With many freeways around the country on the verge of interstatehood, I've become frustrated with how strictly rules about when an interstate can be signed are applied. We have hundreds of miles of interstate designations that are only being held back by some nitpicky rule about shoulders or medians or height clearances or other bullcrap. Ever heard of close enough? Can't we just get some of these bad boys signed with the understanding that the minor deficiencies will be corrected the next time that segment is resurfaced or whatever?
Shoulder's too narrow for I-22?
Need a few more miles of cable barrier for I-41?
Can't have a discontinuous I-49 down there in AR/LA?
I say, close enough! We'll fix that in the next maintenance cycle. They'll hook up eventually. It's not like there's driveways and traffic signals.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to throw out the standards for what gets to be an interstate. I'm just asking for a little common sense. I know there's always this argument that drivers have "expectations" for an interstate but I don't believe that for a minute. As long as there's no cross traffic, the motoring public doesn't give a rip. Furthermore, the existing interstate system is far from uniform. There's tons of places with substandard curves and clearances and separation between carriageways and crummy little interchanges.
I'm just going to use I-41 (presumably) here in Wisconsin as an example. We have a perfectly serviceable multilane divided controlled access facility that's supposed to be an interstate now, but we can't sign anything just yet because according to our precious interstate standards, the carriageways are too close together so before any red, white & blue shields can go up, first we need a hundred miles of median barrier. Yes, there should be this improvement to that freeway, but it's going to happen anyway so just put up the interstate shields already.
Meanwhile in Oshkosh & Green Bay, massive moderization & expansion projects have begun which will bring the more "urban" sections of US 41 up to interstate standard. But since I-41 has to wait for the whole corridor to be interstate standard, does that mean they're going to have to replace all the brand new signs that will have just been put up in those cities? I say start putting up the shields now so the dozens of new BGS's and stuff will be interstatey right from the start.
Some of these nitpicky rules aren't even applied uniformly. Supposedly, we're not supposed to have a discontinuous interstate and that's why this AR 549 nonsense exists south of Texarkana. Yet at the same time we currently have three I-69's that will eventually become one continuous interstate. And what about NC's I-74? Isn't that doubly discontinuous; both with the Midwest's I-74 and with itself in the same state? Or is that US 220 portion still "future"? (Assuming I-74 will ever be continuous instead of a duplicate the likes of 76, 84, 86 & 88.)
I even object to the insistence that interstates must absolutely connect to other interstates in all cases. For all intents and purposes, I-22's connection to I-65 is under construction and that's close enough for me to start throwing up shields on US 78. That way once the connection is finished, the rest of the highway is ready to go. In the interim, "TO I-22" signage can suffice. Same deal in Texarkana until a new I-30/I-49 interchange goes up. Handle it the way they did while interstate system was still largely under construction.
This injection of same-page understanding I think saves everyone's time, money & resources. Not to mention, the general public will see a much quicker turnaround between the time when they first hear about the new interstate coming to their area and the time when they see red, white & blue in their travels.
In conclusion, I humbly accept the offer of "Interstate Czar" to be the one who decides which soon-to-be interstates get signed.
Agreed. a lot of interstates have been grandfathered in. And you are right, the general public frankly does not care if the shoulders are dirt, or the median is unbarriered, or any number of minor problems. As long as there are no red lights, it's fine.
while we're at it, though, can we throw out the Brooklyn-Queens section of I-278? I can come up with no circumstance under which that route should be an interstate.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 08, 2010, 03:29:13 PM
Meanwhile in Oshkosh & Green Bay, massive moderization & expansion projects have begun which will bring the more "urban" sections of US 41 up to interstate standard. But since I-41 has to wait for the whole corridor to be interstate standard, does that mean they're going to have to replace all the brand new signs that will have just been put up in those cities? I say start putting up the shields now so the dozens of new BGS's and stuff will be interstatey right from the start.
This to me is exactly what is lame about "State Route 210" in California - it's clearly intended to be I-210, the freeway is complete, but it is awaiting an interchange reconstruction at I-215. (Same deal goes for Route 15 south of I-8, awaiting an interchange rebuild at Route 94.)
Why has the TEMPORARY banner been depreciated so much since the 1980s? It would perfectly cover so many of the scenarios here.
It's silly to build a new highway, give it a state route number, then change the number to an Interstate later down the road. It's confusing and illogical. They should go ahead and sign the Interstate numbers now.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 08, 2010, 03:29:13 PM
Some of these nitpicky rules aren't even applied uniformly. Supposedly, we're not supposed to have a discontinuous interstate and that's why this AR 549 nonsense exists south of Texarkana. Yet at the same time we currently have three I-69's that will eventually become one continuous interstate. And what about NC's I-74? Isn't that doubly discontinuous; both with the Midwest's I-74 and with itself in the same state? Or is that US 220 portion still "future"? (Assuming I-74 will ever be continuous instead of a duplicate the likes of 76, 84, 86 & 88.)
Actually, INDOT is supposed to be signing the southern part of I-69 as future, per the last AASHTO SCORN meeting:
http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/SM2010_USRN_Natcez,%20MS%20Report%20to%20SCOH.pdf (http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/SM2010_USRN_Natcez,%20MS%20Report%20to%20SCOH.pdf)
I-64 in Missouri is a good example of a standards violator: Most of the part east of I-270 was only just recently finally brought up to standards, though I think there is some substandard parts with the two double deck structures. MoDOT had been signing the part west of I-270 as an interstate without AASHTO or FHWA approval (as seen in the USRN document linked above).
Quote from: triplemultiplexI even object to the insistence that interstates must absolutely connect to other interstates in all cases. For all intents and purposes, I-22's connection to I-65 is under construction and that's close enough for me to start throwing up shields on US 78. That way once the connection is finished, the rest of the highway is ready to go. In the interim, "TO I-22" signage can suffice. Same deal in Texarkana until a new I-30/I-49 interchange goes up. Handle it the way they did while interstate system was still largely under construction.
Considering that I-70 is allowed to be signed with its eastern connection to the PA Ripoff in Breesewood . . .
For that matter, this makes me wonder if CalTrans is ever going to sign the northbound Harbor Freeway as Interstate 110 - the southbound side from the Four-Level at US 101 to I-10 has had it since the early 1980s despite the fact AASHTO approval only covers the I-10-to-San Pedro segment!
(I guess that has to be chalked up with US 377 as another example of a state DOT circumventing AASHTO designations.)
QuoteI'm just asking for a little common sense.
Common sense got thrown out the window when Interstate designations started getting legislatively assigned by Congress.
Quotethe general public frankly does not care if the shoulders are dirt
I'm calling shenanigans on this one. In my experience, they DO care, especially when they're the ones having to pull over to the side for whatever reason.
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2010, 06:32:37 PM
I'm calling shenanigans on this one. In my experience, they DO care, especially when they're the ones having to pull over to the side for whatever reason.
I think the only situation in which it would be problematic is if I lost a tire and needed to jack up the car. Otherwise, I'd have much more pressing concerns than the road surface - like the fact that pulling over to the side of an interstate is a fairly dangerous proposition. If I had car trouble, I'd do my absolute damn best to make it to the next exit.
