Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.) The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.
Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.
So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?
Quote from: bwana39 on May 24, 2022, 02:34:27 PM
Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may be within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.) The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.
Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.
So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?
I am of the camp that is in the middle, but leaning more toward signing interstates. I think that a good chunk of freeways that are not interstates should be upgraded. The average motorist cannot tell you the difference between a county road, a state road or a US-Highway, but they will know the difference between them and an interstate. Some are scared of them and others know they are getting a long distance freeway, and others just see it as a faster highway. Whatever the reason is, when they see the shield on a map (or nowadays GPS) there is a certain expectation involved. They know that there is a consistency found on interstates that not afforded on lesser roads. I honestly believe this helps navigation. If they see a state or US shield on a highway, they may not believe it is a full freeway because they have been burned before. If more of the freeways in Texas had interstate shields on them, I think they would be used more for overall navigation, just to name one state.
I agree with Ethan. It's easier for everyone, in my opinion, if people know that a certain sign means a certain quality of road. Interstates should be "the fast ones", so I think it's easier to just label anything interstate standard as an interstate.
No, there are plenty of freeways in Arizona and California that aren't signed as Interstates. In Arizona they are generally just localized corridors to the Phoenix area and in California just segments of State Highway. If anything there is too many Auxiliary Interstates in California which probably could be paired down to something more reasonable so there isn't a billion X80 variants. I kind of prefer how US 50 is signed over the otherwise hidden FHWA I-305 in Sacramento as an example. I guess I'm of the opinion that signing as many 2D Interstates is fine but there is such a thing as over saturation on 3D corridors.
I think every freeway of "significant length" should be an interstate. Significant length is best determined by state DOTs.
1. To be an Interstate, it should connect to the rest of the Interstate network. Isolated freeway segments shouldn't be designated as Interstates.
2. An Interstate that is still in the process of filling in the gaps shouldn't be designated as an Interstate at all–except perhaps from one end to the beginning of the first gap.
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
4. Freeways that don't meet current Interstate standards shouldn't be designated as Interstates (grandfathered ones excepted). Just because something is a freeway, that doesn't mean it meets all the expectations that come with the blue and red shield.
5. I have no problem with Interstate-quality freeways being mere state routes or US routes. I also have no problem with downgrading all Interstates to state routes or US routes. For most people, either the road goes where you want or it doesn't, you'll take it if it does, and you won't if it doesn't–no matter what color the shield is. For truckers, they already have their own maps and dispatch and whatnot.
I think if a freeway crosses a state border and connects to the interstate system it should be an interstate. If a freeway is really short (<5 miles), I don't think it should be an interstate unless there is a compelling reason to make it one. Otherwise, I don't care. Many rural interstates would be just fine as expressways and some interstates (e.g., I-10 in West Texas) are de facto expressways.
I wouldn't mind a way to quickly identify limited access highways much like marking some highways toll roads (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5369456,-117.6743963,3a,15y,2.47h,94.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sff3woSE8v5Jznj_zNKihjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Maybe having the shield colored hot pink or some other eye-catching way to signify limited access.
Quote from: skluth on May 24, 2022, 04:15:36 PM
I think if a freeway crosses a state border and connects to the interstate system it should be an interstate. If a freeway is really short (<5 miles), I don't think it should be an interstate unless there is a compelling reason to make it one. Otherwise, I don't care. Many rural interstates would be just fine as expressways and some interstates (e.g., I-10 in West Texas) are de facto expressways.
I wouldn't mind a way to quickly identify limited access highways much like marking some highways toll roads (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5369456,-117.6743963,3a,15y,2.47h,94.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sff3woSE8v5Jznj_zNKihjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Maybe having the shield colored hot pink or some other eye-catching way to signify limited access.
I agree with you on this one. An in-law of mine LITERALLY goes from downtown Dallas to Longview via the following route: I-30 to I-635 to I-20. I think if there were differentiating signing on US-80 (from I-30 to Forney) and US-175 from I-45 to I-20 she wouldn't take such a dog-leg.
If everything (excluding stubs and tollways ) in DFW were IH, You would need over 10 additional 3-DI numbers just for DFW. (US-80, US-175, US-67, US-287, SS-366, SH-114, SH-183, SH-121, SH-360, SL-12 / SS-408 and surely some others. This assumes I-45 would subsume both I-345 and US-75.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 24, 2022, 05:40:37 PM
Quote from: skluth on May 24, 2022, 04:15:36 PM
I think if a freeway crosses a state border and connects to the interstate system it should be an interstate. If a freeway is really short (<5 miles), I don't think it should be an interstate unless there is a compelling reason to make it one. Otherwise, I don't care. Many rural interstates would be just fine as expressways and some interstates (e.g., I-10 in West Texas) are de facto expressways.
I wouldn't mind a way to quickly identify limited access highways much like marking some highways toll roads (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5369456,-117.6743963,3a,15y,2.47h,94.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sff3woSE8v5Jznj_zNKihjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Maybe having the shield colored hot pink or some other eye-catching way to signify limited access.
I agree with you on this one. An in-law of mine LITERALLY goes from downtown Dallas to Longview via the following route: I-30 to I-635 to I-20. I think if there were differentiating signing on US-80 (from I-30 to Forney) and US-175 from I-45 to I-20 she wouldn't take such a dog-leg.
If everything (excluding stubs and tollways ) in DFW were IH, You would need over 10 additional 3-DI numbers just for DFW. (US-80, US-175, US-67, US-287, SS-366, SH-114, SH-183, SH-121, SH-360, SL-12 / SS-408 and surely some others. This assumes US-75 would subsume both I-345 and US-75.
US-80 from Terrell to Dallas should never been demoted. It should have become Interstate 220 years ago.
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
So you would propose that a lot of spur 3dis (I-530 AR, I-580 NV, and I-172 IL are some examples) shouldn't be interstates because they terminate at surface streets and don't connect to other interstates, or would you, say, terminate I-10 at I-405 instead of bringing the designation all the way to Santa Monica? Or am I understanding this wrong?
