Temporary route numbers

[Alps]

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?

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.

[NE2]

SC's recent extension of I-185 is a toll road.

[Scott5114]

I-355 was also built as a toll road.

[NYYPhil777]

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?

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[hbelkins]

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?

[NYYPhil777]

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."

[Mr_Northside]

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....)

[amroad17]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[amroad17]

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. 

[roadman65]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[amroad17]

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.

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.