States not upgrading freeways to Interstate Numbers

[sparker]

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.)

TXDOT reeeeeally likes tollways. A lot more than interstates. Though lately we've gotten I-2 and I-14, and soon (er or later) an extension of I-27 and I-49 (though I-49 will be in Texas for like, 2 or 3 miles).

Texas' experience with tollways has been mixed -- largely positive when it comes to supplying conduits for urban/suburban/exurban development (cf. Houston and DFW) but not so much with interregional facilities such as TX 130, which has shown a less-than-favorable ROI.   TxDOT has been reluctant to sign their tollways as Interstates; TX 99 around the west/north side of metro Houston was considered for the I-69 main line, but eventually the through-town US 59 alignment was chosen -- that instance was the closest any TX toll road has come to Interstate designation.  However, they're more than willing to connect the two types of facilities, since existing Interstates are a prime source of revenue-generating traffic.
 

Network legibility would be a huge benefit. If a road is built to Interstate standards and has a functional use within the network, it should be incorporated as such. It's easier for people to use and understand, which prevents confusion for visitors and new transplants.

Completely in agreement with the above statement -- provided the freeway intended to be signed is presently complementing or is planned to substantially complement the existing network.   The familiar red/white/blue shield, as other posters have pointed out, does have "brand recognition" to the point that many other freeways are commonly mistaken for Interstate routes in various media.  The relevant cliche' here starts with ".......if it looks like a duck........"!

[sprjus4]

^

For those thinking Cracker Barrel's don't exist away from interstate highways, look harder. Then numerous examples of locations being 50+ miles away from any freeway corridor.

[Verlanka]

^

For those thinking Cracker Barrel's don't exist away from interstate highways, look harder. Then numerous examples of locations being 50+ miles away from any freeway corridor.

Various restaurants have locations far from interstates, proving that you don't need an interstate to operate a business.

[sparker]

^

For those thinking Cracker Barrel's don't exist away from interstate highways, look harder. Then numerous examples of locations being 50+ miles away from any freeway corridor.

Various restaurants have locations far from interstates, proving that you don't need an interstate to operate a business.

Cracker Barrel, like many restaurant chains with a highly visible presence along Interstate routes, does not necessarily have a singular and exclusionary business model that dictates that they only locate along that type of facility.  They can and do operate as a localized establishment as well.   But there's a calculus at work when they do elect to place a new restaurant near a roadway in order to attract the traveler as well as the local patron -- and Interstate status would be a principal part of that status -- particularly in terms of 2di/"trunk" routes.   It's a similar if not identical algorithm to that of overseas businesses looking for locations for warehouse/distribution purposes -- access as well as proximity to other amenities.  The Interstate "brand" resolves the former; the actual location along those facilities determines the latter.   When a retail/consumer business such as Cracker Barrel locates in town or along a local road, it has invoked another and more localized model intended to cultivate repeat business in & from the immediate region (a consistent menu and quality control aid immeasurably in that cultivation).  The roadside model does the same thing with a different type of clientele -- the traveler who wants a known quantity for their meals.   Restaurant chains with longevity tend to maintain both models -- but when they do plan a roadside facility, their first choice would invariably be along a trunk Interstate, which maximizes the overall volume of potential customers.   

[hobsini2]

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

If you have an interstate, then you can get a Cracker Barrel

Danville, KY was allegedly (rumor has it) the first Cracker Barrel to not be on an interstate. Over 36 miles to I-75 and 43 miles to I-64.

What I find more surprising is it's not even freeway-adjacent. The only non-Interstate Cracker Barrel I've ever seen was on US 75 in Sherman, TX, which is still freeway-grade.

There's been one in Kokomo, IN, for as long as I can remember.  It's 31 miles from the nearest interstate, which was also the nearest freeway until recently when a new US 31 bypass was built.  There are a handful of non-freeway locations here and there, but it seems that their general strategy is to be near freeway exits.

Boone, NC has a cracker barrel in the middle of town. its about 50 miles from I-77 to the east or I-40 to the south

Maybe Cracker Barrel has the REAL long term freeway proposal maps? Just a thought.

