What is the logic of temporary route numbers? When AHTD built I-540 north, they knew good and well it was going to eventually be I-49, but the geniuses at AASHTO refused to let them number it I-49. Same with AR 549, even though I am not sure whether they even applied for the number. It seems counterproductive and illogical to give a road a number when they know it will be changed down the road.
One could ask the same thing about AR 540 at Fort Smith. They knew it would be I-540, but south of Rogers Ave, it was AR 540 before it became I-540.
Quote from: US71 on September 25, 2012, 12:05:35 AM
One could ask the same thing about AR 540 at Fort Smith. They knew it would be I-540, but south of Rogers Ave, it was AR 540 before it became I-540.
At least it was the same number. Call it AR 49 if AASHTO are going to be dicks. Or else go ahead and sign it as I-49 US 377 style.
Interesting- maybe MO-249 will be a temporary designation for future I-49 or
maybe an auxiliary route from I-49.
Quote from: bugo on September 25, 2012, 12:07:24 AM
Quote from: US71 on September 25, 2012, 12:05:35 AM
One could ask the same thing about AR 540 at Fort Smith. They knew it would be I-540, but south of Rogers Ave, it was AR 540 before it became I-540.
At least it was the same number. Call it AR 49 if AASHTO are going to be dicks. Or else go ahead and sign it as I-49 US 377 style.
How is US 377 signed differently from other route shields?
US 377 north of Madill was signed without AASHTO permission.
A "future" number is not always guaranteed to be built. With some routes, one could argue that the number doesn't yet provide a logical extension of the route until further sections of it are constructed.
Then on the other end, you have a temporary alignment between constructed portions that is officially designated as a temporary route, since construction of the connecting piece may have an uncertain funding or construction timeline and it would be infeasible to not connect the two ends. US 50/395 in Carson City is an example--the portion along Fairview Drive is officially "TEMP US 50/395" according to AASHTO (although not signed as such by NDOT), connecting the old highway on Carson Street to the new freeway bypass to the east.
Quote from: bugo on September 25, 2012, 12:17:19 AM
US 377 north of Madill was signed without AASHTO permission.
That's just the AASHTO just trolling us for reasons unknown to man.
Another one is CA 31 for what is now I-15 in Ontario, CA.
Quote from: bugo on September 25, 2012, 12:07:24 AM
Quote from: US71 on September 25, 2012, 12:05:35 AM
One could ask the same thing about AR 540 at Fort Smith. They knew it would be I-540, but south of Rogers Ave, it was AR 540 before it became I-540.
At least it was the same number. Call it AR 49 if AASHTO are going to be dicks. Or else go ahead and sign it as I-49 US 377 style.
Don't forget also, that "North" 540 was originally supposed to be a new US 71 when it was originally planned. But AHTD changed their minds when tourist traps along "old" 71 complained about the fear of losing business because no one would know "471" (or what ever designation it was given) was formerly US 71... not that it helped, anyway,
There's PA Turnpike 576 southwest of Pittsburgh, there's NC 540 to the west of Raleigh, and... I can't think of any more off the top of my head. :P
All of those will be Interstates when (if?) they're ever completed.
The scenario roadfro mentions has shown up on the Interstates on occasion. The Baltimore—Washington Parkway in Maryland was once signed as "Temporary I-95" while the "between the Beltways" part of the real I-95 was finished. I think it made a lot of sense. It reassures drivers of the thru route while making clear they should expect a change on future trips. I believe I saw a AAA map showing a "Temporary I-77" or "Temporary I-20" (I forget which) in Columbia, SC.
(edited to fix a bad typo.)
Tennessee-TN 840 (future I-840 around Nashville)
California-Temp I-5 on CA 99 (before I-5 was complete)
Texas:
Spur 553 on then-future SH 121 frontage roads in Lewisville
TX 197 on then-future US 77 in Ellis County
Spur ??? on SH 121 north of DFW airport during planning construction, before SH 121 moved to this alignemnt upon completion.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 25, 2012, 08:01:16 AM
There's PA Turnpike 576 southwest of Pittsburgh, there's NC 540 to the west of Raleigh, and... I can't think of any more off the top of my head. :P
All of those will be Interstates when (if?) they're ever completed.
