I can't think of any off the top of my head, but these are routes that exist today AARoads or roadgeeks would've called unnecessary, impossible to build, not ever happening, etc before they where built. :spin:
Am I correct in assuming this is an "If the Internet existed back in....." exercise? So this would be routes that were built that we would have said not needed or they can't build that, it's too hard, right?
I-10 as a freeway through western Texas. A surface road would have worked just fine.
Physical feasability:
Interstates and US Highways in the mountain west.
Lake Potchatrain causeway
Long bridges in general (just use ferries!)
Political feasability:
I-68, and Appalachian Highways in general
Everglades freeway
Freeways into cities (versus limiting them to bypasses, beltways, etc)
Quote from: slorydn1 on July 19, 2016, 10:33:36 AM
Am I correct in assuming this is an "If the Internet existed back in....." exercise? So this would be routes that were built that we would have said not needed or they can't build that, it's too hard, right?
Affirmative.
US 189 as an expressway through Provo River Canyon always struck me as the most "impossible" road due to the lack of flat land to work with. How UDOT shoehorned such a fine road into such a tiny space goes down as an engineering miracle!
Rick
I have a farm road that was put up a cliff (essentially) (not rocky terrain however) over 80 years ago with whatever equipment they had back then and I concede since it exists it wasn't impossible, but it was damn close. Even with a modern hydraulic bulldozer, I'd think most contemporary contractors would be loathe to attempt to duplicate it.
It seems that many new re road or bridge was called "a ___ to nowhere"
Considering the decades long timeframe for a single interchange between I-95 and PATP. If the interstate were not built in the 1950sand 60s for the most part. Most of the current interstate would never get built today
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 19, 2016, 10:39:19 AM
I-68, and Appalachian Highways in general
Speak for yourself.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 19, 2016, 10:39:19 AM
Physical feasability:
Interstates and US Highways in the mountain west.
If you've driven there, you'd know many are actually busy enough to be needed.
QuoteLake Pontchartrain causeway
Ever been there? It's a quick way across the lake, especially useful for hurricane evacuations
QuoteLong bridges in general (just use ferries!)
Until you get stuck in a line that lasts all day and you have to camp in overnight. That's exactly what helped bring about the Mackinac Bridge.
Quote from: Brandon on July 19, 2016, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 19, 2016, 10:39:19 AM
Physical feasability:
Interstates and US Highways in the mountain west.
If you've driven there, you'd know many are actually busy enough to be needed.
QuoteLake Pontchartrain causeway
Ever been there? It's a quick way across the lake, especially useful for hurricane evacuations
QuoteLong bridges in general (just use ferries!)
Until you get stuck in a line that lasts all day and you have to camp in overnight. That's exactly what helped bring about the Mackinac Bridge.
This topic is not just about "not needed". In fact, you directly quoted the phrase "physical feasibility" and then discounted it based a different criterion (needed).
I'm sure a lot of us, back before I-70 was put through the Rockies, would have said it couldn't be done or wouldn't be worth it. Except FirtzOwl.
I-15 in the Virgin River Gorge or a large portion of I-70 west of Denver.
Also the Overseas Highway on US 1. The weird part is if it wasn't for crappy circumstances there might be a highway AND railroad down there. It's unfathomable something like that would be built today.
Quote from: Brandon on July 19, 2016, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 19, 2016, 10:39:19 AM
Physical feasability:
Interstates and US Highways in the mountain west.
If you've driven there, you'd know many are actually busy enough to be needed.
QuoteLake Pontchartrain causeway
Ever been there? It's a quick way across the lake, especially useful for hurricane evacuations
QuoteLong bridges in general (just use ferries!)
Until you get stuck in a line that lasts all day and you have to camp in overnight. That's exactly what helped bring about the Mackinac Bridge.
Way to miss the point of the thread...
The four laning of I-70 in Utah west of Green River.
The four-laning of I-95 north of Bangor.
Also, if going 90 years ago, the Pennsylvania Turnpike for impossible. That road goes through rougher terrain than most limited-access highways and was built to amazingly high standards. 70 is certainly safe on almost the entire thing.