[hbelkins]

I once heard that one criterion for siting a Cracker Barrel was a certain number of hotel/motel rooms within close proximity. The Middlesboro location was an exception.

[sprjus4]

There's a Cracker Barrel in the southern part of Chesapeake, VA, off of the VA-168 freeway located 8 miles away from I-64. No lodging for miles, but is a retail area with easy access to the Outer Banks highway and easy access for locals in Great Bridge / Southern Chesapeake.

[thenetwork]

Ohio is another state that I believe has given up on adding more "interstates" to their freeways.   The last attempt was when SR-8 was upgraded to interstate standards between I-76 and I-271 a few years back as a potential I-x80 or I-x77, but ODOT quickly killed that idea.

Perhaps after the current rebuilds of the older sections of SR-8, there could be another attempt by the local municipalities to get ODOT to change their mind?

[deathtopumpkins]

TxDOT has been reluctant to sign their tollways as Interstates; TX 99 around the west/north side of metro Houston was considered for the I-69 main line, but eventually the through-town US 59 alignment was chosen -- that instance was the closest any TX toll road has come to Interstate designation. 

What about I-169? I understand the road is still signed as SH 550 right now, but I'm under the impression it will eventually be signed as I-169.

[Scott5114]

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

To you, because you're into highways, and to people who live around there. Your average non-road-nerd from out of state wouldn't have a clue.

Pretty much many people in southern New York and northern Pennsylvania.
I know "average non-road-nerds" in the Buffalo area that know those names.

How about average non-road-nerds in Minneapolis, Minnesota? Tucson, Arizona? Los Alamitos, California?

What about them?

How many will need to know unless they are planning a trip there.  Then they can consult a map and see that in the legend that it is a Controlled Access Highway with 4 or more lanes.

Why even have US and Interstate routes then? Just make everything a state route with a circular shield. Ooh, even better, we can save money by dispensing with the numbers and just identifying them with a sign that says "ROAD". If someone needs to know the difference between any of them, they can look it up!

[Beltway]

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

To you, because you're into highways, and to people who live around there. Your average non-road-nerd from out of state wouldn't have a clue.

Pretty much many people in southern New York and northern Pennsylvania.
I know "average non-road-nerds" in the Buffalo area that know those names.

How about average non-road-nerds in Minneapolis, Minnesota? Tucson, Arizona? Los Alamitos, California?

What about them?
How many will need to know unless they are planning a trip there.  Then they can consult a map and see that in the legend that it is a Controlled Access Highway with 4 or more lanes.

Why even have US and Interstate routes then? Just make everything a state route with a circular shield. Ooh, even better, we can save money by dispensing with the numbers and just identifying them with a sign that says "ROAD". If someone needs to know the difference between any of them, they can look it up!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

[Verlanka]

Why even have US and Interstate routes then? Just make everything a state route with a circular shield.

Won't work for businesses that depend on interstates for profit.

[US 89]

Why even have US and Interstate routes then? Just make everything a state route with a circular shield.

Won't work for businesses that depend on interstates for profit.

What kind of business makes more money if the shield on the freeway next to it changes color? Sure there are maybe a few people out there who make it a point to follow designated interstates, but in this day and age the vast majority of the masses just go where their phone tells them to.

[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.)

TXDOT reeeeeally likes tollways. A lot more than interstates. Though lately we've gotten I-2 and I-14, and soon (er or later) an extension of I-27 and I-49 (though I-49 will be in Texas for like, 2 or 3 miles).

I-2 is part of the I-69EWCWXYZ stuff.
I-14 is just window dressing for support of Ft Hood.
I-27 isn't going to happen.
I-49 is more like 5 or 6 miles.  Still just a continuation of the Arkansas parts.

[sprjus4]

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

To you, because you're into highways, and to people who live around there. Your average non-road-nerd from out of state wouldn't have a clue.

Pretty much many people in southern New York and northern Pennsylvania.
I know "average non-road-nerds" in the Buffalo area that know those names.

