Talk:List of gaps in Interstate Highways/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Will somebody add a "Median gaps" section of this article, or is it too common for that coverate? At-grade crossroads on Interstates in the west and other regions with a median break are an exception to this topic. --SuperDude 18:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by median gaps? I don't think there are any sections not at toll booths that have no median. --SPUI (talk) 19:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will there ever be a massload of new Interstate designations with discontiguous setups like in the early years of the Interstate? I becha this article will overload with that info. Should we add a YBY history for giIH? --SuperDude 04:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

There was a substandard mention in the "freeway gaps" section:

• I-676 has a surface street section at the west end of the Ben Franklin Bridge in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania because of historically significant areas. Signage and the Federal Highway Administration consider I-676 to use the surface streets, but the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation may consider I-676 to stay on the freeway to end at I-95, with the surface streets and the bridge being only US 30, and the part in New Jersey being a different I-676.

Should this entry go to "True gaps" since sinage indicates otherwise for this road designation? --SuperDude 04:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Er, no, signage shows I-676 continuing through. --SPUI (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Would it be a good idea to bold the interstate numbers in the list so that they stand out a bit more? Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:27, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

It is a good idea. It would make references like I-5 or Interstate 276 easier to recognize. Would it be consistent with the appropriate manual(s) of style? If not, would it be a reasonable exception?

Super 2

Is their any Interstate with portions of a Super-2 expressway that wouldn't fall into the "Freeway gaps" section? --SuperDude 02:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Not that I know of. --SPUI (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

More Chicago Skyway controversy

Whomever writes TollroadsNews asked whether or not the Chicago Skyway is part of Interstate 90. According to my understanding of the article, Cecilio A Leonin of the FHWA Office of Program Administration states Illinois always considered the Skyway as I-90 when they were reporting cost estimates to Congress during the Interstate construction period back in the 1950s, and today when Illinois reports to Congress for its portion of Interstate Maintenance funds. [1] Though as the article later notes, this is dependent on Illinois actually knowing and reporting accurately what the Skyway is. SterlingNorth 29 June 2005 05:02 (UTC) (PS: sigh, I'll never get the hang of external links)

I rewrote the section on the Chicago Skyway to point out that there is confusion and controversy on this issue, and that the Illinois DOT and FHA have always and still considered it part of I-90. Also did a few other, more minor changes. Comments? -- Ithacagorges 30 June 2005 14:44? (UTC)

Definition of "true gap"?

Am I the only one that finds the given definition of a "true gap" confusing and unclear, and not covering all mentioned intances (here and elsewhere) of one? However, I am not estute enough to write a better definition. -- Ithacagorges 30 June 2005 14:46? (UTC)

Hmmm - I guess I can see the confusion, but I'm not sure exactly how to put it. The idea is that the two roads are supposed to be the same Interstate, due to numbering and planning, but a portion in the middle was not built or designated as such. I-265 in Kentucky and Indiana might fit there, but I can't see any others. --SPUI (talk) 30 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)

From http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix65.html: "I used to consider the Kentucky and Indiana parts as the same interstate, but the FHWA lists them separately." [Twice, once for each state] Therefore, this is not a true gap, at least not at this time. Mapsax 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some maps mark certain Interstate designations on portions where signage proves otherwise, the International Bridge near Sault Ste. Marie is marked as I-75 on many maps, would that qualify as a listing for true gaps? --SuperDude 23:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No; that's the map's fuckup. --SPUI (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How would that qualify as a gap anyway? It's the highway's terminus -- the only question it creates is whether I-75 ends on the bridge or at the approach, not whether there's a gap in it. Bearcat 17:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Interstate 69 is a great example, since it used to only exist from Port Huron, MI to Indianapolis. Recently a decision was made to eventually extend it all the way across the country, north to south. And a section of freeway in Mississippi (why there, in the middle of the future span, I don't know) is currently signed I-69. Eventually it will go from Port Huron to the Rio Grande, adding it to the short list of freeways (I-5 I know, not sure of any others) that touch both the Canadian and Mexican border. Until it is joined up to Indianapolis, it will be a true gap freeway. Go read the I-69 article. It talks about the interesting controversies involved. It may still not happen, especially if citizens complaining stopped the construction of I-275 in Michigan. Ypsidan 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Interstate-to-Interstate Connection Gaps