The Interstate highway system in general. We would have said there was no need for full divided freeways in much of the country, and too difficult to build in certain places especially.
Quote from: kphoger on July 19, 2016, 04:11:25 PM
The Interstate highway system in general. We would have said there was no need for full divided freeways in much of the country, and too difficult to build in certain places especially.
This. If there were no limited-access highways, low-density suburbs probably wouldn't exist, either. Try telling someone 100 years ago that people working in a city would live 20-30+ miles away from it.
Quote from: nexus73 on July 19, 2016, 11:05:44 AM
US 189 as an expressway through Provo River Canyon always struck me as the most "impossible" road due to the lack of flat land to work with. How UDOT shoehorned such a fine road into such a tiny space goes down as an engineering miracle!
Rick
I-70 through Utah qualifies, too. My understanding is it was built on entirely new roadway, whereas most interstates were upgrades of roads that were already in place.
Quote from: kphoger on July 19, 2016, 04:11:25 PM
The Interstate highway system in general. We would have said there was no need for full divided freeways in much of the country, and too difficult to build in certain places especially.
And by extension, the German autobahns. It was their existence that inspired Eisenhower to contemplate how long it would take America to mobilize for war without good quality highways. But the autobahns also faced similar "impossible" scenarios (pointless, no way it can cover the entire country, etc.)
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 04:21:35 PM
This. If there were no limited-access highways, low-density suburbs probably wouldn't exist, either. Try telling someone 100 years ago that people working in a city would live 20-30+ miles away from it.
Railroad and streetcar suburbs existed in many parts of the United States before 1916.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 19, 2016, 06:53:20 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 04:21:35 PM
This. If there were no limited-access highways, low-density suburbs probably wouldn't exist, either. Try telling someone 100 years ago that people working in a city would live 20-30+ miles away from it.
Railroad and streetcar suburbs existed in many parts of the United States before 1916.
Yep. And Riverside (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_Illinois) is one of the first, dating from 1869.
Quote from: Quillz on July 19, 2016, 04:26:29 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 19, 2016, 11:05:44 AM
US 189 as an expressway through Provo River Canyon always struck me as the most "impossible" road due to the lack of flat land to work with. How UDOT shoehorned such a fine road into such a tiny space goes down as an engineering miracle!
Rick
I-70 through Utah qualifies, too. My understanding is it was built on entirely new roadway, whereas most interstates were upgrades of roads that were already in place.
I-70 was more than adequate with the two lanes out there.
I'm sure people thought the 401 "north" of Toronto was unnecessary at the time, but look at how busy it is now :-D When it was built, it was in the middle of the country, hard to imagine now. And from what I've read, it went from a 4 or 6 lane freeway to the massive freeway it is now all at once (certainly not gradual).
I-93 north of I-89. Unless 93 would have gone due north and hit an Quebec Autoroute (proposed A-65) leading directly to Quebec City, US 3 would have done and of course you still have the 2 lane through Franconia Notch. And taking 89 to 91 to get to St. Johnsbury isn't that much longer.
Free 90 east of I-787. I-90 could have been duplexed with 87 from 21A to 24. If anything, a crosstown expressway (I-387) would do now.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2016, 10:09:59 PM
I-93 north of I-89. Unless 93 would have gone due north and hit an Quebec Autoroute (proposed A-65) leading directly to Quebec City, US 3 would have done and of course you still have the 2 lane through Franconia Notch. And taking 89 to 91 to get to St. Johnsbury isn't that much longer.
Free 90 east of I-787. I-90 could have been duplexed with 87 from 21A to 24. If anything, a crosstown expressway (I-387) would do now.
Free 90 is needed east of I-787 for the bridge.
I-180 was definitely a waste.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 20, 2016, 12:04:43 AM
I-180 was definitely a waste.
Which one? Illinois or Wyoming, the latter of which isn't even limited-access.
I-180 in Wyoming isn't really a waste of a road, just an interstate shield.
I-180 in Illinois is the one I was talking about, currently boasting of an AADT just under 3,600 at its busiest point.
