Once the I-95 gap in NJ closes, what do you think will become the most notorious gap in the interstate system?
Inb4 this turns into another Breezewood discussion.
I-69, with I-49 in second place.
:popcorn: :popcorn:
I-11 and I-41...
Oh wait
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 11, 2018, 07:29:40 PM
Inb4 this turns into another Breezewood discussion.
Definitely Breezewood, to me. Also I-93 near Franconia Notch I regard as a gap, as it fails to meet the minimum standard of 4 lanes.
With the exception of Breezewood, which interstate gap has the best chance of closing anytime in the near future?
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 11, 2018, 07:56:05 PM
With the exception of Breezewood, which interstate gap has the best chance of closing anytime in the near future?
I-95 :bigass:
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 11, 2018, 08:04:21 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 11, 2018, 07:56:05 PM
With the exception of Breezewood, which interstate gap has the best chance of closing anytime in the near future?
I-95 :bigass:
Other than--and after--that, thank you very much?
If Pasadena mysteriously gets included into the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, then I-710 will be completed after the evacuation.
When new interstates are constructed, gaps are inevitable (at least usually), so I don't count those - unless I'm joking (then in that case, there really are a lot - I-49, I-69, I-74, etc.). :sombrero:
So aside from that, the main two notorious gaps that come to mind are the I-95 gap in New Jersey, and Breezewood in Pennsyvania (I-70/I-76). There may be other gaps of this magnitude (or that of which is somewhat large) that I am forgetting.
Even though I-93 near Franconia Notch in New Hampshire doesn't technically meet interstate standards (with it not having the minimum amount of lanes necessary), I personally do not consider that to be a gap. I would say that section of interstate is simply substandard, and that's all. In the case of Breezewood, for example, there is literally a physical gap in the continuity of an interstate (I-70), that is only bridged by a surface street (US 30). Even with that section of I-93 in New Hampshire being substandard, I actually don't have a problem with it at all. There were definitely some decent reasons as to why it could not be built normally, and with that, I see that part of I-93 as a very unique and interesting part of the interstate system. The scenery sure is nice, too, that's for sure! :nod:
Isn't US 67 between Little Rock and Walnut Ridge now, legally, I-57? It isn't yet signed, but was it not Congressionally designated as such? If so, I think the segment from Walnut Ridge to Sikeston gets filled before too long
Whether that qualifies as a "Notorious" Gap or not is clearly debatable
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 11, 2018, 08:50:10 PM
So aside from that, the main two notorious gaps that come to mind are the I-95 gap in New Jersey, and Breezewood in Pennsyvania (I-70/I-76). There may be other gaps of this magnitude (or that of which is somewhat large) that I am forgetting.
I-76 and I-81 junction. Surface roads are the only way to connect.
What about the part where I-78 runs on surface streets in a city in New Jersey?
Quote from: freebrickproductions on April 11, 2018, 11:17:27 PM
What about the part where I-78 runs on surface streets in a city in New Jersey?
The Holland Tunnel isn’t really a freeway (and doesn’t continue as one on the NY side), so IMO that one isn’t as bad. If the Lower Manhattan Expressway had been built, it would be a different story.
OTOH, there’s I-676 in Philadelphia, which runs on surface streets to connect to the Ben Franklin Bridge. This is somewhat similar to 78, but 676 is a full freeway on both sides of its surface-street portion, which makes that gap far worse.
I just remembered something that I often forget about. Google Maps' "brilliant" new color scheme is making it very hard to visually remind myself of it, but I believe that on the northern end of the current (existing/original) I-99, there is a beyond substandard part of the highway. This very, very short portion of I-99 has actual intersections with a few surface streets (so it is not technically a freeway at all right here). This is beyond substandard (such as not having enough lanes (like that portion of I-93 in NH) or having inadequate shoulder lengths) - it is flattout violating one of the fundamentals of the Interstate Highway System - being able to travel without facing at-grade intersections - similar to "I-180" being designated over that surface street in Cheyenne, Wyoming - so I would consider this case a gap in the interstate system. Heck, even the I-99/I-80 interchange itself looks very, very substandard. This whole northern terminus of Interstate 99 is just pretty messed up all over the place. :no: :-D
Quote from: formulanone on April 11, 2018, 08:37:24 PM
If Pasadena mysteriously gets included into the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, then I-710 will be completed after the evacuation.
One can only hope.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 01:05:08 AM
I just remembered something that I often forget about. Google Maps' "brilliant" new color scheme is making it very hard to visually remind myself of it, but I believe that on the northern end of the current (existing/original) I-99, there is a beyond substandard part of the highway. This very, very short portion of I-99 has actual intersections with a few surface streets (so it is not technically a freeway at all right here). This is beyond substandard (such as not having enough lanes (like that portion of I-93 in NH) or having inadequate shoulder lengths) - it is flattout violating one of the fundamentals of the Interstate Highway System - being able to travel without facing at-grade intersections - similar to "I-180" being designated over that surface street in Cheyenne, Wyoming - so I would consider this case a gap in the interstate system. Heck, even the I-99/I-80 interchange itself looks very, very substandard. This whole northern terminus of Interstate 99 is just pretty messed up all over the place.
The last 0.5 mile of the highway that connects to I-80 is actually PA-26, not I-99.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 11, 2018, 07:45:41 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 11, 2018, 07:29:40 PM
Inb4 this turns into another Breezewood discussion.
Definitely Breezewood, to me. Also I-93 near Franconia Notch I regard as a gap, as it fails to meet the minimum standard of 4 lanes.
I-93 was granted an exemption to standards. Wouldn't be the first exemption that was granted...
(and, for those of you who haven't driven it, it works just fine)
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2018, 06:30:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 01:05:08 AM
I just remembered something that I often forget about. Google Maps' "brilliant" new color scheme is making it very hard to visually remind myself of it, but I believe that on the northern end of the current (existing/original) I-99, there is a beyond substandard part of the highway. This very, very short portion of I-99 has actual intersections with a few surface streets (so it is not technically a freeway at all right here). This is beyond substandard (such as not having enough lanes (like that portion of I-93 in NH) or having inadequate shoulder lengths) - it is flattout violating one of the fundamentals of the Interstate Highway System - being able to travel without facing at-grade intersections - similar to "I-180" being designated over that surface street in Cheyenne, Wyoming - so I would consider this case a gap in the interstate system. Heck, even the I-99/I-80 interchange itself looks very, very substandard. This whole northern terminus of Interstate 99 is just pretty messed up all over the place.