The "Future I-XX" signage is particularly silly. If the freeway is good enough for that, it's good enough to have its "future" designation signed properly!
the limited usage of Future shields is double extra silly. The shield exists, why not use it in all contexts - reassurance, trailblazer, junction marker, etc... - showing "here is our new interstate freeway; there's a few stretches that don't quite meet spec, but we're working on it".
I-72 in Illinois was denied initaill because Quincy wasnt considered a metro area but FHA relented when MO built it into Hannibal.
The denied I-174 for 34 because it ends before Monmouth. I wondered if they would change their mind since it now conncets with a couple of NHS routes. Unlike Quincy the issue has not been pressed. Illinois ususally asks . 39 was approved before WI added it or the 80 to 55 section was approved. Apparently sine it went from Rockford to 80 that was good enough.
Parts of US 20 in Iowa fit except for the gravel shoulders. Should Iowa try for I 380?
I agree, we shouldn't withhold Interstate status because of tiny issues many people don't even know about, particularly in states where almost none of the Interstates meet modern standards (such as NY). If we're going to do this, then I propose that we revoke Interstate status from all roads that don't meet the modern standards, though that would probably leave the entire east coast without an Interstate system.
And yet I-180 in IL doesn't end at a major metro area :-D
Quote from: Master son on July 09, 2010, 11:54:35 AM
And yet I-180 in IL doesn't end at a major metro area :-D
Three words:
Defense Contractor Clout.
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2010, 12:05:02 PM
Three words:
Defense Contractor Clout.
what about I-155, then? it kinda peters out in Tennessee...
Perhaps I-174 needs to be pushed again esp since its part of Illinois 110 the Chicago KC Highway....
Very good points
Quote from: deanej on July 09, 2010, 10:52:54 AM
I agree, we shouldn't withhold Interstate status because of tiny issues many people don't even know about, particularly in states where almost none of the Interstates meet modern standards (such as NY). If we're going to do this, then I propose that we revoke Interstate status from all roads that don't meet the modern standards, though that would probably leave the entire east coast without an Interstate system.
I'm not seeing a problem here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbickenland.lonaf.com%2FphpBB2%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Fbigass.gif&hash=a0537da6e42415524d22588bdea05b394507955c)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 09, 2010, 12:06:19 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2010, 12:05:02 PM
Three words:
Defense Contractor Clout.
what about I-155, then? it kinda peters out in Tennessee...
Now that you bring it up, I don't quite get that one. It's not like Dyersburg is a very large place. It may be useful only if there's an hours-long backup further down I-55 towards Memphis.
Quote from: golden eagle on July 09, 2010, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 09, 2010, 12:06:19 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2010, 12:05:02 PM
Three words:
Defense Contractor Clout.
what about I-155, then? it kinda peters out in Tennessee...
Now that you bring it up, I don't quite get that one. It's not like Dyersburg is a very large place. It may be useful only if there's an hours-long backup further down I-55 towards Memphis.
And it'll remain an oddly-located connector even once I-69 is built paralleling US 51...
Quote from: golden eagle on July 09, 2010, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 09, 2010, 12:06:19 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2010, 12:05:02 PM
Three words:
Defense Contractor Clout.
what about I-155, then? it kinda peters out in Tennessee...
Now that you bring it up, I don't quite get that one. It's not like Dyersburg is a very large place. It may be useful only if there's an hours-long backup further down I-55 towards Memphis.
Actually, I think I-155 is reasonably useful. It's a good connection from I-55 to US 51 towards Union City, TN and all the major points in western Kentucky. It also connects to US 412 which goes to Jackson and provides a shortcut between I-55 in Missouri and I-40 in Tennessee without having to go through Memphis.
Perhaps, 155 should've been extended to I-40 at Jackson or somewhere between there and Memphis.
Quote from: golden eagle on July 09, 2010, 05:38:58 PM
Perhaps, 155 should've been extended to I-40 at Jackson or somewhere between there and Memphis.
That would make a nice freeway connector-I wonder if they've ever proposed upgrading US 412 to freeway status. It's already 4-lane expressway with partial-controlled-access between I-155 and I-40.
I would generally agree with the original post, but would change it a bit and say that a second level Interstate designation sharing the same number as standard Interstate freeways would solve a lot of problems. Here are two examples of the types of roads that might get this designation:
1) Future I-69 roads such as the three Kentucky parkways and Indiana SR 37 - until they are upgraded
2) Major expressways that have no need to be upgraded to full freeway standards in the foreseeable future such as US 81 between I-70 and I-80 in Kansas and Missouri
Interstate numbers are primarily a convenience for motorists, and any highway with the Interstate "brand" represents a certain level of safety and quality. However, that level of quality doesn't necessarily always have to be the ultimate freeway in my opinion. Perhaps another prerequisite would be that the road must be part of the NHS to gain this upgrade, and certainly there would be many other requirements. Maybe the second tier Interstate shields could have black lettering on a white backgreound so as to not dilute the image of the red, white, and blue ones, but there would be some substantial benefits to motorists including: continuity of routes resulting in less confusion, expansion of Interstate highways into less populated areas, a distinction from US and state routes which have such a wide range of quality, and possibly even make unnecessary improvements for certain roads less tempting.
Like the original post, the bar would still be high, but just not quite as high to gain some sort of Interstate route number.
Quote from: mukade on July 09, 2010, 06:41:01 PM
NHS
I was with you until that acronym. The NHS is the ultimate example of what the average motoring public doesn't care about in the slightest. Hell, a lot of roadgeeks have never heard of the NHS. I barely know what it is, and couldn't tell you where to find a list of all NHS roads, and I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable about both the interstate and US route systems!
If it's a good road, it's a good road, and it doesn't need some invisible seal of approval.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 09, 2010, 07:03:50 PM
The NHS is the ultimate example of what the average motoring public doesn't care about in the slightest. Hell, a lot of roadgeeks have never heard of the NHS. I barely know what it is, and couldn't tell you where to find a list of all NHS roads, and I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable about both the interstate and US route systems!
If it's a good road, it's a good road, and it doesn't need some invisible seal of approval.
Maybe NHS highways should be signed with a special marker. Possibly a colored version of the US or state shield. Look for the turquoise shield and you know you're on a major highway. Or they could be signed using an additional sign underneath the route marker.
Quote from: bugo on July 09, 2010, 09:07:10 PM
Maybe NHS highways should be signed with a special marker. Possibly a colored version of the US or state shield. Look for the turquoise shield and you know you're on a major highway. Or they could be signed using an additional sign underneath the route marker.
Waste of money. Interstate shields mean something actually important to the motorist: multi-lane, controlled access, etc. NHS designation doesn't mean anything significant: they can be freeways or regular roads, have intersections or interchanges, etc. There isn't even necessarily a difference in quality between NHS and non-NHS routes.
What would be possibly useful is to identify which highways are freeways. Even that could be problematic, though, as the freeway can end while the highway continues on.
Quote from: golden eagle on July 09, 2010, 05:38:58 PM
Perhaps, 155 should've been extended to I-40 at Jackson or somewhere between there and Memphis.