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 24, 2022, 06:58:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
So you would propose that a lot of spur 3dis (I-530 AR, I-580 NV, and I-172 IL are some examples) shouldn't be interstates because they terminate at surface streets and don't connect to other interstates, or would you, say, terminate I-10 at I-405 instead of bringing the designation all the way to Santa Monica? Or am I understanding this wrong?
Sorry, I should have excluded 3di spur routes explicitly.
No, I'm talking about, say, US-65 southbound out of Springfield, MO. It's a freeway for a while, but then it starts getting at-grade intersections farther south. The freeway portion should not be made into an Interstate for that reason.
I'm more concerned about the inability to quickly decipher which highways are part of (or should be part of) the National Highway System. Obviously, the Interstate system is the backbone of the NHS. But the rest of the NHS is cobbled together. In most states, there is a rhyme-or-reason to state primary routes, secondary routes and perhaps "back roads". But the logic behind the US Highway route numbering is approaching 100 years old, and is horribly obsolete. Most of these routes are not deserving of NHS status, current or future. There are several things that come to mind.
First off, the NHS shouldn't be driven by the existing (and somewhat arbitrary) highway routings. Key locations that need to be connected to the NHS are as follows:
- Large/important cities
- Major airports and seaports
- Important military bases
- Major universities and research centers
- Major commercial and industrial centers
- National parks and larger towns/districts of historical importance
- Major agricultural centers
- Cities/towns of regional importance
The locations connected by the NHS should not include regional entities such as large suburbs that don't meet those other requirements.
I've done a bit of research on these topics in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, which don't fully represent the issues facing the entire nation. But it seems that the current NHS is faced with the following issues:
- The existing NHS corridors (non-Interstate) are difficult to navigate using the current numbering system.
- The existing NHS corridors (including Interstate highways) do not include adequate information about the roadway status (in particular, freeway status and average speeds)
- There are still too many key locations and (potential) key locations that are not served by the NHS.
- Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS tend to have perpendicular routings rather than more logical diagonals.
- There are many destination pairs whereby commerical (truck) GPS routings do not utilize the NHS routes.
- Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS almost always have heavily congested developments surrounding the NHS connection
Although I would prefer a new numbering scheme superimposed over the Interstate and US routes, it seems like it would also be possible to improve the NHS using the grids implied by these two schemes. However, it would be too complex address the freeway status/average speed issue using only the two grids. (I'm using the word "grid" colloquially, and not necessarily wanting every route number to fit the grid perfectly).
Honestly, I'd like to see a few more Interstate freeways, but I don't think every freeway needs to be an interstate. We don't really need the Minot Bypass to carry a blue and red shield because there's none in the area for it to connect to.
I think freeways that take a significant amount of traffic off of interstates, and serve to significantly augment their purposes, should definitely be assigned interstate highway numbers appropriately. Wis-441 handles a ton of traffic from Interstate 41, it might as well be an interstate because it effectively acts like one.
Indiana 912 in its prime would be another example; it was a very important spur between 80/94 and the industries at its current north end; it also had the potential to be an important connector between 80/94 and the toll road. If people actually used it for its intended purpose, I would totally understand giving it an I-x94 number. It's the same case with the part of US 41 north of the Edens spur. It's effectively an extension of the Edens Expressway. Why doesn't it have a number?
Any limited-access freeway that connects to an Interstate should be signed as an Interstate, even if it has some features that aren't quite up to the modern standards. That means that yes, I would sign I-26 all the way from Asheville to Johnson City, and not leave the section between Asheville and Mars Hill as only US routes with a "Future I-26" label.
The standard would be if a lay person could reasonably be expected to know whether the route they were on was an Interstate or merely a state- or US-route-signed freeway without looking at signage.
The example I used to use before I-65 in Kentucky was widened was this:You're a passenger in a vehicle, traveling for the first time between Bowling Green and Lexington. You doze off somewhere around Bonnieville or Upton, and then wake up somewhere between Elizabethtown and Bardstown. You're not going to know that you have left the Interstate system (I-65) for a state freeway (the Bluegrass Parkway).
I'd sign all the four-lane Kentucky parkways as Interstates because they all connect to the system. The Mountain Parkway would become I-164 despite a couple of substandard interchanges.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 24, 2022, 02:49:44 PM
I agree with Ethan. It's easier for everyone, in my opinion, if people know that a certain sign means a certain quality of road. Interstates should be "the fast ones", so I think it's easier to just label anything interstate standard as an interstate.
"Certain sign means a certain quality of road." Got it (https://goo.gl/maps/zB1CN1gpBazrtqF66).
The NHS was supposed to be something. The head Rodney Slater of FHWA at the time wanted some standard not necessarily a 4 lane maybe passing lanes.
Sadly now it's just the FAP routes. Dirt Roads has a great post.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on May 24, 2022, 09:11:01 PM
I'm more concerned about the inability to quickly decipher which highways are part of (or should be part of) the National Highway System. Obviously, the Interstate system is the backbone of the NHS. But the rest of the NHS is cobbled together. In most states, there is a rhyme-or-reason to state primary routes, secondary routes and perhaps "back roads". But the logic behind the US Highway route numbering is approaching 100 years old, and is horribly obsolete. Most of these routes are not deserving of NHS status, current or future. There are several things that come to mind.
First off, the NHS shouldn't be driven by the existing (and somewhat arbitrary) highway routings. Key locations that need to be connected to the NHS are as follows:
- Large/important cities
- Major airports and seaports
- Important military bases
- Major universities and research centers
- Major commercial and industrial centers
- National parks and larger towns/districts of historical importance
- Major agricultural centers
- Cities/towns of regional importance
The locations connected by the NHS should not include regional entities such as large suburbs that don't meet those other requirements.
I've done a bit of research on these topics in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, which don't fully represent the issues facing the entire nation. But it seems that the current NHS is faced with the following issues:
- The existing NHS corridors (non-Interstate) are difficult to navigate using the current numbering system.