The last 0.5 mile of the highway that connects to I-80 is actually PA-26, not I-99.
Traveling northbound, there's an END I-99 assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9380184,-77.73111,3a,75y,48.84h,79.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simVOcDBUhESYJPdC4n38EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) just before the first at-grade intersection. On this segment southbound, it's sometimes posted as TO I-99, but sometimes not (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9419967,-77.7261373,3a,75y,239.26h,88.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBk1xlwRdCL1S_U_elca7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
I-76, I-84, I-86, I-88.
Also, I-90, since the Chicago Skyway isn't really part of it. While it may be the longest 2di in the nation, that quirk would make I-80 the longest uninterrupted route.
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2018, 11:11:33 PMI-76 and I-81 junction. Surface roads are the only way to connect.
Yes, but the highways themselves are still continuous.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 12, 2018, 08:47:09 AM
I-76, I-84, I-86, I-88.
You can add I-87 to that list. :sombrero:
Quote from: Eth on April 12, 2018, 08:35:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2018, 06:30:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 01:05:08 AM
I just remembered something that I often forget about. Google Maps' "brilliant" new color scheme is making it very hard to visually remind myself of it, but I believe that on the northern end of the current (existing/original) I-99, there is a beyond substandard part of the highway. This very, very short portion of I-99 has actual intersections with a few surface streets (so it is not technically a freeway at all right here). This is beyond substandard (such as not having enough lanes (like that portion of I-93 in NH) or having inadequate shoulder lengths) - it is flattout violating one of the fundamentals of the Interstate Highway System - being able to travel without facing at-grade intersections - similar to "I-180" being designated over that surface street in Cheyenne, Wyoming - so I would consider this case a gap in the interstate system. Heck, even the I-99/I-80 interchange itself looks very, very substandard. This whole northern terminus of Interstate 99 is just pretty messed up all over the place.
The last 0.5 mile of the highway that connects to I-80 is actually PA-26, not I-99.
Traveling northbound, there's an END I-99 assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9380184,-77.73111,3a,75y,48.84h,79.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simVOcDBUhESYJPdC4n38EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) just before the first at-grade intersection. On this segment southbound, it's sometimes posted as TO I-99, but sometimes not (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9419967,-77.7261373,3a,75y,239.26h,88.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBk1xlwRdCL1S_U_elca7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Oh okay, I am an idiot then. I don't know how I didn't know that - especially since I had to look on GMSV and link to it to show that there were at-grade intersections. That is really strange. I wonder why I-99 wouldn't just continue that extra insignificant distance to reach Interstate 80 fully, and with a proper interchange. This probably makes this case a gap in the interstate system even more now that I know this very short section of road isn't even I-99 to begin with at all. To go from I-99 to I-80 or I-80 to I-99, you have to go on a surface street (PA 26). It is very weird indeed that they just stopped I-99 right there before it reaches I-80. Hopefully this will be fixed in the future. :crazy:
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 12, 2018, 08:35:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2018, 06:30:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 01:05:08 AM
I just remembered something that I often forget about. Google Maps' "brilliant" new color scheme is making it very hard to visually remind myself of it, but I believe that on the northern end of the current (existing/original) I-99, there is a beyond substandard part of the highway. This very, very short portion of I-99 has actual intersections with a few surface streets (so it is not technically a freeway at all right here). This is beyond substandard (such as not having enough lanes (like that portion of I-93 in NH) or having inadequate shoulder lengths) - it is flattout violating one of the fundamentals of the Interstate Highway System - being able to travel without facing at-grade intersections - similar to "I-180" being designated over that surface street in Cheyenne, Wyoming - so I would consider this case a gap in the interstate system. Heck, even the I-99/I-80 interchange itself looks very, very substandard. This whole northern terminus of Interstate 99 is just pretty messed up all over the place.
The last 0.5 mile of the highway that connects to I-80 is actually PA-26, not I-99.
Traveling northbound, there's an END I-99 assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9380184,-77.73111,3a,75y,48.84h,79.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simVOcDBUhESYJPdC4n38EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) just before the first at-grade intersection. On this segment southbound, it's sometimes posted as TO I-99, but sometimes not (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9419967,-77.7261373,3a,75y,239.26h,88.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBk1xlwRdCL1S_U_elca7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Oh okay, I am an idiot then. I don't know how I didn't know that - especially since I had to look on GMSV and link to it to show that there were at-grade intersections. That is really strange. I wonder why I-99 wouldn't just continue that extra insignificant distance to reach Interstate 80 fully, and with a proper interchange. This probably makes this case a gap in the interstate system even more now that I know this very short section of road isn't even I-99 to begin with at all. To go from I-99 to I-80 or I-80 to I-99, you have to go on a surface street (PA 26). It is very weird indeed that they just stopped I-99 right there before it reaches I-80. Hopefully this will be fixed in the future. :crazy:
There are plans in the works to convert the existing I-80/I-99 interchange into a full freeway-type interchange.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 12, 2018, 10:33:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 12, 2018, 08:35:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2018, 06:30:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 01:05:08 AM
I just remembered something that I often forget about. Google Maps' "brilliant" new color scheme is making it very hard to visually remind myself of it, but I believe that on the northern end of the current (existing/original) I-99, there is a beyond substandard part of the highway. This very, very short portion of I-99 has actual intersections with a few surface streets (so it is not technically a freeway at all right here). This is beyond substandard (such as not having enough lanes (like that portion of I-93 in NH) or having inadequate shoulder lengths) - it is flattout violating one of the fundamentals of the Interstate Highway System - being able to travel without facing at-grade intersections - similar to "I-180" being designated over that surface street in Cheyenne, Wyoming - so I would consider this case a gap in the interstate system. Heck, even the I-99/I-80 interchange itself looks very, very substandard. This whole northern terminus of Interstate 99 is just pretty messed up all over the place.
The last 0.5 mile of the highway that connects to I-80 is actually PA-26, not I-99.
