Why so many beltways? (Los Angeles)

[sparker]

Metro Los Angeles has no beltways. It has a somewhat adequate number of super highways, but none are beltways. To me a beltway is something like I-495 wrapping entirely around Washington, DC or I-285 around Atlanta. Houston could fit the definition of having a "lot" of beltways (I-610, Loop 8 and the Grand Parkway which is in progress). Dallas-Fort Worth could end up in the same category if some of the plans there are realized.

You're describing a full beltway, LA has a series of partial beltways

The issue with the "semi-" or "partial" beltways (210,405,605, etc.) is that they only function as geographical beltways around the central part of LA Metro; all these routes currently function much more as intraregional connectors -- with the traffic levels typical of such facilities -- rather than effective bypasses except, perhaps, in the middle of the night!  It's the topography, combined with the continual growth pattern over the last century, that effectively prevents L.A., located as it is on a coastal "shelf", from being "bypassable" except by stringing together far-flung desert & mountain routes that were never intended to function as such.     

[Bobby5280]

I-40 and CA-58 already serve as a major bypass of the LA area, unfortunately it's not all super highway quality. Lots of people think I-40 should be extended thru Bakersfield and over to I-5. Other highways North of the San Gabriel mountains, such as CA-138, may need to be upgraded in the long run. But even CA-138 has had a bunch of its corridor overrun with development.

[sparker]

I-40 and CA-58 already serve as a major bypass of the LA area, unfortunately it's not all super highway quality. Lots of people think I-40 should be extended thru Bakersfield and over to I-5. Other highways North of the San Gabriel mountains, such as CA-138, may need to be upgraded in the long run. But even CA-138 has had a bunch of its corridor overrun with development.

That's why there's a longstanding proposal, active for over a decade, to construct a toll facility from Palmdale to Victorville north of CA 138 and CA 18 (more or less passing near Lake Los Angeles); it's referred to as "E-220" in its HPC 71 description.  Various iterations of the plan included rail as well as a toll road.  At this point, I am unaware of any concrete plans for development of this corridor in full.  A connecting facility, extending from US 395 in Adelanto, crossing I-15 north of Victorville, and circling Apple Valley to the north before terminating at CA 18 just east of that city is, IIRC, in the preliminary planning stages (at least it was when I left the area mid-2012).  Most of the "E-220" plans I've seen extend the toll road due west from where this connector crosses US 395. 

[Bickendan]

Metro Los Angeles has no beltways. It has a somewhat adequate number of super highways, but none are beltways. To me a beltway is something like I-495 wrapping entirely around Washington, DC or I-285 around Atlanta. Houston could fit the definition of having a "lot" of beltways (I-610, Loop 8 and the Grand Parkway which is in progress). Dallas-Fort Worth could end up in the same category if some of the plans there are realized.

You're describing a full beltway, LA has a series of partial beltways

The issue with the "semi-" or "partial" beltways (210,405,605, etc.) is that they only function as geographical beltways around the central part of LA Metro; all these routes currently function much more as intraregional connectors -- with the traffic levels typical of such facilities -- rather than effective bypasses except, perhaps, in the middle of the night!  It's the topography, combined with the continual growth pattern over the last century, that effectively prevents L.A., located as it is on a coastal "shelf", from being "bypassable" except by stringing together far-flung desert & mountain routes that were never intended to function as such.     

Even I-205, which is a half-beltway around and through Portland, is falling victim to the intraregional traffic problem. And even if the Westside Bypass were fully built and Portland had a full-beltway, that is, from near the southern I-205 terminus arcing west and north toward Aloha and Hillsboro, then northwest through the Tualatins and skirting Lake Vancouver's east short to the northern terminus, it too would be dealing with mostly intraregional traffic.

[mrsman]

In my view, the difference between one road like I-495 or I-285 or a series of roads that serve the same function is a distinction without much difference.  The only difference is that on a road like I-495, the main force of traffic (the most number of lanes) will keep going in a circular direction, whereas with a series of half-beltways you have to transfer from one road to another.

