Roads/highways that you feel were ahead of their time?

[MillTheRoadgeek]

So I've had this question for a little while, looking back on the history and evolution of highways. What roads or highways do you feel, or know, were very experimental or one-of-a-kind at the time they were built or upgraded? Whether it be prototypes that were tested, ambitious quantities, or timeless design linking back to the fact, there's certainly room for you to state your findings here.

For me, an example of this would have to be I-270 in Maryland, particularily the express/local system on its southern end. This portion was constructed in the late 1980s, and still presents itself as a sleek, modern highway.
What are some you know of? Such can be from any era or any capacity of roadbed.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Arroyo Seco Parkway and Hollywood Freeway. 

[KCRoadFan]

I-70 through Glenwood Canyon in Colorado comes to mind.

[Chris19001]

Appian Way.  The granddaddy of all quality Western roads.

[Takumi]

The PA Turnpike.

[Dirt Roads]

I-79 through Kanawha, Clay, Braxton and part of Lewis County, West Virginia.  It has a smooth winding mountain parkway feel, much grander than your typical Limited Access highway.

[Dirt Roads]

I-79 through Kanawha, Clay, Braxton and part of Lewis County, West Virginia.  It has a smooth winding mountain parkway feel, much grander than your typical Limited Access highway.

And a twist on the title of this thread.  In its desperation to connect the Capital to Morgantown and WVU, the state encouraged folks to "try out" new sections of the highway before completion.  Oftentimes, the road went back-and-forth between brand new concrete, fresh gravel over new roadbed, and graded dirt.  The sections were made continuous as best as possible, but there were no signs and no lane markings.  Sometimes there was were no berms and sometimes roads were not passable.  If you didn't know the up-to-date local conditions, you often had to turn around.  We traveled these roads frequently, and my father didn't worry about going out-and-back if a section wasn't interconnected. 

When I first started driving, he let me drive a brand new section until I came to the end of concrete facing a 12-inch drop into a muddy path where you needed four-wheel drive (somewhere north of the Servia exit.  Almost couldn't stop in time.  I was driving 55 mph on the dirt sections and 60 mph on the concrete.  It was about 3 miles back to the exit and I couldn't get over to the southbound lanes (so I was driving the wrong way).  Seems like I passed a few 4WD vehicles on the way back.  On another occasion, I was driving on a dirt section and faced off with a bridge where the new concrete was at least 18 inches elevated above the roadbed.  I can't remember how far I had to backtrack that time.  Way ahead of its time.

[Joe The Dragon]

So I've had this question for a little while, looking back on the history and evolution of highways. What roads or highways do you feel, or know, were very experimental or one-of-a-kind at the time they were built or upgraded? Whether it be prototypes that were tested, ambitious quantities, or timeless design linking back to the fact, there's certainly room for you to state your findings here.

For me, an example of this would have to be I-270 in Maryland, particularily the express/local system on its southern end. This portion was constructed in the late 1980s, and still presents itself as a sleek, modern highway.
What are some you know of? Such can be from any era or any capacity of roadbed.

Palatine Road JR expressway when it opened.

[sparker]

In limited reference to CA highways, I-5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy comes to mind.  Prior to that facility being built, the DOH assiduously avoided new-terrain alignments in favor of "improve-in-place" approaches; the still-controversial (just ask Fresno boosters!) 1957 decision to realign I-5 over the "dotted-line-on-a-map" Westside freeway corridor instead of right down US 99 in order to enhance the metro-to-metro function of the state's Interstate network led to the first substantial "virgin" facility (even if you consider Santa Nella-Tracy simply a freeway upgrade to CA 33) undertaken by the state.  Taking advantage of the 90% Federal input provided a boost to the state's freeway and expressway program by allowing state funds to be spread out over the entire system rather than just toward the Interstate corridors like with other states.  But technically, the nature of the I-5 "beeline" proved a fertile proving ground for technical advances such as the huge paving machines deployed in the '60's; paving dozens of miles a week along the favorable Valley floor was considered a major achievement 55 years ago.  But regardless of how one views that I-5 segment in retrospect, both the sociopolitical aspects as well as the massive scale of the undertaking still resonate today in virtually every road project in or around the San Joaquin Valley.   

[crispy93]

* I believe the Bronx River Parkway (and at the same time, the Long Island Motor Parkway) were marvels with it's high 40 mph speed limits despite left turns.
* The construction of the Cross-Bronx (I-95) was unprecedented in cost per mile, depressing the highway while maintaining the cross streets and subway lines above/beneath the highway
* I think the NJ Turnpike was ahead of its time from sight lines, lane width, and shoulder width. The interstate highway standards took some cues from the NJT.

