Cities that don't have auxiliary Interstates even though they should

[Roadgeekteen]

Boston. To much traffic. Need 695!

[Revive 755]

For example, Springfield, IL is a clusterfucked madness when construction rolls in on I-55. At least have somewhere for the cars to go.

I can only imagine the madness that will occur if they ever widen 55 to 3 lanes.

I'd add Bloomington, IL, maybe an western loop of Rockford

* Agree with Springfield

* Agree with Bloomington - may happen if the Eastern Bypass gets built.

* Rockford - I'm not sure about this one.  While the I-39/US 20 overlap is bad, I think so far that I-39/I-90 is still good enough that a relief route is warranted is probably not warranted at this time.  If one does happen I would go ahead and try and get Wisconsin on board for the route to bypass Beloit as well.

* Carbondale - Needs a spur from I-57 to bypass all the lights and congestion on IL 13.

* Champaign - Could use an I-x57 loop around to the east

Indiana
* Lafayette should have gotten a loop route for a western bypass

* Any one of the cities around and including Gary - Should have been at least one instead of cramming everything on the Borman and Toll Road.

* Muncie - Should have gotten a spur off of I-69

[Thing 342]

I-781 -- between I-81/I-64 interchange at Lexington, and Lynchburg area.  Connect to US-29 Lynchburg Expressway just north of Madison Heights.  Lynchburg does not have a good highway connection to either I-64 west or I-81 north, and Lynchburg does not have any Interstate service.  I have wondered why this wasn't included in the original Interstate system, or at least after the 1959 decision to route I-64 by way of Charlottesville and not by way of Lynchburg.  Yes it would cross the Blue Ridge Mountains,  but no worse terrain than the I-64 crossing at Afton Mountain.

I would postulate that mountain crossings south of Afton are actually a good bit worse.  If you compare US 250's crossing of Afton Mtn it is light years easier than VA 56 and significantly better than US 60, the original VA 13 crossing, or US 501.  This could be partly why when Lynchburg was still on I-64's path, it followed US 460 over to the Roanoke area and US 220 up to Covington...

I poked around CTB minutes of the late 50s and did not find anything that speaks to this specific question...

I wonder if a corridor that departed I-81 at the MM 184 area, headed south to Glasgow, followed the James River cut through the Blue Ridge, and then paralleled VA-130 to meet the US-29 bypass near Amelon would be feasible from a terrain perspective.

[Beltway]

I-781 -- between I-81/I-64 interchange at Lexington, and Lynchburg area.  Connect to US-29 Lynchburg Expressway just north of Madison Heights.  Lynchburg does not have a good highway connection to either I-64 west or I-81 north, and Lynchburg does not have any Interstate service.  I have wondered why this wasn't included in the original Interstate system, or at least after the 1959 decision to route I-64 by way of Charlottesville and not by way of Lynchburg.  Yes it would cross the Blue Ridge Mountains,  but no worse terrain than the I-64 crossing at Afton Mountain.

I would postulate that mountain crossings south of Afton are actually a good bit worse.  If you compare US 250's crossing of Afton Mtn it is light years easier than VA 56 and significantly better than US 60, the original VA 13 crossing, or US 501.  This could be partly why when Lynchburg was still on I-64's path, it followed US 460 over to the Roanoke area and US 220 up to Covington...

I would need to look at a USGS topo map of the area.  It is probably something similar to the Afton Mountain area, given the high design of I-64 that makes it look fairly routine to cross the mountain there.  There is about 10 mile band as to where it could cross.

I have a link to the I-64 route alternates --  http://www.roadstothefuture.com/i64vastudy.html

You wanna know what I really think about that I-64 route that followed US-460 over to the Roanoke area and US-220 up to Covington?  That someone was trying to make it look ridiculous zig-zagging so far from a straighter corridor, to discredit the Lynchburg route, to lend more support to the Charlottesville route.  They should have studied a more direct route between Lynchburg and Clifton Forge, and that would have crossed I-81 at about a right angle.  Now I could be wrong here, but that route on the map looks mighty suspicious! :-)

That map does correctly show the initial concept between Clifton Forge and Lexington, a direct route that included a tunnel near Collierstown.  The as-built dogleg by way of North Mountain was conceived to avoid having to build a tunnel.

US-460 crossing the Blue Ridge has mild terrain compared to Afton Mountain.

Interstate highway designers do whatever it takes to cross mountains, look at all the mountainous areas that I-77 crosses.

I poked around CTB minutes of the late 50s and did not find anything that speaks to this specific question...

Oh, I don't think any such highway was ever studied.  It could have been logically put in the Arterial System as a 4-lane arterial on new alignment, but I don't think that was ever proposed.

It is just something that I myself have thought would have been logical.

