AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: X99 on March 24, 2019, 04:28:56 PM

Title: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: X99 on March 24, 2019, 04:28:56 PM
This came from "Threads you'll never see on aaroads.com"
Most 2dis violate standards at one point or another:

10, 20, 40: at-grade intersections in very rural areas
93: one lane in each direction through Franconia Notch
95: outdated design through NYC; several others throughout the Northeast also have outdated designs
5, 64: drawbridges
One more I can think of: I-180 in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Only standard it meets is number of lanes.
Any others you guys can think of?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: csw on March 24, 2019, 05:51:10 PM
In before Breezewood
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: froggie on March 24, 2019, 06:18:01 PM
Fairly certain we've had multiple threads on this subject.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: X99 on March 24, 2019, 06:20:39 PM
Fairly certain we've had multiple threads on this subject.
I said this came off the threads you'll never see page.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: 1 on March 24, 2019, 07:56:00 PM
Fairly certain we've had multiple threads on this subject.
I said this came off the threads you'll never see page.

Nobody listed the topic of this thread as a thread you'll never see; it was just a side discussion.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Flint1979 on March 24, 2019, 07:57:16 PM
I-75 on the Mackinac Bridge and on 5he exit to itself in downtown Detroit. Nothing else I can really think of in Michigan.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 24, 2019, 08:38:45 PM
I-73 at Asheboro, NC
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: US 89 on March 24, 2019, 09:13:24 PM
This came from "Threads you'll never see on aaroads.com"
Most 2dis violate standards at one point or another:

10, 20, 40: at-grade intersections in very rural areas
93: one lane in each direction through Franconia Notch
95: outdated design through NYC; several others throughout the Northeast also have outdated designs
5, 64: drawbridges
One more I can think of: I-180 in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Only standard it meets is number of lanes.
Any others you guys can think of?

Not a 2di

But anyway, I'd say "most" is a bit of an exaggeration. We've only come up with a few 2dis that break rules, out of the many that exist.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: bob7374 on March 24, 2019, 09:18:18 PM
I-73 at Asheboro, NC
How?

I-74 between I-40 and High Point does not meet shoulder standards. FHWA approved the signing of the route after misunderstanding a memo sent to them on the route by NCDOT, so they relented with the agreement that NCDOT put in place a project to upgrade the shoulders. Guess which project was not listed among those for I-74 in the Draft 2020-2029 STIP?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 24, 2019, 09:21:56 PM
I-73 at Asheboro, NC
How?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.msg2394896#msg2394896
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Mapmikey on March 24, 2019, 09:22:05 PM
I-81 in the Thousand Islands has a 2-lane bridge.

The I-10 at-grades in Texas are interesting because at least 3 of them are signed for people to access I-10 at them...
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: 1995hoo on March 24, 2019, 09:27:51 PM
I-95ís drawbridge wasnít mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).

I assume I-68 through Cumberland, with its 40-mph speed limit, probably violates some standards, though I donít know which one(s) and I havenít been through there in a couple of years.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2019, 10:08:25 PM
I-76 thru Philly in numerous ways. Low bridge heights, lack of shoulders, & 1 lane at one point on 76 EB where the Schuylkill Expressway becomes the Walt Whitman Expressway are 3 examples.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2019, 10:17:24 PM
I-95ís drawbridge wasnít mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).

And for that matter, the I-278 Hunt's Point drawbridge in the Bronx. 
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 24, 2019, 10:24:20 PM
I-95ís drawbridge wasnít mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).

I don't see where a justified drawbridge violates Interstate standards, particularly one that has high enough clearance when closed that it only averages one opening per month.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: KeithE4Phx on March 25, 2019, 12:19:04 AM
Most 2dis violate standards at one point or another:

10, 20, 40: at-grade intersections in very rural areas

I think we'll be adding I-11 to that list, at least between Wickenburg and I-40, assuming it's extended over that stretch of US 93.  There are close to 35 ranch turnoffs in that stretch, and there is no way "legit" exits can be justified.  Between Kingman and Hoover Dam, frontage roads with the appropriate exits can be built for those who live along that stretch, but not south of I-40. Too hilly and too many of them.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Verlanka on March 25, 2019, 08:21:39 AM
I-69 in Kentucky could count as being substandard.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: abefroman329 on March 25, 2019, 09:13:01 AM
I-95ís drawbridge wasnít mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).