The main Beltway around LA is a series of freeways.  Starting from the Newhall Pass area, I-210 - I-605 - I-405 and a short section of I-5 connecting between I-405 and I-210 serve as the main LA beltway that is equivalent to DC's I-495.  Yet, because of the decentralization of jobs in LA, these roads are quite busy and may even at times be busier than the radial routes like I-5, US 101, and I-10.  Plus, there is demand for more and more freeways even further out like CA 57 and CA 55.  So as a whole, we see the full LA system as a grid, even though it still maintains the basic structure of radial routes and beltway that most other cities have.

Another similar example:  Minneapolis.  There, they have radial routes: I-35W, I-94 and beltway: I-494 and I-694 combined.  But they also have other freeways, so when looking at the area as a whole, it appears to be a full grid of freeways.

And the only solution to this mess is along the lines of a super-beltway, a road that is so far out that it doens't serve commuter purposes at all but does provide the bypass route from Bakersfield-Big Bear-San Diego.  To some extent upgrades of CA 58 and CA 62 serve this function, but certain pieces will always be of inferior (non-interstate) quality becuase of the mountains.

[compdude787]

Metro Los Angeles has no beltways. It has a somewhat adequate number of super highways, but none are beltways. To me a beltway is something like I-495 wrapping entirely around Washington, DC or I-285 around Atlanta. Houston could fit the definition of having a "lot" of beltways (I-610, Loop 8 and the Grand Parkway which is in progress). Dallas-Fort Worth could end up in the same category if some of the plans there are realized.

You're describing a full beltway, LA has a series of partial beltways

The issue with the "semi-" or "partial" beltways (210,405,605, etc.) is that they only function as geographical beltways around the central part of LA Metro; all these routes currently function much more as intraregional connectors -- with the traffic levels typical of such facilities -- rather than effective bypasses except, perhaps, in the middle of the night!  It's the topography, combined with the continual growth pattern over the last century, that effectively prevents L.A., located as it is on a coastal "shelf", from being "bypassable" except by stringing together far-flung desert & mountain routes that were never intended to function as such.     

Even I-205, which is a half-beltway around and through Portland, is falling victim to the intraregional traffic problem.

It's a lot better than I-405 in Seattle, which serves so much commuter traffic heading to and from Bellevue that it is a terrible bypass for Seattle. I-605 needs to be built out in Snoqualmie Valley.

[coatimundi]

In China, and I think other Asian cities do this as well, they just kept building loops (called "ring road" in Chinese) as the city grew. In Shanghai, they had one when I lived there and had partially built the second. Now there are four while there are now seven in Beijing.
LA being on the coast, this sort of thing is not really feasible there, but it has been attempted in other American cities. Houston now has two fully complete and one partially complete freeway-grade loops (people often say there's a fourth Downtown, but I've never considered it to be a true loop in the sense of the others). One of the possible routings for I-69 was to take the outer most loop.
And, in my eyes, all this has done is to drive sprawl. Developers built housing along the loops, retail was added, and some employment centers emerged. Most traffic now is either trans-suburban or using the loop to reach the freeway into the city.
So I don't know that the solution to Los Angeles' traffic woes is to build more freeway loops, though a true thru bypass of the region is needed provided the development can be controlled. If the toll loop had been built through the Antelope Valley, we'd likely see a tremendous amount of commuter traffic and the same rules regarding thru driving in LA (avoiding rush hours and carefully choosing a route).
Just a thought.

[AsphaltPlanet]

It seems to me that LA could definitely use some tolled north-south capacity through the Metro area.  Having a tolled route could ensure that there is always a free-flowing route through the Metro area, which as most people know, most of the time there is not.

