Virginia

[Mapmikey]

You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.

It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.

He was looking at the 1959 Topo which shows it in two places as I-95 between US 1 and the actual I-95

[Beltway]

You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.

It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.

He was looking at the 1959 Topo which shows it in two places as I-95 between US 1 and the actual I-95

I see it shows the RPT without any of the subsequent Interstate highway connections (I-85, I-95 and I-64), with the temporary termini in Dinwiddie and Henrico counties.

I see the I-95 shield near US-1 in Dinwiddie County ... that is wrong.

USGS maps are not necessarily completely accurate when they get outside of the topo itself.

[Alps]

You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.

It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.

He was looking at the 1959 Topo which shows it in two places as I-95 between US 1 and the actual I-95

I could believe that because there was one short segment of freeway that tied into the rest of I-95, with no southward connections, that it was signed as I-95 for the time being.

[Beltway]

He was looking at the 1959 Topo which shows it in two places as I-95 between US 1 and the actual I-95

I could believe that because there was one short segment of freeway that tied into the rest of I-95, with no southward connections, that it was signed as I-95 for the time being.

I-95 was already located on the US-301 corridor, and I-85 on the US-1 corridor, heading south from Petersburg, in 1957 VDH planning/location studies.

I would tend to believe that the USGS made a mapo.

[D-Dey65]

You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.

It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.

Check out the 1959 topographical map, and scroll towards US 1.

I would tend to believe that the USGS made a mapo.

That's what I'm thinking.

[sprjus4]

^

Likely either a "mapo" or it was originally sign-posted I-95 all the way to US-1, but removed once the actual I-95 segment south of the Turnpike was completed just a few years later in 1961.

[1995hoo]

Did Virginia ever use "TEMP I-95" signage, such that perhaps what you're seeing is a function of someone mapping that and omitting the "TEMP" designation? I either have, or more likely used to have, some old maps from before I-95 was completed in Maryland between the Beltways that showed the B-W Parkway as "TEMP I-95," and I seem to recall there was a period more recently in which a "TEMP I-77" was designated near Columbia, South Carolina, as said road was not yet finished there. Those two scenarios are what prompted me to wonder if Virginia ever did the same (I don't recall, as the years cited in the posts above were before I was born).

[plain]

Did Virginia ever use "TEMP I-95" signage, such that perhaps what you're seeing is a function of someone mapping that and omitting the "TEMP" designation? I either have, or more likely used to have, some old maps from before I-95 was completed in Maryland between the Beltways that showed the B-W Parkway as "TEMP I-95," and I seem to recall there was a period more recently in which a "TEMP I-77" was designated near Columbia, South Carolina, as said road was not yet finished there. Those two scenarios are what prompted me to wonder if Virginia ever did the same (I don't recall, as the years cited in the posts above were before I was born).

The only TEMP designation I'm familiar with in VA is the former TEMP VA 168 in Hampton and Newport News

[hbelkins]

Did Virginia ever use "TEMP I-95" signage, such that perhaps what you're seeing is a function of someone mapping that and omitting the "TEMP" designation? I either have, or more likely used to have, some old maps from before I-95 was completed in Maryland between the Beltways that showed the B-W Parkway as "TEMP I-95," and I seem to recall there was a period more recently in which a "TEMP I-77" was designated near Columbia, South Carolina, as said road was not yet finished there. Those two scenarios are what prompted me to wonder if Virginia ever did the same (I don't recall, as the years cited in the posts above were before I was born).

My memory is fuzzy on this, but I think the segment of the I-77/I-81 overlap between Wytheville and Ft. Chiswell may have been signed as a TEMP route along US 11/US 52.

[amroad17]

Actually, it was signed with TO I-81 and TO I-77 signs along that stretch in the mid-1970's.  This was shortly after (a year or two) I-77 opened north out of Wytheville.

AFAIK, Virginia did not use TEMP banners, only TO banners.

[Beltway]

Actually, it was signed with TO I-81 and TO I-77 signs along that stretch in the mid-1970's.  This was shortly after (a year or two) I-77 opened north out of Wytheville.
AFAIK, Virginia did not use TEMP banners, only TO banners.

