Quote from: Revive 755 on April 30, 2011, 11:43:09 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 02, 2010, 03:20:16 AM
I can't remember the site I saw it on, but this was actually a proposal. I want to say it was listed in a book of proposals for additions to the Interstate system in the 70s. Nevada DOT either proposed or supported the plan, which would have brought I-70 across Nevada roughly following the US 50 corridor.
I think you are thinking of Kurumi's site which has a map with 1970 interstate requests that has an I-40 extension to I-5 and a US 50 route from Sacramento to the Utah border:
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/pics/map-isr-1970.jpg (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/pics/map-isr-1970.jpg)
I've never seen that before! Amazing that of all the routes, at least from what I can see, only I-49 and NY I-390 was built for many years, then the rest of I-43 and partly I-68 (but this map doesn't even have it completed to I-79), maybe the I-95 extension (hard to tell at this scale), and now eastern I-86 and I-22. The only other proposals I'm familiar with are I-67, I-98, I-92 in NY and New England - if only Vermont shared the idea of a rooftop highway, who knows if it would have been constructed? (The lack of I-92 tells me it still wouldn't.)
And oh, look, I-99 in Delaware, I-64 in WV, something resembling parts of I-73 and I-74 in NC - no wonder they're the only one who cares about those two highways right now, they're the only one who wanted those corridors filled.
P.S. Look at that number by Green Bay - 57! Just how long was this signed before I-43 was complated?
The proposed new interstate in southwestern Indiana was supposed to be I-63. It would had gone from Evansville to Brazil, IN, basically serving the same purpose as the I-69 extension (all-Interstate route between Evansville and Indianapolis) but with a significantly different route. The only section of that facility to be approved and ultimately constructed was short section south of I-64, which was designated as I-164.
I recall drawing some of these same routes in my old atlases from my childhood! Those included the extension of the East Coast Interstate from New York to Georgia (only the Delaware part is shown there), the Rooftop Highway, and the one running up the western part of the Michigan mitt. However, I would not have guessed that before they settled on US 220 for a new Interstate corridor, they once considered US 421 from Greensboro to Wilmington via Fayetteville as a potential addition. But US 74 I definitely remember.
Some of these routes are obviously nuts, but some of them make compete sense. I mean, seriously, I-70 across Nevada without entering Utah, and that east-west route across Kansas via Wichita? Then we have the routes that did get built outside the interstate system. There's US-20 across Iowa, Wisconsin 15 (now I-43), US-53 in Wisconsin, Cimmaron and Muskogee Turnpikes in Oklahoma, etc.
See http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html for commentary on the requests (including best guess of designation, and notes on routes that were built), and scans of the 1955 system and 1957 requests. I wish the sources (scans of photocopies from government docs) were of higher resolution.
If someone could dig up a map (or even a complete list) of the 1968 additions, that would be useful.
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2011, 12:05:30 PMSome of these routes are obviously nuts, but some of them make compete sense. I mean, seriously, I-70 across Nevada without entering Utah, and that east-west route across Kansas via Wichita?
Stop right there. That one is actually being built as a full freeway, albeit not an Interstate. It had been knocking about at least since the Turnpike study of 1957.
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2011, 12:05:30 PM
Some of these routes are obviously nuts, but some of them make compete sense. I mean, seriously, I-70 across Nevada without entering Utah, and that east-west route across Kansas via Wichita? Then we have the routes that did get built outside the interstate system. There's US-20 across Iowa, Wisconsin 15 (now I-43), US-53 in Wisconsin, Cimmaron and Muskogee Turnpikes in Oklahoma, etc.
The "I-70 in Nevada" would be US 50 from Sacramento to Ely.
What route goes east from Los Cruses, New Mexico to the Texas border?
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 06, 2011, 03:38:55 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2011, 12:05:30 PM
Some of these routes are obviously nuts, but some of them make compete sense. I mean, seriously, I-70 across Nevada without entering Utah, and that east-west route across Kansas via Wichita? Then we have the routes that did get built outside the interstate system. There's US-20 across Iowa, Wisconsin 15 (now I-43), US-53 in Wisconsin, Cimmaron and Muskogee Turnpikes in Oklahoma, etc.
The "I-70 in Nevada" would be US 50 from Sacramento to Ely.
What route goes east from Los Cruses, New Mexico to the Texas border?
It wouldn't make sense to just stop this "I-70 West" at the Utah border; you'd still need to connect it to the existing part at Cove Fort. Then, and only then, would you have a true cross-country highway, running from Baltimore to Sacramento.