[coatimundi]

It seems to me that LA could definitely use some tolled north-south capacity through the Metro area.  Having a tolled route could ensure that there is always a free-flowing route through the Metro area, which as most people know, most of the time there is not.

You know, I think the way they did it in both Chicago and Cleveland, with their toll facilities routing thru traffic, is a good idea. In Chicago, it seems to work well, with the freeway route being perpetually jammed but the Tri-State Tollway usually relatively clear. A lot of that though, I think, has to do with the limiting of exits on those facilities, something that wasn't done on the toll facilities in Texas.
Then again, regarding Texas' toll routes, SR 130 - intended to be a toll bypass of the Austin region - has mostly been a financial failure.

I think the inherent problem with California is that there are just too environmental hurdles and other red tape to building new facilities, and most private companies willing to run a toll road are not willing to deal with that. Otherwise, I think we would have an I-710 toll tunnel as well as a toll tunnel leading out to the northern end of the Grapevine on I-5.

[AsphaltPlanet]

Yeah, it's too bad the 710 tunnel is as problematic to certain groups of the public as it is.  That seems like such a slam dunk to provide congestion relief in the LA area.  In my view, it should be tolled at the price of congestion.  If it was, there would be a know, and finite number of vehicles attracted to it, and the implications to the surrounding transportation network would be known, and could be mitigated without really impacting the surrounding communities negatively.

[Bobby5280]

That's why there's a longstanding proposal, active for over a decade, to construct a toll facility from Palmdale to Victorville north of CA 138 and CA 18 (more or less passing near Lake Los Angeles); it's referred to as "E-220" in its HPC 71 description.  Various iterations of the plan included rail as well as a toll road.  At this point, I am unaware of any concrete plans for development of this corridor in full.  A connecting facility, extending from US 395 in Adelanto, crossing I-15 north of Victorville, and circling Apple Valley to the north before terminating at CA 18 just east of that city is, IIRC, in the preliminary planning stages (at least it was when I left the area mid-2012).  Most of the "E-220" plans I've seen extend the toll road due west from where this connector crosses US 395.

I could certainly see building a freeway or toll road connection between the Palmdale-Lancaster area and Victorville, from the CA-14 freeway over to I-15.

My own feeling is CA-138 from Cajon Junction and I-15 on West could serve as a portion of a larger bypass that skips around both the Phoenix and Los Angeles areas.

There is already a decent amount of traffic using I-8 to bypass Phoenix to the South and then take CA-111 North at El Centro and turn onto CA-86 at Hovely. CA-86 dovetails into I-10 in Indio, well East of the L.A. area. Parts of CA-111 and CA-86 are Interstate quality; the rest is 4-laned and looks relatively easy to upgrade to Interstate quality. Bypass traffic using this route to get farther North into California would take CA-210 to I-15 in San Bernadino and then head to Cajon Junction to pick up CA-138 to head farther West. CA-138 is just a 2-lane facility, but there is plenty of room to build it out to freeway or toll road quality. The route's upgrade path gets tricky heading into Palmdale where development is starting to creep up into the mountains. There is no diagonal roadway crossing the Antelope Valley from Palmdale to Neenach. The current route of CA-138 goes North quite a way to Lancaster and then West in a big left angle.

In China, and I think other Asian cities do this as well, they just kept building loops (called "ring road" in Chinese) as the city grew. In Shanghai, they had one when I lived there and had partially built the second. Now there are four while there are now seven in Beijing.

LA being on the coast, this sort of thing is not really feasible there, but it has been attempted in other American cities. Houston now has two fully complete and one partially complete freeway-grade loops (people often say there's a fourth Downtown, but I've never considered it to be a true loop in the sense of the others). One of the possible routings for I-69 was to take the outer most loop.

And, in my eyes, all this has done is to drive sprawl. Developers built housing along the loops, retail was added, and some employment centers emerged. Most traffic now is either trans-suburban or using the loop to reach the freeway into the city.