I-155 was the trade for an I-24 Mississippi River crossing, and I think TN wanted I-155 to connect to I-40 around the time I-155 was first proposed. There should be more details in the Google News Archive thread.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 09, 2010, 09:19:48 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on July 09, 2010, 05:38:58 PM
Perhaps, 155 should've been extended to I-40 at Jackson or somewhere between there and Memphis.
I-155 was the trade for an I-24 Mississippi River crossing, and I think TN wanted I-155 to connect to I-40 around the time I-155 was first proposed. There should be more details in the Google News Archive thread.
I found an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_155_(Missouri%E2%80%93Tennessee)) on Wikipedia that said that I-155 was originally planned as I-24W and was going to connect to I-40 at Jackson. It was going to follow the same route as US 412.
BTW, that same Wikipedia entry links an article (http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/news/2006/051906.htm) on TennDOT's plans to have I-69 intersect I-155 near Dyersburg and that 155 will be re-signed as I-69 from that point eastward.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 08, 2010, 03:29:13 PM
With many freeways around the country on the verge of interstatehood, I've become frustrated with how strictly rules about when an interstate can be signed are applied. We have hundreds of miles of interstate designations that are only being held back by some nitpicky rule about shoulders or medians or height clearances or other bullcrap. Ever heard of close enough? Can't we just get some of these bad boys signed with the understanding that the minor deficiencies will be corrected the next time that segment is resurfaced or whatever?
Shoulder's too narrow for I-22?
Need a few more miles of cable barrier for I-41?
Can't have a discontinuous I-49 down there in AR/LA?
I say, close enough! We'll fix that in the next maintenance cycle. They'll hook up eventually. It's not like there's driveways and traffic signals.
There is a point to having a standard. You either meet it or you don't. None of this wishy-washy, 'close enough' BS. If it's close enough, then why isn't it in the standard (there's usually some reason)? What qualifies as 'close enough'? What doesn't? And, if you keep applying 'close enough' iteratively, you end up with nothing. When does 'close enough' stop?
In the case of the Interstate System, exceptions to the standard have to be ruled on and have good reason for being in place. Otherwise it has to meet the current standard in the current maintenance cycle, including the roadway's initial construction or initial upgrade to Interstate designation. Next maintenance cycle isn't good enough. That may not happen for 5, 10, 20 years.
--Andy
Quote from: andytom on July 10, 2010, 03:59:35 AM
When does 'close enough' stop?
The Gowanus Expressway. ;)
Quote from: andytom on July 10, 2010, 03:59:35 AM
exceptions to the standard have to be ruled on and have good reason for being in place.
I dispute this. 278? 99? etc etc. the absence of a 76/95 junction. a lot of things are completely arbitrary and dominated by politics, to the detriment of the driving public that the government is ostensibly serving.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 09, 2010, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: mukade on July 09, 2010, 06:41:01 PM
NHS
I was with you until that acronym. The NHS is the ultimate example of what the average motoring public doesn't care about in the slightest. Hell, a lot of roadgeeks have never heard of the NHS. I barely know what it is, and couldn't tell you where to find a list of all NHS roads, and I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable about both the interstate and US route systems!
Regarding NHS, that was a suggestion of a possible criterion. If something like this ever happened, there would have to be a set of objective standards to avoid creating more of a mess. I don't care a bit about NHS myself either, but it is a system that is in place.
Quote from: andytom on July 10, 2010, 03:59:35 AM
There is a point to having a standard. You either meet it or you don't. None of this wishy-washy, 'close enough' BS. If it's close enough, then why isn't it in the standard (there's usually some reason)? What qualifies as 'close enough'? What doesn't? And, if you keep applying 'close enough' iteratively, you end up with nothing. When does 'close enough' stop?
In the case of the Interstate System, exceptions to the standard have to be ruled on and have good reason for being in place. Otherwise it has to meet the current standard in the current maintenance cycle, including the roadway's initial construction or initial upgrade to Interstate designation. Next maintenance cycle isn't good enough. That may not happen for 5, 10, 20 years.
Yes, freeway standards are necessary, but they are getting confused with numbering schemes. That was the point of having a secondary standard with different markers so the existing standard stays in place. This isn't really without precedant anyway. The green business shields recognized business connections to the freeways, and signing them with the Interstate highway number and shield. Why can't connections that meet some other standard also be marked with the same marker shape and number this same way? The difference is that these connections would also have to meet a certain expressway standard unlike the business routes which don't.
The reason why this really makes sense now is that many unfinished sections are years or decades away from completion. For example, I read the completion target for I-69 from Bloomington to Indy is 2030. With the financial shape of both the country and so many states, many unfinished sections may not even be completed in our lifetimes.
The current widening of I-64 near Winchester, Ky. means I will never be able to use this argument again, but this is the one I always used.
Close your eyes and go to sleep as you travel east on I-64 near Exit 96. Wake up 10 minutes later. If you don't know the lay of the land, you will be hard-pressed to tell if you are still on I-64 or if you are on the Mountain Parkway.
Quote from: mukade on July 10, 2010, 09:00:39 AM
For example, I read the completion target for I-69 from Bloomington to Indy is 2030. With the financial shape of both the country and so many states, many unfinished sections may not even be completed in our lifetimes.
Considering it took at least 3.5 decades to complete I-70...yeah, this is where reviving the "TEMP I-xx" designation NEEDS to be used much more often.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 10, 2010, 02:38:44 PM
Considering it took at least 3.5 decades to complete I-70...yeah, this is where reviving the "TEMP I-xx" designation NEEDS to be used much more often.
Agreed, but I think the issue is that one of several things happen depending on the mood of the FHWA and various policies of the different states:
- No FWHA permision but signed anyway (like I-64 west of I-270)
- Signing is allowed and possibly exemptions granted (like I-73, I-74, I-86)
- Signed is allowed with "Future" (like was granted for I-69 in Indiana)
- Signed with "TEMP" (as was common back in 1970s)
- Signed with "TO" (as was common back in 1970s)
- Remain only signed with old state or US designation (like I-22, I-164)
- Signed with state route number matching future Interstate number (like I-265/SR 265 in Indiana)
- Signed with some other number with ""Future I-xxx Corridor" supplemental signage (like I-269, I-74)
It is often confusing. I guess any one option would be better than the unpredictability and inconsistency that exists today.
Quote from: andytom on July 10, 2010, 03:59:35 AM
There is a point to having a standard. You either meet it or you don't. None of this wishy-washy, 'close enough' BS. If it's close enough, then why isn't it in the standard (there's usually some reason)? What qualifies as 'close enough'? What doesn't? And, if you keep applying 'close enough' iteratively, you end up with nothing. When does 'close enough' stop?
