(Sorry for the cryptic title...)
I was thinking about how Interstate standards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards) are pretty strict, and they make it so a lot of freeways have to receive renovations and upgrades for them to become Interstate worthy.
But what if we loosened those standards a bit? Obviously the road would still have to be a fully limited access roadway (*cough I-180 *cough*), but what if, for example, the shoulder width didn't matter?
I'm not saying this so we can get more Interstates in the system, either. I'm questioning if money could be saved on converting existing freeways that aren't exactly Interstate standard into Interstates (whether they be 2di or 3di), versus the risk to motorists on skipping some of these upgrades. Shoulder-width, for example, seems to have no problem being substandard in areas like Chester, Pennsylvania, which has a very narrow shoulder (and is EXTREMELY close to residential properties!) but I'm pretty positive nothing bad has happened because of it.
Your thoughts?
Pretty solid concept, though I'd like to point out some things....
Shoulder width needs to fit at least one car, because if there is no median, the shoulder is your backup breakdown lane. That's why shoulder width is needed. Shoulder width also has to be wide to avoid collisions with broken-down cars.
I know NYSDOT has mulled this over time and time again when it has come to the NY 17/I-86 conversion. At one point, I did hear one official consider just making NY 17 "look" like an interstate because of the incredible cost of getting NY 17 to Interstate standards, especially in Region 8 (Hudson Valley).
Then again, as leadership changes, priorities change. The conversion was pushed by some commissioners and back-burnered by others, IMHO. There was one story floating around that a previous commissioner was driving down NY 17 around the time of the Parksville project and the commissioner's reaction was, "Why are we doing this again?"
Although I suppose amongst us roadgeeks that we'd love more interstate mileage out there, there's actually a lot of nuances and influences on the decisions that are made to either charge ahead with the conversion or not. Cost is not necessarily the biggest obstacle.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
Your thoughts?
Could you give us an example of a route you had in mind?
I posted some news (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5665.msg2073198#msg2073198) about an update to the CSVT project in Selinsgrove, and that got me thinking about a semi-related topic.
Take I-83, for example. I-83 is the de-facto replacement for former US 111 and the Susquehanna Trail. As numerous fictional highways threads and roadgeek sites have mentioned, there are some compelling arguments for extending I-83 northward via the current US 15 corridor, perhaps as far as Rochester.
But even after (if) the CSVT is completed around 2024, there will still be that pesky 29-mile gap between the Clarks Ferry Bridge and the end of the current freeway south of Selinsgrove–29 lousy miles out of what would otherwise be 347 continuous miles of freeway between Fayette Street in Baltimore and I-590 in Rochester. And yet the semi-limited access configuration between Amity Hall and Port Treverton, with no stop signs or traffic signals and very little turning traffic, serves the corridor well enough.
While I wouldn't be in favor of slapping standard Interstate shields on that section of 11/15, I think there is merit to having some kind of sub-Interstate shield (perhaps a hollow Interstate outline without the colors or the word "
INTERSTATE" ) to bridge the numerical designation between sections of Interstate-quality freeway. And I don't think a state route marker is the answer, either. The marker should subconsciously suggest to the user: "
You're following the I-83 corridor, but you're not getting an Interstate-standard experience in this section." (Yes, I realize care is needed to avoid confusion with the Business shields.) If and when the gaps are closed through new construction or reconfiguration of the existing road, standard I shields would go up.
I could imagine this being used on an extended I-83, I-86, I-9 (CA 99), and maybe elsewhere.
Maybe something like this...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/461/19002045415_25f6b32751_o.png)
Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
I'm not saying this so we can get more Interstates in the system, either.
What's the point of loosening design standards if you don't plan to add more Interstates? I don't like over-regulation, by any means, but it shouldn't be as cut and dry as having two lanes in each direction with grade-separated interchanges. We need to have standards. People should be able to ride on an Interstate, and expect long, sweeping corners, a standard lane width, large shoulders, and so on.
I don't see the point in not following design standards at all. It would reduce safety. I could see it as a tempoarary fix until the road is finished being upgraded to standards. Or if the road has to be grandfathered.
As I've said many times before, the Kentucky parkways are a perfect example. We're having to spend millions of dollars for upgrades on limited-access freeways that are in better shape design-wise than a lot of roads that already have an Interstate shield (I'm looking at you, PA Turnpike and I-70 between Washington and New Stanton).
Another good example is US 19/23 between Asheville and Mars Hill. I don't see any reason it can't be signed as I-26 right now.
If the general public can't tell the difference between an Interstate freeway and a non-Interstate freeway, then by all means, designate it as an Interstate if it makes sense.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2015, 10:12:27 PM
As I've said many times before, the Kentucky parkways are a perfect example. We're having to spend millions of dollars for upgrades on limited-access freeways that are in better shape design-wise than a lot of roads that already have an Interstate shield (I'm looking at you, PA Turnpike and I-70 between Washington and New Stanton).
Good to hear that it's not just NY's FHWA Division Office that's being a stickler about this stuff. :D
This idea is fucking retarded. What's next, slapping Interstate shields on one lane National Forest gravel roads
Quote from: bugo on June 20, 2015, 10:20:36 PM
This idea is fucking retarded. What's next, slapping Interstate shields on one lane National Forest gravel roads
Well, I mean, it was suggested as loosening standards "a bit" - not to have no standards whatsoever. :poke:
Plus, I don't think one lane National Forest roads have any shoulder at all, do they? :bigass:
Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2015, 10:12:27 PM
As I've said many times before, the Kentucky parkways are a perfect example. We're having to spend millions of dollars for upgrades on limited-access freeways that are in better shape design-wise than a lot of roads that already have an Interstate shield (I'm looking at you, PA Turnpike and I-70 between Washington and New Stanton).
Exactly. I've looked at Kentucky's parkways that are slated to be designated as I-69 and I don't really see a need to have to upgrade them - they look fine to me as-is as an Interstate road.
When I was briefly doing North Carolina highway maps on Wikipedia, I noticed that sections of I-73/I-74 (https://www.google.com/maps/mms?ll=35.38933,-79.767351&spn=0.027219,0.111494&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=35.389296,-79.767392&panoid=Rbv4dEAn3hm_gEXmV9El5A&cbp=11,184.46,,1,4.5) barely have any shoulder but the whole reason I-26 can't be continuous is pretty much due to one interchange in Asheville. Why do some roads get "grandfathered in" (like the former example in frickin' 2013) while others have to wait for expensive upgrades?
Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 11:28:52 PM
they look fine to me as-is as an Interstate road.
No doubt they look fine, but operation-wise, they're most likely substandard. Looks can be deceiving.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2015, 10:12:27 PM
As I've said many times before, the Kentucky parkways are a perfect example. We're having to spend millions of dollars for upgrades on limited-access freeways that are in better shape design-wise than a lot of roads that already have an Interstate shield (I'm looking at you, PA Turnpike and I-70 between Washington and New Stanton).
I'm not familiar with Kentucky ... do you mind very briefly listing the changes being made to the parkways to meet Interstate standards? I assume basic modifications such as shoulder and lane width changes, but are there others?
