced or whatever?

Shoulder's too narrow for I-22?
Need a few more miles of cable barrier for I-41?
Can't have a discontinuous I-49 down there in AR/LA?

I say, close enough!  We'll fix that in the next maintenance cycle.  They'll hook up eventually.  It's not like there's driveways and traffic signals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to throw out the standards for what gets to be an interstate.  I'm just asking for a little common sense.  I know there's always this argument that drivers have "expectations" for an interstate but I don't believe that for a minute.  As long as there's no cross traffic, the motoring public doesn't give a rip.  Furthermore, the existing interstate system is far from uniform.  There's tons of places with substandard curves and clearances and separation between carriageways and crummy little interchanges.

I'm just going to use I-41 (presumably) here in Wisconsin as an example.  We have a perfectly serviceable multilane divided controlled access facility that's supposed to be an interstate now, but we can't sign anything just yet because according to our precious interstate standards, the carriageways are too close together so before any red, white & blue shields can go up, first we need a hundred miles of median barrier.  Yes, there should be this improvement to that freeway, but it's going to happen anyway so just put up the interstate shields already.
Meanwhile in Oshkosh & Green Bay, massive moderization & expansion projects have begun which will bring the more "urban" sections of US 41 up to interstate standard.  But since I-41 has to wait for the whole corridor to be interstate standard, does that mean they're going to have to replace all the brand new signs that will have just been put up in those cities?  I say start putting up the shields now so the dozens of new BGS's and stuff will be interstatey right from the start.

Some of these nitpicky rules aren't even applied uniformly. Supposedly, we're not supposed to have a discontinuous interstate and that's why this AR 549 nonsense exists south of Texarkana.  Yet at the same time we currently have three I-69's that will eventually become one continuous interstate.  And what about NC's I-74?  Isn't that doubly discontinuous; both with the Midwest's I-74 and with itself in the same state?  Or is that US 220 portion still "future"? (Assuming I-74 will ever be continuous instead of a duplicate the likes of 76, 84, 86 & 88.)

I even object to the insistence that interstates must absolutely connect to other interstates in all cases.  For all intents and purposes, I-22's connection to I-65 is under construction and that's close enough for me to start throwing up shields on US 78.  That way once the connection is finished, the rest of the highway is ready to go.  In the interim, "TO I-22" signage can suffice. Same deal in Texarkana until a new I-30/I-49 interchange goes up.  Handle it the way they did while interstate system was still largely under construction.

This injection of same-page understanding I think saves everyone's time, money & resources.  Not to mention, the general public will see a much quicker turnaround between the time when they first hear about the new interstate coming to their area and the time when they see red, white & blue in their travels.
In conclusion, I humbly accept the offer of "Interstate Czar" to be the one who decides which soon-to-be interstates get signed.

[agentsteel53]

Agreed.  a lot of interstates have been grandfathered in.  And you are right, the general public frankly does not care if the shoulders are dirt, or the median is unbarriered, or any number of minor problems.  As long as there are no red lights, it's fine. 

while we're at it, though, can we throw out the Brooklyn-Queens section of I-278?  I can come up with no circumstance under which that route should be an interstate. 

[TheStranger]

Meanwhile in Oshkosh & Green Bay, massive moderization & expansion projects have begun which will bring the more "urban" sections of US 41 up to interstate standard.  But since I-41 has to wait for the whole corridor to be interstate standard, does that mean they're going to have to replace all the brand new signs that will have just been put up in those cities?  I say start putting up the shields now so the dozens of new BGS's and stuff will be interstatey right from the start.

This to me is exactly what is lame about "State Route 210" in California - it's clearly intended to be I-210, the freeway is complete, but it is awaiting an interchange reconstruction at I-215.  (Same deal goes for Route 15 south of I-8, awaiting an interchange rebuild at Route 94.)

Why has the TEMPORARY banner been depreciated so much since the 1980s?  It would perfectly cover so many of the scenarios here.

[bugo]

It's silly to build a new highway, give it a state route number, then change the number to an Interstate later down the road.  It's confusing and illogical.  They should go ahead and sign the Interstate numbers now.

