Sort by
Author
Post time
Subject
Display
All posts
1 day
2 weeks
1 month
3 months
6 months
1 year
Post Reply

[Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by clubjuggle
I noticed what appears to be an inconsistency between the wiki guidance for Interstates with at-grade intersections and actual practice.

In particular, the wiki says this (I've highlighted the relevant sections in red, all other emphasis is from the original):

The following roads shall be classified as Freeway :
  • All Interstate Highways.
    • This includes all roads classified in FHWA's functional classification as Interstates.
    • This includes three-digit Interstate spurs and loops (e.g., I-610; I-585).
    • This includes the few grade-intersected, undivided, and/or narrow portions of the Interstate Highway System.
    • This does not include Interstate Business Loops and Business Spurs (e.g., I-69 Business Loop), unless they meet the standards for Other Freeways and Expressways defined below.
My concern is that the highlighted section regarding at-grade intersections does not appear to be in line with current practice. I checked a couple sections of Interstate Highway with at-grade intersection and all of the ones I checked were classed as Major Highway in Waze. These include: Please note that the above are not gaps in the Interstate Highway designations for these roads, nor are they "future" interstates. These roads sections are are approved and officially designated as Interstate Highways through these sections despite not being built to Interstate standards.

Discussion with editors in NJ and PA, as well as the fact that this guidance appears to be largely rejected in current practice, leads me, as well as other editors who participated in the discussion, to believe that the Wiki guidance here is outdated and needs to be revised. If the guidance is correct, however, then I think the above road sections should be reviewed, and either upgraded to Freeway on the map or a reason determined why they should deviate from the published standard.

So I guess we have a 2-part question here:

1. Should this wiki guidance be updated?
2. If so, what should the updated guidance be?
clubjuggle
Posts: 193
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 30 times

POSTER_ID:4822775

1

Send a message

Re: [Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by CBenson
I would make all the examples FW to conform to the wiki. There is nothing new in this discussion that wasn't discussed when the wiki was written. The I-78 Holland tunnel entrance was the prime example when the wiki was written. I am quite certain that both I-78 at the Holland Tunnel and I-70 in Breezewood have previously been typed FW.

The reasoning here is for the interstate system its just much simpler to apply the objective standard that if its signed as an interstate then type it as FW. I'm not seeing much of a downside to the current wiki guidance.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Re: [Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by CBenson
KC-Guardrail wrote:The USDOT FHA has specific guidelines that need to be met before a highway can be designated an interstate. That section does not meet those guidelines and should not be referred to as I-70. It is US-30, connecting I-70 to I-76. But then again, it's not my state and I'm just a lowly level 4 editor, so my opinion is just that, opinion.
The specific guidelines don't really apply to what can be designated an interstate, but rather what the FHWA will fund. Thus, there are various roads that aren't officially interstates but are signed as interstates. There is also the reverse, interstates that are official and built with interstate funds but aren't signed as interstates. But from the driver's perspective what the road is for funding purposes somewhere, doesn't really matter. What matters to the driver is what the road signs say.

The problem in Breezewood is that the FHWA would not fund a direct I-70/I-76 interchange if the tolls remained in place on I-76 after the construction bonds were paid. The PA Turnpike Authority wasn't going to eliminate the tolls and wouldn't pay for the interchange either. So PA included US-30 in the interchange (and thus got federal funding for the interchange) and just put up I-70 signs on that short part of US-30.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Re: [Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by CBenson
If they are typed FW rather than MH, then there is no question whether or not they are pruned from consideration for very long routes. FW and ramp segments are always considered. There is some conflicting info regarding MH, but there are at least some statements that MH are penalized in the middle of very long routes.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Re: [Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by CBenson
I don't know to what extent we should be concerned. But I agree that a user that has selected avoid freeways might not expect these segments to be avoided.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Re: [Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by CBenson
clubjuggle wrote:Breezewood is about 193 miles from Patuxent River and 236 miles from Berlin, so it's far enough that pruning should come into play.
Might not be quite long enough for all the pruning penalties to kick in. Close enough I was wondering what the results from Point Lookout State Park would be. Unfortunately, there are some map errors preventing routing from the point. I'll need to wait until the next tile build for the corrections to take effect.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Re: [Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by CBenson
Some things that I find relevant.

