When will the interstate highway system ever be complete?

[MantyMadTown]

I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.

Man, I really want them to be completed.

[Roadgeekteen]

More than likely I-11, I-42 and the NC part of I-87 will probably be completed within the next ten years. I don't see I-73 ever extending to Myrtle Beach, it will probably get as far as I-95 and terminate there.

I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.

Unless I missed something I-2 is already completed.

[DeaconG]

More than likely I-11, I-42 and the NC part of I-87 will probably be completed within the next ten years. I don't see I-73 ever extending to Myrtle Beach, it will probably get as far as I-95 and terminate there.

I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.

Unless I missed something I-2 is already completed.

The extension to Laredo isn't off the table yet. When it does get waved off, then we can say I-2 is complete.

[ET21]

Never, it is an evolving system that I'm sure will undergo major changes over the course of its lifetime.

[MikieTimT]

I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.

Man, I really want them to be completed.

And they will, eventually, primarily because Arkansas has somewhat swam against the current and by referendum taxed ourselves for road improvements, which is the main reason why I-49 (and projects all over the state) has had the work done over the last several years.  Trouble is, we don't have the tax base that other states do, but it is constantly growing.  However, it can only go so far so fast, but it's more progress than is being seen in many other areas of the country right now.

[hotdogPi]

The major cities will be different 100 years from now. There might be large growth in Idaho, necessitating an Interstate north and south from Boise, in addition to a beltway. Or North Dakota, with Minot to Bismarck. If Colorado grows, Boulder CO to Fort Collins CO. Existing cities might become larger, so that Atlanta needs a second beltway, or any number of cities along CA 99 or US 101 need a first beltway. Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.

[sparker]

Future development of the Interstate System, under current processes, will be completely dependent upon state and local activities toward establishing corridors as deemed necessary by their progenitors and, over time, amassing the necessary funds for construction.  It would have been nice if there were an orderly and cohesive nationwide progress -- as indicated historically by the 1968 nationwide addition program -- 10 years after the system was being "gelled" into its first iteration and ostensibly prompted by (1) population growth and (2) demographic changes.  True, some of the 1500 miles of '68 additions were clearly politically motivated (I-72 in IL and I-88 in NY as examples), but most of the others were logical additions to the system (I-15 extension to San Diego, I-75 likewise to greater Miami, I-40 east through Raleigh).  This, IMO, should have remained the expansion process:  on a regular basis (10 years seemed reasonble back then -- and still does today) states/regions submit corridors based upon their perceived need; they're vetted at the USDOT level (with FHWA and AASHTO chiming in, of course), and the most warranted corridors added to the chargeable system.  Alas, after '73 it was not meant to be with the Nixonian shift to block grants and the Feds relegated to the role of determining standards.  The goal of those who formulated this change was, simply, to abrogate much of LBJ's "Great Society" undertakings -- which undoubtedly did result in the expansion of the federal bureaucracy, for better or worse -- and to ensure that such major programs didn't reemerge.  However, the end result was that any number of worthy activities and goals were swept into oblivion along with those that particularly irked those formulators; at that point, any expansion of the Interstate system -- essentially inevitable with the demographic changes since the early '70's -- was the parvenu of those at the state & local level who were most competent at manipulating the various levels of governance into manifested action.  Some of these were actually worthy projects that did address demographics and/or the shortcomings of the original system configuration (I-49, I-22, possibly the southern half of I-39); some were obviously local "pork" or manifestations of longstanding resentment about being left out of the network in the past (I-99, I-73/74, the new I-87, the I-14 proposal) -- and some were Frankenroads cobbled up to get national attention for "serialized" local projects (I-69, obviously).  But, to reiterate a cliche': it is what it is.  Since 1991 the various comprehensive national infrastructure legislative efforts (ISTEA and its successors) have provided a convenient path for the establishment of new Interstate corridors (albeit lacking any specific funding source): the High Priority Corridor, which can be "tweaked" with a little legislative moxie to designate a specific corridor as a future Interstate, often with a number attached.  That's how we got every 2di designated after 1992 (with the exception of I-2 -- but even that was "piggybacked" as an adjunct connector to extant HPC-originated corridors) :  the promise of the maximum 80% federal funding (albeit without guarantee) -- of course dependent upon Congressional apportionment plus state/local-originated matching funds, which has proved to be a pretty high bar to overcome.  There's a pathway for future Interstate development -- but the present one has just created an ever-increasing "backlog" of possible future projects.  Right now promoters of new Interstates can take a slight measure of solace in the fact that the process exists and has produced corridors (the viability of which can vary widely) -- but those who decry any incursion of more freeways into urban areas can also be thankful that most of the proposals to date have been rural/intercity in nature, with very little developmental activity in urban areas (OK, NC's the exception, as it is with developmental policy in general).  Otherwise, no major parties have gone out of their way (some of our posters excepted!) to plan and deploy new urban Interstates; the writing seems to be indelibly on the wall for that type of activity. 