I'm betting median width.
There are terribly substandard freeways all throughout the system, so not allowing a freeway to become one on the basis of one or two bridges/interchanges is insanely hypocritical in my opinion.
iPhone
In my opinion I don't think every freeway in the US should be an interstate. If a freeway isn't quite interstate standards what is wrong with just signing / leaving it signed as a US or state highway? Like why can't NY 17 just be left alone?
Quote from: jakerootI'm not familiar with Kentucky ... do you mind very briefly listing the changes being made to the parkways to meet Interstate standards? I assume basic modifications such as shoulder and lane width changes, but are there others?
Quote from: RothmanI'm betting median width.
Median width (mitigatable with guardrail), but also interchange ramp geometry and ramp tapers.
Regarding the variance/disparity in design standards, keep in mind that the Interstate system is almost 60 years old and standards change over time. For example, shoulders on bridges weren't mandated in all cases until the late 1960s. And most state DOTs have been slow in upgrading facilities after standards change (hence why we STILL have many bridges that lack shoulders). It's been noted time and again that most state DOTS (and ESPECIALLY the politicians that fund them) would rather build new roads than upgrade what they already have.
As for those who think standards could/should be relaxed, that may be possible for some aspects. But safety features (which IMO include shoulders) should NOT be compromised on.
A lot of people always bring up NJ 42 and the AC Expressway for examples. Other than the shorter than normal accel/decal lanes, Rt. 42 appears to be interstate quality. And the AC Expressway - there's really nothing on there that's not interstate quality. Now, there's a difference between not-interstate quality that needs to be updated, and NJ's unwillingness to allow those two routes to be given interstate status.
NJ 55 falls under this also - nothing there would be an issue, from my view. Heck, they could extend I-76 a bit to Rt. 55 just so Rt. 55 can be a 3 di connecting to a 2 di.
And the NJ Turnpike from 1 - 6? No reason here either it's not an interstate.
In the examples above, it may not be that they're not interstate quality, but the state doesn't want to give them the interstate status. There's obviously other examples throughout the country that could quality to be an interstate today, or need minor upgrades to become an interstate, but the state could have their reasons why they wouldn't want to give those highways interstate status.
There used to be more of an advantage to having more Interstate miles before MAP-21: There was a fund source dedicated to interstates -- "IM" or Interstate Maintenance. With MAP-21, that fund source along with others was lumped into the National Highway Performance Program which has the "broader" eligibility of all routes on the National Highway System.
As a side note, at least in NY, the lumping in of old HBRR funds (Highway-Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation) into NHPP created a lot of pain since a lot of HBRR could be used on the entire federal-aid system. So, Congress' and FHWA's dirty little secret is that they focused more funding onto National Highway System facilities -- when (again, at least in NY) state DOTs may be finding that more severe needs are not on the NHS.
...
In terms of older highways being designated interstates under older, looser standards, the state-of-the-art has definitely matured over the last half century and more, so I can see why FHWA would want to be a little stricter nowadays with more safety data than ever to back up the specifications.
Interstates with narrow medians have been fitted with cable guards - a.k.a. "Wait-a-minute" cables.
Agreement on "not everything needs to be an Interstate." Politicians now often put designations on roads more as a commercial ploy these days (I-41 is a classic example of this) or as a pork grind (I-99) where neither one was required. US-41 would have gotten the 70 mph designation even without the red-white-blue shield on it if WisDOT played their cards right. What they DO need to consider is Control cities. US-45 in Milwaukee had "Fond du Lac" as one - no Appleton. I don't know about you, but what in Fond du Lac is commercially viable? All they really need to to is re-route US-41... Done.
What about all the roads that have Interstate Shields that aren't up to Interstate Standards, like basically all the early designated ones. With the remaining drawbridges, minimal interior shoulders (I'm looking at you, every city that expanded into the median then used K-Rails/Jersey Barriers to separate traffic), short exit ramps, minimal to no acceleration/deceleration lanes (Michigan), and driveways (Texas). The standards are just that, standards, but there are so may ways to get waivers, it isn't even funny. What really bothers me is the areas that don't apply for Interstate Designation, even though they could easily get a waiver, at least for part of the roadway, or are better constructed than many of the pioneer Interstates.
Example - I don't understand why CA 110 isn't I-110. The roadway seems well build, and aside from a few deficient exits, and minimal shoulders, isn't much different that other Interstate designated highways in other cities.
Same goes for other 3-DIs that for all intents and purpose continue after meeting their parent Interstate, but change designation, like I-405 around Seattle. Is there really a logical reason why I-405 doesn't continue to SR 509, or, since being twinned, it doesn't continue to SR 99 in the North?
I agree that not everything needs to be and Interstate, but some logic, would be useful.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
Your thoughts?
I am not in favor. We have plenty of substandard freeways in the U.S. in places like Pennsylvania and New York City already, and drivers have a right to expect a freeway designed to Interstate standards if they see that shield.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 08:48:37 AM
And the NJ Turnpike from 1 - 6? No reason here either it's not an interstate.
As I have suggested elsewhere, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (and probably NJDOT) need to let go of that silly "secret" N.J. 700 and ask the federal government for approval to designate the Turnpike from Interchanges 1 to 6 as I-895.
Several other states have 3di designations on major toll roads, including Pennsylvania (I-276), Illinois (I-294) and Kansas (I-470 and I-335).
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2015, 08:57:00 AMThere used to be more of an advantage to having more Interstate miles before MAP-21: There was a fund source dedicated to interstates -- "IM" or Interstate Maintenance. With MAP-21, that fund source along with others was lumped into the National Highway Performance Program which has the "broader" eligibility of all routes on the National Highway System.
I was under the impression that the IM program still existed (with the same funding split as the Interstate Construction program--90% federal, 10% state), but only Interstates built prior to 2003 qualify, so that there is no longer an incentive to sign Interstate-compatible freeways as Interstates simply to maintain IM eligibility for them.
Edit: Having looked into some of FHWA's bumf (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm) on MAP-21, I see that the phaseout of IM (as well as the overall consolidation of funding programs) passed me by, though I still occasionally see construction contracts advertised with federal-aid project designations that indicate IM funding. I suspect funding for these projects was obligated before MAP-21 (signed in 2012) went into effect.
In regard to the issue of HBRR being folded into NHPP to the detriment of federal-aid facilities not on the NHS, it looks like there is some funding cover through STP, of course subject to the constraints on federal aid allocated to a state in total and by program category. It has long been recognized that less-important rural roads show all the symptoms of investment starvation, such as low facility sufficiency ratings and high accident and fatality rates--I dimly remember reading a FHWA position paper years ago that sets out the case for spending more on them. But with no change in the marginal fuel tax rates for 21 years, it becomes harder to justify not pulling the funding "dragnet" tighter around the fraction of the public road system in which the federal interest is strongest.