The point is that the numbers are going to be the same. Changing from 540 or 549 to 49 is going to cause mass confusion when they are changed over. They use that excuse when they don't want to upgrade a state highway to a US highway, and turn around and do this?
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 25, 2012, 09:04:02 AM
The scenario roadfro mentions has shown up on the Interstates on occasion. The Baltimore—Washington Patkeay in Maryland was once signed as "Temporary I-95" while the "between the Beltways" part of the real I-95 was finished. I think it made a lot of sense. It reassures drivers of the thru route while making clear they should expect a change on future trips. I believe I saw a AAA map showing a "Temporary I-77" or "Temporary I-20" (I forget which) in Columbia, SC.
Yep, I sure remember that! That was back in 1970 or so and the B/W Parkway was very congested back then; I think that it was only 2 lanes each way. Then, once that stretch of I-95 opened with 3 lanes each, it was like an open road. I'll never forget how the original button reflectors (when new) appeared to be gold rather than silver!
When Kentucky opens a portion of a new road that will eventually be a through route, it will give the new route a temporary state route number until the entire route is completed and the permanent number can be assigned.
Examples of this include US 119 in Pike County, US 62/68 in Mason County and US 23/460 in Floyd and Johnson counties.
VDOT has done the same thing as HB mentioned. US 29's Danville bypass was originally VA 265, and became US 29 when it was finished. It's now also (unsigned) VA 785 in anticipation of I-785's arrival. US 58's bypass of Franklin was VA 280 before completion, and there's a map scan somewhere on the Virginia Highways Project that shows the then-unbuilt I-664 in Suffolk as VA 664. There's also the infamous VA 895, but I'm unsure as to whether that's really a temporary number or not.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 25, 2012, 09:04:02 AM
The scenario roadfro mentions has shown up on the Interstates on occasion. The BaltimoreWashington Patkeay in Maryland was once signed as "Temporary I-95" while the "between the Beltways" part of the real I-95 was finished. I think it made a lot of sense. It reassures drivers of the thru route while making clear they should expect a change on future trips. I believe I saw a AAA map showing a "Temporary I-77" or "Temporary I-20" (I forget which) in Columbia, SC.
It was Temporary I-77, which followed parts of SC 277, I-20 and I-26 around Columbia. This was due to the fact that what would be the permanent routing of I-77 (which was then designated as SC 48 and I-326, among others) had not yet been completed in full.
The Trenton Freeway (US 1) was signed as NJ 174 until the freeway was completed north of Whiting Road.
I think that US 10 and US 27 in Michigan might of been signed that way until I-75 was finnished from US 10 to US 27 (now US 127).
I-78 WB from Newark to NJ 24 was signed "TO NJ 24 WEST" unitl I-78 opened to traffic in 1986 between Exits 41 and 48 for a good reason, as there were no direct routes between the two endpoints.
Quote from: bugo on September 24, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
What is the logic of temporary route numbers? When AHTD built I-540 north, they knew good and well it was going to eventually be I-49, but the geniuses at AASHTO refused to let them number it I-49. Same with AR 549, even though I am not sure whether they even applied for the number. It seems counterproductive and illogical to give a road a number when they know it will be changed down the road.
There's no guarantee that I-49 will be finished, so AASHTO won't approve new numbers unless they make sense on their own. In many cases you can't be sure something will get built until the construction starts. It's certainly better than moving US routes to it and then having useless concurrencies.
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 25, 2012, 05:01:03 AM
Another one is CA 31 for what is now I-15 in Ontario, CA.
Route 31 isn't a true temporary number - the route ONLY became Temporary I-15 (usually with that being signed in lieu of 31) in the mid-1970s, after 15 had been shifted from what is now I-215 (and what would be I-15E for 8 years). Prior to that, 31 and the southern segment of Route 71 existed on their own, 71 having been in the system since the 1930s.
Quote from: deanej on September 25, 2012, 01:03:43 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 24, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
What is the logic of temporary route numbers? When AHTD built I-540 north, they knew good and well it was going to eventually be I-49, but the geniuses at AASHTO refused to let them number it I-49. Same with AR 549, even though I am not sure whether they even applied for the number. It seems counterproductive and illogical to give a road a number when they know it will be changed down the road.
There's no guarantee that I-49 will be finished, so AASHTO won't approve new numbers unless they make sense on their own. In many cases you can't be sure something will get built until the construction starts. It's certainly better than moving US routes to it and then having useless concurrencies.
