... what would it be? Consider something feasible for the time -- changing an interchange design, location within a corridor, a route designation, etc. -- and you're a senior person who has some pull (and the benefit of future hindsight).
For example, having CT build 60 miles of I-95 as 12 lanes (10+2 HOV) in 1958 would be an unrealistic expansion of the existing proposal. But a different design for the 91/15/691/66 interchange would be fair (CT is looking at revising that anyway). Or do something in 1967 that would not require I-84/CT 8 to be replaced now. Or even something small like (in 1957) renumber CT 95 to something besides 49, so that in 1963, old 72 can return to its original 49 designation.
(Non-Connecticut examples are welcome)
Does it have to be road-related?
If it has to be road-related, I would veto/repeal NMSL as soon as it happened.
^ You're showing your (lack of) age. NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.
We the people of South Pasadena will gladly let the Long Beach Freeway (now I-710) through our town.
I'd first go back to about 1945 and incessantly lobby for the adoption of the 48,300-mile Interstate system in place of the 40K system that eventually became the original system of 1956 (with some tweaking, of course!). And if that didn't work, I'd teleport myself to 1968 for the hearings about the batch of Interstate additions proposed in that year -- and try to maintain the original 4500-mile list rather than see it pared down to the 1500 miles that finally resulted. As a substantial portion of the "aftermarket" Interstate additions since '68 have been deployed along corridors that were outlined either in the original larger system or the initial submitted list of additions 49 years ago, constructing them during that earlier timeframe would have largely avoided the ravages of inflation. Yeah, I know that's more than one instance -- but the 2nd ('68) would occur as a sidetrip on the way back to 2017 reality!
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
^ You're showing your (lack of) age. NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.
I remember the beginning of the NMSL quite well. I was licensed a year or two after it was imposed, and it was already then (1974) a failure - like Prohibition, it increased contempt for the law, and was widely ignored on freeways I drove on, in particular the Capital Beltway (
even on the parts that had a 55 or 50 posted limit in Montgomery County before NMSL). The 55 MPH speed limit remains on the Capital Beltway today, and it still almost universally ignored when traffic conditions allow.
Maryland tried to increase compliance with heavy "saturation" speed limit enforcement, and with "rolling roadblocks," where two troopers in marked cars would drive adjacent to each other for many miles at the posted 55 MPH limit, causing traffic (desiring to drive faster) to queue up behind them.
The MSP liked to enforce the 55 limit at a place on I-95 southbound at MD-212 in Prince George's County on Saturdays and Sundays, and it was in a place where their activities could be observed from an off-freeway location. The state police had one trooper measuring speeds and calling out vehicle descriptions and measured speeds to a "stopping team" about 1/4 mile further south that would wave the violators over. Invariably, the troopers in the stopping team would quickly have five or ten vehicles stopped on the left shoulder, and one of them would radio back to the trooper doing the measuring to not call out any more until they could cite the ones already stopped (this was in the days when monitoring MSP communications on analog VHF "low band" (between 39 and 40 mHz) was remarkably cheap and easy with a scanner).
The "stopping team" approach to speed limit enforcement is no longer allowed by MSP because of the danger associated with same.
I actually have two...
Build the Bayshore Freeway in Seattle (currently the Mercer Mess)
Use Robert Moses' original routing for I-5 through Portland, which was several blocks inland, and was designed as either a sunken freeway, or as a cut and cover.
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
^ You're showing your (lack of) age. NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.
As proven later, the fuel savings was minuscule and not really statistically significant. Most of the "better gas mileage" stuff was based on what legislators thought as opposed to any real numbers.
How's this for one: if I could go back in time and be a prominent figure in the New York State Constitutional Convention of 1938, I would argue profusely that Article X ought to be rewritten to forbid the creation of public corporations.
Reason: this would prevent all the absurdities and inefficiencies that arise from the state having a separate Thruway Authority, Bridge Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, etc. - instead all of these functions would have to be handled by NYSDOT because there would be no other legal structure under which the state could handle them.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 09, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
How's this for one: if I could go back in time and be a prominent figure in the New York State Constitutional Convention of 1938, I would argue profusely that Article X ought to be rewritten to forbid the creation of public corporations.
Reason: this would prevent all the absurdities and inefficiencies that arise from the state having a separate Thruway Authority, Bridge Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, etc. - instead all of these functions would have to be handled by NYSDOT because there would be no other legal structure under which the state could handle them.
[emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119]
Quote from: Brandon on February 09, 2017, 01:06:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
^ You're showing your (lack of) age. NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.
As proven later, the fuel savings was minuscule and not really statistically significant. Most of the "better gas mileage" stuff was based on what legislators thought as opposed to any real numbers.
The return/revival of overdrive transmissions (& additional gears) that rolled out a few years later also blunted the
55 Saves Fuel argument that existed back then. Case & point: both my current vehicles (2007 Mustang & 2011 Crown Victoria) obtain their highest maximum fuel economy at an average speed range of 68-72 mph.
Back to the topic at hand: I would've stopped MA Gov. Sargent's 1970 moratorium on all highway construction projects inside of Route 128, which would've allowed the construction of I-95 in its original form, the Inner Belt (I-695) as well as the twin connectors to Salem.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 09, 2017, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 09, 2017, 01:06:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
^ You're showing your (lack of) age. NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.
As proven later, the fuel savings was minuscule and not really statistically significant. Most of the "better gas mileage" stuff was based on what legislators thought as opposed to any real numbers.
The return/revival of overdrive transmissions (& additional gears) that rolled out a few years later also blunted the 55 Saves Fuel argument that existed back then. Case & point: both my current vehicles (2007 Mustang & 2011 Crown Victoria) obtain their highest maximum fuel economy at an average speed range of 68-72 mph.
Back to the topic at hand: I would've stopped MA Gov. Sargent's 1970 moratorium on all highway construction projects inside of Route 128, which would've allowed the construction of I-95 in its original form, the Inner Belt (I-695) as well as the twin connectors to Salem.
And Bostonians would have assassinated you.
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2017, 01:12:08 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 09, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
How's this for one: if I could go back in time and be a prominent figure in the New York State Constitutional Convention of 1938, I would argue profusely that Article X ought to be rewritten to forbid the creation of public corporations.
Reason: this would prevent all the absurdities and inefficiencies that arise from the state having a separate Thruway Authority, Bridge Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, etc. - instead all of these functions would have to be handled by NYSDOT because there would be no other legal structure under which the state could handle them.
[emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119] [emoji119]
Come to think of it, there wouldn't have been a Robert Moses. Wonder how toll facilities would have evolved in NY, then, if at all.
I would change the decision to abandon I-92 in Michigan. The I-94 loop around Lake Michigan is absurd.
I would have lobbied to ban the development of urban freeways in (pick a city) except in situations where they were obviously necessary for industry, banning the use of passenger cars on those roadways.
That would have completely changed the urban form for the better.
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2017, 01:29:08 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 09, 2017, 01:23:43 PMBack to the topic at hand: I would've stopped MA Gov. Sargent's 1970 moratorium on all highway construction projects inside of Route 128, which would've allowed the construction of I-95 in its original form, the Inner Belt (I-695) as well as the twin connectors to Salem.
And Bostonians would have assassinated you.
Let me remind you that I'm originally from the Greater Boston area.
Complete the Bluegrass Parkway between US 60 and the interstate system.
Quote from: corco on February 09, 2017, 01:59:24 PM
I would have lobbied to ban the development of urban freeways in (pick a city) except in situations where they were obviously necessary for industry, banning the use of passenger cars on those roadways.
That would have completely changed the urban form for the better.
I'm not totally sold on that. If anything, businesses would've bailed the urban cores as well, leaving the core pretty empty. Suburbanization started well before freeways were constructed, and would've continued even without them.
Instead of dumping them altogether, I would have modernised the streetcar systems. "Streetcar" doesn't seem to have quite the same "poor person" connotation as "bus", and they carry a lot more people (plus they're more fun -- you can't hang off the side of a bus! (never mind that modern streetcars don't allow this)).
Certainly light rail systems which run on exclusive ROW are preferable to regional streetcar systems (which often share ROW with cars), but streetcars are a great affordable middle-ground between bus and light rail (affordability of a BRT, capacity of light rail). Plus, if we had the same track layout as we did before most cities ripped out their streetcars, most cities would have hundreds of miles of streetcar systems. I bet there'd be a lot less desire for a drivers licence if streetcars still plastered our streets like they used to.
I would've prevented the state-name on the interstate shields from ever being taken off.
Similarly, I would've tried keeping cut-out US and state route shields around, instead of them all being the boring square signs we see today (sans California).
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 09, 2017, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2017, 01:29:08 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 09, 2017, 01:23:43 PMBack to the topic at hand: I would've stopped MA Gov. Sargent's 1970 moratorium on all highway construction projects inside of Route 128, which would've allowed the construction of I-95 in its original form, the Inner Belt (I-695) as well as the twin connectors to Salem.
And Bostonians would have assassinated you.
Let me remind you that I'm originally from the Greater Boston area.
Yep. You seen the footage of Sargent trying to get the opponents under control? They were totally ravenous.
I would've stopped several P3s and New Urbanists from happening. If I couldn't, then I could at least try to do that 78k mile Interstate system...
Quote from: Ian on February 09, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
I would've prevented the state-name on the interstate shields from ever being taken off.
Similarly, I would've tried keeping cut-out US and state route shields around, instead of them all being the boring square signs we see today (sans California).
I'll second that emotion!
Rick
One of two things for Connecticut:
1- I-84 had been completely built between greater Hartford to Providence (and lessen the traffic on I-95 in New London County)
2- Building the northwest quadrant of the Hartford beltway...from "The Stack" on I-84 in Farmington up to I-91 in Windsor.
Having two MN-62s. Pick one to keep and one to renumber, I don't care which.
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2017, 11:29:24 AM
...I would veto/repeal NMSL as soon as it happened.
He makes a good point though. Even today, a lot of people still talk about speed limits being 55 mph. It's a magical mark that never had any significance whatsoever, except it required every state to reduce their limit by at least 5.
Quote from: corco on February 09, 2017, 01:59:24 PM
I would have lobbied to ban the development of urban freeways in (pick a city) except in situations where they were obviously necessary for industry, banning the use of passenger cars on those roadways.
That would have completely changed the urban form for the better.
If you look at the older cities - Boston, NYC, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc, etc...there were jams on the ferries, leading to the bridges. There were jams on the bridges, leading to bigger roadways, and roadways that became limited access roadways.
Interstates and modern highways were way, way behind all of that.
While freeways made it easier to live in the suburbs, suburban living was something that came with the car, not the freeway.
If you wanted to keep the urban form for the better, the decision you want to influence is the advent of the car, period.
I'm tempted to go with preventing NMSL, but many of the worst offenders for low speed limits would probably still be that way even if NMSL never happened (NY had a similar law a couple years before that actually reduced the speed limit even further; it's still in effect in NYC; Ontario and Québec still have their versions as well). Plus it was already mentioned. Quite a few other good ones mentioned too (I especially like the 48k interstate system, which would have resulted in some corridors that I would have liked to see built, such as the rooftop highway (incidentally, that version of the proposal is VERY hard to find online; I found one earlier, but can't find it again; anyone got a link?)). I guess I'll go with something completely different: prevent NY's 1970s switch to mile-based exit numbers from being halted.
Quote from: sparker on February 09, 2017, 11:59:08 AM
I'd first go back to about 1945 and incessantly lobby for the adoption of the 48,300-mile Interstate system in place of the 40K system that eventually became the original system of 1956 (with some tweaking, of course!).
Since I'm limited to one choice here, I'm going to go in a similar vein, but go with a slightly larger system, perhaps a 55K system. Based on the maps on http://www.roadfan.com/intreg.html (http://www.roadfan.com/intreg.html), there are still routes in the 78,000 mile system that would be nice to have, but did not get adopted such as:
* Kansas City - Springfield - Little Rock - towards Baton Rouge
* An extension of today's I-39 that runs down through Jackson, TN, then continues on to Mobile
* What has mostly been built today in Illinois as I-88
Even with the shown 78,000 mile system, there are still missing links such as a corridor for today's Avenue of the Saints between St. Louis and the Twin Cities, western I-76, and a mostly complete I-24 to at least today's I-57. So even though some of the mileage shown could be cut - particularly out west - I think it would have been better to start with a larger system.
