Are there examples of two bordering states, provinces, prefectures, etc. who both want a highway to be built, but did/do not agree on its alignment at the border?
Even the most sensible, "natural" routing across a border involves some coordination between neighboring agencies. But what about the instances where there was disagreement about the location or timing of construction? All I can think of are:
* Connecticut / Rhode Island notional disagreement about where I-95 should go (old CT turnpike vs. CT 84 and RI 3 -- the southern route prevailed)
* Illinois / Iowa disagreement about moving I-80 designation to I-280 (but the roadways were already built)
* Kansas Turnpike ending at the Oklahoma state line (but that was more about funding... OK's plan prodded KS into action, but OK could not fund its part until later)
Any other historical fights?
Back in the early Interstate planning, Vermont wanted their north-south Interstate corridor along US 7. Massachusetts wanted it along US 5. mAss won.
The higher mileage plans studied during the Interregional Highway committee set by FDR during the WW2 years proposed both. But in the end, only one north-south corridor was accepted.
I believe I-78 between PA and NJ might qualify. My understanding is that the PDH was settled on I-78 following the existing Lehigh Valley Thruway alignment directly through Easton and into Phillipsburg, but NJDOT didn't have public support for the plan on their side of the border. After a few years of indecision, PA proposed the southern bypass of Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, and Phillipsburg that exists today, although it would be over two decades before that connection was built.
Somewhat similar to the Kansas example, the Pennsylvania Turnpike was constructed to the Ohio border more than three years before Ohio was ready for the westbound traffic. Various newspaper articles from the time of the PA Turnpike's Western Extension opening describe the highway "ending abruptly in a muddy cornfield". Here's one from the Toledo Blade (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwiwv9zI4a_NAhXCTCYKHQ4ODh4QFgg2MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fnid%3D1350%26dat%3D19511126%26id%3DBzgxAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DYAAEAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D2952%2C5274567&usg=AFQjCNFDTS38mSloIU6EMHBz6-5bnlFP4A) with photos. Assumably, there had to have been some amount of cooperation in planning–I can't imagine that the PTC merely pointed their highway toward Cleveland and left it to Ohio to figure out the remaining details. It's probably safe to say that Pennsylvania's impetuousness forced Ohio into action, however.
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2016, 07:52:20 AM
Back in the early Interstate planning, Vermont wanted their north-south Interstate corridor along US 7. Massachusetts wanted it along US 5. mAss won.
The higher mileage plans studied during the Interregional Highway committee set by FDR during the WW2 years proposed both. But in the end, only one north-south corridor was accepted.
That definitely makes more sense than what got built. I-91 doesn't get much traffic north of Northampton, which could have been an x90. Routing along US 7 would have put all of Vermont's major population centers on the interstate system. Additionally, I suspect I-88 (or maybe a connection between I-87 and the US 4 freeway? Was such ever proposed?) would have been more likely to be completed had the US 7 routing been chosen; such would have improved the connectivity between NY and VT tremendously (and solved some traffic issues here).
From 1957-1959, there was a gap in I-90 at the New York/Massachusetts border. The Mass Pike used to come to an end by bending north and connecting to MA 102 just short of the NY border. 2 years later, New York decided to build the Berkshire Spur of the Thruway to help connect Boston and Albany via interstate highway.
One that still exists today is the sudden end of CT 8 at US 44 in Winsted. Originally, the freeway portion was to connect to the Mass Pike in Otis, but NIMBY's and environmentalists on the MA side of the border killed it. Hence, the sudden end and the 30 mile gap between exits on the Pike.
And then there's I-84 from Hartford to Providence and RI's refusal to build it through Scituate Reservoir. 45 years later and we're stuck with I-384 and the US 6 Willimantic bypass.
US 12 is a freeway in the southern end of Wisconsin and ends just before the border with Illinois. Illinois did not extend the freeway into its state.
Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2016, 09:49:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2016, 07:52:20 AM
Back in the early Interstate planning, Vermont wanted their north-south Interstate corridor along US 7. Massachusetts wanted it along US 5. mAss won.
The higher mileage plans studied during the Interregional Highway committee set by FDR during the WW2 years proposed both. But in the end, only one north-south corridor was accepted.
That definitely makes more sense than what got built. I-91 doesn't get much traffic north of Northampton, which could have been an x90. Routing along US 7 would have put all of Vermont's major population centers on the interstate system.
Was there a reason Vermont did not try to have the freeway shift over to US 7 once the freeway was north of the Vermont border, perhaps with a diagonal section between Brattleboro and Rutland?
So would the White River Junction and Montpelier areas still have had I-89? I could never picture Brattleboro without I-91!
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 18, 2016, 02:08:43 PM
So would the White River Junction and Montpelier areas still have had I-89?
Yes. Or maybe no.
Became a moot point in 1947 when the basic Interstate system network was approved with what became I-89, I-91, and I-93.