As cities get more populated sprawl is going to happen with or without the additional freeways or toll roads. The two biggest factors that drive sprawl by far are living costs and safety. Most people would prefer to live closer to the city center for various reasons (shorter commute, entertainment, etc.). For most people that proposition is just way too expensive. If they do find affordable housing in the urban center it's almost certain to be located in a run down combat zone of a neighborhood. That gets into the whole safety thing. People move farther out from the city center where both safety and living costs meet a reasonable level. Freeways are often built in response to this activity. Just look at Phoenix. That city was huge before any of its partial beltways were built.

If city planners and various urban renewal activists want average people to leave behind the suburbs and to move to urban centers they'll have to find a way to make it an affordable proposition. I spent my college years in New York City. It's a pretty happenin' place. But it's not happenin' enough for me to be willing to starve there.

[silverback1065]

That's why there's a longstanding proposal, active for over a decade, to construct a toll facility from Palmdale to Victorville north of CA 138 and CA 18 (more or less passing near Lake Los Angeles); it's referred to as "E-220" in its HPC 71 description.  Various iterations of the plan included rail as well as a toll road.  At this point, I am unaware of any concrete plans for development of this corridor in full.  A connecting facility, extending from US 395 in Adelanto, crossing I-15 north of Victorville, and circling Apple Valley to the north before terminating at CA 18 just east of that city is, IIRC, in the preliminary planning stages (at least it was when I left the area mid-2012).  Most of the "E-220" plans I've seen extend the toll road due west from where this connector crosses US 395.

I could certainly see building a freeway or toll road connection between the Palmdale-Lancaster area and Victorville, from the CA-14 freeway over to I-15.

My own feeling is CA-138 from Cajon Junction and I-15 on West could serve as a portion of a larger bypass that skips around both the Phoenix and Los Angeles areas.

There is already a decent amount of traffic using I-8 to bypass Phoenix to the South and then take CA-111 North at El Centro and turn onto CA-86 at Hovely. CA-86 dovetails into I-10 in Indio, well East of the L.A. area. Parts of CA-111 and CA-86 are Interstate quality; the rest is 4-laned and looks relatively easy to upgrade to Interstate quality. Bypass traffic using this route to get farther North into California would take CA-210 to I-15 in San Bernadino and then head to Cajon Junction to pick up CA-138 to head farther West. CA-138 is just a 2-lane facility, but there is plenty of room to build it out to freeway or toll road quality. The route's upgrade path gets tricky heading into Palmdale where development is starting to creep up into the mountains. There is no diagonal roadway crossing the Antelope Valley from Palmdale to Neenach. The current route of CA-138 goes North quite a way to Lancaster and then West in a big left angle.

In China, and I think other Asian cities do this as well, they just kept building loops (called "ring road" in Chinese) as the city grew. In Shanghai, they had one when I lived there and had partially built the second. Now there are four while there are now seven in Beijing.

LA being on the coast, this sort of thing is not really feasible there, but it has been attempted in other American cities. Houston now has two fully complete and one partially complete freeway-grade loops (people often say there's a fourth Downtown, but I've never considered it to be a true loop in the sense of the others). One of the possible routings for I-69 was to take the outer most loop.

And, in my eyes, all this has done is to drive sprawl. Developers built housing along the loops, retail was added, and some employment centers emerged. Most traffic now is either trans-suburban or using the loop to reach the freeway into the city.

As cities get more populated sprawl is going to happen with or without the additional freeways or toll roads. The two biggest factors that drive sprawl by far are living costs and safety. Most people would prefer to live closer to the city center for various reasons (shorter commute, entertainment, etc.). For most people that proposition is just way too expensive. If they do find affordable housing in the urban center it's almost certain to be located in a run down combat zone of a neighborhood. That gets into the whole safety thing. People move farther out from the city center where both safety and living costs meet a reasonable level. Freeways are often built in response to this activity. Just look at Phoenix. That city was huge before any of its partial beltways were built.