EDIT: I am also thinking that it would have been better to go with a bigger early system rather than a larger later expansion so more of the corridors could have been built using more direct routes than some of the curvy routes later required by the EIS process.
Preventing the decommissioning of US 61 in central and northern Minnesota.
Quote from: MNHighwayManHaving two MN-62s. Pick one to keep and one to renumber, I don't care which.
Local familiarity aside, I've always seen Fulda-Windom as a potential MN 17.
Quote from: jeffandnicoleWhile freeways made it easier to live in the suburbs, suburban living was something that came with the car, not the freeway.
Suburban living began with the streetcars. The car helped, but it didn't really take off en masse until the freeway. After that point, decades of policies that promoted the car to the exclusion of all else didn't help things.
Quote from: vdeane(I especially like the 48k interstate system, which would have resulted in some corridors that I would have liked to see built, such as the rooftop highway (incidentally, that version of the proposal is VERY hard to find online; I found one earlier, but can't find it again; anyone got a link?))
As Revive already noted, there's a copy of the map on roadfan (http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg). I thought I had one on my site, but guess I didn't upload it. Also, if you do a deep enough web searching, you may be able to find a PDF of the original 1944 Interregional Highways report which shows maps of the 48K and 78K systems. I found it several years ago, but have no memory of where I found it.
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 09:49:57 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayManHaving two MN-62s. Pick one to keep and one to renumber, I don't care which.
Local familiarity aside, I've always seen Fulda-Windom as a potential MN 17.
I had that same thought too, because I went and looked up what that 62's CR/LR number was - it's 16, so one could say "close enough" and call it MN-17.
Or it could become MN-31, which is available and is half of 62 :)
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 09, 2017, 09:22:13 PM
Preventing the decommissioning of US 61 in central and northern Minnesota.
This is a good choice too, even though it would mean one of my favorite Minnesota highway oddities would never have existed: MN-361 (and its strange partner MN-324).
NO INTERSTATES IN CAMPBELL COUNTY!!!
I'd go back to the 1964 renumbering in California and find a way to make sure that US 99, US 299, and even US 60 had a future after the construction of the Interstates. Really California giving to the boot to most of the US Routes had a huge negative effect on the west coast in it being a supplemental grid to the Interstate system. While I'm at it all the gapped routes that really would have no chance of ever being connected would receive different route designations.
I'd prevent the Clearview interim approval from being issued. At least until multiple studies could be furnished proving it was unquestionably more legible than FHWA Series in every potential application. Had no IA been approved at the time it was in real life, then Meeker & Associates would likely continue improving the typeface. An IA could be issued later on, at the point that it was an indisputable improvement, and you wouldn't have this debacle of states blowing money on Clearview licenses and then having the IA revoked out from under them.
I would have had the interstates keep the same numbers as the US routes they replaced, just a different color shield. When new numbers were needed, keep them in the US route grid.
Maybe allow super 2's to be interstates in low-traffic rural areas, as long as ROW was reserved for their evenual expension.
Going back to my Bay Area days, I would have added the full four additional lanes to the Caldecott Tunnel back in the early 1960s. Ouch, the hours I wasted due to that 4/2 configuration (and the labor and expense that was involved in reversing the center bore). By the time they started construction on the fourth bore I had left the area.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 09, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
This is a good choice too, even though it would mean one of my favorite Minnesota highway oddities would never have existed: MN-361 (and its strange partner MN-324).
Under my plan, it still would have: I had no problem with relocating 61 onto I-35 and giving old 61 back to the counties (and 361 would still have been needed to meet that CR 1 requirement), just that I wouldn't have dropped 61 between Duluth and Wyoming in 1990 after it had been tied entirely to I-35 since 1977.
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 09:49:57 PM
As Revive already noted, there's a copy of the map on roadfan (http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg). I thought I had one on my site, but guess I didn't upload it. Also, if you do a deep enough web searching, you may be able to find a PDF of the original 1944 Interregional Highways report which shows maps of the 48K and 78K systems. I found it several years ago, but have no memory of where I found it.
Here's a copy of an image of the 78K system (http://www.roadfan.com/intreg6.jpg), also from roadfan.com.
I would have changed a designation in the 1956 plan. I would have numbered the Galveston-Dallas route I-41, and left I-45 free for a more of a cross-country route. In this scenario I see the Alexandria to Shreveport route being approved as I-45 even if it was a single state route due to potential expansion, as it was confirmed by the later extension to Kansas City (although it still has a gap in Arkansas). Getting I-29 renumbered to I-45 to complete the Gulf of Mexico to Canada route would be harder, but not impossible.
On a second choice I would have rejected CA's application for I-238.
Build I-495 as a tunnel under Manhattan connecting the Long Island Expressway (I-495) to what's now NJ 495 so that people actually have a sane way of getting between Long Island and New Jersey. Also, it would probably take some traffic off the streets of Manhattan.
On a somewhat less significant scale, let Long Island keep the state routes that got decommissioned, especially NY 27A. There's no good reason why Montauk Highway shouldn't have a single route number until Southampton.
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2017, 06:13:55 PMYou seen the footage of Sargent trying to get the opponents under control? They were totally ravenous.
Yes I have seen the footage (such was shown on a documentary covering the Big Dig). It still doesn't make what happened completely right. BTW, Sargent was shown the door when he ran for his 1974 re-election bid.
Had proponents of the highway projects banded together in a similar fashion that the opponents did; the overall outcome might have been different.
Worth noting: from a traffic standpoint, the region is still paying the consequences of those no-build decisions that were made over 45 years ago.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 09, 2017, 08:08:31 PMIf you look at the older cities - Boston, NYC, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc, etc...there were jams on the ferries, leading to the bridges. There were jams on the bridges, leading to bigger roadways, and roadways that became limited access roadways.
Worth noting (& my older brother read up on this): Boston was already dealing with traffic problems before the Central Artery/Dewey Square-South Station Tunnel came on the scene. Had the highway not been built; I don't think one would've had the business development along the corridor that largely followed.
That's easy for me: I would build the I-494 Crosstown Expressway, but not the Lake Shore Drive upgrade (I-694).
I would go to the mid-1960s and try to secure full funding and resources to get Maryland Route 23 built past Jarrettsville, and all the way to the Westminster area. The segment of MD-23 I'm talking about was ultimately built as a seven-mile connector between Hickory and Jarrettsville called East-West Highway. Mike Pruett of MDRoads says East-West Highway was envisioned as a partial outer beltway for Baltimore called the Piedmont Expressway that would have provided a direct route between Carroll and Harford counties. Route 23's crossings over Phillips Mill and Morse roads on the Forest Hill-Jarrettsville stretch (west of Route 24) are evidence of this.
Here's one for Florida. Go back to the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 and the post disaster aftermath that led to the acquisition of the Overseas Railroad which later became US 1. Instead of abandoning the improvement projects to State Road 4a like the Veterans Key Bridge which would have been next to the railroad, instead create a fully functional four-lane divided expressway all the way to Key West using the Overseas Railroad bridges and new highway bridges next to them. If you look at the Lower Keys especially 4a ran next to the railroad from Sugarloaf Key to Little Torch Key on separate bridges (although they would need to be replaced since most were wooden) for a surprising distance.
I would go back and have the Findlay, Ohio to Columbus corridor included in the original interstate system (with it lining up with and taking over what is now OH 315 between I-270 and I-70)
Dear Caltrans circa 1990:
Renovate the east span of the Bay Bridge, don't replace it. Replacing it will take a quarter of a century and $7 billion, not 3/4 billion as projected.
You're welcome,
future KKT
I would negate whatever decision it was that conceived of the notion of mainline interstates going from urban center to urban center.
Instead have the long-distance freeways run outside the urban areas, with relatively few interchanges, and rely on spurs and loops to connect cities with the new mainline highways.
Thought of a couple:
1) Allow direct connections between toll roads and free highways from the get-go. No more Breezewood or NJT to Philadelphia nuttiness.
2) Follow through with original I-95 plan in NJ to avoid decades of the stupid gap.
One that comes to mind for perhaps 25 to 30 years ago: Get all states that have toll facilities onboard for a single national ETC system. Perhaps take it one step further and involve Canada and maybe Mexico as well.
I'd go back before the decommissioning of it and have US 66 written into law along its corridor, like I-69 (and its branches) and I-99 are now.
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2017, 02:10:51 PM2) Follow through with original I-95 plan in NJ to avoid decades of the stupid gap.
Agree with you 100%; however (and one good turn deserves another) the people of Hopewell, Montgomery & Princeton Townships would've assassinated you. :)
If NJ simply signed 95 down the Turnpike, or if a direct connection between the PA Turnpike and 95 was built decades ago, this gap would rarely be talked about today.
Cases in point: We bring up the 95 gap in DC, and the 95 gap in Boston, way, way less than we do the 95 gap in NJ.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2017, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2017, 02:10:51 PM2) Follow through with original I-95 plan in NJ to avoid decades of the stupid gap.
Agree with you 100%; however (and one good turn deserves another) the people of Hopewell, Montgomery & Princeton Townships would've assassinated you. :)
I'd take the bullet and die a martyr.
Have Kappa Map Group adopt ADC's old graphics group-wide. Their present graphics are diuretic shit! :pan:
Having two ST 97s in Pennsylvania, and a ST 97 and an I-97 in Maryland. Now where else do you have two adjacent states that duplicate the SAME route number? :pan:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2017, 02:55:59 PMCases in point: We bring up the 95 gap in DC, and the 95 gap in Boston, way, way less than we do the 95 gap in NJ.
That's largely because three out of the four the I-95-Proper connections to the De-Facto-I-95s (Canton, MA; College Park, MD & Springfield, VA) already existed and the remaining connection (I-95/MA 128 in Peabody, MA) has long since been built (28-29 years ago).
To date & as we all know, the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange is only
now being constructed; some 35 years after the Somerset Freeway was canned.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2017, 12:10:31 AM
I'd go back to the 1964 renumbering in California and find a way to make sure that US 99, US 299, and even US 60 had a future after the construction of the Interstates. Really California giving to the boot to most of the US Routes had a huge negative effect on the west coast in it being a supplemental grid to the Interstate system. While I'm at it all the gapped routes that really would have no chance of ever being connected would receive different route designations.
I agree with this. One thing that California hasn't been able to do since the '64 renumbering is use US Highways the way many other states do, in that they represent the best crossing of any given area. i.e. US-299 was a great example... It is easily the best crossing of the Coast Ranges, much better than CA-36, CA-20, etc. Driving on CA-299 one would know this, but looking at a map, there's no indication at all about road quality. I feel that had it remained as US-299, motorists might equate it to being on par with, say, US-101, that it's a good crossing and probably the best one to take.
I don't know if I would have completely undone the '64 renumbering, but I think it went too far in the other direction for the sake of simplification.
One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.
Quote from: Quillz on February 10, 2017, 04:29:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2017, 12:10:31 AM
I'd go back to the 1964 renumbering in California and find a way to make sure that US 99, US 299, and even US 60 had a future after the construction of the Interstates. Really California giving to the boot to most of the US Routes had a huge negative effect on the west coast in it being a supplemental grid to the Interstate system. While I'm at it all the gapped routes that really would have no chance of ever being connected would receive different route designations.
I agree with this. One thing that California hasn't been able to do since the '64 renumbering is use US Highways the way many other states do, in that they represent the best crossing of any given area. i.e. US-299 was a great example... It is easily the best crossing of the Coast Ranges, much better than CA-36, CA-20, etc. Driving on CA-299 one would know this, but looking at a map, there's no indication at all about road quality. I feel that had it remained as US-299, motorists might equate it to being on par with, say, US-101, that it's a good crossing and probably the best one to take.
I don't know if I would have completely undone the '64 renumbering, but I think it went too far in the other direction for the sake of simplification.