The Cross-Bronx should probably be mentioned somewhere in here. It certainly has its use, but boy did it take some work to build. (In many ways)
When the Mountain Parkway was first proposed in Kentucky, it sparked a feud between two Democrat governors. A former governor (I can't remember which one) criticized the proposal of Gov. Bert T. Combs, saying the Mountain Parkway was a road that started nowhere, went nowhere, and served nowhere in between. I guess he thought it was not needed.
Interstate 490 in Ohio. As built, for now, it is essentially a glorified bridge. Had the Clark Avenue Freeway been built, this would be different, and the Opportunity Corridor is once again making it worthwhile.
I-73 and I-74 in NC definitely qualify for this, especially when the latter route will never connect to Cincinnati in our lifetimes.
I could see CA 120, CA 108 and CA 4 qualifying for this list given all the other split routes that ground to a halt out in California.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 21, 2016, 10:57:31 AM
When the Mountain Parkway was first proposed in Kentucky, it sparked a feud between two Democrat governors. A former governor (I can't remember which one) criticized the proposal of Gov. Bert T. Combs, saying the Mountain Parkway was a road that started nowhere, went nowhere, and served nowhere in between. I guess he thought it was not needed.
I can't imagine what it was like to try to get to Eastern Kentucky from Lexington/Frankfort/Louisville before the Mountain Parkway. Taking the roads down a functional class or two from where they are today must add hours to the trip (especially thinking of my mother who remembers when portions of KY 122 were simply the creek bed).
I would assume that many of the state routes were gravel and less than gravel. I think to this day there are still gravel state roads out that way. Not all homes had electricity back then either. I am certain that there were creeks to ford as well.
Quote from: Brandon on July 19, 2016, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 19, 2016, 10:39:19 AM
Physical feasability:
Interstates and US Highways in the mountain west.
If you've driven there, you'd know many are actually busy enough to be needed.
Mostly truck traffic that's only there because an Interstate exists. The cargo would be on rails otherwise.
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2016, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:07:07 AM
I could see CA 120, CA 108 and CA 4 qualifying for this list given all the other split routes that ground to a halt out in California.
CA-4? That route gets jammed at the Concord section.
This thread is not about what highways we currently think were unnecessary. It's about highways we would have said
back when they were being planned were implausible, impossible, or not needed.
Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2016, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:07:07 AM
I could see CA 120, CA 108 and CA 4 qualifying for this list given all the other split routes that ground to a halt out in California.
CA-4? That route gets jammed at the Concord section.
This thread is not about what highways we currently think were unnecessary. It's about highways we would have said back when they were being planned were implausible, impossible, or not needed.
CA-21 Now I-680 in Benicia looked like one such route that looks unnecessary along with CA-113 and I-505.
Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2016, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:07:07 AM
I could see CA 120, CA 108 and CA 4 qualifying for this list given all the other split routes that ground to a halt out in California.
CA-4? That route gets jammed at the Concord section.
This thread is not about what highways we currently think were unnecessary. It's about highways we would have said back when they were being planned were implausible, impossible, or not needed.
Right and nobody would question having seasonal mountain passes of the Sierras? They sure would these days.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2016, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:07:07 AM
I could see CA 120, CA 108 and CA 4 qualifying for this list given all the other split routes that ground to a halt out in California.
CA-4? That route gets jammed at the Concord section.
This thread is not about what highways we currently think were unnecessary. It's about highways we would have said back when they were being planned were implausible, impossible, or not needed.
Right and nobody would question having seasonal mountain passes of the Sierras? They sure would these days.
OK, but the rationale I quoted for it not being implausible, impossible, or not needed was "That route gets jammed at the Concord section". Present tense, present-day conditions. Are you trying to make the argument that roadgeeks in the 1930s should not have objected to the highway because they should have foreseen traffic issues eight decades into the future?
Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 02:16:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 01:30:44 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2016, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:07:07 AM
I could see CA 120, CA 108 and CA 4 qualifying for this list given all the other split routes that ground to a halt out in California.
CA-4? That route gets jammed at the Concord section.
This thread is not about what highways we currently think were unnecessary. It's about highways we would have said back when they were being planned were implausible, impossible, or not needed.
Right and nobody would question having seasonal mountain passes of the Sierras? They sure would these days.