[Darkchylde]

Jefferson City.

[Buffaboy]

Rochester is pretty much the polar opposite of what you're looking for, that's all we have!
But Utica and Binghamton probably qualify.

Utica has I-790

Utica qualifies because I-790 doesn't 

[jwolfer]

Trenton, NJ doesn't have any sort of Interstate. It has two freeways that connects with the Interstate network (NJ 29 and US 1), but they are not nearly enough.

Trenton is served by 195 and 295 and for the being 95... Yes i know not in city limits but in most states trenton city limits would include at least parts of Hamilton and Ewing Townships

LGMS428

[Mapmikey]

You wanna know what I really think about that I-64 route that followed US-460 over to the Roanoke area and US-220 up to Covington?  That someone was trying to make it look ridiculous zig-zagging so far from a straighter corridor, to discredit the Lynchburg route, to lend more support to the Charlottesville route.  They should have studied a more direct route between Lynchburg and Clifton Forge, and that would have crossed I-81 at about a right angle.  Now I could be wrong here, but that route on the map looks mighty suspicious! :-)

It can't have been too bad of an option as the CTB repeatedly voted to build the Lynchburg option and even studied whether to carry 64 up 81 to Lexington from Roanoke, which would really be looping around...

I poked around CTB minutes of the late 50s and did not find anything that speaks to this specific question...

Oh, I don't think any such highway was ever studied.  It could have been logically put in the Arterial System as a 4-lane arterial on new alignment, but I don't think that was ever proposed.

It is just something that I myself have thought would have been logical.

No idea if they studied more direct ways across the Blue Ridge from Lynchburg, but sometimes they used to make statements like "due to the difficult terrain" or whatever.  Was trying to see if they put that qualifier onto the mention of the Lynchburg routing. 

For some reason neither my work or home computer will play these clips (used to be able to), but here is a 1961 news story on I-64's cost estimates for both options:
http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2396741

Another tidbit: http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2220287

Most of these videos have no sound but have the script:

Here is another on failing to come to a resolution on it:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2252063/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Another relevant story script;
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2249861/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Here is the script of a 4th story:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2216627/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Another:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2249711/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Albemarle County group didn't want it run there:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2217022/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

This one identifies who actually came up with the idea of the southern routing (Roanoke Businessman George Willis)
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2382360/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Here is the story where the CTB finally voted to approve the Northern route in 1961:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2393263/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

There could be other articles...got tired of searching

[Beltway]

You wanna know what I really think about that I-64 route that followed US-460 over to the Roanoke area and US-220 up to Covington?  That someone was trying to make it look ridiculous zig-zagging so far from a straighter corridor, to discredit the Lynchburg route, to lend more support to the Charlottesville route.  They should have studied a more direct route between Lynchburg and Clifton Forge, and that would have crossed I-81 at about a right angle.  Now I could be wrong here, but that route on the map looks mighty suspicious! :-)

It can't have been too bad of an option as the CTB repeatedly voted to build the Lynchburg option and even studied whether to carry 64 up 81 to Lexington from Roanoke, which would really be looping around...

They definitely did seriously study a Lynchburg route, the question is what was the exact routing.

I poked around CTB minutes of the late 50s and did not find anything that speaks to this specific question...

Oh, I don't think any such highway was ever studied.  It could have been logically put in the Arterial System as a 4-lane arterial on new alignment, but I don't think that was ever proposed.

It is just something that I myself have thought would have been logical.

No idea if they studied more direct ways across the Blue Ridge from Lynchburg, but sometimes they used to make statements like "due to the difficult terrain" or whatever.  Was trying to see if they put that qualifier onto the mention of the Lynchburg routing. 

For some reason neither my work or home computer will play these clips (used to be able to), but here is a 1961 news story on I-64's cost estimates for both options:
http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2396741

Another tidbit: http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2220287

Most of these videos have no sound but have the script:

Here is another on failing to come to a resolution on it:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2252063/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Another relevant story script;
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2249861/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Here is the script of a 4th story:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2216627/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Another:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2249711/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Albemarle County group didn't want it run there:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2217022/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

This one identifies who actually came up with the idea of the southern routing (Roanoke Businessman George Willis)
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2382360/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

Here is the story where the CTB finally voted to approve the Northern route in 1961:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2393263/datastreams/scriptPDF/content

There could be other articles...got tired of searching

Thanks!  I will take some time to look at those links.

I was the one who injected that map into the roads/highways online arena, and I see that it is on the Wikipedia I-64 article.  Posted here in 2000 --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I64_VA_Desc.html

That said I think we need to do some more research.  The video documentary on Henrico County Interstates published several months ago by Henrico public TV, the one where I was one of the interviewees, discussed the I-64 routing controversy, and showed a map of the southern route following US-60 between Richmond and Lexington, passing about 5 miles north of Lynchburg.  That would be a fairly direct routing.