Toll roads as Interstates are a no-no in FHWA's view
^ We are going to have to wait and see then how this plays out then with the proposed I-490 around O'Hare.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 21, 2015, 12:54:54 PM
Edit: Having looked into some of FHWA's bumf (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm) on MAP-21, I see that the phaseout of IM (as well as the overall consolidation of funding programs) passed me by, though I still occasionally see construction contracts advertised with federal-aid project designations that indicate IM funding. I suspect funding for these projects was obligated before MAP-21 (signed in 2012) went into effect.
What is far more likely is that a state has unused old IM obligation authority to still use up. I forget when the funds actually lapse, but I'm pretty sure that they have more time than all the fund sources that were folded into TAP (Safe routes to school, rec trails, etc.). I doubt it's about the timing of the authorization; at least with FHWA's NY Division, anything three years beyond their most recent environmental designation (even if classified as a categorical exclusion) at least raises an eyebrow.
Quote
In regard to the issue of HBRR being folded into NHPP to the detriment of federal-aid facilities not on the NHS, it looks like there is some funding cover through STP, of course subject to the constraints on federal aid allocated to a state in total and by program category. It has long been recognized that less-important rural roads show all the symptoms of investment starvation, such as low facility sufficiency ratings and high accident and fatality rates--I dimly remember reading a FHWA position paper years ago that sets out the case for spending more on them. But with no change in the marginal fuel tax rates for 21 years, it becomes harder to justify not pulling the funding "dragnet" tighter around the fraction of the public road system in which the federal interest is strongest.
Some cover, but definitely not enough. MAP-21 did set up STP-Off System Bridge funding (a relative pittance, but not like the joke that HSIP has become), but state DOTs are resorting to end-of-federal-fiscal-year fund transfers between NHP and STP based upon the argument I outlined previously -- and FHWA is approving them, essentially admitting the problem MAP-21 caused.
Not sure how much longer FHWA will approve them, though. At some point, they've got to stick to their guns and force funding authorizations on the NHS rather than on non-NHS facilities.
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 21, 2015, 09:37:43 AM
"Not everything needs to be an Interstate" - Almost nothing on this site irks me more than this argument being overdone to the extent of stopping the progress of the system. I'm not in favor of every freeway in the country becoming an Interstate by any means, but diminishing the worth of certain corridors just because of this argument is plain unfair. For example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't need to be an Interstate or have a number at all, but it would benefit the system and drivers if it were.
Well it doesn't take a genius to look at a map or type directions into a GPS. As long as the speed limit is 65 or 70 and doesn't have stop lights everywhere who cares if it is signed as an interstate or not. I sure don't care and most people don't care either.
As far as toll roads are concerned they are toll roads for a reason. They don't need an interstate symbol for someone to figure that out.
Quote from: froggie on June 21, 2015, 07:58:22 AM
Quote from: jakerootI'm not familiar with Kentucky ... do you mind very briefly listing the changes being made to the parkways to meet Interstate standards? I assume basic modifications such as shoulder and lane width changes, but are there others?
Quote from: RothmanI'm betting median width.
Median width (mitigatable with guardrail), but also interchange ramp geometry and ramp tapers.
Regarding the variance/disparity in design standards, keep in mind that the Interstate system is almost 60 years old and standards change over time. For example, shoulders on bridges weren't mandated in all cases until the late 1960s. And most state DOTs have been slow in upgrading facilities after standards change (hence why we STILL have many bridges that lack shoulders). It's been noted time and again that most state DOTS (and ESPECIALLY the politicians that fund them) would rather build new roads than upgrade what they already have.
As for those who think standards could/should be relaxed, that may be possible for some aspects. But safety features (which IMO include shoulders) should NOT be compromised on.
The big projects on the Western Kentucky Parkway were lowering the road surface under two bridges to increase the bridge clearance, as well as the ongoing project to create high-speed movements for I-69 traffic at the Pennyrile Parkway interchange. There may have been an interchange converted from the old-style cloverleaf toll booth exit to a diamond along that stretch, but I can't recall. Last time I was on the WK, the signage had been replaced but nothing had been done about the median, which is narrower than even the Bluegrass or Mountain parkways.
On the Pennyrile, they've converted (or in the process of converting) at least one toll-booth cloverleaf to a full diamond, but one of the other projects eliminated a partial interchange by adding two ramps to make it a full interchange. It was said at the time that this was necessary for conversion to an interstate. I can think of a number of partial interchanges still left on the interstate system (one in Ohio along I-70 near Gratiot, and on I-65 in Kentucky for US 68/KY 80, among others).
Still, the average motorist can't tell the difference between an interstate and a Kentucky parkway.
Quote from: US 41 on June 21, 2015, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 21, 2015, 09:37:43 AM
"Not everything needs to be an Interstate" - Almost nothing on this site irks me more than this argument being overdone to the extent of stopping the progress of the system. I'm not in favor of every freeway in the country becoming an Interstate by any means, but diminishing the worth of certain corridors just because of this argument is plain unfair. For example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't need to be an Interstate or have a number at all, but it would benefit the system and drivers if it were.
Well it doesn't take a genius to look at a map or type directions into a GPS. As long as the speed limit is 65 or 70 and doesn't have stop lights everywhere who cares if it is signed as an interstate or not. I sure don't care and most people don't care either.
Actually, many do care. When glancing at a map or possible route, interstates stand out as an almost guaranteed way to avoid lights and highest speeds. On BGSs, interstates tend to garner further advanced notice (I-95, 2 Mikes Ahead), and placement on Destination signage. Truckers use them for long distance driving, as other routes can have weight limitations, right turns, etc.
There's a reason why maps with little detail still show Interstates, and few if any other routes. And if it doesn't take a genius, explain why people get lost all the time.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 20, 2015, 08:33:27 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
Your thoughts?
Could you give us an example of a route you had in mind?
I posted some news (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5665.msg2073198#msg2073198) about an update to the CSVT project in Selinsgrove, and that got me thinking about a semi-related topic.
Take I-83, for example. I-83 is the de-facto replacement for former US 111 and the Susquehanna Trail. As numerous fictional highways threads and roadgeek sites have mentioned, there are some compelling arguments for extending I-83 northward via the current US 15 corridor, perhaps as far as Rochester.
But even after (if) the CSVT is completed around 2024, there will still be that pesky 29-mile gap between the Clarks Ferry Bridge and the end of the current freeway south of Selinsgrove–29 lousy miles out of what would otherwise be 347 continuous miles of freeway between Fayette Street in Baltimore and I-590 in Rochester. And yet the semi-limited access configuration between Amity Hall and Port Treverton, with no stop signs or traffic signals and very little turning traffic, serves the corridor well enough.
While I wouldn't be in favor of slapping standard Interstate shields on that section of 11/15, I think there is merit to having some kind of sub-Interstate shield (perhaps a hollow Interstate outline without the colors or the word "INTERSTATE" ) to bridge the numerical designation between sections of Interstate-quality freeway. And I don't think a state route marker is the answer, either. The marker should subconsciously suggest to the user: "You're following the I-83 corridor, but you're not getting an Interstate-standard experience in this section." (Yes, I realize care is needed to avoid confusion with the Business shields.) If and when the gaps are closed through new construction or reconfiguration of the existing road, standard I shields would go up.
I could imagine this being used on an extended I-83, I-86, I-9 (CA 99), and maybe elsewhere.