[BrianP]

For me, an example of this would have to be I-270 in Maryland, particularily the express/local system on its southern end. This portion was constructed in the late 1980s, and still presents itself as a sleek, modern highway.

I'll disagree with you there.  The North-South Freeway in NJ (I-76 section) had a express/local setup in the late 1950s.  And that may not even be the first.

[1995hoo]

For me, an example of this would have to be I-270 in Maryland, particularily the express/local system on its southern end. This portion was constructed in the late 1980s, and still presents itself as a sleek, modern highway.

I'll disagree with you there.  The North-South Freeway in NJ (I-76 section) had a express/local setup in the late 1950s.  And that may not even be the first.

I-78 and I-80 in New Jersey have had that sort of setup for a long time as well, though I don't know for how long. I do think I-270's feels like a more "modern" version of that configuration, due in part to having a Jersey wall instead of what is essentially a glorified curb separating the lanes, but I have to agree that I-270 is less innovative than it might seem.



I agree with crispy93 about the New Jersey Turnpike being ahead of its time in all sorts of ways. It was also ahead of its time, at least compared to many other early controlled-access highways in the US, in eschewing left-side exits, and they've stuck to that principle even as the road has expanded.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MN 100 from St. Louis Park to Robbinsdale, the old Lilac Way in the 1930s. It had an extensive system of roadside parks where families would go watch traffic on the freeway.

[skluth]

I-180 in Illinois. So ahead of its time, it's still not close to capacity.

[Dirt Roads]

The PA Turnpike.

And the original two-lane West Virginia Turnpike.  The state promoted the road as an "engineering marvel", and students were often required to remember how many bridges were constructed on the Turnpike.  I can't remember the original number anymore, but the "new" four-lane version has 116 bridges.  That doesn't include one of the longest, the original Stanley Bender bridge with its north abutment right up to the "south mouth" of the Memorial Tunnel.  The original turnpike was almost entirely a Super Two, with the exception of the three Glass Houses (where traffic from the opposite lane crossed into/out of the service areas).  I still call the main Beckley service area the Glass House. 

Perhaps the best part of the original turnpike is the Cornelius H. Charlton bridge, which includes a steel arch span over the Bluestone River Gorge.  The bridge was named after an African-American hero of the Korean War when it first opened in September 1954.  It pales in comparison to the New River Gorge Bridge, but back in the 1960s it was common to stop at the unimproved truck rest area on the north side just to get a look down into the gorge (and inspect the bridge).  Then you would cross over the bridge and stop at the Bluestone Service Area and get some ice cream.  The Charlton bridge serves the southbound lanes, so you can't stop for ice cream until the Princeton exit.

[sprjus4]

Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel

[ilpt4u]

The German/Nazi Autobahns

[Old Dominionite]

The reversible Shirley Highway Busway between Springfield, Va., and the District comes to mind. Today, it constitutes the HOT lanes along I-395.

[Old Dominionite]

For me, an example of this would have to be I-270 in Maryland, particularily the express/local system on its southern end. This portion was constructed in the late 1980s, and still presents itself as a sleek, modern highway.

I'll disagree with you there.  The North-South Freeway in NJ (I-76 section) had a express/local setup in the late 1950s.  And that may not even be the first.

I-78 and I-80 in New Jersey have had that sort of setup for a long time as well, though I don't know for how long. I do think I-270's feels like a more "modern" version of that configuration, due in part to having a Jersey wall instead of what is essentially a glorified curb separating the lanes, but I have to agree that I-270 is less innovative than it might seem.



I agree with crispy93 about the New Jersey Turnpike being ahead of its time in all sorts of ways. It was also ahead of its time, at least compared to many other early controlled-access highways in the US, in eschewing left-side exits, and they've stuck to that principle even as the road has expanded.

With respect to MillTheRoadgeek, I find nothing innovative about I-270. In fact, I find it rather poorly designed and engineered. For example, the widened southern section features too many slip ramps (with very short merge areas) between the express and local lanes. This causes, among other things, a lot of weaving traffic at different speeds in the local lanes. The northern four-lane section is the antithesis of a modern roadway – a twisting and winding relic that begs for a demolition derby.

[mgk920]

Dating from the mid 1910s, Lower Wacker Dr in Chicago, an early prototype for the urban expressway.

It was built as part of a scheme to remove service traffic from the surface streets in a seriously congested part of downtown Chicago by building a new upper level of the streets for the normal public traffic, including by making the second floors of the buildings into their main entrance levels with all new lobbies.  The new lower level of Wacker Dr (the original  street) became a main access route for the service traffic to tie it all together.

Fast forward several decades and it was extended a few blocks to directly connect to Lake Shore Dr (US 41), making it a speedy, convenient and WAAAAY KEWL way to drive between the interstate expressways and LSD.