I don't see where a justified drawbridge violates Interstate standards, particularly one that has high enough clearance when closed that it only averages one opening per month.
Especially when that bridge was just built within the last, what, decade?  Decade and a half?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2019, 09:34:19 AM
I-95ís drawbridge wasnít mentioned (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge).
I don't see where a justified drawbridge violates Interstate standards, particularly one that has high enough clearance when closed that it only averages one opening per month.
Especially when that bridge was just built within the last, what, decade?  Decade and a half?

Opened in 2006 and 2008.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Buck87 on March 25, 2019, 10:06:08 AM
I-70 in Western PA between the turnpike and I-79
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Hurricane Rex on March 25, 2019, 10:30:18 AM
I-82 violates numbering standards as well as the SB bridge over the Columbia being 11 foot lanes and no shoulder (not confident about the 11 foot lanes).

I-84 has a gravel service road around mp 26 in the gorge.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Brandon on March 25, 2019, 10:32:11 AM
I-82 violates numbering standards as well as the SB bridge over the Columbia being 11 foot lanes and no shoulder (not confident about the 11 foot lanes).

I-82 is more of a relic number than a violation (i.e. I-99) from when I-84 was I-80N.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: FightingIrish on March 25, 2019, 12:31:01 PM
35E in St. Paul, MN. It's designed as more of a "parkway" with truck restrictions and a lower speed limit. It was a compromise with the area NIMBYS.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: txstateends on March 25, 2019, 06:27:08 PM
I wonder how not-up-to-standard I-69E between Kingsville and Harlingen will be with all that King Ranch acreage, as US 77 gets upgraded.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: bing101 on March 25, 2019, 06:38:41 PM
I-97 in Maryland for being the shortest 2di.

Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: kphoger on March 25, 2019, 07:04:16 PM
I-84 has a gravel service road around mp 26 in the gorge.

(1)  Where, exactly?  I'm looking in that MP range and don't see it.

(2)  How does a gravel service road violate Interstate standards?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: kphoger on March 25, 2019, 07:07:09 PM
Fairly certain we've had multiple threads on this subject.

This one might be the most relevant:  What is the most substandard interstate? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20915.msg2250710#msg2250710)
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: dlsterner on March 25, 2019, 11:52:53 PM
I-97 in Maryland for being the shortest 2di.
No matter how long or short it might be, or how many you may want renumbered, there will always be a 2di that is the shortest 2di.   :poke:

Back on topic, adding I-70 at Wheeling WV (two lane tunnel).
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: roadman65 on March 26, 2019, 12:01:55 AM
I-78 in New Jersey.  In Jersey City it becomes two surface streets. 12th Street EB from Jersey Avenue to the Holland Tunnel.  Then Boyle Plaza WB from the tunnel exit to the viaduct beginning at Jersey Avenue.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Henry on March 26, 2019, 10:26:47 AM
I-376 through Pittsburgh, because it now intersects its parent twice, both east and (north)west of it. And also, for the same reasons as below...

I-76 thru Philly in numerous ways. Low bridge heights, lack of shoulders, & 1 lane at one point on 76 EB where the Schuylkill Expressway becomes the Walt Whitman Expressway are 3 examples.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Mark68 on March 26, 2019, 12:39:33 PM
I-93 through Franconia Notch in NH. Two lanes and narrow shoulders.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 26, 2019, 05:23:36 PM
Any Interstate within New York City limits. Narrow lanes and narrow shoulders and suicide entrance ramps.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 26, 2019, 05:52:13 PM
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: X99 on March 26, 2019, 09:09:10 PM
I-93 through Franconia Notch in NH. Two lanes and narrow shoulders.
That was originally to preserve a rock formation next to the highway. The rocks collapsed in like 2003, so I'm kinda surprised they haven't done anything about that yet.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Rothman on March 26, 2019, 09:23:48 PM
I-93 through Franconia Notch in NH. Two lanes and narrow shoulders.
That was originally to preserve a rock formation next to the highway. The rocks collapsed in like 2003, so I'm kinda surprised they haven't done anything about that yet.
It wasn't just any old rock formation, but The Old Man of the Mountain.  I believe the parkway also passes through a state park.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Flint1979 on March 26, 2019, 10:13:13 PM
All the freezing and thawing created cracks that thing was first noticed in 1805 so who knows how or when it was formed it's known that it collapsed in 2003 though.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Avalanchez71 on March 27, 2019, 01:39:58 AM
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Easy fix take the surface routes.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Rothman on March 27, 2019, 08:26:16 AM
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Easy fix take the surface routes.
Ha!