Maybe something like this...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/461/19002045415_25f6b32751_o.png)
Actually, I like the idea of "gap" filling signage on a logical corridor. I would say have the shield be an interstate shield in white with black numbers. The shape is distinctive enough to differ from other black and white signs.
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 21, 2015, 11:11:51 AM
Interstates with narrow medians have been fitted with cable guards - a.k.a. "Wait-a-minute" cables.
Agreement on "not everything needs to be an Interstate." Politicians now often put designations on roads more as a commercial ploy these days (I-41 is a classic example of this) or as a pork grind (I-99) where neither one was required. US-41 would have gotten the 70 mph designation even without the red-white-blue shield on it if WisDOT played their cards right. What they DO need to consider is Control cities. US-45 in Milwaukee had "Fond du Lac" as one - no Appleton. I don't know about you, but what in Fond du Lac is commercially viable? All they really need to to is re-route US-41... Done.
I have no problem with Fond du Lac being a control city because it is a major city in Wisconsin. In fact, I-41 should also use Oshkosh as a control city as well. I would base control cities on the population, the importance of it to commerce, number of exits that serve the area and distance from the next major city. I hate Pennsylvania's control cities on I-80 but between Youngstown and Newark, there are not any major cities or points of commerce so I reluctantly am ok with say DuBois and Clarion being used.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 21, 2015, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 21, 2015, 09:37:43 AM
"Not everything needs to be an Interstate" - Almost nothing on this site irks me more than this argument being overdone to the extent of stopping the progress of the system. I'm not in favor of every freeway in the country becoming an Interstate by any means, but diminishing the worth of certain corridors just because of this argument is plain unfair. For example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't need to be an Interstate or have a number at all, but it would benefit the system and drivers if it were.
Well it doesn't take a genius to look at a map or type directions into a GPS. As long as the speed limit is 65 or 70 and doesn't have stop lights everywhere who cares if it is signed as an interstate or not. I sure don't care and most people don't care either.
Actually, many do care. When glancing at a map or possible route, interstates stand out as an almost guaranteed way to avoid lights and highest speeds. On BGSs, interstates tend to garner further advanced notice (I-95, 2 Mikes Ahead), and placement on Destination signage. Truckers use them for long distance driving, as other routes can have weight limitations, right turns, etc.
There's a reason why maps with little detail still show Interstates, and few if any other routes. And if it doesn't take a genius, explain why people get lost all the time.
When I see a blue line (limited access Freeway) in my atlas I don't say to myself "I'm not going to take this road because it doesn't have an interstate shield on it." It has never bothered me to take Kentucky's parkways just because they "technically don't" meet interstate standards. They have exits, 0 stop lights, and a 70 mph speed limit." Most drivers do not give a crap whether or not there is a blue shield on a road. They just care to get to where they want to go fast.
If I was Kentucky I'd be an asshole and sign the Julian M Carrol and Pennyrile Parkways as Kentucky State Highway 69 rather than I-69. Same for the US 41 Bridge over the Ohio River. It's a big waste of money to redo what was done right the first time, just to stick an interstate shield on it.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2015, 05:47:52 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 21, 2015, 11:11:51 AM
Interstates with narrow medians have been fitted with cable guards - a.k.a. "Wait-a-minute" cables.
Agreement on "not everything needs to be an Interstate." Politicians now often put designations on roads more as a commercial ploy these days (I-41 is a classic example of this) or as a pork grind (I-99) where neither one was required. US-41 would have gotten the 70 mph designation even without the red-white-blue shield on it if WisDOT played their cards right. What they DO need to consider is Control cities. US-45 in Milwaukee had "Fond du Lac" as one - no Appleton. I don't know about you, but what in Fond du Lac is commercially viable? All they really need to to is re-route US-41... Done.
I have no problem with Fond du Lac being a control city because it is a major city in Wisconsin. In fact, I-41 should also use Oshkosh as a control city as well. I would base control cities on the population, the importance of it to commerce, number of exits that serve the area and distance from the next major city. I hate Pennsylvania's control cities on I-80 but between Youngstown and Newark, there are not any major cities or points of commerce so I reluctantly am ok with say DuBois and Clarion being used.
Do what Texas does, sign NYC going EB and sign Youngstown going west. El Paso is used 500 miles out starting at San Antonio along the infamous I-10.
Quote from: US 41 on June 21, 2015, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 21, 2015, 09:37:43 AM
"Not everything needs to be an Interstate" - Almost nothing on this site irks me more than this argument being overdone to the extent of stopping the progress of the system. I'm not in favor of every freeway in the country becoming an Interstate by any means, but diminishing the worth of certain corridors just because of this argument is plain unfair. For example, Florida's Turnpike doesn't need to be an Interstate or have a number at all, but it would benefit the system and drivers if it were.
Well it doesn't take a genius to look at a map or type directions into a GPS. As long as the speed limit is 65 or 70 and doesn't have stop lights everywhere who cares if it is signed as an interstate or not. I sure don't care and most people don't care either.
As far as toll roads are concerned they are toll roads for a reason. They don't need an interstate symbol for someone to figure that out.
That argument could be made if it wasn't for the fact that so many US highways are on freeways and city streets with NOTHING to distinguish between the two. For example, US 41 in Chicago. It transitions from a 8 lane freeway to a major 4 lane boulevard to a 2 lane city street in a matter of 5 miles.
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 21, 2015, 12:59:17 PM
Toll roads as Interstates are a no-no in FHWA's view
From the way I understood their position, was that adding tolls to an existing Interstate was a no-no, but they have no issues designating an Interstate over an existing Toll Rd. Otherwise there wouldn't be as many Interstates in Chicago.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 08:48:37 AM
A lot of people always bring up NJ 42 and the AC Expressway for examples. Other than the shorter than normal accel/decal lanes, Rt. 42 appears to be interstate quality. And the AC Expressway - there's really nothing on there that's not interstate quality. Now, there's a difference between not-interstate quality that needs to be updated, and NJ's unwillingness to allow those two routes to be given interstate status.
NJ 55 falls under this also - nothing there would be an issue, from my view. Heck, they could extend I-76 a bit to Rt. 55 just so Rt. 55 can be a 3 di connecting to a 2 di.
And the NJ Turnpike from 1 - 6? No reason here either it's not an interstate.
In the examples above, it may not be that they're not interstate quality, but the state doesn't want to give them the interstate status. There's obviously other examples throughout the country that could quality to be an interstate today, or need minor upgrades to become an interstate, but the state could have their reasons why they wouldn't want to give those highways interstate status.
The ACE's big issue is overpass height. Lots of them that are way under 14ft. I agree if 76 ever gets extended to at least Deptford, they should make 55 a 3di of it.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 20, 2015, 11:42:49 PM
When I was briefly doing North Carolina highway maps on Wikipedia, I noticed that sections of I-73/I-74 (https://www.google.com/maps/mms?ll=35.38933,-79.767351&spn=0.027219,0.111494&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=35.389296,-79.767392&panoid=Rbv4dEAn3hm_gEXmV9El5A&cbp=11,184.46,,1,4.5) barely have any shoulder but the whole reason I-26 can't be continuous is pretty much due to one interchange in Asheville. Why do some roads get "grandfathered in" (like the former example in frickin' 2013) while others have to wait for expensive upgrades?
