If you could go back in time once and influence a single decision...

[Max Rockatansky]

I do like the idea of interstates being more used to link regions, not necessarily city centers. It's one of the reasons that I-5 was built the way it was through the Central Valley, I think. It's not a bad idea and I believe even represents Eisenhower's original vision for the interstates.

Of course, I think one of the biggest downsides is it would have caused many interstates to be built on entirely new alignment, rather that upgrading US highways. Depending on how you feel about environmental intrusion and other factors, this may or may not be a bad thing.

The only thing was that not all of the rural corridors make a ton of sense.  I-70 through Utah should have cut northwest from Green River and not directly west through the San Rafael Swell.  Basically I-70 in Utah really doesn't serve Salt Lake City much at all.

[vtk]

I think another reason why the Interstates go right through the middle of the biggest cities, whereas they go around smaller ones, is planners expected even the long-haul traffic to make stops somewhere in the big cities.  If for example I-70 swung wide around the south side of Columbus, and I-71 swung wide around its northwest side, there would probably be a 3dI running through the city roughly along the US 33 corridor and another 3dI running from near the 70/71 junction to downtown.  And in the 60s, there would be almost no traffic on I-70 or I-71 between their junctions with the 3dIs, because almost everybody would detour into Columbus for food, gas, motor service, and/or lodging – or so the planners would have predicted.  Doing it that way wouldn't have made sense without the foreknowledge of how people's travel habits and business locations would shift.

[Quillz]

I do like the idea of interstates being more used to link regions, not necessarily city centers. It's one of the reasons that I-5 was built the way it was through the Central Valley, I think. It's not a bad idea and I believe even represents Eisenhower's original vision for the interstates.

Of course, I think one of the biggest downsides is it would have caused many interstates to be built on entirely new alignment, rather that upgrading US highways. Depending on how you feel about environmental intrusion and other factors, this may or may not be a bad thing.

The only thing was that not all of the rural corridors make a ton of sense.  I-70 through Utah should have cut northwest from Green River and not directly west through the San Rafael Swell.  Basically I-70 in Utah really doesn't serve Salt Lake City much at all.

But isn't that the purpose of I-80? I think I-70 works well enough where it is. Farther north and it would take longer to take a long-haul route to Denver and points east.

[Max Rockatansky]

I do like the idea of interstates being more used to link regions, not necessarily city centers. It's one of the reasons that I-5 was built the way it was through the Central Valley, I think. It's not a bad idea and I believe even represents Eisenhower's original vision for the interstates.

Of course, I think one of the biggest downsides is it would have caused many interstates to be built on entirely new alignment, rather that upgrading US highways. Depending on how you feel about environmental intrusion and other factors, this may or may not be a bad thing.

The only thing was that not all of the rural corridors make a ton of sense.  I-70 through Utah should have cut northwest from Green River and not directly west through the San Rafael Swell.  Basically I-70 in Utah really doesn't serve Salt Lake City much at all.

But isn't that the purpose of I-80? I think I-70 works well enough where it is. Farther north and it would take longer to take a long-haul route to Denver and points east.

It works find more for Las Vegas east/west to Denver ironically.  Basically the US 6 corridor is the way to go to get to I-70 aside from the I-80 and I-25 route you just stated for Denver-Salt Lake City. 

[jakeroot]

...in the 60s, there would be almost no traffic on I-70 or I-71 between their junctions with the 3dIs, because almost everybody would detour into Columbus for food, gas, motor service, and/or lodging – or so the planners would have predicted.  Doing it that way wouldn't have made sense without the foreknowledge of how people's travel habits and business locations would shift.

60s planners may not have been the smartest guys on the planet, but certainly even they could grasp the idea of balancing traffic between a bypass and a downtown spur. I get what you're saying, but it's silly to force everyone to go downtown even if they aren't going there. It's a much smarter decision to allow them to go downtown if they so choose, rather than forcing them (in the sense that staying on the 2di takes them through the thick of the city). The more traffic that you're shoving down the throat of a downtown freeway, the busier shits gonna be.

Certainly, a well-advertised bypass could alleviate traffic just as well as building the 2di mainline around the city to begin with. But, by asking traffic to use a different freeway, you have to convince them that it's faster than going straight through the city. In some cities, it's quicker to go downtown than to use the bypass road. If you just route them automatically onto the bypass, they instead have to ask themselves if going downtown is worth the risk. Your bypass road might be busier, but at least your downtown freeways aren't automatically juggling both long- and short-haul traffic.

