It has a fairly long gap that isn't scheduled to be completed until 2014 (at the earliest), but once complete, the original Interstate Highway System, as originally envisioned, should be complete.
Unless there are other gaps in some of the mainline Interstates I'm not aware of. I know that I-70 in Pennsylvania does have a few at-grade junctions, but I don't believe this is considered to be a true gap because it was always designed to route around the at-grade junctions.
70 is a fairly stiff gap. Is there any plan to build a bypass around Breezewood?
84 in Portland had its last few miles canceled.
Similarly, 70 is not complete through Baltimore - one segment disconnected from the main road was numbered 170 at one point. I think 83 was also supposed to head further south than it does now.
95 in Boston is pretty hokey as well, being hastily shunted onto the nine-mile ring road in the absence of any other (actually constructed) option.
78 at the Holland Tunnel - was there ever a plan to get rid of the traffic lights on the approach? If not, why is the route defined to extend past the freeway's end?
86 is not complete in New York, and I do not know if was part of the original 1950s plan. There is a 1951 video floating around that mentions connecting the Southern Tier cities to the Thruway! Whether this means that there was to be an 86 segment built as Thruway in the 50s, or if the Thruway was originally intended to take the 86, and not 90 corridor, I do not know.
there is the 73/74 fiasco but I do not know how much of that was planned in the original routing.
If you look at urban interstates, the original system will never be complete. I 95 will never run through Washington DC. I 83 will never connect to I 95. I 80 will never connect to the Golden Gate.
I 73/74 is in the same class as I 69, I 49 and I 22. These were all added to the system later. None will be complete in our lifetime.
If you ask Chicago, then I-90 isn't complete either. Of course, we know better. ;)
There's a gap in I-93 through Franconia Notch, New Hampshire, but its less-noticeable now...
The "TO I-93" signage has pretty much been replaced and the exits renumbered (from 1-2-3 to 34A-34B-34C), but its definitely not an interstate grade roadway...
Speed Limit posted at 45, sharp curves, no acceleration/deceleration lanes on the exits/ramps, a single lane in each direction, etc.
I'd forgotten about 93. 81 also has a two-lane segment coming off the Thousand Island Bridge. Was that ever intended to be four-laned?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 14, 2010, 07:19:18 PM
I'd forgotten about 93. 81 also has a two-lane segment coming off the Thousand Island Bridge. Was that ever intended to be four-laned?
The Thousand Islands Bridge was never intended to be four-laned, to my knowledge. To my recollection, traffic volumes don't really warrant that either.
I-86 is not an original part of the I-system. Neither is I-90 east of I-93 (Ted Williams Tunnel), which confuses me why it was called the "last piece to be built of the original Interstate system." Not in the least! I-93, I-81, and I-78 officially cover their "gaps", so they aren't gaps after all. I am not positive as to whether I-70 officially runs through Breezewood or officially has a break in the middle, in which case any future direct connection would be a true new link in the original system.
Correct me if I am wrong but the 95 gap isn't much more than a new interchange and rearranging numbers. No? It's not on new allignment or anything.
^^^
The routing for I-95 once the PTC interchange is built is not the planned routing of I-95. It was supposed to run from Trenton to the NJ Turnpike near I-287.
What happened and why has been discussed here adnauseum.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 14, 2010, 07:40:40 PMI-93, I-81, and I-78 officially cover their "gaps", so they aren't gaps after all.
certainly, but why was I-78 allowed to be built with traffic lights? 81 I can see because it's so low-traffic it's a vestige of the two-lane-interstate set that was largely phased out by the 80s (I-70 in Utah, I-95 in northern Maine, etc) and 93 is both low-traffic and through a national park, so that kinda makes sense. But, 78, what gives? Why define it and then keep it substandard?
What about I-76, I-84, I-86 and I-88? It could be argued that they are separate Interstates, but it could also be argued that they are gaps. Depends on how you look at it.
They should really renumber those... I still think I-84 should be I-82 and I-82 should be I-7/9/11/13.
I-86 could be I-x82 (x=odd #) or just US-30.