How about average non-road-nerds in Minneapolis, Minnesota? Tucson, Arizona? Los Alamitos, California?

What about them?
How many will need to know unless they are planning a trip there.  Then they can consult a map and see that in the legend that it is a Controlled Access Highway with 4 or more lanes.

Why even have US and Interstate routes then? Just make everything a state route with a circular shield. Ooh, even better, we can save money by dispensing with the numbers and just identifying them with a sign that says "ROAD". If someone needs to know the difference between any of them, they can look it up!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

He has a good point. If the interstate shield isn't needed for recognition, why not designate freeways as regular state routes?

[Beltway]

What about them?  How many will need to know unless they are planning a trip there.  Then they can consult a map and see that in the legend that it is a Controlled Access Highway with 4 or more lanes.

Why even have US and Interstate routes then? Just make everything a state route with a circular shield. Ooh, even better, we can save money by dispensing with the numbers and just identifying them with a sign that says "ROAD". If someone needs to know the difference between any of them, they can look it up!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

He has a good point. If the interstate shield isn't needed for recognition, why not designate freeways as regular state routes?

I repeat:  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Nobody is suggesting changing 64-year-old Interstate route designations, or changing 80+ year old U.S. route designations, to regular state routes.

The question at hand was changing regular state route designations of 50+ years, to Interstate route designations.  Such as with a Vanity Interstate Highway.

[doorknob60]

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.

Except Iowa has a state level law giving interstates a slight speed limit advantage.  A few other states (IL, IN, and NE?) are the same in only interstates get the highest posted speed limits in the state.

Idaho and Utah too. Both allow 80 in interstates, but only 70 (Idaho) and 65 (Utah) on other highways, even if they are freeway quality (though at least Idaho bumped some of the 65s to 70 when they raised interstates from 75 to 80). I believe Montana is also the same at 80 and 70, though I don't think they have any significant non-interstate freeways. I believe these are all legislatively the maximums, so the DOT could not jump bump them up if they wanted, without the law changing first. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Oregon used to be the same way but much lower, with 65 and 55 as the maximums. But now there are some highways legislatively set to higher limits, meaning 70 is technically the maximum for both interstates (much of I-84 and all of I-82) and other highways (only US-95). But any highway not explicitly defined there (to be clear, many non-interstates in Eastern and Central OR are 65 now legislatively) is still subject to the 65 or 55, meaning there are a lot of freeway-quality highways in Western Oregon with absurd 55 speed limits.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
The question should be:  just whose vanity is enhanced by the presence of an unchargeable new Interstate?  Certainly not a state DOT, most (albeit not all) of which would rather not being bothered by the process; for the most part they have enough on their various plates as it is (cf. Caltrans!).  And not, as a general rule, local MPO's for much the same reason, compounded by the fact that those serving the more densely developed areas are increasingly rejecting new freeway construction and favoring transit-oriented approaches -- although road development is still considered valid in many smaller independent (i.e., not a suburb/exurb of a larger metro area) locations -- but often with cost factors that preclude Interstate-grade facilities.  The question is -- whose persona or stature can perceptively be raised by shepherding new Interstate corridors (our little cadre' of posters excluded)? 

The answer -- repeatedly in many situations and jurisdictions -- points to a series of ad hoc coalitions of business groups, chambers of commerce, state legislators and/or congresspersons looking for a boost to their almost perpetual re-election efforts.   The "aura", such as it is, of the Interstate designation is that while it's pretty much taken for granted domestically, it's considered an integral part of overseas firms' calculus in determining where to site their U.S. manufacturing, distribution, or warehousing operations.   A prime and oft-cited example is the Toyota plant outside Tupelo, MS -- the plans for which weren't nailed down until the 2004 designation of I-22 over US 78 through the area, with the plant opening just about the time that the MS section of that corridor was being upgraded to I-standards.   The "read" on this was that Toyota wouldn't fully commit to building the plant until they could be assured of close Interstate access.   Of course,the region benefited by the presence of a major new employer -- but the local politicians also could point to the plant plus employment opportunities regarding the I-22 upgrade construction -- and the potential for augmented roadside business, other service companies locating in the area, yada yada.......!  And remember that this was a longstanding (20+ years) US-signed freeway, so the functionality was always there -- but the perception that the Interstate designation would indeed have positive effects played out favorably here; both the Toyota plant and I-22 are humming along nicely. 

