Most Complete Freeway System

[Max Rockatansky]

May I nominate Phoenix among the most complete? I recall seeing a planning map from 1960 that closely resembles what's been built up to this point. Missing only is what would have been the Paradise Parkway.

Oddly enough its true, I mentioned that a little bit up thread.  Most of the 3d Interstates that were wanted for the area became State Highway freeways.

[Max Rockatansky]

Going through some places I lived...   Is Fresno the only significant California City that actually had all its freeways built?   Orlando as far as I know only ever had I-4 planned as the only freeway.  Phoenix has a pretty complete network but is constantly adding and AZ 50 never got off the ground.

For quite some time, Fresno planners had anticipated that the CA 65 "Eastside" freeway would complete their system by providing an outer connector between the three "radial" freeways extending out from the city center -- 180, 168, and 41 -- and essentially define the outer limits of housing development.  Back in the late '90's and early '00's -- even though there was not a defined and adopted alignment for CA 65, a plan was forwarded to identify the portion of the corridor between CA 180 and the projected eastern extension of CA 152; it would have had a more or less 45-degree diagonal trajectory east of Fresno itself, passing directly below Friant Dam, and intersecting CA 41 just north of the present CA 145 intersection.  Just NW of there, the project would turn west onto the 152 extension, building that to the present CA 99/CA 152 interchange near Chowchilla.  This would have essentially completed a northeast bypass "loop" of Fresno -- something dear to the heart of regional developers.  Of course, lack of funding intervened -- although the project remained dormant until the late '00's, when the state's housing crisis negated any pressing need for such a bypass.   As Fresno and environs are now growing at a considerably slower rate than two decades ago, it's unlikely that the CA 65-based bypass concept will be revived anytime soon.   

That's true, but then again I was under the impression that 65 would have been an expressway had the gap ever been completed.  I could just be pulling that out thin air but didn't we discuss that before on the Pacific Southwest board?

[Revive 755]

I think you need to decide between "city"  or "metropolitan area."  Chicago really only had the Crosstown, whatever was to become of the expressway stub from the Dan Ryan to Chinatown, and the upgrades of portions of Lake Shore Drive to expressways (which absolutely pales in comparison to the miles of expressway planned for DC but cancelled), but if you include the metro area, you can add the Amstutz, the IL-53 extension, the westward extension of the Elfin-O'Hare, and the Fox Valley Expressway.

With the Chicago city or area completeness would depend upon which plan is considered as the first.  The 1962 CATS plans has decent coverage of the early plans starting with 1939.  Going off Map 4 in the 1962 CATS plans, the only "committed" route that was not built was the Crosstown.  Going with the 1946 plans (which partially resembles the later plans, you can add extensions of the Ohio Street feeder both east and west, a Western Avenue Corridor, a connector between the southern end of Lake Shore Drive and the Bishop Ford at the Stony Island interchanges, a southern extension of Lake Shore Drive to the Indiana border, and a norther extension of Lake Shore Drive to the Evanston border.

Going off the plan recommended in the 1962 CATS document the Lake Shore Drive extensions are gone, but new routes were added:  One connecting the north end of Lake Shore Drive to I-90 near Nagle Avenue; an east-west corridor starting at the curve on I-57 at 99th Street; a southern extension of the Crosstown alignment to the 99th Street Corridor; a western extension of the Crosstown Corridor near 65th Street that would eventually turn northward near the IL 171 corridor; and an extension of IN 912's freeway to I-57.


For my nominations of most complete:

* Las Vegas, NV (no cancellations?)
* Salt Lake City (1 cancellation - kind of a southeasterly corridor from the downtown area to I-215)
* Nashville TN (the 840 loop could be considered an add on and/or dormant; only other cancellation I've seen mention of but never any documents on is a possible southern extension of the Briley Parkway from I-40 near the airport to I-24).

[sparker]

Going through some places I lived...   Is Fresno the only significant California City that actually had all its freeways built?   Orlando as far as I know only ever had I-4 planned as the only freeway.  Phoenix has a pretty complete network but is constantly adding and AZ 50 never got off the ground.