I-88 in Illinois should be IL-5 or IL-190 like it used to be... :\
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on October 14, 2010, 06:27:09 PM
If you ask Chicago, then I-90 isn't complete either. Of course, we know better. ;)
So does InDOT, IDOT, and the FHwA. ;-)
Quote from: bugo on October 15, 2010, 12:11:07 AM
What about I-76, I-84, I-86 and I-88? It could be argued that they are separate Interstates, but it could also be argued that they are gaps. Depends on how you look at it.
They are not gaps. AASHTO decided it was better to have two separate Interstates using the same number on opposite ends of the country. Originally, either the western or eastern 76, 84, 86 and 88 was a suffixed route, later renumbered.
Quote from: Quillz on October 15, 2010, 01:31:26 PM
Originally, either the western or eastern 76, 84, 86 and 88 was a suffixed route, later renumbered.
76 is the most interesting in that it was a split interstate
before renumbering. Both parts were I-80S before they became I-76!
Quote from: mightyace on October 15, 2010, 01:41:57 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 15, 2010, 01:31:26 PM
Originally, either the western or eastern 76, 84, 86 and 88 was a suffixed route, later renumbered.
76 is the most interesting in that it was a split interstate before renumbering. Both parts were I-80S before they became I-76!
And IIRC, there was a point in time in which we had both the eastern I-76 and the eastern I-80S.
Part of today's eastern I-76/pre-1980 eastern I-80S (the segment through Akron from 71 to today's 80/76 bump) could've been mainline 80 (though I think it was proposed as I-80S) had the western extension to Norwalk been built...
^^^
I think you're right.
And, IIRC, the current 80/480 routing would have been 80N. (The turnpike between the ends of the current 480 would have had no I-designation.)
I-88 was never a suffixed Interstate. The western one was up-designated from a state highway (IL 5), and the eastern one was built after the suffixed Interstates died.
Was I-495 ever signed in New Jersey? If so wouldn't that constitute as a gap?
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on October 16, 2010, 07:36:23 PM
Was I-495 ever signed in New Jersey? If so wouldn't that constitute as a gap?
It was posted in NJ.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-495_nj.html
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages495%2Fi-495_nj_wt_02.jpg&hash=5606c24bb8b2b3e117d3c05b735a433da6f01b46)
IL's I-88 was hastily numbered to give that freeway eligibility for 65 mph under the national 55 law exceptions
There are indications of I-495 on the Joe DiMaggio Hwy in NYC (Damn you NYCDOT)
Quote from: Master son on October 16, 2010, 09:47:28 PM
IL's I-88 was hastily numbered to give that freeway eligibility for 65 mph under the national 55 law exceptions
Same deal IIRC for I-335 in Kansas
Quote from: Master son
There are indications of I-495 on the Joe DiMaggio Hwy in NYC (Damn you NYCDOT)
Hey, if we can have I-78 and the entirety of Wyoming's I-180 with street-running portions...really, why not have something for 495 between the tunnels? :D
Quote from: Master son on October 16, 2010, 09:47:28 PM
There are indications of I-495 on the Joe DiMaggio Hwy in NYC (Damn you NYCDOT)
I was just on the West Side Highway (NY 9A) and I believe the signs leading to the Holland Tunnel are shown as To I-495. I suppose it's talking about the Queens-Midtown Tunnel.
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on October 17, 2010, 12:31:18 PM
Quote from: Master son on October 16, 2010, 09:47:28 PM
There are indications of I-495 on the Joe DiMaggio Hwy in NYC (Damn you NYCDOT)
I was just on the West Side Highway (NY 9A) and I believe the signs leading to the Holland Tunnel are shown as To I-495. I suppose it's talking about the Queens-Midtown Tunnel.
You mean Lincoln Tunnel. And what's the Joe DiMaggio Highway anyway? But no, the signs are indeed pointing I-495 into the Lincoln Tunnel. Some of them aren't old at all (such as the free-standing shields), but there are a couple of signs in the city that do date to the 1970s or earlier. I have a few on my NY 495 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_495).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 14, 2010, 05:44:59 PM70 is a fairly stiff gap. Is there any plan to build a bypass around Breezewood?
No
Quote from: PAHighways on October 17, 2010, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 14, 2010, 05:44:59 PM70 is a fairly stiff gap. Is there any plan to build a bypass around Breezewood?