I don't recall any TEMP banners.

That would not be logical to use on anything other than a freeway with 4 or more lanes, a highway below Interstate standards which at least could be called a "temporary Interstate highway" pending the building of an Interstate highway segment to replace it.

[sprjus4]

That would not be logical to use on anything other than a freeway with 4 or more lanes, a highway below Interstate standards which at least could be called a "temporary Interstate highway" pending the building of an Interstate highway segment to replace it.

"TEMP" banners were used on arterial highway segments that were not freeways in the past that connected two disconnected segments planned to be filled.

In North Carolina, US-301 and US-29 / US-70, 4-lane divided highways, but not freeways, were marked as TEMP I-95 and TEMP I-85 respectively before the interstate highway segments were completed on new location.

Currently, I-26 north of Asheville is designated as FUTURE I-26 as it's a freeway that connects the I-26 system through and north of Asheville, but does not meet interstate standards yet lacking 10 foot paved shoulders in area, plus the mess of an interchange complex with single-lane, 25 mph ramps through Asheville.

[Beltway]

"TEMP" banners were used on arterial highway segments that were not freeways in the past that connected two disconnected segments planned to be filled.

But they shouldn't be.

In North Carolina, US-301 and US-29 / US-70, 4-lane divided highways, but not freeways, were marked as TEMP I-95 and TEMP I-85 respectively before the interstate highway segments were completed on new location.

A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.

Currently, I-26 north of Asheville is designated as FUTURE I-26 as it's a freeway that connects the I-26 system through and north of Asheville, but does not meet interstate standards yet lacking 10 foot paved shoulders in area, plus the mess of an interchange complex with single-lane, 25 mph ramps through Asheville.

A "future Interstate highway" means that none exists currently and that maybe one may exist in the future.  It is information on a proposal for the future.

That doesn't need to be restricted to any particular class of highway currently.

[Alps]

"TEMP" banners were used on arterial highway segments that were not freeways in the past that connected two disconnected segments planned to be filled.

But they shouldn't be.

In North Carolina, US-301 and US-29 / US-70, 4-lane divided highways, but not freeways, were marked as TEMP I-95 and TEMP I-85 respectively before the interstate highway segments were completed on new location.

A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.

Currently, I-26 north of Asheville is designated as FUTURE I-26 as it's a freeway that connects the I-26 system through and north of Asheville, but does not meet interstate standards yet lacking 10 foot paved shoulders in area, plus the mess of an interchange complex with single-lane, 25 mph ramps through Asheville.

A "future Interstate highway" means that none exists currently and that maybe one may exist in the future.  It is information on a proposal for the future.

That doesn't need to be restricted to any particular class of highway currently.

Please cite your source for TEMP banner standards

[sprjus4]

But they shouldn't be.

But they were. Please cite a source that claims the TEMP banner could only be applied to pre-existing freeway segments.

A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.

Temporary in the sense they filled the gap for the interstate thru traffic where a segment did not yet exist. They weren't freeways, but served interstate traffic and were marked as such to provide continuity. Please cite a source that claims the TEMP banner could only be applied to pre-existing freeway segments.

A "future Interstate highway" means that none exists currently and that maybe one may exist in the future.  It is information on a proposal for the future.

That doesn't need to be restricted to any particular class of highway currently.

My point was the way the banners are signed. It's not merely a green sign that says "Future I-XX", it's an actual interstate shield with a directional marker that reads "FUTURE". Hard to notice it's not an actual interstate highway shield if you don't look close enough and it provides continuity for drivers.

[Beltway]

A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.

Temporary in the sense they filled the gap for the interstate thru traffic where a segment did not yet exist. They weren't freeways, but served interstate traffic and were marked as such to provide continuity. Please cite a source that claims the TEMP banner could only be applied to pre-existing freeway segments.

I never said there was an official policy, just that a "temporary Interstate highway" shouldn't logically be something that is not even on a limited access right-of-way let alone not grade separated and maybe only 2 lanes.