OK, but the rationale I quoted for it not being implausible, impossible, or not needed was "That route gets jammed at the Concord section". Present tense, present-day conditions. Are you trying to make the argument that roadgeeks in the 1930s should not have objected to the highway because they should have foreseen traffic issues eight decades into the future?
Isn't the point of the thread to suppose what could consider implausible, impossible or not needed in a present sense? I would stand by that statement and say that if those three routes didn't exist on anything but paper in 2016 that they would be challenged as not needed. It's not just on the basis of them being seasonal but from the stand point of mountain grade maintenance and environmental red tape. The same could be said for a lot of mountain roads in general. It was a lot easier to build things say in the 1930s than it would be today just in general. Isn't that one of the primary reasons 168 and 190 didn't get finished?...because they weren't needed and changes in the climate of how easy it was to build a roadway changed drastically?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 02:33:50 PM
Isn't the point of the thread to suppose what could consider implausible, impossible or not needed in a present sense?
Nope.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on July 19, 2016, 10:24:35 AM
I can't think of any off the top of my head, but these are routes that exist today AARoads or roadgeeks would've called unnecessary, impossible to build, not ever happening, etc before they where built.
Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 02:33:50 PM
Isn't the point of the thread to suppose what could consider implausible, impossible or not needed in a present sense?
Nope.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on July 19, 2016, 10:24:35 AM
I can't think of any off the top of my head, but these are routes that exist today AARoads or roadgeeks would've called unnecessary, impossible to build, not ever happening, etc before they where built.
Meh, that would make for a pretty boring thread if all we did was stick to that...suppose that's my error for not reading original post all that through.
The topic includes the word "would've." Pretty big clue. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_perfect)
Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2016, 11:10:55 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 21, 2016, 10:57:31 AM
When the Mountain Parkway was first proposed in Kentucky, it sparked a feud between two Democrat governors. A former governor (I can't remember which one) criticized the proposal of Gov. Bert T. Combs, saying the Mountain Parkway was a road that started nowhere, went nowhere, and served nowhere in between. I guess he thought it was not needed.
I can't imagine what it was like to try to get to Eastern Kentucky from Lexington/Frankfort/Louisville before the Mountain Parkway. Taking the roads down a functional class or two from where they are today must add hours to the trip (especially thinking of my mother who remembers when portions of KY 122 were simply the creek bed).
I've driven the entire "old" route from Winchester to Whitesburg along KY 15, but not in one sitting. Before the completion of the new route in the early 1960, Hazard to Jackson alone took an hour. Jackson to Campton involved a torturous mountain crossing just outside Jackson that involved some hellacious switchbacks. I'd say the trip easily took four hours.
As to getting from Winchester or Lexington to Salyersville and the "Three P's," it's feasible that through traffic might have used KY 15, KY 191 and KY 134 (the routes that most closely parallel the Mountain Parkway) but I'd say most traffic used KY 40, which later became US 460. Portions of US 460 between Mt. Sterling and West Liberty have been rebuilt, but it's still a good hour or longer drive. Then tack on the additional time to Salyersville and then over to Prestonsburg or Paintsville, then to Pikeville, and I think you're looking at about three hours. Pikeville to Winchester now can conceivably be done in two hours if you drive 60 mph on the 55 mph roads and don't hit a lot of traffic lights north of Pikeville or slow traffic along KY 114 that you can't pass.
Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 03:23:08 PM
The topic includes the word "would've." Pretty big clue. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_perfect)
What can I see other than "my bad?"
This may be edging close to stretching the definition of the OP, but, IMO, one of the more unnecessary projects -- involving rerouting of a highway and upgrading a local road to replace it -- was the 1966 relocation of CA 79 between Radec (the old original southern terminus of CA 71) and Hemet (the old alignment is now County R3). Totally a political animal by design -- Riverside County developers desired to expand the Temecula region into, well, what it is today -- a higher-end exurb with a secondary purpose as a tourist destination (the local wine industry). To do this they lobbied for a redefined CA 79; within the 1964 renumbering effort it became a "split route", with the northern end of the southern section and the southern end of the northern section defined as terminating at US 395 in Temecula (now I-15, of course), effectively requiring a rerouting of the northern section to satisfy the new legislated requirement. The object of this exercise was to funnel traffic from as many directions as possible into Temecula and environs.