For quite some time, Fresno planners had anticipated that the CA 65 "Eastside" freeway would complete their system by providing an outer connector between the three "radial" freeways extending out from the city center -- 180, 168, and 41 -- and essentially define the outer limits of housing development.  Back in the late '90's and early '00's -- even though there was not a defined and adopted alignment for CA 65, a plan was forwarded to identify the portion of the corridor between CA 180 and the projected eastern extension of CA 152; it would have had a more or less 45-degree diagonal trajectory east of Fresno itself, passing directly below Friant Dam, and intersecting CA 41 just north of the present CA 145 intersection.  Just NW of there, the project would turn west onto the 152 extension, building that to the present CA 99/CA 152 interchange near Chowchilla.  This would have essentially completed a northeast bypass "loop" of Fresno -- something dear to the heart of regional developers.  Of course, lack of funding intervened -- although the project remained dormant until the late '00's, when the state's housing crisis negated any pressing need for such a bypass.   As Fresno and environs are now growing at a considerably slower rate than two decades ago, it's unlikely that the CA 65-based bypass concept will be revived anytime soon.   

That's true, but then again I was under the impression that 65 would have been an expressway had the gap ever been completed.  I could just be pulling that out thin air but didn't we discuss that before on the Pacific Southwest board?

Since no actual alignment, save for a few later rescinded miles in the Sacramento area, was ever adopted from CA 198 to I-80, any projected format of CA 65 (and LRN 249 before it) was simply speculative.  According to my cousin, who worked for D3 from the mid-'60's to the early '80's, it would have likely -- at least in its first iteration -- resembled a "midwest expressway" -- sort of an Avenue of the Saints approach -- with a combination of 2-lane expressway mixed with some 4-lane expressway segments (mostly in area with some degree of gradient) and actual short segments of 4-lane freeway near the more populated areas.  The later Fresno-area appropriation of this idea was definitely a full freeway from CA 180 to CA 41; the CA 152 extension would have likely been a 4-lane expressway.  IMO, if CA 65 had indeed been constructed, that CA 180>CA 41 segment would have likely been the longest (outside metro Sacramento) full freeway segment of the entire route; it's likely that between CA 198 and CA 180 a 4-lane expressway with interchanges at intersecting state highways would likely have been the format; north of CA 152 a 2-lane expressway would likely have sufficed, with "Super-2" segments w/interchanges near Snelling and the CA 108/120 intersection.  It probably wouldn't have expanded to 4 lanes until after it crossed CA 88 or even CA 104. 

My guess is this is something we'll never get a chance to see reach fruition; the actual need for such a corridor has yet to be established.   

[Max Rockatansky]

Going through some places I lived...   Is Fresno the only significant California City that actually had all its freeways built?   Orlando as far as I know only ever had I-4 planned as the only freeway.  Phoenix has a pretty complete network but is constantly adding and AZ 50 never got off the ground.

For quite some time, Fresno planners had anticipated that the CA 65 "Eastside" freeway would complete their system by providing an outer connector between the three "radial" freeways extending out from the city center -- 180, 168, and 41 -- and essentially define the outer limits of housing development.  Back in the late '90's and early '00's -- even though there was not a defined and adopted alignment for CA 65, a plan was forwarded to identify the portion of the corridor between CA 180 and the projected eastern extension of CA 152; it would have had a more or less 45-degree diagonal trajectory east of Fresno itself, passing directly below Friant Dam, and intersecting CA 41 just north of the present CA 145 intersection.  Just NW of there, the project would turn west onto the 152 extension, building that to the present CA 99/CA 152 interchange near Chowchilla.  This would have essentially completed a northeast bypass "loop" of Fresno -- something dear to the heart of regional developers.  Of course, lack of funding intervened -- although the project remained dormant until the late '00's, when the state's housing crisis negated any pressing need for such a bypass.   As Fresno and environs are now growing at a considerably slower rate than two decades ago, it's unlikely that the CA 65-based bypass concept will be revived anytime soon.   

That's true, but then again I was under the impression that 65 would have been an expressway had the gap ever been completed.  I could just be pulling that out thin air but didn't we discuss that before on the Pacific Southwest board?