The definition in the article states that "Places where Interstates cross but don't connect via a freeway-standard connection" don't count for this article. What Wiki page does keep track of that information? Some interstate-to-interstate conection gaps have major economic and cultural significance, like the 70-to-70/76 gap in Breezewood, Pennsylvania, just as significant for Pittsburgh & beyond (facing the cataloged 70-to-70 gap) as for Philadelphia & beyond (facing the not-cataloged 70-to-76 gap). --M@rēino 14:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Breezewood gap IS on here, because it isn't just the lack of freeway-standard ramps between Interstates; it is a gap in freeway-standards on I-70. As for places where two cross but no proper interchange (I-84 and I-87; I-95 and I-276; I-95 and I-295 (NJ); etc) there's loads of those. I'm not sure where those should be listed, but if there isn't a place, maybe there should be. --Chris 18:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• I-57 and I-294 cross in Markham IL, a south Chicago suburb, with no connections in any direction. Construction of an interchange started in late 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejmfoley (talk • contribs) 03:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If there's not already such a page; St Louis has more than it's fair share of them

• Eastbound I-40 does not directly connect with I-170; one has to exit onto street traffic and take it a few blocks. (By contrast, westbound I-40 & Southbound I-170 have direct connections.)
• Eastbound I-40 does not connect with either westbound I-70 nor westbound I-44 as it merges. One has to exit well before the merger and take street traffic a few miles or else double back (generally after crossing into IL.)
• Eastbound I-44 does not connect with southbound I-55. One has to exit well before the merger and take street traffic a few miles or else doubleback.
• Northbound I-55 does not connect with westbound I-44. One has to exit well before the merger and take street traffic a few miles or else doubleback.

Jon 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • You mean I-64/US-40, not I-40. 71.81.199.239 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Interstate Highway quality US-23 does not connect with I-80/90 (Ohio Turnpike) in Toledo. Like above, you have to exit to city streets and take it a few blocks.

Ohio Turnpike freeway gaps?

The cross-roads are not to be used by normal vehicles. They are extremely common. (not just in ohio; they're everywhere) I think that this may be out of the scope of this document. --Chris 00:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I-40 gap?

I searched the Western Texas Panhandle, and I can't find any driveways on the Interstate anywhere. Can someone help me? --209.34.20.194 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[2] has one on I-40 in Texas with a median break (this one?), and a few signs for ones in New Mexico without median breaks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional Interstates with no connection to parent

There are two Interstates in St.Petersburg, FL which do not connect with their parent. Interstates I-175 and I-375, both only a mile and a half long, connect with I-275. I-75 connects with I-275 about 30 miles northeast and again about 15-20 miles to the south. Although from 1971 to 1973 this section of I-275 was the western end of Interstate 75, I-375 was built in 1977 and I-175 in 1978.

It could be considered that I-275 is the parent of I-175 and I-375, with I-75 being the "grandparent" (to continue the analogy). There are other instances of this scattered around (exs.: I-795 from I-695 near Baltimore; I-990 from I-290 near Buffalo). Mapsax 17:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 265

I deleted this language because it is now obsolete due to the project moving forward:

"to form a future beltway around metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky. Funding to complete these two bridges and adjoining freeway has not yet been allocated. Additionally, the exact routing has not yet been finalized, as there are two possible connection points - one with I-265 in Kentucky, and one with I-264 in Kentucky, which would necessitate a change in the numbering of the Indiana portion of the highway."

