Category talk:Interstate Highways in Vermont

Roads in Vermont

Hard for me to accept that an interstate highway is a state road. (I realize it is maintained by the state, but so are all interstates. They get some money from the federal government to do it though). I kind of liked Hmain's edits. Student7 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Some states consider Interstate Highways as state routes under the law. (I don't know whether Vermont does or not; I know California does.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In California's case, they had already built many of the roads and numbered them before the Interstate System cranked up. They dutifully renumbered them but could hardly feel any obligation to the feds for these particular roads. They were built by state and maintained by state.Student7 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is no different than in Vermont. --Polaron | Talk 06:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight difference: Vermont paid for 10% of its turnpike, the feds the rest. California paid for many of the original ones themselves. They just changed numbering. And the feds give all states tax money for road repair. I don't know what percentage of that is generated by the interstates themselves, but it must be considerable.

There are different standards for the interstates (construction). Must be designed the same and look and feel the same to "users." Right now, for example, Interstates are converting over to renumbering exits by mile marker instead of dumbly numbering them 1,2,3. If it weren't for federal regulation of the turnpikes this would never get done. Going slow enough as it is!  :)

I guess that is the point - the roads are federally regulated, not state regulated. Student7 (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The 90-10 rule is true for all chargeable Interstate Highways in the U.S., including California. I'm not sure what you mean by Vermont's turnpike. All states receive federal funds to maintain state highways to more or less the same level nationwide, including for roads numbered by the state. The mileage-based exit renumbering is a good practice recommendation by the FHWA and is supposed to apply to all freeways, not just Interstate Highways. There is no regulation requiring this, however. The point is the category is not being eliminated but being subordinated to the category of state highways. Do you dispute the Interstate Highways are state highways? Why do you think there are no "federal highways" categories? --Polaron | Talk 17:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Why not? They were built to federal specs and the feds are giving the states money for them. The states cannot "do" anything to the road to contradict guidelines already established (e.g. charge tolls without fed permission, for example). The states are clearly "working for" ("contractors for") the feds here. The roads have federal numbers. All US highways and "Interstates" are indeed, interstate. US 5 belongs no more to Vermont than to Massachusetts or Connecticut. Why the charade that it "belongs" to Vermont? Neither US 5 nor I-89 is a state highway. Why is there no federal highway category? Student7 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no "federal highway" category because there are really no federally maintained highways. There are some exceptions (forest highways and the like) but US Numbered Highways and Interstate Highways are maintained by the states in which they are located. US Highways were state highways before the common numbering scheme developed by AASHO (now AASHTO) was implemented. Yes, the feds helped pay for the Interstates, but the states are in charge of the traffic regulations on them, speed limits and the like. I support reverting the changes. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Not all Interstates are interstate. I-96, H-1, H-2, H-3, H-201, I-37, I-16, I-43 off the top of my head are intrastate Interstates. US 131 and US 223 barely leave the state of Michigan. In fact, the latter isn't even signed in Ohio anymore, even though it officially runs there. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The interstates are US military highways. Technically, the military can shut down any highway at any time for their purposes. I suppose that designation was used originally to get more votes in the Senate, but nonetheless, the US military "owns" or "controls" the interstates. Partly the reason for the "five-star" Eisenhower name I suppose (yes. He pushed it through Congress, but the designation seems particularly appropriate for a national military highway system).Student7 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Interstates have a secondary purpose to support military activities, yes, but they are not "owned" by the Department of Defense. Instead they are owned by each state's DOT (or equivalent). The original Interstates were funded using the 90/10 formula, and are now called the "chargeable Interstates." Subsequent additions to the system are wholly maintained by the states, thus they are called "non-chargeable Interstates". In either case, several states number them as state routes. I-5 in the state of California is legally SR-5, but signed with the I-5 shield instead of a miner's spade shield. Likewise, I-75 in Florida is actually SR-93 and SR-93A. MDOT considers I-96 to be a state trunkline highway just like US 131 or M-6. This has been the case since the passage of PA 51 of 1951 in the State of Michigan. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Article in Burlington Free Press Feb18 refers to state frustration with weight limits on highways which states are expected to enforce {"violate federal weight limits"). Vermont wants to allow higher limits than federal. The state senate, unanimously, has lowered the fine for overweight condition to $1 (one dollar)! They are doing this knowing that the feds may respond "harshly," so harshly that the bill never becomes law. So who runs the Interstates? Student7 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The interstates are owned, operated and maintained by the individual states. Designations are coordinated through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Congress and the FHWA can push for enforcement of various common standards by tying compliance to funding. In other words, if a state doesn't enforce federal weight limits, they could be forfeiting their highway maintenance funds from the federal government. It's similar to a parent telling her child that if he doesn't clean his room, she won't pay his allowance this week. He's still responsible for his actions, even if the consequences are a loss of money. In any event, Vermont still owns their Interstates, even if the feds want a weight limit on them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems to me that this is client relationship. The interstates seem more "on loan" to the states. A bit like a drilling lease on federal land. The leaser has certain rights but so does the leasee. Obviously, you can't get a pothole someplace and be calling DC about it! But calling it a state highway seems a pious fiction to me. We don't call a drilling lease in a federal park "Exxon Drilling Site". We still call it "Yellowstone" or whatever. Student7 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why does Michigan statutorily define the Interstates, US Numbered highways and the other state highways all as part of the state trunkline highway system? If Michigan doesn't control and own the highways in question, how can they define them as such. Why is I-5 in California legislatively defined in that state as State Route 5 if California doesn't own and control the roadways? If these two states can own and control them, why don't the other 48? Yes, there are Interstates in Hawaii and Alaska, as well as Puerto Rico. In fact, the Interstates in Alaska and Puerto Rico are not signed, but used on paper for funding purposes under the rest of the system. The average driver would never know which Alaskan highway is an Interstate, just as if they'd never know that US 131 carries I-296 between I-96 and I-196 in the Grand Rapids area. I-296 is a chargeable Interstate meaning it is funded 90/10 unlike I-238 in California which just has the shield on a section of SR 238. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is getting extremely silly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Student7 (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)