States not upgrading freeways to Interstate Numbers

[bwana39]

Texas has never been a big "let's number it I-XX or I-ZXX state. Interstate 69 is the first in over 40 years. Some of it is about making small upgrades to great expense to meet Interstate Standards. Texas Interstates are all (or virtually all) up to all interstate standards.(even to the point of widening existant bridges.)

Here is the question I am posing: What is the advantage absent dedicated funding to number a controlled access highway (freeway) to interstate numbering?

Back in the fifties, the funding was dedicated to Interstates. Most of the freeways in the interim have been funded by state and matching funds that are up to the states to determine where / how spend.

[Rothman]

Dedicated interstate funding (the last version being Interstate Maintenance funding) died with MAP-21 in 2012.

I need a button that just spits this out because of how many times I've had to explain this.

...

Federal funding is still nonetheless a major portion of states' capital program.  Fed funds require a match from sponsors...except in rare instances (sliding HSIP scale or usage or toll credits).  Some state programs require local matches to state funds...which may in turn be matches to federal funds (NY's Marchiselli program is pretty convoluted like this).

[Max Rockatansky]

Arizona seems to be shunning all three digit Interstates.  California seems to have stopped pursuing the new Interstate designations it wanted in the first place. 

[sprjus4]

For Virginia, there have been no 2di additions since the original 1956 interstate system. I-73 was proposed in 1991 between Myrtle Beach and Roanoke (technically further to Michigan, but north of Roanoke has never been studied in depth), and while it has been studied by VDOT extensively, no mileage has been constructed with the exception of pre-existing US-220 freeway bypasses. Most of the route would be constructed on new location, bypassing the substandard US-220 highway. The proposed I-87 between Norfolk and Raleigh, while mostly in North Carolina, would presumably have its northern 17 miles in Virginia following the existing limited-access US-17 following necessary upgrades including the construction of at least 5 interchanges. This, along with I-73, would be Virginia's only 2di additions outside of the original 1956 interstate system, if either route even gets constructed.

As for 3di, all of them come from the original 1956 interstate system or 1968 additions. The only exception includes I-264 in Hampton Roads from I-64 to the Virginia Beach oceanfront which was designated in 1999, which was only an extension of the existing I-264 west of I-64, not a new route designation. The urban areas have freeways that are not apart of the interstate system which could in theory be added. In the Richmond area, this includes VA-288, VA-76, VA-895, and VA-150. In Northern Virginia, this includes VA-267 and VA-28. In Hampton Roads, this includes VA-164 and VA-168.

[ilpt4u]

Illinois still likes the I-shield

The new O'Hare Ring Road Tollway is slated to become I-490 when built and open (which kinda goes against standard Illinois 3DI numbering convention, but not overall 3DI numbering convention). If the O'Hare Western Access Terminal is ever to be built, I bet the IL 390/Elgin-O'Hare Tollway gets the I-shield also. ORD access: I-190 from the East, I-390 from the West - has a nice ring to it

I'm surprised IDOT hasn't tried to get the I-shield for the IL 255 Freeway north of I-270. Sure, the freeway doesn't end at another Interstate, but it does end at US 67

[Big John]

Wisconsin thought it would improve commerce.  They spent about $14 million upgrading signs to I-41.

[paulthemapguy]

Wisconsin thought it would improve commerce.  They spent about $14 million upgrading signs to I-41.

That's interesting.  The more obvious answer, for DOTs having slapped an Interstate shield on a roadway, is to secure Interstate funding.  But this Wisconsin perspective seems to be looking at an Interstate as a brand to attract users.  Use this Interstate-brand roadway!  New and improved!  From the people who brought you "Interstate 43" comes "Interstate 41"!

[roadman65]

NJ has NJ 55 that could be an ×76 but NJ wont allow NJ Turnpike an x95 designation south of Exit 6 as they are happy with what they got.

Kansas could have US 54 in Wichita become I-535 as it was arterial upgraded to freeways.

[sprjus4]

NJ has NJ 55 that could be an ×76 but NJ wont allow NJ Turnpike an x95 designation south of Exit 6 as they are happy with what they got.

Kansas could have US 54 in Wichita become I-535 as it was arterial upgraded to freeways.

NJ-55 and the Atlantic City Expressway could in theory be an extension of I-76 itself to Atlantic City.

[Revive 755]

Iowa with US 20 between I-35 and Waterloo.  Since Iowa is one of those states that gives interstates a higher speed limit than an identical freeway without a red, white, and blue shield, an I-x35 would be nice.

