New US Interstates?

[eternallyme]

I know this forum is far more about public transit, but I am just wondering about the future of the highways.

In my opinion, there are more needed for connections in the more rural/remote parts of America for goods movements and economic development. However, the more urban parts are probably near the max, although widening is likely to be required in some cases. Perhaps better international connections as well?

[Cirrus]

When new highways are built these days they are very rarely interstates. Usually they're state highways that operate like interstates.

Anyway, most of the problems caused by urban highways aren't really an issue for rural ones. Rural highways have other roadblocks in their way. New rural highways are massively expensive, and since they are nowhere near the highest priorities for most states (nor should they be), there's little chance of many being built. Maybe a spur here and there to connect something new, but we simply don't need a bunch of duplicate cross-country highways serving essentially the same trips as I-70 and its ilk already do.

[mr1138]

I can see a few gaps in the system, one notable one for Denver residents is the lack of a direct diagonal link to Dallas, TX which could SIGNIFICANTLY cut down on travel time between the two cities even though it isn't exactly needed. I-70 not making it all the way to the West Coast is another example. I think Cirrus is exactly right though that these kinds of connections simply aren't priorities for the states involved.

We should remember that the Interstate Highway System was actually intended for purposes of national defense first, and commerce second. The idea is that you can deploy the U.S. Military to any location within the lower 48 states in a day or less by first landing airplanes on the freeway itself (which is designed to act as a runway whenever feasible), and then rolling military vehicles down the road (either freeway or 2-lane highway) from there. This means that there is a certain minimum distance that any location in the US needs to be from a freeway. When you look at if from this perspective, the system has already achieved its defense goal. I think this is why, as Cirrus points out, most new highways are in fact state or local projects. The Federal gov. doesn't need to spend massive amounts of money on something like a Dallas-Denver connection, when the rural territory such a freeway would cover is already "protected" from a defense standpoint by the other freeways criss-crossing the area.

[Chef]

From a purely selfish perspective I would love an interstate from Des Moines to St Louis and another from Minneapolis to North Platte. They would really help with road trips from the Twin Cities to St Louis and Denver. It seems bizarre to me that an interstate was built specifically to connect Binghamton, NY to Albany, NY but there is no connection between St Louis and the Twin Cities.

[Rizzo]

Here in Illinois a new tollway will be constructed called the Elgin-O'Hare extension. It's been long in the planning which is why development was prevented in the future ROW area. Part of the expressway already exists to the West but I'm not sure if that means more lanes or not. I tend to think the majority of congestion problems on suburban and urban expressway routes in the Chicago area are at interchanges. Otherwise additional lanes aren't really needed.

http://goo.gl/maps/ZlhxA

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I can see a few gaps in the system, one notable one for Denver residents is the lack of a direct diagonal link to Dallas, TX which could SIGNIFICANTLY cut down on travel time between the two cities even though it isn't exactly needed.

Lots of demand for a Denver to Dallas connection huh?

[electricron]

DFW to Denver truck traffic is handled sufficiently by the existing highways, an Interstate designated highway isn"t needed.

Too many believe Interstate Highways exist in the western half of the country solely for local traffic, you're wrong. They exist to handle the increase of cross country traffic; if not coast-to-coast traffic. Texas has three interstates to the west coast, two all the way to Southern California. Traffic to Northern California and the Pacific Northwest can be handled by the same Interstates, and additionally other further north. Getting to Denver and I-70 specifically doesn't get you much further than Denver. I-70 doesn't even add Salt Lake.

The I-10 corridor is mostly ice free, I-40 gets ice during the winter, but not as much as I-70, I-80, I-90, and I-94.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Lots of demand for a Denver to Dallas connection huh?

Yes, actually, there is. More to Laredo and Mexico, but Dallas too. The Ports to Plains corridor has been in the works - and a number of improvements actually made - for decades.

http://www.portstoplains.com/



(Generally speaking, people shouldn't eye roll unless they know what they're talking about.)

In any case, if any region will need new interstate-type connections, it's out west, where cities that basically didn't exist in the 1950s have become major centers. The classic example is Phoenix to Las Vegas. It's unheard of that two cities that large and that close wouldn't have a direct link east of the Mississippi.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Lots of demand for a Denver to Dallas connection huh?

I never said there was demand for such a project. In fact you even quoted me as saying "could SIGNIFICANTLY cut down on travel time between the two cities even though it isn't exactly needed." I'm just saying that it is a good example of a place where a new freeway could be built, but probably never will because of the whole "interstate as a defense system" thing. I'd say it'd be similar to a Twin Cities-St. Louis connection; not enough demand to justify the project, but it is still a perfect example of a gap in the system. I don't really understand why that deserves an eye-roll; there are plenty of much smaller US cities that have diagonal freeway links between each other. Did KC REALLY need it's own direct link to Wichita? Or for that matter, do we really need an extra freeway from Tulsa to St. Louis (I-44)? How about that link from Binghamton, NY to Albany, NY? Are those two cities really more deserving of a direct connection than two much larger and more significant American metro areas?