Really I don't think California was alone at the time in thinking that with the Interstates getting close to being finished that US Routes would have much of a demand that still do today. In regards to getting rid of the LRNs, that was a good decision as well as simplifying some of the highway alignments. There was a couple wing and prayer routes like 168 that really stood no chance of ever being joined which could have received different designations. Really if there was an opportunity for California renumber in a more grid-like design as Florida did in 1945 and Nevada did in 1976 it was during the 1964 renumbering. Aside from that though there was some strange changes like 178 west of Bakersfield being changed for 58.
I would go back and say that I-91 should be routed east of the Connecticut River and away from downtown Hartford. I've seen photos of its construction along the riverbank and it displaced thousands of people's homes and IMO contributed to the city's cultural decline through the end of the 20th Century.
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 09, 2017, 01:05:38 PM
Use Robert Moses' original routing for I-5 through Portland, which was several blocks inland, and was designed as either a sunken freeway, or as a cut and cover.
Could still happen. If the Portland City Council gets the itch to remove the Eastshore Freeway again, the study Vera Katz's administration put together said the Stadium/Eastshore Loops was too important to outright remove and recommended a tunnel under the river and SE 7th Ave...
My submission: Disallow Rand McNally from buying Thomas Bros.
Connect NY-33 with I-190.
A secondary project would be the completion of NY-179 to the Lasalle Expressway.
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2017, 04:34:35 PM
One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.
I agree. Long trips on motorways where that is common are very convenient. It's not like you can't exit at a town along the way if you want something else to eat.
HTC6525LVW
One for Spain: I'd go back to the 80s, fight those who wanted untolled freeways, and proceed ahead with the previous (although from the dictatorship...) plan of tolled motorways. That way we wouldn't have the mess we have currently. However some regional corridors would remain toll free.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2017, 12:10:31 AM
I'd go back to the 1964 renumbering in California and find a way to make sure that US 99, US 299, and even US 60 had a future after the construction of the Interstates. Really California giving to the boot to most of the US Routes had a huge negative effect on the west coast in it being a supplemental grid to the Interstate system. While I'm at it all the gapped routes that really would have no chance of ever being connected would receive different route designations.
I concur with this. I add US 6 could be still running to I-5, even if it requires a concurrency with US 395. Also, I'd renumber CA 180 to something else so I-180 could be designated and avoid the I-238 thing.
Quote from: billpa on February 11, 2017, 05:18:14 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2017, 04:34:35 PM
One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.
I agree. Long trips on motorways where that is common are very convenient. It's not like you can't exit at a town along the way if you want something else to eat.
HTC6525LVW
It is a dicey issue. You can see commercial rest areas as federal-tax subsidized -- the taxes set up everything for the business. That strikes me as unfair, despite the fact I like the convenience as well.
Not sure what is fair, though. I guess I will sit on the fence.
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2017, 08:13:14 AM
Quote from: billpa on February 11, 2017, 05:18:14 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2017, 04:34:35 PM
One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.
I agree. Long trips on motorways where that is common are very convenient. It's not like you can't exit at a town along the way if you want something else to eat.
HTC6525LVW
It is a dicey issue. You can see commercial rest areas as federal-tax subsidized -- the taxes set up everything for the business. That strikes me as unfair, despite the fact I like the convenience as well.
Not sure what is fair, though. I guess I will sit on the fence.
To me it would be no different than allowing stores or restaurants in airport terminals or train stations.
HTC6525LVW
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2017, 04:15:21 PM
To date & as we all know, the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange is only now being constructed; some 35 years after the Somerset Freeway was canned.
At least they are going to finish the interchange at Bristol enough to complete I-95 (presuming that the bridge over the Delaware River between New Jersey and Pennsylvania is repaired enough to re-open it to traffic later this year).
Quote from: Rothman on February 11, 2017, 08:13:14 AM
Quote from: billpa on February 11, 2017, 05:18:14 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2017, 04:34:35 PM
One that I would have done is to not prohibit commercialized rest areas (service areas) on the interstate highways (and other highways) built with federal money.
I agree. Long trips on motorways where that is common are very convenient. It's not like you can't exit at a town along the way if you want something else to eat.
HTC6525LVW
It is a dicey issue. You can see commercial rest areas as federal-tax subsidized -- the taxes set up everything for the business. That strikes me as unfair, despite the fact I like the convenience as well.
Not sure what is fair, though. I guess I will sit on the fence.
You could go a step further and change the decision that the interstate system would be free. If planners of the day hadn't been so toll-phobic, we wouldn't have the old rules against interstate vs toll road interchanges, there would be a revenue source to maintain the highway system, and service plazas start to be easier to justify if lease revenues go towards highway maintenance.
I'm not a fan of tolls, but as long as they don't get too carried away, they're better than crumbling bridges and higher gas taxes.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2017, 03:31:28 PM
Complete the Bluegrass Parkway between US 60 and the interstate system.
That one has always been a real headscratcher..still is to this day.
Kentucky did the same thing with the Pennyrile, left a few key miles off at both ends. It took 40 years to get the 8 mile link on the south end to I-24, and the northern end is still about 4 miles too short. If those 4 miles had been built in '69, we wouldn't be having all of the dilemma on how to get 69 over the river.
It has never made any sense that KY would build miles and miles of a new highway, and cut them off just short of greatly increasing their productivity.
I have a fairly recent one for South Dakota: Reroute the Heartland Expressway so that it goes through Hot Springs and Edgemont, and into Wyoming. Wyoming was, and still is today, much more willing to four-lane US 85 than Nebraska is willing to four-lane most of the rest of US 385.
Not sure if this counts as a "single decision" , but I'd go back to 1939 and make the Pennsylvania Turnpike's design specs more modern, setting a wider minimum median width, wider minimum ROW width, and higher-speed interchange geometry.
Since the Turnpike served as the archetype for Pennsylvania's limited access highways built in the ensuing two decades, it's possible that a broader and more modern Turnpike would have saved the older portions of I-70, I-83, the Schuylkill, etc. from being so unfortunately under built.
At the very least, had the ROWs and medians been wider, we'd have more space for modernization and capacity expansion.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 11, 2017, 02:05:53 PM
Not sure if this counts as a "single decision" , but I'd go back to 1939 and make the Pennsylvania Turnpike's design specs more modern, setting a wider minimum median width, wider minimum ROW width, and higher-speed interchange geometry.
I'm not
totally sold on any of these things being necessary for a road to be considered "modern". Narrow medians are ubiquitous throughout the rest of the world, and there doesn't seem to be a correlation between narrow medians and crash frequency. ROW width isn't really related to the design of the road (well-designed roads can have narrow ROWs); a broad ROW can allow for widening, but the freeway as-built can still be modern, regardless of ROW width. As for higher-speed interchanges, I can appreciate an interchange which allows high speeds, but the design of a junction is based on the needs of that particular junction. In the case of the Turnpike, most of the junctions needed to be trumpets because those are better at handling toll booths.
At any rate, Germany uses loop ramps at most interchanges, yet over 50% of their motorway network has no speed limit. My point being that modern ≠ long swooping interchange ramps. Though with that in mind, a well-designed freeway should not have sharp corners along the mainline. Germany takes the cake by having very wide turns. They also use a very thick layer of asphalt, which keeps the road in better shape.
I think the Turnpike, along with many other Northeastern freeways, suffers from corners that are too sharp, ascents and descents that are too sudden, pavement that is of poor quality, amongst other things. If they worked on those things, these roads could easily have 85 or 90 mph speed limits.
I would certainly take Germany's road thickness over wider ROWs if I had to choose just one.
HTC6525LVW
Quote from: Buck87 on February 10, 2017, 12:45:24 PM
I would go back and have the Findlay, Ohio to Columbus corridor included in the original interstate system (with it lining up with and taking over what is now OH 315 between I-270 and I-70)
That might be stretching the premise too much, considering that corridor apparently wasn't even in the 78k system. But I would certainly lobby for access control and preservation of the future option of freeway conversion along US 23 between Worthington and Waldo. It would probably have been fully converted to freeway by 1999 if such steps had been taken.
Two for Wisconsin:
- Route what is now I-41 to go via the present-day US 45 West Bend Spur and along the now-abandoned CNW railroad from West Bend to the south side of the present-day I-41 Fond du Lac bypass. The present-day I-41 routing was first blazed as a high-grade two-lane highway in the late 1940s. IMHO, the current split in the routes is wastefully duplicative.
- Build the Park and Stadium freeways as planned out to the end of the present-day WI 145 freeway at 67th/Fond du Lac in Milwaukee.
Mike
Quote from: billpa on February 11, 2017, 05:45:53 PM
I would certainly take Germany's road thickness over wider ROWs if I had to choose just one.
HTC6525LVW
There's nothing worse than pavement noise and road defects that makes driving less comfortable.
Michgan....never take US 10 off the Lodge or even put it back on Woodward. A X0 US Route ought to end at a major city.
Quote from: vtk on February 11, 2017, 08:13:32 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on February 10, 2017, 12:45:24 PM
I would go back and have the Findlay, Ohio to Columbus corridor included in the original interstate system (with it lining up with and taking over what is now OH 315 between I-270 and I-70)
That might be stretching the premise too much, considering that corridor apparently wasn't even in the 78k system. But I would certainly lobby for access control and preservation of the future option of freeway conversion along US 23 between Worthington and Waldo. It would probably have been fully converted to freeway by 1999 if such steps had been taken.
The I-73 corridor in Ohio did appear in one of the Interregional Highway plans: http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg (http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg)
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 12, 2017, 12:25:17 PM
Quote from: vtk on February 11, 2017, 08:13:32 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on February 10, 2017, 12:45:24 PM
I would go back and have the Findlay, Ohio to Columbus corridor included in the original interstate system (with it lining up with and taking over what is now OH 315 between I-270 and I-70)
That might be stretching the premise too much, considering that corridor apparently wasn't even in the 78k system. But I would certainly lobby for access control and preservation of the future option of freeway conversion along US 23 between Worthington and Waldo. It would probably have been fully converted to freeway by 1999 if such steps had been taken.
The I-73 corridor in Ohio did appear in one of the Interregional Highway plans: http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg (http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg)
Thanks. I knew I had seen the corridor on some early map. Where is that map originally from?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 12, 2017, 08:49:24 AM
Michgan....never take US 10 off the Lodge or even put it back on Woodward. A X0 US Route ought to end at a major city.
What'cha got against Bay City?
Actually Bay City is pretty near the median size of cities where US 10 through 90 end. There's plenty of smaller cities.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 10, 2017, 04:06:53 AM
Here's a copy of an image of the 78K system (http://www.roadfan.com/intreg6.jpg), also from roadfan.com.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 12, 2017, 12:25:17 PM
The I-73 corridor in Ohio did appear in one of the Interregional Highway plans: http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg (http://www.roadfan.com/intreg5.jpg)
Quote from: caption on the 48k map, second link above
The 48,300-mile system, consisting of the more important routes of the 78,800-mile system.
...plus a few more that aren't in the 78k system, apparently.
I already noted that when froggie posted his take on the 77,700 km system, there are several routes there but not on the 126,800 km one, namely Rawlins WY-Livingstone MT (The one through Yellowstone), Walsenburg-Cortez both in CO, and Flagstaff AZ-St George UT. Neither include current I-77, though, which led me to ask what would have happened if it was never built only to find out it would have got built anyway.
Now I check again, other routes that were included in the 48.3k system but not in the 78.8k one are Nashville-Chicago, Charleston WV-Knoxville, Asheville-Greensboro, Atlanta-Augusta GA and Erie-Scranton. And current I-24 West of Hopkinsville wasn't included in either.
Quote from: billpa on February 11, 2017, 05:45:53 PM
I would certainly take Germany's road thickness over wider ROWs if I had to choose just one.
Didn'l Michigan try that and find it didn't fare much better than regular paving methods in the harsh winter?
A couple Chicago-area decisions I would make:
- Make the I-90/I-290 interchange a stack, or at least make the NB-WB movement a flyover/turbine ramp. That was the original routing of I-90, after all.
- In downtown Chicago, I would limit the number of interchanges on the Kennedy. It doesn't even matter which cross streets get the interchanges, as long as it's only two or three. I understand IDOT's rationale for building an interchange every block, but I think it was a pretty stupid decision.