No
Weeeeeeeeeeell... there are plans, but every time it gets brought up, the businesses shoot it down, and for some reason no one is willing to anger them (there really aren't that many), so the plans have never made it to a firm design.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 17, 2010, 06:04:07 PMWeeeeeeeeeeell... there are plans, but every time it gets brought up, the businesses shoot it down, and for some reason no one is willing to anger them (there really aren't that many), so the plans have never made it to a firm design.
I know, I've said that here and on my I-70 (http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I70.html) page.
The only "plan," or idea, was pushed forth from a Pittsburgh state senator that was involved in an accident there, but there was never any actual proposals studied or even pushed as far as artist renderings or blueprints drawn up.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 17, 2010, 01:36:55 PM
And what's the Joe DiMaggio Highway anyway?
I guess that's the new official name for the West Side Highway, but does anyone even call it that?
How about I- 49 in Louisiana? Isn't that supposed to connect Lafayette with New Orleans, and eventually hook up with I- 30 north of Shreveport in Texarkana?
^^^
Well, I-49 is not an original interstate. Neither is I-69 south of Indy.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 17, 2010, 07:25:20 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 17, 2010, 01:36:55 PM
And what's the Joe DiMaggio Highway anyway?
I guess that's the new official name for the West Side Highway, but does anyone even call it that?
Truth is - I look at the Rand McNally too much :ded:
Yeah, I think I should specify that I'm referring specifically to the Interstate highways planned back in 1957, not ones that were added later.
That is to say, I-95 is an original 1957 Interstate highway and is still not officially complete yet.
its funny that 1 interchage is talking years and years to build when the entire NJTP was built in less than 2
^^^
There are many reasons:
1) No environmental impact statements.
2) Less NIMBYism.
3) Lower relative (and actual) construction cost.
But the biggest is...
4) The New Jersey Turnpike Authority is NOT the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission with its phobia to making interstate connections.
QuoteThat is to say, I-95 is an original 1957 Interstate highway and is still not officially complete yet.
Neither is I-67. Bonus points if you know where I-67 was going to be.
Quote from: froggie on October 29, 2010, 08:32:15 PM
QuoteThat is to say, I-95 is an original 1957 Interstate highway and is still not officially complete yet.
Neither is I-67. Bonus points if you know where I-67 was going to be.
What is South Bend to Kalamazoo, Alex?
Also, I-40 was never completed through Memphis, TN and it has since been rerouted with the interchanges where the 'Plan B' turns are made being re-engineered to reflect the reroute.
Mike
Quote from: mightyace on October 29, 2010, 06:55:36 PM
But the biggest is...
4) The New Jersey Turnpike Authority is NOT the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission with its phobia to making interstate connections.
See, I actually live there. How about Turnpike at NJ 42? Disaster area there thanks to the old connection at NJ 168. How about Turnpike and I-295, they run next to each other but NO signs to 295 at all on the mainline. Turnpike doesn't connect to the Pulaski Skyway - you have to use the truck route to get to 1/9.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 29, 2010, 11:44:16 PM
How about Turnpike and I-295, they run next to each other but NO signs to 295 at all on the mainline.
Is that true on the south terminus as well where the NJTP splits off of 295?
I wonder how many people are savvy enough to take 295 instead of the NJTP (and avoid tolls) between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and I-195...
Quote from: TheStranger on October 17, 2010, 07:25:20 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 17, 2010, 01:36:55 PM
And what's the Joe DiMaggio Highway anyway?
I guess that's the new official name for the West Side Highway, but does anyone even call it that?
A name likely to be used about as much as the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge and Avenue of the Americas.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 29, 2010, 11:44:16 PM
Quote from: mightyace on October 29, 2010, 06:55:36 PM
But the biggest is...
4) The New Jersey Turnpike Authority is NOT the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission with its phobia to making interstate connections.
See, I actually live there. How about Turnpike at NJ 42? Disaster area there thanks to the old connection at NJ 168. How about Turnpike and I-295, they run next to each other but NO signs to 295 at all on the mainline. Turnpike doesn't connect to the Pulaski Skyway - you have to use the truck route to get to 1/9.
Touche.
I guess the PA ones are just better known. With "thanks" going to Breezewood. Or maybe it's that I grew up in PA and not NJ.
Response of the Bedford County planning commission when a friend of mine asked why Breezewood was never considered for a bypass: "Do you want to put people out of a job?"
