Largest Cities Without an Interstate Connection

Started by theroadwayone, June 20, 2019, 08:35:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

theroadwayone

So we know that right now Las Vegas and Phoenix are right now the two largest metro areas in the U.S. without a direct interstate connection, pending the completion of Interstate 11. Once that's done, which pair of cities will that title pass to next?


sprjus4


RoadMaster09

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 08:41:18 PM
Austin and Houston.

Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.

sprjus4

Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 20, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 08:41:18 PM
Austin and Houston.

Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.
Make US-290 an interstate from either end of I-10


Beltway

Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 20, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 08:41:18 PM
Austin and Houston.
Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.

Take the new bypass tollway TX-130 to I-10 to Houston.  Maybe make the bypass tollway I-235.

There is some extra distance, but it is hardly worth (it's wasteful) building over 200 miles of new Interstate highway to improve on that.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 09:42:18 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 20, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 08:41:18 PM
Austin and Houston.
Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.

Take the new bypass tollway TX-130 to I-10 to Houston.  Maybe make the bypass tollway I-235.

There is some extra distance, but it is hardly worth (it's wasteful) building over 200 miles of new Interstate highway to improve on that.
It's closer to 80 miles, and a lot of it is worth it. It's not some easy rural drive with bypasses around every town. Parts of it are rural 75 mph divided highway, though it does pass through a fair amount of towns and urban centers that definitely could be bypassed. Now I will agree, maybe not build an entire freeway, but an expressway type highway would be beneficial - one example that comes to mind is between Houston and Corpus Christi. 4-lane 75 mph divided expressway with bypasses around every town and zero traffic signals exist on the entire route. A very nice drive I must say having done it many times. That road interestingly is apart of Future I-69.

And TX-130 to I-10 is 55 miles slower then the current US-290 routing. Way out of the way.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 09:52:47 PM
And TX-130 to I-10 is 55 miles slower then the current US-290 routing. Way out of the way.

And 39 minutes longer.   

The 4-lane TX-71 to I-10 is the preferred Google Maps routing, in time and distance.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Max Rockatansky

#7
Fresno is going to be high on the list with since the primary freeway is CA 99.  But Sacramento comes to mind primarily since it is also on CA 99. 

sprjus4

#8
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:01:16 PM
And 39 minutes longer.
I think the time is much faster compared to the distance is due to the fact 40 miles of that routing is 85 mph, and I-10 is 75 mph, whereas all of US-270 probably averages around 70 mph considering the 75 mph rural parts, and the slower town, urban area parts.

Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:01:16 PM
The 4-lane TX-71 to I-10 is the preferred Google Maps routing, in time and distance.
They're both about the same time and distance. Both work as routes, though it seems TX-71 has more rural, 75 mph segments then US-290 does, making it more preferred for many.

I think we can both agree though one of the routes needs to be selected as the "preferred" option and converted to an expressway throughout. By that I mean a uniform 75 mph speed limit on the entire route, zero traffic signals, and bypasses around every town on the road, and maintaining full continuity. It wouldn't be a freeway (with the exception of new location segments, those should be built as limited-access freeways), but at least one would be able to travel between the two cities at interstate speeds with no interruptions, slow downs, towns, etc. that exist today.

This goal would mostly be accomplished by completing the remaining bypasses needed, and replacing the remaining traffic signals with interchanges and constructing frontage roads where needed. A lot cheaper than an entire freeway. Most of the rural segments operate as free-flowing 75 mph uninterrupted (meaning no traffic signals, no major junctions, towns, etc.) highways and would be incorporated into the expressway.

The ultimate goal would end up being to convert the entire roadway into an interstate / freeway roadway from Austin to Houston over time, but an expressway concept would be the first interim step. After the expressway is completed, the remaining rural areas would be upgraded mostly by constructing one-way frontage roads on both sides and interchanges periodically (every 2-3 miles) with Texas U-Turns. Similar concept as proposed on the existing expressway between Houston and Corpus Christi, and farther south to Mexico.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 10:52:01 PM
I think the time is much faster compared to the distance is due to the fact 40 miles of that routing is 85 mph, and I-10 is 75 mph, whereas all of US-270 probably averages around 70 mph considering the 75 mph rural parts, and the slower town, urban area parts.

The point being that if a car driver or truck driver or SUV pulling a trailer, etc. feels the need to use a full freeway for the entire trip, they have an acceptable highway already in place.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 10:52:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:01:16 PM
The 4-lane TX-71 to I-10 is the preferred Google Maps routing, in time and distance.
They're both about the same time and distance. Both work as routes, though it seems TX-71 has more rural, 75 mph segments then US-290 does, making it more preferred for many.
I think we can both agree though one of the routes needs to be selected as the "preferred" option and converted to an expressway throughout.