If I had to venture a guess on the Las Cruces eastern spur, I'd say that they wanted to connect it to Lubbock, but then there was the suggestion of a southward extension of I-27 to Del Rio and San Angelo, so any number between 12 and 28 would be viable. After all, it lies north of I-10 and south of a potential I-30 corridor (and I-40 as well).
Henry: These are the requests made by each state. Some states got together on them; others didn't.
NY's requests certainly seem to be overkill. Ironically that north-south route east of I-81 is identical to the route I took on a trip on Monday. The corresponding sections on NY 8 (outside of Utica) and NY 812 don't have nearly enough traffic to justify so much as a widening, much less an interstate! NY 12, maybe. IMO the sections of it that justify a freeway already are freeways (including half of I-790), with the exception of the artery in Utica.
I can only imagine how difficult a rooftop highway along NY 3 would be to get approved. The state is having a hard enough time with one along US 11.
Quote from: Steve on May 06, 2011, 05:57:03 AMP.S. Look at that number by Green Bay - 57! Just how long was this signed before I-43 was complated?
I-57 was never signed in Wisconsin. That was the route's working number when its original plans were to follow present-day WI 57. Later on, it was rerouted to follow former US 141 and was then renumbered to I-43.
Interestingly, a very tiny part was built on that original routing - most of present-day WI 57 between Kiel and New Holstein, WI was to be its northbound side and the ROW for the never-built southbound side, although farmed right up to the ditch alongside the present roadway, does now carry a public bicycle trail and the neighboring farmers still plant corn (or whatever other crops) on both sides of the trail each year.
See: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=43.935206,-88.066235&spn=0.017955,0.043945&t=k&z=15
One of the finalists for the I-route number for when US 41 between Milwaukee and Green Bay is 'promoted' is 'I-57', and for many reasons that I have discussed many times in here and in other forvms, that is the number for it that I strongly prefer.
Mike
Making an extension of I-57 into Wisconsin makes more sense than introducing a new number, so idk why they didn't use that for the US-141 corridor in the first place. Oh well, we can't renumber an interstate now. But I agree with extending I-57 along the US-41 corridor.
:confused: Please excuse my ignorance...what is a "rooftop" highway? :confused:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rooftop+highway
Not cool, dude. Not cool.
I agree with Scott. Failure of courtesy aside, none of the first-page hits even explains what a rooftop highway is, in the generic sense: a highway which tends to follow ridgelines rather than valley floors.
No, here the term is being used to mean the highway across northern New York and a possible extension into Vermont.
Quote from: NE2 on May 07, 2011, 10:29:28 PMNo, here the term is being used to mean the highway across northern New York and a possible extension into Vermont.
Rooftop highway is still a perfectly good generic term for highways which follow hilltop routings--this is not affected by its use as a proper noun to refer to a single specific instance.
But in this case it has nothing to do with hills; it's a proposal for an east-west highway along the 'rooftop' of the country, just south of the Canadian border.
Then do you see how the confusion arises and why it was necessary to ask for clarification?
Only if one is familiar with the other usage (I've heard ridgetop highway, but not rooftop highway, for it).
Anyway, I was a little snippy here. Apologies to cjk374 if you did search for it and couldn't figure it out.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 07, 2011, 11:23:34 PM
Then do you see how the confusion arises and why it was necessary to ask for clarification?
In this case, the only two instances of "rooftop highway" were related to I-98. You're the only person I've ever heard come up with it for a highway on a hillside.
Also note the "I-72" or "I-115" from I-70 at Green River to Spanish Fork, UT--that was the original route for I-70.
There's also a possible extension for what is now the western I-86 (then I-15W) in Idaho? Interesting.
To me, the most useful route on this map is the I-88 extension from Albany to Portsmouth/Concord, NH. I can't tell you how much time that would save me getting from PA to ME in the summer! I think it might ease up some congestion on in Massachusetts as well.
Quote from: Henry on May 06, 2011, 10:21:03 AM
I recall drawing some of these same routes in my old atlases from my childhood! Those included the extension of the East Coast Interstate from New York to Georgia (only the Delaware part is shown there), the Rooftop Highway, and the one running up the western part of the Michigan mitt. However, I would not have guessed that before they settled on US 220 for a new Interstate corridor, they once considered US 421 from Greensboro to Wilmington via Fayetteville as a potential addition. But US 74 I definitely remember.
I preferred seeing the under construction lines stay that way and not get filled in. I liked seeing US 66 in places and I-40 in the other places. There is still little enough traffic in spots so that it still be viable today. There is no need for interstates tearing up the countryside all over the place. Why a rooftop route?