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 01, 2010, 04:39:16 PM
Response of the Bedford County planning commission when a friend of mine asked why Breezewood was never considered for a bypass: "Do you want to put people out of a job?"
somehow, every other community on the interstate has managed to deal with it. Only
one holdout insists that the freeway run through the middle of town and feature traffic lights.
Well, it is abundantly clear from the response my friend got that the local planning authorities are never going to push for a bypass. The really interesting question is how they are able to frustrate it at the state level, since bypassing Breezewood is of statewide significance and there are interests well outside the immediate vicinity which would benefit.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 01, 2010, 05:39:12 PM
Well, it is abundantly clear from the response my friend got that the local planning authorities are never going to push for a bypass. The really interesting question is how they are able to frustrate it at the state level, since bypassing Breezewood is of statewide significance and there are interests well outside the immediate vicinity which would benefit.
whose nude and compromising photos do they have in the safe under the Breezewood courthouse?? Ed Rendell's?
This goes back long before Fast Eddie was mayor of Philly, much less governor of Penn's Woods.
yes, but what keeps it going? who has been in politics since the late 1950s that can be continually blackmailed so heavily?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 02, 2010, 12:08:21 AM
yes, but what keeps it going? who has been in politics since the late 1950s that can be continually blackmailed so heavily?
Follow the money.
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 02, 2010, 12:12:32 AM
Follow the money.
I don't have the time to dig into the intricacies of Pennsylvania state politics. Since you've clearly done the research, want to tell me the answer?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 02, 2010, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 02, 2010, 12:12:32 AM
Follow the money.
I don't have the time to dig into the intricacies of Pennsylvania state politics. Since you've clearly done the research, want to tell me the answer?
Since you asked, no.
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 02, 2010, 12:15:49 AM
No.
do you specifically enjoy being an asshole, or does it come so instinctively that you no longer think about it?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 02, 2010, 12:16:18 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 02, 2010, 12:15:49 AM
No.
do you specifically enjoy being an asshole, or does it come so instinctively that you no longer think about it?
Takes one to know one now, doesn't it.
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 02, 2010, 12:17:00 AM
Takes one to know one now, doesn't it.
good job being utterly reluctant to answer the question there.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 02, 2010, 12:17:58 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 02, 2010, 12:17:00 AM
Takes one to know one now, doesn't it.
good job being utterly reluctant to answer the question there.
Oh, I'm enjoying this. You care enough to ask. You don't care enough to act.
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 02, 2010, 12:20:27 AM
Oh, I'm enjoying this. You care enough to ask. You don't care enough to act.
yeah, I noticed you're enjoying this - that makes you a demented sadist. congratulations on becoming your most feral of instincts. You'd rather tweeze and exploit people on an incidental lack of knowledge, rather than acting like a normal human being and providing a straightforward answer.
have fun purposely being a contrarian douchebag.
Please get back on topic people and stop the flame war. If you want to continue it, take it to PM please.
Yeah, we shouldn't veer off-topic. To reiterate, I was asking if I-95, being one of the original Interstates planned back in 1956, was the last remaining original Interstate to not yet be officially completed, due to that gap in New Jersey.
Quote from: Quillz on November 02, 2010, 01:08:35 AM
Yeah, we shouldn't veer off-topic. To reiterate, I was asking if I-95, being one of the original Interstates planned back in 1956, was the last remaining original Interstate to not yet be officially completed, due to that gap in New Jersey.
well, to answer that, either that or 70 because of Breezewood. Or 78 to the Holland Tunnel, but I am not sure if that final segment was part of the original plan.
By 1955 (Yellow Book) the routes in cities (including I-78 into NYC) had been defined, but not by number. The first numbering plan was made in 1957 with 80N from Harrisburg to northeast New Jersey (AASHTO used a 1947 plan for this numbering, and so didn't deal with city alignments). By 1958 it had become I-78, but again it's not clear whether it was specifically defined into NYC.
It does seem to be correct that I-95 has the only intercity gap in signage of the original 1950s routes. I believe everything else on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_June_27,_1958.jpg has been built (though not all on the same alignments - look at I-12 - or all with the same numbers). Looking through later maps, it seems that the only intercity addition to not be completed (and to be later removed) was I-84 from Hartford to Providence.
