What does AARoads consider the difference between...

[dfwmapper]

"Partial control of access" means no driveways or business entrances. Allowing driveways or business entrances would be uncontrolled access, even when there are limitations imposed on spacing and such.

[briantroutman]

Is it accurate to say that, as far as the FHWA is concerned, a "Jersey freeway"  isn't a freeway, isn't an expressway...isn't anything beyond a high-volume divided highway with grade separation?

[CNGL-Leudimin]

To me and probably most of Europe,
Freeway = Motorway, limited-access, grade-separated, and divided with at least 2+2 lanes.
Expressway = Motorroad, limited-access and grade-separated but not necessarily divided.

Not in Spain. There is one reason why I avoid to use the word 'freeway'. We also have that distintion, but for many 'autopista' means tolled and 'autovía' means not tolled. This leads me not to translate 'autopista' to 'freeway' due to the confusing meaning of 'free'. But there are also toll-free autopistas! A few, but they do exists. And since new autovías are built mostly to the autopista standard, I decided to drop the word 'autovía' when referring to the freeways expressways of Spain. (I actually translate 'autopista' to 'motorway'. but since that word is not widely used in the US, here I use 'expressway' instead)

[vtk]

In Ohio, it's perfectly sensible to say the Turnpike is a tolled freeway.

[Ned Weasel]

"Partial control of access" means no driveways or business entrances. Allowing driveways or business entrances would be uncontrolled access, even when there are limitations imposed on spacing and such.

That is not a universal definition, and this has been discussed before (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1012.msg104501#msg104501).  I do contend, however, that the distinction between access to public versus private roads is irrelevant.  I believe the purpose of the categorization of types of roads is to describe their physical characteristics, rather than the legal details of who owns the roads that are directly accessible from the road in question.  Furthermore, not all business entrances are created equal, as many are in the form of thoroughly engineered intersections that are physically indistinguishable from intersections between public roads.

[Duke87]

To tell you the truth, I never heard the term Freeway used for any road in the northeast until I moved to the Delaware Valley 25 years ago and such was only used towards one road... NJ 42 (aka the North-South Freeway).

Then there's the Rockaway Freeway, which looks like this.

This road predates the modern definition of the word "freeway", and what it is "free" of is railroad grade crossings. The rail line elevated above it (now part of the subway, originally built by LIRR) formerly ran at ground level.

Why would you have a fully grade separated, limited access highway that is undivided? I would think separating opposite direction movements would do more for safety, not to mention be cheaper to implement, than removing 90 degree crossings.

Not necessarily. Dividing a highway avoids head on collisions but grade separating it avoids right angle collisions. Depending on traffic counts and local geometry the latter could well do more for safety than the former.

An undivided limited access "super 2" is also easier to upgrade to a full freeway at a later date than a divided 4-lane expressway, because the grade separations are already in place.

Look at A-50 in Quebec for a good example. It's useful as a high speed route from Gatineau to Laval but traffic counts on the corridor are low enough that 4 lanes are not required for good operation. To save money, Quebec built some sections of it as 2 lanes undivided with provision for future twinning. As things stand it is functionally a freeway the whole way but if it had been built divided the whole way rather than grade separated, it probably would not see all its intersections eliminated in the foreseeable future if ever.

Keeping it only 2 lanes also keeps winter maintenance costs down.

[cpzilliacus]

Why would you have a fully grade separated, limited access highway that is undivided? I would think separating opposite direction movements would do more for safety, not to mention be cheaper to implement, than removing 90 degree crossings.

You are apparently not aware of it, but a long section of I-95 in Maine (roughly Bangor to Houlton) was originally built as a Super-2 road - with full access control, but undivided and no barrier in the middle.

There were sections of other Interstates in the West that were originally built as Super-2s, as was the West Virginia Turnpike.

[SSOWorld]

Why would you have a fully grade separated, limited access highway that is undivided? I would think separating opposite direction movements would do more for safety, not to mention be cheaper to implement, than removing 90 degree crossings.

You are apparently not aware of it, but a long section of I-95 in Maine (roughly Bangor to Houlton) was originally built as a Super-2 road - with full access control, but undivided and no barrier in the middle.

There were sections of other Interstates in the West that were originally built as Super-2s, as was the West Virginia Turnpike.

I-93 is the closest to such in NH - though it does have a median barrier.

"Partial control of access" means no driveways or business entrances. Allowing driveways or business entrances would be uncontrolled access, even when there are limitations imposed on spacing and such.

Try telling that to those on WIS-29, US-151, US-51 in Lincoln County WI and US-52 in SE Minnesota.

[cl94]

In most of the northeast, "expressway" is the term used for full control of access. The use of "freeway" is limited to the aforementioned exceptions. Heck, in Buffalo, many people refer to all limited-access highways as "thruways". Honestly, I never heard "freeway" outside of the Rockaway Freeway until I moved to Columbus. Typically, I'll use "divided highway" when referring to a road without full control of access, just because in my line of work, the public needs to understand what we're talking about.