I don't understand the I-68 hate.  My father found it to be a great alternative to the Penna Turnpike, especially after he insisted on taking US 40 through the hairpin curve before Sideling Hill was cut!
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2019, 08:48:09 AM
Interstate 68 in Cumberland, Maryland gets my goat. But I don't suppose there's much that can be done about it.
Easy fix take the surface routes.
Ha!
I don't understand the I-68 hate.  My father found it to be a great alternative to the Penna Turnpike, especially after he insisted on taking US 40 through the hairpin curve before Sideling Hill was cut!

I-68 has been discussed as long as I have been on roads and highways online forums (1997), and favorable comments have in the vast majority.  The old US-40 bypass in Cumberland is substandard and ought to be upgraded or bypass.  The rest of it is very impressive.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 27, 2019, 10:08:50 AM
I wonder how not-up-to-standard I-69E between Kingsville and Harlingen will be with all that King Ranch acreage, as US 77 gets upgraded.

For that stretch, make sure the shoulders are correct and treat it like I-10.

Frankly, I would have signed it already.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: froggie on March 27, 2019, 10:53:46 AM
I-93 through Franconia Notch in NH. Two lanes and narrow shoulders.
That was originally to preserve a rock formation next to the highway. The rocks collapsed in like 2003, so I'm kinda surprised they haven't done anything about that yet.
It wasn't just any old rock formation, but The Old Man of the Mountain.  I believe the parkway also passes through a state park.

That is correct...Franconia Notch State Park.

Nor is there a traffic need to "do anything about it", as has often been discussed on this forum and elsewhere.  Traffic is not an issue.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: sparker on March 27, 2019, 05:18:16 PM
I-97 in Maryland for being the shortest 2di.



Which doesn't as much violate technical Interstate standards as roadgeek sensibilities.  What's interesting about I-97 is that its original configuration also included all of unsigned I-595 deployed over US 50 between I-495 and the I-97 junction; the route was meant to be a sideways "V" shaped route with the intent of connecting Annapolis and its Naval facilities to both Washington and Baltimore.  Later, the southern (I-595) portion was to be the original iteration of I-68 before the hidden I-595 designation was applied.  If that were to be signed as per its original format, I'm sure there would be a bit fewer objections about I-97's overall length -- but at the expense of new ones about its shape!  Nevertheless, all of I-97, current and original, meets Interstate construction standards.   
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2019, 09:09:33 PM
Which doesn't as much violate technical Interstate standards as roadgeek sensibilities.  What's interesting about I-97 is that its original configuration also included all of unsigned I-595 deployed over US 50 between I-495 and the I-97 junction; the route was meant to be a sideways "V" shaped route with the intent of connecting Annapolis and its Naval facilities to both Washington and Baltimore.  Later, the southern (I-595) portion was to be the original iteration of I-68 before the hidden I-595 designation was applied.  If that were to be signed as per its original format, I'm sure there would be a bit fewer objections about I-97's overall length -- but at the expense of new ones about its shape!  Nevertheless, all of I-97, current and original, meets Interstate construction standards.   

Correct.  And technically it doesn't violate route numbering standards, because even as short as it is, it connects the state's largest metro (2.5 million) which also has a world port, with the state capital.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 28, 2019, 12:27:05 AM
I-82 violates numbering standards as well as the SB bridge over the Columbia being 11 foot lanes and no shoulder (not confident about the 11 foot lanes).

I-84 has a gravel service road around mp 26 in the gorge.

LG-TP260



Speaking of that I-82 bridge over the Columbia, is there an ETA for having that project done?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: DJ Particle on March 28, 2019, 02:14:28 AM
Has anyone mentioned I-78 on either side of the Holland Tunnel?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: ctkatz on March 28, 2019, 03:46:33 AM
I-69 in Kentucky could count as being substandard.

i think every parkway being signed as interstate in kentucky qualifies.  first they have to fix several exits that were toll plazas, then they have to work on the median, or that thing that technically qualifies as a median.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Verlanka on March 28, 2019, 10:15:28 AM
Has anyone mentioned I-78 on either side of the Holland Tunnel?

