Planned Interstate routes built out as non-Interstate roads

[Tom958]

Interesting. I did find this 1981 map online showing proposed I-420 from 75/85 all the way to 20. So I guess technically, the short stub of Langford from the connector to Lakewood Ave is former I-420:

Here's a link to the EIS for the tollway system.

That map is interesting because the routes shown for 420 and the 675 extension appear to be lifted from the tollways plan as shown here, with incomplete access between 420 and 675 and between 420 and 20. With the 400 link to the north off the table, 420 was actually intended to have full access at both of the system interchanges.

[Elm]

The people upset with Rocky Flats are using that as a NIMBY no-highway issue just as Louisville and Boulder NIMBY'd the NW Parkway path. The section through part of Rocky Flats is immediately adjacent to Indiana Street, literally 300' of a buffer zone where the actual former plant site is miles away. Broomfield has been taken over by NIMBYs of a similar stripe which has effectively killed the project.

The real problem with the Jefferson Parkway is the double-Breezewood, one at each end. Yes, the NW Parkway was supposed to connect to it, and there were no concrete plans for that connection even when the Jefferson Parkway was supposedly moving forward. Few if anyone would use a toll road with no freeway connections at either end (I assert).

[I just noticed I messed up one of my links -- the "latest word" link should've gone to this article about the CDPHE soil sampling results. I'll change that in my original post.]

I've wondered if the CDPHE report will put some of that to rest, but I'd tend to think 'no'; even though they were involved in the soil sampling, Broomfield didn't wait for the results to withdraw, and Rocky Flats is an effective specter anyway; the JPPHA seems optimistic going into 2021, but that's their job. I guess part of the question for the Jefferson Parkway as proposed is whether the existing Indiana St and central Hwy 93, and crossing between them, will be unpleasant enough for people to want an alternative. Sometimes I think I'd take the option if I could, but it also depends on the toll.

At the other end is Golden where CDOT is slowly building overpasses over US 6 between C-470 and SH 93. Per an IGA, speed limits cannot be increased so it will remain at 55 and/or 45 mph (posted at least 10 mph under what traffic typically drives today, making it open season for revenue enforcement).

The stretch of SH 93 from US 6 to north of 64th Avenue hypothetically would be widened to a freeway. However, Golden allowed development up to a very narrow right-of-way which makes any expansion difficult and expensive. Besides that, CDOT has little money and little inclination to spend the money it has on actual highway improvements.

Yeah, the speed limit plans annoy me, although there is an option to change them if the road geometry changes. The best hope might just be for 55mph between Heritage Rd and C-470; there's little chance people would reduce their speed at Heritage coming south from 19th St without the signal there, anyway.

Also agreed on the financial side of expansion; as right-of-way goes, there's some help from Golden acquiring land to realign Hwy 93 north of Washington Ave. Page 7 here has the most user-friendly view of the southern parcels. Further north, Golden owns the property between the Jessie Ln and Brickyard Cir developments, and Jefferson County owns the property north of Brickyard Cir where the realigned Hwy 93 would connect to the existing one.

[MCRoads]

Few if anyone would use a toll road with no freeway connections at either end (I assert).

See Chickasaw Turnpike. It is basically a 2-lane, grade separated till road bypass of Sulfur, OK. It is the closest thing Ada, OK has ever (and probably will ever get) to a freeway connection to the interstate. It is in the middle of nowhere, not connected to freeways on either end.

If you build a more convenient way from A to B, toll or not, connected to a freeway or not, he'll, even if it isn't even a real freeway, people will use it.

[BrianP]

The eastern half of MD 200 is built on the planned outer DC beltway route which likely would've been an interstate. 

[sbeaver44]

PA 581 seems implied to have been prepared with a future I-581 designation.  Where US 11/PA 581 overlap, the PennDOT internal designation is SR 0581, visible on the segment markers. 

PennDOTs rule for overlapping segments is the lowest route number of the highest class, so the only way 581 would be the number is if it were an Interstate.

The connection between I-81 and exit 3 was opened in the mid 90s, much later than the remaining highway.  Exit 59 on 81 was even built but sat for about 20 years.

[Revive 755]

Possibly part of US 75/North Freeway north of downtown Omaha - depends if all of the freeway was complete prior to the I-580 designation being discarded.

