Complaints that bother you (road-related)

[kphoger]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.

What's my prize?

[Scott5114]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.

What's my prize?

D&D is cancelled this week, so I'll award you...hm...challenge rating of 6...monster count multiplier...carry the two... 900 XP.

I'll also throw in a free copy of Linux.

[webny99]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.

What's my prize?

D&D is cancelled this week, so I'll award you...hm...challenge rating of 6...monster count multiplier...carry the two... 900 XP.

I'll also throw in a free copy of Linux.

And here I thought you were going to offer a signed plaque that said "Substandard freeways are not freeways". 

[michravera]

CASR-58 has been upgraded (and is continuing to be) in pieces so that it has started to look like it was meant to be an interstate, but never was, nor was it ever contemplated as such.

Except, as mentioned upthread, that the Barstow to Bakersfield section was submitted as a potential Interstate twice - in 1956 and 1968.

LOTS of segments were SUBMITTED, including US-50 from Sacramento to Carson City (also twice). The difference is that CASR-99 was APPROVED, but switched.

[Ned Weasel]

Toll roads.

Look at all the bridges that are structurally deficient or maybe on the verge of collapsing, and then come whine to me about having to pay a direct fee for something you use.

[kphoger]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.

What's my prize?

D&D is cancelled this week, so I'll award you...hm...challenge rating of 6...monster count multiplier...carry the two... 900 XP.

I'll also throw in a free copy of Linux.

I look forward to it.  When's the Oklahoma meet?

[DTComposer]

CASR-58 has been upgraded (and is continuing to be) in pieces so that it has started to look like it was meant to be an interstate, but never was, nor was it ever contemplated as such.

Except, as mentioned upthread, that the Barstow to Bakersfield section was submitted as a potential Interstate twice - in 1956 and 1968.

LOTS of segments were SUBMITTED, including US-50 from Sacramento to Carson City (also twice). The difference is that CASR-99 was APPROVED, but switched.

Sure - it was your use of "contemplated as such" that made me respond that way. The fact that it was submitted meant it was at least contemplated.

Meanwhile: I think most drivers don't know or care how shield types relate to funding, state-wide or nation-wide networks, or numbering grids and systems. They'd rather want to know that a certain route type meets a certain standard.

I would be OK with a system such as:
- Interstate-standard freeways get the Interstate shield;
- Sub-standard freeways, expressways, multi-lane divided highways, and two-lane rural routes where the speed limit is within 10mph of the state maximum (and have no higher-standard alternative) get the U.S shield;
- Other two-lane rural highways and urban street routes get the state shields.

Any blue or white state shields must change color to minimize confusion with Interstate or U.S. shields.

[/spitballing]

[Max Rockatansky]

Problem, there is a shit ton of freeways in California that are Interstate standard which don't even connect to another freeway much less an Interstate or US Route.

[Scott5114]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.

What's my prize?

D&D is cancelled this week, so I'll award you...hm...challenge rating of 6...monster count multiplier...carry the two... 900 XP.

I'll also throw in a free copy of Linux.

I look forward to it.  When's the Oklahoma meet?

October 22.

[hbelkins]

So I assume this means you don't agree with I-2/I-69C/I-69E? Should South Texas have I-T2/I-T69C/I-T69E until such point as they're connected to the main network?

Correct.  I don't think they should be signed as Interstates until they're connected to the network.  It drives me nuts when Interstates are signed in pieces.  (And yes, I realize that's the way it's always been done, such as I-40 as it replaced US-66.)  As it is with I-2 and I-69C/E/W/X/Y/Z, there's little difference from what they were before the red and blue signs went up:  they still just lead you to non-freeway routes.

I would say interstate standards still need to be enforced. It's important to have a defined standard for what a freeway is.

Our point is that there are freeways that aren't up to Interstate standards.  They're still freeways, though.

1. I'm old enough to remember when at least two segments of I-64 were not complete in Kentucky (between Lexington and Frankfort, and between Grayson and US 60 near the Boyd/Carter line west of Ashland). Should the rest of the route from Missouri to Virginia not have been signed until the whole thing was done?

2. The average person doesn't think about "interstate standards." The average person sees a full freeway with interchanges instead of at-grade intersections and doesn't care about things like shoulders, median width, etc. The layman doesn't see why one freeway can be an interstate and another cannot be.

Before the widening of I-65 in Kentucky was completed, I used to say that a passenger in a traveling vehicle could take a nap starting about Sonora or Glendale on I-65, then wake up somewhere between Elizabethtown and Bardstown on the Bluegrass Parkway. If they had never been on the route before and didn't see any signs designating the route, they'd have no clue they left an interstate for a non-interstate freeway.

[hotdogPi]

2. The average person doesn't think about "interstate standards." The average person sees a full freeway with interchanges instead of at-grade intersections and doesn't care about things like shoulders, median width, etc. The layman doesn't see why one freeway can be an interstate and another cannot be.

What about roads that are mostly grade-separated but have one or two at-grades? Thinking of MA 2 in/near Leominster and MA/RI 146 (one instance on each side of the state line) in particular.

