Did your state's early interstate system evolve intelligently?

[berberry]

Talking interstate highway history here, obviously.  Question:  how smart was your state in directing its road-building budget toward the interstate highways in the most intelligent way possible, i.e. in the state's best interest, from the start to, say, 1980?

I'd say Mississippi pretty much sucked, as you can see if you peruse the maps archive at gomdot.com.  I think the mismanagement probably owes to our old highway district system, by which each of three districts in the state had almost absolute control on the use of highway funds within those same districts. 

The dumbest thing our state did was - in the late 50s and well before anything other than the freeway through north Jackson that appears to have run only from Woodrow Wilson to County Line back in the day - start its first work on I-55 at the state line, just south of Memphis.  A long stretch of that interstate was complete before Jackson had a stretch of the road as far as Canton!  To give just one, rather small example of why this was so monumentally dumb, consider that for about a decade, Christmas shoppers in North Mississippi, wanting the easiest and quickest route to a city mall to do their shopping, had the option of a modern, divided four-lane highway that mostly bypassed all the towns on the way to Memphis (just outside Mississippi, of course), or an old, mostly shoulderless two-lane route to Jackson, passing directly through the downtowns of each and every single hamlet, village, etc, in between.

So I'd say on a scale of A+ to F, Mississippi comes in at about a midlin' D.  It's saved from an F by the fact that other routes were built more wisely, but that one glaring mistake makes us look remarkably dumb!

Okay, I realize it's been more than half a century, but that kinda dumbness is monumental and needs to be remembered!

I'm thinking maybe some other folks have gripes like this about other states.

[PAHighways]

The laying out of Pennsylvania's modern Interstates was excellent, although the Department of Highways just took the Turnpike Commission's plans and built the roads.

The financing of said Interstates was where they dropped the ball, and why PennDOT became notorious for poor roadways.  Bonds were sold to finance construction of the system, but when they matured, paying their interest alone would have equaled somewhere around 150% of PennDOT's budget.  It wasn't until the 1980s when the Legislature stepped in to right their budgetary ship that maintenance of existing and construction of new roadways (I-78 in the Lehigh Valley, I-279 in Pittsburgh, I-476/I-676 in Philadelphia) began to move forward.

Knowing this history, it made me cringe a few years back when PennDOT was selling bonds to finance bridge replacement projects.

[Quillz]

California did pretty good, mostly keeping interstates in the populated areas.

Of course, there is I-238.

[realjd]

Florida had the Turnpike before the interstate system - at least the Miami to Fort Pierce stretch. Given the nature of our state, there were really only so many places they could put the interstates. I'm happy with the way things worked out.

[agentsteel53]

California did pretty good, mostly keeping interstates in the populated areas.

Of course, there is I-238.

there's also I-710.

[3467]

Illinois statred the Expressways and Tollways before the Interstates and then pushed and pushed for more milage and later came out with a post interstate plan(which has been discussed a lot under Midwest). The only interstate not completed was the Crosstown Expressway and it was not on the original plan.
There was a 78,000 mile Interstate plan and Illinois built all of those. It is still buildling a lot of the others supplementals as 4 lane divideds or Tollways. Lets say they have lost their old ambition

[Brian556]

Here in North Texas, there are a couple of instances of "goof-ups".

One is Loop 217 in SW Ft Worth. Part of it was taken over by (LOOP) I-820, but part of it was not. A portion of the part that was not taken over was divided, while some was controlled access. The controlled access is now not nessessary due to being bypassed by I-820. It was also remunbered as part of SH 183, which doesn't make good sense and is very confusing signage-wise.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.694649,-97.428217&spn=0.052585,0.10952&z=14&vpsrc=6


The other big one is the US 75/ I-45 situation in south Dallas. US 75 was upgraded to some divived, some controlled access, but I-45 bypassed this section, leaving over-built conditions on US 75. Also, US 175 does not connect to I-45 like it needs to. It will, however be connected in the future, and the redundant freeway will be downgraded to a BLVD. Note: The former US 75 is now SH 310 south of US 175. US 175 took over part of the former US 75 up to Downtown.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.678396,-96.679687&spn=0.210377,0.43808&z=12&vpsrc=6

[jwolfer]

Florida had the Turnpike before the interstate system - at least the Miami to Fort Pierce stretch. Given the nature of our state, there were really only so many places they could put the interstates. I'm happy with the way things worked out.