- The existing NHS corridors (including Interstate highways) do not include adequate information about the roadway status (in particular, freeway status and average speeds)
- There are still too many key locations and (potential) key locations that are not served by the NHS.
- Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS tend to have perpendicular routings rather than more logical diagonals.
- There are many destination pairs whereby commerical (truck) GPS routings do not utilize the NHS routes.
- Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS almost always have heavily congested developments surrounding the NHS connection
Although I would prefer a new numbering scheme superimposed over the Interstate and US routes, it seems like it would also be possible to improve the NHS using the grids implied by these two schemes. However, it would be too complex address the freeway status/average speed issue using only the two grids. (I'm using the word "grid" colloquially, and not necessarily wanting every route number to fit the grid perfectly).
This implies that there are actually ONE set of national priorities. Even when they are set, it doesn't mean the states will actually follow through.
Quote from: 3467 on May 25, 2022, 06:37:15 PM
The NHS was supposed to be something. The head Rodney Slater of FHWA at the time wanted some standard not necessarily a 4 lane maybe passing lanes.
Sadly now it's just the FAP routes. Dirt Roads has a great post.
This isn't true. One need only look at NYSDOT's functional class viewer in urban areas in particular to see this.
Come to think of it, no one really cares about FAP or FAS routes any longer when it comes to capital project programming. There's the Interstates, NHS, off-NHS-but-still-FA-Eligible (collquially known as the Flex system) and then whatever is on or off the State system that isn't FA-eligible. There's been so much tinkering by the states that they're pretty customized now.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 25, 2022, 06:24:08 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 24, 2022, 02:49:44 PM
I agree with Ethan. It's easier for everyone, in my opinion, if people know that a certain sign means a certain quality of road. Interstates should be "the fast ones", so I think it's easier to just label anything interstate standard as an interstate.
"Certain sign means a certain quality of road." Got it (https://goo.gl/maps/zB1CN1gpBazrtqF66).
Ahh hahaha :D
Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2022, 06:39:20 PM
This implies that there are actually ONE set of national priorities. Even when they are set, it doesn't mean the states will actually follow through.
Excellent point, and one that I suspect that I've not been consistent on myself. (Or perhaps consistent from a country boy point-of-view). It seems natural to deem "locations" as important based on how the particular state deems those locations, which generally is based on the highways already connecting them. In states like North Carolina, "important locations" tend to be connected by freeways. In states like West Virginia, "important locations" tend to be connected improved two-lane highways that go through in both directions (not including the Appalachian Corridors). States like Georgia tend to connect "important locations" with shorter four-lane highway spurs that plug perpendicular to the Interstates (not including the radial freeways/highways spiraling away from the Atlanta Perimeter. Kentucky has it's own Parkway system, plus some long-distance improved two-lane highways. Virginia has all of those four-lane highways where the new straight lanes run alongside the old, curvy/hilly lanes.
More to your point is how the existing NHS seems to be ignored by some states. It seems like Kentucky and Alabama were pushing hard to upgrade certain NHS routes to a minimum standard. Perhaps there are others outside of my current area of interest.
Anyhow, I am more interested in signage of the NHS corridors (current and future). It doesn't make sense that US-421 in North Carolina (mostly NHS) is signed the same as a lesser US-158 (also mostly NHS) and even lesser US-311 (a road of less importance than many of the state routes). There's no way from the signage that I can tell that I can average nearly 70 MPH on one of these and average less than 40 MPH on another.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on May 25, 2022, 11:03:04 PM
Anyhow, I am more interested in signage of the NHS corridors (current and future). It doesn't make sense that US-421 in North Carolina (mostly NHS) is signed the same as a lesser US-158 (also mostly NHS) and even lesser US-311 (a road of less importance than many of the state routes). There's no way from the signage that I can tell that I can average nearly 70 MPH on one of these and average less than 40 MPH on another.
This is my point with signing freeways as interstates. Its the inconstancy of US and state routes that's the issue. I know you can pull up all sorts of crappy condition interstates, but for the most part, you are going to get a wide open freeway with a high speed limit. That to me means a lot when I am traveling long distance. I know by the 10th hour of driving, I don't want to put up with a sub-freeway road. Those little things are tiring and hard to deal with when you have a lot of fatigue behind you. There have been a lot of times I opt to go the interstate route to a place when the interstate route is more of an "L" shape, but the direct route is an expressway at it's best and a 2-lane highway at it's worst. I will especially do it when calculating a route knowing when I get to this part of the journey I will have several hours of driver fatigue behind me. When I start to wear down, The less I want to suffer red lights, bad sightlines, 45 mph zones, bad merging areas, waiting on a 2-lane highway for a passing zone to pass grandpa, driveways and streets directly connecting the highway, two nice yellow stripes on the pavement separating me and an oncoming vehicle, buildings too close to the road obscuring stuff I need to look out for and the absence of shoulders. I know some people out there don't really think about how dangerous these things are and how many of the roads they picture as being "safer" have all these things and are not safer at all. I tend to investigate all these things when I plan a long road trip because first off, I want to live during my trip. Like a lot of things, I don't think I am alone in this vein of thinking.
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.
Quote from: GaryV on May 26, 2022, 10:47:26 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.
Two options here:
1. Do exactly that. The northern terminus of I-896 (or whatever you want to number it) would be at I-96 on the north side of Grand Rapids.
2. Count Cadillac as a major city. Then you could terminate the Interstate there–similar to the southern terminus of I-27 or the western terminus of I-44.
Of the two, I'd prefer #1, because I can't stomach a town of less than 12k population being considered a major city worthy of an I- terminus. But that's just me.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on May 24, 2022, 09:11:01 PM
I'm more concerned about the inability to quickly decipher which highways are part of (or should be part of) the National Highway System. Obviously, the Interstate system is the backbone of the NHS. But the rest of the NHS is cobbled together. In most states, there is a rhyme-or-reason to state primary routes, secondary routes and perhaps "back roads". But the logic behind the US Highway route numbering is approaching 100 years old, and is horribly obsolete. Most of these routes are not deserving of NHS status, current or future. There are several things that come to mind.