Since no actual alignment, save for a few later rescinded miles in the Sacramento area, was ever adopted from CA 198 to I-80, any projected format of CA 65 (and LRN 249 before it) was simply speculative.  According to my cousin, who worked for D3 from the mid-'60's to the early '80's, it would have likely -- at least in its first iteration -- resembled a "midwest expressway" -- sort of an Avenue of the Saints approach -- with a combination of 2-lane expressway mixed with some 4-lane expressway segments (mostly in area with some degree of gradient) and actual short segments of 4-lane freeway near the more populated areas.  The later Fresno-area appropriation of this idea was definitely a full freeway from CA 180 to CA 41; the CA 152 extension would have likely been a 4-lane expressway.  IMO, if CA 65 had indeed been constructed, that CA 180>CA 41 segment would have likely been the longest (outside metro Sacramento) full freeway segment of the entire route; it's likely that between CA 198 and CA 180 a 4-lane expressway with interchanges at intersecting state highways would likely have been the format; north of CA 152 a 2-lane expressway would likely have sufficed, with "Super-2" segments w/interchanges near Snelling and the CA 108/120 intersection.  It probably wouldn't have expanded to 4 lanes until after it crossed CA 88 or even CA 104. 

My guess is this is something we'll never get a chance to see reach fruition; the actual need for such a corridor has yet to be established.   

Certainly in most of the Foothills there isn't much of a need of a new north/south highway.  That said the Fresno area certainly has grown enough north/northeast that even a two-lane diagonal road connecting from CA 180 near Centerville northwest to CA 145/CA 41 would be really handy at this point.  There is a surprising amount of traffic near Friant, Academy, and even Centerville these days areas that aren't as rural as they seem.  If that part of 65 ever got off the ground I could foresee a push for it to be extended to at least 198.  To that end I can't foresee that corridor being a freeway.

[sparker]

Certainly in most of the Foothills there isn't much of a need of a new north/south highway.  That said the Fresno area certainly has grown enough north/northeast that even a two-lane diagonal road connecting from CA 180 near Centerville northwest to CA 145/CA 41 would be really handy at this point.  There is a surprising amount of traffic near Friant, Academy, and even Centerville these days areas that aren't as rural as they seem.  If that part of 65 ever got off the ground I could foresee a push for it to be extended to at least 198.  To that end I can't foresee that corridor being a freeway.

If ever revived -- and that's increasingly unlikely as time goes by -- a partial CA 65 corridor from CA 198 northwest to CA 41 would likely be developed in phases:  once an actual alignment is adopted and properties acquired, the first phase would probably be a 2-lane facility with limited access and at-grade crossings, with interchanges (and possibly "spot" widening to 4-lanes divided) at intersecting state routes (216, 201, 63) north to CA 180.  With scant local pressure for a full freeway anymore, it's likely that from CA 180 to CA 41 a 4-lane expressway would suffice; again with interchanges at CA 180, CA 168, and CA 41.  That's probably as far as the corridor would extend; beyond that it'd be out of the Fresno MPO and likely be considered superfluous; CA 145 could be used to access the CA 99 corridor from the north end of the new route.  But support from the region would have to precede any plans; and this is something that doesn't seem to be forthcoming -- or even in serious discussion in any quarters.  But the CA 65 "line on the map" is still a legally designated -- if not specifically adopted -- corridor; deleting it is something that also hasn't come up locally or internally within Caltrans.  It's been there in one form or another for 59 years; it's probably not going to go away anytime soon.  There are probably a few locals, including politicos and other officials, who are still holding out hope for the corridor's prospects; "erasing" the line would probably require local and state consensus -- and at this point its existence doesn't appear to be a matter of concern to anyone. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Certainly in most of the Foothills there isn't much of a need of a new north/south highway.  That said the Fresno area certainly has grown enough north/northeast that even a two-lane diagonal road connecting from CA 180 near Centerville northwest to CA 145/CA 41 would be really handy at this point.  There is a surprising amount of traffic near Friant, Academy, and even Centerville these days areas that aren't as rural as they seem.  If that part of 65 ever got off the ground I could foresee a push for it to be extended to at least 198.  To that end I can't foresee that corridor being a freeway.