[Revive 755]

Some of these nitpicky rules aren't even applied uniformly. Supposedly, we're not supposed to have a discontinuous interstate and that's why this AR 549 nonsense exists south of Texarkana.  Yet at the same time we currently have three I-69's that will eventually become one continuous interstate.  And what about NC's I-74?  Isn't that doubly discontinuous; both with the Midwest's I-74 and with itself in the same state?  Or is that US 220 portion still "future"? (Assuming I-74 will ever be continuous instead of a duplicate the likes of 76, 84, 86 & 88.)

Actually, INDOT is supposed to be signing the southern part of I-69 as future, per the last AASHTO SCORN meeting:
http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/SM2010_USRN_Natcez,%20MS%20Report%20to%20SCOH.pdf

I-64 in Missouri is a good example of a standards violator:  Most of the part east of I-270 was only just recently finally brought up to standards, though I think there is some substandard parts with the two double deck structures.  MoDOT had been signing the part west of I-270 as an interstate without AASHTO or FHWA approval (as seen in the USRN document linked above).

I even object to the insistence that interstates must absolutely connect to other interstates in all cases.  For all intents and purposes, I-22's connection to I-65 is under construction and that's close enough for me to start throwing up shields on US 78.  That way once the connection is finished, the rest of the highway is ready to go.  In the interim, "TO I-22" signage can suffice. Same deal in Texarkana until a new I-30/I-49 interchange goes up.  Handle it the way they did while interstate system was still largely under construction.

Considering that I-70 is allowed to be signed with its eastern connection to the PA Ripoff in Breesewood . . .

[TheStranger]

For that matter, this makes me wonder if CalTrans is ever going to sign the northbound Harbor Freeway as Interstate 110 - the southbound side from the Four-Level at US 101 to I-10 has had it since the early 1980s despite the fact AASHTO approval only covers the I-10-to-San Pedro segment! 

(I guess that has to be chalked up with US 377 as another example of a state DOT circumventing AASHTO designations.)

[froggie]

I'm just asking for a little common sense.

Common sense got thrown out the window when Interstate designations started getting legislatively assigned by Congress.

the general public frankly does not care if the shoulders are dirt

I'm calling shenanigans on this one.  In my experience, they DO care, especially when they're the ones having to pull over to the side for whatever reason.

[agentsteel53]

I'm calling shenanigans on this one.  In my experience, they DO care, especially when they're the ones having to pull over to the side for whatever reason.

I think the only situation in which it would be problematic is if I lost a tire and needed to jack up the car.  Otherwise, I'd have much more pressing concerns than the road surface - like the fact that pulling over to the side of an interstate is a fairly dangerous proposition.  If I had car trouble, I'd do my absolute damn best to make it to the next exit.

[Duke87]

The "Future I-XX" signage is particularly silly. If the freeway is good enough for that, it's good enough to have its "future" designation signed properly!

[agentsteel53]

the limited usage of Future shields is double extra silly.  The shield exists, why not use it in all contexts - reassurance, trailblazer, junction marker, etc... - showing "here is our new interstate freeway; there's a few stretches that don't quite meet spec, but we're working on it".

[3467]

I-72 in Illinois was denied initaill because Quincy wasnt considered a metro area but FHA relented when MO built it into Hannibal.
The denied I-174 for 34 because it ends before Monmouth. I wondered if they would change their mind since it now conncets with a couple of NHS routes. Unlike Quincy the issue has not been pressed. Illinois ususally asks . 39 was approved before WI added it or the 80 to 55 section was approved. Apparently sine it went from Rockford to 80 that was good enough.
Parts of US 20 in Iowa fit except for the gravel shoulders. Should Iowa try for I 380?

[vdeane]

I agree, we shouldn't withhold Interstate status because of tiny issues many people don't even know about, particularly in states where almost none of the Interstates meet modern standards (such as NY).  If we're going to do this, then I propose that we revoke Interstate status from all roads that don't meet the modern standards, though that would probably leave the entire east coast without an Interstate system.

[SSOWorld]

And yet I-180 in IL doesn't end at a major metro area

[Brandon]

And yet I-180 in IL doesn't end at a major metro area

Three words:

Defense Contractor Clout.

[agentsteel53]

Three words:

Defense Contractor Clout.

what about I-155, then?  it kinda peters out in Tennessee...