- More recent, but I'd prevent the residential development directly south of the I-355/I-80 interchange to account for a future expansion. I know it would never happen even if the neighborhood wasn't there, but it would still be a slight possibility.
- On the topic of the I-355/I-80 interchange, I would make the curve radii of the ramps a little bit bigger. Either that, or I would have made the footprint smaller. With the amount of space taken up, though, there's not much of an excuse not to have built four high-speed ramps.
I know the completion of I-95 has been brought up but here's my take on it.. the moment the interstate highway system was created I would've definitely suggested to the FHWA and New Jersey that they designate the entire turnpike as I-95. Philly was already a major city and well established before the interstate highway system even existed so the Delaware Expressway could've been signed as something else, like a 3di. They really could've done without the I-95 designation.
Also I would've suggested that an interchange be built on the turnpike at NJ 42, or at least secure the ROW to make the interchange of I-295/I-76/NJ 42 a complete one. There is no way in hell I would use US 40 to reach Atlantic City from the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Also I would've asked Virginia to think hard before removing tolls from certain facilities. While they made a good decision by taking the tolls off of I-95 and VA 44 (they really didn't have much of a choice with I-95 anyway because of I-295), they should've left them in place on many of the bridges and tunnels in the eastern part of the state. Very expensive infrastructure being maintained by the state's general highway fund. That money could've been spent on other roads across the state. Matter of fact, the Coleman Bridge and the Downtown and Midtown tunnels are tolled all over again due to the needed expansions/renovations, something that could've happened sooner if the original tolls would've stayed in place.
Also Virginia could've considered a limited access highway instead of just an arterial along US 58 from Hampton Roads to I-85 (I hear people saying to I-95 but that's not good enough in my eyes as I-85 is the more important route south of Virginia because it connects to a larger population). Even in it's 4 laned configuration, US 58 is hazardous along this entire stretch because of increasing long distance traffic on a road with many at-grades and private entrances, leading to numerous accidents including many fatal ones over the years.
As a US 58 veteran, I'd argue that it's not as crazy dangerous as you're making it out to be. US 460 is a far more dangerous route.
Quote from: plain on February 13, 2017, 03:04:43 AM
I know the completion of I-95 has been brought up but here's my take on it.. the moment the interstate highway system was created I would've definitely suggested to the FHWA and New Jersey that they designate the entire turnpike as I-95. Philly was already a major city and well established before the interstate highway system even existed so the Delaware Expressway could've been signed as something else, like a 3di. They really could've done without the I-95 designation.
This ignores the entire premise of interstate highways which was to link cities. 3dis were to go around or spur away from cities. A fair argument would be to make the NJ Turnpike a 3di, not the other way around. Or, if we are to go back in time, we could say that interstate highways should get people close to cities, with 3dis taking people into the city. In fact, that's not really a bad way of looking at it!
With few exceptions, nearly every city in America was well established before the interstate highway system was created.
QuoteAlso I would've suggested that an interchange be built on the turnpike at NJ 42, or at least secure the ROW to make the interchange of I-295/I-76/NJ 42 a complete one. There is no way in hell I would use US 40 to reach Atlantic City from the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
I can only imagine the original intention of the 295/76/42 interchange was the belief at the time that motorist's primary intention on those various highways was to head outside of New Jersey towards Philadelphia. The planning was pretty involved with a lot of far-reaching dreams, but there were several other bridges planned north of the Ben Franklin Bridge over the river to I-95. South of this interchange, there was passenger ferries to get people across the river, along with a vehicle ferry for US 322. To me, this explains why there was a express/local division for motorists to access I-76 West from 295 North, and the ability for motorists on I-76 East to use the express or local lanes to get to 295 South - motorists' options to cross the Delaware were limited to the Ben Franklin and Delaware Memorial Bridges, with the Walt Whitman Bridge being built as a 3di across the Delaware to supplement traffic. Motorists north of I-76 were going to have numerous other options, thus those north of 76 weren't going to have the option of accessing both the I-76 express and local lanes; they could only use the local lanes.
This is further exhibited by the next 3 interchanges on 295 south of 76: Exit 25 (NJ 47), Exit 24B (CR 551) and Exit 24A (NJ 45) are all partial interchanges to and from the North.
By the 1980's, I think it was apparent that the beliefs of those designing 295 didn't materialize or changed dramatically. A bridge replaced the vehicle ferry for US 322. The passenger ferries ceased to exist. But by then, 30 years later, anyone involved with the original 295 most likely didn't work for NJDOT anymore, and the history of such was mostly forgotten.
Even Route 55, which is a late comer to the highway scene in South Jersey, didn't follow its original routing. If you read far back, the original route appears to take it into the West Deptford area, connecting with 295. I've never seen a map or figured out the exact plan. Any mention of it since the 70's always took it towards Route 42.
As far as the NJ Turnpike/Route 42 goes, definitely a missed opportunity there.
Thought of another one:
I would have prevented the "recent" name and shield changes to Kentucky's parkways (i.e., except for the years-ago addition of Bert T. Combs to the Mountain Parkway).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 11, 2017, 10:28:10 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 10, 2017, 04:15:21 PM
To date & as we all know, the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange is only now being constructed; some 35 years after the Somerset Freeway was canned.
At least they are going to finish the interchange at Bristol enough to complete I-95 (presuming that the bridge over the Delaware River between New Jersey and Pennsylvania is repaired enough to re-open it to traffic later this year).
The primary point of my bringing up the above was in response to J&N's comment regarding why many are still talking about the I-95 gap in NJ and/or the proposed reroute via the PA Turnpike but not about I-95's rerouting onto the Capital Beltway (I-495) nor its rerouting on MA 128 (Yankee Division Highway).
All connections (such that they are) for the latter two regions have existed for
at least 28-29 years. Note: plans are in the works to reconfigure the I-95 interchange in Canton, MA to eliminate the single-lane cloverleaf carrying through-I-95 northbound traffic (such should've been done decades ago) but such is another story for another thread.
Quote from: froggie on February 13, 2017, 07:49:29 AM
As a US 58 veteran, I'd argue that it's not as crazy dangerous as you're making it out to be. US 460 is a far more dangerous route.
Yes I would definitely consider US 460 very dangerous (I'm still mad about Virginia fouling that up by the way) but I am also a US 58 veteran myself, well at least from Danville eastward, and at one point traveled it once or twice a week because of my job when I lived in Norfolk. I have seen some pretty serious accidents in Brunswick and Southampton Counties and in Suffolk west of the bypass, including ones involving tractor trailers.
Quote from: Rothman on February 13, 2017, 08:31:57 AM
Thought of another one:
I would have prevented the "recent" name and shield changes to Kentucky's parkways (i.e., except for the years-ago addition of Bert T. Combs to the Mountain Parkway).
Agreed, especially in the case of the Daniel Boone Pkwy smdh.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2017, 08:23:12 AM
QuoteAlso I would've suggested that an interchange be built on the turnpike at NJ 42, or at least secure the ROW to make the interchange of I-295/I-76/NJ 42 a complete one. There is no way in hell I would use US 40 to reach Atlantic City from the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
I can only imagine the original intention of the 295/76/42 interchange was the belief at the time that motorist's primary intention on those various highways was to head outside of New Jersey towards Philadelphia. The planning was pretty involved with a lot of far-reaching dreams, but there were several other bridges planned north of the Ben Franklin Bridge over the river to I-95. South of this interchange, there was passenger ferries to get people across the river, along with a vehicle ferry for US 322. To me, this explains why there was a express/local division for motorists to access I-76 West from 295 North, and the ability for motorists on I-76 East to use the express or local lanes to get to 295 South - motorists' options to cross the Delaware were limited to the Ben Franklin and Delaware Memorial Bridges, with the Walt Whitman Bridge being built as a 3di across the Delaware to supplement traffic. Motorists north of I-76 were going to have numerous other options, thus those north of 76 weren't going to have the option of accessing both the I-76 express and local lanes; they could only use the local lanes.
This is further exhibited by the next 3 interchanges on 295 south of 76: Exit 25 (NJ 47), Exit 24B (CR 551) and Exit 24A (NJ 45) are all partial interchanges to and from the North.
I always wondered why those 3 exits were set up like that... to me it never made any sense.
Quote
Agreed, especially in the case of the Daniel Boone Pkwy smdh.
I am all for the Kentuckian worship of the explorer that abandoned his family and was just not that nice of a guy. :D
I suppose somebody had to find the way through the mountains...too bad it had to be him. :D
Quote from: pianocello on February 13, 2017, 12:46:08 AM
A couple Chicago-area decisions I would make:
- Make the I-90/I-290 interchange a stack, or at least make the NB-WB movement a flyover/turbine ramp. That was the original routing of I-90, after all.
- In downtown Chicago, I would limit the number of interchanges on the Kennedy. It doesn't even matter which cross streets get the interchanges, as long as it's only two or three. I understand IDOT's rationale for building an interchange every block, but I think it was a pretty stupid decision.
- More recent, but I'd prevent the residential development directly south of the I-355/I-80 interchange to account for a future expansion. I know it would never happen even if the neighborhood wasn't there, but it would still be a slight possibility.
- On the topic of the I-355/I-80 interchange, I would make the curve radii of the ramps a little bit bigger. Either that, or I would have made the footprint smaller. With the amount of space taken up, though, there's not much of an excuse not to have built four high-speed ramps.
A: There was never any real room for a stack there. Even the new ramp had to be shoehorned in. And that new ramp is a flyover ramp.
B: IDOT didn't build that. IDOT didn't even exist at the time it was planned and built. That would be the Cook County Department of Highways. It was turned over to the Illinois Department of Public Works which became IDOT.
C: That was built after the challenges to I-355 that delayed the tollway extension for a decade. Blame the Sierra Club for that bullshit.
D: What are you talking about!?! The I-80/I-355 ramps are high-speed. For some dumbass reason IDOT and ISTHA post the advisory speed at 40 mph when they can easily be taken at 60 mph with a semi. Hell, I take them at 70 mph.
Here's a few I would have completed
One bridge or tunnel linking Long Island and New Haven, CT, and another linking Orient Point and the Greater New London area, with the LIE being completed east of Riverhead.
A 3DI link from I-95 in South County to Newport parallel to RI 138 west of US 1.
Connected CT 2 to I-95 and had it link in to the missing portion of CT/RI 78 (look at casino traffic on two lane roads now). Also built an expressway along the CT 164 corridor linking from CT 2 to I-395.
Extended I-84 along the MA 49 corridor, then have it bend around and take over the E-W portion of I-290, and extend it to I-95/MA 128 near Lexington.
Built an expressway link from Buzzard's Bay linking MA 25 and MA 3/US 6. It becomes part of I-82 that would have followed the I-84 to Providence route, and I-195 and MA 25 to that point.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 13, 2017, 05:53:17 PMA 3DI link from I-95 in South County to Newport parallel to RI 138 west of US 1.
That link was originally part of an overall I-895 plan.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2017, 08:23:12 AM
Quote from: plain on February 13, 2017, 03:04:43 AM
I know the completion of I-95 has been brought up but here's my take on it.. the moment the interstate highway system was created I would've definitely suggested to the FHWA and New Jersey that they designate the entire turnpike as I-95. Philly was already a major city and well established before the interstate highway system even existed so the Delaware Expressway could've been signed as something else, like a 3di. They really could've done without the I-95 designation.
This ignores the entire premise of interstate highways which was to link cities. 3dis were to go around or spur away from cities. A fair argument would be to make the NJ Turnpike a 3di, not the other way around. Or, if we are to go back in time, we could say that interstate highways should get people close to cities, with 3dis taking people into the city. In fact, that's not really a bad way of looking at it!
That's a much better idea, and I'm stunned that the founding fathers of the interstates thought that plowing a long-haul interstate directly through a city center was a good idea. Who thought for even a brief second that mixing long-haul traffic with short-haul, city-bound traffic was a good idea? Long-haul 2dis should link regions, not cities. A drive from one city to another city 800 miles away shouldn't involve switching to a 3di bypass ten times.