If ever revived -- and that's increasingly unlikely as time goes by -- a partial CA 65 corridor from CA 198 northwest to CA 41 would likely be developed in phases:  once an actual alignment is adopted and properties acquired, the first phase would probably be a 2-lane facility with limited access and at-grade crossings, with interchanges (and possibly "spot" widening to 4-lanes divided) at intersecting state routes (216, 201, 63) north to CA 180.  With scant local pressure for a full freeway anymore, it's likely that from CA 180 to CA 41 a 4-lane expressway would suffice; again with interchanges at CA 180, CA 168, and CA 41.  That's probably as far as the corridor would extend; beyond that it'd be out of the Fresno MPO and likely be considered superfluous; CA 145 could be used to access the CA 99 corridor from the north end of the new route.  But support from the region would have to precede any plans; and this is something that doesn't seem to be forthcoming -- or even in serious discussion in any quarters.  But the CA 65 "line on the map" is still a legally designated -- if not specifically adopted -- corridor; deleting it is something that also hasn't come up locally or internally within Caltrans.  It's been there in one form or another for 59 years; it's probably not going to go away anytime soon.  There are probably a few locals, including politicos and other officials, who are still holding out hope for the corridor's prospects; "erasing" the line would probably require local and state consensus -- and at this point its existence doesn't appear to be a matter of concern to anyone.

Caltrans can't even be bothered to remove adopted or proposed routes like the gaps in 178/190 or stuff like 276.  I can't imagine 65 will disappear off anything paper for the foreseeable future.  Maybe by 2040 something will finally start happening to close the gap in 65.

[froggie]

Richmond, VA metro built all the planned Interstates and the planned state freeways VA-195, VA-76, VA-150, VA-895 and VA-288.

There's one from the 1968 Richmond plan that VDOT missed...a proposed "Southern Beltway" that would have been closer in than Chippenham, starting at the Powhite basically right at the river (tying into the unbuilt Riverside Pkwy), crossing Hull St/360 just west of Warwick, intersecting 95 north of Ruffin Rd (about a mile-and-a-half north of Exit 69), Route 5 near Osborne Tpk, 60 in Montrose, and meeting I-64 just west of the Masonic Ln underpass.

[Beltway]

Richmond, VA metro built all the planned Interstates and the planned state freeways VA-195, VA-76, VA-150, VA-895 and VA-288.

There's one from the 1968 Richmond plan that VDOT missed...a proposed "Southern Beltway" that would have been closer in than Chippenham, starting at the Powhite basically right at the river (tying into the unbuilt Riverside Pkwy), crossing Hull St/360 just west of Warwick, intersecting 95 north of Ruffin Rd (about a mile-and-a-half north of Exit 69), Route 5 near Osborne Tpk, 60 in Montrose, and meeting I-64 just west of the Masonic Ln underpass.

I knew about the Southern Beltway, it is on this map that I posted --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Richmond_Thor_Plan_1968_XL.jpg
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Richmond_Interstate_Expy.html#Thoro_Plan_1968

As I commented on there I don't consider it to have ever been more than a preliminary idea that never appeared on a later plan.  Not a real proposal, at least never advanced to design. 

Chippenham and Pocahontas parkways make an partial intermediate freeway loop in a similar corridor, and I don't see the purpose of yet another partial intermediate loop.

The Laburnum Avenue Extension was shown as a 4-lane arterial extension of Chippenham Parkway, from I-95, across the James River to Laburnum Avenue and VA-5 near Varina in Henrico County.  The Pocahontas Parkway provides a full freeway route all the way to I-295; this considerably exceeds what was on the 1968 thoroughfare plan.

The actual Powhite Parkway is 8 miles longer than what was originally proposed.  The modification of the southern part of I-295 provided a net increase of 16 miles more of I-295.

