Quote:
Why is Interstate 35 the only freeway that splits into "W" and "E" portions? It does this in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, as well as in the Twin Cities.
Tim
Normally, now, any additional spur off an interstate is supposed to have a incremented number before the interstates number. For example, not saying these exist: I-165, I-265, I-365, and so on. Before this standard, other classifications such as "W", "E," "spur," (which I've seen) and others might have been used. This standard is good because I-35W might already be used in some areas for a singular section of the highway to denote just the westbound lanes and I-35E the eastbound lands. (In Dallas-Fort Worth, there are two separate highways.)
Nearby where I live there is a US highway given an "Alternate" designation, as well as non-standard blue "Appalachian Development" road signs. I don't think either of those things really simplifies traffic routing. Moreover, some highways nearby have multiple routes carried on them for miles.
I have some ideas about road design and allotment of funds. I know our state legislature throws money around just to stay incumbent. This is wrong on two levels. Instead of investing in high-growth (and, thus, high-traffic) corridors, they invest in the middle of nowhere. This leaves the high-growth corridors choked out of further growth, and creates growth in the middle of nowhere. (A new four-lane anywhere, even in the middle of nowhere, it seems, is a haven for strip malls and fast food joints.) Then you have to bother with the traffic in one high-growth area and the growing traffic in an area that had no need for a four-lane before, but now has one and the traffic to boot. You spend money making repairs to the four-lane in that remote area when the highway in the high growth area should be upgraded with more lanes and to freeway grade.