AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards  (Read 3714 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2034
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:22:49 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #75 on: March 31, 2019, 11:14:37 AM »

50 MPH is permitted on urban interstate highways, so that segment of I-75 would meet interstate standards.

Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2276
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 12:55:59 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #76 on: March 31, 2019, 11:16:55 AM »

50 MPH is permitted on urban interstate highways, so that segment of I-75 would meet interstate standards.
Heck in St. Paul I-35E goes down to 45 mph.
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2276
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 12:55:59 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #77 on: March 31, 2019, 11:19:29 AM »

Actually backing up to the serious accidents that have happened there. The entire bridge collapsed about 5 or so years ago. That was the 9 Mile bridge and there has been flooding in that area too.
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2276
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 12:55:59 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #78 on: March 31, 2019, 11:20:04 AM »

The collapse was due to a tanker explosion
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2276
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 12:55:59 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #79 on: March 31, 2019, 11:21:16 AM »

I also remember another tanker explosion that happened on one of the ramps from I-94 to I-75 about 20 years ago I went down there about a week later and you could still smell the gas from the explosion
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2482
  • Last Login: August 20, 2019, 06:56:32 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #80 on: April 01, 2019, 04:53:44 AM »

In response to Brandon: I-82 also violates the numbering standard by primarily being a N/S interstate instead of E/W interstate (caused by the original plan to come from Tacoma and over Naches Pass).
Not if you consider it part of the Seattle-Boise corridor, even if it has a lot of N/S movement, and is entirely N/S (and technically wrong-way E/W) in Oregon.

Quote
In response to KP Hoger: I will admit that I haven't been through there since September, so my memory might be a little foggy. I'm also not going through a good time in my life right now in all aspects. All I remember was it was around the Rooster Rock area (if it exists). It might not be against standards but I thought it was.
Eastbound or westbound?

Quote
Did anyone mention the Interstate bridge or Marqum bridge yet? Both have narrower lanes, and no shoulders. Also the Freemont [sic] Bridge is borderline but I think it makes the cut of being standard.
I believe both were up to Interstate Standards when they were built. Standards since have gotten better.
Edit: I'm not counting the left exits on both bridges, as they were built expressly with respective thru routes in mind. Eastbound US 30 left exits from the Fremont Bridge as it was a left entrance on the otherside; the double deck configuration puts the westbound lanes as a right entrance and a right exit. The westside interchange is a full on Wye; clearance to dip the I-405 N -> US 30 W ramp under the viaduct probably isn't there to also clear the ground level structures and streets.
Arguable violation: Weaving needed for I-405 S -> NW Glisan/Everett/15th; Glisan/Everett/14th -> US 30 W.

I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.

Quote
And there are no plans to widen the I-82 bridge.
Certainly not from ODOT. I doubt WSDOT is considering it, however.

Quote
And can I add I-5 in the Willamette Valley for that ridiculous 65T60 limit? :bigass:
:meh:

Now these are violations:
I-5 Baldock Freeway: Terwilliger Curves
Built as such due to political grandstanding. ODOT has the fix drafted out, but would require nasty ROW acquistion, and be a NIMBY and political fraught battle. Also, expensive.

I-205 Abernathy Bridge. In the pipeline to be addressed with the seismic retrofit accompanying the widening of I-205 from OR 99E to Wanker's Corner Stafford.

I-5 Pacific Hwy: South Salem Hills. Possibly. There's one narrow overpass south of Keubler, and there are truck climbing lanes. I believe ODOT has long range plans to widen the freeway from Keubler down toward Albany at some point.

I-405/US 26: 6th Ave -> 12th Ave. Horrendous weaving that can back up traffic onto the Marquam Bridge, and through the Ross Island Maze. Southbound isn't much better with the Montgomery St onramp interacting with the US 26 W onramp and offramp, though that doesn't get nearly as much use.

I-35/70, Kansas City.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2019, 05:09:55 AM by Bickendan »
Logged

SteveG1988

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2470
  • Age: 31
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 04:11:16 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #81 on: April 01, 2019, 05:05:57 AM »

I-295/76 connection in NJ (currently being fixed)

I-676 (The traffic lights, depending on your view of if 676 actually uses the bridge or not. Or the general narrowness of the death star trench run section)

I-55 crossing between TN and AR on the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge. No shoulders, and that cloverleaf for through traffic on the TN side. AR side is adequate.

Logged

X99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 288
  • Location: South Dakota
  • Last Login: Today at 06:34:08 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #82 on: April 01, 2019, 10:57:46 AM »

I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.
Logged

SteveG1988

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2470
  • Age: 31
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 04:11:16 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #83 on: April 01, 2019, 02:48:21 PM »

I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.

Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
Logged

MCRoads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 399
  • What road will you choose?

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Last Login: Today at 05:43:37 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #84 on: April 04, 2019, 10:53:43 AM »

What about I-74 in the quad cities?

The bridge over the Mississippi R. Is VERY narrow, and DEFINITLY not to standard.
Logged
I build roads on Minecraft. It might sound silly, but i feel like i work at the DOT on that server.

Interstates traveled: 4/5/10/11/12/15/25/29/35/40/44/49(LA)/64/66/70/76/78/80/95/99(PA)/99(NY)

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2384
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 08:37:53 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #85 on: April 04, 2019, 04:59:08 PM »

What about I-74 in the quad cities?

The bridge over the Mississippi R. Is VERY narrow, and DEFINITLY not to standard.

That bridge’s replacement is under construction so maybe that’s why it was omitted.
Logged
It sucks that you think where I’m from is whack, but as long as that’s enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4959
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:10:54 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #86 on: April 05, 2019, 11:00:58 AM »

I just thought up another one: I-520! I don't care that it exists in two states, but as a half-loop around Augusta, it needs a more appropriate number like I-420 or I-620.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

X99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 288
  • Location: South Dakota
  • Last Login: Today at 06:34:08 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #87 on: April 05, 2019, 08:25:03 PM »

I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.

Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
I still have access to one of those pages, but only to move the entries to their respective road pages. I am not allowed to give anyone else access to it.
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7145
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 09:55:06 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #88 on: April 05, 2019, 08:34:03 PM »

I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.

Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
I still have access to one of those pages, but only to move the entries to their respective road pages. I am not allowed to give anyone else access to it.

There are no private Wikipedia pages. Even if you are an admin (and therefore are able to see deleted pages), so are Scott5114, Bruce, and seicer.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚14⒈159
NH 27, 111A(E); NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A; CT 32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr

X99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 288
  • Location: South Dakota
  • Last Login: Today at 06:34:08 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #89 on: April 06, 2019, 11:28:41 PM »

I-5 S -> I-405 N was meant to be the US 26 through lanes from unbuilt I-80N. The upper deck is a right entrance and would have been a right exit, with the I-5 S -> I-80N/US 26 E movement similar to the I-405/US 30 Wye. That ghost ramp is still there to marvel at.
There used to be a Wikipedia page dedicated to ghost ramps and unused roads. It was removed after the definition of "unused" was changed to "never used once in its life" and a second page was made for the rest. Every unused road page except Bridge to Nowhere has been deleted. Might make an interesting thread, but I don't know which board to put it on.

Yeah, i thought that was a bit pedantic to remove it for that, cannot even restore it.
I still have access to one of those pages, but only to move the entries to their respective road pages. I am not allowed to give anyone else access to it.

There are no private Wikipedia pages. Even if you are an admin (and therefore are able to see deleted pages), so are Scott5114, Bruce, and seicer.
The page I am talking about is currently a child page (if I'm using that term right) of my own user page.
Logged

JREwing78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1037
  • Location: Janesville, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 08:18:00 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #90 on: April 07, 2019, 08:31:41 PM »

I-94 through Detroit is substandard with no inner shoulder, short on-off ramps. and left entrances/exits. It's one of the few freeways in Michigan posted for 55 mph. Granted, this stretch dates from the late 1940s and early 1950s. MDOT is working to upgrade some portions of the highway: https://i94detroit.org/

Additionally, I-94 between Parma, MI and east of Jackson, MI (Sargent Rd), the ramps are very short, and between US-127 North and Elm Ave there is only a few inches of inner shoulder before you hit the hard barrier. This stretch also dates from the late 1940s and early 1950s.

MDOT has made a number of minor changes over the past 40 years to improve safety (removing exits, installation of center barrier, etc). But they are making their largest effort to bring the stretch up to modern standards with replacement of the bridges over the Grand River, and reconstruction of the highway between US-127 North and US-127 South. https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11008_86278---,00.html
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2486
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 11:22:14 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #91 on: April 07, 2019, 08:34:44 PM »

I 90 has almost direct turns off the freeway in South Dakota....I think they do in Wyoming as well.  Also I-75 just south of the Mackinac Bridge at James Street just has a sharp turn.
Logged

X99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 288
  • Location: South Dakota
  • Last Login: Today at 06:34:08 PM
Re: Interstates that violate Interstate Highway Standards
« Reply #92 on: April 07, 2019, 09:23:43 PM »

I 90 has almost direct turns off the freeway in South Dakota.

Which exits are you talking about here?
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.