First off, the NHS shouldn't be driven by the existing (and somewhat arbitrary) highway routings. Key locations that need to be connected to the NHS are as follows:
- Large/important cities
- Major airports and seaports
- Important military bases
- Major universities and research centers
- Major commercial and industrial centers
- National parks and larger towns/districts of historical importance
- Major agricultural centers
- Cities/towns of regional importance
The locations connected by the NHS should not include regional entities such as large suburbs that don't meet those other requirements.
I've done a bit of research on these topics in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, which don't fully represent the issues facing the entire nation. But it seems that the current NHS is faced with the following issues:
- The existing NHS corridors (non-Interstate) are difficult to navigate using the current numbering system.
- The existing NHS corridors (including Interstate highways) do not include adequate information about the roadway status (in particular, freeway status and average speeds)
- There are still too many key locations and (potential) key locations that are not served by the NHS.
- Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS tend to have perpendicular routings rather than more logical diagonals.
- There are many destination pairs whereby commerical (truck) GPS routings do not utilize the NHS routes.
- Existing highways connecting (potential) key locations to the NHS almost always have heavily congested developments surrounding the NHS connection
Although I would prefer a new numbering scheme superimposed over the Interstate and US routes, it seems like it would also be possible to improve the NHS using the grids implied by these two schemes. However, it would be too complex address the freeway status/average speed issue using only the two grids. (I'm using the word "grid" colloquially, and not necessarily wanting every route number to fit the grid perfectly).
The NHS isn't perfect. It will never be perfect. But it works. It's also tangential to the OP which is about Interstate vs non-Interstate, not another opportunity to rant about your perceived inadequacies of the NHS. However, if you'd like to start a new topic about this, please repeat this rant so it can be properly discussed without deflecting the current discussion.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on May 25, 2022, 11:03:04 PM
Anyhow, I am more interested in signage of the NHS corridors (current and future). It doesn't make sense that US-421 in North Carolina (mostly NHS) is signed the same as a lesser US-158 (also mostly NHS) and even lesser US-311 (a road of less importance than many of the state routes). There's no way from the signage that I can tell that I can average nearly 70 MPH on one of these and average less than 40 MPH on another.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 26, 2022, 09:22:48 AM
This is my point with signing freeways as interstates. Its the inconstancy of US and state routes that's the issue. I know you can pull up all sorts of crappy condition interstates, but for the most part, you are going to get a wide open freeway with a high speed limit. That to me means a lot when I am traveling long distance. I know by the 10th hour of driving, I don't want to put up with a sub-freeway road. Those little things are tiring and hard to deal with when you have a lot of fatigue behind you. There have been a lot of times I opt to go the interstate route to a place when the interstate route is more of an "L" shape, but the direct route is an expressway at it's best and a 2-lane highway at it's worst. I will especially do it when calculating a route knowing when I get to this part of the journey I will have several hours of driver fatigue behind me. When I start to wear down, The less I want to suffer red lights, bad sightlines, 45 mph zones, bad merging areas, waiting on a 2-lane highway for a passing zone to pass grandpa, driveways and streets directly connecting the highway, two nice yellow stripes on the pavement separating me and an oncoming vehicle, buildings too close to the road obscuring stuff I need to look out for and the absence of shoulders. I know some people out there don't really think about how dangerous these things are and how many of the roads they picture as being "safer" have all these things and are not safer at all. I tend to investigate all these things when I plan a long road trip because first off, I want to live during my trip. Like a lot of things, I don't think I am alone in this vein of thinking.
Indeed, the Interstate designation helps. I've got a friend in Charlotte who travels to the Tri-Cities a great deal. He has found that the easiest route (for him, using your 10th hour logic) is using US-421 to I-77 (if he is going to hit Charlotte at a decent hour). Even using a map, there's no way to come up with that kind of logic without running the route a few times. Most of the time, he still prefers to use other, much shorter routes. In my study, I simply zoom in on a congested area and count stoplights to guess the average (non-rush hour) speeds. But my main goal was that the NHS routings need to currently support a continuous 45 MPH capability. Many of them do not. The freeway approach is much easier, but doesn't help much Out West or in poorer states that can't afford "them fancy roads".
In the United Kingdom, they sign the arterials with a tag (M) that designates the road requiring motorway rules: think Route A1(M). That helps a little bit, but you still get no clues as to what the condition of "plain ole' A1" is when the motorway ends up ahead.
I'd recommend an upgraded US Route shield (different color) which indicates that the route is a continuous freeway to the next "important location". The rest of my recommendations have been redacted, as some of them may fall outside the "freeway" category.
Quote from: kphoger on May 26, 2022, 11:00:27 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 26, 2022, 10:47:26 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.
Two options here:
1. Do exactly that. The northern terminus of I-896 (or whatever you want to number it) would be at I-96 on the north side of Grand Rapids.
2. Count Cadillac as a major city. Then you could terminate the Interstate there–similar to the southern terminus of I-27 or the western terminus of I-44.
Of the two, I'd prefer #1, because I can't stomach a town of less than 12k population being considered a major city worthy of an I- terminus. But that's just me.
With #1, you're saying that the northern 2/3 of the freeway isn't "as good" as the southern 1/3 because it doesn't go anywhere "big". When in reality, it's probably higher quality.
My feeling is that US-131 as a whole works just fine for most people. Those who can see on the map that it's a freeway that goes where they want to go. And those who eschew maps entirely in favor of GPS routings.
Quote from: GaryV on May 26, 2022, 01:37:20 PM
With #1, you're saying that the northern 2/3 of the freeway isn't "as good" as the southern 1/3 because it doesn't go anywhere "big". When in reality, it's probably higher quality.
No, it's because it isn't as "interstate" as the southern 1/3. Going north on it will lead a person
out of the Interstate network. Quality didn't factor into my thoughts.