Florida did pretty well.  Especially getting I-75 all the way down the West coast instead of stopping at St Pete like it did for so long.  At the planning stages Orlando wasnt that big, but I would like to see the OOCEA roads be I-x04.  ( 417=204, 408=104 and 528=404). 

What is amazing to me is Florida making the US highways plow right through town instead of building bypasses like GA... like 301 thru Starke... it has been problems for years

[jwolfer]

New Jersey had some good plans but the whole Somerset Freeway cancellation is a Biiiiiiig F-up.  I-95 through Mercer and Somerset Counties would have prevented lots of US 1, US 206 and NJ 31 congestion.  The NJTP would be there for thru traffic and I-95 would be there for local commuter traffic.  The sprawl that the NIMBYs wanted to prevent by fighting the freeway happened anyway with a network of 2 lane country roads

[Quillz]

California did pretty good, mostly keeping interstates in the populated areas.

Of course, there is I-238.

there's also I-710.

Can't really blame Caltrans for that, though, it's the Pasadena NIMBYs that blocked it.

[agentsteel53]

Can't really blame Caltrans for that, though, it's the Pasadena NIMBYs that blocked it.

well, it certainly results in unintelligent evolution of the interstate system!

[Quillz]

Can't really blame Caltrans for that, though, it's the Pasadena NIMBYs that blocked it.

well, it certainly results in unintelligent evolution of the interstate system!

True.

The original Bay Area propositions made a lot of sense, too, creating a complete freeway solution around San Francisco. But it was another idea killed by NIIMBYs, although one I do agree with.

It's not just interstates, though. NIMBYs also blocked completion of CA-52, 56, 67, 125, etc. And then you have highways like CA-39 and 144 with portions that have been closed forever. All of that certainly leads to unintelligent highway expansion, but a lot of it is seemingly unavoidable.

[nexus73]

Oregon did very well with I-5 early on, having it done by 1965.  There are not enough lanes on it today.  I-84 took longer to finish but it took care of the E-W route leading out from our one major metro area, with the section from PDX to The Dalles being done in relatively short order back in the Sixties.  I-84 improvements in PDX/Multnomah County have made the metro part of the freeway decent for the traffic load it bears.  I-82 took forever to get built and very few folks would use the first stretch who were coming into the area around Hermiston since there are shorter routes to get to I-82 from I-84 without the need to go to the "in-the-middle" freeway-to-freeway interchange.

The layout of the routes was mostly good although one running from Eugene to Ontario would have been nice for geographic reasons as it would have bisected the state while I-84 skirted the northern edge until it headed SE after getting past Pendleton.

For 3DI routes, I-105, I-205 and I-405 were properly routed but they were not built with enough lanes.  The cancellation of I-305 did not hurt Salem too bad since the Salem Parkway essentially fulfilled the same function along the same routing.  Missing I-505 on the map did not hurt either since there is still a stub freeway, which is all I-505 would have been, coming off of I-405 and it turns into a decent expressway through an industrial sector.  The real loss was not having the Mt. Hood Freeway in SE PDX being built.

From git 'er done to today's bandaid solutions shows how far ODOT has fallen down on the job.  They would have been given a grade of A- for what they did in the Sixties, when so much obsolete road needed to be dealt with.  Every decade since then has seen regression and the slide downwards keeps gathering momentum.

Rick

[TheStranger]

The original Bay Area propositions made a lot of sense, too, creating a complete freeway solution around San Francisco. But it was another idea killed by NIIMBYs, although one I do agree with.

480 around the Embarcadero and 80 through the Panhandle were pretty superfluous, but the original 280 proposal probably still would be useful had it been constructed.

Of the original Bay Area routes proposed...

5W - exists today as 580, the MacArthur segment existed as US 50 before the Interstates though
80 - exists east of US 101, though the segment from 101 to around Route 123 predates the Interstate system as US 40
280 - built between Route 17 in San Jose and Route 1 in San Francisco, segment from Route 1 split to US 101 canceled in 1968 in favor of Southern Freeway routing (which was mostly built except for the portion to I-80).  In San Jose, eventually extended east to 101 at Story Road (and the post-1965 680 alignment)
480 - built to Broadway, demolished 1991 after the 1989 earthquake
680 - built between 80 in Vallejo and Route 262 in Fremont; segment from Benicia to Vallejo became 780 in 1976 as 680 took over the last portion of Route 21 north of Benicia.  Segment from Fremont to San Jose originally would've been via today's 262/880, but was rerouted onto new-terrain alignment to Story Road from 1965 on.  (262 has never been fully converted to freeway)

380, 880, and 980 are all later additions to the system.