Traveling northbound, there's an END I-99 assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9380184,-77.73111,3a,75y,48.84h,79.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simVOcDBUhESYJPdC4n38EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) just before the first at-grade intersection. On this segment southbound, it's sometimes posted as TO I-99, but sometimes not (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9419967,-77.7261373,3a,75y,239.26h,88.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBk1xlwRdCL1S_U_elca7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Oh okay, I am an idiot then. I don't know how I didn't know that - especially since I had to look on GMSV and link to it to show that there were at-grade intersections. That is really strange. I wonder why I-99 wouldn't just continue that extra insignificant distance to reach Interstate 80 fully, and with a proper interchange. This probably makes this case a gap in the interstate system even more now that I know this very short section of road isn't even I-99 to begin with at all. To go from I-99 to I-80 or I-80 to I-99, you have to go on a surface street (PA 26). It is very weird indeed that they just stopped I-99 right there before it reaches I-80. Hopefully this will be fixed in the future. :crazy:
There are plans in the works to convert the existing I-80/I-99 interchange into a full freeway-type interchange.
That is great news. Hopefully this will happen pretty soon. I don't think it would be that hard to remove the at-grade intersections and make an effective, full I-99/I-80 interchange. After all, it's only a few at-grade intersections (if it was 20 then this would be much more of a problem...). I just looked at this article on the issue, (http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/article181769161.html) and the thumbnail of it shows what looks like some rather problematic traffic congestion as a result of the current substandard interchange. I will be keeping my eye out to see what PennDOT decides to do, but hopefully the ball will be rolling pretty soon. :nod:
The CA-710 to I-710 gap in Pasadena to South Pasadena area. That's the longest roadgeek controversy in Los Angeles.
The Bay Area has the Southern Crossing gap from I-238 to I-380 from South San Francisco/San Bruno area to San Leandro area.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 12, 2018, 10:33:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 12, 2018, 08:35:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2018, 06:30:07 AM
The last 0.5 mile of the highway that connects to I-80 is actually PA-26, not I-99.
Traveling northbound, there's an END I-99 assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9380184,-77.73111,3a,75y,48.84h,79.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simVOcDBUhESYJPdC4n38EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) just before the first at-grade intersection. On this segment southbound, it's sometimes posted as TO I-99, but sometimes not (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9419967,-77.7261373,3a,75y,239.26h,88.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBk1xlwRdCL1S_U_elca7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Oh okay, I am an idiot then. I don't know how I didn't know that - especially since I had to look on GMSV and link to it to show that there were at-grade intersections. That is really strange. I wonder why I-99 wouldn't just continue that extra insignificant distance to reach Interstate 80 fully, and with a proper interchange. This probably makes this case a gap in the interstate system even more now that I know this very short section of road isn't even I-99 to begin with at all. To go from I-99 to I-80 or I-80 to I-99, you have to go on a surface street (PA 26). It is very weird indeed that they just stopped I-99 right there before it reaches I-80. Hopefully this will be fixed in the future. :crazy:
There are plans in the works to convert the existing I-80/I-99 interchange into a full freeway-type interchange.
It is not part of the original Interstate system in any case. The section over the mountain was completed in 2009. So it is an Interstate corridor still in development.
Allow me to interpret this a bit differently.
I believe that the biggest gap in the Interstate system is the US 7 corridor. The original 1956 plan had one but it disappeared soon thereafter.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 12, 2018, 10:33:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 12, 2018, 08:35:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2018, 06:30:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 01:05:08 AM
I just remembered something that I often forget about. Google Maps' "brilliant" new color scheme is making it very hard to visually remind myself of it, but I believe that on the northern end of the current (existing/original) I-99, there is a beyond substandard part of the highway. This very, very short portion of I-99 has actual intersections with a few surface streets (so it is not technically a freeway at all right here). This is beyond substandard (such as not having enough lanes (like that portion of I-93 in NH) or having inadequate shoulder lengths) - it is flattout violating one of the fundamentals of the Interstate Highway System - being able to travel without facing at-grade intersections - similar to "I-180" being designated over that surface street in Cheyenne, Wyoming - so I would consider this case a gap in the interstate system. Heck, even the I-99/I-80 interchange itself looks very, very substandard. This whole northern terminus of Interstate 99 is just pretty messed up all over the place.
The last 0.5 mile of the highway that connects to I-80 is actually PA-26, not I-99.
Traveling northbound, there's an END I-99 assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9380184,-77.73111,3a,75y,48.84h,79.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simVOcDBUhESYJPdC4n38EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) just before the first at-grade intersection. On this segment southbound, it's sometimes posted as TO I-99, but sometimes not (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9419967,-77.7261373,3a,75y,239.26h,88.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBk1xlwRdCL1S_U_elca7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Oh okay, I am an idiot then. I don't know how I didn't know that - especially since I had to look on GMSV and link to it to show that there were at-grade intersections. That is really strange. I wonder why I-99 wouldn't just continue that extra insignificant distance to reach Interstate 80 fully, and with a proper interchange. This probably makes this case a gap in the interstate system even more now that I know this very short section of road isn't even I-99 to begin with at all. To go from I-99 to I-80 or I-80 to I-99, you have to go on a surface street (PA 26). It is very weird indeed that they just stopped I-99 right there before it reaches I-80. Hopefully this will be fixed in the future. :crazy:
There are plans in the works to convert the existing I-80/I-99 interchange into a full freeway-type interchange.
ARE there plans? There WERE plans, but there was a lot of opposition, and I don't think this is on PennDOTs 12-year plan...
I-99 doesn't technically connect to any interstate...not the north end, not the south end, and nothing in between. Is there another interstate that can make that claim?
I-74, since there's essentially 0 probability that the portion connecting the two sections will ever be built.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on April 12, 2018, 01:09:45 PM
I-99 doesn't technically connect to any interstate...not the north end, not the south end, and nothing in between. Is there another interstate that can make that claim?
The PA section, anyways. The NY section does connect to I-86.
I-585 doesn't connect to any other interstate.
Technically this isn't a "gap" , but I-40 through eastern NM has at grade crossings with lots of farm roads.
Quote from: bing101 on April 12, 2018, 12:13:16 PM
The CA-710 to I-710 gap in Pasadena to South Pasadena area. That's the longest roadgeek controversy in Los Angeles.