I-287 had a large gap between US 202 in Montvale to the NY Thruway in Suffern. NJ had a ton of problems because of NIMBYs and environmentalists, and NY waited until 1993 when NJ compromised with the NIMBYs. Exit 15 on the Thruway was reconstructed to tie in with I-287 on the NJ side.
A recent example: Tennessee wanted I-69 to be aligned through Memphis along I-55 and I-240, while Mississippi wanted I-69 aligned on a bypass alignment east of the city. The end result was the "system alternative" that gave Tennessee I-69 but gave Mississippi a bypass alignment as well (originally tentatively numbered I-669, but renumbered I-269).
Mississippi also decided in the 1990s, rather than four-laning US 72 all the way from the TN state line to AL, to build a four-lane extension of MS 302 east from US 78 instead, the logic being that it would keep the traffic in Mississippi longer. TDOT eventually widened US 72 to the state line, so now there's a short remaining two-lane section of US 72 between the state line and MS 302 that's only now in the process of getting bypassed.
Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2016, 09:49:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2016, 07:52:20 AM
Back in the early Interstate planning, Vermont wanted their north-south Interstate corridor along US 7. Massachusetts wanted it along US 5. mAss won.
The higher mileage plans studied during the Interregional Highway committee set by FDR during the WW2 years proposed both. But in the end, only one north-south corridor was accepted.
That definitely makes more sense than what got built. I-91 doesn't get much traffic north of Northampton, which could have been an x90. Routing along US 7 would have put all of Vermont's major population centers on the interstate system. Additionally, I suspect I-88 (or maybe a connection between I-87 and the US 4 freeway? Was such ever proposed?) would have been more likely to be completed had the US 7 routing been chosen; such would have improved the connectivity between NY and VT tremendously (and solved some traffic issues here).
I wonder if US 7 / VT 7A would still be such a tourist draw if I-91 had gone through there.
It may have been I-89 instead of I-91.
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2016, 07:52:20 AM
Back in the early Interstate planning, Vermont wanted their north-south Interstate corridor along US 7. Massachusetts wanted it along US 5. mAss won.
The higher mileage plans studied during the Interregional Highway committee set by FDR during the WW2 years proposed both. But in the end, only one north-south corridor was accepted.
I remember seeing some maps of those somewhere. The one with the highest mileage resembled FritzOwl's wet dreams :sombrero:.
US 1 on the PA/MD line. The PA side is a 55 MPH 4 lane divided freeway. The MD side is a 50 MPH 2 lane road.
.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 20, 2016, 07:19:54 PM
US 1 on the PA/MD line. The PA side is a 55 MPH 4 lane divided freeway. The MD side is a 50 MPH 2 lane road.
That's because U.S. 1 in Maryland crosses the top of the Cononwingo Dam, which quite narrow, and the state does not want to encourage through trips there.
West Virginia rebuilt much of its part of Route 9 into a four lane expressway-type road. East of Charles Town in Jefferson County, it climbs to the crest of the Blue Ridge, but ahead of the ridgecrest (and the Virginia/West Virginia border) it narrows to a two lane undivided road, because Virginia wanted nothing to do with improving it from the state line to its terminus at Va. 7 across northern Loudoun County.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 18, 2016, 11:34:10 PM
I-287 had a large gap between US 202 in Montvale Park to the NY Thruway in Suffern. NJ had a ton of problems because of NIMBYs and environmentalists, and NY waited until 1993 when NJ compromised with the NIMBYs. Exit 15 on the Thruway was reconstructed to tie in with I-287 on the NJ side.
Montville. NOT Montvale. And where'd you get "park" from?
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on June 20, 2016, 08:17:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 18, 2016, 11:34:10 PM
I-287 had a large gap between US 202 in Montvale Park to the NY Thruway in Suffern. NJ had a ton of problems because of NIMBYs and environmentalists, and NY waited until 1993 when NJ compromised with the NIMBYs. Exit 15 on the Thruway was reconstructed to tie in with I-287 on the NJ side.
Montville. NOT Montvale. And where'd you get "park" from?
It's Montvale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montvale,_New_Jersey
Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2016, 09:49:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2016, 07:52:20 AM
Back in the early Interstate planning, Vermont wanted their north-south Interstate corridor along US 7. Massachusetts wanted it along US 5. mAss won.
The higher mileage plans studied during the Interregional Highway committee set by FDR during the WW2 years proposed both. But in the end, only one north-south corridor was accepted.
That definitely makes more sense than what got built. I-91 doesn't get much traffic north of Northampton, which could have been an x90. Routing along US 7 would have put all of Vermont's major population centers on the interstate system. Additionally, I suspect I-88 (or maybe a connection between I-87 and the US 4 freeway? Was such ever proposed?) would have been more likely to be completed had the US 7 routing been chosen; such would have improved the connectivity between NY and VT tremendously (and solved some traffic issues here).
On the other hand, an interstate between New Haven and Springfield makes a lot more sense than one between Norwalk and Pittsfield. The Norwalk-Danbury portion of that route would have benefited if the proposed freeway was built, but there wasn't any need for one north of there.