Interstate 69

The state of Kentucky has started to put up I-69 signs on their portions of the I-69 expansion. At what point do these segments become officially part of I-69 and a gap in the interstate? --Holderca1 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If they have put up their new I-69 signs without qualifications such as "Future" or "Temp", then the answer is "now". -- KelleyCook 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the Missouri Department of Transportation has been putting up I-64 signs without qualifications in St Charles County to US-40 as it completes each segment's upgrade to interstate standards because they don't want to have to go back and add them in a few years when the interstate construction completes. (It's close; only two street light intersections and disconnecting a few residential streets to go.) Jon 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, has MDOT put any I-64 signs west of Missouri K, where the official terminus is? If so, then I-64 should be mentioned on the page. Second of all my point is that Indiana has not even decided on the route for the southern half of I-69 yet it has been reported that Kentucky has labeled their segment. If that is true, then there is a ~200 mile gap between two opened segments of I-69. But according to this recent official press release[3], they should be labeled "I-69 Corridor" and therefore would not be a gap. -- KelleyCook 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they are in fact future I-69 signs. Looking into it, most of the parkway system in Kentucky does not meet interstate standards, although they met when they were constructed in the 70's. But the way things are going in Indiana, Kentucky should complete their segments before they do. But no gap for now. --Holderca1 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

False Gaps Dispute

Alright, User:SPUI, what do you dispute about False Gaps. The supposed "issue" seems pretty well answered to me. If you feel its poorly worded rewrite it, but don't put up a dispute notice with no explanation. If its the word "false" you don't like, maybe change change it to "mistaken" -- KelleyCook 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 291 in Massachusetts?

There's a signaled intersection where the end of 291 meets with the Mass Pike/I-90. Would it merit mentioning, considering that it's this connection that makes it 291 and not 191? --(no userid) 02:57, 9 August 2006 (EDT)

It would fall under the 4th bullet of the Other gaps section. --Holderca1 18:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Franconia Notch Parkway

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Franconia Notch Parkway in northern New Hampshire. As far as I know, it is a Super 2. Is this still a Super 2? If so, which heading would this fall under? – Ua747sp 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Franconia Notch Parkway is divided and is now signed as I-93 so, even though it is only one lane per direction, it is not an interstate gap.Poshua 04:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I-75 Northern Terminus

While Chris Bessert's site lists the northern terminus of I-75 at the international border, the I-75 ENDS assembly is present before the toll plaza for the International Bridge as seen at Michigan Ends. Shouldn't any mention of the 2-lane bridge then be removed or reworded? Imzadi1979 08:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Undivided Freeways?

I propose we should just delete that section. First off, are the International and Thousand Islands Bridges actually part of the Interstate? I doubt it. I suppose Interstates 75 and 81 really end prior to the bridge, and as such are never undivided. The road through Franconia Notch is not recognized by FHWA as I-93 (see I-93 page). It is recognized as US-3, regardless of the fact that there may be I-93 signage. The I-93 page says: "with a median divider" and "I-93 is actually in two segments connected by the Franconia Notch Parkway." So if the first is true, the FHWA argument is moot since it may be two lanes but they are still divided. I-93 IMO falls under the first bullet of Other Issues (temporary loss of Interstate Quality).

I see someone else agrees. Thanks Imzadi1979! - Ypsidan 00:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All three you mentioned are technically part of the interstate system. For the F.N Parkway: Highway Information Quarterly Newsletter January 2004 and it is the six miles listed for New Hampshire under Interstate (other) FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY LENGTH - 2005. Of note that this six miles is the only "other" not in Alaska or Puerto Rico.

However, I agree that we should move the bridges down to other as they are both a special instance they really don't count. -- KelleyCook 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the Interstate 93 note. -- KelleyCook 16:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the mention of I-93 from the "True Gaps" list and added a citation to the two-lane section. --Jnik 20:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Driveways and small roads intersecting I-5?

For instance, I-40 in both the western Texas Panhandle and in Haywood County in Western North Carolina has several driveways and small roads intersecting directly with the highway. Such intersections can also be spotted in rural segments of I-5, particularly in southwestern Washington and central California.

I have been on both portions of I-5 and never noticed any small roads or driveways intersecting with the freeway. 71.142.70.254 04:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been on both portions too. I think there are a number of small dirt roads that intersect with I-5 in the Central Valley of California, but as far as I recall, they were all closed off with securely locked gates. I think they're supposed to be fire roads for emergency use only and are not for regular use by landowners or ordinary drivers. --Coolcaesar 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have travelled the southwest Washington section of I-5. I cannot recall any at-grade intersections. I cannot find anything online. See the related discussion on WikiProject Washington State Highways.