And oh yea, those multi-level streets are still very much in use by that building service traffic.



Mike

[michravera]

In limited reference to CA highways, I-5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy comes to mind.  Prior to that facility being built, the DOH assiduously avoided new-terrain alignments in favor of "improve-in-place" approaches; the still-controversial (just ask Fresno boosters!) 1957 decision to realign I-5 over the "dotted-line-on-a-map" Westside freeway corridor instead of right down US 99 in order to enhance the metro-to-metro function of the state's Interstate network led to the first substantial "virgin" facility (even if you consider Santa Nella-Tracy simply a freeway upgrade to CA 33) undertaken by the state.  Taking advantage of the 90% Federal input provided a boost to the state's freeway and expressway program by allowing state funds to be spread out over the entire system rather than just toward the Interstate corridors like with other states.  But technically, the nature of the I-5 "beeline" proved a fertile proving ground for technical advances such as the huge paving machines deployed in the '60's; paving dozens of miles a week along the favorable Valley floor was considered a major achievement 55 years ago.  But regardless of how one views that I-5 segment in retrospect, both the sociopolitical aspects as well as the massive scale of the undertaking still resonate today in virtually every road project in or around the San Joaquin Valley.   

But, the gold medal, men on the moon, Ruth calls his shot, "you can't do that!"-"yes I can!" highway achievement award of the last hundred years has to go to CASR-1. Single structures will top its single structures. Treachery of conditions will top it in some other places. But, the reason that they built the Hoover Dam Bypass was that they were able to say "Well, it isn't really anything that the CaDoH didn't do 80 years ago." and the excuses stopped.

[Max Rockatansky]

In limited reference to CA highways, I-5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy comes to mind.  Prior to that facility being built, the DOH assiduously avoided new-terrain alignments in favor of "improve-in-place" approaches; the still-controversial (just ask Fresno boosters!) 1957 decision to realign I-5 over the "dotted-line-on-a-map" Westside freeway corridor instead of right down US 99 in order to enhance the metro-to-metro function of the state's Interstate network led to the first substantial "virgin" facility (even if you consider Santa Nella-Tracy simply a freeway upgrade to CA 33) undertaken by the state.  Taking advantage of the 90% Federal input provided a boost to the state's freeway and expressway program by allowing state funds to be spread out over the entire system rather than just toward the Interstate corridors like with other states.  But technically, the nature of the I-5 "beeline" proved a fertile proving ground for technical advances such as the huge paving machines deployed in the '60's; paving dozens of miles a week along the favorable Valley floor was considered a major achievement 55 years ago.  But regardless of how one views that I-5 segment in retrospect, both the sociopolitical aspects as well as the massive scale of the undertaking still resonate today in virtually every road project in or around the San Joaquin Valley.   

But, the gold medal, men on the moon, Ruth calls his shot, "you can't do that!"-"yes I can!" highway achievement award of the last hundred years has to go to CASR-1. Single structures will top its single structures. Treachery of conditions will top it in some other places. But, the reason that they built the Hoover Dam Bypass was that they were able to say "Well, it isn't really anything that the CaDoH didn't do 80 years ago." and the excuses stopped.

Only if California would stop making those excuses and new ones now.  We might have a CA 1 in the Lost Coast if that was the case. 

[sparker]

In limited reference to CA highways, I-5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy comes to mind.  Prior to that facility being built, the DOH assiduously avoided new-terrain alignments in favor of "improve-in-place" approaches; the still-controversial (just ask Fresno boosters!) 1957 decision to realign I-5 over the "dotted-line-on-a-map" Westside freeway corridor instead of right down US 99 in order to enhance the metro-to-metro function of the state's Interstate network led to the first substantial "virgin" facility (even if you consider Santa Nella-Tracy simply a freeway upgrade to CA 33) undertaken by the state.  Taking advantage of the 90% Federal input provided a boost to the state's freeway and expressway program by allowing state funds to be spread out over the entire system rather than just toward the Interstate corridors like with other states.  But technically, the nature of the I-5 "beeline" proved a fertile proving ground for technical advances such as the huge paving machines deployed in the '60's; paving dozens of miles a week along the favorable Valley floor was considered a major achievement 55 years ago.  But regardless of how one views that I-5 segment in retrospect, both the sociopolitical aspects as well as the massive scale of the undertaking still resonate today in virtually every road project in or around the San Joaquin Valley.   

But, the gold medal, men on the moon, Ruth calls his shot, "you can't do that!"-"yes I can!" highway achievement award of the last hundred years has to go to CASR-1. Single structures will top its single structures. Treachery of conditions will top it in some other places. But, the reason that they built the Hoover Dam Bypass was that they were able to say "Well, it isn't really anything that the CaDoH didn't do 80 years ago." and the excuses stopped.