Because the current Interstate standards are so high. Most Interstates don't meet these standards. I understand if a freeway is new that it should be built to these standards, but I don't understand why they can't grandfather in roads like Future I-26 near Asheville, NC. I can understand if the road had at-grades on it, but narrow shoulders (most should-be Interstates aren't Interstates because of shoulders) aren't a good enough reason to deny the I-shield. As for discontinuous Interstates, that's the way it was done in the 1950s through the 1970s and it should be done that way now. It's ridiculous to build a road and give it a number you plan on changing in the future. Just go ahead and sign it already. For places like US 71 in Missouri, sign the freeway segments as I-49 and sign the expressway segments as TO I-49. Then as the road is upgraded to freeway standards, the TO signs can simply be removed. At the very least, sign the highway as a state route with the same number as the future Interstate.
Another point I didn't make in the above post is that it's silly to spend millions of dollars to widen shoulders from 8 to 10 feet when there are much more pressing needs. Sure 10 foot wide shoulders are nice, but are they really necessary? I'd rather see the money go towards new road projects or more important improvements like resurfacing projects and 2 to 4 lane highway widening.
Given the relatively minor cost of shoulder widening, about the only thing on your list that you could instead in any fair quantity is resurfacing.
Quote from: bugo on July 10, 2010, 04:48:33 PM
I'd rather see the money go towards new road projects or more important improvements like resurfacing projects and 2 to 4 lane highway widening.
Such as building new highways.
Quote from: froggie on July 10, 2010, 04:59:54 PM
Given the relatively minor cost of shoulder widening, about the only thing on your list that you could instead in any fair quantity is resurfacing.
Is left shoulder widening more expensive than right shoulder widening? I would think so.
Only if a median barrier is required. But then again, a left shoulder wider than 4 feet is only required when you A) have a narrow median to begin with or B) have 3 or more lanes in each direction.
I wanted to add a little on NHS history. I think more was hoped for the NHS. Some thought they should be all future interstates or 4 lanes. Rodney Slater,then FHWA Head, envisioned a mix but mostly improved 2 lanes with lost of passing lanes and other improvements.
Rand McNally considered labeling them in the Atlas. Then nothing no real plan just another funding catagory of no real interest to anyone but a state highway budget staff. There is only one good thing They are in the Federal highway volume stats. Unlike the principle arterials in the old stats you can at least find a map...Though an actual map of traffic volmes would be more useful
If Congress would put in a better planning provision like give us a specific plan of improvemnet for these routes thye might become relevant otherwise AASTOs regulation of the US routes is more meaniingful
I know Andy Field did a bunch of research on the NHS in the forerunner of what became this site 12-14 years ago. I don't know if you guys have kept it or mothballed it, or sent that work "elsewhere" (I know Andy stopped updating those pages once this decade began). For those of you who are having trouble understanding the NHS, locating those pages could possibly help you in that endevor.
I think I remember those. Except for a few Midwestern States(IL IA MO) that had Supplemenatl Freeway plans there was no real post Interstate Highway vision . I had hoped the NHS might become that vision It didnt and we still need one Of course we all have fictionla highways here.............
Quote from: xonhulu on July 09, 2010, 09:15:05 PMWhat would be possibly useful is to identify which highways are freeways. Even that could be problematic, though, as the freeway can end while the highway continues on.
One option I have toyed with in my head is to use a marker based on the British "chopsticks" symbol (used on start-of-motorway-restrictions signs in the UK) to indicate lengths of state or US route which are built to full freeway standard. But even this can cause problems. Take, for example, a pull-through sign with route marker, chopsticks symbol, and control city. Does the chopsticks symbol mean that freeway standard continues all the way to the control city, or stops at some indeterminate point between the sign and the control city?
To my mind, the main potential payoff of some explicit mechanism for indicating freeway standard (either through signs or mapping) is to allow motorists to avoid commitment to time-consuming or otherwise frustrating itineraries. For example, suppose I am thinking of going between Raleigh and the Atlantic beaches in North Carolina, but have no interest in sitting at more than 10 stoplights on the interurban portion of the itinerary. It would therefore be useful for me to have information which tells me simply "don't do it" (at least until US 70, which is the logical route, is upgraded to full freeway standard). To my mind this application almost implies a mapping-based solution since interurban stoplights can be indicated using a point symbol while there is no efficient way to indicate continuity (or otherwise) of freeway standard on signs in a form which can be easily and safely absorbed at 60 MPH.
In the narrow context of freeway standard as a qualification for Interstate shields, I actually
don't want new Interstate shields. I have no particular love for the Interstate shield and think its usefulness as an indicator of improvement to a defined standard is grossly overstated. By all means build new I-69 as I-69, new I-74 as I-74, etc., but let's not waste time making US 59 I-535, K-96 I-735, etc.
Michael Adams had developed a routing system that fits that bill, but alas was taken down with the rest of his site.
I'll contact him to see if he still has the pages.
What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.
There are many routes that are built for eventual conversion to Interstate-standard freeway, but have limited side-road and/or driveway access, few (if any) stoplights, and have speed limits that are the same as freeways. Wisconsin calls them "expressways", though this doesn't appear to be standard terminology.
Routes like most of US-30 in Ohio, WI-29 between Eau Claire and Green Bay, WI, or US-53 between Eau Claire and Superior, WI function much like Interstates, but there's no differentiation on most maps between them and other divided highways that are basically overgrown surface streets (US-30 between I-65 and Fort Wayne).
A notable exception is Wisconsin's own highway map; showing "expressway" segments very similarly to freeway segments, and much differently than surface divided highways. If this was much more common, and there was a standard way to designate these routes ("expressway" is so often used to refer to freeways that the distinction is meaningless), it would encourage greater use.
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 11, 2010, 11:32:28 AM
What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.
indeed. also, maps have an obsession with differentiating between divided highways and non-divided ones, which to me is much less important a distinction than the absence of traffic lights. Rand McNally will label in orange a high-speed expressway without a red light for 75 miles, with ranch access turnoffs, the same way that it labels a suburban arterial, four red lights per mile. Which would I rather drive??
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2010, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 11, 2010, 11:32:28 AM
What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.
indeed. also, maps have an obsession with differentiating between divided highways and non-divided ones, which to me is much less important a distinction than the absence of traffic lights. Rand McNally will label in orange a high-speed expressway without a red light for 75 miles, with ranch access turnoffs, the same way that it labels a suburban arterial, four red lights per mile. Which would I rather drive??
I know that the California State Automobile Association maps tend to label "arterial divided highways" (two black or red lines) differently from an expressway-grade road (similar to the freeway double-line, but in orange instead of red). Not sure this is still done, but I've always liked the differentiation.
It annoys me to look in an atlas at maps of New Jersey and see Route 17 and US 1/9/46 appear as if they were simply urban arterials, when they are what I've described as "Jersey freeways" (business driveway access + interchanges for all major roads with no intersections).
really, 17 and 46 don't have traffic signals? Here I thought they had them occasionally, though not nearly as often as they have jughandles with undercrossings.
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 11, 2010, 11:32:28 AM
What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.
There are many routes that are built for eventual conversion to Interstate-standard freeway, but have limited side-road and/or driveway access, few (if any) stoplights, and have speed limits that are the same as freeways. Wisconsin calls them "expressways", though this doesn't appear to be standard terminology.
