The Interstate Highways That Don’t Follow the Rules

[vdeane]

But still, why make it an interstate in the first place?  Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.

[kkt]

But still, why make it an interstate in the first place?  Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.

Because California used Interstate funds to build it.

[kkt]

If I were AASHTO, I'd have said "you can do it that way or it won't be an interstate; your route duplication issues aren't our problem, if it's that much of an issue, renumber CA 180". 

What an arrogant reaction that would have been.  Not duplicating routes is a good policy that other states should emulate.

I would say that it was arrogant of CA to spit all over the numbering rules of a FEDERAL highway system just because they didn't want to renumber a route.

Honestly, not renumbering CA 180 back when they renumbered everything else represents a HUGE lack of foresight.

Well, they didn't anticipate numbering so many short highways as 3dis.  380, 880, and 980 weren't on the drawing boards in 1964.

Regardless, they should have cleared out all potential 3di children of all their interstates regardless of whether they would have been used or not, just in case.  Just because you're planning something now, doesn't mean that you never will 50-100 years from now.  It's best to not leave yourself in a position to be screwed if the future doesn't go as you expect.  Did they think that the interstates were going to be replaced in 20 years like the US routes were?  That's the only reason I can think of for not allowing for more numbers to be added later.

They thought the interstates were for long-haul travel, not a bunch of short commuter routes within metro areas.  And they did allow for numbers to be added later, three of them.  What's NY going to number the next spur of I-90?

If you want to place blame, blame the original interstate numbering scheme for failing to allow for growth generally, and failing to allocate more than one 2di though a fast-growing major metro area both in the original scheme and when California requested one.

[TheStranger]

There were plenty of (I assume) well-known state routes in the Bay Area that would have been perfectly fine left alone as freeways (9, 17, 21, all come to mind), but were renumbered as interstates due to brand name recognition.

680 was built mostly on new, parallel alignment to the old surface road Route 21 (except for the north portion that became part of 680 in 1976).

17 being converted to Interstate between 280 and 80 was part of a mid-80s push to have Interstate funds used to rehabilitate the Nimitz Freeway.  Today's 580 between Richmond Parkway and Cutting Boulevard was all new-build replacement of the former Route 17 surface street from Albany northwards, Hoffman Boulevard.

[kkt]

That doesn't make sense.  What would have happened to the Castro Valley to Oakland maze section -- 180 also?  Terrible idea confusing people by moving the 580 route number to a parallel route just a couple of miles away.

From what I understand, yes... AASHTO suggested I-180 from the 101 to the Oakland maze. And then 580 beginning on what is now the 238. This would have turned the 580 (formerly part of US-50) into two different numbered highways. Had CA-180 been a much shorter route than it was, I actually think this may have happened.

Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.

As I stated earlier, I think the best solution would have been to leave CA-24 alone, and renumbered CA-238 to I-980. Given that the actual 980 is only about 2 miles long, it barely affected CA-24, which is entirely freeway, anyway.

But California used interstate funds to pay for 980's construction, so it had to have an interstate number.

In retrospect, it might have been better to have federal funded short routes like 980 and 380 paid for under a different program that wouldn't have required them to have interstate numbers.

Now I-238 could be changed to I-480, if they cared enough to pay for sign changes just to make it fit the rules.

[vdeane]

They thought the interstates were for long-haul travel, not a bunch of short commuter routes within metro areas.  And they did allow for numbers to be added later, three of them.  What's NY going to number the next spur of I-90?

If you want to place blame, blame the original interstate numbering scheme for failing to allow for growth generally, and failing to allocate more than one 2di though a fast-growing major metro area both in the original scheme and when California requested one.

Maybe they should have been paying attention to the Yellow Book then...

Regarding NY, we've done as best we can.  At least we actually used our x90s on interstates and not state highways (though NY isn't shy about duplicating interstates, which is annoying).  Just the layout of the state.  If we really needed one, renumbering I-390 or I-690 would be options.  Buffalo would have the most issues; Albany has I-87, Syracuse has I-81, and Rochester can conceivably get I-99.

But still, why make it an interstate in the first place?  Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.

Because California used Interstate funds to build it.

Still not sure why one would use interstate funds for a road that doesn't allow trucks.  Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in, and now allows trucks that can fit under the bridges.

Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.

Is that really a rule?  I'm pretty sure that as long as an interstate connects to another 3di with the same parent, it's good.

[TheStranger]

Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in

Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.

[dgolub]

No mention of the traffic lights on I-78 in Jersey City, I-676 in Philadelphia, or I-70 in Breezewood.  Also, the truck route along Astoria Boulevard where I-278 gets routed along the Grand Central Parkway in Queens.

[cl94]

Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in

Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.