Again, I'm not saying it should actually get built; it would be most useful for truckers I'd imagine just since the rest of us would usually fly except for the once in a blue moon road trip. Some of my extended family used to live in Dallas for 4-5 years and I visited them once by going the I-70 to I-35 route through Kansas, once using mostly 2-lane highways in as close to a direct line as possible, and the other few times we just flew. But anybody who has done that drive understands how useful a direct diagonal connection would be.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by mr1138

the Interstate Highway System was actually intended for purposes of national defense first, and commerce second. The idea is that you can deploy the U.S. Military to any location within the lower 48 states in a day or less by first landing airplanes on the freeway itself (which is designed to act as a runway whenever feasible), and then rolling military vehicles down the road (either freeway or 2-lane highway) from there. This means that there is a certain minimum distance that any location in the US needs to be from a freeway.

Nonsense. All of it.

Throughout the years of congressional debate, military strategists repeatedly testified that they didn't need any particular routes or geometric specifications, always saying that highways built to promote commerce would also serve their needs. To Pres. Eisenhower, the public-works and job-creation aspects of the system were about as important as defense aspects. I am not aware of any serious civil defense or military rationale that was part of Congressional debate. The words "and Defense" were added to the name of the "National System of Interstate Highways" in conference committee, almost as an afterthought, and played no role in congressional voting. See Congressional Record, 102, Part 8, pp. 10991-10997. The definitive source on this history is Rose, Mark H. Interstate: Express Highway Politics, 1939-1989. University of Tennessee Press, rev. ed. 1990.

The landing strips nonsense has been debunked in a number of places, including Snopes and Roland F. Weingroff, "1 Mile in 5: Debunking the Myth," Public Roads (May/June 2000), p.45.

Originally Posted by mr1138

Did KC REALLY need it's own direct link to Wichita? Or for that matter, do we really need an extra freeway from Tulsa to St. Louis (I-44)?

The Kansas Turnpike was considered so vital that it was built from anticipated toll revenues years before the Interstate system was even created. As for I-44, have you ever heard of Route 66? The Southern Route via Oklahoma and New Mexico (avoiding the snowy Rockies) has been vital to cross-country traffic for nearly a century. Truck traffic was so heavy that, again, the two Oklahoma turnpike portions were built years before any other interstates in the region.


As for the OP, new superhighways are being built every year, a few miles at a time, often as a misguided attempt at rural economic development. Once substantial portions are complete, the state DOTs apply to AASHTO for Interstate designations. I-49 and I-69 are good examples, but lots of primary US routes are now interstates in all but name.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Chef

From a purely selfish perspective I would love an interstate from Des Moines to St Louis and another from Minneapolis to North Platte. They would really help with road trips from the Twin Cities to St Louis and Denver. It seems bizarre to me that an interstate was built specifically to connect Binghamton, NY to Albany, NY but there is no connection between St Louis and the Twin Cities.

St. Louis to the Twin Cities is already interstate standard the entire way except for a few miles in Hannibal, Missouri.

The Avenue of the Saints is ten miles from me as I type.

Also I-49 is currently being extended so that one day it runs from Kansas City through Western Arkansas to Shreveport, along current I-49 to Lafayette and then on a loop east to New Orleans.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yes, actually, there is. More to Laredo and Mexico, but Dallas too. The Ports to Plains corridor has been in the works - and a number of improvements actually made - for decades.

http://www.portstoplains.com/

[BIG MAP]

(Generally speaking, people shouldn't eye roll unless they know what they're talking about.)

In any case, if any region will need new interstate-type connections, it's out west, where cities that basically didn't exist in the 1950s have become major centers. The classic example is Phoenix to Las Vegas. It's unheard of that two cities that large and that close wouldn't have a direct link east of the Mississippi.

Texas is finding it hard to raise funds for I-69 running from South Texas to Detroit via Houston, Memphis, and Indianapolis. Extending I-27 north and south wards will certainly be after that future Interstate. You must admit I-69 will serve far more traffic and population along its route.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Nonsense. All of it.

Throughout the years of congressional debate, military strategists repeatedly testified that they didn't need any particular routes or geometric specifications, always saying that highways built to promote commerce would also serve their needs. To Pres. Eisenhower, the public-works and job-creation aspects of the system were about as important as defense aspects. I am not aware of any serious civil defense or military rationale that was part of Congressional debate. The words "and Defense" were added to the name of the "National System of Interstate Highways" in conference committee, almost as an afterthought, and played no role in congressional voting. See Congressional Record, 102, Part 8, pp. 10991-10997. The definitive source on this history is Rose, Mark H. Interstate: Express Highway Politics, 1939-1989. University of Tennessee Press, rev. ed. 1990.