In the US, when a bypass
road around a city opens, it's pretty common for the new road to take over the old designation (with the old route receiving an all-new or business designation). But for some reason, this practice does not extend to interstates, where the bypass road gets a three digit designation. If the bypass road carried the 2di designation, you'd get a lot more people using it, and perhaps we'd have a lot less traffic in our inner cores.
^ I've heard varying assessments of how relevant the "Defense" aspect of the Interstate and Defense Highways Act truly was back in 1956, but assuming that it was indeed a top priority in planning the system, let's entertain the following:
One of the Interstates' main purposes was to serve as evacuation routes from major population centers in case of nuclear attack. Additionally, the Interstates would link key industrial centers, ports, etc. with defense facilities in a war scenario. Prior to the rampant suburbanization that, ironically, accelerated in earnest around the time of the 1956 Act, both population and industrial centers were still heavily concentrated within the limits of the cities themselves.
So in that scenario, it would make sense to devote the greatest possible capacity to getting the greatest number of people–who then lived in the cities–straight out of the city in any safe direction as quickly and as simply as possible. Having 2DIs radiating directly outward from the city center helps serve this goal. Civil defense evacuation warnings can carry the simplest messages possible ("North Ward: Take I-25 North" ), and if interchange geometry favors the 2DI to/from the city center, it inherently prioritizes the higher volume traffic from the city over the (then) lower volumes from 3DI spurs and loops in the suburbs.
(edited to add:)
Quote from: jakeroot on February 13, 2017, 06:57:23 PM
[In the US, when a bypass road around a city opens, it's pretty common for the new road to take over the old designation (with the old route receiving an all-new or business designation). But for some reason, this practice does not extend to interstates, where the bypass road gets a three digit designation.
I see where you're going with that line of reasoning, but I don't think the practice of numbering 2DIs through a city was as bass-ackwards as you're suggesting, at least not in historical context.
An urban 2DI
is the bypass–of the maze of city streets that carried its US Route predecessor though the urban area. It's my impression that highway planners actually believed (perhaps naïvely) that urban Interstates would be free-flowing routes serving both local and through traffic adequately. And since the point of a bypass, arguably, is not to avoid
the city per se but to avoid
stopping, the idea of a "bypass" running directly through town isn't so outlandish.
Or at least it would be, provided that the urban Interstate
was free-flowing...which we know in hindsight is basically impossible considering the unbridled increase in demand that followed the freeways' construction.
Quote from: Brandon on February 13, 2017, 05:27:07 PM
Quote from: pianocello on February 13, 2017, 12:46:08 AM
A couple Chicago-area decisions I would make:
- Make the I-90/I-290 interchange a stack, or at least make the NB-WB movement a flyover/turbine ramp. That was the original routing of I-90, after all.
A: There was never any real room for a stack there. Even the new ramp had to be shoehorned in. And that new ramp is a flyover ramp.
Whoops, I should have specified the interchange in Schaumburg. I'm aware the Circle was built about as well as it could have been given the amount of space available. I'm glad that they were able to fit the flyover in, though.
Quote
Quote
- On the topic of the I-355/I-80 interchange, I would make the curve radii of the ramps a little bit bigger. Either that, or I would have made the footprint smaller. With the amount of space taken up, though, there's not much of an excuse not to have built four high-speed ramps.
D: What are you talking about!?! The I-80/I-355 ramps are high-speed. For some dumbass reason IDOT and ISTHA post the advisory speed at 40 mph when they can easily be taken at 60 mph with a semi. Hell, I take them at 70 mph.
Admittedly, I've only been on the SB-EB ramp once, but I pass it on I-80 quite frequently. When I saw the advisory speeds, I assumed it was a curve radius thing.
Anyone say finish CT 11 to I-95/I-395 yet? :D
(Actually, with CT 11 and I-84 to Providence, have to say we've lived well enough without them)
I do like the idea of interstates being more used to link regions, not necessarily city centers. It's one of the reasons that I-5 was built the way it was through the Central Valley, I think. It's not a bad idea and I believe even represents Eisenhower's original vision for the interstates.
Of course, I think one of the biggest downsides is it would have caused many interstates to be built on entirely new alignment, rather that upgrading US highways. Depending on how you feel about environmental intrusion and other factors, this may or may not be a bad thing.
I would have ensured that 70 met up with 95.
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2017, 07:07:12 PM
I do like the idea of interstates being more used to link regions, not necessarily city centers. It's one of the reasons that I-5 was built the way it was through the Central Valley, I think. It's not a bad idea and I believe even represents Eisenhower's original vision for the interstates.
Of course, I think one of the biggest downsides is it would have caused many interstates to be built on entirely new alignment, rather that upgrading US highways. Depending on how you feel about environmental intrusion and other factors, this may or may not be a bad thing.
The only thing was that not all of the rural corridors make a ton of sense. I-70 through Utah should have cut northwest from Green River and not directly west through the San Rafael Swell. Basically I-70 in Utah really doesn't serve Salt Lake City much at all.
I think another reason why the Interstates go right through the middle of the biggest cities, whereas they go around smaller ones, is planners expected even the long-haul traffic to make stops somewhere in the big cities. If for example I-70 swung wide around the south side of Columbus, and I-71 swung wide around its northwest side, there would probably be a 3dI running through the city roughly along the US 33 corridor and another 3dI running from near the 70/71 junction to downtown. And in the 60s, there would be almost no traffic on I-70 or I-71 between their junctions with the 3dIs, because almost everybody would detour into Columbus for food, gas, motor service, and/or lodging – or so the planners would have predicted. Doing it that way wouldn't have made sense without the foreknowledge of how people's travel habits and business locations would shift.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 14, 2017, 11:17:17 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2017, 07:07:12 PM
I do like the idea of interstates being more used to link regions, not necessarily city centers. It's one of the reasons that I-5 was built the way it was through the Central Valley, I think. It's not a bad idea and I believe even represents Eisenhower's original vision for the interstates.
Of course, I think one of the biggest downsides is it would have caused many interstates to be built on entirely new alignment, rather that upgrading US highways. Depending on how you feel about environmental intrusion and other factors, this may or may not be a bad thing.
The only thing was that not all of the rural corridors make a ton of sense. I-70 through Utah should have cut northwest from Green River and not directly west through the San Rafael Swell. Basically I-70 in Utah really doesn't serve Salt Lake City much at all.
But isn't that the purpose of I-80? I think I-70 works well enough where it is. Farther north and it would take longer to take a long-haul route to Denver and points east.
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2017, 11:20:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 14, 2017, 11:17:17 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2017, 07:07:12 PM
I do like the idea of interstates being more used to link regions, not necessarily city centers. It's one of the reasons that I-5 was built the way it was through the Central Valley, I think. It's not a bad idea and I believe even represents Eisenhower's original vision for the interstates.
Of course, I think one of the biggest downsides is it would have caused many interstates to be built on entirely new alignment, rather that upgrading US highways. Depending on how you feel about environmental intrusion and other factors, this may or may not be a bad thing.
The only thing was that not all of the rural corridors make a ton of sense. I-70 through Utah should have cut northwest from Green River and not directly west through the San Rafael Swell. Basically I-70 in Utah really doesn't serve Salt Lake City much at all.
But isn't that the purpose of I-80? I think I-70 works well enough where it is. Farther north and it would take longer to take a long-haul route to Denver and points east.
It works find more for Las Vegas east/west to Denver ironically. Basically the US 6 corridor is the way to go to get to I-70 aside from the I-80 and I-25 route you just stated for Denver-Salt Lake City.
Quote from: vtk on February 14, 2017, 11:20:41 PM
...in the 60s, there would be almost no traffic on I-70 or I-71 between their junctions with the 3dIs, because almost everybody would detour into Columbus for food, gas, motor service, and/or lodging – or so the planners would have predicted. Doing it that way wouldn't have made sense without the foreknowledge of how people's travel habits and business locations would shift.
60s planners may not have been the smartest guys on the planet, but certainly even they could grasp the idea of balancing traffic between a bypass and a downtown spur. I get what you're saying, but it's silly to force everyone to go downtown even if they aren't going there. It's a much smarter decision to
allow them to go downtown if they so choose, rather than forcing them (in the sense that staying on the 2di takes them through the thick of the city). The more traffic that you're shoving down the throat of a downtown freeway, the busier shits gonna be.
Certainly, a well-advertised bypass could alleviate traffic just as well as building the 2di mainline around the city to begin with. But, by asking traffic to use a different freeway, you have to convince them that it's faster than going straight through the city. In some cities, it's quicker to go downtown than to use the bypass road. If you just route them automatically onto the bypass, they instead have to ask themselves if going downtown is worth the risk. Your bypass road might be busier, but at least your downtown freeways aren't automatically juggling both long- and short-haul traffic.
Hmm I'm torn between two...
Either pushing forward the Fox Valley Freeway in the western Chicago suburbs, or preserve the Laraway Road corridor for the Illiana tollway.
Quote from: inkyatari on February 15, 2017, 09:28:08 AM
Hmm I'm torn between two...
Either pushing forward the Fox Valley Freeway in the western Chicago suburbs, or preserve the Laraway Road corridor for the Illiana tollway.
Hey, why not do both? I would...although if I had to choose one, it would be the Illiana.
West Virginia is easy. Statewide policy that there will be NO stoplights, NO new driveway permits or connections, and NO annexation by municipalities allowed on any Appalachian Corridor or other route built to the Corridor standard.
Failing that, flip 79 and Corridor L. 79 runs more directly south following the rough route of L except for JCT with the Turnpike slightly north, at Exit 60. L runs from Sutton to Charleston, built to the Corridor standard and carrying US 119 number.
Quote from: Henry on February 15, 2017, 10:02:23 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on February 15, 2017, 09:28:08 AM
Hmm I'm torn between two...
Either pushing forward the Fox Valley Freeway in the western Chicago suburbs, or preserve the Laraway Road corridor for the Illiana tollway.
Hey, why not do both? I would...although if I had to choose one, it would be the Illiana.
I agree. Both would be excellent with the large freight yards we have here now.
Quote from: Brandon on February 15, 2017, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: Henry on February 15, 2017, 10:02:23 AM
Hey, why not do both? I would...although if I had to choose one, it would be the Illiana.
I agree. Both would be excellent with the large freight yards we have here now.
It's just astounding how insufficient the freeways in the Chicago area are when compared to other major metros of similar size.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 13, 2017, 05:53:17 PM
Extended I-84 along the MA 49 corridor, then have it bend around and take over the E-W portion of I-290, and extend it to I-95/MA 128 near Lexington.
I love this idea. I remember reading somewhere that there was a master plan to have 15 go up to the Gardner area (via what is now 49), with 9 and 122 having freeway spurs west out of Worcester to it. Your 84 would kind of do just that, only in one single route. Given how bad the traffic is in Worcester, especially for commuters coming from towns like Spencer and Leicester, this is actually needed. The continuation east of 495 to 95 speaks for itself in terms of its need.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2017, 12:17:49 AM
Certainly, a well-advertised bypass could alleviate traffic just as well as building the 2di mainline around the city to begin with. But, by asking traffic to use a different freeway, you have to convince them that it's faster than going straight through the city. In some cities, it's quicker to go downtown than to use the bypass road. If you just route them automatically onto the bypass, they instead have to ask themselves if going downtown is worth the risk. Your bypass road might be busier, but at least your downtown freeways aren't automatically juggling both long- and short-haul traffic.
OK, consider some full-loop 3di's.
Columbus only has 2 2di's. So at least one quadrant of the loop could not be covered by a 2di. And one quadrant would have to have a concurrency.
Cincinnati, both I-71 and I-75 would go around the eastern side, because that's shorter. But even if you forced I-75 to go the long way around the west, there'd be that bit of I-275 on the north side between 71 and 75 that would need a number. Adding the end of I-74 into the mix, you could cover a missing piece, but only by creating a concurrency with one or both of 71 and 75.
Indianapolis, with 3 2di's crossing (and eventually a 4th with I-69) you'd still have to have one of the routes go the "long way" around to get all of 465 covered, and it would only be possible with several concurrencies.
Louisville, see Cincinnati - same argument applies.
Atlanta, see Indy.
Baltimore, you could do something weird with the ends of 70, 83 and 97 to make it work. But why take a highway a third of the way around a full loop bypass and then end it?