What I'd expect to see in the future are (a) connectors to and between areas unserved by the present system, including efficiency enhancers,  (b) "relief" corridors for present overused portions of the Interstate network, and (c) "spot" projects intended to alleviate localized discrepancies.  Most of the proposed TX corridors, including the peripatetic "Port-to-Plains", fit into category (a) -- certainly not much of (b), considering the sparse use of I-10 west of San Antonio!; the midsection (Shreveport-Memphis) of I-69 is more (b) than anything else, considering the traffic on I-30 and especially I-40 Little Rock-Memphis.  (C) projects crop up all over the place; I-269 and I-840 in TN (and MS in the case of the former) could be considered both (b) and (c); 269 as a "real" bypass loop considering the urban inundation of I-240, 840 relieving movements in and around Nashville.  But DOT's need to be very careful to configure the terminal miles of any of these nascent intercity corridors so as not to promote sprawl (i.e., avoid the temptation to take developer $$ to put interchanges along the routes). 

How all this will work out in the future is anyone's guess.  Those who want to do a major societal reconfiguration will likely be disappointed that what will likely be built won't do anything to suppress the individualistic tendencies that drive what passes for our "culture" -- but it also won't be a problem to those who want to create urban "reservations" relatively free from commercial considerations -- no one is proposing to raze major city areas for massive new freeway projects (teardowns are another story altogether!).  But despite the wishes of some, this will be a commercially based societal structure for at least the near future, geared toward both the individual and groups forming from social instinct (and occasionally common duress!) rather than a "forced march" toward a predetermined standard.     

   

[Henry]

More than likely I-11, I-42 and the NC part of I-87 will probably be completed within the next ten years. I don't see I-73 ever extending to Myrtle Beach, it will probably get as far as I-95 and terminate there.

I-2, I-49 and I-69 will never be completed. Period.

There is an expressway to Myrtle Beach that can easily be upgraded to Interstate standards, so I-73 should be built from there to Rockingham in order to facilitate a high-speed drive from Greensboro to the Beach. I do agree, though, that I-74 will never be completed, at least not in any of our lifetimes.

As the exit numbers on I-2 suggest that the terminus will be in Laredo, hopefully I can see it get done, even if it takes many years to do so. Same deal with I-49 and I-69.

[MantyMadTown]

Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.

I don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan. There are two ferries across Lake Michigan (including one that stops at my hometown) that bring in tourist revenue for the communities involved, and building bridges in place of them would drive away tourists that would otherwise take one of the two ferries.

[MNHighwayMan]

Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.

I don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan. There are two ferries across Lake Michigan (including one that stops at my hometown) that bring in tourist revenue for the communities involved, and building bridges in place of them would drive away tourists that would otherwise take one of the two ferries.

How would making crossing Lake Michigan easier drive away tourists? I cannot imagine that the ferries themselves are that huge a tourist draw. And if that's the only thing your city has going for it, well...

[vdeane]

I know when Rochester had the fast ferry, there were people who traveled on it to Toronto just to ride the ferry.

[Rothman]

I know when Rochester had the fast ferry, there were people who traveled on it to Toronto just to ride the ferry.

And yet it still went under.

[vdeane]

That's what happens when you bank your ferry's ability to make money on freight trucks even with no deal to actually allow them with US/Canadian customs in place.

[Henry]

Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.

I don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan. There are two ferries across Lake Michigan (including one that stops at my hometown) that bring in tourist revenue for the communities involved, and building bridges in place of them would drive away tourists that would otherwise take one of the two ferries.

I think it would be impossible to build anyway.

[Duke87]

The idea that most people in the U.S. desire to live in an apartment above a commercial property (mixed-use) is laughable.

But isn't that what many residents of New York City want and utilize?

I really wonder about this and how many people actually enjoy apartment living and how many wish for the single family home American Dream.  I provided a link to at least one survey that would indicate most want the suburbs.

Don't discount the gap between what people ideally want and what people can realistically attain. There are a decent number of people living in apartments who would, in a perfect world, love nothing more than to own their own home, but will never be able to afford one.

There are also plenty of people who own a condo or shares in a co-op, and are thus able to reap the financial benefits of homeownership, but still live in a building that contains multiple households.

[1995hoo]

On February 30.

Fitting the entire Interstate system into a DeLorean would be difficult. That would be the only way to get to the real February 30.

[wanderer2575]

Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.

I also don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan.  You might as well also build a bridge across the Grand Canyon, and then continue FritzOwling the whole nation.  To paraphrase the late Andy Rooney, I like that there are some natural obstacles preventing a road from running straight between points A and B.