If city planners and various urban renewal activists want average people to leave behind the suburbs and to move to urban centers they'll have to find a way to make it an affordable proposition. I spent my college years in New York City. It's a pretty happenin' place. But it's not happenin' enough for me to be willing to starve there.

That's why i don't by the whole "interstates ruined the city" mantra, I feel like it would have happened regardless.

[sparker]

My own feeling is CA-138 from Cajon Junction and I-15 on West could serve as a portion of a larger bypass that skips around both the Phoenix and Los Angeles areas.

The highly developed nature of the San Bernardino/Riverside "Inland Empire" region pretty much precludes any viable bypass that empties traffic into and out of I-15 in Cajon Pass; it would, for most of any given weekday, encounter congestion once down the hill on I-215 (more of a bypass than I-15) at or past 210.  The most viable option for a true bypass would be the 18/247/62 composite corridor via the north side of Victorville, Lucerne Valley, and the Yucca/Morongo valley region, using CA 62 or a parallel facility to disperse traffic onto eastbound I-10.  Once there, they could continue east on 10 or divert to 86/111 down to I-8 for an effective Phoenix bypass (apologies for the quasi-Fictional scenario).  The only instance in which Cajon Pass/I-15 would come into play would be for traffic to & from the Inland Empire itself -- or San Diego & environs. 

[coatimundi]

it would, for most of any given weekday, encounter congestion once down the hill on I-215 (more of a bypass than I-15) at or past 210

Absolutely. The heavy development in the High Desert has made Cajon Pass just another Southland commuter slog.

We actually had my in-laws out this past weekend. We've told them a couple of times that, when driving from Arizona, they should use the route through Bakersfield unless they want to drive pretty much in the middle of the night. But they never listen and, a few months ago, they tried the 126-138-15-215 routing. On this trip, they were asking us how to do the Bakersfield route because that last trip was, apparently, really terrible. I've done it. I've also driven 395 to 58, thinking that would be better, but Cajon Pass just ruins everything.

[sparker]

Absolutely. The heavy development in the High Desert has made Cajon Pass just another Southland commuter slog.

.........but Cajon Pass just ruins everything.

Even with the improved 15/215 split at Devore, Cajon is at best a major pain in the ass (this comes from having commuted over the hill for 2 years!).  The sole saving grace -- if you're a railfan as I am -- is the constant presence of trains along the route. 

[Bobby5280]

Leaving I-10, CA-62 looks like it has been built up so an eventual Interstate quality upgrade wouldn't be difficult to accomplish. Partial frontage roads exist and the ROW appears secure for building freeway exits for the current at-grade intersections. Getting on into Morongo Valley and Yucca Valley quite a bit of property hugs close to the road. The intersection with CA-62 and CA-247 is heavily developed.

It's too bad CA-62 has to back-track to the East so far before reaching a point where the road can pass around the mountains and resume going West. A freeway quality bypass cutting up through there would give the Twentynine Palms Marine Corp base some improved access.

[sparker]

Leaving I-10, CA-62 looks like it has been built up so an eventual Interstate quality upgrade wouldn't be difficult to accomplish. Partial frontage roads exist and the ROW appears secure for building freeway exits for the current at-grade intersections. Getting on into Morongo Valley and Yucca Valley quite a bit of property hugs close to the road. The intersection with CA-62 and CA-247 is heavily developed.

It's too bad CA-62 has to back-track to the East so far before reaching a point where the road can pass around the mountains and resume going West. A freeway quality bypass cutting up through there would give the Twentynine Palms Marine Corp base some improved access.