I seem to recall somewhere that AASHTO and FHWA OK'd that part of 74 mistakenly, but agreed to let it slide on the condition that NC eventually widen the shoulders.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 20, 2015, 08:33:27 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
Your thoughts?
Could you give us an example of a route you had in mind?
I posted some news (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5665.msg2073198#msg2073198) about an update to the CSVT project in Selinsgrove, and that got me thinking about a semi-related topic.
Take I-83, for example. I-83 is the de-facto replacement for former US 111 and the Susquehanna Trail. As numerous fictional highways threads and roadgeek sites have mentioned, there are some compelling arguments for extending I-83 northward via the current US 15 corridor, perhaps as far as Rochester.
But even after (if) the CSVT is completed around 2024, there will still be that pesky 29-mile gap between the Clarks Ferry Bridge and the end of the current freeway south of Selinsgrove–29 lousy miles out of what would otherwise be 347 continuous miles of freeway between Fayette Street in Baltimore and I-590 in Rochester. And yet the semi-limited access configuration between Amity Hall and Port Treverton, with no stop signs or traffic signals and very little turning traffic, serves the corridor well enough.
While I wouldn't be in favor of slapping standard Interstate shields on that section of 11/15, I think there is merit to having some kind of sub-Interstate shield (perhaps a hollow Interstate outline without the colors or the word "INTERSTATE" ) to bridge the numerical designation between sections of Interstate-quality freeway. And I don't think a state route marker is the answer, either. The marker should subconsciously suggest to the user: "You're following the I-83 corridor, but you're not getting an Interstate-standard experience in this section." (Yes, I realize care is needed to avoid confusion with the Business shields.) If and when the gaps are closed through new construction or reconfiguration of the existing road, standard I shields would go up.
I could imagine this being used on an extended I-83, I-86, I-9 (CA 99), and maybe elsewhere.
Maybe something like this...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/461/19002045415_25f6b32751_o.png)
I made other shields that flip the colors around, all-blue, reversed, all-red, or white w/colored letters:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5520/12582178455_0901aeb45d_o.png) (https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5510/12582178685_b03b5d09fc_o.png) (https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3730/12582640994_5c7970876e_o.png) (https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7445/12582178225_f88210b0f7_o.png) (https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/12582299673_58978bf8ce_o.png)
As for standards, anything in terms of limited-access expressway standards work, be it an occasional Super-2 or a minimization of at-grade intersections.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 20, 2015, 08:33:27 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 20, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
Your thoughts?
Could you give us an example of a route you had in mind?
I posted some news (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5665.msg2073198#msg2073198) about an update to the CSVT project in Selinsgrove, and that got me thinking about a semi-related topic.
Take I-83, for example. I-83 is the de-facto replacement for former US 111 and the Susquehanna Trail. As numerous fictional highways threads and roadgeek sites have mentioned, there are some compelling arguments for extending I-83 northward via the current US 15 corridor, perhaps as far as Rochester.
But even after (if) the CSVT is completed around 2024, there will still be that pesky 29-mile gap between the Clarks Ferry Bridge and the end of the current freeway south of Selinsgrove–29 lousy miles out of what would otherwise be 347 continuous miles of freeway between Fayette Street in Baltimore and I-590 in Rochester. And yet the semi-limited access configuration between Amity Hall and Port Treverton, with no stop signs or traffic signals and very little turning traffic, serves the corridor well enough.
While I wouldn't be in favor of slapping standard Interstate shields on that section of 11/15, I think there is merit to having some kind of sub-Interstate shield (perhaps a hollow Interstate outline without the colors or the word "INTERSTATE" ) to bridge the numerical designation between sections of Interstate-quality freeway. And I don't think a state route marker is the answer, either. The marker should subconsciously suggest to the user: "You're following the I-83 corridor, but you're not getting an Interstate-standard experience in this section." (Yes, I realize care is needed to avoid confusion with the Business shields.) If and when the gaps are closed through new construction or reconfiguration of the existing road, standard I shields would go up.
I could imagine this being used on an extended I-83, I-86, I-9 (CA 99), and maybe elsewhere.
Maybe something like this...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/461/19002045415_25f6b32751_o.png)
Actually, some of US 22/322 between I-81 and the end of the freeway at Clarks Ferry is substandard as well. One or two parts of the highway lack a 4 ft median shoulder, and there is a railroad bridge just immediately south of the Dauphin bypass that is not wide enough for full exterior shoulders. Can't remember for certain, but there might be some shorter ramps along the older parts too. In any case, it seems to me that (in the unlikely event of an I-83 extension) a waiver might be granted for those issues though, due the the fact that the RR bridge was an existing structure, and that the lack of the median shoulder is where the highway wedged, along with a rail line, between the mountain and the river.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
Actually, many do care. When glancing at a map or possible route, interstates stand out as an almost guaranteed way to avoid lights and highest speeds.
Congratulations, you've defended the ten non-roadgeeks who still use paper maps.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
Truckers use them for long distance driving, as other routes can have weight limitations, right turns, etc.
Even so, truckers use the most efficient route, regardless of designation.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
On BGSs, interstates tend to garner further advanced notice (I-95, 2 Mikes Ahead), and placement on Destination signage.
But they don't have to? To my knowledge, the FHWA does not require Interstates to be more heavily advertised than state highways.
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 21, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
Speaking of that all red Interstate shield, in another thread I actually had that idea for a potential "Alternate" Interstate designation, similar to how Business Interstates use green shields. I also made an Alternate Interstate shield in brown as well.
Quote from: SSOWorld on June 21, 2015, 12:59:17 PM
Toll roads as Interstates are a no-no in FHWA's view
That was formerly the case, but FHWA was an active participant in the design, eventual approval (FEIS and ROD) and funding of Maryland's Route 200 (ICC) toll road.
Not only that, but I heard Connecticut might get a waiver from the FHWA to try an experimental tolling program on I-95 to raise funding for upgrades on it.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 21, 2015, 11:52:27 PM
Not only that, but I heard Connecticut might get a waiver from the FHWA to try an experimental tolling program on I-95 to raise funding for upgrades on it.
HA! Tolling on the Connecticut Turnpike returns...
Quote from: Zeffy on June 21, 2015, 11:52:27 PM
Not only that, but I heard Connecticut might get a waiver from the FHWA to try an experimental tolling program on I-95 to raise funding for upgrades on it.
As long as they get the tolling right (high enough to assure free-flow traffic most of the time) and
do not squander all of the revenue on public transit projects, I think that is a great idea.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 22, 2015, 12:00:48 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 21, 2015, 11:52:27 PM
Not only that, but I heard Connecticut might get a waiver from the FHWA to try an experimental tolling program on I-95 to raise funding for upgrades on it.
As long as they get the tolling right (high enough to assure free-flow traffic most of the time) and do not squander all of the revenue on public transit projects, I think that is a great idea.