But didn't the original plan allow for at-grade intersections in rural areas? Really, if I-70 is incomplete, so are I-10 and I-20 in Texas.
Quote from: NE2 on November 02, 2010, 01:58:46 AM
But didn't the original plan allow for at-grade intersections in rural areas? Really, if I-70 is incomplete, so are I-10 and I-20 in Texas.
at-grade intersections, yes.
traffic lights? hell no!
Quote from: NE2 on November 02, 2010, 01:58:46 AM
But didn't the original plan allow for at-grade intersections in rural areas? Really, if I-70 is incomplete, so are I-10 and I-20 in Texas.
Where does the at-grade segment on I-78 between Route 139 and the Holland Tunnel fit into this, too?
there are lots of at-grade intersections on interstate highways. the ones on I-10 and I-20 are the most well-known, as the majority of them receive absolutely no signage whatsoever, and are accessible only from one direction of travel. I-40 has several around the North Carolina/Tennessee state line, with one even receiving a street blade: Hurricane Road. They're intended for use by forest service and fire department vehicles.
I know I-8 has several ranch gates in Arizona that are ostensibly accessed via the eastbound mainline. (Didn't notice any westbound, but I'm sure they're there too.) I-5 in the Grapevine has a few forest service access routes, and also even a loop of the old 1913 Ridge Route that is accessible directly from the freeway!
I'm sure if you look carefully, you can find forest service or ranch access roads on nearly every interstate out in the sticks.
I-40 also has some at-grade intersections at ranches west of Amarillo.
One other route, which I'd hinted at previously, that could be considered under the OP's original question: I-67. It was in the 1957 numbering plan, running generally from Elkhart, IN to the Battle Creek, MI vicinity. But it was removed in the 1958 numbering plan.
Quote from: froggie on November 02, 2010, 11:51:53 AM
I-40 also has some at-grade intersections at ranches west of Amarillo.
Yep. Caught this one in New Mexico, in 2001
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2Fsannmint.jpg&hash=e539fd2b258021c0f0ae46441b91582e423f0baf)
I believe those signs have been removed, but the ranch gates remain, completely unsigned.
the road was signed in 2006, but I haven't noticed the signs since 2007 or so.
The I-40 intersections I was thinking of were moreso on the Texas side of the state line...mainly between Glenrio (Exit 0) and Adrian (Exit 22/TX 214). I don't recall seeing any on I-40 in New Mexico between the state line and US 285....this was in 2005.
One on I-84 in the Columbia River Gorge. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.707011,-121.576649&spn=0,0.00478&z=18&layer=c&cbll=45.707044,-121.576908&panoid=NzJRUF_PdYBt49y6d1nSwQ&cbp=12,296.25,,0,6.11
Quote from: Bickendan on November 03, 2010, 04:14:02 PM
One on I-84 in the Columbia River Gorge. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.707011,-121.576649&spn=0,0.00478&z=18&layer=c&cbll=45.707044,-121.576908&panoid=NzJRUF_PdYBt49y6d1nSwQ&cbp=12,296.25,,0,6.11
Looks like an offramp with a RIRO. Not quite the same as an at-grade intersection.
You're correct, strictly because the ramp got striped. But it's straight asphalt across the gore, so it very technically qualifies.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 17, 2010, 06:04:07 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on October 17, 2010, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 14, 2010, 05:44:59 PM70 is a fairly stiff gap. Is there any plan to build a bypass around Breezewood?
No
Weeeeeeeeeeell... there are plans, but every time it gets brought up, the businesses shoot it down, and for some reason no one is willing to anger them (there really aren't that many), so the plans have never made it to a firm design.
Doesn't Breezewood technically consist of just gas stations and fast food places? I didn't see any (or many) houses in the immediate area.
And also hotels (There is (was?) an old billboard along the Turnpike advertising it as the "Town of Motels"...
But as far as residences goes, Breezewood is actually very small. (It's not even a municipal entity... Just a "village".)
Quote from: florida on November 04, 2010, 05:02:15 PMDoesn't Breezewood technically consist of just gas stations and fast food places? I didn't see any (or many) houses in the immediate area.
There are homes east of Breezewood along US 30, some to the northwest, and a couple along the abandoned Turnpike.