An unresolved question on highway forums is whether the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway was "TEMP I-95" before I-95 was completed, there have been possible recollections on either side.  Nevertheless, that would be an appropriate use of the "TEMP" designation.

My point was the way the banners are signed. It's not merely a green sign that says "Future I-XX", it's an actual interstate shield with a directional marker that reads "FUTURE". Hard to notice it's not an actual interstate highway shield if you don't look close enough and it provides continuity for drivers.

Seems pretty clear to me.  Calling something "future" means that it doesn't exist now.

[sprjus4]

I never said there was an official policy, just that a "temporary Interstate highway" shouldn't logically be something that is not even on a limited access right-of-way let alone grade separated.

Well it was in the height of interstate highway construction in the 70s - 80s.

The point was to fill the gap between two disconnected interstate highway segments for long-distance traffic.

As an example, US-301 between Emporia and Petersburg could've logically been "TEMP I-95" before it was constructed.

Do "BUSINESS" interstate highway routes have to be on limited-access / grade-separated right of way?

[Beltway]

Well it was in the height of interstate highway construction in the 70s - 80s.
The point was to fill the gap between two disconnected interstate highway segments for long-distance traffic.
As an example, US-301 between Emporia and Petersburg could've logically been "TEMP I-95" before it was constructed.

Using the trailblazer "TO I-95" seemed like a good way to handle a gap of that length.  "This highway will take you to I-95."

Do "BUSINESS" interstate highway routes have to be on limited-access / grade-separated right of way?

That is a separate question, as they are not Interstate highways, although one may be a freeway.

The shields are green and they give the route number, the word "Business" and either the word "Loop" or "Spur."  They don't have the word "Interstate."  See -- https://tinyurl.com/svka9sg

[sprjus4]

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/i64i264%20Phase%20III%20Subprojects_UPC%20106693_11.20.2019.pdf

Draft drawings from the I-264 Phase III Study recommendations were posted on the HRTPO's website today.

Here's some notable features from the concept -
- The Newtown Rd interchange would be overhauled on the northern quadrant, a new folded diamond interchange from the roadway, a new flyover dedicated for I-64 bound traffic to begin before the interchange, and allowing traffic from Newtown Rd to enter. The ramp from I-264 west to I-64 east would be relocated to the right as apart of this new flyover, eliminating the substandard left exit that presently exists. The existing C/D road that travels through the Military Hwy interchange area would have a separate exit splitting off at the I-64 interchange.
- The flyover from I-264 east to I-64 west would be relocated to the right.
- The flyover from I-64 east to I-264 east would be relocated to enter I-264 east on the right hand side, tying into the recently-completed flyover.
- The Military Hwy interchange on I-264 would be converted into a folded diamond interchange, contrary to another study recommendations a few years ago for a diverging diamond.
- I-64 between Providence Rd and Military Hwy would be widened, presumably to 8-10 lanes including auxiliary lanes.
- The Indian River Rd interchange on I-64 would be converted into a partial cloverleaf interchange.

And the most interesting concept...
- The Northampton Blvd interchange would be expanded to include an interchange with Wesleyan Dr / Premium Outlets Blvd tying directly into the I-64 interchange ramps, providing a full freeway design along Northampton Blvd from I-64 to north of the former golf course. The first ever step towards any freeway along Northampton Blvd.

[sprjus4]

That is a separate question, as they are not Interstate highways, although one may be a freeway.

The shields are green and they give the route number, the word "Business" and either the word "Loop" or "Spur."  They don't have the word "Interstate."  See -- https://tinyurl.com/svka9sg

It's really the same thing, it's a subset of an interstate highway that doesn't have to be a freeway.

Much like the Business Loops / Spurs and the Future trailblazer used on I-26, I don't believe the TEMP banners had the word "Interstate".

[sparker]

A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.