Definitely:

I-78 in New Jersey.  In Jersey City it becomes two surface streets. 12th Street EB from Jersey Avenue to the Holland Tunnel.  Then Boyle Plaza WB from the tunnel exit to the viaduct beginning at Jersey Avenue.
Any Interstate within New York City limits. Narrow lanes and narrow shoulders and suicide entrance ramps.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: 1 on March 28, 2019, 10:18:43 AM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Verlanka on March 28, 2019, 10:23:25 AM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?

It was applied to the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes in the 1960s, and then extended down to the Bailey Turnpike in the 1980s. So probably both.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: PHLBOS on March 28, 2019, 11:36:02 AM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?

It was applied to the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes in the 1960s, and then extended down to the Bailey Turnpike in the 1980s. So probably both.
Similar happened w/portions of I-95 in both DE & MD (Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway respectively).  Even though such were designated as part of the Interstate System from day one (other, older tolled facilities were grandfathered in); such were constructed as toll roads as a financial means of getting such built sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 01:41:18 PM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?
It was applied to the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes in the 1960s, and then extended down to the Bailey Turnpike in the 1980s. So probably both.
Similar happened w/portions of I-95 in both DE & MD (Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway respectively).  Even though such were designated as part of the Interstate System from day one (other, older tolled facilities were grandfathered in); such were constructed as toll roads as a financial means of getting such built sooner rather than later.

The H.E. Bailey Turnpike looks like an addition to the original Interstate Highway System.  It doesn't even connect to another Interstate highway at its western end.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: US 89 on March 28, 2019, 02:08:57 PM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?
It was applied to the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes in the 1960s, and then extended down to the Bailey Turnpike in the 1980s. So probably both.
Similar happened w/portions of I-95 in both DE & MD (Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway respectively).  Even though such were designated as part of the Interstate System from day one (other, older tolled facilities were grandfathered in); such were constructed as toll roads as a financial means of getting such built sooner rather than later.

The H.E. Bailey Turnpike looks like an addition to the original Interstate Highway System.  It doesn't even connect to another Interstate highway at its western end.

Thatís because it is ó I-44 was only extended past I-35 in 1982, replacing the north half of I-240 in the process.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: froggie on March 28, 2019, 02:33:35 PM
Is I-44 in Oklahoma a violation of the rule that new Interstates cannot be toll roads, or was it grandfathered?

Actually, Federal law for the past several years has allowed "new Interstates" to be toll roads.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: hbelkins on March 28, 2019, 03:08:17 PM
I don't really have an issue with the Cumberland section of I-68, except for the underposted speed limit. Only time I drive the posted speed limit there is if it's raining. Otherwise, I'm comfortable doing 50-55 through it. In this case, you have a modern freeway on either side of a one-mile stretch, so I'm not going to get too worked up over it. Neither am I concerned about the Kentucky parkways that might have medians not quite as wide as some rural interstates.

Probably the one I'm most familiar with that bothers me is I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, with the stop signs at the end of on-ramps.

Lots of people don't like I-78, but that one never bothered me, either. I never figured out what was so unsafe about it.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 05:15:48 PM
I don't really have an issue with the Cumberland section of I-68, except for the underposted speed limit. Only time I drive the posted speed limit there is if it's raining. Otherwise, I'm comfortable doing 50-55 through it. In this case, you have a modern freeway on either side of a one-mile stretch, so I'm not going to get too worked up over it.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I68_MD_CT.jpg

It is winding and has no shoulders and has a number of urban ramps.  I can't really say that it is underposted.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: bing101 on March 28, 2019, 06:04:28 PM
I-580 between Oakland and Hayward does not meet interstate standards due to a truck ban between I-880 interchange to I-238.

Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2019, 09:52:50 PM
I-73 at Asheboro, NC
The only real section that violates interstate standards is the left exit, if you even want to call it that. It's not up to "ideal" standards, though it doesn't have any substandard features. It has 12 foot lanes, 10 foot shoulders, barrier median. The left exit isn't prohibited under interstate standards, the median is permitted, etc.

What's substandard about it? Ideally, the exit be on the right, a grassy median, etc. but it's not against minimum standards.