The original purpose of Sign Route 79, most of which became CA 79, was to provide a continuous route skirting the west side of the San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, and Vallecito mountain ranges that separated the "Inland Empire" section of Riverside County from the low desert (Salton Sea area) between I-8 and I-10. Even though the section between Radec and Hemet was not particularly efficient (it contained many right-angle turns to follow property and/or grant lines -- and to avoid the rocky outcroppings that characterize the region), it was no worse than other state facilities in the general area -- and it certainly did its job, providing connectivity between central Riverside County and eastern San Diego County.
But the Temecula developers had their way. CA 79 was multiplexed west along CA 74 from Hemet to Winchester Road, then deployed SSW along that facility to US 395 along that highway's coincidence with CA 71 at the north end of the original village of Temecula. I first encountered this rerouting as a college freshman on a field-trip for a land-use class in the UCR geography department; the prof was well aware of the political maneuverings regarding this route, and wanted us to see how it affected the local picture. The original road through the small town of Winchester, about two miles south of CA 74, used a series of right-angle turns to navigate the town's street system; it was being bypassed (late '67) with a broad S-curve that obviated the in-town turns. The rest of the route into Temecula was being widened from its original 2-lane configuration with multiple passing lanes in each direction (it went over several shallow hills). By the time we reached US 395, we had passed several newly constructed strip-malls on the roadside, with signage indicating future construction of major retail establishments. Old Town Temecula was still quaint, with wooden sidewalks on "Old 395"; some of these remain today. But it was a pointed lesson in just how quickly sprawl happens -- and how it can be maneuvered into existence with behind-the-scenes legislative tinkering.
Old 79 was fine as is; today, anyone following 79 in either direction must multiplex with I-15 (perpetually crowded, as Temecula's location makes it not only a viable exurb of the Riverside area but also that of greater San Diego) for about 2 miles. The realignment was -- and is, to me, both an unnecessary bit of work as well as an interruption of a workable regional route. To add insult to injury, the junction of present 79 and county R3 features minimal signage to indicate that it's a shortcut to the Hemet area; the last time I passed this junction around 2010 the "R3" trailblazer pentagon was faded almost beyond recognition -- might have been the one that was posted 50 years ago!
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 10:13:30 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2016, 10:09:59 PM
I-93 north of I-89. Unless 93 would have gone due north and hit an Quebec Autoroute (proposed A-65) leading directly to Quebec City, US 3 would have done and of course you still have the 2 lane through Franconia Notch. And taking 89 to 91 to get to St. Johnsbury isn't that much longer.
Free 90 east of I-787. I-90 could have been duplexed with 87 from 21A to 24. If anything, a crosstown expressway (I-387) would do now.
Free 90 is needed east of I-787 for the bridge.
Bridge would become NY 387 or an extended NY 43
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 21, 2016, 09:48:04 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 10:13:30 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2016, 10:09:59 PM
I-93 north of I-89. Unless 93 would have gone due north and hit an Quebec Autoroute (proposed A-65) leading directly to Quebec City, US 3 would have done and of course you still have the 2 lane through Franconia Notch. And taking 89 to 91 to get to St. Johnsbury isn't that much longer.
Free 90 east of I-787. I-90 could have been duplexed with 87 from 21A to 24. If anything, a crosstown expressway (I-387) would do now.
Free 90 is needed east of I-787 for the bridge.
Bridge would become NY 387 or an extended NY 43
:no:
Illinois's I-180 is garbage. Everyone knows that.
I-93 north of I-89 is an interesting thought. Who knew an Interstate could be 2 lanes wide? Eff that noise :pan:
Some would argue I-77 from Charleston to Cleveland...this is being discussed in another thread I believe.
Iron Mountain Road, a highway everyone knew was unnecessary but they built it anyway (to get tourist money).
Right now the Poinciana Parkway is not needed as it ends in Loughman, FL and not many people from the area of Loughman in Polk County, FL travels to and from the other end of the super two parkway.