While that may be the case in present-day VA and/or NC, it certainly wasn't in CA prior to completion of it's share of the Interstate system.  For instance, I-505 was signed as a "temporary" Interstate starting circa 1967 while it was a 2-lane expressway (w/grade separations) albeit with two short freeway sections at the CA 128 and CA 16 junctions.  That signage was for the full 33-mile length of the facility, including on the BGS's at I-80 and I-5, its termini; a "Temporary" banner was affixed to the BGS, at least at 505's southern terminus at Vacaville.  Freestanding shields were plentiful along its length.  The build-out to full Interstate standards started about 1973 with the center section between Winters & CA 16 the first to be converted, with the remainder completed by 1980.  Another example was the temporary I-5 between Stockton and Sacramento; the interim route, clearly signed as "Temporary I-5" was not only signed along CA 99 between the two cities (with a lengthy freeway section clearly not meeting Interstate standards) but also on the surface connector in Stockton comprising portions of CA 4 and CA 26.  And as late as the opening of the final section of I-5 in the Sacramento River canyon between Vollmers and Castle Crags, the former US 99 4-lane expressway was signed as "Temporary I-5" until bypassed/supplanted in early 1992.  So at least in CA, "temporary" Interstate signage was posted on quite a few roadways -- mostly in the northern part of the state.  An exception to that was the "Temporary I-215" signage on old US 395 between Temecula and Riverside during the 1980's and early '90's, replaced a piece at a time by actual Interstate signage as the facility was brought up to appropriate standards. 

It's just too bad that most of this sort of signage came about after the demise of the late & lamented CH&PW periodical -- or pix of these would likely have been part of their state system improvement coverage!

[Beltway]

A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.

While that may be the case in present-day VA and/or NC, it certainly wasn't in CA prior to completion of it's share of the Interstate system.  <examples>

I don't deny that there are instances contrary to what I said above, but I simply didn't like or approve of the practice.

That is a separate question, as they are not Interstate highways, although one may be a freeway.
The shields are green and they give the route number, the word "Business" and either the word "Loop" or "Spur."  They don't have the word "Interstate."  See -- https://tinyurl.com/svka9sg

It's really the same thing, it's a subset of an interstate highway that doesn't have to be a freeway.

But not Interstate highways.  As they were conceived, they were arterial business connectors between an Interstate highway and a downtown, to guide traffic between them.

The use of them on freeways such as at Spartanburg, SC, came much later, like 1990s+.

Much like the Business Loops / Spurs and the Future trailblazer used on I-26, I don't believe the TEMP banners had the word "Interstate".

Not my recollection, but like with the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway, until we can find historical photos of the highway signing, that will remain unresolved.

[Alps]

Scott: I object to your use of "should" when discussing a traffic control device. You know well that "should" has a specific meaning in the context of the MUTCD. You ought to state "my opinion is", and then we would have less reason to argue it, since all we have are opinions on this.

[jakeroot]

Much like the Business Loops / Spurs and the Future trailblazer used on I-26, I don't believe the TEMP banners had the word "Interstate".

Not my recollection, but like with the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway, until we can find historical photos of the highway signing, that will remain unresolved.

Not sure if you guys are just talking about VA; an "I-90 TEMP" sign at the Seattle Ferry Terminal, installed god knows how long ago, shows (yes, still there, 25+ years after I-90 opened) a full interstate shield with the word "TEMP" below it.

The route is no longer possible to follow, as all other TEMP signs have been removed. But, to access I-90 at the time, it was a good two mile jaunt via city streets to the Lake Washington Floating Bridge.

What I don't recall is whether or not the surface streets were actually signed as "I-90 TEMP", or "TO I-90 TEMP", or if only the bridge was labelled with one of those. The bridge was definitely part of of the temporary route; I believe the permanent freeway ended at the 405 east of Seattle until the rest was completed in the late 80s/early 90s.

[Beltway]

Scott: I object to your use of "should" when discussing a traffic control device. You know well that "should" has a specific meaning in the context of the MUTCD. You ought to state "my opinion is", and then we would have less reason to argue it, since all we have are opinions on this.

Of course it is my opinion, and not some official statement.  And we are talking about a practice utilized decades ago on missing links on the original Interstate highway system that was authorized in 1956 and 1968, after it was mostly built but missing links remained.  Like before 1990.

I am a stickler (maybe too much so but, hey) for how the English language is utilized, that should be obvious based in various comments (complaints) over the years.  In this case it is when to call something a "temporary Interstate highway."