Now, if you want to talk substandard, I-73 south of this location still has 4 foot shoulders! NCDOT signed it I-73 / I-74 and still hasn't added 10 foot outside shoulders yet. That's definitely substandard and against interstate standards.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 09:59:32 PM
I-73 at Asheboro, NC
The only real section that violates interstate standards is the left exit, if you even want to call it that. It's not up to "ideal" standards, though it doesn't have any substandard features. It has 12 foot lanes, 10 foot shoulders, barrier median. The left exit isn't prohibited under interstate standards, the median is permitted, etc.

The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well.  THSDOT needed to spend $345 million to bring that section up to full Interstate standards, but only spent $20 million.  It should not have been signed as I-73.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2019, 10:05:21 PM
The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well.
It may well be, though it still meets interstate highway standards. There's no where defined where it states left exits are prohibited on the interstate system. They were to spend the $345 million to bring the section up to ideal standards for safety reasons, but it's not prohibited.

The segment I described that has only 4 foot outer shoulders on the other hand is a clear violation, as the standards state a 10 foot outer paved shoulder must be provided.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: roadman65 on March 28, 2019, 10:25:20 PM
Has anyone mentioned I-78 on either side of the Holland Tunnel?

Definitely:

I-78 in New Jersey.  In Jersey City it becomes two surface streets. 12th Street EB from Jersey Avenue to the Holland Tunnel.  Then Boyle Plaza WB from the tunnel exit to the viaduct beginning at Jersey Avenue.
Any Interstate within New York City limits. Narrow lanes and narrow shoulders and suicide entrance ramps.
Also in PA I-78 is not up to full standards from PA 100 to PA 61 west of Allentown.  That was part of US 22 before the interstate system and was a four lane expressway with at grade intersections.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 11:19:17 PM
The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well.
It may well be, though it still meets interstate highway standards. There's no where defined where it states left exits are prohibited on the interstate system. They were to spend the $345 million to bring the section up to ideal standards for safety reasons, but it's not prohibited.

There is no Interstate standard for pavement thickness, but a 4 inch thickness would obviously not last long under Interstate highway traffic volumes and large truck percentages.

If there is nothing wrong with left ramps (not just exits) then why not have them at every interchange?  They are clearly not standard as seen in their rarity and safety issues.

Just because something is not spelled out in black and white doesn't mean that it meets Interstate standards.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: vdeane on March 29, 2019, 01:04:36 PM
The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well.
It may well be, though it still meets interstate highway standards. There's no where defined where it states left exits are prohibited on the interstate system. They were to spend the $345 million to bring the section up to ideal standards for safety reasons, but it's not prohibited.

There is no Interstate standard for pavement thickness, but a 4 inch thickness would obviously not last long under Interstate highway traffic volumes and large truck percentages.

If there is nothing wrong with left ramps (not just exits) then why not have them at every interchange?  They are clearly not standard as seen in their rarity and safety issues.

Just because something is not spelled out in black and white doesn't mean that it meets Interstate standards.
I'm pretty sure sprjus4 is talking about the FHWA regulations on the minimum design standards allowable for an interstate highway unless grandfathered in, NOT what one would ideally look like.  Unless I completely misread the point of this thread, it's for outright violations of the regulations, not stuff that is merely below average.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: kphoger on March 29, 2019, 03:01:06 PM
it's for outright violations of the regulations, not stuff that is merely below average.

Half the Interstate system is below average.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: sprjus4 on March 29, 2019, 04:54:41 PM
The left hand terminals of that interchange are monstrously substandard, and unsafe as well.
It may well be, though it still meets interstate highway standards. There's no where defined where it states left exits are prohibited on the interstate system. They were to spend the $345 million to bring the section up to ideal standards for safety reasons, but it's not prohibited.

There is no Interstate standard for pavement thickness, but a 4 inch thickness would obviously not last long under Interstate highway traffic volumes and large truck percentages.

If there is nothing wrong with left ramps (not just exits) then why not have them at every interchange?  They are clearly not standard as seen in their rarity and safety issues.