Routes like most of US-30 in Ohio, WI-29 between Eau Claire and Green Bay, WI, or US-53 between Eau Claire and Superior, WI function much like Interstates, but there's no differentiation on most maps between them and other divided highways that are basically overgrown surface streets (US-30 between I-65 and Fort Wayne).
A notable exception is Wisconsin's own highway map; showing "expressway" segments very similarly to freeway segments, and much differently than surface divided highways. If this was much more common, and there was a standard way to designate these routes ("expressway" is so often used to refer to freeways that the distinction is meaningless), it would encourage greater use.
Nebraska has basically the same definiton of "expressway"(as do some other states), and I use the term too to distinguish between it and a fully controlled-access freeway. I wish it were a universal distinction, but unfortunately when you have places like Chicago that call their urban freeways "expressways", it can't really be one.
Nebraska's state highway map also shows "expressways" very similar to freeways in that they indicate where there are interchanges. One of my biggest problems with the way Rand McNally shows them is that they don't indicate interchanges. Rand McNally never shows interchanges except on freeways. I don't know why-an interchange on an expressway isn't different in any signifcant way from one on a freeway. If I'm going to be traveling on an expressway, I'd like to know whether there are interchanges at major road junctions.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2010, 03:09:24 PM
really, 17 and 46 don't have traffic signals? Here I thought they had them occasionally, though not nearly as often as they have jughandles with undercrossings.
46, I think there might have been one, but there were also a couple of interchanges in the section between the Turnpike and US 9W.
17, I remember that road being freeflowing with only one or two lights between 287/87 and Route 4. My memory may be off because this was from a trip 12 years ago...
NJ 17 has several lights south of I-80. Further north, it's full "Jersey Freeway".
Similarly, 46 has lights west of the Turnpike, but none on the final leg east of it.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 11, 2010, 03:45:58 PM
NJ 17 has several lights south of I-80. Further north, it's full "Jersey Freeway".
Similarly, 46 has lights west of the Turnpike, but none on the final leg east of it.
yep, those are the spots where I rememebr there being lights.
US1 from I-93 to I-95 is similar. No lights, but RIRO driveway access.
My issue is that motorists don't think 'well, I want to take I-22 because it has wide shoulders', they take it because it's the best route for their trip. The problem, then becomes, expressways that are underutilized simply because there's no distinction in quality.
I've always thought RM should label 2-lane expressways (i.e., no stops) in solid purple, and 4+lane expressways (i.e., no stops) in purple outline with orangish-red middle.
I've always thought state highway signs should differentiate from black/white (for those with black/white) signs when they're expressways or freeways and simply change color-shields when the freeway ends. For instance, OH-11 could be signed with a dark blue OH with white numbers to signify it's a freeway. US-30 could be dark green (white outline) with white numerals to indicate high-speed expressway, but not limited access.
Interstate shields should signify something 'high rate', but there's nothing to indicate a middle ground.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on July 11, 2010, 04:32:07 PM
US1 from I-93 to I-95 is similar. No lights, but RIRO driveway access.
yep, the Northeast Expressway, which was at one point
to become I-95 if I recall correctly. Also, north of the 9 mile ring road, paralleling 95 to the NH state line is similar, but I think there are a few red lights.
in any case, an excellent example of 1940s expressway construction, essentially unchanged since then!
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 11, 2010, 11:32:28 AM
What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.
There are many routes that are built for eventual conversion to Interstate-standard freeway, but have limited side-road and/or driveway access, few (if any) stoplights, and have speed limits that are the same as freeways. Wisconsin calls them "expressways", though this doesn't appear to be standard terminology.
Routes like most of US-30 in Ohio, WI-29 between Eau Claire and Green Bay, WI, or US-53 between Eau Claire and Superior, WI function much like Interstates, but there's no differentiation on most maps between them and other divided highways that are basically overgrown surface streets (US-30 between I-65 and Fort Wayne).
Well, that section of US 30 is an odd beast in that it is expressway in places, and stoplight alley in others. All the more reason to formalize the expressway standard and possibly allow some sort of distinguished marking for full routes that meet a higher standard (i.e. not that part of US 30).
Also, Indiana also does have real expressways, but unfortunately the term is used in different ways. For example the Borman Expressway is actually a freeway, and the Fort Wayne Airport Expressway is probably a lower standard that a real expressway. SR 63 north of Terre Haute, the Hoosier Heartland (US 24 and SR 25), and US 231 south of I-64 are examples of true expressways. The official INDOT definition can be found in the FAQ on the SR 25 upgrade web site at http://www.in.gov/indot/div/projects/sr25study/developments/framefaq.htm (http://www.in.gov/indot/div/projects/sr25study/developments/framefaq.htm). It says the following:
"The major difference between an expressway and a freeway is that a freeway has no access points other than at interchanges (usually spaced no closer than 1 to 3 miles apart). All roads that cross a freeway must be via overpass or underpass. An expressway can have at-grade intersections, usually with a traffic signal, and access at most US or state routes. Based on these criteria, the project will be designed as an expressway. After an alignment is chosen, INDOT will decide which roads will have direct access, and which will have to use either frontage roads or access the new road by means of those roads that do have access. Community input will be taken into consideration in making such decisions. In no case will resident or business driveways have direct access to the new road. "
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2010, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 11, 2010, 11:32:28 AM
What maps do a poor job of is showing the difference between types of divided highways.
indeed. also, maps have an obsession with differentiating between divided highways and non-divided ones, which to me is much less important a distinction than the absence of traffic lights. Rand McNally will label in orange a high-speed expressway without a red light for 75 miles, with ranch access turnoffs, the same way that it labels a suburban arterial, four red lights per mile. Which would I rather drive??
I also completely agree that RM does a horrible job distinguishing every highway type except freeways. If you look at the legend in the RM road atlas, the orange-yellow with red outline signifies "other multilane highway", not necessarily divided highways. A representation for expressways showing interchanges would be very useful.
I agree on RM and other maps Some distinguish between diveded and undivided and passing lane sections are usually listed as 2 lanes even though thye are tecnically multilane undivided. In MO the divided could be debated
I don't own a recent Rand-McNally, but it was maddening how they used the "divided highway" symbol for any divided street, even low-speed landscaped streets or park roads.
And I agree with the premise of this thread. It is ridiculous that Business-80 in Sacramento doesn't qualify for a blue I sign, so it is given a green I sign instead. Does this provide useful information to the traveler? Does it make any sense to the average commuter? I doubt it.
The point of road numbering should be for travelling convenience. When it becomes a inventory system for the bureaucracy is usually where it goes wrong, in my opinion.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 15, 2010, 03:08:02 AM
And I agree with the premise of this thread. It is ridiculous that Business-80 in Sacramento doesn't qualify for a blue I sign, so it is given a green I sign instead. Does this provide useful information to the traveler? Does it make any sense to the average commuter? I doubt it.
The point of road numbering should be for travelling convenience. When it becomes a inventory system for the bureaucracy is usually where it goes wrong, in my opinion.
Ironically, Business 80 I think was designated
for motorist convenience, to retain the existing route number after the mainline was moved to then-880 due to the funding for the North Sacramento 80 realignment being shifted to light rail.