[inkyatari]

Hmm  I'm torn between two...

Either pushing forward the Fox Valley Freeway in the western Chicago suburbs, or preserve the Laraway Road corridor for the Illiana tollway.

[Henry]

Hmm  I'm torn between two...

Either pushing forward the Fox Valley Freeway in the western Chicago suburbs, or preserve the Laraway Road corridor for the Illiana tollway.

Hey, why not do both? I would...although if I had to choose one, it would be the Illiana.

[SP Cook]

West Virginia is easy.  Statewide policy that there will be NO stoplights, NO new driveway permits or connections, and NO annexation by municipalities allowed on any Appalachian Corridor or other route built to the Corridor standard. 

Failing that, flip 79 and Corridor L.  79 runs more directly south following the rough route of L except for JCT with the Turnpike slightly north, at Exit 60.  L runs from Sutton to Charleston, built to the Corridor standard and carrying US 119 number. 

[Brandon]

Hmm  I'm torn between two...

Either pushing forward the Fox Valley Freeway in the western Chicago suburbs, or preserve the Laraway Road corridor for the Illiana tollway.

Hey, why not do both? I would...although if I had to choose one, it would be the Illiana.

I agree.  Both would be excellent with the large freight yards we have here now.

[inkyatari]

Hey, why not do both? I would...although if I had to choose one, it would be the Illiana.

I agree.  Both would be excellent with the large freight yards we have here now.

It's just astounding how insufficient the freeways in the Chicago area are when compared to other major metros of similar size.

[SectorZ]

Extended I-84 along the MA 49 corridor, then have it bend around and take over the E-W portion of I-290, and extend it to I-95/MA 128 near Lexington.

I love this idea. I remember reading somewhere that there was a master plan to have 15 go up to the Gardner area (via what is now 49), with 9 and 122 having freeway spurs west out of Worcester to it. Your 84 would kind of do just that, only in one single route. Given how bad the traffic is in Worcester, especially for commuters coming from towns like Spencer and Leicester, this is actually needed. The continuation east of 495 to 95 speaks for itself in terms of its need.

[GaryV]

Certainly, a well-advertised bypass could alleviate traffic just as well as building the 2di mainline around the city to begin with. But, by asking traffic to use a different freeway, you have to convince them that it's faster than going straight through the city. In some cities, it's quicker to go downtown than to use the bypass road. If you just route them automatically onto the bypass, they instead have to ask themselves if going downtown is worth the risk. Your bypass road might be busier, but at least your downtown freeways aren't automatically juggling both long- and short-haul traffic.

OK, consider some full-loop 3di's.

Columbus only has 2 2di's.  So at least one quadrant of the loop could not be covered by a 2di.  And one quadrant would have to have a concurrency.

Cincinnati, both I-71 and I-75 would go around the eastern side, because that's shorter.  But even if you forced I-75 to go the long way around the west, there'd be that bit of I-275 on the north side between 71 and 75 that would need a number.  Adding the end of I-74 into the mix, you could cover a missing piece, but only by creating a concurrency with one or both of 71 and 75.

Indianapolis, with 3 2di's crossing (and eventually a 4th with I-69) you'd still have to have one of the routes go the "long way" around to get all of 465 covered, and it would only be possible with several concurrencies.

Louisville, see Cincinnati - same argument applies.

Atlanta, see Indy.

Baltimore, you could do something weird with the ends of 70, 83 and 97 to make it work.  But why take a highway a third of the way around a full loop bypass and then end it?

DC, fuhgeddaboudit.

In short, if you wanted to route 2di's around cities, you'd still need to have at least part of the full-loop bypass numbered as a 3di, would most likely need to have some overlaps in the 2di's, and most likely one or more routes would have to take the long way around.

Bypasses on the US highway system, before Interstates, were accomplished by having some of the loop numbered differently, perhaps as a state highway.  For example, the Beltline* system in Grand Rapids for US-16 and US-131 only worked because north leg was never built.

* Now numbered as M-11 and M-44, with a partial M-37 concurrency.