1) I can replicate your results on the live map on Friday.
2) If I ask for the route in the client with default settings, I get the same results as the live map gives for "now." That is the Moragantown route is given as the default route at 7h 33min (476 miles) and the Breezewood route is given as the first alternative at 7h 20 min (440 miles).
3) If I select "Avoid Freeways" then the app can't return any route at all.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Re: [Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by clubjuggle
DrNeubie wrote:There are other examples nationally of this. They are not gaps in the FW system but interstate designated roadways that have AGCs and traffic lights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... fic_lights

This is I-180 in Cheyenne WY, also listed as a MH. It is an interstate with traffic lights.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 628&zoom=3

So the question is... is the FW road type truly for only limited access highways, or is it considered the highest ordered road in Waze based on FC.

If it is the highest ordered road in Waze based on FC, then the Wiki is correct as stands, and all of these roadways should be upgraded to the FW road type.

If the FW is only intended for limited access highways, then the guidance in the Wiki should be changed to reflect that interstate highways that do not meet interstate standards, or have AGCs / traffic lights / cross traffic are MH and not FW.

The only issue is that with pruning, putting a MH section in the middle of predominantly FW route could have negative impacts on routing, especially on long distance trips.
Thanks, I meant to include that one. Great summary of the question.
clubjuggle
Posts: 193
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 30 times
Send a message

Re: [Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by clubjuggle
KC-Guardrail wrote:I think it's more of a naming issue for the Breezewood example. The section between the ramps coming off the PA Pike and I-70 freeway sections should NOT be named I-70, as it isn't I-70 but rather US-30. It should have an Alt name of I-70.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 0,41676574
This section of road is not a gap in Interstate 70, just a gap in the expressway. Interstate 70 is federally approved to run along US-30 here and is signed as such.

Sign assembly at the traffic light where I-70 WB reaches the traffic light. Note that there is no "TO" placard for I-70 as there is for the PA turnpike:
Screen Shot 2016-06-09 at 11.24.48 AM.png
(225.8 KiB) Downloaded 475 times
Overhead reassurance marker where the concurrency begins:
Screen Shot 2016-06-09 at 11.28.54 AM.png
(198.8 KiB) Downloaded 480 times
Sign for turnpike entrance using W I-70 but "to" I-76:
Screen Shot 2016-06-09 at 11.32.29 AM.png
(172.39 KiB) Downloaded 489 times
.
clubjuggle
Posts: 193
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 30 times
Send a message

Re: [Discussion] Non-freeway portions of Interstate highways

Post by clubjuggle
KC-Guardrail wrote:The USDOT FHA has specific guidelines that need to be met before a highway can be designated an interstate. That section does not meet those guidelines and should not be referred to as I-70. It is US-30, connecting I-70 to I-76. But then again, it's not my state and I'm just a lowly level 4 editor, so my opinion is just that, opinion.
Exceptions are granted to those standards all the time.

Interstates must be at least 2 lanes in each direction, but I-93 in New Hampshire has a section that's one lane in each direction.

Interstates must be divided, but the Mackinac Bridge on I-75 in Michigan isn't.

I-81 over the Thousand Islands Bridge in NY is one lane each direction AND undivided.

Interstates can't have drawbridges, but I-5 on the OR-WA border, I-64 in Virginia, and I-95 in Maryland all have them. Maryland was allowed to replace the original drawbridge with a new (higher) one in the 2000s, rather than build the bridge high enough to eliminate the need for one.

Interstate 180 in Wyoming has no parts at all which are built to normal Interstate Highway standards.
clubjuggle
Posts: 193
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 30 times
Send a message
Post Reply