An expressway still has at-grade intersections, which usually provide some 'friction' to traffic that can reduce speeds and capacity at that point.

Austin-Houston is another of those routes where in a paradise world an Interstate highway would seem ideal, but where in the real world there is a "good enough" route already in place that is divided and with 4 or more lanes.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:26:32 PM
they have an acceptable highway already in place.
I-10 to TX-130 is not an acceptable alternative. The point of this thread was to identify large cities not connected -directly- by an interstate. Sure, every city on any interstate therefore is connected to every other city in the US on the system... but in a lot of cases it's not direct to actually use the interstate system, but rather arterial highways.

The OP's example Las Vegas to Phoenix which would be linked by Interstate 11. I could claim from your viewpoint they are connected technically be I-15 and I-10. Sure it's only 250 miles longer and hours longer, but it's still connected. That isn't the point of the thread. Austin-Houston is a reasonable candidate for cities not connected by an interstate. Another example is Norfolk-Raleigh.

Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:26:32 PM
An expressway still has at-grade intersections, which usually provide some 'friction' to traffic that can reduce speeds and capacity at that point.
I've driven the expressway between Houston and Corpus Christi plenty of times in the past, and I've never noticed an issue with the at-grade intersections causing issues with traffic. Traffic always flows about 80 mph the entire way with no slowdowns or something to hinder traffic.

Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:26:32 PM
in the real world there is a "good enough" route already in place that is divided and with 4 or more lanes.
It still needs improvements with some town bypasses needing to be built and the remaining traffic signals replaced with interchanges, but other than that, it works.

An interstate build out could happen, though it wouldn't be one project, it would be many that would occur years. The I-69 upgrades happening on the US-59 / US-77 corridor (mostly expressway with no signals, with the exception of a few towns that are planned to be bypassed in the future) are happening in phases where a 5-6 mile section at a time will be given a 2-lane one-way frontage road on either side, and interchanges every 2-3 miles with Texas U-Turns. There's a $500 million project proposed on US-281 (I-69C) that would upgrade 40 miles of rural divided highway in the middle of nowhere to interstate standards.

sparker

Population-wise, two of the largest cities -- each with an incorporated population well over 1M -- lacking a direct Interstate connection (or at least one that doesn't entail backtracking) would be San Diego and Phoenix.  Of course, if the portion of AZ 85 between Gila Bend and Buckeye were to be upgraded and signed as an Interstate (AZ I-11 backers -- pay close attention to this!) that section could serve not only as a solution to the above issue -- but also as the western leg of an effective Phoenix bypass (something that is sorely needed, considering the regular congestion on I-10) using the new freeway plus I-8 from Gila Bend to Casa Grande.  Not as grandiose as some of the other I-11-related plans out there, but much more useful as well as cost-effective. 

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 12:19:51 AM
I-10 to TX-130 is not an acceptable alternative. The point of this thread was to identify large cities not connected -directly- by an interstate. Sure, every city on any interstate therefore is connected to every other city in the US on the system... but in a lot of cases it's not direct to actually use the interstate system, but rather arterial highways.

Building a 15-mile freeway connector between TX-130 at Lockhart and easterly I-10, would be a useful connector, and would be enough to make it sufficiently direct, rather than building 150 miles of new freeway.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#13
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2019, 05:41:55 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 12:19:51 AM
I-10 to TX-130 is not an acceptable alternative. The point of this thread was to identify large cities not connected -directly- by an interstate. Sure, every city on any interstate therefore is connected to every other city in the US on the system... but in a lot of cases it's not direct to actually use the interstate system, but rather arterial highways.

Building a 15-mile freeway connector between TX-130 at Lockhart and easterly I-10, would be a useful connector, and would be enough to make it sufficiently direct, rather than building 150 miles of new freeway.
That would involve upgrading 20 miles of US-181 to freeway standards, and while it would close the gap, it would still be 25 miles longer. Wouldn't it still be considered vanity?

And 90 miles (not 150) of US-290 is not freeway between Austin and Houston, and most of that could easily be upgraded and for the few towns, new location bypasses could be built.