However the RMA Riverside Parkway was an active and serious proposal that almost was built.  It would have run 3.1 miles along the south bank of the James River from the Powhite Parkway to VA-147 just south of the Huguenot Bridge.  The Riverside Parkway would have been very scenic, on an embankment over 20 feet high. However, cost overruns on the rest of the toll highway system led to postponement of the Riverside Parkway, and it was removed from the RMA program after 1971.  Between the heavy flooding of the James River by Hurricane Camille in 1969 and by Hurricane Agnes in 1972, plus development of new large houses along the route, plus the fact that major parkland and wetlands would have been traversed, this highway was never built; and certainly in light of later environmental awareness, this highway in my opinion was properly cancelled.

I live one mile from where the Riverside Parkway would have been built.  It would have taken over the south shoreline and obscured Riverside Drive where many people such is myself walk and ride bikes.  It would have taken over the shoreline of the Willow Oaks Country Club, and that of the Pony Pasture Park and Huguenot Park which are also along the James River.

[webny99]

I don't know much about the history, but from visiting/browsing maps, I'd nominate the Twin Cities. It certainly has the structure of a complete network, and through various endeavors using it, there doesn't seem to be any glaring omissions.

Not even close...

Personally, I don't count anything that's already an expressway as contributing to an "incomplete" network. There's already a decent road there! That eliminates all the dark blue, which is the most common after existing freeways. It boils down to the light green corridors being the only major omissions, and there really aren't that many, especially as a percentage of the total.

[froggie]

^ Well in that case, you're only leaving out Hiawatha, 28th St, the Northwest Arterial, the Southwest Arterial, the Lowry Hill alternative, Central Ave, and Cedar Ave...and that's just within the city of Minneapolis...

There's a few others I found since I created that graphic too, that this thread prompted me to double-check on.

[TheStranger]

I can't imagine 65 will disappear off anything paper for the foreseeable future.  Maybe by 2040 something will finally start happening to close the gap in 65.

What's interesting to me is that 65 - after being intentionally removed between 152 and 104 in the 1970s - was readded a decade or so later, even though this is still all on paper!

The only other California route I can think of that was removed and then re-added was Route 275 in Sacramento about 8 years ago, so that the Tower Bridge can remain under state maintenance (while the old West Sacramento Freeway west of there to Business 80, the former US 40/99W, became the locally maintained arterial Tower Bridge Gateway in the city of West Sacramento).

[Max Rockatansky]

I can't imagine 65 will disappear off anything paper for the foreseeable future.  Maybe by 2040 something will finally start happening to close the gap in 65.

What's interesting to me is that 65 - after being intentionally removed between 152 and 104 in the 1970s - was readded a decade or so later, even though this is still all on paper!

The only other California route I can think of that was removed and then re-added was Route 275 in Sacramento about 8 years ago, so that the Tower Bridge can remain under state maintenance (while the old West Sacramento Freeway west of there to Business 80, the former US 40/99W, became the locally maintained arterial Tower Bridge Gateway in the city of West Sacramento).

Do you know the rough time period that happened with 65?  That probably can be easily pinned down with 65 by checking David Rumsey Caltrans collection. 

[TheStranger]

I can't imagine 65 will disappear off anything paper for the foreseeable future.  Maybe by 2040 something will finally start happening to close the gap in 65.

What's interesting to me is that 65 - after being intentionally removed between 152 and 104 in the 1970s - was readded a decade or so later, even though this is still all on paper!

The only other California route I can think of that was removed and then re-added was Route 275 in Sacramento about 8 years ago, so that the Tower Bridge can remain under state maintenance (while the old West Sacramento Freeway west of there to Business 80, the former US 40/99W, became the locally maintained arterial Tower Bridge Gateway in the city of West Sacramento).

Do you know the rough time period that happened with 65?  That probably can be easily pinned down with 65 by checking David Rumsey Caltrans collection. 

From Cahighways:

Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History
As defined in 1963, this segment was defined as "Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquín Valley to be selected by the California Highway Commission, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route or routes."

Looks familiar, huh?

In 1975, Chapter 244 split this segment and deleted a portion, making the routing "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 104 on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquín Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route. (c) The Sacramento-Placer county line to Route 80 near Roseville."

The 1975 act also noted:

"The department and State Transportation Board shall cooperate with the County of Sacramento and the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission in the transportation corridor study conducted by the county and the commission on the adopted route for Route 65. Such cooperation by the state shall be limited to furnishing existing data.