Future development of the Interstate System, under current processes, will be completely dependent upon state and local activities toward establishing corridors as deemed necessary by their progenitors and, over time, amassing the necessary funds for construction.  It would have been nice if there were an orderly and cohesive nationwide progress -- as indicated historically by the 1968 nationwide addition program -- 10 years after the system was being "gelled" into its first iteration and ostensibly prompted by (1) population growth and (2) demographic changes.  True, some of the 1500 miles of '68 additions were clearly politically motivated (I-72 in IL and I-88 in NY as examples), but most of the others were logical additions to the system (I-15 extension to San Diego, I-75 likewise to greater Miami, I-40 east through Raleigh).  This, IMO, should have remained the expansion process:  on a regular basis (10 years seemed reasonble back then -- and still does today) states/regions submit corridors based upon their perceived need; they're vetted at the USDOT level (with FHWA and AASHTO chiming in, of course), and the most warranted corridors added to the chargeable system.

Agreed.  I feel like most of the recent additions (I-2; I-11; I-14; I-41; I-73, I-74, and I-87 in NC; I-99) aren't on the basis of merit and really fitting into a national system as much as they are the result of states paying off the right people just to get those Interstate shields posted.

[Beltway]

Maybe new technology would allow a bridge across Lake Michigan.

I also don't want a bridge across Lake Michigan.  You might as well also build a bridge across the Grand Canyon, and then continue FritzOwling the whole nation.  To paraphrase the late Andy Rooney, I like that there are some natural obstacles preventing a road from running straight between points A and B.

I can't envision what kind of new technology would reduce the massive amounts of concrete and steel needed to build a bridge across Lake Michigan. 

From a purely traffic engineering standpoint, an extension of I-96 to I-94 in Milwaukee would be the most logical place to put it, and it is 83 miles from shore to shore, and most of the waters on that route are about 300 feet deep.

[MantyMadTown]

Future development of the Interstate System, under current processes, will be completely dependent upon state and local activities toward establishing corridors as deemed necessary by their progenitors and, over time, amassing the necessary funds for construction.  It would have been nice if there were an orderly and cohesive nationwide progress -- as indicated historically by the 1968 nationwide addition program -- 10 years after the system was being "gelled" into its first iteration and ostensibly prompted by (1) population growth and (2) demographic changes.  True, some of the 1500 miles of '68 additions were clearly politically motivated (I-72 in IL and I-88 in NY as examples), but most of the others were logical additions to the system (I-15 extension to San Diego, I-75 likewise to greater Miami, I-40 east through Raleigh).  This, IMO, should have remained the expansion process:  on a regular basis (10 years seemed reasonble back then -- and still does today) states/regions submit corridors based upon their perceived need; they're vetted at the USDOT level (with FHWA and AASHTO chiming in, of course), and the most warranted corridors added to the chargeable system.

Agreed.  I feel like most of the recent additions (I-2; I-11; I-14; I-41; I-73, I-74, and I-87 in NC; I-99) aren't on the basis of merit and really fitting into a national system as much as they are the result of states paying off the right people just to get those Interstate shields posted.

I still feel that I-41 was warranted. I know it may not make sense to you as an interstate, but imo it's the most logical thing you could do with that corridor. To clarify, much of I-43 was built from the former US 141 corridor from Milwaukee to Green Bay (running close to Lake Michigan). There were always two major north-south routes between those two cities, with the western Fond du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton route being the more populous of the two, compared to the eastern Sheboygan-Manitowoc route that was built as I-43. Also, I-43 wasn't part of the original interstate system, not being completed until 1981. Similar to I-43 originally being built as a freeway along US 141, US 41 was also converted to a freeway over the years.

If they could build an interstate along highway 141, along the less major route, then why can't there be an interstate along the more major highway serving more population centers?

[CNGL-Leudimin]

On February 30.

Fitting the entire Interstate system into a DeLorean would be difficult. That would be the only way to get to the real February 30. (Fixed link)

That is my way of saying "never". I was aware of that one-time Swedish thing. OTOH I didn't get this:

This won't happen in the US, but:

...
2/28 UTC+12
2/29 UTC+12
2/30 UTC-12
3/1 UTC-12
...

[hotdogPi]

On February 30.

Fitting the entire Interstate system into a DeLorean would be difficult. That would be the only way to get to the real February 30. (Fixed link)

That is my way of saying "never". I was aware of that one-time Swedish thing. OTOH I didn't get this:

This won't happen in the US, but:

...
2/28 UTC+12
2/29 UTC+12
2/30 UTC-12
3/1 UTC-12
...

Samoa (not American Samoa) skipped a day due to a time zone change across the International Date Line. What I posted above would be a change in the other direction, adding a day.