Its intended to go further and someday connect to I-4, however until that is done the road is useless. Even though it connects with Ronald Reagan Parkway that is a four lane arterial stretching out to US 27, with all the sprawl in between and its lack of connection to I-4 is a factor.
I don't live in metro St Louis so what do I know but was MO-364 really that necessary? Both I-64 and I-70 aren't very far away why do you need another freeway in between them?
Many would've said "why upgrade US 66 to interstate standards in Illinois?" It was already a 4-lane expressway in the mid-70's, with a few freeway sections, when it was upgraded.
Disclaimer: I worked on the I-55 construction as a teenager in the 70s.
You cannot compare the Chicago to Saint Louis corridor to the Utah I-70 corridor. That is apples and oranges.
Quote from: Rick Powell on July 25, 2016, 12:04:46 AM
Many would've said "why upgrade US 66 to interstate standards in Illinois?" It was already a 4-lane expressway in the mid-70's, with a few freeway sections, when it was upgraded.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 25, 2016, 06:11:12 PM
You cannot compare the Chicago to Saint Louis corridor to the Utah I-70 corridor. That is apples and oranges.
Meh, I would've been in the same camp, assuming the non-freeway sections didn't have any stoplights and a comparable speed limit. I would liken it to upgrading US-61 in Iowa or US-151 in Wisconsin to an Interstate-standard freeway today: Don't fix what's not broken.
Granted, looking back at I-55 today, it would seem ridiculous if it wasn't an Interstate.
Quote from: pianocello on July 27, 2016, 10:31:55 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on July 25, 2016, 12:04:46 AM
Many would've said "why upgrade US 66 to interstate standards in Illinois?" It was already a 4-lane expressway in the mid-70's, with a few freeway sections, when it was upgraded.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 25, 2016, 06:11:12 PM
You cannot compare the Chicago to Saint Louis corridor to the Utah I-70 corridor. That is apples and oranges.
Meh, I would've been in the same camp, assuming the non-freeway sections didn't have any stoplights and a comparable speed limit. I would liken it to upgrading US-61 in Iowa or US-151 in Wisconsin to an Interstate-standard freeway today: Don't fix what's not broken.
Granted, looking back at I-55 today, it would seem ridiculous if it wasn't an Interstate.
Speed limit 70 (before Nixon's 55 mph national speed limit) but there were some stoplights. The one on IL 23 north of Dwight was a doozy for crashes, because it was the first stoplight going south out of Chicago after a 70-some mile stretch of freeway. There was a grade separation at IL 17, but at least one stoplight in every sizable town south of there until the west bypass in Bloomington-Normal which was freeway standard by the mid-60's. Can't recall much south of McLean, but I think Springfield's section of I-55 was built before the sections north and south of town, which were also expressway standard. There were a few railroad grade crossings too, but not on lines that had a whole lot of traffic from what I can remember.
i-69 south of memphis, tn. Also i-64 in downtown st louis, why not multiplex it with i-44 just to the south, and have it split off at hampton ave? Also i-229 there are ideas floating around on whether they need it anymore.
The Golden Gate Bridge was pretty widely regarded as impossible to build.
The Tioga Pass highway, California 120 from Yosemite Valley to Lee Vining was very difficult and of questionable need as it's through the park.
Quote from: kkt on August 01, 2016, 07:38:10 PM
The Golden Gate Bridge was pretty widely regarded as impossible to build.
The Tioga Pass highway, California 120 from Yosemite Valley to Lee Vining was very difficult and of questionable need as it's through the park.
Yeah but a lot of Tioga was already there through Lee Vining Canyon and to Yosemite via Big Oak Flat due to the mines, really all that was left was to connect the two roads. Basically the grade from Big Oak Flat to Tioga Pass is very gentle, so you already have the difficult part with Lee Vining Canyon why not? Back in those days there was some pretty aggressive road building up in the mountains. Even the Generals Highway got finished by the mid-1930s. I'd argue that the Generals Highway was a much more difficult build out of the two since it was basically brand new road completely on a high mountain grade.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 24, 2016, 11:29:33 AM
I don't live in metro St Louis so what do I know but was MO-364 really that necessary? Both I-64 and I-70 aren't very far away why do you need another freeway in between them?