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
I-39 north of Portage (really Rockford after removing the concurrencies) shouldn't be an interstate as it falls in this reason?
Quote from: kphoger on May 26, 2022, 02:15:48 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 26, 2022, 01:37:20 PM
With #1, you're saying that the northern 2/3 of the freeway isn't "as good" as the southern 1/3 because it doesn't go anywhere "big". When in reality, it's probably higher quality.
No, it's because it isn't as "interstate" as the southern 1/3. Going north on it will lead a person out of the Interstate network. Quality didn't factor into my thoughts.
I thought the whole point of slapping up Interstate signs was so people would know that it was a freeway with quality standards. That they avoid just as good US highway freeways because they don't have that fancy RWB shield.
Quote from: GaryV on May 26, 2022, 04:41:40 PM
I thought the whole point of slapping up Interstate signs was so people would know that it was a freeway with quality standards. That they avoid just as good US highway freeways because they don't have that fancy RWB shield.
I've always thought the existence of that phenomenon was either a misconception or blown way out of proportion. However, I've read enough anecdotal stories on here about people they personally know, that I'm starting to consider thinking about beginning to come around to possibility of the validity of that argument.
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 26, 2022, 04:37:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
I-39 north of Portage (really Rockford after removing the concurrencies) shouldn't be an interstate as it falls in this reason?
Wausau has more than 30k people, and it has since I-39 was designated.
Kind of right on the line, in my opinion.
I actually really enjoy interstate-quality roads that aren't interstates. I don't necessarily think they need interstate shields, but it's always a pleasant surprise to find that such roads exist when I travel out of state.
(OK, well there are a few in NY, like NY 531, the southern half of NY 481, and parts of NY 17 (a "future interstate"), but they're pretty rare.)
Quote from: webny99 on May 26, 2022, 04:55:16 PM
I actually really enjoy interstate-quality roads that aren't interstates. I don't necessarily think they need interstate shields, but it's always a pleasant surprise to find that such roads exist when I travel out of state.
(OK, well there are a few in NY, like NY 531, the southern half of NY 481, and parts of NY 17 (a "future interstate"), but they're pretty rare.)
I like them too, with a caveat. I think of them more like sleeping in a not so safe looking motel (one step up from seedy). I don't have to sleep with one eye open, but I do wake up to every bump in the night.
With a US or state highway that is a freeway, I feel relaxed, but I am on high alert because the freeway could very easily disappear and most times with no warning. With an interstate, I don't have to worry about a great freeway with a rando driveway out of nowhere.
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
Quote from: GaryV on May 26, 2022, 10:47:26 AM
So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.
Quote from: kphoger on May 26, 2022, 11:00:27 AM
Two options here:
1. Do exactly that. The northern terminus of I-896 (or whatever you want to number it) would be at I-96 on the north side of Grand Rapids.
2. Count Cadillac as a major city. Then you could terminate the Interstate there–similar to the southern terminus of I-27 or the western terminus of I-44.
Of the two, I'd prefer #1, because I can't stomach a town of less than 12k population being considered a major city worthy of an I- terminus. But that's just me.
Quote from: GaryV on May 26, 2022, 01:37:20 PM
With #1, you're saying that the northern 2/3 of the freeway isn't "as good" as the southern 1/3 because it doesn't go anywhere "big". When in reality, it's probably higher quality.
My feeling is that US-131 as a whole works just fine for most people. Those who can see on the map that it's a freeway that goes where they want to go. And those who eschew maps entirely in favor of GPS routings.
Quote from: kphoger on May 26, 2022, 02:15:48 PM
No, it's because it isn't as "interstate" as the southern 1/3. Going north on it will lead a person out of the Interstate network. Quality didn't factor into my thoughts.
Quote from: GaryV on May 26, 2022, 04:41:40 PM
I thought the whole point of slapping up Interstate signs was so people would know that it was a freeway with quality standards. That they avoid just as good US highway freeways because they don't have that fancy RWB shield.
But you both point out something that fits in my rant. US-131 to Cadillac doesn't truly qualify for Interstate status in the AASHTO world (or mine), but US-31 from Holland to Ludington does. But it is doubtful that MDOT would request something as expensive as to upgrade US-31. Nor is US-31 quite as important in Michigan politics as the roads spiraling out from Lansing or Grand Rapids. But it seems reasonable that both US-31 and US-131 deserve some sort of signage that lets a driver know that you've got a freeway all the way to Ludington or Cadillac. Or in the European signage convention, that you're subject to freeway rules and regulations. One technique that would not require changing the trailblazers would be to display International freeway/motorway symbols beside each control city served by the freeway. Which would indeed be much more expensive than upgrading U.S. route trailblazers and shields.
I like when highways that are up to standards are interstates, but it's not a big deal if they are not as most people just use GPS nowadays.
I hate it when an interstate terminates in the middle of a flowing freeway. Pony up the money to make the few parts interstate standards and extend the interstate down the freeway until the freeway stops and be done with it.
In Maryland, our US and state freeways (e.g. US 29; MD 32, 100 and 200) are distinct enough in appearance from our interstates, at least if you have a keen eye. Technically though, MD 200 is an extension of I-370.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 27, 2022, 05:08:18 PM
I hate it when an interstate terminates in the middle of a flowing freeway. Pony up the money to make the few parts interstate standards and extend the interstate down the freeway until the freeway stops and be done with it.
I agree. The most glaring examples at the top of my head of this are CA 15 (which should be I-15), CA 60 (should be I-410 at least from I-10 to I-215 and then should be CA 410 from I-215 back to I-10 until it's fully upgraded), CA 99 (should already be some sort of interstate such as I-7 or I-9), CA 210 (should all be I-210 at this point), M-14 (the mainline flows directly to/from I-96 and should be either I-896 or I-294), IL 255 (should be I-255 or the whole thing should be renumbered to I-555 or at the very least the exit numbers should not reset at the I to IL changeover), IL 53 / IL 53S (should be extensions of I-355), US 23 freeway in MI / OH (should be a long I-475 which links up with the I-475 in Flint). The disconnected E/W segment in OH could be I-875 or an extension of I-280, the disconnected segment near Flint should be I-875). Heck they could just make I-75 / US 23 near Flint a full interchange as well as I-75 / I-475 S of Flint a full interchange or even simply separate the I-75 and I-475 mainlines there to make the route fully continuous without building any extra roadway.