I-278 is worse. Excluding the section west of the Verrazzano, it isn't close to standards. I don't have a time to list everything wrong with it. It even has a drawbridge. Trucks are banned from 2 sections because of vertical clearance. If they wanted to allow trucks on I-580, they could.

And going back to New York's Interstates, I-790 and I-587. Neither has a direct Interstate connection from the parent. Both are concurrent with a state route for their entire length. The short x80s are nothing compared to those two. And if New York's x90s weren't used up, I could certainly see New York giving an x90 to US 219.

[Quillz]

Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.

Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.

[TheStranger]

Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.

Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.

Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)

[PHLBOS]

Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.

Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.

Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)

A couple other examples of such include I-190 in MA and I-195 in NJ.

[vdeane]

But still, why make it an interstate in the first place?  Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.

Because California used Interstate funds to build it.

Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in

Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.

You're contradicting each other here.  According to wikipedia, I-580 was built in 1963, well after the interstate system was created.  Honestly, I would have had I-580 terminate at I-880 and leave the rest as a state highway or US route.

Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in

Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.

I-278 is worse. Excluding the section west of the Verrazzano, it isn't close to standards. I don't have a time to list everything wrong with it. It even has a drawbridge. Trucks are banned from 2 sections because of vertical clearance. If they wanted to allow trucks on I-580, they could.

And going back to New York's Interstates, I-790 and I-587. Neither has a direct Interstate connection from the parent. Both are concurrent with a state route for their entire length. The short x80s are nothing compared to those two. And if New York's x90s weren't used up, I could certainly see New York giving an x90 to US 219.

I'm not aware of a hard truck ban on I-278.  Trucks that can fit under the bridges are allowed on it (though I'm only aware of the section on the former Grand Central Parkway... is the other east of the Sheridan?).

[freebrickproductions]

Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.

Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.

Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)

A couple other examples of such include I-190 in MA and I-195 in NJ.

And I-422 in Birmingham, AL when it's done.

[cl94]

Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in

Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.

I-278 is worse. Excluding the section west of the Verrazzano, it isn't close to standards. I don't have a time to list everything wrong with it. It even has a drawbridge. Trucks are banned from 2 sections because of vertical clearance. If they wanted to allow trucks on I-580, they could.

And going back to New York's Interstates, I-790 and I-587. Neither has a direct Interstate connection from the parent. Both are concurrent with a state route for their entire length. The short x80s are nothing compared to those two. And if New York's x90s weren't used up, I could certainly see New York giving an x90 to US 219.

I'm not aware of a hard truck ban on I-278.  Trucks that can fit under the bridges are allowed on it (though I'm only aware of the section on the former Grand Central Parkway... is the other east of the Sheridan?).

The GCP section has a hard ban on anything over 3 axles. That's pretty close to a hard ban.
There's a height restriction on the Promenade heading EB. 12'2".

Either way, all expressways in New York City excluding I-95, the Deegan north of I-95, the Van Wyck, the Clearview north of the LIE, the LIE east of the Clearview, and I-695 have a hard ban on trucks over 48', which is a violation itself.

Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.

Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.

Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)

A couple other examples of such include I-190 in MA and I-195 in NJ.

And I-422 in Birmingham, AL when it's done.

No. Only has to touch a child. Of course, that doesn't excuse the x78s not touching I-78, but they were supposed to and I-478 comes close.

[ekt8750]

Then 580 would have broken a different rule, by failing to connect with its parent.

Is that an actual rule, that a 3di has to touch its parent? Because if it is, it's broken on occasion. The 380 in California only touches the 280. The 990 in New York only touches the 290.

Not at all. (Other examples: I-105 in Los Angeles, I-795 in suburban Baltimore, I-175 and I-375 in St. Petersburg)

A couple other examples of such include I-190 in MA and I-195 in NJ.

I-195 does interchange with I-95 at exit 7A of the NJTP. 95 does extend (albeit unsigned) down the NJTP to Exit 6. The 95 signs start at 7A though.

[kkt]

But still, why make it an interstate in the first place?  Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.

Because California used Interstate funds to build it.

Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in

Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.

You're contradicting each other here.  According to wikipedia, I-580 was built in 1963, well after the interstate system was created.  Honestly, I would have had I-580 terminate at I-880 and leave the rest as a state highway or US route.

There is no contradiction.  The truck ban was established on MacArthur Blvd. in 1951.  When the MacArthur Freeway was built parallel to MacArthur Blvd. in the 1960s, the truck ban was continued on the new structure.  The idea was to separate automobile traffic from truck traffic, the truck traffic taking I-880 to I-238 (CA 17 to CA 238 at the time).

