Why is there an I-93?

[Tom958]

There's probably a thread about this, but...

The distance between I-93 at I-89 in Concord, NH to I-93 at I-91 in St Johnsbury, VT is 110 miles, while the distance between the same two points using I-89 and I-91 is 122 miles, only twelve miles longer. Given the expense of building I-93 (and I-89 and I-91) through the mountainous terrain of northern NH and Vermont, wouldn't it have made more sense to have I-89 start in Boston and not build I-93 north of Concord at all?

Please discuss. 

[The Nature Boy]

Without I-93, it would be a pain in the ass for tourists from Boston and points south to get to the Lakes Region and the White Mountains. This would obviously have an adverse effect on economic development in those regions. Whether or not the interstate designation is needed is debatable, but the road itself serves a highly valuable purpose.

[roadman65]

I am not no resident of NH, but I am only guessing that it was to make a more direct corridor between Boston and Quebec as I-91 does continue as Autoroute 55 inside Canada.  Autoroute 55 is a major route in Quebec and even though it makes sense to be able to travel via I-89 to I-91 I guess that planners thought that Northern NH could benefit as well if the route came through their backyards.

Remember this is only a guess, but then again whey does Texas need both and I-69E and I-69C so close to each other when only one freeway is needed.  If you have been to Texas you could see that four lane non freeways in rural areas get you from A to B as in the same amount of time as a freeway would as both have 75 mph maximums and no signals.  Plus having the two run close is not a good case for two separate corridors when one could use one or the other serving both purposes if need be.

Strange things always happen no matter where in the US.

[PurdueBill]

Tourism (all seasons, including skiing in the winter for sure) is huge in the White Mountains.  The upgrade from US 3 to the Franconia Notch Parkway (now part of I-93) was sorely needed; I remember when younger we would go up there all times of year and old US 3 was not sufficient there, never mind between there and Concord.  Traffic on a Sunday night on I-93 when people are heading toward Boston from recreation up north, especially skiing, can be VERY heavy...demand is there.  Moving goods (commerce) is also facilitated big time having I-93 vs. US 3 alone. 

If it weren't built as an Interstate, I bet NH would have built it as a much longer Everett Turnpike or something.

[roadman65]

I was kind of right.  The corridor aspect with the White Mountains is valid enough reason as well as my theory as I can feel with the two other posts.

[ET21]

Tourism my friend. You can debate all you want about the numbering, but take that highway out, and there goes a good chunk of that regions economy.

[roadman65]

Tourism my friend. You can debate all you want about the numbering, but take that highway out, and there goes a good chunk of that regions economy.

I think he just wanted to know if the interstate has regional importance and if so what is it.  I do not think (or at least hope not) whether I-93 needs to be commissioned or not.

[Sykotyk]

Tourism my friend. You can debate all you want about the numbering, but take that highway out, and there goes a good chunk of that regions economy.

Unfortunately, that's the argument that's used for almost any new freeway project. And also one of the bigger arguments AGAINST a new freeway project, that people will still go there regardless of a four-lane freeway takes you there.

US3 could've been upgraded as needed to accommodate increased traffic/ease of traffic.

It's a similar argument against the hypothetical upgrade of US6 in Utah for a shorter route between Denver and Salt Lake City, when I-25 to I-80 is just a few miles longer and already the primary route between the two.

However, the bigger reason for it being built probably comes down to politics. In order to get the votes needed, you'd need senators (the house would be favored by the populated areas destined to see interstate highways) and to get them, you need to make sure rural states got freeways, especially with the major cities, get more mileage, etc.

Look at Vermont with I-91 and I-89.... I've been through that area, and those roads RARELY see the traffic for those roads. Sure, they're nice and move you quickly about the state. Similar to northern NH. But, I-93 probably helped with the votes to get the plan moving.

[Brandon]

Tourism my friend. You can debate all you want about the numbering, but take that highway out, and there goes a good chunk of that regions economy.

Unfortunately, that's the argument that's used for almost any new freeway project. And also one of the bigger arguments AGAINST a new freeway project, that people will still go there regardless of a four-lane freeway takes you there.

It's a similar argument against the hypothetical upgrade of US6 in Utah for a shorter route between Denver and Salt Lake City, when I-25 to I-80 is just a few miles longer and already the primary route between the two.

Utah wanted that in 1956 as part of I-70 for a Salt Lake-Denver route.  It got changed by the Feds to the current route.

[froggie]

Utah wanted that in 1956 as part of I-70 for a Salt Lake-Denver route.  It got changed by the Feds to the current route.

Probably because the Feds saw it more as a Los Angeles-Denver route...

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Tourism my friend. You can debate all you want about the numbering, but take that highway out, and there goes a good chunk of that regions economy.

Unfortunately, that's the argument that's used for almost any new freeway project. And also one of the bigger arguments AGAINST a new freeway project, that people will still go there regardless of a four-lane freeway takes you there.

US3 could've been upgraded as needed to accommodate increased traffic/ease of traffic.

It's a similar argument against the hypothetical upgrade of US6 in Utah for a shorter route between Denver and Salt Lake City, when I-25 to I-80 is just a few miles longer and already the primary route between the two.

However, the bigger reason for it being built probably comes down to politics. In order to get the votes needed, you'd need senators (the house would be favored by the populated areas destined to see interstate highways) and to get them, you need to make sure rural states got freeways, especially with the major cities, get more mileage, etc.