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
1. To be an Interstate, it should connect to the rest of the Interstate network. Isolated freeway segments shouldn't be designated as Interstates.
2. An Interstate that is still in the process of filling in the gaps shouldn't be designated as an Interstate at all–except perhaps from one end to the beginning of the first gap.
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
4. Freeways that don't meet current Interstate standards shouldn't be designated as Interstates (grandfathered ones excepted). Just because something is a freeway, that doesn't mean it meets all the expectations that come with the blue and red shield.
5. I have no problem with Interstate-quality freeways being mere state routes or US routes. I also have no problem with downgrading all Interstates to state routes or US routes. For most people, either the road goes where you want or it doesn't, you'll take it if it does, and you won't if it doesn't–no matter what color the shield is. For truckers, they already have their own maps and dispatch and whatnot.
WY I-180 can stay. IL I-180, however...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwordforge.net%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fmeh.gif&hash=7c8edb8fd6d1874d4a984dc75a3f175e14c8ad2f)
Quote from: ztonyg on May 29, 2022, 11:04:27 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 27, 2022, 05:08:18 PM
I hate it when an interstate terminates in the middle of a flowing freeway. Pony up the money to make the few parts interstate standards and extend the interstate down the freeway until the freeway stops and be done with it.
I agree. The most glaring examples at the top of my head of this are CA 15 (which should be I-15), CA 60 (should be I-410 at least from I-10 to I-215 and then should be CA 410 from I-215 back to I-10 until it's fully upgraded), CA 99 (should already be some sort of interstate such as I-7 or I-9), CA 210 (should all be I-210 at this point), M-14 (the mainline flows directly to/from I-96 and should be either I-896 or I-294), IL 255 (should be I-255 or the whole thing should be renumbered to I-555 or at the very least the exit numbers should not reset at the I to IL changeover), IL 53 / IL 53S (should be extensions of I-355), US 23 freeway in MI / OH (should be a long I-475 which links up with the I-475 in Flint). The disconnected E/W segment in OH could be I-875 or an extension of I-280, the disconnected segment near Flint should be I-875). Heck they could just make I-75 / US 23 near Flint a full interchange as well as I-75 / I-475 S of Flint a full interchange or even simply separate the I-75 and I-475 mainlines there to make the route fully continuous without building any extra roadway.
I'd go with an I-290 extension past its northern terminus, it's maybe not pure to a loop but it makes more sense than extending I-355 north, and having I-290 end at the same interchange where I-355 continues.
Here's my 2 cents.
Not every freeway or tollway needs to be an Interstate. However, there should be some kind of quick demarcation to let the driver know that a non-Interstate highway number is a freeway or tollway at that junction. Maybe use the Vienna Convention sign for Motorway if you are not going to spell out Freeway on the sign. Or use an color inversion for US and state highways that are freeways and tollways.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg/45px-Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg.png
The other thing that I would do is if the non-Interstate highway is a freeway or tollway for a long distance, don't use a "local" control city without also using one that is farther away. What I mean by this is this:
US 151 for most of its routing between Dubuque and Fond du Lac is an expressway with some freeway segments. The I-39/90/94 junction with 151 currently uses Madison and Sun Prairie as the control cities. Why not add Fond du Lac on the northbound side? Putting a city that is over 50 miles away, IMO, would give the impression that this road is at the very least an expressway until I get at least to that city.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 30, 2022, 05:00:25 PM
Here's my 2 cents.
Not every freeway or tollway needs to be an Interstate. However, there should be some kind of quick demarcation to let the driver know that a non-Interstate highway number is a freeway or tollway at that junction. Maybe use the Vienna Convention sign for Motorway if you are not going to spell out Freeway on the sign. Or use an color inversion for US and state highways that are freeways and tollways.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg/45px-Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg.png
The other thing that I would do is if the non-Interstate highway is a freeway or tollway for a long distance, don't use a "local" control city without also using one that is farther away. What I mean by this is this:
US 151 for most of its routing between Dubuque and Fond du Lac is an expressway with some freeway segments. The I-39/90/94 junction with 151 currently uses Madison and Sun Prairie as the control cities. Why not add Fond du Lac on the northbound side? Putting a city that is over 50 miles away, IMO, would give the impression that this road is at the very least an expressway until I get at least to that city.
If WISDOT was installing those signs now I think they would go with Fond du Lac, but when those signs were installed, Sun Prairie was still an exburb of about 20k people. So with it being an independent city yet much closer than Fond du Lac, it made sense to sign it. Now, suburban development has almost completely closed the gap, making Sun Prairie a suburb. WISDOT doesn't typically sign suburbs as major highway control cities.
Quote from: thspfc on May 30, 2022, 05:32:48 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 30, 2022, 05:00:25 PM
Here's my 2 cents.
Not every freeway or tollway needs to be an Interstate. However, there should be some kind of quick demarcation to let the driver know that a non-Interstate highway number is a freeway or tollway at that junction. Maybe use the Vienna Convention sign for Motorway if you are not going to spell out Freeway on the sign. Or use an color inversion for US and state highways that are freeways and tollways.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg/45px-Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg.png
The other thing that I would do is if the non-Interstate highway is a freeway or tollway for a long distance, don't use a "local" control city without also using one that is farther away. What I mean by this is this:
US 151 for most of its routing between Dubuque and Fond du Lac is an expressway with some freeway segments. The I-39/90/94 junction with 151 currently uses Madison and Sun Prairie as the control cities. Why not add Fond du Lac on the northbound side? Putting a city that is over 50 miles away, IMO, would give the impression that this road is at the very least an expressway until I get at least to that city.