What about Mississippi and them signing I-69 that may never get connected to the rest of the route anytime soon. Hey, they are having trouble getting it across the Ohio River and if Ole Miss can sign a short piece of freeway as I-69, so should Arkansas.
There were several freeway stubs with temporary numbers around the Twin Cities until the freeways were built out. MN-103 as a stub of MN-3 south of I-494 south of St. Paul, the whole route of which became U.S. 52; MN-312 for U.S. 212 west of Eden Prairie; and MN-118 (the only example with a non-derivative temporary number) for U.S. 10 in Blaine.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2012, 01:36:46 PM
What about Mississippi and them signing I-69 that may never get connected to the rest of the route anytime soon. Hey, they are having trouble getting it across the Ohio River and if Ole Miss can sign a short piece of freeway as I-69, so should Arkansas.
North Carolina has signed I-74 and it will
never be connected to the section that begins in Ohio.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned Temporary I-85 in NC yet. US-29/US-70 from Lexington to Greensboro, NC, until 1984 when the new I-85 opened
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2012, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 25, 2012, 01:03:43 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 24, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
What is the logic of temporary route numbers? When AHTD built I-540 north, they knew good and well it was going to eventually be I-49, but the geniuses at AASHTO refused to let them number it I-49. Same with AR 549, even though I am not sure whether they even applied for the number. It seems counterproductive and illogical to give a road a number when they know it will be changed down the road.
There's no guarantee that I-49 will be finished, so AASHTO won't approve new numbers unless they make sense on their own. In many cases you can't be sure something will get built until the construction starts. It's certainly better than moving US routes to it and then having useless concurrencies.
What about Mississippi and them signing I-69 that may never get connected to the rest of the route anytime soon. Hey, they are having trouble getting it across the Ohio River and if Ole Miss can sign a short piece of freeway as I-69, so should Arkansas.
A 2di requires that one end be at an interstate and the other at a route of regional significance (these appear to be defined by AASHTO and don't make any kind of sense as to which routes get this designation). The Mississippi one might meet this while the Arkansas one may not. As far as AASHTO is concerned, they are duplicate numbers in the same league as I-84, I-86, and I-88.
Also note that I-69 and I-11 were recently granted an exception. If Arkansas could promise to build the rest of I-69 within 25 years, they could probably change the designation now.
None of I-69 in Arkansas has been built.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2012, 12:50:56 PM
The Trenton Freeway (US 1) was signed as NJ 174 until the freeway was completed north of Whiting Road.
I think that US 10 and US 27 in Michigan might of been signed that way until I-75 was finnished from US 10 to US 27 (now US 127).
I-78 WB from Newark to NJ 24 was signed "TO NJ 24 WEST" unitl I-78 opened to traffic in 1986 between Exits 41 and 48 for a good reason, as there were no direct routes between the two endpoints.
And here I was going to say NJ never did this - whoops! You're right on 174. As for I-78 WB, I believe it actually was built cosigned as NJ 24 - though the only evidence I have is the Parkway overpass sign: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fgsp%2Fn142m.jpg&hash=422b59cfa418d988cc3450dbba82959746ccbac5)
Anyway, I'm not sure if 24 did end at 78 or continued to I-95, given that the original route of 24 did go into downtown Newark. But I can't think of another example where NJ built a road with one number knowing it was going to be renumbered upon completion. 169 was never intended to be 440, for example.
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 25, 2012, 05:01:03 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 25, 2012, 12:17:19 AM
US 377 north of Madill was signed without AASHTO permission.
That's just the AASHTO just trolling us for reasons unknown to man.
I recently saw an AASHTO letter which seemed to indicate the US 377 extension ODOT sought was rejected because it was not up to design specs. I need to do more research to confirm this, however.
CA 210, CA 215 (now I-215), CA 805 (now I-805), CA 905
US 66 was a temporary number for the Interstates.
I went there.
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 27, 2012, 11:00:44 PM
CA 210, CA 215 (now I-215), CA 805 (now I-805), CA 905
I don't recall CA 805 ever existing.
CA 15 on the other hand is DEFINITELY in line with the concept.