[Rothman]

It just donned on me that growing up, people didn't refer to I-91 as a freeway or an expressway or even a highway.  Although "I-91" was common, people also just said, "Get on the interstate..."

[vdeane]

Heck, in Buffalo, many people refer to all limited-access highways as "thruways".

I wouldn't be surprised if that's because NYSTA maintains a disproportionate amount of Buffalo's expressways.

[cl94]

Heck, in Buffalo, many people refer to all limited-access highways as "thruways".

I wouldn't be surprised if that's because NYSTA maintains a disproportionate amount of Buffalo's expressways.

Likely. I once heard someone give directions to Pittsburgh as "take the 90 thruway to the 79 thruway south to the 279 thruway". A little part of me died upon hearing that. Seems to be most prevalent in the eastern suburbs.

[dfwmapper]

"Partial control of access" means no driveways or business entrances. Allowing driveways or business entrances would be uncontrolled access, even when there are limitations imposed on spacing and such.

Try telling that to those on WIS-29, US-151, US-51 in Lincoln County WI and US-52 in SE Minnesota.

Done. Not sure they heard me though. I think the problem is with the MUTCD definition of expressway requiring access control, not the definition of access control itself. Like Wisconsin, Texas has a bunch of roads that function as expressways in rural areas but don't meet that particular requirement because it isn't worth the expense of building frontage roads or proper cross streets to serve a farm. Requirements for access control on expressways make sense in urban areas, not so much in rural areas.

[peterj920]

"Partial control of access" means no driveways or business entrances. Allowing driveways or business entrances would be uncontrolled access, even when there are limitations imposed on spacing and such.

Try telling that to those on WIS-29, US-151, US-51 in Lincoln County WI and US-52 in SE Minnesota.

Done. Not sure they heard me though. I think the problem is with the MUTCD definition of expressway requiring access control, not the definition of access control itself. Like Wisconsin, Texas has a bunch of roads that function as expressways in rural areas but don't meet that particular requirement because it isn't worth the expense of building frontage roads or proper cross streets to serve a farm. Requirements for access control on expressways make sense in urban areas, not so much in rural areas.

In the 70s and 80s, Wisconsin would upgrade roads to freeway standards and it would cost the state a lot of money.  The objective was to have continuous flow traffic without stops.  In the 90s, Wisconsin focused more on upgrading roads to expressway standards on existing alignments and upgrading to freeway standards on new alignments, mainly bypasses around towns.  They figured they could still have continuous traffic flow like a freeway even with some intersections and driveways.  For example, Wis 29 has a 65 mph speed limit with no stops between I-94 and I-41, a distance of about 195 miles.  The road has the traffic flow of a freeway, but was built on a smaller budget with access points that minimally affect the flow of traffic.  I drove in Alabama a few years ago, and the 4 lane roads there are terrible compared to Wisconsin.  When I was there, I had traffic signals, passed through towns where I had to slow down, and the traffic flow was not smooth.  Wisconsin eliminates those stops and slowdowns when constructing expressways. 

[dfwmapper]

"Partial control of access" means no driveways or business entrances. Allowing driveways or business entrances would be uncontrolled access, even when there are limitations imposed on spacing and such.

Try telling that to those on WIS-29, US-151, US-51 in Lincoln County WI and US-52 in SE Minnesota.

Done. Not sure they heard me though. I think the problem is with the MUTCD definition of expressway requiring access control, not the definition of access control itself. Like Wisconsin, Texas has a bunch of roads that function as expressways in rural areas but don't meet that particular requirement because it isn't worth the expense of building frontage roads or proper cross streets to serve a farm. Requirements for access control on expressways make sense in urban areas, not so much in rural areas.

In the 70s and 80s, Wisconsin would upgrade roads to freeway standards and it would cost the state a lot of money.  The objective was to have continuous flow traffic without stops.  In the 90s, Wisconsin focused more on upgrading roads to expressway standards on existing alignments and upgrading to freeway standards on new alignments, mainly bypasses around towns.  They figured they could still have continuous traffic flow like a freeway even with some intersections and driveways.  For example, Wis 29 has a 65 mph speed limit with no stops between I-94 and I-41, a distance of about 195 miles.  The road has the traffic flow of a freeway, but was built on a smaller budget with access points that minimally affect the flow of traffic.  I drove in Alabama a few years ago, and the 4 lane roads there are terrible compared to Wisconsin.  When I was there, I had traffic signals, passed through towns where I had to slow down, and the traffic flow was not smooth.  Wisconsin eliminates those stops and slowdowns when constructing expressways.

I'm not disagreeing with what they built or why they built it, just that if the definition of expressway requires control of access, that it doesn't meet that definition, and the definition needs more work.

[vtk]

I think it may be easiest to simply recognize that, in practice, varying degrees of access control exist.  Different transportation departments have different thresholds for what counts as access control for the purpose of expressway design.