If WISDOT was installing those signs now I think they would go with Fond du Lac, but when those signs were installed, Sun Prairie was still an exburb of about 20k people. So with it being an independent city yet much closer than Fond du Lac, it made sense to sign it. Now, suburban development has almost completely closed the gap, making Sun Prairie a suburb. WISDOT doesn't typically sign suburbs as major highway control cities.
I remember when 151 was just a divided highway between Madison and Sun Prairie with not much development. Do you consider Waukesha a suburb of Milwaukee now? I do. I wouldn't have said that back in 1983.
Quote from: Hobart on May 24, 2022, 10:02:28 PM
. It's the same case with the part of US 41 north of the Edens spur. It's effectively an extension of the Edens Expressway. Why doesn't it have a number?
It doesn't have a number because it doesn't need one. It only continues that way for about 3 miles or so. Would be a waste to sign 3 miles of freeway as an interstate. Not every freeway needs to be an interstate. We need more of these here in IL.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 30, 2022, 05:00:25 PM
Maybe use the Vienna Convention sign for Motorway if you are not going to spell out Freeway on the sign. Or use an color inversion for US and state highways that are freeways and tollways.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg/45px-Vienna_Convention_road_sign_E5a-V1.svg.png
Was about to suggest the same thing. Would probably need a US MUTCD adaption (square and green?).
Quote from: bwana39 on May 24, 2022, 02:34:27 PM
Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.) The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.
Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.
So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?
Texas? They're more of a go big or go home type. They managed to get gobs of 2dis for even relatively minor/intrastate routes like I-2, I-27, I-30, I-35E/W (one of them should've became a 3di), I-37, I-45, I-69, I-69W/C/E
Quote from: SeriesE on June 01, 2022, 11:08:37 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 24, 2022, 02:34:27 PM
Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.) The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.
Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.
So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?
Texas? They're more of a go big or go home type. They managed to get gobs of 2dis for even relatively minor/intrastate routes like I-2, I-27, I-30, I-35E/W (one of them should've became a 3di), I-37, I-45, I-69, I-69W/C/E
You're forgetting the sheer number of freeways and population Texas actually has. Here is a breakdown I did a few months back comparing Texas to North Carolina in terms of interstates. As you can see, Texas is actually pretty reasonable (at least, when compared to NC) with designating interstates.
Quote from: CoreySamson on January 14, 2022, 08:38:08 PM
Quote from: Strider on January 14, 2022, 06:39:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2022, 09:21:33 PM
Quote from: Strider on January 13, 2022, 07:11:24 PM
Quote from: Zonie on January 13, 2022, 06:01:46 PM
NC - where the state motto is "Stick an Interstate shield on anything more than three lanes."
You must have NC confused with Texas.
Outside of I-69, I-14, and I-27 which were congressionally designated, that is false. Texas has dozens of state highway freeways all over the state that have never been considered for interstate designation. Look in virtually any metropolitan area.
False? You did not count I-2, I-69C, I-69E, I-69W (Yes, even though these are a part of I-69, they're separate roads going to different cities therefore I treat them as separate interstates) future I-169, I-369. Nice try, though.
Counterpoint: while Texas may have stuck interstate shields in just as many, if not more, places than NC has, I would argue that this is simply because Texas is a bigger state than NC. Let's compare the two states by comparing their ratios of routes that are interstates or future interstates to their other freeways that are not being planned as interstates (as a requiem, these routes must be able to access an interstate by only driving on limited-access roads, so that we don't count random 1 mile freeway sections in small towns far away from any interstate):
Beltway 8 TX 99 Fort Bend Tollway TX 249 Westpark Tollway
US 290 US 90 Spur 330 TX 146 TX 225
NASA Road 1 TX 288 FM 1764 TX 73 US 96/69/287
TX 6 TX 35/US 181 TX 358 TX 286 TX 151 (San Antonio)
Loop 1604 US 281 Wurzbach Pkwy TX 130 TX 45
Mopac Expy TX 71 US 183 (TX 183A) Loop 363 US 67
US 175 US 80 George Bush Turnpike US 75 Spur 366
TX 121 Dallas North Tollway TX 183 TX 114 TX 97
TX 360 Chisholm Trail Parkway US 287 US 84 Loop 322
TX 191 Loop 250 Loop 289 Spur 327 US 62
TX 375 TX 601 US 277 TX 19
54 freeways, in total, that as far as I've heard, are not being planned for interstate designations, versus 26 planned and existing interstates (including suffixed routes) in Texas. To be fair here, routes that have disjointed freeway sections (such as US 190) count as one route, routes that were once planned out to become an interstate but are not now (Loop 151, Texarkana) do not count, non interstate freeways that have not been built yet (Loop 335, Amarillo) do not count, future potential additions to an interstate route (US 87 near Big Spring) do not count, and super-2s do not count, otherwise these would pad Texas's non-interstate count.
Now for NC:
US 74 US 321 US 25 Billy Graham Pkwy US 421
US 52 Joseph M Bryan Blvd US 220 BL I-85 US 64
US 501 NC 147 US 1 NC 87 NC 24
BL I-95 US 264 US 29 US 17
NC, on the other hand, has 19 non interstate freeway routes (and business Interstates, at that!) to go with 19 interstates and future interstates.
Now for the final total of non interstate routes to future and present interstate routes looks like this:
NC: 1:1
TX: 2.08:1
In order for Texas to be on the same level with North Carolina in terms of interstates versus non-interstates, it would have to apply for 9 new interstates, which is absolutely absurd. And even if you restrict this to simply just comparing how many interstates each state has been building or designating lately, you'll see that both states have either built or designated 9 new interstates (or extensions to current interstates) each, meaning that NC has designated more interstates per capita than Texas has. My conclusion is that NC is crazier at designating interstates than Texas is. With that I rest my case.