This brings into question whether the map I found in a study at the state library, was ever an approved alternate for the Lynchburg route.

[Mapmikey]

Another potential place to find information is in Virginia Highway Bulletins of the late 1950s-early 1960s.  That is where I found (Aug 1960) a map showing the eastern studied path for I-77 north of I-81 via Glen Lyn...



The Richmond to Lynchburg routing was around long enough that they changed where it left Richmond

See last page at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1960-01.pdf

Oddly, on the previous page, a commissioner made a motion to approve the eastern I-77 route above I-81 and imediately after a motion was put out to approve the western route.  In this same meeting they approved the western route of I-77 south of I-81 (later changed to the eastern route in 1965 after NC approved the eastern path in their state).

[Beltway]

Another potential place to find information is in Virginia Highway Bulletins of the late 1950s-early 1960s.  That is where I found (Aug 1960) a map showing the eastern studied path for I-77 north of I-81 via Glen Lyn...

The Richmond to Lynchburg routing was around long enough that they changed where it left Richmond

See last page at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1960-01.pdf

Oddly, on the previous page, a commissioner made a motion to approve the eastern I-77 route above I-81 and imediately after a motion was put out to approve the western route.  In this same meeting they approved the western route of I-77 south of I-81 (later changed to the eastern route in 1965 after NC approved the eastern path in their state).

I have a number of old Virginia Highway Bulletins,  and some of my cites on my website includes them.  Published by VDH so a very solid source for the I-77 alternates.

I recall a newspaper article about 1973 that said that a federal law had been rescinded, a 1950s law that mandated that new rural Interstate routings follow the most direct route possible.

That law in and of itself should have been ample grounds not to select the eastern I-77 route as it looks about 10 miles longer.  Without that law if a DOT had reasons they could consider a longer route.

By 1973 probably about 85% of the rural Interstates nationally were either built or if not yet built had their locations approved.  By then, north of I-81, part of I-77 was open and the rest was under construction.

[bassoon1986]

In Louisiana, Lafayette needs it most. A loop or a partial bypass. Monroe is the next largest place that could (maybe) use one. If nothing else just to add a fourth river crossing. Alexandria/Pineville needs it least. US 71 is a good enough bypass/detour route.


iPhone

[DandyDan]

In Nebraska, Hastings and Grand Island should have got a double spur.  I would call it I-380. I also think the freeway between Fremont and Omaha should be I-780.

In Minnesota, the obvious candidate is Rochester, but I would have to think St. Cloud is a good candidate for a 3di as well. Fargo-Moorhead (which obviously includes North Dakota) could be as well.

[mrose]

To Nebraska I'd add Lincoln, even though it has one (180) really should have a second, and perhaps when they finally build the south and east beltway they will.

Colorado Springs. I also thought 36 to Boulder could be an x70; the problem is 270 is even and wouldn't really make a good extension for that reason. Maybe they could change it to 370.

Austin, TX should probably have one.

[english si]

South Pasadena!

[Revive 755]

To Nebraska I'd add Lincoln, even though it has one (180) really should have a second, and perhaps when they finally build the south and east beltway they will.

Given that last time I checked, the proposed beltway interchanges with US 75 and the Highway 2 expressway to Nebraska City were both going to treat the beltway as the through route, I think there is a very good chance of the beltway at least trying for an even I-x80.
----------------------------

For Wisconsin, I am going to suggest Kenosha with a spur off I-94 since neither the Lake Freeway nor what appears to have been a less seriously considered extension of the Amstutz Expressway from Waukegan were ever built.

[Eth]

Athens, GA should probably have one. The GA 316 freeway to it will probably be completed by the early 23rd century or so; maybe we can put an Interstate shield on it then. I'd also go ahead with the originally-planned I-175 to Albany (roughly along GA 300).

[Roadgeekteen]

Athens, GA should probably have one. The GA 316 freeway to it will probably be completed by the early 23rd century or so; maybe we can put an Interstate shield on it then. I'd also go ahead with the originally-planned I-175 to Albany (roughly along GA 300).

Athens, Greece also needs one .

[Beltway]

What city in your state doesn't have any spurs/bypass/loop Interstates but should have them?

Roanoke, VA has the I-581 spur to the downtown.  This would become part of I-73 if that highway was built down to NC.  I-73 would be a logical upgrade to the US-220 corridor, but at $4 billion I don't know how it can be funded.

I have wondered at times if a partial circumferential to the south of Salem and Roanoke, connecting to I-81 at either end, would be needed or to the advantage to develop.  This would be I-481.