DC, fuhgeddaboudit.
In short, if you wanted to route 2di's around cities, you'd still need to have at least part of the full-loop bypass numbered as a 3di, would most likely need to have some overlaps in the 2di's, and most likely one or more routes would have to take the long way around.
Bypasses on the US highway system, before Interstates, were accomplished by having some of the loop numbered differently, perhaps as a state highway. For example, the Beltline* system in Grand Rapids for US-16 and US-131 only worked because north leg was never built.
* Now numbered as M-11 and M-44, with a partial M-37 concurrency.
Quote from: GaryV on February 15, 2017, 07:41:16 PM
In short, if you wanted to route 2di's around cities, you'd still need to have at least part of the full-loop bypass numbered as a 3di, would most likely need to have some overlaps in the 2di's, and most likely one or more routes would have to take the long way around.
You'd have to make part of the bypass discontinuous. Think like in Seattle. The 5 + the 405 can act as a sort of ring road, but it isn't really a continuous "ring"; the 405 is a sort of half ring that connects to the 5 in two different places. The 5 is continuous straight through Seattle, with right-hand exit and entrance ramps for the 405 (exiting onto the 405 is not something that you'd do accidentally).
In the case of Columbus, 70 would overtake the 270 south of Columbus, and 71 would overtake the 270 west of Columbus. The 270 would be a connecting road between the 71 and 70 NE of Columbus, and the 70 and 71 would overlap SE of Columbus (as you suggested in your second paragraph). The former portions of each interstate would be re-numbered into new 3di's. Interchanges would be reconfigured to make this more of a continuous design.
Obviously this sort of setup isn't something that could easily be done now (certainly not worth the pain or money), but back in the day, I think it would have made more sense to route the 2di's around the city, to keep as much traffic off the inner city freeways as possible. Even with, in some cases, several concurrencies, I think it could have made a difference.
Alternatively, have a ring road designation, and end the 2di at the limits of the ring road, picking up again on the other side of the city. The ring road's designation would be a 3di with "TO" references for the 2di(s) that connect to it.
Not building a parallel road next to one of the first RRs built in the 1850s (IC) OUT of Chicago to Rockford in what are now the near west burbs.
QuoteIn short, if you wanted to route 2di's around cities, you'd still need to have at least part of the full-loop bypass numbered as a 3di, would most likely need to have some overlaps in the 2di's, and most likely one or more routes would have to take the long way around.
This is more or less how the Beltway around DC was numbered for many years after I-95 through the city was deleted from the plans. The eastern side of the Beltway was posted as I-95 and the western side was posted as I-495. Lots of people claimed it was too confusing for some reason and eventually the I-495 signs went back up next to the I-95 signs.
The other possibility would be to allow suffixed routes on such loops–in the DC Beltway example, that would be I-95E and I-95W. The advantage would be that it would reassure confused drivers that both routes will go to the same place (apparently people didn't, and don't, understand that either direction on the Beltway will take you around to the routes north to Baltimore and New York). A disadvantage would be if one portion of the highway were undesirable as a thru route for whatever reason (design, congestion, etc.), such as is the case on the Beltway with the twisty segment through Montgomery County and the narrow section between the two spurs of I-270.
make indiana build 69 to the north split and convert harding st between 70 and 465 into an interstate.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2017, 07:36:53 AMThis is more or less how the Beltway around DC was numbered for many years after I-95 through the city was deleted from the plans. The eastern side of the Beltway was posted as I-95 and the western side was posted as I-495. Lots of people claimed it was too confusing for some reason and eventually the I-495 signs went back up next to the I-95 signs.
What's interesting, if not ironic, is that most local entities & traffic reporters (at least during the late 80s/early 90s) simply refer to the Capital Beltway as
the Beltway (Inner (or Outer) Loop) and not as I-95 or 495 north/south/east/westbound. Given that the highway name had a greater emphasis over the route number(s) (unlike 128 in the Boston area); I'm surprised that particular action (placing I-495 shields next to I-95 shields) was even taken.
IMHO, a better solution (& such was done on some BGS' early on) would've been to place the square Capital Beltway shields next to the I-95 or 495 shield (depending on locale) on every ramp & pull-through BGS.
Sample of Capital Beltway shield used on a mileage BGS:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland495/i-495_il_exit_041_03.jpg)
I would've even added
INNER/OUTER LOOP nomenclature on ramp/pull-through BGS' as well. Note: such is already done on many reassurance markers.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2017, 07:36:53 AMThe other possibility would be to allow suffixed routes on such loops–in the DC Beltway example, that would be I-95E and I-95W. The advantage would be that it would reassure confused drivers that both routes will go to the same place (apparently people didn't, and don't, understand that either direction on the Beltway will take you around to the routes north to Baltimore and New York).
Such could've been a workable solution and
might've survived the great purge of suffixed-interstates that took place a few years later; the argument for keeping such would've been that the E/W branches come together at both ends.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2017, 07:36:53 AMA disadvantage would be if one portion of the highway were undesirable as a thru route for whatever reason (design, congestion, etc.), such as is the case on the Beltway with the twisty segment through Montgomery County and the narrow section between the two spurs of I-270.
How is that any different than the eastern/western
spurs* of the New Jersey Turnpike?
*Traffic reporters refer to these branches of the Turnpike as spurs even though they're not technically spurs.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 15, 2017, 05:39:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 13, 2017, 05:53:17 PM
Extended I-84 along the MA 49 corridor, then have it bend around and take over the E-W portion of I-290, and extend it to I-95/MA 128 near Lexington.
I love this idea. I remember reading somewhere that there was a master plan to have 15 go up to the Gardner area (via what is now 49), with 9 and 122 having freeway spurs west out of Worcester to it. Your 84 would kind of do just that, only in one single route. Given how bad the traffic is in Worcester, especially for commuters coming from towns like Spencer and Leicester, this is actually needed. The continuation east of 495 to 95 speaks for itself in terms of its need.
Spencer and Leicester (hey, they rhyme!)? They have a combined 20,000 people. Area is not exactly thriving, either.
Don't see the point of the expense. Make improvements on Route 9, like they did in Hadley. That is enough for them.
Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2017, 11:35:55 AM
Spencer and Leicester (hey, they rhyme!)? They have a combined 20,000 people. Area is not exactly thriving, either.
Don't see the point of the expense. Make improvements on Route 9, like they did in Hadley. That is enough for them.
It's more than 20,000 once you add the part of Worcester between Leicester and I-290.
Quote from: 1 on February 16, 2017, 12:04:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2017, 11:35:55 AM
Spencer and Leicester (hey, they rhyme!)? They have a combined 20,000 people. Area is not exactly thriving, either.
Don't see the point of the expense. Make improvements on Route 9, like they did in Hadley. That is enough for them.
It's more than 20,000 once you add the part of Worcester between Leicester and I-290.
Still don't see the need to bring I-84 into Worcester through there.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 16, 2017, 09:35:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2017, 07:36:53 AMThis is more or less how the Beltway around DC was numbered for many years after I-95 through the city was deleted from the plans. The eastern side of the Beltway was posted as I-95 and the western side was posted as I-495. Lots of people claimed it was too confusing for some reason and eventually the I-495 signs went back up next to the I-95 signs.
What's interesting, if not ironic, is that most local entities & traffic reporters (at least during the late 80s/early 90s) simply refer to the Capital Beltway as the Beltway (Inner (or Outer) Loop) and not as I-95 or 495 north/south/east/westbound. Given that the highway name had a greater emphasis over the route number(s) (unlike 128 in the Boston area); I'm surprised that particular action (placing I-495 shields next to I-95 shields) was even taken.
IMHO, a better solution (& such was done on some BGS' early on) would've been to place the square Capital Beltway shields next to the I-95 or 495 shield (depending on locale) on every ramp & pull-through BGS.
I don't see why it would be so confusing to have the eastern side designated 95 and the west side as 495. To me, it's more confusing that there are two 495 northbounds in different places. Relatively few people drive all the way around the circle, so I don't think it needs the same number.
Quote
Sample of Capital Beltway shield used on a mileage BGS:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland495/i-495_il_exit_041_03.jpg)
I would've even added INNER/OUTER LOOP nomenclature on ramp/pull-through BGS' as well. Note: such is already done on many reassurance markers.
A supplemental Capital Beltway sign would be fun and helpful. I appreciate the design work, but the letters look too small for drivers to read.
Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2017, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 16, 2017, 12:04:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 16, 2017, 11:35:55 AM
Spencer and Leicester (hey, they rhyme!)? They have a combined 20,000 people. Area is not exactly thriving, either.
Don't see the point of the expense. Make improvements on Route 9, like they did in Hadley. That is enough for them.
It's more than 20,000 once you add the part of Worcester between Leicester and I-290.
Still don't see the need to bring I-84 into Worcester through there.
The problem is, there is no improving 9. You need a whole new route to deal with the problem. I'd even suggest tying it into the Worcester Airport, but that airport is a flippin' ghost town right now.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 15, 2017, 05:39:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 13, 2017, 05:53:17 PM
Extended I-84 along the MA 49 corridor*snip*
I remember reading somewhere that there was a master plan to have 15 go up to the Gardner area (via what is now 49)
Such was indeed the plan for MA 49. The right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate a 4-lane expressway.
I remember an old
Rand McNally roadmap for Southern New England showing a proposed divided highway along the MA 49 corridor.
Quote from: kkt on February 16, 2017, 12:37:57 PMA supplemental Capital Beltway sign would be fun and helpful. I appreciate the design work, but the letters look too small for drivers to read.
Who said anything about text being on the shield for BGS signage. Text/letter-less versions of the shield could be used for BGS applications and the full-text versions could be used for trailblazer/assurance marker signage.
Such
used to be done for Mass Pike Pilgrim Hat signage for years.
BGS application (no
MASS PIKE text on shield):
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/massachusetts050/i-084_eb_exit_004_03.jpg)
White shield w/
WEST panel & I-90 shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90signs117a.JPG&hash=1c7d282cc43aadc49c048223659a5da5d02ff773)
Although, recent BGS installs now feature
MASS PIKE text on the shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-L29odTp91MQ%2FUm2Pen0lPAI%2FAAAAAAAABJg%2FXVRUUF4nm-o%2Fs1600%2Fi95sign1013d.jpg&hash=64966b7a68f1a34ea1277c2db5fccc373d27328b)
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2017, 07:36:53 AMThe eastern side of the Beltway was posted as I-95 and the western side was posted as I-495. Lots of people claimed it was too confusing for some reason and eventually the I-495 signs went back up next to the I-95 signs.
While it may rankle roadgeeks as redundant, I think it makes sense for the Capital Beltway or any circumferential belt to be posted under a single number–even where it overlaps with the parent route.
Let's look at another example of a beltway that doesn't have a singular number: Harrisburg's "Capital" Beltway. Though PennDOT installed Capital Beltway markers along the three routes that make up the loop and posted supplementary guide signs encouraging its use as a bypass, my anecdotal experience with acquaintances in the area suggests that these efforts have fallen flat.
Such as: In suggesting the western side of the belt as a bypass to avoid US 11-15 through Camp Hill, I've gotten responses like: "Why would I go west on 581, THEN turn north on 81...?" Had the entire beltway been given a single number–like I-483, for example–and motorists could easily see on a map that I-483 makes a 360° ring around the Harrisburg area, they'd instantly be more familiar with the beltway's purpose, and selling them on using it as a bypass would be easier.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2017, 07:36:53 AM
The advantage would be that it would reassure confused drivers that both routes will go to the same place...
If people can't look at a map and see that I-495 makes a complete loop and connects to I-95 on both ends, I doubt that being confronted with I-95W and I-95E would help. Put it another way: A motorist is traveling eastbound from Toledo to NYC in 1970, and he knows he can take I-80 the entire way. Now approaching Akron, he has a choice: I-80 or I-80S? Apparently, Ohio Turnpike toll takers were perpetually redirecting confused travelers.
I think there's a very good reason why AASHTO got rid of suffixed Interstates, and despite the roadgeek gee-whiz factor in seeing the oddball suffixed shields, I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd support them coming back.