Actually officially I-78 always was I-78. The ramp signs to all Westbound entrances to I-78 in New Jersey just did not have I-78 WB shields and had a temporary NJ 24 shield with the intended white on blue WEST and arrows for when the Watchung Reservation Section was completed would only have to replace the shield itself while everything else was in place.
Locals always did call it Route 24 and as far as the GSP, I think that sign was created to avoid confusion to locals at the time only knowing it as NJ 24, and the official route designation.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 28, 2012, 12:55:23 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 27, 2012, 11:00:44 PM
CA 210, CA 215 (now I-215), CA 805 (now I-805), CA 905
I don't recall CA 805 ever existing.
CA 15 on the other hand is DEFINITELY in line with the concept.
I was in Santa Clarita today and saw one of the infamous "14U" spades on Sierra Hwy. It looked like a new sign, too.
Somebody explain to me again why Caltrans has to sign for motorists an unrelinquished highway that will eventually be removed from the highway system altogether?
Quote from: TheStranger on September 28, 2012, 12:55:23 AM
I don't recall CA 805 ever existing.
it didn't. it's been I-805 since the beginning.
as far as I know, it was entirely built on completely new right of way - nothing greater than maybe an incidental residential street occupied that right of way, as far as I know.
Quote from: Steve on September 26, 2012, 11:39:54 PM
Anyway, I'm not sure if 24 did end at 78 or continued to I-95, given that the original route of 24 did go into downtown Newark. But I can't think of another example where NJ built a road with one number knowing it was going to be renumbered upon completion. 169 was never intended to be 440, for example.
I thought I saw somewhere that the free portion of I-95 in Mercer County was NJ 129 at one point, before becoming I-95. I don't recall the timing of the completion of the freeway and the Interstate designation, though. Was this section of roadway ever posted as NJ 129?
Quick google search confirms that, and gives 1961 for the freeway opening, and 1974 for the I-95 designation. Haven't found Reliable(TM) Sources for it though.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 28, 2012, 01:48:09 PM
Quick google search confirms that, and gives 1961 for the freeway opening, and 1974 for the I-95 designation. Haven't found Reliable(TM) Sources for it though.
www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/log/8.html#129 - as compiled years ago by a VERY reliable source.
Hence the capital letters and TM. I believe it, but it wouldn't hold up in the court of Wikipedia.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 28, 2012, 07:28:03 PM
Hence the capital letters and TM. I believe it, but it wouldn't hold up in the court of Wikipedia.
Put it this way - the source that compiled that information would be able to give Wiki enough material to confirm it, if the source or I or Wikipedia gave a shit.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 28, 2012, 12:55:23 AM
I don't recall CA 805 ever existing.
it didn't. it's been I-805 since the beginning.
as far as I know, it was entirely built on completely new right of way - nothing greater than maybe an incidental residential street occupied that right of way, as far as I know.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_805#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_805#History)
QuoteInterstate 805 was once known as State Route 805, the only sign that still says SR-805 is in a parking lot at the Westfield mall in Plaza Bonita.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 28, 2012, 01:32:27 AM
I was in Santa Clarita today and saw one of the infamous "14U" spades on Sierra Hwy. It looked like a new sign, too.
Somebody explain to me again why Caltrans has to sign for motorists an unrelinquished highway that will eventually be removed from the highway system altogether?
In that case, CA 86S. Would CA 195 still count, as it is still hanging around even though it is meant to be decommissioned when the CA 86 expressway is complete?
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 28, 2012, 11:27:33 PM
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_805#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_805#History)
QuoteInterstate 805 was once known as State Route 805, the only sign that still says SR-805 is in a parking lot at the Westfield mall in Plaza Bonita.
If using Wikipedia as a source, it's probably best to make sure the statement in question hasn't been tagged "dubious" since January 2011.
Seems to me that someone found an error sign, falsely assumed it was from a prior era, and decided to put it on Wikipedia.
Louisiana has a few... LA 3094 is the temporary number for the northern extension of US 171. LA 3132 is the temporary number for I-220's loop around Shreveport. Both are, erm... dead in the water at the moment. US 171 was supposed to be moved about 30 years ago, although progress is moving.
NY 690 was temporarily NY 48 when the Baldwinsville bypass first opened in 1971. Around 1975 is when NY 48 was put back on its original alignment (from I-690 to north of the village of Baldwinsville) and NY 690 was commissioned in its place.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 28, 2012, 11:46:29 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 28, 2012, 11:27:33 PM
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_805#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_805#History)
QuoteInterstate 805 was once known as State Route 805, the only sign that still says SR-805 is in a parking lot at the Westfield mall in Plaza Bonita.