Yeah, I think in retrospect, having the 51 designation signed would be easier, but then again, California introduced quite a few unsigned routes in 1964 (i.e. 164, 112) so this is nothing new...
Quote from: TheStranger on July 15, 2010, 03:15:13 AM
Ironically, Business 80 I think was designated for motorist convenience, to retain the existing route number after the mainline was moved to then-880 due to the funding for the North Sacramento 80 realignment being shifted to light rail.
I don't get why the 880 number had to be scrapped? There were two perfectly good freeways - 80 and 880 - and just because future funding was lost doesn't mean that 80 had to suddenly be demoted. Wasn't it grandfathered in, like 84 in Connecticut or (horrors!) 278 in New York?
Quote from: bugo on July 08, 2010, 04:03:52 PM
It's silly to build a new highway, give it a state route number, then change the number to an Interstate later down the road. It's confusing and illogical. They should go ahead and sign the Interstate numbers now.
Like I-49 instead of AR 549? ;)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 15, 2010, 10:49:17 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 15, 2010, 03:15:13 AM
Ironically, Business 80 I think was designated for motorist convenience, to retain the existing route number after the mainline was moved to then-880 due to the funding for the North Sacramento 80 realignment being shifted to light rail.
I don't get why the 880 number had to be scrapped? There were two perfectly good freeways - 80 and 880 - and just because future funding was lost doesn't mean that 80 had to suddenly be demoted. Wasn't it grandfathered in, like 84 in Connecticut or (horrors!) 278 in New York?
That's the thing I've always wondered, because the section of today's Business 80 between West Sacramento and E Street, which I think corresponds to unsigned I-305, IS interstate standard (the segment between Route 275 and E Street was built as I-80 and either State Route 99 or US 99E, while the segment west of Route 275 that was once I-80/US 40/US 99W has been widened over the years to be interstate-standard)...and the segment of the 40 and 99E freeways from E Street to Watt Avenue
was signed as I-80 as you noted.
For that matter, it's in some ways more Interstate-standard than the equally grandfathered-in segment of I-80 in San Francisco that was built as US 40/50 (which the feds have not considered part of I-80 since 1968, but which CalTrans has always signed as I-80 since the late 1950s). Yeah, confusing isn't it?
I do find it amusing that the proposed 80 realignment along the railroad ROW would have actually taken the freeway a mile or two away from one of the key traffic generators in the area, one of the main reasons Business 80 is as busy as it is now - the Arden Fair Mall, which has become a regional powerhouse in the last 15-20 years. Instead of being located right at the edge of the Cal Expo and Arden areas, the realigned I-80 would have skirted the dilapidated Del Paso Heights much more closely.
In the long term, while there are houses and a few businesses on the Auburn Boulevard frontage road (former 40/99E) near the Marconi Curve, I don't think widening and straightening on the current alignment is as impossible as CalTrans thought it was.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 10, 2010, 05:31:43 AM
Quote from: andytom on July 10, 2010, 03:59:35 AM
exceptions to the standard have to be ruled on and have good reason for being in place.
I dispute this. 278? 99? etc etc. the absence of a 76/95 junction. a lot of things are completely arbitrary and dominated by politics, to the detriment of the driving public that the government is ostensibly serving.
My response to this died somewhere in transmission so I'll submit it again. The freeways that became 278 probably met some freeway building standard at the time that they were built. At the inception of the Interstate System, they chose to grandfather them in. As for 99, what is the problem with it (aside from the numbering issue which is not part of the standard)? And for the 76(276?)/95 crossing, I don't recall there being anything in the standard that says that crossing Interstates must be connected (although, if they are, they must do so with an interchange).
Remember what is (was) actually in the standard before commenting on it.
--Andy
I don't think I-99 directly connects to either I-70/76 or I-80, does it?
Quote from: andytom on July 16, 2010, 12:34:04 AM
My response to this died somewhere in transmission so I'll submit it again. The freeways that became 278 probably met some freeway building standard at the time that they were built.
when I last drove the 278 northbound (Sept 2007) there were many sections that were one lane. That can't possibly be a freeway standard, even in the 1940s or 1950s. I remember there being one-lane sections in 2003 and the late 80s as well. So it must be a permanent feature. There is a good reason for, whenever interstates failing to meet standard are discussed, my bringing up I-278. Not 99 or 238 as a primary example, or even the Cleveland Death Curve or the various substandard sections of I-70. All of those are significantly better than 278 in Queens.
QuoteAs for 99, what is the problem with it (aside from the numbering issue which is not part of the standard)?
that is it. It's a perfectly good freeway - but there is a problem with the fact that a fatcat politician gets to override geographic and arithmetic sensibilities and slap a new number on the perfectly well-built US-220 freeway. that's an insult to the interstate
and the US highway systems!
QuoteAnd for the 76(276?)/95 crossing, I don't recall there being anything in the standard that says that crossing Interstates must be connected (although, if they are, they must do so with an interchange).
it may not be a standard but it is certainly
common sense - especially from the perspective of the driver. When you see two big blue lines on the map, and you note the historical importance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and of I-95 - wouldn't you think that it makes sense to build an interchange between the two?
Grade separations without interchanges are completely jarring to the driving population - they see the highway that they desire to take pass by without any sort of obvious connection. There is a very good reason why 99.9% of freeways have connections to each other. The usual exception is when the freeway departs with an angle greater than about 60 degrees and a "reverse" connection makes no sense - but to have absolutely no connection between
any pair of directions is just not supported by hundreds of examples of sane freeway design, from the 1940s to today.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2010, 12:41:51 AM
The usual exception is when the freeway departs with an angle greater than about 60 degrees and a "reverse" connection makes no sense - but to have absolutely no connection between any pair of directions is just not supported by hundreds of examples of sane freeway design, from the 1940s to today.
One of the few non-toll examples of no-connection would be Route 87 and I-880 in San Jose, much of that more a result of the proximity to San Jose International Airport and US 101 making it hard to build ramps in that area.
Another was US 281 and I-410 in San Antonio, which has since been given an interchange.
One that may come in the future will be 710 and 110 in Pasadena, though at one point it was planned.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 15, 2010, 03:15:13 AM
Ironically, Business 80 I think was designated for motorist convenience, to retain the existing route number after the mainline was moved to then-880 due to the funding for the North Sacramento 80 realignment being shifted to light rail.
Either that or "Well if you'd rather have a rail line, then we're demoting you to the green signs. So there. *sniff* "
Despite what some bureaucrat may have said, having two 80 freeways violates common sense, and therefore is not in the interest of motorist convenience.
Motorists think of the Interstate System in terms of the functions it provide, not shoulder widths or funding pools. (Although technical standards contribute to the road's functionality.) When you have a limited access freeway loop that serves the central business district of a major city, it simply should be signed as Interstate.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 16, 2010, 01:16:38 AM
Either that or "Well if you'd rather have a rail line, then we're demoting you to the green signs. So there. *sniff*
This is basically what happened to once-planned-as-I-470 in Denver (now being built and mostly complete as a state route).
Quote from: flowmotion on July 16, 2010, 01:16:38 AM
When you have a limited access freeway loop that serves the central business district of a major city, it simply should be signed as Interstate.