[agentsteel53]

480 around the Embarcadero and 80 through the Panhandle were pretty superfluous, but the original 280 proposal probably still would be useful had it been constructed.

where is the panhandle? 

also, didn't the Embarcadero present a full-freeway option to traverse the city from the south to the Golden Gate Bridge?  101 to 80 to 480 back to 101?  or was it never fully completed to the Golden Gate?

to me, the major lack of freeways in the Bay Area are:

37 corridor
101 to the Golden Gate Bridge
80-580 direct connection to San Rafael through Richmond

and then a lot of auxiliary freeways to shore up the fact that even the freeways which do exist are quite badly clogged.  I don't know really where I'd put them, but they seem to be quite necessary.  getting into the city from the north or the west is next to impossible.  maybe another bay bridge from Point Richmond to Angel Island?  also, freeways along the 1, 101, and 480 corridors could hopefully diminish the traffic load on a lot of surface streets.

[J N Winkler]

also, didn't the Embarcadero present a full-freeway option to traverse the city from the south to the Golden Gate Bridge?  101 to 80 to 480 back to 101?  or was it never fully completed to the Golden Gate?

Nope--city street running was still necessary to get to the Golden Gate Bridge.  (I remember the Embarcadero since my first visit to SF was in 1988, before Loma Prieta and all that.)  In fact, San Francisco never had a connection between the south end of the Golden Gate Bridge and the east end of the Bay Bridge that was developed entirely to full freeway standard and within the city itself.

80-580 direct connection to San Rafael through Richmond

I'm assuming you are talking about the lack of a direct connection between I-80 westbound and I-580 westbound.  It strikes me that this lack inconveniences mainly people who live in the East Bay, who at least have the option of deadheading around the south end of the I-80/I-580 concurrency if they absolutely must get to Marin County and points north by full freeway.  For long-distance traffic a SR 37 corridor developed up to full freeway standard would be nice, but Google Maps shows SR 37 with canals on either side for considerable distances (which tends to curtail ribbon development), only three or four intersections which seem important enough to rate traffic signals, and some grade separations.

[NE2]

No evolution here. It was designed from start to end.

[DTComposer]

California did pretty good, mostly keeping interstates in the populated areas.

I wonder about the re-routing of I-5 off the US-99 corridor in the San Joaquin Valley. I suppose they did that to create a faster route between Los Angeles and San Francisco/Sacramento (SF especially, since the US-101 corridor wasn't added to the Interstate system), but leaving Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, Visalia off the Interstate system entirely seems odd. Even in 1950, Fresno had nearly 100,000 people - not huge, but certainly a reasonably-sized city for the time, and I'm sure was a major packing and shipping center for the region.

[TheStranger]

480 around the Embarcadero and 80 through the Panhandle were pretty superfluous, but the original 280 proposal probably still would be useful had it been constructed.

where is the panhandle?  

Fell and Oak Streets east of Golden Gate Park, grassy area that would have been obliterated by the 80 extension.  I think most people today would be surprised that it wasn't the Embarcadero that was the most controversial proposal, but the Western Freeway.

I've mentioned before that this would have been way more useful had the 49ers stayed at Kezar Stadium (not too far from the Panhandle, in the southeast edge of Golden Gate Park) than moving to Candlestick about 2-3 years after the proposal was canceled.

also, didn't the Embarcadero present a full-freeway option to traverse the city from the south to the Golden Gate Bridge?  101 to 80 to 480 back to 101?  or was it never fully completed to the Golden Gate?

The gap that was never completed is basically from the western terminus of Marina Boulevard east to where 480 ended at Broadway.  (The existing segment of the 101 freeway - soon to be upgraded as Presidio Parkway - along Doyle Drive from 1 to Marina Boulevard would have been part of this full 480 routing).  For this reason, prior to 1991, Lombard Street and Richardson Avenue were actually legislatively Route 480 despite always having been signed as US 101!

to me, the major lack of freeways in the Bay Area are:

37 corridor
101 to the Golden Gate Bridge
80-580 direct connection to San Rafael through Richmond

and then a lot of auxiliary freeways to shore up the fact that even the freeways which do exist are quite badly clogged.  I don't know really where I'd put them, but they seem to be quite necessary.  getting into the city from the north or the west is next to impossible.  maybe another bay bridge from Point Richmond to Angel Island?  also, freeways along the 1, 101, and 480 corridors could hopefully diminish the traffic load on a lot of surface streets.