Look at Vermont with I-91 and I-89.... I've been through that area, and those roads RARELY see the traffic for those roads. Sure, they're nice and move you quickly about the state. Similar to northern NH. But, I-93 probably helped with the votes to get the plan moving.

It seems that I-91 and I-93 were added to the Interstate system mostly for continuity and connectivity between southern New England and Quebec, and to provide connectivity between the "North Country" and the southern parts of their respective states. I used the segments I-91 and 93 in question this past May while traveling and they were hardly busy thoroughfares. Still, I can see their value as there are few other fast multilane roads in northern VT and NH. Plus, since the states are so small, the amount of mileage involved is relatively small.

[agentsteel53]

Probably because the Feds saw it more as a Los Angeles-Denver route...

if I needed to get to the northeast in a dead run hurry, I-15 and I-70 would very likely feature heavily in my navigation.

[PHLBOS]

The upgrade from US 3 to the Franconia Notch Parkway (now part of I-93) was sorely needed

Original plans for that area involved building a full-blown 4-lane I-93 in that area.  The Fronconia Notch Parkway was a compromise between building that version of I-93 or nothing at all.  IIRC, the Appalachian Mountain Club was one of the parties that fought the original I-93 plan vigorously.

[froggie]

Having gone through the Notch numerous times (especially now that I live an hour away), I'd note that it DOES get pretty tight space-wise near the north end.  Though they could've added a bit more northbound climbing lane, I have never seen it where it was jammed by any stretch of the imagination.  The biggest annoyance isn't the lack of lanes, though...it's the 45 MPH speed limit.  I could see limiting it to 50 MPH, given the tight on-off ramps to Notch scenic areas, but 45 is a tad low.

[PurdueBill]

The upgrade from US 3 to the Franconia Notch Parkway (now part of I-93) was sorely needed

Original plans for that area involved building a full-blown 4-lane I-93 in that area.  The Fronconia Notch Parkway was a compromise between building that version of I-93 or nothing at all.  IIRC, the Appalachian Mountain Club was one of the parties that fought the original I-93 plan vigorously.

Indeed.  The stub ends of I-93 that stood at the south end of the now-parkway stood as a testament to the plans for the expressway to continue through.  I recall concerns about the Old Man falling down as one argument against expanding the existing highway, but in 2003 that all became moot.  Glad I got to see him many times while he was still around.

Having gone through the Notch numerous times (especially now that I live an hour away), I'd note that it DOES get pretty tight space-wise near the north end.  Though they could've added a bit more northbound climbing lane, I have never seen it where it was jammed by any stretch of the imagination.  The biggest annoyance isn't the lack of lanes, though...it's the 45 MPH speed limit.  I could see limiting it to 50 MPH, given the tight on-off ramps to Notch scenic areas, but 45 is a tad low.

I wondered when they finally posted I-93 on the parkway if they'd raise the limit, but they did not.  I still have somewhere a hard copy brochure from New Hampshire State Parks about the parkway and it abundantly mentioned the 45 mph limit as well as no turns except at interchanges (which was new to people used to the old all-access US 3 through the Notch)...I should look for that brochure.

I always found the exit numbering of existing I-93 odd, leaving only one number free with what was posted either side of the notch.  Did they expect to have only one exit there if the full interstate were built?  No way US 3 and I-93 would make it through separately, so maybe one exit at NH 18 or something?  Onramp only from old US 3 at the south end?  Would have loved to have seen other concepts.

[Revive 755]

I can't remember how many alternatives were looked at that went through the Franconia Notch, but from one of the EIS's there were two alternatives that took I-93 around Franconia Notch:

* A "Kingman Notch Interstate and US Route 3" alternative in which I-93 would have run parallel to NH 112, NH 116, and what is shown on Google Maps as Wells Road between North Woodstock and the current alignment.

* A "Bog Pond Interstate" alternative which deviates from as built I-93 a bit north of Lincoln, has a some interesting curvature to gain elevation (included a couple U-shaped curves) before eventually straightening out, then after a while paralleling Wells Road to rejoin as built I-93.

[mtantillo]

Part of the reason is probably that VT and NH are separate states. If you are going to build a North-South corridor through Vermont, NH wants one too. If VT and NH were one state, my guess is that one or the other would have been built, but maybe not both.

I think people do hit the nail right on the head about the real reason those interstates (and the Northway in NY) were built: tourism. If you look at the traffic patterns, it is very clear that the vast majority of travelers are tourists heading from the cities to the northern mountain tourist destinations, and not through traffic to/from Canada. If through traffic to Canada were a major component of the traffic on those interstates, volumes wouldn't diminish to next to nothing in the far northern reaches (or in the case of the Northway, the desolate portion is between Exits 30 and 34). Connecting to Canadian cities might have been a good "excuse" to get the roadways built because you can draw lines between them, but it was probably not the primary motivation from the perspective of the states funding their share.

Each serves a slightly different purpose. I-93 connects Boston to northern NH, I-89 connects Boston to Vermont, and I-91 connects NYC and southern New England to both NH and VT.

[froggie]

I think people do hit the nail right on the head about the real reason those interstates (and the Northway in NY) were built: tourism. If you look at the traffic patterns, it is very clear that the vast majority of travelers are tourists heading from the cities to the northern mountain tourist destinations, and not through traffic to/from Canada.

To be fair, though, there are a number of Canadian trucks on I-91.  I don't have numbers in front of me, but from empirical evidence, I'd say that most of the trucks I see on I-91 (and the northern third of I-93) are Canadian.