The Bay Area has the Southern Crossing gap from I-238 to I-380 from South San Francisco/San Bruno area to San Leandro area.
That's not a gap, that's two separate interstates that don't connect. :spin:
Quote from: jemacedo9 on April 12, 2018, 01:09:45 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 12, 2018, 10:33:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 12, 2018, 08:35:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 12, 2018, 06:30:07 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 01:05:08 AM
I just remembered something that I often forget about. Google Maps' "brilliant" new color scheme is making it very hard to visually remind myself of it, but I believe that on the northern end of the current (existing/original) I-99, there is a beyond substandard part of the highway. This very, very short portion of I-99 has actual intersections with a few surface streets (so it is not technically a freeway at all right here). This is beyond substandard (such as not having enough lanes (like that portion of I-93 in NH) or having inadequate shoulder lengths) - it is flattout violating one of the fundamentals of the Interstate Highway System - being able to travel without facing at-grade intersections - similar to "I-180" being designated over that surface street in Cheyenne, Wyoming - so I would consider this case a gap in the interstate system. Heck, even the I-99/I-80 interchange itself looks very, very substandard. This whole northern terminus of Interstate 99 is just pretty messed up all over the place.
The last 0.5 mile of the highway that connects to I-80 is actually PA-26, not I-99.
Traveling northbound, there's an END I-99 assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9380184,-77.73111,3a,75y,48.84h,79.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simVOcDBUhESYJPdC4n38EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) just before the first at-grade intersection. On this segment southbound, it's sometimes posted as TO I-99, but sometimes not (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9419967,-77.7261373,3a,75y,239.26h,88.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slBk1xlwRdCL1S_U_elca7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Oh okay, I am an idiot then. I don't know how I didn't know that - especially since I had to look on GMSV and link to it to show that there were at-grade intersections. That is really strange. I wonder why I-99 wouldn't just continue that extra insignificant distance to reach Interstate 80 fully, and with a proper interchange. This probably makes this case a gap in the interstate system even more now that I know this very short section of road isn't even I-99 to begin with at all. To go from I-99 to I-80 or I-80 to I-99, you have to go on a surface street (PA 26). It is very weird indeed that they just stopped I-99 right there before it reaches I-80. Hopefully this will be fixed in the future. :crazy:
There are plans in the works to convert the existing I-80/I-99 interchange into a full freeway-type interchange.
ARE there plans? There WERE plans, but there was a lot of opposition, and I don't think this is on PennDOTs 12-year plan...
I-99 doesn't technically connect to any interstate...not the north end, not the south end, and nothing in between. Is there another interstate that can make that claim?
I don't think I realized just how uninformed I was on Interstate 99. :pan:
I was talking about the substandard status of I-99's northern end, but I completely forgot about a problem (much different, but) equally as bad at its southern end! Breezewood II at I-99 and I-70/I-76 completely slipped from my memory. I-99 apparently actually does not directly connect to the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-70/I-76) - instead, there is ramps connecting to a surface street (US 220 BUS), not unlike those of the actual Breezewood. You must exit briefly onto that surface street to go from I-99 to I-70-I-76 directly or vice versa. I truly did forget about Breezewood II. I suspect that this probably won't be fixed (much like the actual Breezewood), at least in the conceivable future, due to pressures from all those businesses on that short stretch of US 220 BUS, and more. This means that regardless of what else happens (such as a fixed up I-99/I-80 interchange), Interstate 99 may never actually truly be completely normal (devoid of any gaps whatsoever). So there is in fact not a direct connection between I-99 and I-70/I-76. Currently I-99 indeed actually does not fully connect to any other interstates at all (at least its original, current route).
Also, regarding my ignorance (until now) on I-99, I actually was not informed on the fact of just how new an interstate I-99 actually is. I don't think I realized that it is only about two decades old. I didn't think about the fact that it is still an interstate in its youth, and that may be why it is more prone to such deficiencies. I'll have to remember that that freeway was just US 220 for a long time, and that I-99 is still very new. Even with that said, I am still surprised about the substandard interchange with I-80 and Breezewood II, but after learning more about Interstate 99, it all seems more understandable to me now.
Quote from: vdeane on April 12, 2018, 01:23:53 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on April 12, 2018, 01:09:45 PM
I-99 doesn't technically connect to any interstate...not the north end, not the south end, and nothing in between. Is there another interstate that can make that claim?
The PA section, anyways. The NY section does connect to I-86.
EEEK...considering that I travel the NY section monthly, I forgot about that...
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2018, 11:11:33 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 11, 2018, 08:50:10 PM
So aside from that, the main two notorious gaps that come to mind are the I-95 gap in New Jersey, and Breezewood in Pennsyvania (I-70/I-76). There may be other gaps of this magnitude (or that of which is somewhat large) that I am forgetting.
I-76 and I-81 junction. Surface roads are the only way to connect.
That gap makes no sense, o wait, it's pennsylvania
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 11, 2018, 07:56:05 PM
With the exception of Breezewood, which interstate gap has the best chance of closing anytime in the near future?
The gap between I-265 in Indiana and I-265 in Kentucky has been filled in with road/bridge, but it hasn't yet been designated I-265 so that's a gap that could close very soon.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 12, 2018, 09:28:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2018, 11:11:33 PMI-76 and I-81 junction. Surface roads are the only way to connect.
Yes, but the highways themselves are still continuous.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 12, 2018, 08:47:09 AM
I-76, I-84, I-86, I-88.
You can add I-87 to that list. :sombrero:
and I-74
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2018, 01:01:30 PM
Allow me to interpret this a bit differently.
I believe that the biggest gap in the Interstate system is the US 7 corridor. The original 1956 plan had one but it disappeared soon thereafter.
The "original 1956 plan" was actually approved in 1947 (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/conus-1947.jpg). No bueno for your US 7 corridor.
(BTW, blame Massachusetts. VT wanted US 7...MA wanted US 5. MA won.)
Not that it was ever a gap to IDiOT or the FHWA, but are the "TO I-90" banners still hanging around the Chicago Skyway or did they get their heads out of their asses and sign it as I-90 in the field again?