Ghost page

TWIMC There is a near copy of this page at wiki/List_of_gaps_on_Interstate_Highways (that is ON instead of IN) which seems to be somehow linked. They are different pages at different addresses, however they share discussion pages, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.146.118 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I-86 in New York

I-86 in New York should now be included under "True Gaps" now that a section east of Binghamton has been signed.Terescoj (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Vmanjr (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I-35 Twin Cities

There is a sign on Kenrick Ave. (a frontage road of I-35) that states that it is part of I-35 (alough it has an arrow on the bottom) in Lakeville, Minnesota —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moland freak (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That is just obviously an assembly missing a "To" banner. It doesn't count. Brian Powell (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

They did include a "North" banner, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moland freak (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but it's not a gap. And it's just missing a "To" banner. Where is it, anyway? (Near which cross road?) --MPD ^{T / C} 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

County 64--Moland freak (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I-94

Does this make sense to anyone else?

• I-94 is an at-grade expressway at its last 2 miles (3.2 km) to the east (though physically north), between the Blue Water Bridge connector and M-25/Pine Grove Ave. north of Port Huron, Michigan, although signage says that it ends just before it. However, road maps often report that I-94 and I-69 end directly at the Bluewater Bridge.

Here's the Google map of the area: linkie. --MPD ^{T / C} 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I-290 Movable Bridge

I have removed the mention of the double bascule trunnion bridge over the south branch of the Chicago River. It is actually located on Congress Pkwy, east of the terminus of I-290 at I-90.

Map of Area Coopman86 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I-95 Gap

Secretly and officially, I-95's northern half starts at the PA/NJ border, goes along the "PA Spur" (as it's called), and goes up the New Jersey Turnpike. But it's not signed that way. The I-95 signing fades into nothing around I-195.

Multi Trixes! (Talk - Me on Wikia) 23:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Add I-24 near Monteagle?

It is rather twisty section. Last I went threw it, the speed limit was 55 mph. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the speed limit is very low there, especially for trucks descending, and interestingly there is non-DOT property between the ascending lanes and the descending lanes at a certain spot, but that doesn't mean the freeway or signage is discontinuous. There are still no at-grade intersections in that area. (Well, none that I recall anyway, and I think I would have noticed because I was later surprised to see at-grade intersections with farm roads on I-10 in Texas.) D. F. Schmidt (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of gaps in Interstate Highways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090101170149/http://www.duke.edu:80/~rmalme/i73seg4.html to http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100725101324/http://www.duke.edu:80/~rmalme/prog74.html to http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/prog74.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of gaps in Interstate Highways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081230131301/http://www.duke.edu:80/%7Ermalme/i73seg9.html to http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I-90/I-190 in Massachusetts

I don't really have a dog in this fight. (Think what you want about the fact that it was done by a user that wasn't logged in.) But I just came across this edit which reverted the previous edit. The statement in question is bolded as follows:

• I-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) does not have a direct interchange with either I-391 or I-190.

My own view is that I should be surprised when I-359 and I-759 don't spur off from I-59 and when I-459 doesn't loop from I-59 to I-59. Likewise, I should be surprised when I-190 or I-290 or I-390, etc., don't connect to I-90. I feel like the inclusion of I-190 is fair. (Contrariwise, I wonder, seeing no expansion or segue, why I-391 is mentioned.) Any other thoughts? D. F. Schmidt (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Taking another look at it, I only just now realized that the section there is titled Freeway-to-freeway crosspaths without direct connection. Revert the relevant (or irrelevant) part of my edit at will. The part covering I-291 and I-391 should remain, I think. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As noted, I-190 doesn't qualify for the section, which is about "crosspaths without direct connections". I-190 does not cross the path of I-90. It never has, and never has been intended to. I-190 crosses the path of exactly 1 interstate, I-290, and it interchanges with it. --Jayron32 01:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)