Because both I-70 and US 40 had major congestion at their crossings of the Missouri River before MO 364 was built. Now MO 364 allows some of the congestion on US 40 west of Route K to be bypassed as well.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 04:34:44 PM
Also i-64 in downtown st louis, why not multiplex it with i-44 just to the south, and have it split off at hampton ave?
The freeway section of US 40 between Skinker and Vandeventer existed long before I-44 was built. I-44 was also intended to relieve some of the congestion on US 40.
Having both I-69E and I-69C. They both are within 20 miles of each other, you think that NAFTA would have suggested just an I-69E only that runs midway between the two or only use one of the two suggested freeways.
Considering that Kenedy County, Texas will never get sprawl, the upgrade of US 77 is totally unnecessary. The way it is now gets the same freeway speed limit, and how many cars pulling out from driveways are there to cause an issue with major slowdowns.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 02, 2016, 08:06:40 AM
Having both I-69E and I-69C. They both are within 20 miles of each other, you think that NAFTA would have suggested just an I-69E only that runs midway between the two or only use one of the two suggested freeways.
Considering that Kenedy County, Texas will never get sprawl, the upgrade of US 77 is totally unnecessary. The way it is now gets the same freeway speed limit, and how many cars pulling out from driveways are there to cause an issue with major slowdowns.
texas kind of lost it's mind with 69, there only needed to be one, but honestly I don't think they really needed it at all.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 22, 2016, 04:21:35 PMSome would argue I-77 from Charleston to Cleveland...this is being discussed in another thread I believe.
I-77 also serves Akron, Canton and Parkersburg. It seems plenty useful to me.
I'd honestly rethink the downtown interstates in almost every major city. But I'll put 2 here: in kansas city, reroute 70 onto 670, and don't build that northern portion of the box around the downtown area, route 35 on the southern portion of downtown. Pittsburgh, replace 579 with a surface street.
Did anyone mention I-80(N) in PA? Pretty sure that would have made us apoplectic in the '60s.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 22, 2016, 04:21:35 PM
Illinois's I-180 is garbage. Everyone knows that.
I-180 is mostly just a wasted interstate shield. If they had built a freeway to Peoria, that alone would justify it. As it is, it's better if you are trying to get somewhere fast to follow I-180 to IL 29 than to follow IL 29 around the curve of the Illinois River. As for the east west segment, that includes a bridge which I assume is an upgrade of an old bridge which I assume went to High Street in Hennepin and used to be signed as IL 26. The only truly objectionable aspect of I-180 is making that route an interstate. But all the parts make sense.
I-180 was built to serve a steel company (which presumably sold the steel to defense contractors) in Hennepin. In hindsight, it probably shouldn't have been built, since the company folded soon after I-180 opened, but there was presumably no way to know that at the time.
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 04:21:35 PM
Try telling someone 100 years ago that people working in a city would live 20-30+ miles away from it.
In some metropolitan areas they were definitely doing this 100 years ago.
Probably not "streetcar suburbs," but
definitely suburbs served by railroads with what would today be called commuter rail service. In the suburbs of Washington, D.C. that includes Rockville, Maryland (around 20 miles out by car, less by railroad); Washington Grove, (about 25 miles out), and Gaithersburg (about 27 miles out).
Similarly, I believe it was possible to ride trains to relatively distant locations on the Long Island Railroad and predecessors to the Metro-North Railroad over 100 years ago.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2016, 07:07:53 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 04:21:35 PM
Try telling someone 100 years ago that people working in a city would live 20-30+ miles away from it.
In some metropolitan areas they were definitely doing this 100 years ago.
Probably not "streetcar suburbs," but definitely suburbs served by railroads with what would today be called commuter rail service. In the suburbs of Washington, D.C. that includes Rockville, Maryland (around 20 miles out by car, less by railroad); Washington Grove, (about 25 miles out), and Gaithersburg (about 27 miles out).
Similarly, I believe it was possible to ride trains to relatively distant locations on the Long Island Railroad and predecessors to the Metro-North Railroad over 100 years ago.
Yes, even San Francisco had railroad commuter suburbs south to Atherton by 1916.