Quote from: kkt on April 12, 2018, 01:33:39 PM
Quote from: bing101 on April 12, 2018, 12:13:16 PM
The CA-710 to I-710 gap in Pasadena to South Pasadena area. That's the longest roadgeek controversy in Los Angeles.
The Bay Area has the Southern Crossing gap from I-238 to I-380 from South San Francisco/San Bruno area to San Leandro area.
That's not a gap, that's two separate interstates that don't connect. :spin:
I swore there was a huge stink over making I-238 meet with I-380 and I-380 was going to extend as CA-380 to Half Moon Bay though when the Southern Crossing was discussed.
There aren't any Interstate gaps in Michigan anymore. The last one I believe was the completion of I-696.
Quote from: bing101 on April 13, 2018, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 12, 2018, 01:33:39 PM
Quote from: bing101 on April 12, 2018, 12:13:16 PM
The CA-710 to I-710 gap in Pasadena to South Pasadena area. That's the longest roadgeek controversy in Los Angeles.
The Bay Area has the Southern Crossing gap from I-238 to I-380 from South San Francisco/San Bruno area to San Leandro area.
That's not a gap, that's two separate interstates that don't connect. :spin:
I swore there was a huge stink over making I-238 meet with I-380 and I-380 was going to extend as CA-380 to Half Moon Bay though when the Southern Crossing was discussed.
I-238 was built most importantly as part of the truck route from Altamont Pass to Oakland, as trucks are not allowed on I-580 from Oakland to Hayward.
Lots of roadgeeks have noted that I-238 to I-380 might be connected by a new bridge and thus have access to I-580 and I-280 come for free, however such plans have always been unofficial. Several possible routes for a southern crossing have had feasibility studies, of which I-238 to I-380 was one, but not the favored one. In particular, there's a couple of miles of subdivisions between I-238 and San Francisco Bay, so acquiring a right of way would be very expensive and very unpopular. Also, that's the widest part of the bay, so the bridge itself would be particularly expensive. The bridge would also be adjacent to the runways for both SFO and OAK, so at some risk if a plan is coming in too high or too low. Adding new spans paralleling existing bridges would probably be easier, or even a new bridge from Alameda and Oakland to Hunter's Point.
IIRC, you're right that extended 380 to Half Moon Bay was a Caltrans plan at one point.
Quote from: kkt on April 13, 2018, 04:55:13 PM
Quote from: bing101 on April 13, 2018, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 12, 2018, 01:33:39 PM
Quote from: bing101 on April 12, 2018, 12:13:16 PM
The CA-710 to I-710 gap in Pasadena to South Pasadena area. That's the longest roadgeek controversy in Los Angeles.
The Bay Area has the Southern Crossing gap from I-238 to I-380 from South San Francisco/San Bruno area to San Leandro area.
That's not a gap, that's two separate interstates that don't connect. :spin:
I swore there was a huge stink over making I-238 meet with I-380 and I-380 was going to extend as CA-380 to Half Moon Bay though when the Southern Crossing was discussed.
I-238 was built most importantly as part of the truck route from Altamont Pass to Oakland, as trucks are not allowed on I-580 from Oakland to Hayward.
Lots of roadgeeks have noted that I-238 to I-380 might be connected by a new bridge and thus have access to I-580 and I-280 come for free, however such plans have always been unofficial. Several possible routes for a southern crossing have had feasibility studies, of which I-238 to I-380 was one, but not the favored one. In particular, there's a couple of miles of subdivisions between I-238 and San Francisco Bay, so acquiring a right of way would be very expensive and very unpopular. Also, that's the widest part of the bay, so the bridge itself would be particularly expensive. The bridge would also be adjacent to the runways for both SFO and OAK, so at some risk if a plan is coming in too high or too low. Adding new spans paralleling existing bridges would probably be easier, or even a new bridge from Alameda and Oakland to Hunter's Point.
IIRC, you're right that extended 380 to Half Moon Bay was a Caltrans plan at one point.
I did not know that there was proposals to connect I-238 and I-380. That is very interesting. :nod:
However, when I was looking on Google Maps, I, too, had to think if it would really be that feasible, because the bridge connecting them would cross what is seemingly the widest part of the bay. This would make it indeed very expensive to build, and of course, there are other factors besides the width of the bay that come into play (such as local opposition on the land and such).
As you said, maybe a good idea would be to add more room to the CA 92 bridge, or even build a new bridge just south of I-80 (from Alameda to Hunters Point), as this part of the bay is not nearly as wide as the part between I-238 and I-380.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 13, 2018, 02:10:02 PM
There aren't any Interstate gaps in Michigan anymore. The last one I believe was the completion of I-696.
The north part of I-275?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on April 13, 2018, 08:39:31 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 13, 2018, 02:10:02 PM
There aren't any Interstate gaps in Michigan anymore. The last one I believe was the completion of I-696.
The north part of I-275?
Mike
There is no gap with I-275, there is only one section to it.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 13, 2018, 02:10:02 PM
There aren't any Interstate gaps in Michigan anymore. The last one I believe was the completion of I-696.
US 31 from Holland to Grand Haven has been filled? US 131 and 127 have gaps too
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 16, 2018, 11:53:00 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 13, 2018, 02:10:02 PM
There aren't any Interstate gaps in Michigan anymore. The last one I believe was the completion of I-696.
US 31 from Holland to Grand Haven has been filled? US 131 and 127 have gaps too
Those are US highways not Interstate's.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 13, 2018, 02:10:02 PM
There aren't any Interstate gaps in Michigan anymore. The last one I believe was the completion of I-696.
I-69 was completed after I-696.
Quote from: bing101 on April 13, 2018, 11:22:47 AM
I swore there was a huge stink over making I-238 meet with I-380 and I-380 was going to extend as CA-380 to Half Moon Bay though when the Southern Crossing was discussed.
Extend to Pacifica you mean, according to cahighways.org. Route 92 connects Half Moon Bay and I-280.
Anyway, here's a real gap in the Bay Area: I-80 and I-280 don't connect in San Francisco! Instead I-280 becomes King Street (the most direct freeway route to AT&T Park) and then the Embarcadero. Originally they were supposed to connect before the Bay Bridge, but thanks to Freeway revolts in the 60s and 70s that likely won't happen ever.