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 01, 2022, 11:35:04 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on June 01, 2022, 11:08:37 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 24, 2022, 02:34:27 PM
Over on the mid-south board, there has been discussion of a "proposed Interstate" It is not, nor will it probably ever be an "INTERSTATE" It may within a decade, be fully controlled access but still marked as (in this case US Highways.) The proposals are all for a US Highway freeway.
Some states feel like every fully controlled access facility should be numbered as an Interstate. Others (Texas as an example) have built freeways all over the place and virtually none were "branded" as Interstate Highways.
So what is everyone's thoughts on this. Should virtually every freeway be labeled as an Interstate should branding not be a really relevant part of the discussion when upgrading roads?
Texas? They're more of a go big or go home type. They managed to get gobs of 2dis for even relatively minor/intrastate routes like I-2, I-27, I-30, I-35E/W (one of them should've became a 3di), I-37, I-45, I-69, I-69W/C/E
You're forgetting the sheer number of freeways and population Texas actually has. Here is a breakdown I did a few months back comparing Texas to North Carolina in terms of interstates. As you can see, Texas is actually pretty reasonable (at least, when compared to NC) with designating interstates.
Quote from: CoreySamson on January 14, 2022, 08:38:08 PM
Quote from: Strider on January 14, 2022, 06:39:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2022, 09:21:33 PM
Quote from: Strider on January 13, 2022, 07:11:24 PM
Quote from: Zonie on January 13, 2022, 06:01:46 PM
NC - where the state motto is "Stick an Interstate shield on anything more than three lanes."
You must have NC confused with Texas.
Outside of I-69, I-14, and I-27 which were congressionally designated, that is false. Texas has dozens of state highway freeways all over the state that have never been considered for interstate designation. Look in virtually any metropolitan area.
False? You did not count I-2, I-69C, I-69E, I-69W (Yes, even though these are a part of I-69, they're separate roads going to different cities therefore I treat them as separate interstates) future I-169, I-369. Nice try, though.
Counterpoint: while Texas may have stuck interstate shields in just as many, if not more, places than NC has, I would argue that this is simply because Texas is a bigger state than NC. Let's compare the two states by comparing their ratios of routes that are interstates or future interstates to their other freeways that are not being planned as interstates (as a requiem, these routes must be able to access an interstate by only driving on limited-access roads, so that we don't count random 1 mile freeway sections in small towns far away from any interstate):
Beltway 8 TX 99 Fort Bend Tollway TX 249 Westpark Tollway
US 290 US 90 Spur 330 TX 146 TX 225
NASA Road 1 TX 288 FM 1764 TX 73 US 96/69/287
TX 6 TX 35/US 181 TX 358 TX 286 TX 151 (San Antonio)
Loop 1604 US 281 Wurzbach Pkwy TX 130 TX 45
Mopac Expy TX 71 US 183 (TX 183A) Loop 363 US 67
US 175 US 80 George Bush Turnpike US 75 Spur 366
TX 121 Dallas North Tollway TX 183 TX 114 TX 97
TX 360 Chisholm Trail Parkway US 287 US 84 Loop 322
TX 191 Loop 250 Loop 289 Spur 327 US 62
TX 375 TX 601 US 277 TX 19
54 freeways, in total, that as far as I've heard, are not being planned for interstate designations, versus 26 planned and existing interstates (including suffixed routes) in Texas. To be fair here, routes that have disjointed freeway sections (such as US 190) count as one route, routes that were once planned out to become an interstate but are not now (Loop 151, Texarkana) do not count, non interstate freeways that have not been built yet (Loop 335, Amarillo) do not count, future potential additions to an interstate route (US 87 near Big Spring) do not count, and super-2s do not count, otherwise these would pad Texas's non-interstate count.
Now for NC:
US 74 US 321 US 25 Billy Graham Pkwy US 421
US 52 Joseph M Bryan Blvd US 220 BL I-85 US 64
US 501 NC 147 US 1 NC 87 NC 24
BL I-95 US 264 US 29 US 17
NC, on the other hand, has 19 non interstate freeway routes (and business Interstates, at that!) to go with 19 interstates and future interstates.
Now for the final total of non interstate routes to future and present interstate routes looks like this:
NC: 1:1
TX: 2.08:1
In order for Texas to be on the same level with North Carolina in terms of interstates versus non-interstates, it would have to apply for 9 new interstates, which is absolutely absurd. And even if you restrict this to simply just comparing how many interstates each state has been building or designating lately, you'll see that both states have either built or designated 9 new interstates (or extensions to current interstates) each, meaning that NC has designated more interstates per capita than Texas has. My conclusion is that NC is crazier at designating interstates than Texas is. With that I rest my case.
I was referring to 2dis. If they Texas can get a corridor numbered as a 2di (they have 18 2dis if counting each suffixed route separately), they'll renumber it ("go big" ). Otherwise it's more likely to stay as a state or US route ("go home" ).
Quote from: kphoger on May 26, 2022, 11:00:27 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 26, 2022, 10:47:26 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 03:54:07 PM
3. A freeway that intersects an Interstate at one end but then degrades into a surface highway in the other direction should not be an Interstate: its I-qualities do not continue on, so don't lead motorists into thinking they do.
So what do you do for US-131? Make it an Interstate between I-94 and I-96, but not for the few freeway miles south of there? That part I can agree to. But what about the long freeway stretch north of Grand Rapids? It shouldn't be an Interstate because it peters out in Manton? BTW, 131 north of Grand Rapids is probably a better candidate for Interstate than south, because it's much newer built to more recent standards.
Two options here:
1. Do exactly that. The northern terminus of I-296 (or whatever you want to number it) would be at I-96 on the north side of Grand Rapids.
2. Count Cadillac as a major city. Then you could terminate the Interstate there–similar to the southern terminus of I-27 or the western terminus of I-44.
Of the two, I'd prefer #1, because I can't stomach a town of less than 12k population being considered a major city worthy of an I- terminus. But that's just me.
Would prefer to call it I-296 since that's what it's technically called (unsigned since the 70s) in some old route logs (between I-196 and I-96). Sign it up again, but this time between I-94 and I-96.