Cities which need beltways that don't have them

[hotdogPi]

Oklahoma City has this weird, crufted-together partial beltway made of toll roads but it doesn't go where it needs to be the most.

I mean, it sort of has an inner beltway in the form of I-44/I-35/I-40/I-240...

How far-fetched would it be to extend the Kickapoo down to SH-9 and then upgrade that to freeway status? On paper that looks like a half-decent idea...and from what I've personally seen in Norman, 9 needs some sort of upgrade in that area anyway.

Isn't I-240 being routed on this loop? See OK forums here.

Yes. This wasn't the case when it was posted on April 5.

[sprjus4]

Its a forced gap, but a minor and trivial one.

And a hindrance, a road block for long haul traffic not wishing to stop, etc.

The other routes in Baltimore never actually put you where you are trying to get to ON THE INTERSTATE.

Last I checked, I-695 and I-95 are apart of the interstate highway system.

[HighwayStar]

Its a forced gap, but a minor and trivial one.

And a hindrance, a road block for long haul traffic not wishing to stop, etc.

The other routes in Baltimore never actually put you where you are trying to get to ON THE INTERSTATE.

Last I checked, I-695 and I-95 are apart of the interstate highway system.

But they do not actually serve downtown Baltimore as I-70 was designed to. Go look at any map of the intended I-70, it clearly provides a higher level of service than what we have now.

[SkyPesos]

Its a forced gap, but a minor and trivial one.

And a hindrance, a road block for long haul traffic not wishing to stop, etc.

The other routes in Baltimore never actually put you where you are trying to get to ON THE INTERSTATE.

Last I checked, I-695 and I-95 are apart of the interstate highway system.

But they do not actually serve downtown Baltimore as I-70 was designed to. Go look at any map of the intended I-70, it clearly provides a higher level of service than what we have now.

I-70 wasn't intended to serve downtown Baltimore either. East of the current terminus, an I-170 would branch off to serve downtown, while I-70 turns south and ends at I-95 just east of exit 50 (satellite image of two I-70 stub ramps from I-95).

[silverback1065]

Lafayette, IN.

partially agree, it should be a partial beltway not built to interstate standards. a simple divided highway would suffice.

[Max Rockatansky]

Having just returned to Boise for the first time over a decade the traffic increase was quite something to behold.  Really the city could benefit immensely from a freeway running along the corridor of ID 44 but State Street is far too built up for that likely to be a reality.  Getting ID 16 to I-84 will help a lot but it level off as more people move to places like Eagle and Meridian.

[SkyPesos]

Lafayette, IN.

partially agree, it should be a partial beltway not built to interstate standards. a simple divided highway would suffice.

Upgrade Veterans Memorial Pkwy to 4 lanes the entire way, and combined with the US 231 expressway, the south and west sides are pretty much covered.

[silverback1065]

a kokomo beltway us absurd as an interstate. as an at grade 2 lane loop road i guess...

[silverback1065]

Seattle would be harmed by having a full beltway, as it would enable sprawl and require two new long bridges over the Puget Sound that would disrupt marine traffic and migrations. No thanks.

it would also make no sense. but the city already sprawled anyway 

[TheDon102]

New York City

[hotdogPi]

New York City

I-287

[HighwayStar]

New York City

I-287

That is not a beltway, its a halfway.

[webny99]

New York City

I-287

That is not a beltway, its a halfway.

It's about as much of a beltway as it can possibly have without running into the ocean/sound.

[HighwayStar]

New York City

I-287

That is not a beltway, its a halfway.

It's about as much of a beltway as it can possibly have without running into the ocean/sound.

Well yes, but the idea would be a proper beltway would use additional cross water links. Something like a New York-New Jersey Bay Bridge Tunnel

[Bruce]

Seattle would be harmed by having a full beltway, as it would enable sprawl and require two new long bridges over the Puget Sound that would disrupt marine traffic and migrations. No thanks.

it would also make no sense. but the city already sprawled anyway 

Notice how the sprawl isn't as widespread on the Kitsap Peninsula. The lack of a direct bridge connection helps keep it in check.

If a Seattle-Kitsap bridge had been built as proposed in the 1960s, we'd have homes in the foothills of the Olympics by now. Would have meant a tremendous loss of habitat.

[HighwayStar]

Seattle would be harmed by having a full beltway, as it would enable sprawl and require two new long bridges over the Puget Sound that would disrupt marine traffic and migrations. No thanks.

it would also make no sense. but the city already sprawled anyway 

Notice how the sprawl isn't as widespread on the Kitsap Peninsula. The lack of a direct bridge connection helps keep it in check.

If a Seattle-Kitsap bridge had been built as proposed in the 1960s, we'd have homes in the foothills of the Olympics by now. Would have meant a tremendous loss of habitat.