The first few miles of CA 62 north of I-10 are upgradeable expressway across relatively benign desert land, but the next 4-5 miles into Morongo Valley are in a narrow canyon; that'll be a difficult construction job should an upgrade be contemplated.  Once in Morongo Valley, it would be likely that a facility parallel to the existing alignment a block or two away would be the optimal choice.  You're right about the "backward" bend any route must take, but the severity of the mountains in that area pretty much would require such a routing.  At one point when I was in that area I thought that a bypass facility as contemplated here might diverge from 62 somewhere between Morongo & Yucca Valleys; it could be done (such a route would likely pass near Pioneertown, about 6 miles NW of Yucca Valley) and then "hit" 247 about 10-12 miles north of 62.  However, there would be more than a little mountain construction; it would be more likely that such a route would snake around the Yucca Valley residential areas north of 62 before turning north on the alluvial plain in order to avoid the mountains (which in that area consists of huge piles of semi-loose rock). 

Again, pardon me for edging closer to Fictional here, but I'd think that a bypass could be feasible if partially tolled:  the portion along 62 from I-10 to Yucca Valley could be free (it would function as a commute route in & out of that area -- free would not raise political objections).  However the portion along 247 and 18 via Lucerne Valley could be tolled east of Apple Valley, with a following free section around Apple Valley and Victorville as presently in the planning works.  The portion from 395 west to CA 14 near Palmdale would be tolled as per present long-range plans.  In this fashion, the shorter in-town portions of the route used freely by commuters would be retained (avoiding local whining about tolling a currently free route), while the actual metro bypass function between those areas could be tolled for those commercial and other drivers needing an efficient route around LA metro.

[Mergingtraffic]

Wow. I didn't realize the highway plans were so ambitious. Did NYC and other major cities at that time have such plans as well?

Most major cities have unbuilt freeways. New York had Robert Moses, who was able to push through a lot of his freeway plans, ruining many neighborhoods throughout that city, particularly in the Bronx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_revolts_in_the_United_States

Yes NYC had Robert Moses but still quite a bit was killed off.  There's no good way to get from Brooklyn to JFK airport in lower Queens. Manhattan has no east-west route in the middle or lower part.  So, whatever NYC has, it would've been worse without Robert Moses.  Here's a sign for reading this post. 

[/url]Non-reflective button copy at night! Brooklyn Bridge. Brooklyn, NYC. by mergingtraffic, on Flickr

[coatimundi]

Switched to the bridge sign photo thread. As the kids say, "GG":

by Raymond Yu, on Flickr

[sparker]

Wow. I didn't realize the highway plans were so ambitious. Did NYC and other major cities at that time have such plans as well?

Most major cities have unbuilt freeways. New York had Robert Moses, who was able to push through a lot of his freeway plans, ruining many neighborhoods throughout that city, particularly in the Bronx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_revolts_in_the_United_States

Yes NYC had Robert Moses but still quite a bit was killed off.  There's no good way to get from Brooklyn to JFK airport in lower Queens. Manhattan has no east-west route in the middle or lower part.  So, whatever NYC has, it would've been worse without Robert Moses.  Here's a sign for reading this post. 

[/url]Non-reflective button copy at night! Brooklyn Bridge. Brooklyn, NYC. by mergingtraffic, on Flickr

Moses' original concept was the NYC parkway system, specifically intended for private automobile traffic only; commercial (truck) traffic was to be prohibited -- and in reality was for most of the parkways.  The Moses-inspired facilities featured low clearances and tight-radius curvature -- the idea was to not only legally restrict commercial traffic but make it physically infeasible for such to utilize the parkways.  Nevertheless, Moses' office was under constant pressure to provide some efficient routes for intra-and-interborough commercial traffic beyond the parkway concept; when it was proposed circa 1956-57 to deploy several Interstate routes through his bailiwick, he quickly converted several of his undeveloped parkway concepts to Interstate corridors (the convoluted original configuration of I-78 through Queens & Brooklyn was a major part of his planning efforts) to not only take advantage of the 90% Federal contribution but also to deflect criticism that his office was ignoring the city's economic needs by tailoring the parkways' design to accommodate and please the private driving public -- particularly the socioeconomic elite. 