[bzakharin]

So would Cherry Hill Mall Drive be an expressway by any definition?
http://www.bing.com/mapspreview/?&cp=39.942246~-75.021772&lvl=19&dir=142.745&style=s&pi=-18.43092&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=1&form=S00027
It is clearly divided and has access control by some definitions (Side roads through the shopping center only connect at 2 intersections). Is it a highway? There is no posted speed limit and, although it is not consistently marked, you can fit two lanes in each direction.

[riiga]

Not by my definition. If you removed the intersections and only had on- and off-ramps I guess it would be an expressway, like this:

[jeffandnicole]

So would Cherry Hill Mall Drive be an expressway by any definition?
http://www.bing.com/mapspreview/?&cp=39.942246~-75.021772&lvl=19&dir=142.745&style=s&pi=-18.43092&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=1&form=S00027
It is clearly divided and has access control by some definitions (Side roads through the shopping center only connect at 2 intersections). Is it a highway? There is no posted speed limit and, although it is not consistently marked, you can fit two lanes in each direction.

If there's no posted speed limit, then it defaults to the statutory speed limit which in this case would be 25 mph or 35 mph.

[peterj920]

http://www.travelwisconsin.com/pdf/statemap.pdf

Might be a big file to download, but Wisconsin's state map classifies freeways, expressways, and multi-lane divided.  The expressways have a speed limit of 65 and have continuous non-stop traffic with access control.  The multi-lane divided roads have a speed limit of 55 or lower and may have traffic signals and stops along the way.  US 10 between Marshfield and I-39 was opened recently and meets expressway standards, but for some reason was not listed as an expressway even though it should have been.  Are there other states that differentiate between expressway and multi-lane divided on their state maps?

[bzakharin]

http://www.travelwisconsin.com/pdf/statemap.pdf

Might be a big file to download, but Wisconsin's state map classifies freeways, expressways, and multi-lane divided.  The expressways have a speed limit of 65 and have continuous non-stop traffic with access control.  The multi-lane divided roads have a speed limit of 55 or lower and may have traffic signals and stops along the way.  US 10 between Marshfield and I-39 was opened recently and meets expressway standards, but for some reason was not listed as an expressway even though it should have been.  Are there other states that differentiate between expressway and multi-lane divided on their state maps?

So Wisconsin defines expressways as Jersey freeways? Only intersections that don't cross the mainline are allowed? If so, NJ lumps those in with other non-freeway divided highways (and the speed limit is 55 at most on both)

[froggie]

Peter's slightly off in his definitions.  Wisconsin expressways follow the standard engineering definition with partial access control.  Namely that private driveways are prohibited but normal at-grade intersections are allowed.  They are NOT what the roadgeek community calls "Jersey freeways".

[1995hoo]

http://www.travelwisconsin.com/pdf/statemap.pdf

Might be a big file to download, but Wisconsin's state map classifies freeways, expressways, and multi-lane divided.  The expressways have a speed limit of 65 and have continuous non-stop traffic with access control.  The multi-lane divided roads have a speed limit of 55 or lower and may have traffic signals and stops along the way.  US 10 between Marshfield and I-39 was opened recently and meets expressway standards, but for some reason was not listed as an expressway even though it should have been.  Are there other states that differentiate between expressway and multi-lane divided on their state maps?

Heh, whereas Virginia's state map doesn't use either "freeway" or "expressway" and instead refers to "multi-lane divided highways" (with a separate color for "multi-lane toll highways") and designates what people on this forum would call "freeways" as having "access controlled."

(Annoyingly for this purpose, they split the map legend between panes 1 and 2 at the following link.)

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-state.asp

[Brandon]

Locally, the term "expressway" is used for the non-toll freeways in NE Illinois, and "tollway" is used for the tolled freeways.  You can even spot examples in movies and TV.

Elwood: We'll be all right if we can just get back on the expressway.
Jake: This don't look like no expressway to me!

Clark: Excuse me, could you please tell me how to get back on the expressway?

[peterj920]

Peter's slightly off in his definitions.  Wisconsin expressways follow the standard engineering definition with partial access control.  Namely that private driveways are prohibited but normal at-grade intersections are allowed.  They are NOT what the roadgeek community calls "Jersey freeways".

I should have elaborated more.  What I meant by access control is that intersections and driveways are limited and kept to a minimum, but are present.  The traffic on the expressway doesn't have to stop at any of the intersections.  For example, on US 10 between Marshfield and I-39, WISDOT limited intersections to about a mile apart, and the traffic continuously flows with a 65 mph speed limit with no stops on the mainline.  Wis 29 between I-94 and I-41 has intersections and driveways also, but they are also limited and there is non-stop traffic on that section of expressway.  The only difference between that expressway and a freeway is the presence of intersections and driveways, otherwise the traffic flow is almost the same without any stops or drop in speed limit.  (There was a drop to 55 in the Wausau West area, but more access control was implemented on that stretch and is now signed at 65 mph).  Multi-lane divided roads listed on the Wisconsin map like Wis 57 between I-43 and Wis 50 between Lake Geneva and Kenosha have numerous driveways, traffic signals, and sections where the speed limit drops.