The department shall not, prior to July 1, 1976, or such later date as adopted by the California Highway Commission, dispose of any real property acquired for the construction of Route 65 as a freeway from Route 50 to the Sacramento-Placer county line except for such real property which, as mutually agreed by the department and the county, is not required for any transportation purpose. If, at such a date, the transportation corridor study indicates the other real property is required for any transportation purpose, the department shall not dispose of the real property prior to January 1, 1977."

In 1985, Chapter 46 brought the definition nearly back to the 1963 routing: "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquín Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route."

[Max Rockatansky]

I can't imagine 65 will disappear off anything paper for the foreseeable future.  Maybe by 2040 something will finally start happening to close the gap in 65.

What's interesting to me is that 65 - after being intentionally removed between 152 and 104 in the 1970s - was readded a decade or so later, even though this is still all on paper!

The only other California route I can think of that was removed and then re-added was Route 275 in Sacramento about 8 years ago, so that the Tower Bridge can remain under state maintenance (while the old West Sacramento Freeway west of there to Business 80, the former US 40/99W, became the locally maintained arterial Tower Bridge Gateway in the city of West Sacramento).

Do you know the rough time period that happened with 65?  That probably can be easily pinned down with 65 by checking David Rumsey Caltrans collection. 

From Cahighways:

Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History
As defined in 1963, this segment was defined as "Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquín Valley to be selected by the California Highway Commission, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route or routes."

Looks familiar, huh?

In 1975, Chapter 244 split this segment and deleted a portion, making the routing "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 104 on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquín Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route. (c) The Sacramento-Placer county line to Route 80 near Roseville."

The 1975 act also noted:

"The department and State Transportation Board shall cooperate with the County of Sacramento and the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission in the transportation corridor study conducted by the county and the commission on the adopted route for Route 65. Such cooperation by the state shall be limited to furnishing existing data.

The department shall not, prior to July 1, 1976, or such later date as adopted by the California Highway Commission, dispose of any real property acquired for the construction of Route 65 as a freeway from Route 50 to the Sacramento-Placer county line except for such real property which, as mutually agreed by the department and the county, is not required for any transportation purpose. If, at such a date, the transportation corridor study indicates the other real property is required for any transportation purpose, the department shall not dispose of the real property prior to January 1, 1977."

In 1985, Chapter 46 brought the definition nearly back to the 1963 routing: "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquín Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route."

How weird, I'm surprised it got truncated for one.  Even more so I'm surprised the northern half didn't get remembered if there was no plans to connect the two 65s.  The 1982 State Highway Map having the planned 65 end at 104 like you said:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=4043%2C5248%2C766%2C1581

[TheStranger]

Even more so I'm surprised the northern half didn't get remembered if there was no plans to connect the two 65s. 

It seems like outside of the unbuilt Sierra crossings, California has been okay with sign routes that have massive gaps in the middle since the 1980s:

- Route 16 after the Woodland-Sacramento segment was decommissioned in 1984
- Route 90 after the Slauson Freeway section got cancelled
- Route 39 (Sparker has posted about how the middle segment from Fullerton to Azusa was once signed into the 1970s, but hasn't been in decades)
- Route 84 (I still don't see how the San Gregorio-Livermore and Rio Vista-West Sacramento routes ever really fit in as one cohesive corridor)

[sparker]

Even more so I'm surprised the northern half didn't get remembered if there was no plans to connect the two 65s. 

It seems like outside of the unbuilt Sierra crossings, California has been okay with sign routes that have massive gaps in the middle since the 1980s:

- Route 16 after the Woodland-Sacramento segment was decommissioned in 1984
- Route 90 after the Slauson Freeway section got cancelled
- Route 39 (Sparker has posted about how the middle segment from Fullerton to Azusa was once signed into the 1970s, but hasn't been in decades)
- Route 84 (I still don't see how the San Gregorio-Livermore and Rio Vista-West Sacramento routes ever really fit in as one cohesive corridor)

There was no formal recission of CA 65 between CA 152 and CA 104 back in '76 (although I have no doubt Ms. Gianturco wouldn't have minded that one little bit!); it's just that plans regarding the Fresno "northeast arc" including the CA 152 extension took precedence during and after that time; the northerly section was largely ignored -- particularly after the Sacramento County section along Sunrise Blvd. was rescinded that year. 