[jakeroot]

In short, if you wanted to route 2di's around cities, you'd still need to have at least part of the full-loop bypass numbered as a 3di, would most likely need to have some overlaps in the 2di's, and most likely one or more routes would have to take the long way around.

You'd have to make part of the bypass discontinuous. Think like in Seattle. The 5 + the 405 can act as a sort of ring road, but it isn't really a continuous "ring"; the 405 is a sort of half ring that connects to the 5 in two different places. The 5 is continuous straight through Seattle, with right-hand exit and entrance ramps for the 405 (exiting onto the 405 is not something that you'd do accidentally).

In the case of Columbus, 70 would overtake the 270 south of Columbus, and 71 would overtake the 270 west of Columbus. The 270 would be a connecting road between the 71 and 70 NE of Columbus, and the 70 and 71 would overlap SE of Columbus (as you suggested in your second paragraph). The former portions of each interstate would be re-numbered into new 3di's. Interchanges would be reconfigured to make this more of a continuous design.

Obviously this sort of setup isn't something that could easily be done now (certainly not worth the pain or money), but back in the day, I think it would have made more sense to route the 2di's around the city, to keep as much traffic off the inner city freeways as possible. Even with, in some cases, several concurrencies, I think it could have made a difference.

Alternatively, have a ring road designation, and end the 2di at the limits of the ring road, picking up again on the other side of the city. The ring road's designation would be a 3di with "TO" references for the 2di(s) that connect to it.

[dzlsabe]

Not building a parallel road next to one of the first RRs built in the 1850s (IC) OUT of Chicago to Rockford in what are now the near west burbs.

[1995hoo]

In short, if you wanted to route 2di's around cities, you'd still need to have at least part of the full-loop bypass numbered as a 3di, would most likely need to have some overlaps in the 2di's, and most likely one or more routes would have to take the long way around.

This is more or less how the Beltway around DC was numbered for many years after I-95 through the city was deleted from the plans. The eastern side of the Beltway was posted as I-95 and the western side was posted as I-495. Lots of people claimed it was too confusing for some reason and eventually the I-495 signs went back up next to the I-95 signs.

The other possibility would be to allow suffixed routes on such loops–in the DC Beltway example, that would be I-95E and I-95W. The advantage would be that it would reassure confused drivers that both routes will go to the same place (apparently people didn't, and don't, understand that either direction on the Beltway will take you around to the routes north to Baltimore and New York). A disadvantage would be if one portion of the highway were undesirable as a thru route for whatever reason (design, congestion, etc.), such as is the case on the Beltway with the twisty segment through Montgomery County and the narrow section between the two spurs of I-270.

[silverback1065]

make indiana build 69 to the north split and convert harding st between 70 and 465 into an interstate. 

[PHLBOS]

This is more or less how the Beltway around DC was numbered for many years after I-95 through the city was deleted from the plans. The eastern side of the Beltway was posted as I-95 and the western side was posted as I-495. Lots of people claimed it was too confusing for some reason and eventually the I-495 signs went back up next to the I-95 signs.

What's interesting, if not ironic, is that most local entities & traffic reporters (at least during the late 80s/early 90s) simply refer to the Capital Beltway as the Beltway (Inner (or Outer) Loop) and not as I-95 or 495 north/south/east/westbound.  Given that the highway name had a greater emphasis over the route number(s) (unlike 128 in the Boston area); I'm surprised that particular action (placing I-495 shields next to I-95 shields) was even taken.

IMHO, a better solution (& such was done on some BGS' early on) would've been to place the square Capital Beltway shields next to the I-95 or 495 shield (depending on locale) on every ramp & pull-through BGS.

Sample of Capital Beltway shield used on a mileage BGS:


I would've even added INNER/OUTER LOOP nomenclature on ramp/pull-through BGS' as well.  Note: such is already done on many reassurance markers.

The other possibility would be to allow suffixed routes on such loops–in the DC Beltway example, that would be I-95E and I-95W. The advantage would be that it would reassure confused drivers that both routes will go to the same place (apparently people didn't, and don't, understand that either direction on the Beltway will take you around to the routes north to Baltimore and New York).

Such could've been a workable solution and might've survived the great purge of suffixed-interstates that took place a few years later; the argument for keeping such would've been that the E/W branches come together at both ends.