About 10 years ago, there was a Chronicle article mentioning some local folks had suggested tunnels for the 1 and 101 corridors - and even one through the Panhandle.  Obviously that didn't go much of anywhere, but that it was even suggested at all was a welcome surprise.  1 probably is the more important gateway to the GGB but I could see that changing if the shorter 101 ends up being the only viable option for a tunnel if that idea ever comes back around.  (It was also proposed as a tunnel in the early 1960s as well, covering a gap from Richardson Avenue to the Central Freeway's old terminus at Franklin and Turk.)

37's issue isn't so much that it isn't a freeway in its middle segment, but that it is a two lane road with no passing areas (after originally being a very dangerous 3 lane road).  It was submitted in the late 1940s/early 1950s as a proposed Interstate but rejected, when it was still Route 48.  Adding passing lanes probably would be enough to fix the bottleneck there but environmentalists have been firmly against any widening in the area.

80 to 580...I know the Richmond Parkway (locally built along the unsigned Route 93 corridor) tends to cover those movements but most direct would be some ramp along Cutting Boulevard where the two freeways first parallel for a mile or two.

I wonder about the re-routing of I-5 off the US-99 corridor in the San Joaquin Valley. I suppose they did that to create a faster route between Los Angeles and San Francisco/Sacramento (SF especially, since the US-101 corridor wasn't added to the Interstate system), but leaving Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, Visalia off the Interstate system entirely seems odd. Even in 1950, Fresno had nearly 100,000 people - not huge, but certainly a reasonably-sized city for the time, and I'm sure was a major packing and shipping center for the region.

IIRC, the West Side corridor got Interstate funding specifically so that there would be two, instead of one, major divided highway pathways through the San Joaquin Valley.  As a result of that alignment switch however, I'm not sure that SF-Fresno could be taken at all using only freeways for many years, the 120 bypass of Manteca being a much more recent construction.

[NE2]

I'm not sure that SF-Fresno could be taken at all using only freeways for many years

It still can't be.

[Riverside Frwy]

I would say California has done pretty well. However, we have a TON of state route freeways that could easily be Interstates, not to mention save Caltrans some money on Maintenance. I would say it's continuing to evolve pretty well, with CA 210 built to create a continuous I-210, and the upgrading of CA 99 to I-7 or I-9 which would provide a major interstate connection and a worthy addition to Interstate miles.

[agentsteel53]

It still can't be.

I'm willing to forgive that one brief gap in 99 around Atwater, just because upgrading it to full freeway might result in the death of one of the last US-99 signs in the state.
Post Merge: September 02, 2011, 02:11:02 AM

Fell and Oak Streets east of Golden Gate Park, grassy area that would have been obliterated by the 80 extension.

Fell/Oak is one of the faster arterials in San Francisco.  The city isn't just missing fully-limited-access freeways, it is also significantly missing arterial routes.  A lot of the time I find myself on little two-lane or four-lane roads that are supposed to be major but certainly are not designed that way.  See Divisadero, and even 19th.  Though 19th's problems are mainly that there are traffic lights on every block with no real synchronization scheme.  I'm not sure structurally what is different between 19th and, say, Western Ave or Vermont Ave in Los Angeles, but one moves and the other does not.

37's issue isn't so much that it isn't a freeway in its middle segment, but that it is a two lane road with no passing areas (after originally being a very dangerous 3 lane road).

I'd be fine with it being a four-lane expressway, with maybe even a traffic light or two where they currently are, but the middle segment is one of those roads (152 is another) where I always count down the tenths of a mile until it is finally over.

the last several weeks I've tried two approaches to the southern end of San Francisco (almost Daly City) from Sacramento: 80 to 37 to 101, and 80 to Richmond Parkway to 580 to 101.  I'm now thinking that the most sensible approach may be 680 to 580 to 238 to 880 to 92!!

It was submitted in the late 1940s/early 1950s as a proposed Interstate but rejected, when it was still Route 48.

so there was a Bear 48?  For some reason I had thought the route was devised around 1959.  At one point I owned a white 48 shield from 1960.

80 to 580...I know the Richmond Parkway (locally built along the unsigned Route 93 corridor) tends to cover those movements but most direct would be some ramp along Cutting Boulevard where the two freeways first parallel for a mile or two.

Richmond Parkway is actually quite fast-moving.  My major concern is the long connector from 580 WB to 101 SB.  Francis Drake Blvd or whatever it is called.  That definitely needs to be improved.  There also needs to be a sign on 580 WB that says "Francis Drake Blvd is not just suggested.  It is also not just highly recommended.  It is the only to get to 101 without making a U-turn!!!"  (this as opposed to those trailblazers on CA-33 and other roads in the central valley which say "I-5 north 16 miles" along one northbound road, and "I-5 south 18 miles" along one eastbound road; but you can certainly get to I-5 north and south from either.