However automobiles were still very much in the "toys for the very rich" stage.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2016, 07:07:53 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 04:21:35 PM
Try telling someone 100 years ago that people working in a city would live 20-30+ miles away from it.
In some metropolitan areas they were definitely doing this 100 years ago.
Probably not "streetcar suburbs," but definitely suburbs served by railroads with what would today be called commuter rail service. In the suburbs of Washington, D.C. that includes Rockville, Maryland (around 20 miles out by car, less by railroad); Washington Grove, (about 25 miles out), and Gaithersburg (about 27 miles out).
Similarly, I believe it was possible to ride trains to relatively distant locations on the Long Island Railroad and predecessors to the Metro-North Railroad over 100 years ago.
The Ohio electric Interurbans hit 80-90 mph 100 years ago. They probably shouldn't have considering the track conditions of the time but they did it. I have the schedule cards somewhere digitally. They were stopping at a lot of places that simply don't exist any more though.
Quote from: GCrites80s on August 04, 2016, 10:52:54 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2016, 07:07:53 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 04:21:35 PM
Try telling someone 100 years ago that people working in a city would live 20-30+ miles away from it.
In some metropolitan areas they were definitely doing this 100 years ago.
Probably not "streetcar suburbs," but definitely suburbs served by railroads with what would today be called commuter rail service. In the suburbs of Washington, D.C. that includes Rockville, Maryland (around 20 miles out by car, less by railroad); Washington Grove, (about 25 miles out), and Gaithersburg (about 27 miles out).
Similarly, I believe it was possible to ride trains to relatively distant locations on the Long Island Railroad and predecessors to the Metro-North Railroad over 100 years ago.
The Ohio electric Interurbans hit 80-90 mph 100 years ago. They probably shouldn't have considering the track conditions of the time but they did it. I have the schedule cards somewhere digitally. They were stopping at a lot of places that simply don't exist any more though.
The stops are true of almost any railroad coming out of the steam age at the time though. There are so many dead towns across the country that used to service the rails and in turns had stopping points. That's where a lot of those weird little blips on the map come from most of the time along side rail tracks, usually there was a rail siding that no longer exists. I still don't get why Google Maps shows so many of them.
I would have raised major objections to I-87 north of Albany, NY - build it through what?!?!?!
:-o
Instead, I would have routed it along US 7 through Vermont, crossing over to the Capitol region via NY 7.
Mike
US 4 to NY 7 would be better than NY 7 - that way you still service Saratoga Springs and Lake George. NY 7 and US 7 through southern Vermont could be I-487 or something.
I-97 in Anne Arundel County between Baltimore and Annapolis, because the Maryland Route 10 Arundel Expressway was supposed to be that Baltimore-Annapolis freeway thoroughfare, and replace Ritchie Highway. Then they decided that the MD-3 Glen Burnie Bypass needed upgrades and an extension. That's how I-97 came to be. They chose that corridor to go out to U.S. 50/301 at Annapolis instead of MD-10, which as a result only goes out to MD-100 around Pasadena. I-97 has made Glen Burnie's Business MD-3 useless.
A little late to this, but I'll bring up "every iteration of the road linking Yuma with San Diego". The original plank road across the dunes, the first paved road winding through the mountains, then building a full freeway through there.
Quote from: epzik8 on August 06, 2016, 04:51:36 PM
I-97 in Anne Arundel County between Baltimore and Annapolis, because the Maryland Route 10 Arundel Expressway was supposed to be that Baltimore-Annapolis freeway thoroughfare, and replace Ritchie Highway. Then they decided that the MD-3 Glen Burnie Bypass needed upgrades and an extension. That's how I-97 came to be. They chose that corridor to go out to U.S. 50/301 at Annapolis instead of MD-10, which as a result only goes out to MD-100 around Pasadena. I-97 has made Glen Burnie's Business MD-3 useless.
It was also about not running the Arundel Freeway (Md. 10) through Severna Park and other communities on the Broad Neck between U.S. 50/U.S. 301 and Pasadena, a distance of about 9 straight-line miles (since Md. 2 (Ritchie Highway) is literally arrow-straight here) from the southern terminus of Md. 10 and
I-86 (E) from Erie to Jamestown.