Would also have meant decent and affordable housing for people instead of a city overrun with homeless people.

[kernals12]

Sedona, AZ

[silverback1065]

Sedona, AZ

why?

[kernals12]

Sedona, AZ

why?

I was there on Labor Day. Traffic was backed up 6 miles from uptown. It was the worst traffic jam by far on my trip to Arizona, which included 2 days in Phoenix, the 5th most populous city in the United States. All traffic in that town, by design, has to use either SR 179 or SR 89, and that's just a recipe for traffic jams.

The first obvious fix would be to build a bridge between Verde Valley School Road and Red Rock Crossing, or more accurately, rebuild the bridge that was destroyed by a flood in 1979. That would allow traffic between West Sedona and Oak Creek to avoid Uptown.

Yes I am aware this would be very expensive and controversial, but this thread is meant to be speculative.

[AcE_Wolf_287]

i think Houston could use a Outer Beltway, maybe a x45 or a x69 but i think a I-245 Could work

[SkyPesos]

i think Houston could use a Outer Beltway, maybe a x45 or a x69 but i think a I-245 Could work

TX 99, if completed

[Bruce]

Would also have meant decent and affordable housing for people instead of a city overrun with homeless people.

"Overrun" according to who? We have a problem but it's not that bad outside of certain neighborhoods.

And paving over the forests of the region would make quality of life so much worse for everyone. More heat, more traffic, more air pollution, more water use, more strain on the electrical grid... It would cost society a helluva lot more instead of our current strategy of densifying existing areas.

[achilles765]

i think Houston could use a Outer Beltway, maybe a x45 or a x69 but i think a I-245 Could work

TX 99, if completed

I just had a crazy idea... a third inner beltway around Houston...using SH 6, FM 1960, FM 2100, Crosby-Lynchburg Road, Spur 330, SH 146, NASA 1 and FM 528... maybe make them one route...Interstate 245

[achilles765]

Do beltways, and the development they spur, in time necessitate another beltway??

Seems to be the case in Houston. Beltway 8 was meant to be an outer beltway, and then Grand Parkway an outer outer beltway??

It's much like a bypass being just as congested as the route it was meant to relieve....or often worse (see 405 California)

It's kind of what happened here in Houston.  Loop 610 was the original beltway around the city...but its really rather close to downtown in some places...its not perfectly centered...its 3 miles from Interstate 10 to the North Loop, but 6 miles from 10 to the curve where it becomes the South Loop, at South Post Oak and 225 respectively..in fact its almost exactly six miles from downtown to the South, West, and East Loops, but only three miles from downtown to the north loop...and that area has always been pretty heavily developed since it runs along the north edge of the heights.... but development did grow massively along almost stretch of 610 except the east loop and the south loop from alameda to 225...but the west loop runs along Uptown, which is essentially a second downtown... and then through a major suburb before skirting the medical center and the sports stadium. 

So IH 610 long ago lost any usefulness as a bypass route...traffic on most of it is just as thick as anywhere else.. So they planned beltway 8.... as a new bypass, kind of longer, and with access to the airport.  But its a toll road so not much non-local traffic is going to want to use it, especially since its now all electronic. The Northeast segment has only been a full freeway since 2010...and its very sparse and empty out there...the only real development is near the airport and on the west side from SH 249 down to US 59/IH 69...
Most of SH 99/Grand Parkway is rural and likely to stay that way aside from the sections through Katy and Spring...and those are pretty rural still..and no one is going to be using the Grand Parkway to bypass Houston....from Spring to Katy its 41 minutes and like an extra 20 miles

[sprjus4]

SH-99 is certainly growing, though. The segment between I-10 and I-69 South should've been / needs to be built with at least 6 lanes, if not 8. And having the current situation where the mainline is free except at interchanges where the overpasses are tolled creates a situation where toll "dodgers"  exit and re-enter the highway at every junction, increasing the choke points on the merges. Then the substandard areas that are narrow and lack any shoulders, and a couple areas with "at-grade"  intersections, curb and gutter, etc. to nowhere with a wide median for a future overpass - because there's no actual road intersection, there's no interruption to traffic flow, but it's still a very substandard design regardless.

Expand the highway to a proper 6-8 lane throughout, full interstate standard design, 70 mph, and eliminate the "free areas"  or at least construct continuous running frontage roads so "free"  traffic isn't entering the mainline then getting off at the next exit. The mainline should be fully tolled.

Also, the I-69 South interchange badly needs to be upgraded to at least include a flyover between I-69 North and SH-99 North. That interchange backs up badly during peak hours with traffic having to exit, wait at the light, and turn left, just to transition between two freeways.