[roadman65]

NJ has NJ 55 that could be an ×76 but NJ wont allow NJ Turnpike an x95 designation south of Exit 6 as they are happy with what they got.

Kansas could have US 54 in Wichita become I-535 as it was arterial upgraded to freeways.

NJ-55 and the Atlantic City Expressway could in theory be an extension of I-76 itself to Atlantic City.

NJ 24 should be interstate as it connects two already.

[Beltway]

As for 3di, all of them come from the original 1956 interstate system or 1968 additions. The only exception includes I-264 in Hampton Roads from I-64 to the Virginia Beach oceanfront which was designated in 1999, which was only an extension of the existing I-264 west of I-64, not a new route designation.

Not correct, some very expensive and important urban sections were added after 1968.

The I-264 2.2 miles of Downtown Tunnel / Berkley Bridge expansion was authorized to the Interstate system in 1978.  It would have had to have been built without federal Interstate funding otherwise.

The 9.2-mile Interstate I-664 allocation of 1968 did not cross Hampton Roads fully.  It included the manmade North Island and South Island, and the underwater tunnel, and the northern 1.5 miles of the 3.2-mile-long South Trestle.  The state applied to FHWA for Interstate funding for the south section of the South Trestle in 1978, and the request was approved for another 1.7 miles of I-664, extending I-664 to the south shoreline of Hampton Roads.

In 1983, the state applied to FHWA for permission to use some of its Interstate 4R funds to fund the remaining 9.4 miles of I-664 from the Hampton Roads shoreline to I-64 at Bowers Hill.  Interstate 4R funds are normally allocated to existing Interstate highways for reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoration, and resurfacing (but that program was modified with the ISTEA federal 6-year transportation bill of 1991).  The FHWA approved this request.
. . . . . .

In the "1968 Major Thoroughfare Plan" report, the entire Richmond Beltway was shown proposed as a complete circumferential freeway around the region.  The portions north of I-64 and east of I-95 were proposed as I-295, and the portions south of I-64 and west of I-95 were proposed as VA-288.  I-295 from I-64 west of Richmond to VA-5 southeast of Richmond was ultimately built on essentially the same location shown on this report.  The section from VA-5 to I-95 at Dutch Gap was cancelled and not built, because of unacceptable parkland impacts on the Richmond National Battlefield parkline along the battlefield road; this section would have included a fixed high-level bridge with about 150 feet of vertical clearance over the James River at Kingsland Reach.  Instead, in 1978, Virginia received approval from FHWA to build the remainder of I-295 south of VA-5 along the location that it occupies today; this alignment avoids any Civil War historical resources, and it extends 22 miles from VA-5 southward to I-95 south of Petersburg,, and includes the cable-stayed Varina-Enon Bridge over the James River.

The I-295 Varina-Enon Bridge at Dutch Gap was opened to traffic in July 1990.  It has six lanes (three lanes each way) with full right and left shoulders, and is a cable-stayed bridge with 150 feet of vertical navigational clearance and 630 feet of horizontal navigational clearance.  The bridge crosses the James River, and the shipping channel that leads to the Richmond Marine Terminal.  The overall bridge length is 4,680 feet.

[DandyDan]

Iowa with US 20 between I-35 and Waterloo.  Since Iowa is one of those states that gives interstates a higher speed limit than an identical freeway without a red, white, and blue shield, an I-x35 would be nice.

Not having gravel shoulders would be nice, too, at least if US 20 is like US 18 on the south side of Mason City.

[1995hoo]

There was a period in the late 1980s/early 1990s where federal law allowed 65-mph speed limits on rural Interstates only, so during that period there was an advantage to giving a road an Interstate number to make it eligible for the higher speed limit. Obviously, that advantage ended in 1995.

[wanderer2575]

Other than completing I-69 to Port Huron, Michigan seems to have no interest in pursuing interstate designations for other existing freeways.  It's happy with keeping the M-6, M-14, US-127, US-131, and US-31 designations.  (All of these would be 3dis, but that's beside the point.)

I would add a more specific supplemental follow-up question to the OP:  Has any study shown that an interstate route number, and not the new construction or upgrading of a state/US route freeway facility, is responsible for any "economic development"?

[GaryV]

... M-14 ...  (All of these would be 3dis, but that's beside the point.)

M-14 would require a lot of work in Ann Arbor (at and just to the west of the western US-23 interchange) to meet Interstate standards.