The landing strips nonsense has been debunked in a number of places, including Snopes and Roland F. Weingroff, "1 Mile in 5: Debunking the Myth," Public Roads (May/June 2000), p.45.

As for the OP, new superhighways are being built every year, a few miles at a time, often as a misguided attempt at rural economic development. Once substantial portions are complete, the state DOTs apply to AASHTO for Interstate designations. I-49 and I-69 are good examples, but lots of primary US routes are now interstates in all but name.

I'll take your word for it just cause it sounds like you've done a lot more research on this than I have. It is interesting though, because the idea that the interstate system was primarily for defense is certainly an EXTREMELY widespread rumor. So widespread in fact that somebody should probably tell my planning professors that it isn't true, because I heard in a lecture just last year that the system was meant for primarily for defense.

[Evergrey]

US Route 52 in West Virginia is undergoing upgrades for a proposed I-73.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst..._West_Virginia

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yes, actually, there is. More to Laredo and Mexico, but Dallas too. The Ports to Plains corridor has been in the works - and a number of improvements actually made - for decades.

One thing that I think Ports to Plains illustrates rather nicely is that a full-on interstate highway isn't required to handle a fairly major freight route.

When we have transit discussions, we love to talk about fitting the correct mode to the needs of the corridor. That same logic applies to highways. Expensive interstate-grade roads don't need to be the answer to every long distance surface need. 4 lane divided highway, with a tiny handful of exits, fairly infrequent lighted intersections, and a whole lot of unsignalized entry points, works great if you don't have to move 100,000 vehicles a day.

I'm all for some Ports to Plains improvements, but that NAFTA superhighway proposal from a few years back - waste of money.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

In any case, if any region will need new interstate-type connections, it's out west, where cities that basically didn't exist in the 1950s have become major centers. The classic example is Phoenix to Las Vegas. It's unheard of that two cities that large and that close wouldn't have a direct link east of the Mississippi.

This is a reasonable observation, but there's another key difference between the east and west: rural density. Between Phoenix and Las Vegas there's a whole lot of nothin'. In the east there'd be a constant stream of cities in the 200,000 population range every 40 miles all along the route, with populated farmland between instead of empty desert.

This map shows light pollution, but it's a good proxy for population density. All that green is one of the biggest differences between east and west, and it's why the traffic volumes on US Route 93 between Las Vegas and Phoenix aren't anything close to what would support the cost of an interstate upgrade. Even after living a decent portion of my life in Colorado, and visiting every 2 years since I was a kid, it still boggles my easterner mind when I fly over the west and see how empty it is between the major cities.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by electricron

Texas is finding it hard to raise funds for I-69 running from South Texas to Detroit via Houston, Memphis, and Indianapolis. Extending I-27 north and south wards will certainly be after that future Interstate. You must admit I-69 will serve far more traffic and population along its route.

I didn't say it was the highest priority, just a priority. Sure it will serve more population today. But Memphis, Indianapolis, and Detroit aren't exactly major growth corridors. Also, the important metric isn't population served, but rather freight served.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

One thing that I think Ports to Plains illustrates rather nicely is that a full-on interstate highway isn't required to handle a fairly major freight route.

This is very true. Rural density also a valid observation, although I do wonder if that'll look different in another 50 years.

Also, if we accept that an enormous percentage of economic activity is generated by our cities (which I think we so), it's probably reasonable to assume that a proportionate amount of intercity traffic (the traffic that belongs on highways) also starts/ends in cities. So the whole lotta nothing in between might not make a huge difference in terms of the traffic we care about.

Edit: Wouldn't be much fun to be an astronomer east of the Mississippi, would it?

[Cirrus]

/Shrug/

If it does, when that time comes, we'll do some good old-fashioned highway building.

[Altauria]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I'll take your word for it just cause it sounds like you've done a lot more research on this than I have. It is interesting though, because the idea that the interstate system was primarily for defense is certainly an EXTREMELY widespread rumor. So widespread in fact that somebody should probably tell my planning professors that it isn't true, because I heard in a lecture just last year that the system was meant for primarily for defense.

Also being upfront, honest, and testifying as to what your defense strategy is....is not a very good defense strategy.

[Jonboy1983]

I know it's not really an inter-state interstate highway, but in the Greater Pittsburgh Area, the PA Turnpike Commission is about to move forward with phase two of its Southern Beltway Project. Eventually this will link up with the Mon-Fayette Expressway, which, God-willing, will be finished from its current terminus just south of Pittsburgh all the way to I-376 in Monroeville. At that point, it would be renumbered as I-576.

It would be nice to see a main-line interstate highway come right into the city itself, but I doubt that will happen. I think I-73 is going to bypass Pennsylvania entirely...