Actually, I think the United States lacks a real comprehensive perspective on funding highway maintenance and improvements in general. Our hodgepodge of toll roads and "free" roads comes across to me as horrifically disorganized from a financial perspective.
I've often grumbled that I ought to be tolled or taxed, but not both. Add on top of that the fact we've tried the "let's toll everything" route before (i.e., why the East has so many "turnpikes" and "shunpikes" and whatever other kind of "pike"), I really lean towards a more centralized funding of infrastructure.
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2015, 12:06:38 AM
Actually, I think the United States lacks a real comprehensive perspective on funding highway maintenance and improvements in general. Our hodgepodge of toll roads and "free" roads comes across to me as horrifically disorganized from a financial perspective.
I've often grumbled that I ought to be tolled or taxed, but not both. Add on top of that the fact we've tried the "let's toll everything" route before (i.e., why the East has so many "turnpikes" and "shunpikes" and whatever other kind of "pike"), I really lean towards a more centralized funding of infrastructure.
The New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway are easily
the best quality roads in this state. I'm pretty confident that the money the Turnpike Authority collects goes to improving those roads only, and it shows based on all the construction they get versus everywhere else in the state.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 22, 2015, 12:00:48 AM
As long as they get the tolling right (high enough to assure free-flow traffic most of the time) and do not squander all of the revenue on public transit projects, I think that is a great idea.
Yes, as do I, but I do NOT wish to see a New York City to New Haven busway being built with toll funding. Nope. That money should be air-tight locked down to prevent it from being used from anything BUT the toll road improvements.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 22, 2015, 12:13:29 AM
Yes, as do I, but I do NOT wish to see a New York City to New Haven busway being built with toll funding.
Shh, you're just giving Connecticut more ideas.
The ironic factor here in Pennsylvania is two laws, PTC, and the Turnpike. Act 44 and Act 89 meant to draw toll money from PTC's rewards to pay off bonds and maintenance. Toll rates on the turnpike were jacked up for the PTC to be a good neighbor to PennDOT. That's the backstory. The ironic part is here: Despite the two acts, the freeways in Pennsylvania are still in horrid condition, and PTC's rewards are practically the same pre-Act 44, and the Turnpike is in even more deplorable condition.
Quote from: J N WinklerI was under the impression that the IM program still existed (with the same funding split as the Interstate Construction program--90% federal, 10% state), but only Interstates built prior to 2003 qualify, so that there is no longer an incentive to sign Interstate-compatible freeways as Interstates simply to maintain IM eligibility for them.
As I understand it, Interstates that were added under the "non-chargeable" rules were never eligible for Interstate Maintenance funding, but being on the Interstate system they were eligible for NHS funding.
Quote from: SSOWorldToll roads as Interstates are a no-no in FHWA's view
However, there is nothing prohibiting a state from petitioning FHWA to add an Interstate-quality toll road to the Interstate system under the "non-chargeable Interstate" rules. The I-355 IL and I-185 SC extensions are examples. For some reason, NCDOT screwed up with I-/NC 540.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 21, 2015, 07:35:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
Actually, many do care. When glancing at a map or possible route, interstates stand out as an almost guaranteed way to avoid lights and highest speeds.
Congratulations, you've defended the ten non-roadgeeks who still use paper maps.
If that was truly the case, there'd be just as many GPS units sold as cars. Not even close. Tell you what - go work a toll booth for a day. Just one day. You will be wildly amazed at how many questions one gets asked. Same thing working a convenience store, especially at a gas station along a route frequently used by travelers and tourists.
QuoteQuote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
On BGSs, interstates tend to garner further advanced notice (I-95, 2 Mikes Ahead), and placement on Destination signage.
But they don't have to? To my knowledge, the FHWA does not require Interstates to be more heavily advertised than state highways.
Correct, they don't. But most states do that on their own, which shows that these planning people know how people drive...and Interstates are the preferred method to get from one place to another.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 22, 2015, 12:13:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2015, 12:06:38 AM
Actually, I think the United States lacks a real comprehensive perspective on funding highway maintenance and improvements in general. Our hodgepodge of toll roads and "free" roads comes across to me as horrifically disorganized from a financial perspective.
I've often grumbled that I ought to be tolled or taxed, but not both. Add on top of that the fact we've tried the "let's toll everything" route before (i.e., why the East has so many "turnpikes" and "shunpikes" and whatever other kind of "pike"), I really lean towards a more centralized funding of infrastructure.
The New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway are easily the best quality roads in this state. I'm pretty confident that the money the Turnpike Authority collects goes to improving those roads only, and it shows based on all the construction they get versus everywhere else in the state.
Sadly, no. Not by a long shot. The NJTA gave NJDOT over $300 million last year alone. There's a line item in their financial statements detailing that transfer.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 21, 2015, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 08:48:37 AM
A lot of people always bring up NJ 42 and the AC Expressway for examples. Other than the shorter than normal accel/decal lanes, Rt. 42 appears to be interstate quality. And the AC Expressway - there's really nothing on there that's not interstate quality. Now, there's a difference between not-interstate quality that needs to be updated, and NJ's unwillingness to allow those two routes to be given interstate status.
NJ 55 falls under this also - nothing there would be an issue, from my view. Heck, they could extend I-76 a bit to Rt. 55 just so Rt. 55 can be a 3 di connecting to a 2 di.
And the NJ Turnpike from 1 - 6? No reason here either it's not an interstate.
In the examples above, it may not be that they're not interstate quality, but the state doesn't want to give them the interstate status. There's obviously other examples throughout the country that could quality to be an interstate today, or need minor upgrades to become an interstate, but the state could have their reasons why they wouldn't want to give those highways interstate status.
The ACE's big issue is overpass height. Lots of them that are way under 14ft. I agree if 76 ever gets extended to at least Deptford, they should make 55 a 3di of it.
55's big problem is the Northbound merge with 42 where traffic is *always* at a crawl due to the single lane segment. Also, in its present state, I don't think 55 serves a corridor that warrants interstate designation. Maybe if it were finished to the Parkway it would qualify on that count.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 22, 2015, 05:45:42 AM
The ironic factor here in Pennsylvania is two laws, PTC, and the Turnpike. Act 44 and Act 89 meant to draw toll money from PTC's rewards to pay off bonds and maintenance. Toll rates on the turnpike were jacked up for the PTC to be a good neighbor to PennDOT. That's the backstory. The ironic part is here: Despite the two acts, the freeways in Pennsylvania are still in horrid condition, and PTC's rewards are practically the same pre-Act 44, and the Turnpike is in even more deplorable condition.
This is as good of a reason as any why there should only be one transportation agency in a state, and the toll roads should come under the jurisdiction of the main state agency, like Kentucky's were.
Even so, you could still easily have the case of toll revenue being siphoned off to support non-toll roads in the state, such as what happens in Delaware. The toll roads along I-95 and DE 1 fall under the Motor Vehicles Division of DelDOT, and toll revenue from both supports DelDOT in a number of ways far beyond maintaining those two highways.
And this is why many view toll roads as a money maker for the government.