[hbelkins]

I-26 between Asheville and Kingsport is something of a questionable entrant. It wasn't planned as an interstate in Tennessee. In fact, for years on MTR, it was stated (perhaps by John Lansford, although I'm not positive) that the route was built entirely with state money to avoid federal environmental requirements that would have delayed the project and cost more. However, North Carolina built its section with the intention of it becoming an interstate.

I don't know if Kentucky ever planned to get the Jefferson Freeway/KY 841 (now the Gene Snyder Freeway) signed as an interstate or not.

[bing101]

CA-710 in Pasadena was planned as I-710 to meet at the CA-134 @ I-210 interchange but due to 710 gap it is unsigned as CA-710.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_780


Vallejo, CA had a proposed CA-141/I-780 Waterfront Freeway as Solano county's answer to the Embarcadero Freeway but that became Mare Island Parkway and Curtola Parkway a city street in Vallejo

[sprjus4]

I-26 between Asheville and Kingsport is something of a questionable entrant. It wasn't planned as an interstate in Tennessee. In fact, for years on MTR, it was stated (perhaps by John Lansford, although I'm not positive) that the route was built entirely with state money to avoid federal environmental requirements that would have delayed the project and cost more. However, North Carolina built its section with the intention of it becoming an interstate.

So effectively, it was built as a freeway, then simply requested for designation on an "existing"  facility that met interstate standards?

I believe I-664 in Virginia had a similar process, originally being VA-664 built with state funding.

[froggie]

I believe I-664 in Virginia had a similar process, originally being VA-664 built with state funding.

Only in terms of planning, and then only on the Southside.  664 on the Peninsula was always intended and funded as an Interstate.

By the time 664 was completed across the MMBT and the Southside in 1992, approval had been granted by FHWA to sign the whole thing as an Interstate.

[briantroutman]

PA 581 seems implied to have been prepared with a future I-581 designation.  Where US 11/PA 581 overlap, the PennDOT internal designation is SR 0581, visible on the segment markers. 

PennDOTs rule for overlapping segments is the lowest route number of the highest class, so the only way 581 would be the number is if it were an Interstate.

The connection between I-81 and exit 3 was opened in the mid 90s, much later than the remaining highway.  Exit 59 on 81 was even built but sat for about 20 years.

In the AASHTO route numbering documents database, I stumbled upon some archived correspondence between AASHTO and PennDOT regarding 581. But it wasn't filed under "581" , and I'm not able to find it again through a few quick searches. As I recall, the document wasn't an official application but rather a letter from an AASHTO representative regarding a few possible Pennsylvania Interstate designations, including 581. And if I'm not mistaken, the AASHTO representative cast doubt on the possibility of an Interstate designation for 581, citing the inadequate design of the eastern half and the US 11-15 interchange in particular.

I'll post it here if I find it.

[TheGrassGuy]

Most state routes with an interstate-like number. NJ-495, MO-364, etc.

[Revive 755]

Most state routes with an interstate-like number. NJ-495, MO-364, etc.

I don't think MO 364 was planned as an interstate.

[DandyDan]

According to Wikipedia, there was a bill in Congress to extend I-480 in Omaha south and east to meet I-29 by Glenwood, Iowa. This route is essentially current US 75 and US 34.

[TheStranger]

Most state routes with an interstate-like number. NJ-495, MO-364, etc.

I don't think MO 364 was planned as an interstate.

On the other hand, NJ 495 was a signed interstate until the late 1980s if I am not mistaken, so that wouldn't qualify for this thread (proposed as Interstate but built as a non-Interstate and not signed with the red/white/blue shield at any point).

[ctkatz]

if I understand the original purpose of the kentucky parkway system correctly, the non super 2 portions were always intended to be integrated into the federal interstate system in some capacity.  with the modifications of a couple of old toll collection interchanges and the upgrade of two other limited access interchanges the sections incorporated into the system (western western kentucky, purchase, pennyryle, green river) are unchanged from when they were initially constructed.

[hbelkins]

if I understand the original purpose of the kentucky parkway system correctly, the non super 2 portions were always intended to be integrated into the federal interstate system in some capacity.  with the modifications of a couple of old toll collection interchanges and the upgrade of two other limited access interchanges the sections incorporated into the system (western western kentucky, purchase, pennyryle, green river) are unchanged from when they were initially constructed.

I was never aware of a master plan to eventually turn them into interstates. And you are, for the most part, correct about the routes mostly remaining unchanged other than some interchange reconstructions. The median on the WK Parkway was raised. Pavement rehabs over the years have changed it into a recessed median. Offhand, I can't think of any segments remaining where the old raised median still exists.