Regarding CA 84:  the original 1964 definition had it multiplexed with CA 4 from the Brentwood area north to the Antioch Bridge approach -- and it utilized present CA 160 from CA 4 to CA 12 -- although that section was always signed as CA 160 pending construction of a connection to the western existing portion in Livermore.   The whole thing was eventually supposed to function as a singular corridor from the San Mateo coastline to West Sacramento.  When it became plain that the Livermore-Brentwood connection wouldn't be forthcoming in the foreseeable future, the section from CA 4 to CA 12 signed as CA 160 was simply transferred over to CA 160 (this occurred in 1981).  It now exists in two separate sections; IMO the northern section should be redesignated as a separate route (with relinquishments over the years, Caltrans has a whole boxful of numbers from which to choose!).  If CA 84 is ever extended to the Brentwood area, the chances of it being re-extended north from CA 4 are slim and none. 

[NE2]

Orlando as far as I know only ever had I-4 planned as the only freeway.

There was a "Central Connector" south from downtown that was never built. Other unbuilt freeways were shifted farther out; for example the original plan for the western beltway was on Kirkman.

[Plutonic Panda]

I do believe that every freeway planned for OKC was built.

What about Las Vegas? I've always been curious to know about planned freeways there. The beltway has incomplete sections. Anything else?

[Tom958]

I do believe that every freeway planned for OKC was built.

Nope. The 1975 state map I have shows the Sooner Freeway as proposed. It would've run north-south past the entirety of OKC and Norman and no more than four miles east of I-35.

[Plutonic Panda]

I do believe that every freeway planned for OKC was built.

Nope. The 1975 state map I have shows the Sooner Freeway as proposed. It would've run north-south past the entirety of OKC and Norman and no more than four miles east of I-35.

Would you please share that? I had never heard of this before!

[roadman]

Now that I think about it, what is Boston missing? I can think of I-695, I-95 through Boston instead of around, MA 2 between I-95/MA 128 and I-495, and an extension of the Lowell Connector to MA 213. These four combined are about 80 miles (70 if you only count those inside I-495); I-495 and every existing freeway inside it totals about 400 miles. Several cities mentioned so far in this thread are less than half built.

I must be missing a lot of failed proposals.

The Boston area proposals that weren't constructed aren't failures, but were deliberately cancelled.  To add to your list:

MA 2 freeway from Alewife to I-695 Inner Belt

US 3 freeway from MA 128 (now I-95) to I-695 Inner Belt

Spur from I-95 (unbuilt) to MA 107 and MA 1A in Revere

Continuation of Lowell Connector from Gorham Street back to US 3 in Chelmsford

While the total mileage of unbuilt freeways in the Boston area is relatively short compared to some other cities, most of the mentioned segments would have been important in maintaining both continuity through and connectivity within the overall highway system.

[Tom958]

I do believe that every freeway planned for OKC was built.

Nope. The 1975 state map I have shows the Sooner Freeway as proposed. It would've run north-south past the entirety of OKC and Norman and no more than four miles east of I-35.

Would you please share that? I had never heard of this before!

There's also a continuation of the Outer Loop around to connect with the Kirkpatrick Turnpike, and I'm trying to add a blowup of the line diagram of the 35-44-Kirkpatrick Turnpike-Sooner Freeway interchange, but Imgur isn't cooperating as yet.

[Plutonic Panda]

Thank you for sharing! That is very interesting. It looks as though 235 wasn't even proposed yet? Was this the first proposed I-35 routing and they then changed it to the current path, or were these planned to built together?

[Revive 755]

May I nominate Phoenix among the most complete? I recall seeing a planning map from 1960 that closely resembles what's been built up to this point. Missing only is what would have been the Paradise Parkway.

Oddly enough its true, I mentioned that a little bit up thread.  Most of the 3d Interstates that were wanted for the area became State Highway freeways.

Phoenix also had a route running west from the curve on I-17 around Durango Street cancelled - see https://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/.