A disadvantage would be if one portion of the highway were undesirable as a thru route for whatever reason (design, congestion, etc.), such as is the case on the Beltway with the twisty segment through Montgomery County and the narrow section between the two spurs of I-270.

How is that any different than the eastern/western spurs* of the New Jersey Turnpike?

*Traffic reporters refer to these branches of the Turnpike as spurs even though they're not technically spurs.

[Rothman]

Extended I-84 along the MA 49 corridor, then have it bend around and take over the E-W portion of I-290, and extend it to I-95/MA 128 near Lexington.

I love this idea. I remember reading somewhere that there was a master plan to have 15 go up to the Gardner area (via what is now 49), with 9 and 122 having freeway spurs west out of Worcester to it. Your 84 would kind of do just that, only in one single route. Given how bad the traffic is in Worcester, especially for commuters coming from towns like Spencer and Leicester, this is actually needed. The continuation east of 495 to 95 speaks for itself in terms of its need.

Spencer and Leicester (hey, they rhyme!)?  They have a combined 20,000 people.  Area is not exactly thriving, either.

Don't see the point of the expense.  Make improvements on Route 9, like they did in Hadley.  That is enough for them.

[hotdogPi]

Spencer and Leicester (hey, they rhyme!)?  They have a combined 20,000 people.  Area is not exactly thriving, either.

Don't see the point of the expense.  Make improvements on Route 9, like they did in Hadley.  That is enough for them.

It's more than 20,000 once you add the part of Worcester between Leicester and I-290.

[Rothman]

Spencer and Leicester (hey, they rhyme!)?  They have a combined 20,000 people.  Area is not exactly thriving, either.

Don't see the point of the expense.  Make improvements on Route 9, like they did in Hadley.  That is enough for them.

It's more than 20,000 once you add the part of Worcester between Leicester and I-290.

Still don't see the need to bring I-84 into Worcester through there.

[kkt]

This is more or less how the Beltway around DC was numbered for many years after I-95 through the city was deleted from the plans. The eastern side of the Beltway was posted as I-95 and the western side was posted as I-495. Lots of people claimed it was too confusing for some reason and eventually the I-495 signs went back up next to the I-95 signs.

What's interesting, if not ironic, is that most local entities & traffic reporters (at least during the late 80s/early 90s) simply refer to the Capital Beltway as the Beltway (Inner (or Outer) Loop) and not as I-95 or 495 north/south/east/westbound.  Given that the highway name had a greater emphasis over the route number(s) (unlike 128 in the Boston area); I'm surprised that particular action (placing I-495 shields next to I-95 shields) was even taken.

IMHO, a better solution (& such was done on some BGS' early on) would've been to place the square Capital Beltway shields next to the I-95 or 495 shield (depending on locale) on every ramp & pull-through BGS.

I don't see why it would be so confusing to have the eastern side designated 95 and the west side as 495.  To me, it's more confusing that there are two 495 northbounds in different places.  Relatively few people drive all the way around the circle, so I don't think it needs the same number.

Sample of Capital Beltway shield used on a mileage BGS:


I would've even added INNER/OUTER LOOP nomenclature on ramp/pull-through BGS' as well.  Note: such is already done on many reassurance markers.

A supplemental Capital Beltway sign would be fun and helpful.  I appreciate the design work, but the letters look too small for drivers to read.

[SectorZ]

Spencer and Leicester (hey, they rhyme!)?  They have a combined 20,000 people.  Area is not exactly thriving, either.

Don't see the point of the expense.  Make improvements on Route 9, like they did in Hadley.  That is enough for them.

It's more than 20,000 once you add the part of Worcester between Leicester and I-290.

Still don't see the need to bring I-84 into Worcester through there.

The problem is, there is no improving 9. You need a whole new route to deal with the problem. I'd even suggest tying it into the Worcester Airport, but that airport is a flippin' ghost town right now.

[PHLBOS]

Extended I-84 along the MA 49 corridor*snip*

I remember reading somewhere that there was a master plan to have 15 go up to the Gardner area (via what is now 49)

Such was indeed the plan for MA 49.  The right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate a 4-lane expressway.

I remember an old Rand McNally roadmap for Southern New England showing a proposed divided highway along the MA 49 corridor.