Quote from: kkt on February 16, 2017, 12:37:57 PM
I don't see why it would be so confusing to have the eastern side designated 95 and the west side as 495. To me, it's more confusing that there are two 495 northbounds in different places. Relatively few people drive all the way around the circle, so I don't think it needs the same number.
From an I-95 perspective, perhaps, but the Capital Beltway serves as a bypass for numerous other routes that would otherwise pass directly through Washington. Say someone's heading east on I-66 from Front Royal and continuing on to Annapolis via US 50. The motorist thinks of the Capital Beltway as a single unbroken ring–precisely as it looks on a map–and the continuous I-495 designation meets this expectation. He takes I-495 South around the south side of the city until he reaches the desired route (US 50), and he continues on his way.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 16, 2017, 09:35:20 AM
I would've even added INNER/OUTER LOOP nomenclature on ramp/pull-through BGS' as well. Note: such is already done on many reassurance markers.
Radio traffic reports are for the locals who listen to them, and these people could generally navigate the area with no signs whatsoever. I think it's important to bear in mind that guide signs are intended for a completely different crowd–those unfamiliar with the area. PennDOT, for example, would be ill-advised to sign the westbound control city out of Philadelphia as "Conshy Curve" .
As to the whole "inner loop" "outer loop" thing: It's a nice solution in the sense that it does away with the confusion of possibly having two norths, traveling south when the destination is east, etc. But it comes at the cost of being unintuitive for the passing motorist. Let's say you've never been anywhere near Washington before. Now you're in a car, trying to connect from I-66 East to I-270 North, and you know there's a stretch of I-495 connecting the two. Now you're at the interchange and have to decide:
Inner Loop? Outer Loop? What does this mean? And unfortunately, you're from Rochester, so you think the Inner Loop somehow goes closer to the city center, so you "play it safe" and take the Outer Loop. Ouch! You just went 40 miles out of your way.
The thing with inner and outer loop...while it makes sense when you're looking at a small, round circle, beltways aren't always true like that. Use this example: https://goo.gl/maps/kSBD4i9C35k ...why would the inner loop be on the outside of the curve!
I would have prevented Bud Shuster from ever having been elected to Congress.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2017, 02:40:22 PM
The thing with inner and outer loop...while it makes sense when you're looking at a small, round circle, beltways aren't always true like that. Use this example: https://goo.gl/maps/kSBD4i9C35k ...why would the inner loop be on the outside of the curve!
IMHO, that's no different than a north-south road heading in the opposite direction for a relatively short distance per this I-95/MA 128 example (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wakefield,+MA+01880/@42.5150287,-71.0863241,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37336b7b29abd:0x155bd497bd25ffef!8m2!3d42.5039395!4d-71.0723391) in Wakefield.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 16, 2017, 01:25:23 PM
BGS application (no MASS PIKE text on shield):
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/massachusetts050/i-084_eb_exit_004_03.jpg)
Installed under the Mass. Turnpike Authority's re-signing program in the mid-1990s. It should noted that the Authority's designer did not provide a sign summary or other spec sheets for BGS panels as part of the plans, but only showed the legend and overall panel dimensions for BGS panels on the sign location sheets. As the Mass Pike shields shown on the sign legends did not include "Mass Pike", and as there was no detail for shields to be mounted on BGS signs in the contract documents, the shields were fabricated without the text.
Quote
White shield w/WEST panel & I-90 shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90signs117a.JPG&hash=1c7d282cc43aadc49c048223659a5da5d02ff773)
Installed under the same sign replacement projects as above. However, sign summary and detail sheets showing the "Mass Pike" legend were provided for the confirmatory route markers.
Quote
Although, recent BGS installs now feature MASS PIKE text on the shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-L29odTp91MQ%2FUm2Pen0lPAI%2FAAAAAAAABJg%2FXVRUUF4nm-o%2Fs1600%2Fi95sign1013d.jpg&hash=64966b7a68f1a34ea1277c2db5fccc373d27328b)
This sign reflects current MassDOT practice, which is to include the "Mass Pike" text on all new Mass Pike shields, whether they're mounted independently or on BGS panels. Also, as older BGS panels on other Interstates and freeways that intersect the Turnpike (which are not being replaced under the current West Stockbridge to Boston projects)are being replaced, the use of white on green "Mass. Pike" text is being phased out in favor of the shields.
QuoteIf people can't look at a map and see that I-495 makes a complete loop and connects to I-95 on both ends, I doubt that being confronted with I-95W and I-95E would help. Put it another way: A motorist is traveling eastbound from Toledo to NYC in 1970, and he knows he can take I-80 the entire way. Now approaching Akron, he has a choice: I-80 or I-80S? Apparently, Ohio Turnpike toll takers were perpetually redirecting confused travelers.
In theory this all makes sense, but the point of this thread is to speculate on what people would change if they back in time. Since people were speculating on the idea of not routing 2dis through city centers, and then someone wanted to know how you'd deal with a beltway, I suggested the suffix idea. I thought it was implicit in the concept behind this thread that idea was that they'd have used this different standard from the beginning. I daresay having beltways with paired suffixed numbers, such as I-95E and I-95W around DC or I-70N and I-70S around Columbus,
as a routine standard of numbering might have been more easily grasped by the driver of average ignorance than the illogical I-80 and I-80S, which don't really seem to have anything to do with each other.
In other words, if suffixed Interstates had been used as a way to route 2dis around cities and had not been used for other purposes, you'd have known you were encountering an orbital route when you saw the suffixed numbers and you'd know either route would take you around to continue on the same 2di, again assuming the idea was that 2dis would not have run through the cities.
Of course, this doesn't address the problem of a city like Atlanta where three 2dis run through the city. Having a segment of the Perimeter signed as a concurrency of I-20N, I-75E, and I-85E all on the same segment would be rather confusing.....although who knows, if it'd been that way from the start maybe it would be less so.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2017, 09:46:10 PM
Of course, this doesn't address the problem of a city like Atlanta where three 2dis run through the city. Having a segment of the Perimeter signed as a concurrency of I-20N, I-75E, and I-85E all on the same segment would be rather confusing.....although who knows, if it'd been that way from the start maybe it would be less so.
With three 2dis, if you have them all go around the city just right I think you have less of a need for a true beltway anyway. I'd probably imagine something closer to this scenario:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2017%2Falternate-atlanta.png&hash=12469209253985642527e11c7f8278d7597730d5)
20, 75, and 85 together form a sort of triangular beltway, with some additional connectors to cut off mileage on the sharper corners. Though now that I look at it, I suppose we end up (to some extent, anyway) back at the original problem of mixing local and long-haul traffic on 175, 385, 585, and 720.
Quote from: EthThough now that I look at it, I suppose we end up (to some extent, anyway) back at the original problem of mixing local and long-haul traffic on 175, 385, 585, and 720.
I admit that this is hindsight, but there are two ways to address this. First is to limit the number of interchanges to primary roads and/or other freeways only. The second is to have two sets of lanes...one local, one express, and severely limit access to the express lanes.
I like froggie's second solution better simply because it's easy to ignore or discard interchange restrictions by adding more interchanges later. Adding exits from express lanes isn't necessarily as straightforward.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2017, 02:40:22 PM
The thing with inner and outer loop...while it makes sense when you're looking at a small, round circle, beltways aren't always true like that. Use this example: https://goo.gl/maps/kSBD4i9C35k ...why would the inner loop be on the outside of the curve!
I like how Jacksonville's beltway is called the East and West beltway.. It works.. Signage on i95 shows NORTH EAST BELTWAY and NORTH WEST BELTWAY comjnt in from the south. And for the hyper technical comint the otherway they say SOUTH.
However it wouls not work with multiple 2di's or if not a full beltway or just shaped real odd
LGMS428
If I could go back in time (and somehow had the power to make this kind of decision), I would nix the idea of having any sort of E-W or N-S numbering scheme for highways. None of this "running out" of numbers nonsense, no need for bypasses or spurs to somehow resemble a supposed parent's number, no roadgeek fights over numbers like 99 or 101 or 238 or 400, no quibbles about whether a diagonal route should get an even or an odd number. Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999. By my count, we wouldn't even be a third of the way to "running out" of Interstate highway numbers.
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.
I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 17, 2017, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.
I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.
This.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 15, 2017, 10:29:56 AM
West Virginia is easy. Statewide policy that there will be NO stoplights, NO new driveway permits or connections, and NO annexation by municipalities allowed on any Appalachian Corridor or other route built to the Corridor standard.
I agree with the no signals part, as well as the ban on driveways and other connections. I am not familiar enough with annexation law in West Virginia (nor the implications of same) to make a statement about that.
Were you discussing
Virginia, I would want any annexation of any corridor by a city or town to include the requirement that VDOT (and not the municipality) will retain all maintenance responsibility and that VDOT (and not the municipality) also controls access (with the intent of not allowing driveways, at-grade crossings and the like).
Quote from: Eth on February 16, 2017, 10:51:37 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2017%2Falternate-atlanta.png&hash=12469209253985642527e11c7f8278d7597730d5)
Pittsburgh says hello.
I'd have convinced Seattle voters to approve the Virgil Bogue plan in 1911 and the Forward Thrust rapid transit plan of 1968. Both would have massively changed the city's transportation system, though the former would have also included a lot of parkways and urban changes.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 17, 2017, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.
I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.
I used to think that was the case with the US Highway System, especially considering how US 20, 26, and 30 don't follow the grid at all in Oregon.
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
If I could go back in time (and somehow had the power to make this kind of decision), I would nix the idea of having any sort of E-W or N-S numbering scheme for highways. None of this "running out" of numbers nonsense, no need for bypasses or spurs to somehow resemble a supposed parent's number, no roadgeek fights over numbers like 99 or 101 or 238 or 400, no quibbles about whether a diagonal route should get an even or an odd number. Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999. By my count, we wouldn't even be a third of the way to "running out" of Interstate highway numbers.
Wouldn't have putting 50 and 60 from the get-go solved most of those problems?.....aside from some more minor out of grid discrepancies in the odd numbers out east.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2017, 09:53:55 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
If I could go back in time (and somehow had the power to make this kind of decision), I would nix the idea of having any sort of E-W or N-S numbering scheme for highways. None of this "running out" of numbers nonsense, no need for bypasses or spurs to somehow resemble a supposed parent's number, no roadgeek fights over numbers like 99 or 101 or 238 or 400, no quibbles about whether a diagonal route should get an even or an odd number. Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999. By my count, we wouldn't even be a third of the way to "running out" of Interstate highway numbers.
Wouldn't have putting 50 and 60 from the get-go solved most of those problems?.....aside from some more minor out of grid discrepancies in the odd numbers out east.
They probably saw no difference between 10-20-30-40-70-80-90 and 10-20-30-40-60-80-90 at the time. Unless maybe it went 10-20-30-40-60-70-80, with 90 being current 94. (In any of these cases, 50 could have been the combination of current 44 and 64, but that would have made no difference.)
Quote from: briantroutman on February 17, 2017, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.
I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.
I am still amazed that people who drive a road everday do not know the posted US, SR or CR number. In my area the main road is Blanding Blvd (Florida SR 21) its signed very well and i know people who are surprised to learn that
LGMS428
Quote from: jwolfer on February 19, 2017, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on February 17, 2017, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.
I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.
I am still amazed that people who drive a road everday do not know the posted US, SR or CR number. In my area the main road is Blanding Blvd (Florida SR 21) its signed very well and i know people who are surprised to learn that
LGMS428
I think it has to do with both length and how many local names the route carries. For example, here in the Valley, almost no one ever refers to CA-27 as anything other than "Topanga Canyon." Because CA-27 is only about 20 miles long, and its local name never changes. Conversely, almost everyone refers to CA-23 as, well, "the 23," because it has multiple local names, is a bit longer (around 30 miles), and has a significant freeway alignment.
Perhaps SR-21 is short and only carries one name?
Quote from: Quillz on February 19, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on February 19, 2017, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on February 17, 2017, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999.
I'd estimate that among 99% of the non-roadgeek public, that's what they think we already have.