Other than that, I agree with you.  Michigan sees no need to slap a tri-color badge on a road "just because".

[bing101]

Arizona seems to be shunning all three digit Interstates.  California seems to have stopped pursuing the new Interstate designations it wanted in the first place.

Yes I-710 to CA-710 gap, CA-210, CA-905, CA-24 and CA-99 were all candidates for interstate designations though.

[3467]

Iowa has been getting rid of gravel shoulders on some routes. I would solve the Quad City numbering problem by running 88 to 380 to 20 to 35.

As for 255 I know  the communities want don't know if it has been tried. It continues on an NHS  route which I think is the new requirement.

[hbelkins]

Here is the question I am posing: What is the advantage absent dedicated funding to number a controlled access highway (freeway) to interstate numbering?

Branding. Everyone knows what an Interstate highway is. Which sounds better -- "Located just off I-69," or "Located just off the Pennyrile Parkway, and Interstate-compatible limited-access freeway?"

That red/white/blue shield-shape highway marker means something.

[gr8daynegb]

Wisconsin thought it would improve commerce.  They spent about $14 million upgrading signs to I-41.

That's interesting.  The more obvious answer, for DOTs having slapped an Interstate shield on a roadway, is to secure Interstate funding.  But this Wisconsin perspective seems to be looking at an Interstate as a brand to attract users.  Use this Interstate-brand roadway!  New and improved!  From the people who brought you "Interstate 43" comes "Interstate 41"!

And then also "Whatever WI-29 and or WI-172(between 41 and 43) gets renamed" and/or "I-441" as well!!!!!!

[bulldog1979]

Other than completing I-69 to Port Huron, Michigan seems to have no interest in pursuing interstate designations for other existing freeways.  It's happy with keeping the M-6, M-14, US-127, US-131, and US-31 designations.  (All of these would be 3dis, but that's beside the point.)

Michigan did apply for Interstate mileage for US 131 in the 1968 expansion. It wasn't approved, obviously, so this wasn't always the case for the state.

[bwana39]

Dedicated interstate funding (the last version being Interstate Maintenance funding) died with MAP-21 in 2012.

I need a button that just spits this out because of how many times I've had to explain this.

...

Federal funding is still nonetheless a major portion of states' capital program.  Fed funds require a match from sponsors...except in rare instances (sliding HSIP scale or usage or toll credits).  Some state programs require local matches to state funds...which may in turn be matches to federal funds (NY's Marchiselli program is pretty convoluted like this).

I get that FULLY! Fact of business, that is the point. Is there a good reason to number highways as Interstates SINCE there is no direct funding that is dedicated to Interstate Highways.?

[hbelkins]

Dedicated interstate funding (the last version being Interstate Maintenance funding) died with MAP-21 in 2012.

I need a button that just spits this out because of how many times I've had to explain this.

...

Federal funding is still nonetheless a major portion of states' capital program.  Fed funds require a match from sponsors...except in rare instances (sliding HSIP scale or usage or toll credits).  Some state programs require local matches to state funds...which may in turn be matches to federal funds (NY's Marchiselli program is pretty convoluted like this).

I get that FULLY! Fact of business, that is the point. Is there a good reason to number highways as Interstates SINCE there is no direct funding that is dedicated to Interstate Highways.?

Did you miss this reply?

Here is the question I am posing: What is the advantage absent dedicated funding to number a controlled access highway (freeway) to interstate numbering?

Branding. Everyone knows what an Interstate highway is. Which sounds better -- "Located just off I-69," or "Located just off the Pennyrile Parkway, an Interstate-compatible limited-access freeway?"

That red/white/blue shield-shape highway marker means something.

[vdeane]

But do such factors matter as much?  I-86 hasn't done much for NY's southern tier.  I would think "near the freeway network" would be more important, especially these days when pulling up a location on Google Maps is easy.  If someone is local enough to care about specific designations, they probably already know about things like the Pennyrile Parkway.

Anyways, given how fragmented modern interstate numbers are, they arguably don't communicate much anything.  "Located just off I-69" could mean "right near a major corridor" or "right near a dead-end route where you have to take a US or state route to continue on a surface road".

[Beltway]

But do such factors matter as much?  I-86 hasn't done much for NY's southern tier.  I would think "near the freeway network" would be more important, especially these days when pulling up a location on Google Maps is easy.  If someone is local enough to care about specific designations, they probably already know about things like the Pennyrile Parkway.

The NY-17 Southern Tier Expressway and the Quickway are very well known as to what type of highway they are.