A way of splitting the difference might be if I-91 ran along its existing route as far as Brattleboro, and then running diagonally across the state to Rutland before following US 7 to the border. And then I-93 could end in Derby Line rather than St Johnsbury.
Ultimately, though, Vermont is sparsely populated enough that what got built isn't really causing problems.
A way of splitting the difference nowadays would be to reroute I-89 onto a N/S highway south of Burlington that passes through Rutland down to Pittsfield, then cuts southeast to join the CT 8 expressway down to Bridgeport. It would fit the grid perfectly between I-87 and I-91, and solve the problem for those west of Hartford either having to take backroads to get to Albany and western VT, backtrack to I-91, or cut over to the Thruway or Taconic. Renumber the mostly E/W portion of I-89 as I-92.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 26, 2016, 09:14:26 PM
A way of splitting the difference nowadays would be to reroute I-89 onto a N/S highway south of Burlington that passes through Rutland down to Pittsfield, then cuts southeast to join the CT 8 expressway down to Bridgeport. It would fit the grid perfectly between I-87 and I-91, and solve the problem for those west of Hartford either having to take backroads to get to Albany and western VT, backtrack to I-91, or cut over to the Thruway or Taconic. Renumber the mostly E/W portion of I-89 as I-92.
Waterbury, CT wants an interstate designation for CT 8 anyway; I've seen I-295 bandied about, but they wouldn't be unhappy with 89.
(How many billions of dollars would it take to upgrade CT 8 to interstate standards?)
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2016, 08:48:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 17, 2016, 09:49:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2016, 07:52:20 AM
Back in the early Interstate planning, Vermont wanted their north-south Interstate corridor along US 7. Massachusetts wanted it along US 5. mAss won.
The higher mileage plans studied during the Interregional Highway committee set by FDR during the WW2 years proposed both. But in the end, only one north-south corridor was accepted.
That definitely makes more sense than what got built. I-91 doesn't get much traffic north of Northampton, which could have been an x90. Routing along US 7 would have put all of Vermont's major population centers on the interstate system. Additionally, I suspect I-88 (or maybe a connection between I-87 and the US 4 freeway? Was such ever proposed?) would have been more likely to be completed had the US 7 routing been chosen; such would have improved the connectivity between NY and VT tremendously (and solved some traffic issues here).
On the other hand, an interstate between New Haven and Springfield makes a lot more sense than one between Norwalk and Pittsfield. The Norwalk-Danbury portion of that route would have benefited if the proposed freeway was built, but there wasn't any need for one north of there.
A way of splitting the difference might be if I-91 ran along its existing route as far as Brattleboro, and then running diagonally across the state to Rutland before following US 7 to the border. And then I-93 could end in Derby Line rather than St Johnsbury.
Ultimately, though, Vermont is sparsely populated enough that what got built isn't really causing problems.
Another potential (if they could see the future) would have been make a freeway from New Haven through Springfield to Brattleboro and then follow the VT/NH 9 alignment to Concord (or near Concord) and continue it along the NH 101 route to Maine. Giving Boston an even further bypass route well outside the 495 zone that already gets quite congested at times.
The stretch from Brattleboro to White River Jct. probably doesn't need the road if there was another freeway from the Norwalk area up toward Bennington/Rutland/Burlington funneling NYC traffic.
Quote from: jwolfer on June 26, 2016, 05:10:51 PM
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on June 20, 2016, 08:17:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 18, 2016, 11:34:10 PM
I-287 had a large gap between US 202 in Montvale Park to the NY Thruway in Suffern. NJ had a ton of problems because of NIMBYs and environmentalists, and NY waited until 1993 when NJ compromised with the NIMBYs. Exit 15 on the Thruway was reconstructed to tie in with I-287 on the NJ side.
Montville. NOT Montvale. And where'd you get "park" from?
It's Montvale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montvale,_New_Jersey
Why would a borough in Bergen County where I-287 runs nowhere near it have a say in the construction of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montville,_New_Jersey
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 27, 2016, 07:09:59 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on June 26, 2016, 05:10:51 PM
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on June 20, 2016, 08:17:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 18, 2016, 11:34:10 PM
I-287 had a large gap between US 202 in Montvale Park to the NY Thruway in Suffern. NJ had a ton of problems because of NIMBYs and environmentalists, and NY waited until 1993 when NJ compromised with the NIMBYs. Exit 15 on the Thruway was reconstructed to tie in with I-287 on the NJ side.
Montville. NOT Montvale. And where'd you get "park" from?
It's Montvale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montvale,_New_Jersey
Why would a borough in Bergen County where I-287 runs nowhere near it have a say in the construction of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montville,_New_Jersey
Ugh. There are so many towns starting in "M" that I was bound to screw up majorly.
Apparently there is still a disagreement between PA and NJ as to where I-676 goes. PA claims its eastern terminus is the entrance ramps to I-95, while NJ (and I think the feds) continue it through the traffic lights onto the Ben Franklin Bridge to connect with I-676 in NJ. Though, PA signs it as if it agrees with NJ, so there isn't really any confusion.