I am still amazed that people who drive a road everday do not know the posted US, SR or CR number. In my area the main road is Blanding Blvd (Florida SR 21) its signed very well and i know people who are surprised to learn that
LGMS428
I think it has to do with both length and how many local names the route carries. For example, here in the Valley, almost no one ever refers to CA-27 as anything other than "Topanga Canyon." Because CA-27 is only about 20 miles long, and its local name never changes. Conversely, almost everyone refers to CA-23 as, well, "the 23," because it has multiple local names, is a bit longer (around 30 miles), and has a significant freeway alignment.
Perhaps SR-21 is short and only carries one name?
It's not short. But in Jacksonville and the populated parts of Clay County it's all called Blanding Boulevard. But what surprises me even with big green signs and reassurance markers all along some people have no idea it's State Road 21
LGMS428
I would have widened I-5 between downtown Los Angeles and the Orange County line decades ago. Like in the '70s.
The early 1950's PA supreme Court decision that declared the state highway access control regulations unconstitutional. It would have kept McKnight road and William Penn Highway in Monroeville virtually signal free.
Sorry for bumping this old topic, but...
Now that I've had time to study expressways in Toronto after taking a trip there this summer, I'll add this one:
I would have ensured that 400 extended all the way to Downtown Toronto.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 11, 2017, 02:05:53 PM
Not sure if this counts as a "single decision" , but I'd go back to 1939 and make the Pennsylvania Turnpike's design specs more modern, setting a wider minimum median width, wider minimum ROW width, and higher-speed interchange geometry.
Since the Turnpike served as the archetype for Pennsylvania's limited access highways built in the ensuing two decades, it's possible that a broader and more modern Turnpike would have saved the older portions of I-70, I-83, the Schuylkill, etc. from being so unfortunately under built.
At the very least, had the ROWs and medians been wider, we'd have more space for modernization and capacity expansion.
I would revise that decision to setting more modern standards on the -extensions- of the Turnpike starting in 1950.
I will grant that the original 160 miles that was opened in 1940 had ok standards for the day, and nobody really knew how successful it would be trafficwise.
That way the extensions could have served as the model for other superhighways in the state.
Quote from: plain on February 13, 2017, 03:04:43 AM
Also I would've asked Virginia to think hard before removing tolls from certain facilities. While they made a good decision by taking the tolls off of I-95 and VA 44 (they really didn't have much of a choice with I-95 anyway because of I-295), they should've left them in place on many of the bridges and tunnels in the eastern part of the state. Very expensive infrastructure being maintained by the state's general highway fund. That money could've been spent on other roads across the state. Matter of fact, the Coleman Bridge and the Downtown and Midtown tunnels are tolled all over again due to the needed expansions/renovations, something that could've happened sooner if the original tolls would've stayed in place.
That could have been handled toll-free by extending the funding for the Interstate system. The Midtown Tunnel should have been part of the extension of Route 164, all of which should have been Interstate 164, with 90% FHWA funding for the Western Freeway, Pinners Point Interchange, Parallel Midtown Tunnel, and Norfolk Interchange.
I-164 would be an Interstate spur route connecting I-664 to downtown Norfolk and Hampton Boulevard. I-664 and I-164 would comprise an appropriately designated Interstate highway connector between Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth and Norfolk.
The Martin Luther King Freeway between the Pinners Point Interchange and I-264 near downtown Portsmouth, would be designated as Interstate I-764 and funded with 90% FHWA funds. This is a short but vital freeway that connects Route 164 and the Midtown Tunnel to I-264 and the Downtown Tunnel / Berkley Bridge complex.
These projects also should have been funded and completed much earlier, like by 1995.
The tunnel renovations should also have been funded with something like the old FHWA 4R funding system(resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction), with 90% FHWA funding.
The I-664 bridge-tunnel and the parallel I-64 bridge tunnel were funded with 90% FHWA funds and federal law at the time prohibited tolls on them.
Quote from: Beltway on September 08, 2017, 06:57:07 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on February 11, 2017, 02:05:53 PM
Not sure if this counts as a “single decision”, but I’d go back to 1939 and make the Pennsylvania Turnpike’s design specs more modern, setting a wider minimum median width, wider minimum ROW width, and higher-speed interchange geometry.
Since the Turnpike served as the archetype for Pennsylvania’s limited access highways built in the ensuing two decades, it’s possible that a broader and more modern Turnpike would have saved the older portions of I-70, I-83, the Schuylkill, etc. from being so unfortunately under built.
At the very least, had the ROWs and medians been wider, we’d have more space for modernization and capacity expansion.
I would revise that decision to setting more modern standards on the -extensions- of the Turnpike starting in 1950.
I will grant that the original 160 miles that was opened in 1940 had ok standards for the day, and nobody really knew how successful it would be trafficwise.
That way the extensions could have served as the model for other superhighways in the state.
You do understand that modern standards aren't the same thing as futuristic standards, right?
If we were to build something today, we're using modern standards in 2017. We're not using what modern standards will be in 2077.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2017, 11:21:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 08, 2017, 06:57:07 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on February 11, 2017, 02:05:53 PM
Not sure if this counts as a "single decision" , but I'd go back to 1939 and make the Pennsylvania Turnpike's design specs more modern, setting a wider minimum median width, wider minimum ROW width, and higher-speed interchange geometry.
Since the Turnpike served as the archetype for Pennsylvania's , it's possible that a broader and more modern Turnpike would have saved the older portions of I-70, I-83, the Schuylkill, etc. from being so unfortunately under built.limited access highways built in the ensuing two decades
At the very least, had the ROWs and medians been wider, we'd have more space for modernization and capacity expansion.
I would revise that decision to setting more modern standards on the -extensions- of the Turnpike starting in 1950.
I will grant that the original 160 miles that was opened in 1940 had ok standards for the day, and nobody really knew how successful it would be trafficwise.
That way the extensions could have served as the model for other superhighways in the state.
You do understand that modern standards aren't the same thing as futuristic standards, right?
If we were to build something today, we're using modern standards in 2017. We're not using what modern standards will be in 2077.
I was responding to the idea of the 1939 Turnpike standards being inadequate and directly influencing the next two decades of PA limited access highway construction.
I merely revised that to the 1948-1950 standards of the Turnpike extensions. They did not update the 1939 standards and used them on the rest of the east-west turnpike and NE Extension.
His statement about the 1939 Turnpike standards is correct, but the problem is that they used the same standards on segments built from 1948 to 1957.
Turnpikes built in other states in the 1950s used much wider medians and clear roadsides, specifically in NY, MA, NJ, OH and IN. No reason why the PA Turnpike extensions in the 1950s couldn't have done likewise.
Quote from: plain on February 13, 2017, 03:04:43 AM
Also Virginia could've considered a limited access highway instead of just an arterial along US 58 from Hampton Roads to I-85 (I hear people saying to I-95 but that's not good enough in my eyes as I-85 is the more important route south of Virginia because it connects to a larger population). Even in it's 4 laned configuration, US 58 is hazardous along this entire stretch because of increasing long distance traffic on a road with many at-grades and private entrances, leading to numerous accidents including many fatal ones over the years.
Getting it funded in the 1960s or 1970s would have meant that it would need to be in the 1956 or 1968 Interstate system, it would have difficult or impossible to fund without the 90% FHWA funding for Interstate highways, as the other FHWA funding categories were not more than 50%.
While it looks like an Interstate omission from today's standpoint, given that there is no southerly Interstate connection between Hampton Roads and I-95 and I-85 (no logical driver would use I-64 to do this), there are reasons why IMHO that it was not authorized in the 1956 or 1968 Interstate system.
1) An Interstate highway was allocated to serve the entire Hampton Roads area in 1956, that being I-64.
2) I-664 was allocated in 1968 to provide a second crossing of the Hampton Roads estuary.
3) The state of Hampton Roads crossings and Elizabeth River crossings even in 1968 was limited in capacity to where it considerably limited travel in the region.
4) Virginia Beach wasn't incorporated to its current size until 1965.
5) Traffic volumes on US-58 in Southside Virginia in the rural areas were low even in 1968.
6) US-58 between Martinsville and I-64 in Hampton Roads was authorized for upgrade to 4 lanes divided with town and city bypasses in 1964.
In 1956 when the national Interstate highway System was begun, Norfolk was a somewhat sleepy Navy town. The only fixed link across Hampton Roads was the two-lane, out-of-the-way US-17 James River Bridge that was built in 1928, and it was narrow, with a roadway deck 22 feet wide between parapets. There were vehicular ferries between Norfolk and Hampton. Hampton Roads was a major transportation barrier that effectively divided the area into two separate metropolitan areas, with little interaction. The 3.5-mile-long Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) was two lanes wide and it opened in 1957. It wasn't until 1976 when the parallel HRBT span was built, completing Interstate 64 in the Hampton Roads area, that major highway capacity existed to truly unify the Peninsula and South Hampton Roads areas into one metropolitan area.
The US-17 James River Bridge was replaced with a modern four-lane bridge in 1982, providing more capacity. The four-lane I-664 bridge-tunnel was completed in 1992, completing the beltway around the area. Today 12 lanes on three separate facilities provide excellent linkage across Hampton Roads, that also generates more traffic in and out of the whole region.
US-58 between I-95 and I-64 is all 4 lanes and has considerable amounts of higher-type design, 39% of the length is freeway standard and another 11% is expressway standard. That does provide speed and safety advantages on those segments. Certainly the potential is there to build freeway segments to eventually provide a freeway for the whole length, that is what I would advocate.
Back in 1973, when the concept of adding new Interstates was, by that years' Federal legislation, devolved to the states with no federal chargeability aspect available, I would have pressed for modification of that to essentially allow a periodic (every 10 years would suffice) new group of Interstate highways, with an aggregate mileage limit of, for example, 2500 miles, to be commissioned with a slightly reduced (83.33 or 85%) federal input (conceptually similar to the 1968 additions but with the reduced federal dollar input). The states would still be allowed to petition for Interstate mileage on their own in the interim years -- but any such routes would be subtracted from the amount allowed on the ensuing 10-year plan; Howard-Cramer or "transferred" mileage being the exception.
With such a concept in place, Interstate additions would, for the most part, remain a nationally-considered concern rather than the product of local machination that characterizes many of today's proposals. It would allow for the addressing of demographic shifts as delineated in census data on a regular basis rather than haphazardly and, often, politically influenced. As with the original Interstate plan as well as the '68 additions, there, of course, would be some measure of politically-motivated input -- but at least it would be more out in the open than the methodology currently utilized in the arena.
But '73 was the time of the Nixonian "block grant" legislation truncating federal programs and shifting things to state & local jurisdictions; a renewed national concept such as this probably would have been stopped in its tracks. :-(
Build the West Side Bypass around Portland when it was brought up 40+ years ago.
Also, force Vancouver, WA to be served by MAX light rail when the Yellow Line was built.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on September 11, 2017, 08:10:03 PM
Build the West Side Bypass around Portland when it was brought up 40+ years ago.
Also, force Vancouver, WA to be served by MAX light rail when the Yellow Line was built.
I was attending PSU when the original LR extension across the river was being debated back in 1994; since the state line goes down the river -- and Vancouver, as a result, is not a part of Portland Metro -- there was no leverage to be had regarding "forcing" Vancouver or any other WA city to defer to any such extension. It was voted down about 40-60%; the two arguments carrying the day were that (1) WA sovereignty was being attacked by OR-based institutions, and (2) Vancouver & environs had no intention of functioning anything like Portland -- and that the LR extension was the "nose through the door" regarding an inter-state expansion of regional government. Essentially "tribal" arguments; it was suggested at several Vancouver/Battle Ground town meetings (I sat in on a couple of these) that Portland-based criminal elements (gangs) would use the LR to expand their territory and start selling drugs north of the river! A spurious argument -- but one that had more than a little traction.
This region of southern WA relishes the fact that it
isn't Portland; the area has seen quite a bit of housing and commercial development that would likely not have passed Metro muster south of the river. Of course, the residents there blithely and regularly venture across the bridges to take advantage of the lack of sales tax in OR!
^ That may come to bite them in the arse someday, especially when/if the Interstate Bridge fails. Portland can survive without Vancouver far more than Vancover can survive without Portland...