A supplemental Capital Beltway sign would be fun and helpful.  I appreciate the design work, but the letters look too small for drivers to read.

Who said anything about text being on the shield for BGS signage.  Text/letter-less versions of the shield could be used for BGS applications and the full-text versions could be used for trailblazer/assurance marker signage.

Such used to be done for Mass Pike Pilgrim Hat signage for years.

BGS application (no MASS PIKE text on shield):


White shield w/WEST panel & I-90 shield:


Although, recent BGS installs now feature MASS PIKE text on the shield:

[briantroutman]

The eastern side of the Beltway was posted as I-95 and the western side was posted as I-495. Lots of people claimed it was too confusing for some reason and eventually the I-495 signs went back up next to the I-95 signs.

While it may rankle roadgeeks as redundant, I think it makes sense for the Capital Beltway or any circumferential belt to be posted under a single number–even where it overlaps with the parent route.

Let's look at another example of a beltway that doesn't have a singular number: Harrisburg's "Capital"  Beltway. Though PennDOT installed Capital Beltway markers along the three routes that make up the loop and posted supplementary guide signs encouraging its use as a bypass, my anecdotal experience with acquaintances in the area suggests that these efforts have fallen flat.

Such as: In suggesting the western side of the belt as a bypass to avoid US 11-15 through Camp Hill, I've gotten responses like: "Why would I go west on 581, THEN turn north on 81...?"  Had the entire beltway been given a single number–like I-483, for example–and motorists could easily see on a map that I-483 makes a 360° ring around the Harrisburg area, they'd instantly be more familiar with the beltway's purpose, and selling them on using it as a bypass would be easier.

The advantage would be that it would reassure confused drivers that both routes will go to the same place...

If people can't look at a map and see that I-495 makes a complete loop and connects to I-95 on both ends, I doubt that being confronted with I-95W and I-95E would help. Put it another way: A motorist is traveling eastbound from Toledo to NYC in 1970, and he knows he can take I-80 the entire way. Now approaching Akron, he has a choice: I-80 or I-80S? Apparently, Ohio Turnpike toll takers were perpetually redirecting confused travelers.

I think there's a very good reason why AASHTO got rid of suffixed Interstates, and despite the roadgeek gee-whiz factor in seeing the oddball suffixed shields, I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd support them coming back.

I don't see why it would be so confusing to have the eastern side designated 95 and the west side as 495.  To me, it's more confusing that there are two 495 northbounds in different places.  Relatively few people drive all the way around the circle, so I don't think it needs the same number.

From an I-95 perspective, perhaps, but the Capital Beltway serves as a bypass for numerous other routes that would otherwise pass directly through Washington. Say someone's heading east on I-66 from Front Royal and continuing on to Annapolis via US 50. The motorist thinks of the Capital Beltway as a single unbroken ring–precisely as it looks on a map–and the continuous I-495 designation meets this expectation. He takes I-495 South around the south side of the city until he reaches the desired route (US 50), and he continues on his way.

I would've even added INNER/OUTER LOOP nomenclature on ramp/pull-through BGS' as well.  Note: such is already done on many reassurance markers.

Radio traffic reports are for the locals who listen to them, and these people could generally navigate the area with no signs whatsoever. I think it's important to bear in mind that guide signs are intended for a completely different crowd–those unfamiliar with the area. PennDOT, for example, would be ill-advised to sign the westbound control city out of Philadelphia as "Conshy Curve" .

As to the whole "inner loop"  "outer loop"  thing: It's a nice solution in the sense that it does away with the confusion of possibly having two norths, traveling south when the destination is east, etc. But it comes at the cost of being unintuitive for the passing motorist. Let's say you've never been anywhere near Washington before. Now you're in a car, trying to connect from I-66 East to I-270 North, and you know there's a stretch of I-495 connecting the two. Now you're at the interchange and have to decide: Inner Loop? Outer Loop? What does this mean? And unfortunately, you're from Rochester, so you think the Inner Loop somehow goes closer to the city center, so you "play it safe"  and take the Outer Loop. Ouch! You just went 40 miles out of your way.

[jeffandnicole]

The thing with inner and outer loop...while it makes sense when you're looking at a small, round circle, beltways aren't always true like that.  Use this example: https://goo.gl/maps/kSBD4i9C35k ...why would the inner loop be on the outside of the curve!