If using Wikipedia as a source, it's probably best to make sure the statement in question hasn't been tagged "dubious" since January 2011.
Seems to me that someone found an error sign, falsely assumed it was from a prior era, and decided to put it on Wikipedia.
Agree with Kacie Jane. I suspect the CA-805 shield is an error shield put up by the mall. According to California Highways (cahighways.org), there's no mention of I-805 ever being CA-805... especially since I-805 was approved as a chargeable Interstate back in 1959.
Wasn't the US 80 freeway near Dallas, TX once temporarily signed as I-20 before 1971 when the current I-20 alignment south of the Dallas- Fort Worth Metroplex opened to traffic? Didn't the defunct DFW Turnpike also have I-20 signed as well during that time period?
Quote from: amroad17 on September 29, 2012, 11:41:32 AM
NY 690 was temporarily NY 48 when the Baldwinsville bypass first opened in 1971. Around 1975 is when NY 48 was put back on its original alignment (from I-690 to north of the village of Baldwinsville) and NY 690 was commissioned in its place.
This happened in the Southern Tier too. Large portions of what is now I-86 were originally known as NY 15 and NY 70. Part of I-390 was built as NY 245.
Part of I-95 in Rhode Island was originally RI 95.
NE2--nice avatar!!! :nod:
Quote from: Brian556 on September 25, 2012, 09:31:53 AM
Tennessee-TN 840 (future I-840 around Nashville)
California-Temp I-5 on CA 99 (before I-5 was complete)
Texas:
Spur 553 on then-future SH 121 frontage roads in Lewisville
TX 197 on then-future US 77 in Ellis County
Spur ??? on SH 121 north of DFW airport during planning construction, before SH 121 moved to this alignemnt upon completion.
I highly doubt Tennessee 840 will become Interstate 840.
I posted once that TennDOT was rumoured to be building the route just like an interstate but sign it as a state route just to avoid any studies that would, if conducted, have a good chance of telling Tenn-840 South to go to hell. That's just what happened to the northern portion of the route, but by local opposition and the state government.
If the interstate designation is to be a reality, I'll be shocked.
So, the Tenn-840 designation is not temporary.
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on October 02, 2012, 04:46:07 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 25, 2012, 09:31:53 AM
Tennessee-TN 840 (future I-840 around Nashville)
California-Temp I-5 on CA 99 (before I-5 was complete)
Texas:
Spur 553 on then-future SH 121 frontage roads in Lewisville
TX 197 on then-future US 77 in Ellis County
Spur ??? on SH 121 north of DFW airport during planning construction, before SH 121 moved to this alignemnt upon completion.
I highly doubt Tennessee 840 will become Interstate 840.
I posted once that TennDOT was rumoured to be building the route just like an interstate but sign it as a state route just to avoid any studies that would, if conducted, have a good chance of telling Tenn-840 South to go to hell. That's just what happened to the northern portion of the route, but by local opposition and the state government.
If the interstate designation is to be a reality, I'll be shocked.
So, the Tenn-840 designation is not temporary.
Much like VA 895, apparently. I remember seeing a proposed route in Richmond carrying the I-895 marker, but somehow the powers that be decided against it in the end.
Quote from: Henry on October 02, 2012, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on October 02, 2012, 04:46:07 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 25, 2012, 09:31:53 AM
Tennessee-TN 840 (future I-840 around Nashville)
California-Temp I-5 on CA 99 (before I-5 was complete)
Texas:
Spur 553 on then-future SH 121 frontage roads in Lewisville
TX 197 on then-future US 77 in Ellis County
Spur ??? on SH 121 north of DFW airport during planning construction, before SH 121 moved to this alignemnt upon completion.
I highly doubt Tennessee 840 will become Interstate 840.
I posted once that TennDOT was rumoured to be building the route just like an interstate but sign it as a state route just to avoid any studies that would, if conducted, have a good chance of telling Tenn-840 South to go to hell. That's just what happened to the northern portion of the route, but by local opposition and the state government.
If the interstate designation is to be a reality, I'll be shocked.
So, the Tenn-840 designation is not temporary.