It used to be a rule that interstates could only terminate at other interstates, national borders, or major bodies of water.  I-580 couldn't have terminated at what is now I-880 because it was a state route until 1984.  Also, the MacArthur Freeway was built with interstate funds, therefore it had to carry an interstate number.  If it wasn't 580, it would use up yet another of the limited supply of x80 numbers.

[vdeane]

The GCP section has a hard ban on anything over 3 axles. That's pretty close to a hard ban.

Is that still there?  Thought they got rid of the hard ban a while back.  NYSDOT got rid of Truck I-278 on its signage a while ago; it's now marked as an alternate route for over-height vehicles (Truck I-278 signs from NYCDOT and the MTA remain).  Pretty sure NYSDOT considers Grand Central Parkway to be truncated to where I-278 splits off.

There's a height restriction on the Promenade heading EB. 12'2".

Must have missed that one due to the lack of a Truck I-278 route there.

But still, why make it an interstate in the first place?  Should have just been left as US 50, or better yet, a CA state route.

Because California used Interstate funds to build it.

Sure, I-278 has restrictions, but at least it was grandfathered in

Just like the section of I-580 (the Macarthur Freeway) being referred to here.

You're contradicting each other here.  According to wikipedia, I-580 was built in 1963, well after the interstate system was created.  Honestly, I would have had I-580 terminate at I-880 and leave the rest as a state highway or US route.

There is no contradiction.  The truck ban was established on MacArthur Blvd. in 1951.  When the MacArthur Freeway was built parallel to MacArthur Blvd. in the 1960s, the truck ban was continued on the new structure.  The idea was to separate automobile traffic from truck traffic, the truck traffic taking I-880 to I-238 (CA 17 to CA 238 at the time).

It used to be a rule that interstates could only terminate at other interstates, national borders, or major bodies of water.  I-580 couldn't have terminated at what is now I-880 because it was a state route until 1984.  Also, the MacArthur Freeway was built with interstate funds, therefore it had to carry an interstate number.  If it wasn't 580, it would use up yet another of the limited supply of x80 numbers.

You can't have a road that is both grandfathered in and built with interstate funds.  If I were FHWA, I would have rejected the truck ban, but they could have been allowed to restrict trucks from exiting in Oakland (a la NYC).  If they wanted a car-only route, they could have used current I-880 for that as it was then a state route.

[kkt]

You can't have a road that is both grandfathered in and built with interstate funds.

The federal prohibition against truck bans on interstates was with the 1982 Federal Surface Transportation Improvement Act.

Have a look at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/routes/restrict-hist-580.htm

[cl94]

Truck ban was there as of last fall with a bunch of Truck I-278 signs remaining. Was still a 3 axle maximum.

Could one of the people downstate confirm?

[noelbotevera]

Why couldn't they route I-278 down Astoria Boulevard back to its alignment? Wasn't that supposed to be a freeway (a small section of it)?

[dgolub]

Truck ban was there as of last fall with a bunch of Truck I-278 signs remaining. Was still a 3 axle maximum.

Could one of the people downstate confirm?

Yes, the 3-axle maximum was the case as of when I went through there a couple of months ago.  The last time I was on Astoria Boulevard in that area, at the NYC meet last year, they still had Truck I-278 signs on Astoria Boulevard.

[dgolub]

Why couldn't they route I-278 down Astoria Boulevard back to its alignment? Wasn't that supposed to be a freeway (a small section of it)?

That's basically what they do.  Cars follow the Grand Central Parkway for one exit, while trucks have to get off onto Astoria Boulevard and then get back on at the beginning of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.

[vdeane]

Keep in mind that NYCDOT ONLY replaces signs in kind.  I'd go with the signs on I-278 itself, which at least has some NYSDOT influence.  And the I-278 signage says vehicles over 12' 8'', NOT  trucks.  "Truck I-278" (which is actually "Trucks I-278" on NYCDOT's signage, VERY important distinction, as "Truck" functions as a bannered route, while "Trucks" is like a "TO" banner) is actually signed as "Alt to I-278".

[cl94]

Keep in mind that NYCDOT ONLY replaces signs in kind.  I'd go with the signs on I-278 itself, which at least has some NYSDOT influence.  And the I-278 signage says vehicles over 12' 8'', NOT  trucks.  "Truck I-278" (which is actually "Trucks I-278" on NYCDOT's signage, VERY important distinction, as "Truck" functions as a bannered route, while "Trucks" is like a "TO" banner) is actually signed as "Alt to I-278".

Signage on I-278 is "over 3 axles use Astoria Boulevard". I'll add that there is a "Truck I-278" assembly on the mainline at Exit 44 heading EB and possibly more. It used to be a full truck ban, but they allow buses and small trucks. You still have plenty of trucks (basically anything that needs to deliver to Brooklyn or western Queens) that take the truck route.