[kphoger]

1. I'm old enough to remember when at least two segments of I-64 were not complete in Kentucky (between Lexington and Frankfort, and between Grayson and US 60 near the Boyd/Carter line west of Ashland). Should the rest of the route from Missouri to Virginia not have been signed until the whole thing was done?

If I had my way, no, it shouldn't have been signed until the gaps were eliminated.  I'm probably in the minority on this.

2. The average person doesn't think about "interstate standards." The average person sees a full freeway with interchanges instead of at-grade intersections and doesn't care about things like shoulders, median width, etc. The layman doesn't see why one freeway can be an interstate and another cannot be.

a.  The average person might not think about Interstate standards–until they're towing a camper, and suddenly things like hill grades and vertical clearances and shoulder width matter a lot more.

b.  There are more than just average people using the highway.  There's the truck driver who wonders if a given route is equivalent to the Interstate when he hears over the CB that there's a wreck ahead and he's on the hunt for an alternate route.  There's the farmer who bought an implement 500 miles away, borrowed his brother's flatbed trailer, is towing it back himself, and worries about shoulder width on bridges due to the overhang.

[Dirt Roads]

2. The average person doesn't think about "interstate standards." The average person sees a full freeway with interchanges instead of at-grade intersections and doesn't care about things like shoulders, median width, etc. The layman doesn't see why one freeway can be an interstate and another cannot be.

I also know some professionals don't understand this (yes, they are from NCDOT but they don't represent the state's point of view, either).

I do understand why the FHWA can't authorize the use of Federal funds to construct/reconstruct a freeway to substandard specifications for use in the Interstate system.  But it seems entirely wrong to reject perfectly good freeways posted at 70 MPH and above.  Worse, many DOTs simply postpone upgrading an existing Interstate [forever] because of the impossible cost of bringing the old route up to the new standards.  There are plenty of sections of sub-55 MPH freeways that ought to be removed from the Interstate system.

[michravera]

Problem, there is a shit ton of freeways in California that are Interstate standard which don't even connect to another freeway much less an Interstate or US Route.

Yeah, several different freeway sections of CASR-1 and US-101 come immediately to mind.

[Scott5114]

1. I'm old enough to remember when at least two segments of I-64 were not complete in Kentucky (between Lexington and Frankfort, and between Grayson and US 60 near the Boyd/Carter line west of Ashland). Should the rest of the route from Missouri to Virginia not have been signed until the whole thing was done?

If I had my way, no, it shouldn't have been signed until the gaps were eliminated.  I'm probably in the minority on this.

I would sign all routes like that as a future Interstate. Not like how we do them now, where the road really carries some other number but there's future Interstate signs tacked on. It would really carry the designation Future Interstate X, and be prominently signed as such at all junctions and assurance points, without any other number save for whatever routes would normally be concurrent.

For the shield, you could use one of these.

[kphoger]

I would sign all routes like that as a future Interstate. Not like how we do them now, where the road really carries some other number but there's future Interstate signs tacked on. It would really carry the designation Future Interstate X, and be prominently signed as such at all junctions and assurance points, without any other number save for whatever routes would normally be concurrent.

And, see, I've never liked the 'Future' banner either.

First, depending on how far along in the process that corridor is, there might be a chance it doesn't actually end up becoming an Interstate-grade freeway in its entirety.  For example, I think it's dumb to sign I-69 around Memphis–as 'Future' or otherwise–until such time as SIU 6b and SIU 8 have had r/o/w secured and construction funded.  This also means I think I-69 shouldn't be signed in Texas at all yet, considering it is nowhere near connecting to the rest of I-69.

Second, calling it a 'Future' Interstate could lead one to believe the corridor is already actually a freeway in its entirety, just awaiting official designation or minor upgrades–when that is not the case.

[hbelkins]

Second, calling it a 'Future' Interstate could lead one to believe the corridor is already actually a freeway in its entirety, just awaiting official designation or minor upgrades–when that is not the case.

One thing Kentucky did was sign routes "Future Interstate XX Corridor."

[MikieTimT]

I would sign all routes like that as a future Interstate. Not like how we do them now, where the road really carries some other number but there's future Interstate signs tacked on. It would really carry the designation Future Interstate X, and be prominently signed as such at all junctions and assurance points, without any other number save for whatever routes would normally be concurrent.

And, see, I've never liked the 'Future' banner either.

First, depending on how far along in the process that corridor is, there might be a chance it doesn't actually end up becoming an Interstate-grade freeway in its entirety.  For example, I think it's dumb to sign I-69 around Memphis–as 'Future' or otherwise–until such time as SIU 6b and SIU 8 have had r/o/w secured and construction funded.  This also means I think I-69 shouldn't be signed in Texas at all yet, considering it is nowhere near connecting to the rest of I-69.

Second, calling it a 'Future' Interstate could lead one to believe the corridor is already actually a freeway in its entirety, just awaiting official designation or minor upgrades–when that is not the case.

This sign in Arkansas means that it's inevitable, so consider the gap in the process of being filled.
https://goo.gl/maps/igo1iJed6Vvjc71u5