Much like VA 895, apparently. I remember seeing a proposed route in Richmond carrying the I-895 marker, but somehow the powers that be decided against it in the end.
The "somehow" is pretty simple–it's a toll road and so they were told they can't have an Interstate designation as long as the tolls remain.
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on October 02, 2012, 04:46:07 AM
I highly doubt Tennessee 840 will become Interstate 840.
I posted once that TennDOT was rumoured to be building the route just like an interstate but sign it as a state route just to avoid any studies that would, if conducted, have a good chance of telling Tenn-840 South to go to hell. That's just what happened to the northern portion of the route, but by local opposition and the state government.
If the interstate designation is to be a reality, I'll be shocked.
So, the Tenn-840 designation is not temporary.
Can't they get the whole road built to standards and then, once open, apply to add the designation retroactively?
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 02, 2012, 11:13:04 AM
Quote from: Henry on October 02, 2012, 10:51:39 AM
Much like VA 895, apparently. I remember seeing a proposed route in Richmond carrying the I-895 marker, but somehow the powers that be decided against it in the end.
The "somehow" is pretty simple–it's a toll road and so they were told they can't have an Interstate designation as long as the tolls remain.
Thought the argument was that it's a toll bridge over the James River, and tolls are allowed.
SC's recent extension of I-185 is a toll road.
I-355 was also built as a toll road.
Quote from: Steve on October 02, 2012, 06:49:49 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on October 02, 2012, 04:46:07 AM
I highly doubt Tennessee 840 will become Interstate 840.
I posted once that TennDOT was rumoured to be building the route just like an interstate but sign it as a state route just to avoid any studies that would, if conducted, have a good chance of telling Tenn-840 South to go to hell. That's just what happened to the northern portion of the route, but by local opposition and the state government.
If the interstate designation is to be a reality, I'll be shocked.
So, the Tenn-840 designation is not temporary.
Can't they get the whole road built to standards and then, once open, apply to add the designation retroactively?
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 02, 2012, 11:13:04 AM
Quote from: Henry on October 02, 2012, 10:51:39 AM
Much like VA 895, apparently. I remember seeing a proposed route in Richmond carrying the I-895 marker, but somehow the powers that be decided against it in the end.
The "somehow" is pretty simple–it's a toll road and so they were told they can't have an Interstate designation as long as the tolls remain.
Thought the argument was that it's a toll bridge over the James River, and tolls are allowed.
I don't think TennDOT is going to complete the Tenn-840 South and apply to call it I-840. I'm convinced that TennDOT is intent on trying to avoid a reality of I-840. The only reason the number 840 was chosen was because of 240, 440 and 640.
What about PA 581 near Harrisburg? It is interstate standard. It would be an excellent I-581 designation and it is called PA Route 581. The "81" at the end means something.
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on October 06, 2012, 11:59:35 AM
I don't think TennDOT is going to complete the Tenn-840 South and apply to call it I-840. I'm convinced that TennDOT is intent on trying to avoid a reality of I-840. The only reason the number 840 was chosen was because of 240, 440 and 640.
840 is going to be completed from I-40 on the west side all the way to the east side, probably this year.
Why would Tennessee want to avoid having an I-840?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 06, 2012, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on October 06, 2012, 11:59:35 AM
I don't think TennDOT is going to complete the Tenn-840 South and apply to call it I-840. I'm convinced that TennDOT is intent on trying to avoid a reality of I-840. The only reason the number 840 was chosen was because of 240, 440 and 640.
840 is going to be completed from I-40 on the west side all the way to the east side, probably this year.
Why would Tennessee want to avoid having an I-840?
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i840.html Look under "'Interstate 840?' Maybe not."
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2012, 01:22:43 PM
What about PA 581 near Harrisburg? It is interstate standard. It would be an excellent I-581 designation and it is called PA Route 581. The "81" at the end means something.
Is it? I know it's limited-access & grade separated, but it is truly I-standard?
(Of course, it's no worse than I-83 in PA....)
Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 06, 2012, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2012, 01:22:43 PM
What about PA 581 near Harrisburg? It is interstate standard. It would be an excellent I-581 designation and it is called PA Route 581. The "81" at the end means something.
Is it? I know it's limited-access & grade separated, but it is truly I-standard?