[3467]

Perhaps I-174 needs to be pushed again esp since its part of Illinois 110 the Chicago KC Highway....
Very good points

[Bickendan]

I agree, we shouldn't withhold Interstate status because of tiny issues many people don't even know about, particularly in states where almost none of the Interstates meet modern standards (such as NY).  If we're going to do this, then I propose that we revoke Interstate status from all roads that don't meet the modern standards, though that would probably leave the entire east coast without an Interstate system.

I'm not seeing a problem here

[golden eagle]

Three words:

Defense Contractor Clout.

what about I-155, then?  it kinda peters out in Tennessee...

Now that you bring it up, I don't quite get that one. It's not like Dyersburg is a very large place. It may be useful only if there's an hours-long backup further down I-55 towards Memphis.

[TheStranger]

Three words:

Defense Contractor Clout.

what about I-155, then?  it kinda peters out in Tennessee...

Now that you bring it up, I don't quite get that one. It's not like Dyersburg is a very large place. It may be useful only if there's an hours-long backup further down I-55 towards Memphis.

And it'll remain an oddly-located connector even once I-69 is built paralleling US 51...

[huskeroadgeek]

Three words:

Defense Contractor Clout.

what about I-155, then?  it kinda peters out in Tennessee...

Now that you bring it up, I don't quite get that one. It's not like Dyersburg is a very large place. It may be useful only if there's an hours-long backup further down I-55 towards Memphis.

Actually, I think I-155 is reasonably useful. It's a good connection from I-55 to US 51 towards Union City, TN and all the major points in western Kentucky. It also connects to US 412 which goes to Jackson and provides a shortcut between I-55 in Missouri and I-40 in Tennessee without having to go through Memphis.

[golden eagle]

Perhaps, 155 should've been extended to I-40 at Jackson or somewhere between there and Memphis.

[huskeroadgeek]

Perhaps, 155 should've been extended to I-40 at Jackson or somewhere between there and Memphis.

That would make a nice freeway connector-I wonder if they've ever proposed upgrading US 412 to freeway status. It's already 4-lane expressway with partial-controlled-access between I-155 and I-40.

[mukade]

I would generally agree with the original post, but would change it a bit and say that a second level Interstate designation sharing the same number as standard Interstate freeways would solve a lot of problems. Here are two examples of the types of roads that might get this designation:
1) Future I-69 roads such as the three Kentucky parkways and Indiana SR 37 - until they are upgraded
2) Major expressways that have no need to be upgraded to full freeway standards in the foreseeable future such as US 81 between I-70 and I-80 in Kansas and Missouri

Interstate numbers are primarily a convenience for motorists, and any highway with the Interstate "brand" represents a certain level of safety and quality. However, that level of quality doesn't necessarily always have to be the ultimate freeway in my opinion. Perhaps another prerequisite would be that the road must be part of the NHS to gain this upgrade, and certainly there would be many other requirements. Maybe the second tier Interstate shields could have black lettering on a white backgreound so as to not dilute the image of the red, white, and blue ones, but there would be some substantial benefits to motorists including: continuity of routes resulting in less confusion, expansion of Interstate highways into less populated areas, a distinction from US and state routes which have such a wide range of quality, and possibly even make unnecessary improvements for certain roads less tempting.

Like the original post, the bar would still be high, but just not quite as high to gain some sort of Interstate route number.

[agentsteel53]

NHS

I was with you until that acronym.  The NHS is the ultimate example of what the average motoring public doesn't care about in the slightest.  Hell, a lot of roadgeeks have never heard of the NHS.  I barely know what it is, and couldn't tell you where to find a list of all NHS roads, and I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable about both the interstate and US route systems!

If it's a good road, it's a good road, and it doesn't need some invisible seal of approval.  

[bugo]

The NHS is the ultimate example of what the average motoring public doesn't care about in the slightest.  Hell, a lot of roadgeeks have never heard of the NHS.  I barely know what it is, and couldn't tell you where to find a list of all NHS roads, and I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable about both the interstate and US route systems!

If it's a good road, it's a good road, and it doesn't need some invisible seal of approval.  

Maybe NHS highways should be signed with a special marker.  Possibly a colored version of the US or state shield.  Look for the turquoise shield and you know you're on a major highway.  Or they could be signed using an additional sign underneath the route marker.