Rather than "vanity" Interstates, a more apt term might be "transactional" Interstates -- or, a bit more perjoratively, "speculative" Interstates.  Promotional groups in two of the locales where such activity is ongoing, TX and NC, have posited different rationales for their efforts; in the case of TX, it's provision of economic opportunity to regions of the state (and it's TX; there are a lot of those!) bypassed or ignored by the layout of the '56-'57 Interstate network.   The Rio Grande Valley is rapidly growing; the I-69 "triad" is positioned to address that; Houston wants/needs more direct access to Midwest and NE markets, so that route is intended to satisfy that as well.  The other TX project, I-14, is more speculative in nature, but its projected western reaches could conceivably soften the blow of a long-term move away from fossil fuels by providing a corridor along which other businesses could locate.   The NC projects could readily be described as both transactional and speculative, directly enhancing local politicos' stature -- but also -- since most of them connect central NC with the coast -- are rationalized as logical commercial conduits from the ports once the projected Panamax traffic starts rolling in (which will certainly have to wait until the current viral pandemic subsides, whenever that occurs).  I-42 is being developed just for that purpose; while I-87 would serve as egress from a VA port, its purpose is to not only be a developmental corridor in NE NC but to enhance the overall potential for NC warehousing/distribution of goods brought in from Hampton Roads port facilities.  Even so, I can't but help discerning a bit of backhanded snarkiness on the part of NC entities vis-a-vis their VA counterparts -- sort of "well.....you won't facilitate traffic movement to SB I-95 and I-85 by an Interstate (referring to the US 58 corridor, of course), so we will -- and reap some ancillary benefits in the process.  You should be thanking us -- and by the way, please expedite your short little section ASAP!" 

The only corridor that I can think of that actually comes close to a "vanity" project would be I-86 across NY's southern tier.  The Moyihan aide from Vestal who originally initiated the concept back in the '90's had good intentions -- trying to revive the economy of an extant "rust belt" corridor by providing a NY alternative to I-80 across PA.  The vanity aspect stems from the fact that Moynihan presented the concept as his last "hurrah", as a gesture to his home state before retiring from the Senate.  But the regional demographics just don't point to a revival, no matter what the facility is designated -- so it's really a pointless project; the fact that it'll be a reality at least west of I-81 notwithstanding (I've driven it several times; it is a more interesting drive than I-80 across PA!).  But I-86 is the exception; most of the other projects are driven by economic prospects that have at least some chance of success.         
     

[Revive 755]

Boone, NC has a cracker barrel in the middle of town. its about 50 miles from I-77 to the east or I-40 to the south

Maybe Cracker Barrel has the REAL long term freeway proposal maps? Just a thought.

While I'm not going to guess what NCDOT may be up to in the long term, the terrain around Boone would make a freeway more expensive.

I would guess the proximity of the Blue Ridge Parkway could be a factor.

[Beltway]

^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, where else would these redundant arrows point except upward?

The only corridor that I can think of that actually comes close to a "vanity" project would be I-86 across NY's southern tier.

I have no argument with the pre-existing NY-17, built mostly as freeway but with some expressway segments.  Much of the route began as an ADHS corridor and was funded with 80% federal funds from a large account of funding.

Proposed VI-87 -- the existing highway is a 4-lane high-speed rural arterial highway that with a few incremental improvements is more than adequate for the corridor.  Plus it is 20 miles longer than the current end-to-end route.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, where else would these redundant arrows point except upward?

Actually, they were originally intended to point to the previous Beltway post -- but lo and behold someone else got to the post button before I did (not uncommon with my often lengthy posts).  I like the arrows -- better than wasting space reiterating the text of previous comments.  I should invert some at the end of some of my posts in reference to the inevitable retort!