Just because something is not spelled out in black and white doesn't mean that it meets Interstate standards.
I'm pretty sure sprjus4 is talking about the FHWA regulations on the minimum design standards allowable for an interstate highway unless grandfathered in, NOT what one would ideally look like.  Unless I completely misread the point of this thread, it's for outright violations of the regulations, not stuff that is merely below average.
Pretty much. This highway was built in the early 60s as a US 220 bypass, and was grandfathered in the system back in 2014. It used to have a raised 22 foot concrete median, and no shoulders. At least they replaced it with barrier in the median, some left shoulder, and paved a full outer shoulder.

Of course they shouldn't be built in new construction. The interchange was built apart of 60s construction, when left exits were acceptable, just like a lot of current interstate highways. Should we remove their designations until they are corrected?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: sparker on March 29, 2019, 05:58:08 PM
For about 55 years after it was built ca. 1959, I-80 from Colfax east to Yuba Gap, CA lacked any inner shoulders (much less the 4' Interstate minimum); it was 2+2 with (originally) a steel beam barrier, later replaced by a K-rail.  The substandard segment has since shrunk to about the first 3 miles east of Colfax itself to approximately where the twin UP trestles cross over the freeway.  East of there, the median has been brought out to about the minimum; some of that length of widened median was part of a project to add a truck climbing lane EB.  Coincidentally, a large paved area has been constructed south of the traffic lanes and gradually sloped up the adjacent hillside; this could be for either hillside ground stabilization or even snow management.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: vdeane on March 29, 2019, 08:47:41 PM
Pretty much. This highway was built in the early 60s as a US 220 bypass, and was grandfathered in the system back in 2014. It used to have a raised 22 foot concrete median, and no shoulders. At least they replaced it with barrier in the median, some left shoulder, and paved a full outer shoulder.
Interesting... I thought FHWA had stopped grandfathering in newly designated interstate highways?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: sprjus4 on March 29, 2019, 09:47:50 PM
Pretty much. This highway was built in the early 60s as a US 220 bypass, and was grandfathered in the system back in 2014. It used to have a raised 22 foot concrete median, and no shoulders. At least they replaced it with barrier in the median, some left shoulder, and paved a full outer shoulder.
Interesting... I thought FHWA had stopped grandfathering in newly designated interstate highways?
Certain sections of older freeways can be incorporated. Long bridges with a right shoulder at least 3 feet wide can be incorporated, substandard features such as left exits (though still technically not against interstate standards), etc.

If an existing freeway is serving fine without any issues, there's no point to completely reconstruct it just to have "ideal" and "modern" designs. This is why these substandard, yet workable features can still be incorporated.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Beltway on March 29, 2019, 11:20:56 PM
Pretty much. This highway was built in the early 60s as a US 220 bypass, and was grandfathered in the system back in 2014. It used to have a raised 22 foot concrete median, and no shoulders. At least they replaced it with barrier in the median, some left shoulder, and paved a full outer shoulder.
Interesting... I thought FHWA had stopped grandfathering in newly designated interstate highways?
Certain sections of older freeways can be incorporated. Long bridges with a right shoulder at least 3 feet wide can be incorporated, substandard features such as left exits (though still technically not against interstate standards), etc.
If an existing freeway is serving fine without any issues, there's no point to completely reconstruct it just to have "ideal" and "modern" designs. This is why these substandard, yet workable features can still be incorporated.

Depends on the definition of "serving fine without any issues".  They shouldn't be accepted into a 21st century Interstate highway just because some local politician gets his jollies by the red-white-and-blue sign.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: thspfc on March 30, 2019, 02:17:44 PM
I-180 in Illinois violates the general standard of being important.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Hurricane Rex on March 30, 2019, 03:22:13 PM
In response to Brandon: I-82 also violates the numbering standard by primarily being a N/S interstate instead of E/W interstate (caused by the original plan to come from Tacoma and over Naches Pass).

In response to KP Hoger: I will admit that I haven't been through there since September, so my memory might be a little foggy. I'm also not going through a good time in my life right now in all aspects. All I remember was it was around the Rooster Rock area (if it exists). It might not be against standards but I thought it was.

Did anyone mention the Interstate bridge or Marqum bridge yet? Both have narrower lanes, and no shoulders. Also the Freemont Bridge is borderline but I think it makes the cut of being standard.

And there are no plans to widen the I-82 bridge.

And can I add I-5 in the Willamette Valley for that ridiculous 65T60 limit? :bigass:

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: roadman65 on March 30, 2019, 09:58:19 PM
Since the I-280 and NJ 21 interchange project is completed, is I-280 now finally up to standards non widthstanding the Stickle Drawbridge?
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Verlanka on March 31, 2019, 06:42:48 AM
I-180 in Illinois violates the general standard of being important.