Only if California would stop making those excuses and new ones now.  We might have a CA 1 in the Lost Coast if that was the case. 

With the California Coastal Commission in place, the possibility of a Lost Coast extension of CA 1 is a non-starter in any case.  It's not always the will or lack thereof, but other factors that enter into the calculus of roadbuilding, particularly new-terrain routings.  Also, there's no commercial need for such a route, courtesy of the fact that outside the state parks the coastal redwoods were largely the victim of the state's massive homebuilding in the 50's through the '70's -- not a lot of harvestable groves left -- and the aforementioned Coastal Commission would probably claim jurisdiction in any case and put the kibosh on any logging in their parvenu.   In any case, there's really no reason to dick around with the Lost Coast anyway; may as well have at least one undisturbed coastal stretch in the state!

[Max Rockatansky]

In limited reference to CA highways, I-5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy comes to mind.  Prior to that facility being built, the DOH assiduously avoided new-terrain alignments in favor of "improve-in-place" approaches; the still-controversial (just ask Fresno boosters!) 1957 decision to realign I-5 over the "dotted-line-on-a-map" Westside freeway corridor instead of right down US 99 in order to enhance the metro-to-metro function of the state's Interstate network led to the first substantial "virgin" facility (even if you consider Santa Nella-Tracy simply a freeway upgrade to CA 33) undertaken by the state.  Taking advantage of the 90% Federal input provided a boost to the state's freeway and expressway program by allowing state funds to be spread out over the entire system rather than just toward the Interstate corridors like with other states.  But technically, the nature of the I-5 "beeline" proved a fertile proving ground for technical advances such as the huge paving machines deployed in the '60's; paving dozens of miles a week along the favorable Valley floor was considered a major achievement 55 years ago.  But regardless of how one views that I-5 segment in retrospect, both the sociopolitical aspects as well as the massive scale of the undertaking still resonate today in virtually every road project in or around the San Joaquin Valley.   

But, the gold medal, men on the moon, Ruth calls his shot, "you can't do that!"-"yes I can!" highway achievement award of the last hundred years has to go to CASR-1. Single structures will top its single structures. Treachery of conditions will top it in some other places. But, the reason that they built the Hoover Dam Bypass was that they were able to say "Well, it isn't really anything that the CaDoH didn't do 80 years ago." and the excuses stopped.

Only if California would stop making those excuses and new ones now.  We might have a CA 1 in the Lost Coast if that was the case. 

With the California Coastal Commission in place, the possibility of a Lost Coast extension of CA 1 is a non-starter in any case.  It's not always the will or lack thereof, but other factors that enter into the calculus of roadbuilding, particularly new-terrain routings.  Also, there's no commercial need for such a route, courtesy of the fact that outside the state parks the coastal redwoods were largely the victim of the state's massive homebuilding in the 50's through the '70's -- not a lot of harvestable groves left -- and the aforementioned Coastal Commission would probably claim jurisdiction in any case and put the kibosh on any logging in their parvenu.   In any case, there's really no reason to dick around with the Lost Coast anyway; may as well have at least one undisturbed coastal stretch in the state!

To be clear, the Lost Coast was an example.  Obviously there is huge list of unbuilt highways but I wanted to reference something a general audience might know that wasn't the I-710 tunnel.  The one I would have loved to see built fully was the Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road.  The ambition just to get a road so close to Mulky Pass only to stop seems like a true missed opportunity to me. 

[sparker]

The one I would have loved to see built fully was the Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road.  The ambition just to get a road so close to Mulky Pass only to stop seems like a true missed opportunity to me. 

The lack of some kind of cross-Sierra highway in the CA 190 corridor has always been something of a head-scratcher to me, seeing as how there are traversable facilities that could form the basis for a decent if a bit convoluted (to account for topology, of course) facility.  The fact that DOH planned CA 190 to be a complete singular route almost 90 years ago -- and apparently had misgivings about the concept for all the time since  -- is strange if not sad.  We've all seen detailed outlines of the original planned route as well as the Olancha revisions -- but the statewide renumbering took place about 30 years into its existence -- and the DOH "morphed" into Caltrans 9-10 years after that -- so something could have been done internally to reflect any decision to permanently "no-build" the 190 Sierra crossing, including renumbering either the east or west portions to clarify such a decision -- but the illusion is still maintained.  It's not that things like this don't seem to go on decade after decade within that agency's continued existence;  it's that their sense of responsibility to not only maintain a cohesive state highway network but also address real needs such as the connectivity potential of an additional southern Sierra crossing seems to be missing in inaction.  If they're never going to make a connection, please take the necessary steps to clarify that decision.  In words with notably less flourish:  shit or get off the pot!