[ssummers72]

Illinois statred the Expressways and Tollways before the Interstates and then pushed and pushed for more milage and later came out with a post interstate plan(which has been discussed a lot under Midwest). The only interstate not completed was the Crosstown Expressway and it was not on the original plan.
There was a 78,000 mile Interstate plan and Illinois built all of those. It is still buildling a lot of the others supplementals as 4 lane divideds or Tollways. Lets say they have lost their old ambition

Actually,

The Lake Shore Drive Alignment of I-494 was on the original plan and it was traded for the Crosstown Route in 1963.
The Original Route Description
The original I-494 started at the Ohio/Ontario feeder ramps at I-90/94, then it proceed Eastward with a tunnel to Lake Shore Drive, then if proceeded South along LSD to Stony Island Avenue to I-90 (Chicago Skyway).

[TheStranger]

It still can't be.

I'm willing to forgive that one brief gap in 99 around Atwater, just because upgrading it to full freeway might result in the death of one of the last US-99 signs in the state.

Wow, there's one!?  Tell me more (private message/email is fine)!

Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 09:59:59 PM

Fell and Oak Streets east of Golden Gate Park, grassy area that would have been obliterated by the 80 extension.

Fell/Oak is one of the faster arterials in San Francisco.  The city isn't just missing fully-limited-access freeways, it is also significantly missing arterial routes.  A lot of the time I find myself on little two-lane or four-lane roads that are supposed to be major but certainly are not designed that way.  See Divisadero, and even 19th.  Though 19th's problems are mainly that there are traffic lights on every block with no real synchronization scheme.  I'm not sure structurally what is different between 19th and, say, Western Ave or Vermont Ave in Los Angeles, but one moves and the other does not.

19th's lack of synchronization probably relates to the city's desire to keep speeds low there.  For comparison, Great Highway on the oceanfront just a mile or two away has a perfect synchronization scheme to go 37 MPH without stopping!

the last several weeks I've tried two approaches to the southern end of San Francisco (almost Daly City) from Sacramento: 80 to 37 to 101, and 80 to Richmond Parkway to 580 to 101.  I'm now thinking that the most sensible approach may be 680 to 580 to 238 to 880 to 92!!

680-24-580-80-5th Street/6th Street-280 is one way to do it that avoids the 101/80 mess, but not the Bay Bridge mess at all.

It was submitted in the late 1940s/early 1950s as a proposed Interstate but rejected, when it was still Route 48.

so there was a Bear 48?  For some reason I had thought the route was devised around 1959.  At one point I owned a white 48 shield from 1960.

Correct, bear 48, I don't know if it was original to the 1934 numbering, but it DID represent today's Route 37 from Route 121 to I-80.  (Route 121 north of there was pre-1964 Route 37, while Route 37 between 101 and 121 has been part of the route from the very beginning.)

80 to 580...I know the Richmond Parkway (locally built along the unsigned Route 93 corridor) tends to cover those movements but most direct would be some ramp along Cutting Boulevard where the two freeways first parallel for a mile or two.

Richmond Parkway is actually quite fast-moving.  My major concern is the long connector from 580 WB to 101 SB.  Francis Drake Blvd or whatever it is called.  That definitely needs to be improved.  There also needs to be a sign on 580 WB that says "Francis Drake Blvd is not just suggested.  It is also not just highly recommended.  It is the only to get to 101 without making a U-turn!!!"  (this as opposed to those trailblazers on CA-33 and other roads in the central valley which say "I-5 north 16 miles" along one northbound road, and "I-5 south 18 miles" along one eastbound road; but you can certainly get to I-5 north and south from either.

Yeah, if Sir Francis Drake between 101 and 580 was at least upgraded to an expressway, it'd be a much more useful connector (the odd half-limited access, half-grade level interchange that was built when this was the first part of an unfinished Route 251 has serious issues with backups).

[agentsteel53]

I'm willing to forgive that one brief gap in 99 around Atwater, just because upgrading it to full freeway might result in the death of one of the last US-99 signs in the state.

it's well-known.  the shields are covered up ... poorly.



as far as I know, there are no unmodified references to US-99 left in California.  There is one sign in Seattle (also very well known) and a 99W in Oregon that is less well-known but does indeed date to the 60s.