But it's still up to interstate standards, though.


And can I add I-5 in the Willamette Valley for that ridiculous 65T60 limit? :bigass:

LG-TP260

Sure, go, ahead. :nod:
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: 23skidoo on March 31, 2019, 10:39:55 AM
I-75 on the Mackinac Bridge and on 5he exit to itself in downtown Detroit. Nothing else I can really think of in Michigan.

I suspect the curve in I-75 at 9 mile in Hazel Park doesn't meet FHWA standards. There's been some serious accidents there. Currently, there's a section where you can't legally change lanes because of the tightness of the curve.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Flint1979 on March 31, 2019, 11:02:50 AM
I-75 on the Mackinac Bridge and on 5he exit to itself in downtown Detroit. Nothing else I can really think of in Michigan.

I suspect the curve in I-75 at 9 mile in Hazel Park doesn't meet FHWA standards. There's been some serious accidents there. Currently, there's a section where you can't legally change lanes because of the tightness of the curve.
I think that curve is up to interstate standards but it slows down to 50 or 55 I can't remember which right now but you can't change lanes on the curve the Big Beaver curve is like that too well at least for now it's under construction right now.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Flint1979 on March 31, 2019, 11:04:19 AM
As far as the solid white lines go that is just discouraging you from changing lanes it doesn't mean that you can't change lanes I think we had a discussion and another post about an S curve on US-131 in downtown Grand Rapids.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: sprjus4 on March 31, 2019, 11:14:37 AM
50 MPH is permitted on urban interstate highways, so that segment of I-75 would meet interstate standards.

Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Flint1979 on March 31, 2019, 11:16:55 AM
50 MPH is permitted on urban interstate highways, so that segment of I-75 would meet interstate standards.
Heck in St. Paul I-35E goes down to 45 mph.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Flint1979 on March 31, 2019, 11:19:29 AM
Actually backing up to the serious accidents that have happened there. The entire bridge collapsed about 5 or so years ago. That was the 9 Mile bridge and there has been flooding in that area too.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Flint1979 on March 31, 2019, 11:20:04 AM
The collapse was due to a tanker explosion
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Flint1979 on March 31, 2019, 11:21:16 AM
I also remember another tanker explosion that happened on one of the ramps from I-94 to I-75 about 20 years ago I went down there about a week later and you could still smell the gas from the explosion
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Bickendan on April 01, 2019, 04:53:44 AM
In response to Brandon: I-82 also violates the numbering standard by primarily being a N/S interstate instead of E/W interstate (caused by the original plan to come from Tacoma and over Naches Pass).
Not if you consider it part of the Seattle-Boise corridor, even if it has a lot of N/S movement, and is entirely N/S (and technically wrong-way E/W) in Oregon.

Quote
In response to KP Hoger: I will admit that I haven't been through there since September, so my memory might be a little foggy. I'm also not going through a good time in my life right now in all aspects. All I remember was it was around the Rooster Rock area (if it exists). It might not be against standards but I thought it was.
Eastbound or westbound?

Quote
Did anyone mention the Interstate bridge or Marqum bridge yet? Both have narrower lanes, and no shoulders. Also the Freemont [sic] Bridge is borderline but I think it makes the cut of being standard.
I believe both were up to Interstate Standards when they were built. Standards since have gotten better.
Edit: I'm not counting the left exits on both bridges, as they were built expressly with respective thru routes in mind. Eastbound US 30 left exits from the Fremont Bridge as it was a left entrance on the otherside; the double deck configuration puts the westbound lanes as a right entrance and a right exit. The westside interchange is a full on Wye; clearance to dip the I-405 N -> US 30 W ramp under the viaduct probably isn't there to also clear the ground level structures and streets.
Arguable violation: Weaving needed for I-405 S -> NW Glisan/Everett/15th; Glisan/Everett/14th -> US 30 W.

I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.

Quote
And there are no plans to widen the I-82 bridge.
Certainly not from ODOT. I doubt WSDOT is considering it, however.