Quote from: Techknow on April 17, 2018, 01:44:43 AM
Quote from: bing101 on April 13, 2018, 11:22:47 AM
I swore there was a huge stink over making I-238 meet with I-380 and I-380 was going to extend as CA-380 to Half Moon Bay though when the Southern Crossing was discussed.
Extend to Pacifica you mean, according to cahighways.org. Route 92 connects Half Moon Bay and I-280.
Anyway, here's a real gap in the Bay Area: I-80 and I-280 don't connect in San Francisco! Instead I-280 becomes King Street (the most direct freeway route to AT&T Park) and then the Embarcadero. Originally they were supposed to connect before the Bay Bridge, but thanks to Freeway revolts in the 60s and 70s that likely won't happen ever.
I'm not sure how that's a gap. Two different roads with two different numbers.
Quote from: kkt on April 17, 2018, 12:07:13 PMI'm not sure how that's a gap. Two different roads with two different numbers.
It's a gap in the network caused by an unfinished interstate. Just because the gap is between the current end of I-280 and its termination point at its parent (rather than another bit of I-280) doesn't make it any less of a gap than one in the middle of a numbered route.
And the OP asked about gaps 'in the interstate system' - even if you don't see it as a gap in I-280, it is clearly a gap in the system!
----
I'd imagine that the I-69 gaps between Indianapolis and Memphis might be pretty bad when it comes to rural/non-urban gaps, but haven't yet had time to gain notoriety due to the newness of the rest of I-69 between the two cities.
Quote from: Techknow on April 17, 2018, 01:44:43 AM
Quote from: bing101 on April 13, 2018, 11:22:47 AM
I swore there was a huge stink over making I-238 meet with I-380 and I-380 was going to extend as CA-380 to Half Moon Bay though when the Southern Crossing was discussed.
Extend to Pacifica you mean, according to cahighways.org. Route 92 connects Half Moon Bay and I-280.
Anyway, here's a real gap in the Bay Area: I-80 and I-280 don't connect in San Francisco! Instead I-280 becomes King Street (the most direct freeway route to AT&T Park) and then the Embarcadero. Originally they were supposed to connect before the Bay Bridge, but thanks to Freeway revolts in the 60s and 70s that likely won't happen ever.
And I-280 was going to connect with I-80 with CA-480. Also CA-480 was going to connect to I-480 to US-101 was going to connect to Doyle Drive/Presidio Parkway for a direct freeway access to the Golden Gate Bridge though.
https://www.cahighways.org/maps-sac-fwy.html
For Sacramento there's a map suggesting that beltline freeway was going to be extended from the I-80/CA-51 interchange to CA-99 in Elk Grove area. Then there was going to be a freeway that went from I-5 to run as a midway East/west freeway between US-50 and I-80 as LRN 102.
Quote from: bing101 on April 18, 2018, 01:10:51 AM
https://www.cahighways.org/maps-sac-fwy.html
For Sacramento there's a map suggesting that beltline freeway was going to be extended from the I-80/CA-51 interchange to CA-99 in Elk Grove area. Then there was going to be a freeway that went from I-5 to run as a midway East/west freeway between US-50 and I-80 as LRN 102.
The original CA 102 (it had a much different LRN number), always simply a corridor concept but never actually an adopted alignment, extended east from the present I-5/CA 99 interchange north of Sacramento paralleling Elkhorn Blvd. and Greenback Way to a point just west of Folsom (but still on the north side of the American River), and then NNE more or less along the Auburn-Folsom Road alignment through Granite Bay to I-80 near Auburn. Once Citrus Heights and Orangevale became densely developed -- and it was clear that new freeways in Sacramento County were non-starters, the conceptual alignment was moved north in the early '90; plans were to configure CA 102 as a "relief route" for the increasingly congested I-80. It would start at CA 99 north of I-5, head NE crossing CA 65 between Rocklin and Lincoln, parallel the western section of CA 193 for a while before turning NE again to bypass Auburn to the north (near the municipal airport), and finally terminating at I-80 near Applegate. But once again this concept was inundated by housing near Lincoln, which has become something of a retirement mecca, with the redoubtable Del Webb/Sun City leading the way with an extensive tract SE of downtown (right where the 102 corridor was "penciled in"). It has been speculated that the new expressway corridor connecting Lincoln with CA 99 may indeed be signed as CA 102 (although funded through the regional MPO rather than Caltrans); we'll all see what happens when that facility is opened to traffic -- it actually is somewhat close to the later 102 corridor iteration.
And, for the record, the N-S connector from the stub-end of CA 244 south to CA 99 between Elk Grove and Galt was slated to be CA 143 before plans were shelved; it was to cross the American River near the west side of Rancho Cordova and skirt the former Mather AFB to the west. That
was an actual adopted route prior to 1975, with property having been bought in the Carmichael area for the ROW; but under orders from Adriana Gianturco, Caltrans director 1975-83 (and vehemently anti-automobile/freeway), the properties were sold off circa 1977, effectively killing the Sacramento eastern bypass concept.
What, no mention of the I-10 'gap' between the Santa Monica Freeway at the East LA Interchange and the San Bernardino Freeway at US 101? :bigass:
Found another legitimate one (although minor): I-86 in New York.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 18, 2018, 06:18:28 AM
What, no mention of the I-10 'gap' between the Santa Monica Freeway at the East LA Interchange and the San Bernardino Freeway at US 101? :bigass:
If D7 would just grit their teeth and reinstate co-signage of I-10 with I-5 over that stretch like it was 50 years ago, there would be no problem (although I'm sure we board contributors constitute a large portion of those who care about such arcane shit!). Nevertheless, the former presence of co-signage contradicts any official position that such signage is either confusing or superfluous. But after coming around that big outside curve on I-10 from the WB San Bernardino to the SB Golden State freeway, it would be nice for traffic, particularly non-locals, to be assured that they're still on I-10!
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2018, 06:33:52 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 18, 2018, 06:18:28 AM
What, no mention of the I-10 'gap' between the Santa Monica Freeway at the East LA Interchange and the San Bernardino Freeway at US 101? :bigass:
If D7 would just grit their teeth and reinstate co-signage of I-10 with I-5 over that stretch like it was 50 years ago, there would be no problem (although I'm sure we board contributors constitute a large portion of those who care about such arcane shit!). Nevertheless, the former presence of co-signage contradicts any official position that such signage is either confusing or superfluous. But after coming around that big outside curve on I-10 from the WB San Bernardino to the SB Golden State freeway, it would be nice for traffic, particularly non-locals, to be assured that they're still on I-10!
that makes no sense, why wouldn't they cosign them?!