(Of course, it's no worse than I-83 in PA....)
Actually, it's waaay better than I-83--although I-83 was built
40 years
before PA 581.
Speaking of I-83, how did that get into the interstate system in the first place? In PA it has no grassy median and uses a jersey barrier and previously a box girder guardrail. According to the Interstate Guidelines an interstate must have a median with a minimum distance between the two roadways. I know in urban areas it is hard to maintain, but most of I-83 is rural and has no wide spaced medians.
I know that I-78 has the same situation from Bethel to Kuhnsville, but this part of I-78 was originally US 22 and looked like the US 22 segment from Interchange 8 of I-78 to Harrisburg does now and was just upgraded some. I can see that one having of been grandfathered in, but what is I-83's excuse? Even a better one, how about I-70 from New Stanton to Washington, PA? That is not at all interstate standards and has some ramps with no acceleration lanes whatsoever.
Interstate standards were different in the late 1950's-early 1960's when these interstates were first built. In fact, I-70 from Washington, PA to New Stanton was originally built as PA 71 and I-83 was built as an US 111 freeway. So, these freeways were built to a certain "Pennsylvania standard" instead of an interstate standard because when they were first developed, they were not envisioned as interstate highways.
Quote from: amroad17 on October 14, 2012, 01:17:49 PM
Interstate standards were different in the late 1950's-early 1960's when these interstates were first built. In fact, I-70 from Washington, PA to New Stanton was originally built as PA 71 and I-83 was built as an US 111 freeway. So, these freeways were built to a certain "Pennsylvania standard" instead of an interstate standard because when they were first developed, they were not envisioned as interstate highways.
That is interesting considering that the FHWA will not let the State of NC allow for US 52 from Winston-Salem to Mount Airy to be called I-74 cause of its substandards. I have not driven US 52 between those two points, but I will wager that this is no different than I-70 in Western PA.
Then again, when I-95 was first built (or even the rest of the interstates) it could be signed along its way, even with the missing gaps in between many of the first freeway segments constructed and opened to all vehicles. I-49 cannot be applied to the two Arkansas freeways built for it yet until more construction can be completed with more continuous freeway miles. I-22 will not be applied until ALL of US 78 is upgraded to full freeway between Birmingham and Memphis.
It seems that things change and it also seems to be who is in power, that governs what is to be as ruling.
I think it's not so much a power thing as it is that when the initial system was being constructed:
- People had a lower bar for what constitutes a "good road",
- To save money on the system's construction, it was more acceptable to reuse existing higher-grade roads as-is, even if they didn't meet standards exactly, instead of spending money on them,
- With so much new mileage to construct, spending the money to upgrade existing roads was put off, especially when the change would have been more incremental than it seems now,
- To keep the public supporting the program, it was important to get the shields up quickly to illustrate to the public how the system impacted them personally,
- It helped boost the "percentage completed" statistics.
Most of these are irrelevant in the 21st century.
As far as US 52 in NC, it is about 75% better than I-70 in PA. That being said, US 52 has a narrow median, a couple of left exits (near Pilot Mtn. and the NC 66 exit), trees close to the shoulder (they would have to cut about 15-20 feet of them from each shoulder), and short exit/entrance ramps. Shoulders are not interstate quality either. One thing, this freeway was built in the late 1960's and hasn't seen much change except some repaving and re-doing a couple of exits north of Winston-Salem. With the standards that came into effect sometime in the 1980's, US 52 would need moderate upgrades to become I-74.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 15, 2012, 12:58:57 AM
I think it's not so much a power thing as it is that when the initial system was being constructed:
- People had a lower bar for what constitutes a "good road",
- To save money on the system's construction, it was more acceptable to reuse existing higher-grade roads as-is, even if they didn't meet standards exactly, instead of spending money on them,
- With so much new mileage to construct, spending the money to upgrade existing roads was put off, especially when the change would have been more incremental than it seems now,
- To keep the public supporting the program, it was important to get the shields up quickly to illustrate to the public how the system impacted them personally,
- It helped boost the "percentage completed" statistics.
Most of these are irrelevant in the 21st century.
You are completely correct on this. When the interstates first were designated, they were put on some freeways that were already completed--even if they weren't of high standard. It was a way to get the "brand name" to the public--if you take the freeway with the red, white, and blue signs, you will get to where you are going quickly.