Business 80 as a "loop route", or even as an effective through route, has always been debatable though - even had 80 been retained on that routing with the improved, railroad ROW through North Sacramento and north of E Street in midtown...I-80 did "exited itself" on small right-hand ramps in Oak Park, just as it "exits itself" now in West Sacramento (on larger ramps that once were I-880). (The Oak Park interchange has the through movement from 99 north to Business 80 east/hidden Route 51 north, as that was once simply the US 99E mainline!) Really, the US 50 and the Route 99/Route 51 pathways are two separate corridors in function.
Of course, this "creative" Business Loop inspired the DOTs in North and South Carolina, with Business I-40/85 and Business I-85 both emerging in the last 20 years...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2010, 12:41:51 AM
Quote from: andytom on July 16, 2010, 12:34:04 AM
My response to this died somewhere in transmission so I'll submit it again. The freeways that became 278 probably met some freeway building standard at the time that they were built.
when I last drove the 278 northbound (Sept 2007) there were many sections that were one lane. That can't possibly be a freeway standard, even in the 1940s or 1950s. I remember there being one-lane sections in 2003 and the late 80s as well. So it must be a permanent feature. There is a good reason for, whenever interstates failing to meet standard are discussed, my bringing up I-278.
A cursory look showed this in 3, possibly 4, locations, all where the designation is changing from one freeway to another. This is relatively common in such situations througout the system, i.e. considered highly exceptionable until recently.
Quote
QuoteAs for 99, what is the problem with it (aside from the numbering issue which is not part of the standard)?
that is it. It's a perfectly good freeway - but there is a problem with the fact that a fatcat politician gets to override geographic and arithmetic sensibilities and slap a new number on the perfectly well-built US-220 freeway. that's an insult to the interstate and the US highway systems!
That doesn't make it any more a part of the standard.
Quote
QuoteAnd for the 76(276?)/95 crossing, I don't recall there being anything in the standard that says that crossing Interstates must be connected (although, if they are, they must do so with an interchange).
it may not be a standard but it is certainly common sense - especially from the perspective of the driver. When you see two big blue lines on the map, and you note the historical importance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and of I-95 - wouldn't you think that it makes sense to build an interchange between the two?
Only when the 2 lines are actually blue. When one of them is green (and has been for a long time), anything can be expected.
Quote
Grade separations without interchanges are completely jarring to the driving population - they see the highway that they desire to take pass by without any sort of obvious connection. There is a very good reason why 99.9% of freeways have connections to each other. The usual exception is when the freeway departs with an angle greater than about 60 degrees and a "reverse" connection makes no sense - but to have absolutely no connection between any pair of directions is just not supported by hundreds of examples of sane freeway design, from the 1940s to today.
The original standard probably said that new freeways would not be directly connected to the old toll roads, or the decision was left to the state DOT's and the individual toll road authorities. They've only started correcting that in the last 20 years.
--Andy
Quote from: TheStranger on July 16, 2010, 01:13:48 AM
One of the few non-toll examples of no-connection would be Route 87 and I-880 in San Jose, much of that more a result of the proximity to San Jose International Airport and US 101 making it hard to build ramps in that area.
there is a reasonably easy way to get from 87 to 880 (via 101), though. As opposed to the Penna Turnpike to 95, where you're scratching your head wondering how the Hell you're going to turn north when your
other car is the General Lee.
QuoteOne that may come in the future will be 710 and 110 in Pasadena, though at one point it was planned.
ugh, don't get me started on the 710 in south Pasadena. Along with the 95 in Somerset County, New Jersey -
significantly below standard! I think even Andy would agree that "right of way still has active residences on it" is completely contrary to the goals and design objectives of a limited-access multilane highway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2010, 11:21:35 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 16, 2010, 01:13:48 AM
One of the few non-toll examples of no-connection would be Route 87 and I-880 in San Jose, much of that more a result of the proximity to San Jose International Airport and US 101 making it hard to build ramps in that area.
there is a reasonably easy way to get from 87 to 880 (via 101), though. As opposed to the Penna Turnpike to 95, where you're scratching your head wondering how the Hell you're going to turn north when your other car is the General Lee.|
What surprises me - actually, in this day and age, really doesn't now that I think of it - is that a TEMP I-95 connection along US 1 and other surface roads was never established to make the 276-95 transition easier while the relatively simple interchange design gets built...more than 30 years after it was proposed.
Quote from: agentsteel53
QuoteOne that may come in the future will be 710 and 110 in Pasadena, though at one point it was planned.
ugh, don't get me started on the 710 in south Pasadena. Along with the 95 in Somerset County, New Jersey - significantly below standard! I think even Andy would agree that "right of way still has active residences on it" is completely contrary to the goals and design objectives of a limited-access multilane highway.
Since 95 was rerouted on the turnpike, does that make it "up to standards" now? Basically, the same thing that happened to 95 in Boston and in Washington DC, rerouting onto a bypass.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 16, 2010, 11:28:20 AM
Since 95 was rerouted on the turnpike, does that make it "up to standards" now? Basically, the same thing that happened to 95 in Boston and in Washington DC, rerouting onto a bypass.
is it clearly signed, or does one still have to take 295 (either from the south end, bypassing Philly entirely, or the north end, looping southwards) to 195, and then to the NJ Turnpike? ... and just know to do that by some sheer intuition? If sheer intuition is needed, because the signage is not there then no, it is not up to standard.
especially if southbound, 95 is signed to continue on the NJ Turnpike past 195 (as it was the last time I was there), which basically implies two parallel non-converging branches. Even Euclid himself would have a hell of a time with that one.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2010, 11:47:58 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 16, 2010, 11:28:20 AM
Since 95 was rerouted on the turnpike, does that make it "up to standards" now? Basically, the same thing that happened to 95 in Boston and in Washington DC, rerouting onto a bypass.
is it clearly signed, or does one still have to take 295 (either from the south end, bypassing Philly entirely, or the north end, looping southwards) to 195, and then to the NJ Turnpike? ... and just know to do that by some sheer intuition? If sheer intuition is needed, because the signage is not there then no, it is not up to standard.
especially if southbound, 95 is signed to continue on the NJ Turnpike past 195 (as it was the last time I was there), which basically implies two parallel non-converging branches. Even Euclid himself would have a hell of a time with that one.
IIRC, I-95 is signed on the NJTP from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Extension north to US 46, so that segment is fine; it's going west/south into Philly where we have no signed detour route from what I've read. (I haven't been on the New Jersey Turnpike in years though so I can't confirm myself)
Quote from: TheStranger on July 16, 2010, 11:51:26 AM
IIRC, I-95 is signed on the NJTP from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Extension north to US 46, so that segment is fine; it's going west/south into Philly where we have no signed detour route from what I've read. (I haven't been on the New Jersey Turnpike in years though so I can't confirm myself)
I don't think I've ever driven the NJTPK southbound past I-195, so all I remember is looking backwards when driving northbound and I could swear I saw some 95 shields south of 195. I think they were in the median, back to back 95 shields for each direction, with no state names if I recall correctly.