I-49 on the near south side of Kansas City, MO?
Mike
Quote from: english si on April 17, 2018, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 17, 2018, 12:07:13 PMI'm not sure how that's a gap. Two different roads with two different numbers.
It's a gap in the network caused by an unfinished interstate. Just because the gap is between the current end of I-280 and its termination point at its parent (rather than another bit of I-280) doesn't make it any less of a gap than one in the middle of a numbered route.
Connected by a freeway already. I suppose they could extend the I-80 signing to I-280 if they wanted.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 18, 2018, 07:43:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2018, 06:33:52 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 18, 2018, 06:18:28 AM
What, no mention of the I-10 'gap' between the Santa Monica Freeway at the East LA Interchange and the San Bernardino Freeway at US 101? :bigass:
If D7 would just grit their teeth and reinstate co-signage of I-10 with I-5 over that stretch like it was 50 years ago, there would be no problem (although I'm sure we board contributors constitute a large portion of those who care about such arcane shit!). Nevertheless, the former presence of co-signage contradicts any official position that such signage is either confusing or superfluous. But after coming around that big outside curve on I-10 from the WB San Bernardino to the SB Golden State freeway, it would be nice for traffic, particularly non-locals, to be assured that they're still on I-10!
that makes no sense, why wouldn't they cosign them?!
Wait, what? I-5 and I-10 aren't cosigned along the southernmost reach of the Golden State Freeway? I could have sworn they were as of 2008...
At any rate, I was mocking the legislative definition of I-10, which includes the westernmost reach of the San Bernardino from between the Santa Ana and Hollywood Freeways to the Golden State.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 19, 2018, 04:49:09 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 18, 2018, 07:43:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2018, 06:33:52 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 18, 2018, 06:18:28 AM
What, no mention of the I-10 'gap' between the Santa Monica Freeway at the East LA Interchange and the San Bernardino Freeway at US 101? :bigass:
If D7 would just grit their teeth and reinstate co-signage of I-10 with I-5 over that stretch like it was 50 years ago, there would be no problem (although I'm sure we board contributors constitute a large portion of those who care about such arcane shit!). Nevertheless, the former presence of co-signage contradicts any official position that such signage is either confusing or superfluous. But after coming around that big outside curve on I-10 from the WB San Bernardino to the SB Golden State freeway, it would be nice for traffic, particularly non-locals, to be assured that they're still on I-10!
that makes no sense, why wouldn't they cosign them?!
Wait, what? I-5 and I-10 aren't cosigned along the southernmost reach of the Golden State Freeway? I could have sworn they were as of 2008...
At any rate, I was mocking the legislative definition of I-10, which includes the westernmost reach of the San Bernardino from between the Santa Ana and Hollywood Freeways to the Golden State.
The last time I was on that section of freeway back in 2012 the only reassurance shields were that of I-5. If there have been additional I-10 shields erected since then, I stand corrected. But that I-10 "stub" between I-5 and US 101 has always been something of a legal anomaly -- Caltrans considers it a part of I-10 -- but essentially a long set of ramps from US 101 to the main I-10 lanes. In the pre-'64 numbering system, it was defined as I-110 (and there was briefly signage for I-110 WB on I-10 WB right after the I-5/10 interchange was opened in early 1960; that lasted less than 2 years before it was removed).
Quote from: MCRoads on April 12, 2018, 01:28:22 PM
Technically this isn't a "gap" , but I-40 through eastern NM has at grade crossings with lots of farm roads.
Where? Can you give us specific examples? I looked at Google Maps and don't see any at-grade crossings with I-40 in eastern NM. Thanks!
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 19, 2018, 03:11:29 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on April 12, 2018, 01:28:22 PM
Technically this isn't a "gap" , but I-40 through eastern NM has at grade crossings with lots of farm roads.
Where? Can you give us specific examples? I looked at Google Maps and don't see any at-grade crossings with I-40 in eastern NM. Thanks!
Actually, these are across the state line in TX on I-40 between NM and US 385.
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 19, 2018, 03:11:29 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on April 12, 2018, 01:28:22 PM
Technically this isn't a "gap" , but I-40 through eastern NM has at grade crossings with lots of farm roads.
Where? Can you give us specific examples? I looked at Google Maps and don't see any at-grade crossings with I-40 in eastern NM. Thanks!
I see a few on Google Maps in the western panhandle of Texas on I-40. In between Adrian and Glenrio I noticed some but didn't see much east of Adrian. Starting at exit 18 and going east I-40 has a Service Road that everything seems to end at.
I wouldn't consider this a gap though since I-40 goes all the way through. Just because a farm road intersects an Interstate that's considered a gap now?
It's the same situation as I-10 in west Texas.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 19, 2018, 04:10:27 PM
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 19, 2018, 03:11:29 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on April 12, 2018, 01:28:22 PM
Technically this isn't a "gap" , but I-40 through eastern NM has at grade crossings with lots of farm roads.
Where? Can you give us specific examples? I looked at Google Maps and don't see any at-grade crossings with I-40 in eastern NM. Thanks!
I see a few on Google Maps in the western panhandle of Texas on I-40. In between Adrian and Glenrio I noticed some but didn't see much east of Adrian. Starting at exit 18 and going east I-40 has a Service Road that everything seems to end at.
I wouldn't consider this a gap though since I-40 goes all the way through. Just because a farm road intersects an Interstate that's considered a gap now?
The specific in-between towns helped. Here's an example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2060562,-102.9307851,3a,79y,145.4h,73.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2VJ_M5wleur69ARkvOkuBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Definitely not interstate quality; however, it's also not that big of a deal and shouldn't impact a majority of drivers, especially as there are gates right next to the interstate.
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 19, 2018, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 19, 2018, 04:10:27 PM
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 19, 2018, 03:11:29 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on April 12, 2018, 01:28:22 PM
Technically this isn't a "gap" , but I-40 through eastern NM has at grade crossings with lots of farm roads.