Mark68

Denver & Salt Lake City need a direct connection that doesn't involve backtracking on I-15 nor through Fort Collins & Cheyenne.

the most direct route now is either (depending on weather & traffic) going to be I-25 to Ft Collins, US 287 to Laramie, then I-80 west or I-70 to Green River, then US 6 to Spanish Fork, then I-15 north (about 10 minutes separate the two routes). If US 6 was made into an interstate between I-70 & I-15, it would make this the fastest route by far (especially given the 80 mph speed limits in rural Utah).
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

Rothman

US 6 as an interstate?  Perhaps you should see why Helper, UT is called Helper. :D
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Mark68

Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2019, 04:49:08 PM
US 6 as an interstate?  Perhaps you should see why Helper, UT is called Helper. :D

Oh I know why. I didn't say it was actually feasible (it may be if money were no object), but it would be more direct.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

swhuck

Fresno and Bakersfield not only don't have a direct interstate connection, they have no interstate connection of any kind. Until CA-99 is made an Interstate, of course.
Clinched: I-2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 55, 59, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 76 (both), 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 (W), 85, 86 (W), 88 (W), 93, 94, 96, 97
US50, 101, 175, 199, 290, 380, 491/666
Clinched for now: I-11, 14, 49, 57

sparker

Quote from: Mark68 on June 21, 2019, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2019, 04:49:08 PM
US 6 as an interstate?  Perhaps you should see why Helper, UT is called Helper. :D

Oh I know why. I didn't say it was actually feasible (it may be if money were no object), but it would be more direct.

Although US 6 between I-70 near Green River and I-15 near Spanish Fork is a high priority corridor (#53), that status hasn't been sufficient to initiate any major upgrades to the route (the Price bypass preceded the 2005 corridor designation by decades).  And the principal obstacle to building a high-capacity facility along this corridor is and always will be Soldier Summit;  the aptly-named "Helper" was the location where the old Rio Grande attached helper locomotives to get trains over the 2.2% grade.  Just Google Earth the location and look at the convoluted horseshoe-laden path the railroad had to use to get over the pass to ascertain just how difficult it is to traverse that pass in either direction.  Of course a rubber-on-concrete/asphalt grade can be considerably steeper and still be functional -- but that would be problematic for an Interstate-grade facility absent extensive & expensive tunneling and/or excavation.  At this point, the traffic levels just don't warrant it; most commercial traffic between Denver and SLC simply uses I-25 to I-80 and west from there.  IMO, a more practical although longer, mileage-wise, approach to the problem would be a cutoff facility from I-25 near Ft. Collins, CO more or less along CO 14 and US 287 to I-80 in the Laramie area (I-125, anyone?).  Cut a few miles off the journey without having to deal with lengthy construction in Utah (as well as winter issues on I-70).  True, Laramie in winter is no picnic -- but a cutoff there, topping out at about 7K feet, could be maintained during snow season.  Wouldn't be dirt-cheap by any means, but compared with Soldier Summit it is almost certainly more feasible     

In_Correct

Largest Cities Without an Interstate Connection:

... To Each Other??





The post title would be better as: "Which Two Of The Largest Cities Has No Direct Connection To Each Other By Interstate?".
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

US 89

Quote from: sparker on June 21, 2019, 06:04:21 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on June 21, 2019, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2019, 04:49:08 PM
US 6 as an interstate?  Perhaps you should see why Helper, UT is called Helper. :D

Oh I know why. I didn't say it was actually feasible (it may be if money were no object), but it would be more direct.

Although US 6 between I-70 near Green River and I-15 near Spanish Fork is a high priority corridor (#53), that status hasn't been sufficient to initiate any major upgrades to the route (the Price bypass preceded the 2005 corridor designation by decades).  And the principal obstacle to building a high-capacity facility along this corridor is and always will be Soldier Summit;  the aptly-named "Helper" was the location where the old Rio Grande attached helper locomotives to get trains over the 2.2% grade.  Just Google Earth the location and look at the convoluted horseshoe-laden path the railroad had to use to get over the pass to ascertain just how difficult it is to traverse that pass in either direction.  Of course a rubber-on-concrete/asphalt grade can be considerably steeper and still be functional -- but that would be problematic for an Interstate-grade facility absent extensive & expensive tunneling and/or excavation.  At this point, the traffic levels just don't warrant it; most commercial traffic between Denver and SLC simply uses I-25 to I-80 and west from there.  IMO, a more practical although longer, mileage-wise, approach to the problem would be a cutoff facility from I-25 near Ft. Collins, CO more or less along CO 14 and US 287 to I-80 in the Laramie area (I-125, anyone?).  Cut a few miles off the journey without having to deal with lengthy construction in Utah (as well as winter issues on I-70).  True, Laramie in winter is no picnic -- but a cutoff there, topping out at about 7K feet, could be maintained during snow season.  Wouldn't be dirt-cheap by any means, but compared with Soldier Summit it is almost certainly more feasible   

The Price bypass was built in the late 1970s. UDOT seems to still have no interest in four-laning US 6, instead opting to install occasional passing lanes. I think the ultimate goal is to build it out to a 2+1 facility. Personally I really wish they'd just four lane the whole thing. There might be some geographic issues between the aforementioned Helper and Spanish Fork, but there's very little in the way of terrain east of Price.