Quote from: bzakharin on June 22, 2015, 09:46:02 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 21, 2015, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 08:48:37 AM
A lot of people always bring up NJ 42 and the AC Expressway for examples. Other than the shorter than normal accel/decal lanes, Rt. 42 appears to be interstate quality. And the AC Expressway - there's really nothing on there that's not interstate quality. Now, there's a difference between not-interstate quality that needs to be updated, and NJ's unwillingness to allow those two routes to be given interstate status.
NJ 55 falls under this also - nothing there would be an issue, from my view. Heck, they could extend I-76 a bit to Rt. 55 just so Rt. 55 can be a 3 di connecting to a 2 di.
And the NJ Turnpike from 1 - 6? No reason here either it's not an interstate.
In the examples above, it may not be that they're not interstate quality, but the state doesn't want to give them the interstate status. There's obviously other examples throughout the country that could quality to be an interstate today, or need minor upgrades to become an interstate, but the state could have their reasons why they wouldn't want to give those highways interstate status.
The ACE's big issue is overpass height. Lots of them that are way under 14ft. I agree if 76 ever gets extended to at least Deptford, they should make 55 a 3di of it.
55's big problem is the Northbound merge with 42 where traffic is *always* at a crawl due to the single lane segment. Also, in its present state, I don't think 55 serves a corridor that warrants interstate designation. Maybe if it were finished to the Parkway it would qualify on that count.
55's issue will be alleviated as part of the 295/76/42 interchange improvements. That ramp will be repainted for two lanes as it'll lead to the 42 North to 295 South ramp that's coming.
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 21, 2015, 11:50:36 AM
Example - I don't understand why CA 110 isn't I-110. The roadway seems well build, and aside from a few deficient exits, and minimal shoulders, isn't much different that other Interstate designated highways in other cities.
The Arroyo Seco Parkway? No way it should be an interstate. It's very sub-standard compared to interstates: very small shoulders, very tight ramps (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.092348,-118.206255,3a,75y,21.76h,80.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp7aKHaKBLUwCnL477qXTaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) , does not allow trucks, and does not connect to I-210 (not that it necessarily needs to to be an interstate, but it would help its case). If you're only talking about the section from I-10 to US-101 though (I'd say to I-5 but that section is pretty substandard), I'm more inclined to agree with you.
CA-210 and CA-15, however, should just be signed as interstates in my opinion.
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2015, 01:24:20 PM
Even so, you could still easily have the case of toll revenue being siphoned off to support non-toll roads in the state, such as what happens in Delaware. The toll roads along I-95 and DE 1 fall under the Motor Vehicles Division of DelDOT, and toll revenue from both supports DelDOT in a number of ways far beyond maintaining those two highways.
Which I wouldn't have a problem with as long as it was within the same agency's jurisdiction. Of course, Kentucky's enabling legislation required the tolls to come off when the bonds were paid off.
Quote from: doorknob60 on June 22, 2015, 05:05:53 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 21, 2015, 11:50:36 AM
Example - I don't understand why CA 110 isn't I-110. The roadway seems well build, and aside from a few deficient exits, and minimal shoulders, isn't much different that other Interstate designated highways in other cities.
The Arroyo Seco Parkway? No way it should be an interstate. It's very sub-standard compared to interstates: very small shoulders, very tight ramps (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.092348,-118.206255,3a,75y,21.76h,80.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp7aKHaKBLUwCnL477qXTaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) , does not allow trucks, and does not connect to I-210 (not that it necessarily needs to to be an interstate, but it would help its case). If you're only talking about the section from I-10 to US-101 though (I'd say to I-5 but that section is pretty substandard), I'm more inclined to agree with you.
CA-210 and CA-15, however, should just be signed as interstates in my opinion.
Oh yes stop signs on ramps are very high standard. :banghead: :pan:
Quote from: hbelkins on June 22, 2015, 08:40:39 PM
Which I wouldn't have a problem with as long as it was within the same agency's jurisdiction. Of course, Kentucky's enabling legislation required the tolls to come off when the bonds were paid off.
The Oklahoma turnpike system is the same way. So instead of paying the bonds off, they constantly pour money into the system. That's why there is always construction on the turnpikes somewhere. That is also why OTA has build new turnpikes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 22, 2015, 09:42:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 21, 2015, 07:35:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
Actually, many do care. When glancing at a map or possible route, interstates stand out as an almost guaranteed way to avoid lights and highest speeds.
Congratulations, you've defended the ten non-roadgeeks who still use paper maps.
If that was truly the case, there'd be just as many GPS units sold as cars. Not even close. Tell you what - go work a toll booth for a day. Just one day. You will be wildly amazed at how many questions one gets asked. Same thing working a convenience store, especially at a gas station along a route frequently used by travelers and tourists.
I'm actually a valet at a local hotel. People ask me for directions all the time, but mostly they ask for confirmative directions. The large majority of people use their mobile phones as their GPS (hence low sales for standalone GPS units, but incredibly high sales of smart phones*) but want some local confirmation that what their phone is telling them is correct (particularly helpful following the Apple Maps fiasco).
*Smartphones have outsold cars by a substantial amount for four years now.
To add my two cents to this topic, I'd rather that Intetstate standards were better enforced and routes that didn't comply were no longer given the shield. I'm looking straight at I-278, among many others. Not every road deserves interstate status, state and U.S. routes work just fine with regard to navigation as well.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on June 23, 2015, 12:45:22 AM
To add my two cents to this topic, I'd rather that Intetstate standards were better enforced and routes that didn't comply were no longer given the shield. I'm looking straight at I-278, among many others. Not every road deserves interstate status, state and U.S. routes work just fine with regard to navigation as well.
Then include I-70, I-78, definitely I-180 in Cheyenne, and I-68 in Cumberland, MD. Those have really pushed the limits including the Washington, PA to New Stanton, PA stretch of I-70 with no inside shoulders and substandard ramps besides everybody's favorite town of Breezewood.
This sounds like the plan for the CA-99 -> I-9 proposal. It would cost a jillion dollars to get the existing freeway portions up to interstate standards. So they're only going to upgrade the worst bits and then ask for an exception or solve it politically.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 23, 2015, 12:38:09 AM
(particularly helpful following the Apple Maps fiasco).
There you go, proof that software maps aren't always up to date or give you the best option. Much of the time they erroneously don't show non-Interstate freeways.
But oh well, since you appear to want no further progress in the system, no use arguing.
iPhone
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 23, 2015, 07:45:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 23, 2015, 12:38:09 AM
(particularly helpful following the Apple Maps fiasco).
There you go, proof that software maps aren't always up to date or give you the best option. Much of the time they erroneously don't show non-Interstate freeways.
But oh well, since you appear to want no further progress in the system, no use arguing.
iPhone
Not every freeway needs to be upgraded to interstate standards. From what I've heard most of Europe's freeways wouldn't even meet our interstate standards. Maybe if we put up signs (example below) that told drivers that a particular road is a freeway we wouldn't need as many interstate shields everywhere.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuoyYMLfNLP7opQTUOUujLXA5reSaMdjKKuVvl8hZNyNTCmepZ)
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2015, 12:48:31 AM
and I-68 in Cumberland, MD.