Where? Can you give us specific examples? I looked at Google Maps and don't see any at-grade crossings with I-40 in eastern NM. Thanks!
I see a few on Google Maps in the western panhandle of Texas on I-40. In between Adrian and Glenrio I noticed some but didn't see much east of Adrian. Starting at exit 18 and going east I-40 has a Service Road that everything seems to end at.
I wouldn't consider this a gap though since I-40 goes all the way through. Just because a farm road intersects an Interstate that's considered a gap now?
The specific in-between towns helped. Here's an example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2060562,-102.9307851,3a,79y,145.4h,73.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2VJ_M5wleur69ARkvOkuBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Definitely not interstate quality; however, it's also not that big of a deal and shouldn't impact a majority of drivers, especially as there are gates right next to the interstate.
It looks to me like they are just access to ranches. I don't think anyone is going to turn off the Interstate and try to drive on one of those roads though. I guess it would be legal to turn around at those intersections.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 20, 2018, 02:01:01 AM
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 19, 2018, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 19, 2018, 04:10:27 PM
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 19, 2018, 03:11:29 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on April 12, 2018, 01:28:22 PM
Technically this isn't a "gap" , but I-40 through eastern NM has at grade crossings with lots of farm roads.
Where? Can you give us specific examples? I looked at Google Maps and don't see any at-grade crossings with I-40 in eastern NM. Thanks!
I see a few on Google Maps in the western panhandle of Texas on I-40. In between Adrian and Glenrio I noticed some but didn't see much east of Adrian. Starting at exit 18 and going east I-40 has a Service Road that everything seems to end at.
I wouldn't consider this a gap though since I-40 goes all the way through. Just because a farm road intersects an Interstate that's considered a gap now?
The specific in-between towns helped. Here's an example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2060562,-102.9307851,3a,79y,145.4h,73.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2VJ_M5wleur69ARkvOkuBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Definitely not interstate quality; however, it's also not that big of a deal and shouldn't impact a majority of drivers, especially as there are gates right next to the interstate.
It looks to me like they are just access to ranches. I don't think anyone is going to turn off the Interstate and try to drive on one of those roads though. I guess it would be legal to turn around at those intersections.
I actually "crossed" the freeway and saw a much more recent Street View image, from 2016. It definitely looks more like an at-grade "intercharge" from this view: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2057159,-102.9308724,3a,65.4y,34.26h,74.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spRSFTWjJaE_ndk2LnbYPsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656.
Interstate 676 and the ben franklin bridge. 476 and i-81 will get a proper connection in the near future if the beltway project moves properly.
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 20, 2018, 10:47:36 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 20, 2018, 02:01:01 AM
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 19, 2018, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 19, 2018, 04:10:27 PM
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on April 19, 2018, 03:11:29 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on April 12, 2018, 01:28:22 PM
Technically this isn't a "gap" , but I-40 through eastern NM has at grade crossings with lots of farm roads.
Where? Can you give us specific examples? I looked at Google Maps and don't see any at-grade crossings with I-40 in eastern NM. Thanks!
I see a few on Google Maps in the western panhandle of Texas on I-40. In between Adrian and Glenrio I noticed some but didn't see much east of Adrian. Starting at exit 18 and going east I-40 has a Service Road that everything seems to end at.
I wouldn't consider this a gap though since I-40 goes all the way through. Just because a farm road intersects an Interstate that's considered a gap now?
The specific in-between towns helped. Here's an example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2060562,-102.9307851,3a,79y,145.4h,73.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2VJ_M5wleur69ARkvOkuBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Definitely not interstate quality; however, it's also not that big of a deal and shouldn't impact a majority of drivers, especially as there are gates right next to the interstate.
It looks to me like they are just access to ranches. I don't think anyone is going to turn off the Interstate and try to drive on one of those roads though. I guess it would be legal to turn around at those intersections.
I actually "crossed" the freeway and saw a much more recent Street View image, from 2016. It definitely looks more like an at-grade "intercharge" from this view: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2057159,-102.9308724,3a,65.4y,34.26h,74.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spRSFTWjJaE_ndk2LnbYPsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656.
That's what they are. I was reading up on it and I guess since they are lacking a frontage road in that part of Texas that is why it's like that. It is indeed in violation of Interstate standards.
But are they "notorious" gaps? They seem more like inconsistencies in expectation with interstate highway design. To put it other words: a roadgeek irk.
If there's not much overall traffic usage to warrant the at-grade crossings, because there's no discernible delay to through traffic, it does not cause an indirect routing, and it is not a constant hazard to other motorists, then I'd say it is not a notorious gap.
These ranch-access roads and driveways seem to have no more annoyance than a state patrol using the OFFICIAL USE ONLY U-turn spots.
I can only think of one, and it is really more of an annoyance than a gap, and that is CA-15 in San Diego. Upgrade it to I-15, with all the needed work, and be done with it.
As for missing segments of original designs... I for one would like to see I-90's starting point as WA 99 actually constructed. Could actually be useful with the new tunnel being completed, and provide for non-surface access to the port.
Another annoyance gap and probably not quite what the topic is for, but I'll mention the I-29/I-680 interchange north of Council Bluffs Iowa as a 'gap' in I-680.
It's an outdated full clover leaf, and its further awkward from an at grade rail crossing just to the east if one doesn't ramp south to CB or loop north on I-29.
Damn, every time I go by it or thru it I just cringe. The scale of the clover loop isn't all that big, and at times of the day the merge onto I-29 is scary from all the traffic going thru it.
Probably should start a thread for all the outdated Interstate to Interstate cloverleaf interchanges in the country . . . .
:wow:
Quote from: Jardine on April 21, 2018, 02:29:36 PM
Probably should start a thread for all the outdated Interstate to Interstate cloverleaf interchanges in the country .
Today is your lucky day:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22527.50
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 13, 2018, 02:30:28 AM
Not that it was ever a gap to IDiOT or the FHWA, but are the "TO I-90" banners still hanging around the Chicago Skyway or did they get their heads out of their asses and sign it as I-90 in the field again?
Not only did they eliminate the "TO" tabs from the I-90 signs, but they also added exit numbers to the exit signs, and added mile markers to reflect I-90s distance from the Wisconsin state line on the Skyway. So, structural issues aside, the Chicago Skyway is officially considered part of I-90.