As for Denver-Salt Lake: according to Google the 25-287-80 route is actually 6 miles shorter than 70-6-15 (519 miles as opposed to 525). Even detouring out to Cheyenne only bumps the mileage up to 535.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 01:46:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2019, 05:41:55 AM
Building a 15-mile freeway connector between TX-130 at Lockhart and easterly I-10, would be a useful connector, and would be enough to make it sufficiently direct, rather than building 150 miles of new freeway.
That would involve upgrading 20 miles of US-181 to freeway standards, and while it would close the gap, it would still be 25 miles longer. Wouldn't it still be considered vanity?

Upgrade the interchange between the TX-45 freeway and I-35, and there will be a freeway connection from downtown Austin to TX-130 leading to I-10 to Houston. 

Excellent use of existing assets, rather than building pork.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 01:46:51 PM
And 90 miles (not 150) of US-290 is not freeway between Austin and Houston, and most of that could easily be upgraded and for the few towns, new location bypasses could be built.

$30 million or more per mile...
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

nosrac52


sparker

Quote from: nosrac52 on June 22, 2019, 04:13:33 PM
Boise to Reno! #I-11 North baby!!!!!!!

Step #1:  convince Oregon (ODOT) to contribute to a US 95-based Interstate route that really provides little or no benefit to the state -- or get other parties to pay for it.
Step #2:  Provide enough commerce in Boise/Treasure Valley that needs connectivity to NV or CA to warrant such a route, and which demonstrates that by crowding onto extant US 95.  Might happen if the Boise-area MPO gets above about 1.25M population and additional firms establish HQ's or offices in the area (Albertson's and Motive Power [locomotives] can't carry the region alone!).  Figure at least 2035-2040 before that has a chance to occur. 

And by that time I-11 may be heading to central Oregon; Idaho will have to settle for I-13! 

RoadMaster09

#24
Looking at US 290 from Austin to Houston:

* Travis County: Through Austin, it is already a freeway, albeit with a toll section. From the end of the toll section up to the Bastrop line, it is an upgradeable route with space for frontage roads.

* Bastrop County: A bypass would definitely be needed around Elgin, probably to the south. The bypass could reconnect east of Elgin, although it might be better to continue it to just short of Paige, as the next section is 4-lane undivided (although there is probably sufficient space in the ROW for the major upgrade needed). A new interchange was built on a divided section at SH 21 and the urban Paige section is probably upgradeable due to the wide ROW. The rest of it to the Lee County line is upgradeable (although with major ROW changes at it is undivided again).

* Lee County: A new alignment would be needed across most of, if not all of, the county. It would probably go south of Giddings. It might be possible to reconnect to existing US 290 just east of Giddings, or the bypass could continue to near FM 180.

* Fayette County: Other than access controls (interchanges/grade separations) and perhaps minor design changes, the existing route is very workable.

* Washington County: West of Brenham, the corridor is easy to upgrade with frontage roads (where they don't already exist) and access controls needed. One area that an option exists is between the SH 36 interchange and just west of FM 2679. It may be desirable to build a new alignment to the north, although the existing alignment is workable with a median barrier and frontage roads. It would also allow for higher-speed flyovers. Around Brenham, minor upgrades are needed to what is now a substandard freeway. In the eastern part of the county, it is again a manageable upgrade requiring frontage roads and access controls.

* Waller County: West of Hempstead, upgrading should be fairly easy. The eastern 45 miles is already a freeway, and from what I can tell, Interstate standard.

Most likely, there will need to be 2 sections with new alignments and an option on a third. The rest appears to be upgradeable as is. The AADT on the non-freeway sections is generally around 15,000 to 20,000 right now, which is okay for the open road but quite busy for urban slowdowns on a through arterial. Since Houston and Austin are two of the fastest growing metro areas though, that will only increase significantly in the years to come.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.