Largest city served by only one type of route

[xonhulu]

I thought of this while driving through Bend, OR awhile back.  Bend (population 76,621) is only served by US Highways (20, 97, BUS 97), thanks to ODOT never assigning a route # to the Century Lakes Hwy (should be OR 372 if they had) and relinquishing the Powell Butte Hwy (would've been OR 371).  But I doubt this is the record for cities only served by US Hwys; seems like there's be some Midwest towns that would beat that.

So what else is out there?  I suspect there are plenty of large suburbs with only state routes, but only US or interstates escapes me.  Anybody know any?

[InterstateNG]

So what else is out there?  I suspect there are plenty of large suburbs with only state routes, but only US or interstates escapes me.  Anybody know any?

The obvious example of Fresno being only served by State Routes comes to mind.

[1995hoo]

Anchorage is served by a single state route (AK-1), but if you are of the hypertechnical sort you could argue that said state route is multiplexed with two unsigned Interstates (I-A1 and I-A3) such that you maybe could contend that the city is therefore served solely by Interstates if you're of the opinion that an Interstate designation trumps everything else. Under the circumstances I'd think that would be a weak argument given that the state route number is the only one signed, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

[xonhulu]

Good examples.  I'd buy the argument that Anchorage (pop 291,826) counts, but Fresno (pop 510,365) is bigger.

Any US-only cities bigger than Bend?

And I'm struggling to think of any sizable city served only by interstates.

[huskeroadgeek]

A little off topic, but I had no idea Bend, OR was that big. Without looking it up, I would have guessed the city was about 30,000. In the 1990 Census, the population was 23,740. That's more than tripling the population in just 20 years. I'm not very familiar with central Oregon-what's the reason for the explosive growth?

[Sykotyk]

It's a resort area. A lot of people moving out from the I-5 corridor, probably.

[TheStranger]

Depending on whether Route 42 is signed at all on Firestone Bouleard, Norwalk, CA would have distinction of largest city with only interstates: 105,549 folks.

[Quillz]

Fresno is the largest city in the country not served by an Interstate highway. Currently, it's served only by state highways, although at one point in time it would have had at least US-99.

Norwalk should count because, despite signage, CA-42 has not officially existed anymore for a long time.

[TheStranger]

Norwalk should count because, despite signage, CA-42 has not officially existed anymore for a long time.

I'm not sure simply because, officially, Route 42 hasn't existed from 1968 on (when current I-105 was defined legislatively) BUT it had been well signed from then into the mid-90s when 105 opened.

I don't think the Norwalk section is signed beyond the I-5 junction though.

A couple of California near misses: El Monte (113K) would count were it not for a short piece of the city including Route 19, and Carlsbad (105,328) MIGHT count if the north boundary only skirts Route 78, rather than crosses it (I'm not sure).

[agentsteel53]

I don't think a new 42 sign has been put up since the early 90s (likely when 105 was opened). 

that said, I think the 91 freeway comes close enough to Norway that one can consider the city served by it.

[Riverside Frwy]

So what else is out there?  I suspect there are plenty of large suburbs with only state routes, but only US or interstates escapes me.  Anybody know any?

The obvious example of Fresno being only served by State Routes comes to mind.

I think in general California has more State Route Freeways than any other state.

Depending on whether Route 42 is signed at all on Firestone Bouleard, Norwalk, CA would have distinction of largest city with only interstates: 105,549 folks.

You mean I-605, not 549

[Riverside Frwy]

I don't think a new 42 sign has been put up since the early 90s (likely when 105 was opened).  

that said, I think the 91 freeway comes close enough to Norway that one can consider the city served by it.

Well, according to google, my avatar does not touch Norwalk:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Norwalk,+CA&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
(Mini map shows boundaries)

About your point of it being close enough, LA metro is pretty much one giant city so...

[BigMattFromTexas]

San Angelo, TX;
Population - 92,300
US 67, 87, 277
Tom Green County Pop. 110,000
No interstate no plans for any interstate extension..
BigMatt

[NE2]

Depending on whether Route 42 is signed at all on Firestone Bouleard, Norwalk, CA would have distinction of largest city with only interstates: 105,549 folks.

You mean I-605, not 549

105,549 is the population

Anyway, this discussion shows the silliness of using city boundaries rather than metropolitan areas.

[Riverside Frwy]

Depending on whether Route 42 is signed at all on Firestone Bouleard, Norwalk, CA would have distinction of largest city with only interstates: 105,549 folks.

You mean I-605, not 549

105,549 is the population

Anyway, this discussion shows the silliness of using city boundaries rather than metropolitan areas.

Sorry, I saw "105" and immediately thought you were referring to the interstates.

[BigMattFromTexas]

Well if we include metropolitan areas then Angelo's would be 105,781, or a 2009 population of 110,119.
BigMatt

[agentsteel53]

that said, I think the 91 freeway comes close enough to Norway that one can consider the city served by it.

Well, according to google, my avatar does not touch Norwalk:

just noticed my typo.  the 91 freeway definitely does not come anywhere close to Norway.

not even the one in Maine.

[1995hoo]

Good examples.  I'd buy the argument that Anchorage (pop 291,826) counts, but Fresno (pop 510,365) is bigger.

....

I guess I misunderstood the last paragraph in the OP. I thought state routes were being excluded. I was using Anchorage as a theoretical example of one that MAYBE could be argued to be served only by Interstates, though as I said I think it's a weak argument.

[TheStranger]

Anyway, this discussion shows the silliness of using city boundaries rather than metropolitan areas.

I'm not sure though that there are very many metro areas that could qualify under this - i.e. metropolitan Fresno DOES fit as an entire metro area on just state routes, but one with just Interstates probably would be pretty hard to find.

[xonhulu]

Let's stick to signed routes and specific cities, not metro areas.  Anchorage, though, may have the distinction of being the largest city served by only one signed route of any kind.

And there are cities/towns served by only interstates; it's just that I can't think of any sizable ones!  Kalama, WA, for example, only has I-5, but its population is only 2344.

[Kacie Jane]

I'll see your Kalama, and raise you Mercer Island, which has only I-90, and about 10x as many people.

[TheStranger]

If Norwalk doesn't count due to Route 42...

nearby South Gate (another Los Angeles suburb) is a prime candidate for largest Interstate-only city: 102K according to California population statistics, 94K according to 2010 Census, with only numbered highways being I-105 and I-710.

[ftballfan]

Route 42 isn't even a state highway, so Norwalk, CA would count.

[xonhulu]

If Norwalk doesn't count due to Route 42...

nearby South Gate (another Los Angeles suburb) is a prime candidate for largest Interstate-only city: 102K according to California population statistics, 94K according to 2010 Census, with only numbered highways being I-105 and I-710.

I kind of figured the interstate-only city would be a suburb of some kind.

Any US-only cities that beat Bend?

[national highway 1]

Ely, NV