Quote
And can I add I-5 in the Willamette Valley for that ridiculous 65T60 limit? :bigass:
:meh:

Now these are violations:
I-5 Baldock Freeway: Terwilliger Curves
Built as such due to political grandstanding. ODOT has the fix drafted out, but would require nasty ROW acquistion, and be a NIMBY and political fraught battle. Also, expensive.

I-205 Abernathy Bridge. In the pipeline to be addressed with the seismic retrofit accompanying the widening of I-205 from OR 99E to Wanker's Corner Stafford.

I-5 Pacific Hwy: South Salem Hills. Possibly. There's one narrow overpass south of Keubler, and there are truck climbing lanes. I believe ODOT has long range plans to widen the freeway from Keubler down toward Albany at some point.

I-405/US 26: 6th Ave -> 12th Ave. Horrendous weaving that can back up traffic onto the Marquam Bridge, and through the Ross Island Maze. Southbound isn't much better with the Montgomery St onramp interacting with the US 26 W onramp and offramp, though that doesn't get nearly as much use.

I-35/70, Kansas City.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: SteveG1988 on April 01, 2019, 05:05:57 AM
I-295/76 connection in NJ (currently being fixed)

I-676 (The traffic lights, depending on your view of if 676 actually uses the bridge or not. Or the general narrowness of the death star trench run section)

I-55 crossing between TN and AR on the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge. No shoulders, and that cloverleaf for through traffic on the TN side. AR side is adequate.

Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: X99 on April 01, 2019, 10:57:46 AM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: SteveG1988 on April 01, 2019, 02:48:21 PM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.

Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: MCRoads on April 04, 2019, 10:53:43 AM
What about I-74 in the quad cities?

The bridge over the Mississippi R. Is VERY narrow, and DEFINITLY not to standard.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on April 04, 2019, 04:59:08 PM
What about I-74 in the quad cities?

The bridge over the Mississippi R. Is VERY narrow, and DEFINITLY not to standard.

That bridgeís replacement is under construction so maybe thatís why it was omitted.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: Henry on April 05, 2019, 11:00:58 AM
I just thought up another one: I-520! I don't care that it exists in two states, but as a half-loop around Augusta, it needs a more appropriate number like I-420 or I-620.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: X99 on April 05, 2019, 08:25:03 PM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.

Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
I still have access to one of those pages, but only to move the entries to their respective road pages. I am not allowed to give anyone else access to it.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: 1 on April 05, 2019, 08:34:03 PM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.

Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
I still have access to one of those pages, but only to move the entries to their respective road pages. I am not allowed to give anyone else access to it.

There are no private Wikipedia pages. Even if you are an admin (and therefore are able to see deleted pages), so are Scott5114, Bruce, and seicer.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: X99 on April 06, 2019, 11:28:41 PM
I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.

Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
I still have access to one of those pages, but only to move the entries to their respective road pages. I am not allowed to give anyone else access to it.

There are no private Wikipedia pages. Even if you are an admin (and therefore are able to see deleted pages), so are Scott5114, Bruce, and seicer.
The page I am talking about is currently a child page (if I'm using that term right) of my own user page.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: JREwing78 on April 07, 2019, 08:31:41 PM
I-94 through Detroit is substandard with no inner shoulder, short on-off ramps. and left entrances/exits. It's one of the few freeways in Michigan posted for 55 mph. Granted, this stretch dates from the late 1940s and early 1950s. MDOT is working to upgrade some portions of the highway: https://i94detroit.org/

Additionally, I-94 between Parma, MI and east of Jackson, MI (Sargent Rd), the ramps are very short, and between US-127 North and Elm Ave there is only a few inches of inner shoulder before you hit the hard barrier. This stretch also dates from the late 1940s and early 1950s.

MDOT has made a number of minor changes over the past 40 years to improve safety (removing exits, installation of center barrier, etc). But they are making their largest effort to bring the stretch up to modern standards with replacement of the bridges over the Grand River, and reconstruction of the highway between US-127 North and US-127 South. https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11008_86278---,00.html
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: texaskdog on April 07, 2019, 08:34:44 PM
I 90 has almost direct turns off the freeway in South Dakota....I think they do in Wyoming as well.  Also I-75 just south of the Mackinac Bridge at James Street just has a sharp turn.
Title: Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
Post by: X99 on April 07, 2019, 09:23:43 PM
I 90 has almost direct turns off the freeway in South Dakota.

Which exits are you talking about here?