Rand McNally definitely has an I-95 shield or two on that segment of the turnpike, at least as of their 2006 or 2007 map.
You are correct, Jake. When I drove the NJTP in late June there were, IIRC, 95 shields for its entire length. I remember being surprised to see them south of both 195 and the Penna Tpk. However, all the signage both north- and southbound crossing into Delaware make no mention of 95 using the Turnpike.
I'm so confused - I'll just have to find out in three weeks.
wow, even south of the Penna Turnpike? Where, ostensibly, 95 will run when that damn interchange is built? I definitely didn't remember that!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2010, 01:31:17 PM
wow, even south of the Penna Turnpike? Where, ostensibly, 95 will run when that damn interchange is built? I definitely didn't remember that!
IIRC, I-95 is supposed to follow the Penn TPK Connector accross the Deleware and connect where present I-95 intersects it. At the moment, there isn't an interchange, so that is being constructed, plus that segment accross the river isn't totally up to standards, even though in the last few years there are a couple of I-276 signs...that's what I remember off the top of my head...somebody please feel free to correct me as it been about 5 yrs since I've driven up that way.
As I remember from my last trip in the NJ Turnpike back in April there was a TO above a 95 shield just south of 195. I don't recall seeing a shield in either direction south of the Penna Turnpike Extension though.
Quote from: signalman on July 16, 2010, 03:30:54 PM
As I remember from my last trip in the NJ Turnpike back in April there was a TO above a 95 shield just south of 195. I don't recall seeing a shield in either direction south of the Penna Turnpike Extension though.
There are a couple, but you REALLY have to looking for them as they're not in plentiful supply..
It technically is I-276, but as we roadgeeks all know, it just kind of peters out a few miles before the bridges. Crazy... OTOH, I always kind of wondered on the NJTPK side when you approach the Penne TPK Connector/Extension it doen't at least say "To I-276."
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on July 16, 2010, 03:40:46 PMOTOH, I always kind of wondered on the NJTPK side when you approach the Penne TPK Connector/Extension it doen't at least say "To I-276."
Because that would require the NJTA to actually replace some of those beautiful old signs. And we wouldn't want that, now would we? (Unless the Penna Tpk exit has recently replaced signs, I'm not THAT familiar with the NJTP)
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on July 11, 2010, 03:27:33 PM
One of my biggest problems with the way Rand McNally shows them is that they don't indicate interchanges. Rand McNally never shows interchanges except on freeways. I don't know why-an interchange on an expressway isn't different in any signifcant way from one on a freeway. If I'm going to be traveling on an expressway, I'd like to know whether there are interchanges at major road junctions.
I agree with this as well (and would apply it to PA State Map as well). For example, there are a few places on US-22 where there
should be interchange "squares" (The US-119 split east of Blairsville is the first example that came to mind).
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 16, 2010, 12:55:19 PM
You are correct, Jake. When I drove the NJTP in late June there were, IIRC, 95 shields for its entire length. I remember being surprised to see them south of both 195 and the Penna Tpk. However, all the signage both north- and southbound crossing into Delaware make no mention of 95 using the Turnpike.
South of Exit 6 all of the shields I've seen have "TO" posted on top of them. The Turnpike isn't all that great with reassurance markers, the only proper ones are on the eastern spur just north of the 18W toll plaza (north/south banners). There used to be a state name shield southbound just south of Exit 15E as well. The way its signed, they basically want southbound traffic to stay on the NJTP all the way to Delaware (they have a captive audience, why not?) So I-95 just kinda vanishes, northbound from Exit 6 is better signed. There are no I-95 signs on the PA Turnpike extension at all.
A while back Ray Martin took the various routes of I-95 and took some photos along the way of the "TO" shields and whats present between Exit 6 and Exit 10.
http://www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap.html
Check out the Eastern Bypass photos.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 08, 2010, 03:33:44 PM
Agreed. a lot of interstates have been grandfathered in. And you are right, the general public frankly does not care if the shoulders are dirt, or the median is unbarriered, or any number of minor problems. As long as there are no red lights, it's fine.
while we're at it, though, can we throw out the Brooklyn-Queens section of I-278? I can come up with no circumstance under which that route should be an interstate.
Feh. The BQE is more entitled to be an Interstate than "I-180" in Wyoming is, and more entitled to its number than "I-238" is. And the locals all call it the BQE (or the Gowanus, if you're far enough south) anyway.
SR-24 might as well be I-980 all the way into Walnut Creek, CA. The Caldecot tunnel isn't Interstate perfect, but there are Interstates with drawbridges. :\
Realistically, I-9 (CA-99) is really close between Grapevine and Sacramento.
I-3 is also pretty close between LA and San Francisco. Prunedale and some instances near King City are the only areas I can think of where US-101 gets choppy.
They recently finished the Mojave bypass for SR-58, so that's some more progress on I-40. I believe there's still some grade intersections west of Tehachapi and a then 5 corners at the US-395 jct.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2010, 11:21:35 AM
ugh, don't get me started on the 710 in south Pasadena. Along with the 95 in Somerset County, New Jersey - significantly below standard! I think even Andy would agree that "right of way still has active residences on it" is completely contrary to the goals and design objectives of a limited-access multilane highway.
"The" 95 does not enter Somerset County. If you mean the stretch in Mercer County, where are there active residences on it?
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 07, 2010, 09:05:15 PM
Realistically, I-9 (CA-99) is really close between Grapevine and Sacramento.
The one segment that isn't at all Interstate-standard is probably the odd left-exit and at-grades towards Atwater, but much of Route 99 through there would be okay by current standards.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 07, 2010, 09:05:15 PM
I-3 is also pretty close between LA and San Francisco. Prunedale and some instances near King City are the only areas I can think of where US-101 gets choppy.
The segment through the canyon at Cuesta Grade (in San Luis Obispo County) still needs much more work before ever being considered freeway-standard, let alone Interstate standard.
Quote from: Michael in PhillyQuote from: KEK Inc. on August 07, 2010, 09:05:15 PM
95 does not enter Somerset County. If you mean the stretch in Mercer County, where are there active residences on it?
IIRC, no segment of what is signed I-95 in New Jersey isn't a freeway (unlike say I-78 through Jersey City between Route 139 and the Holland Tunnel)...from what I understand, 95 in Trenton simply is a short freeway from 295 to the Delaware River, with no at-grades. (I haven't been on that, but have been on all of 95 along the NJTP and don't recall any non-interchange junctions on the Turnpike stretch.)
Right. I've been on that stretch near Trenton countless times, and it's a freeway.
Jake was making a joke. The fact that I-95 was never built in Somerset County, NJ, makes it "significantly below standard."
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 07, 2010, 09:17:49 PM
"The" 95 does not enter Somerset County. If you mean the stretch in Mercer County, where are there active residences on it?
I think you failed to get the joke!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 08, 2010, 12:18:49 AM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 07, 2010, 09:17:49 PM
"The" 95 does not enter Somerset County. If you mean the stretch in Mercer County, where are there active residences on it?
I think you failed to get the joke!
So it would seem....