However, once the physical scope of the Interstate facilities was made public, the localized "backlash" of the '60's and '70's truncated the city's Interstate-grade network to considerably less than originally planned.   

[silverback1065]

Wow. I didn't realize the highway plans were so ambitious. Did NYC and other major cities at that time have such plans as well?

Most major cities have unbuilt freeways. New York had Robert Moses, who was able to push through a lot of his freeway plans, ruining many neighborhoods throughout that city, particularly in the Bronx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_revolts_in_the_United_States

Yes NYC had Robert Moses but still quite a bit was killed off.  There's no good way to get from Brooklyn to JFK airport in lower Queens. Manhattan has no east-west route in the middle or lower part.  So, whatever NYC has, it would've been worse without Robert Moses.  Here's a sign for reading this post. 

[/url]Non-reflective button copy at night! Brooklyn Bridge. Brooklyn, NYC. by mergingtraffic, on Flickr

Moses' original concept was the NYC parkway system, specifically intended for private automobile traffic only; commercial (truck) traffic was to be prohibited -- and in reality was for most of the parkways.  The Moses-inspired facilities featured low clearances and tight-radius curvature -- the idea was to not only legally restrict commercial traffic but make it physically infeasible for such to utilize the parkways.  Nevertheless, Moses' office was under constant pressure to provide some efficient routes for intra-and-interborough commercial traffic beyond the parkway concept; when it was proposed circa 1956-57 to deploy several Interstate routes through his bailiwick, he quickly converted several of his undeveloped parkway concepts to Interstate corridors (the convoluted original configuration of I-78 through Queens & Brooklyn was a major part of his planning efforts) to not only take advantage of the 90% Federal contribution but also to deflect criticism that his office was ignoring the city's economic needs by tailoring the parkways' design to accommodate and please the private driving public -- particularly the socioeconomic elite. 

However, once the physical scope of the Interstate facilities was made public, the localized "backlash" of the '60's and '70's truncated the city's Interstate-grade network to considerably less than originally planned.   

do you have a map of the original routing of 78?

[coatimundi]

Bridge signs...

[silverback1065]

i-376 and 279 are very substandard highways in the downtown pittsburgh area. 

[coatimundi]

BRIDGE SIGNS...

[sparker]

do you have a map of the original routing of 78?

At this time, no -- but you can trace the basic I-78 route from its entrance into NYC via the Holland Tunnel as follows (just use either the RmcN NYC map [pp. 72-73 in the 2017 road atlas] or any available NYC map):  Cross lower Manhattan on the Broome/Delancey street continuum, followed by crossing the Williamsburg Bridge.  Continue along the basic bridge trajectory (SE) between the parallel Broadway & Bushwick streets all the way to the west end of the Jackie Robinson Parkway.  Go east on Atlantic to Conduit Blvd, which diverges SE.  That'll cross the South Belt Pkwy onto NY 878 (old but only partially relinquished I-878, which was renumbered when the full I-78 concept was abandoned).  Stay on 878 to just before its east end at Rockaway Blvd.  From there strike out NE on a more or less direct line through Springfield Gardens and St. Albans to the present south end of the Clearview/I-295 expressway at Hillside Ave (NY 25).  78 utilized what is now I-295 north across the Throggs Neck bridge before utilizing I-695 north to a terminus at I-95 at that route's Exit #7.  The section of I-295 northwest of the present 695 split was considered a spur of I-78 prior to renumbering.  Moses & company wanted a trunk Interstate to serve Brooklyn and outer Queens; the L-shaped I-78 routing was to do just that.  Prior to the extension of I-495 out to Riverhead, it was to terminate at I-78, with the remaining portion to (originally) be designated as NY 24; the NY -- and eventually Interstate  -- 495 designation came after much of the city's Interstate mileage was drastically truncated due to local pressure to do so.