That section of I-68 was built long before the rest of I-68 as U.S. 40 (Cumberland Thruway). I think Maryland SHA is examining alternatives to this (admittedly substandard) section of freeway.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2015, 12:48:31 AM
Those have really pushed the limits including the Washington, PA to New Stanton, PA stretch of I-70 with no inside shoulders and substandard ramps besides everybody's favorite town of Breezewood.
That road is awful. I cannot think of a freeway in the U.S. that is as terrible as this section of I-70. The BQE (I-278) and Cross-Bronx Expressway (I-95) in New York City are state-of-the-art freeways by comparison. Even I-70 across Missouri (not a great road) is massively better than I-70 west of New Stanton.
FHWA/BPR should
never have allowed PennDOT and its predecessor agencies to designate this road as an Interstate without
substantial reconstruction
first, but I know that Pennsylvania seems to love substandard freeways and expressways, and does a lousy job of maintaining them once they are built.
Quote from: US 41 on June 23, 2015, 09:25:06 AM
From what I've heard most of Europe's freeways wouldn't even meet our interstate standards.
Depends on the country. Motorways in Finland, Denmark and Sweden are generally modern roads that U.S. drivers feel comfortable driving on. Added bonus - many of them are posted with a 120 km/h speed limit (between 75 and 80 MPH).
Quote from: US 41 on June 23, 2015, 09:25:06 AM
From what I've heard most of Europe's freeways wouldn't even meet our interstate standards.
I think the big issues are bridge clearances (we have smaller trucks) and the Interstate standard's love of wide medians and inside shoulders, with European freeways tending to go for narrower bits in the middle (hard strips, narrower medians with some form of crash barrier in the middle).
Quote from: US 41 on June 23, 2015, 09:25:06 AMMaybe if we put up signs (example below) that told drivers that a particular road is a freeway we wouldn't need as many interstate shields everywhere.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuoyYMLfNLP7opQTUOUujLXA5reSaMdjKKuVvl8hZNyNTCmepZ)
'Freeway' is not what that sign means!
And you'll note that most countries in Europe have a separate numbering system for every road that has that sign (though a few also apply it to some 'expressways' as well) and many that don't just simply group some in the expressway level instead.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 23, 2015, 10:14:37 AM
FHWA/BPR should never have allowed PennDOT and its predecessor agencies to designate this road as an Interstate without substantial reconstruction first, but I know that Pennsylvania seems to love substandard freeways and expressways, and does a lousy job of maintaining them once they are built.
In fact the Schuylkill Expressway portion of 76 should have never gotten the shield either. I curse myself every time I drive it.
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 23, 2015, 09:34:21 AM
Quote from: US 41 on June 23, 2015, 09:25:06 AM
Not every freeway needs to be upgraded to interstate standards.
No shit. I'm not in favor of every freeway becoming one unless they make a worthy addition to the system. I-99 does not. OH 11 does not.
iPhone
Sure they do. I-99 will link the PA Turnpike to I-86 (and should go all the way to Rochester, and was originally planned to go all the way south to I-68). OH 11 is a good link between I-90 and Youngstown. They're just as worthy as I-22. Or I-68, for that matter.
I-80 through Stroudsburg, PA always makes me grimace.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 23, 2015, 12:08:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 23, 2015, 10:14:37 AM
FHWA/BPR should never have allowed PennDOT and its predecessor agencies to designate this road as an Interstate without substantial reconstruction first, but I know that Pennsylvania seems to love substandard freeways and expressways, and does a lousy job of maintaining them once they are built.
In fact the Schuylkill Expressway portion of 76 should have never gotten the shield either. I curse myself every time I drive it.
The Surekill is indeed awful, but IMO I-70 west of New Stanton is worse.
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 23, 2015, 07:45:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 23, 2015, 12:38:09 AM
(particularly helpful following the Apple Maps fiasco).
There you go, proof that software maps aren't always up to date or give you the best option.
1) The alternative to Apple Maps is Google Maps, not paper maps. For most folks, the hierarchy for direction-seeking is / software maps -> locals -> phone a friend -> paper maps.
2) The suggestion that paper maps are more up-to-date than software maps is ludicrous in almost every scenario.
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 23, 2015, 07:45:12 AM
Much of the time they erroneously don't show non-Interstate freeways.
True, but only at zoom levels impractical for everyday use.
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 23, 2015, 07:45:12 AM
But oh well, since you appear to want no further progress in the system, no use arguing.
This cat sufficiently sums up my response:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1sxAD5O.gif&hash=2610387dd90d07a5f33ccd1b6cebfa08ff3e6ea3)
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2015, 12:26:26 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 23, 2015, 09:34:21 AM
Quote from: US 41 on June 23, 2015, 09:25:06 AM
Not every freeway needs to be upgraded to interstate standards.
No shit. I'm not in favor of every freeway becoming one unless they make a worthy addition to the system. I-99 does not. OH 11 does not.
iPhone
Sure they do. I-99 will link the PA Turnpike to I-86 (and should go all the way to Rochester, and was originally planned to go all the way south to I-68). OH 11 is a good link between I-90 and Youngstown. They're just as worthy as I-22. Or I-68, for that matter.
An OH 11 freeway southern extension to US 22 if not all the way to I-470 would be worthwhile. An alternative would be to build a new US 30 freeway from East Liverpool to I-376 or to Future I-576 which would replace the slow, dangerous, crooked US 30 west of Pittsburgh.
Quote from: bugo on June 23, 2015, 02:47:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2015, 12:26:26 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 23, 2015, 09:34:21 AM
Quote from: US 41 on June 23, 2015, 09:25:06 AM
Not every freeway needs to be upgraded to interstate standards.
No shit. I'm not in favor of every freeway becoming one unless they make a worthy addition to the system. I-99 does not. OH 11 does not.
iPhone
Sure they do. I-99 will link the PA Turnpike to I-86 (and should go all the way to Rochester, and was originally planned to go all the way south to I-68). OH 11 is a good link between I-90 and Youngstown. They're just as worthy as I-22. Or I-68, for that matter.
An OH 11 freeway southern extension to US 22 if not all the way to I-470 would be worthwhile. An alternative would be to build a new US 30 freeway from East Liverpool to I-376 or to Future I-576 which would replace the slow, dangerous, crooked US 30 west of Pittsburgh.
Hush Bugo. That's in the grand plans I haven't finished with. lol
Interstate standerds are already messed up. Who cares if the shoulder is wide enough?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 22, 2017, 05:40:43 PM
Interstate standerds are already messed up. Who cares if the shoulder is wide enough?
People who have a flat tire. Or have just had a fender-bender. Or have broken down. I could go on. :poke:
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on April 22, 2017, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 22, 2017, 05:40:43 PM
Interstate standerds are already messed up. Who cares if the shoulder is wide enough?
People who have a flat tire. Or have just had a fender-bender. Or have broken down. I could go on. :poke:
Or people that would just as soon not be "inconvenienced" by running into a disabled car. There are good reasons why standards are changed with time, most often related to safety.