What city/urban area has the highest percent of it's originally freeways (interstate, state, etc.) completed?
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.
Yikes. A search of the fictional board will confirm that it's definitely not anything in Upstate NY.
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.
Quote from: webny99I 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... (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/minnesota/cancelled/cancelled-map.htm)
(pardon the cobwebs on the map graphic...but the info is legit from 1960s era planning maps I've researched)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2018, 05:26:34 PM
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.
In the San Jose urban area, there are two portions of the California Freeway & Expressway System that are unconstructed:
-CA-237 between I-880 and I-680: about 1.75 miles. An earlier proposed routing north of the current route was proposed, then rescinded. The current route is unlikely to ever become a freeway.
-CA-87 between US-101 and CA-237: there's never been more than an approximate routing, let alone any sort of discussion about building it, and there's nowhere to put it in any case (you'd be going through Levi's Stadium, Great America, and lots o' major Silicon Valley campuses). Depending on where you might think it might go, it's maybe 4 miles.
Even counting CA-87, that means 114.5 miles of about 120.25 miles are constructed - about 95.2%.
(now if you're talking about the Bay Area as a whole, that's another story...)
Quote from: webny99 on August 09, 2018, 08:26:04 PM
Yikes. A search of the fictional board will confirm that it's definitely not anything in Upstate NY.
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.
NY lacks many 4 lane divided highways...a couple that come to mind that would be nice are dividing US 20, NY 63, NY 67 between I-90 and I-87, and parts of NY 5.
Is there a rationale behind this? Better passing capabilities for traffic, somewhat safer driving with the division, less intersections if done like the midwestern states.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 10, 2018, 12:15:44 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2018, 05:26:34 PM
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.
In the San Jose urban area, there are two portions of the California Freeway & Expressway System that are unconstructed:
-CA-237 between I-880 and I-680: about 1.75 miles. An earlier proposed routing north of the current route was proposed, then rescinded. The current route is unlikely to ever become a freeway.
-CA-87 between US-101 and CA-237: there's never been more than an approximate routing, let alone any sort of discussion about building it, and there's nowhere to put it in any case (you'd be going through Levi's Stadium, Great America, and lots o' major Silicon Valley campuses). Depending on where you might think it might go, it's maybe 4 miles.
Even counting CA-87, that means 114.5 miles of about 120.25 miles are constructed - about 95.2%.
(now if you're talking about the Bay Area as a whole, that's another story...)
San Jose is interesting because I have read somewhere that the Santa Clara County expressways were once planned to be expanded into full freeways, only for that to be nixed in the 1970s. Wonder how much that changes the percentages (though still certainly it's much better than most other NorCal cities).
Bakersfield might be getting close to a high percentage too, once the Centennial Corridor part of Route 58 is completed. Still leaves a gap of Route 178 between Route 204 and Route 99 though.
San Diego should be high on the list too though not 100%: several projects were entirely canceled, notably 252, but also some obscure proposals like 171 (a connector between the 805/15 junction and the Pershing Street interchange off of I-5) and 157 (an east-west connector between the 125/54 junction and 805) that disappeared decades ago. And multiple routes have unbuilt sections (54, 56, 125, 905) that will remain at most lines on paper.
Cities with seemingly complete freeway systems in this state have examples of proposals that did not get off the ground:
Stockton (234, 235)
Modesto (5W which morphed into a 132 rerouting, which is finally being built to some extent in the next few years, and the 108 extension south to I-5 that will never happen)
San Bernardino (18 south of 210, 81)
Salinas (there was a proposed 68 freeway that would have reached US 101 west of the current in-town surface street routing, of which one interchange was built along a surface street)
Certainly not Chicago. I'd go out on a limb and state Chicago's system is the most incomplete.
Quote from: inkyatari on August 10, 2018, 09:05:54 AM
Certainly not Chicago. I'd go out on a limb and state Chicago's system is the most incomplete.
Chicago's unbuilt facilities pale in comparison to what was planned for DC.
As far as the topic question, I'd say San Antonio is up there. The entire core system plan of 1961 was built, and later unbuilt extensions were offset by additions elsewhere.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 10, 2018, 09:46:59 AM
Quote from: inkyatari on August 10, 2018, 09:05:54 AM
Certainly not Chicago. I'd go out on a limb and state Chicago's system is the most incomplete.
Chicago's unbuilt facilities pale in comparison to what was planned for DC.
As far as the topic question, I'd say San Antonio is up there. The entire core system plan of 1961 was built, and later unbuilt extensions were offset by additions elsewhere.
Just about every city on the eastern seaboard (Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Boston), plus San Francisco, Detroit and Atlanta would also vie for the most incomplete freeway system.
The most complete would have to be Charlotte, with all of its freeways completed as planned; other NC cities (Raleigh, Greensboro, Asheville, etc.) are not too far behind either.
Most Michigan cities outside of Detroit had all their planned freeways built
Quote from: Buffaboy on August 10, 2018, 01:35:47 AM
Quote from: webny99 on August 09, 2018, 08:26:04 PM
Yikes. A search of the fictional board will confirm that it's definitely not anything in Upstate NY.
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.
NY lacks many 4 lane divided highways...a couple that come to mind that would be nice are dividing US 20, NY 63, NY 67 between I-90 and I-87, and parts of NY 5.
Is there a rationale behind this? Better passing capabilities for traffic, somewhat safer driving with the division, less intersections if done like the midwestern states.
Preservation first. No good reason to expand those roads when funding levels are only allowing NYSDOT to slow condition decline, let alone make improvements.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2018, 05:26:34 PM
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.
Certainly not Milwaukee. A significant part of it got canceled.
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/system_map.html
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.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 11, 2018, 08:33:57 AM
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.
The Illiana, Prairie Parkway, FAP 420
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.
Quote from: 1 on August 11, 2018, 03:35:38 PM
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.
I'm also not aware of what NYC is missing other than the Lower Manhattan, the Mid-Manhattan, and the cancelled expressway on Staten Island.
I found a couple of papers on Chicago area highway planning. I will try to post those. Chicago Area Transportation study did come out with their map full of lines in 1963 and 1971. Due to objections from Chicago neither were adopted. Chicago said it would only consider the crosstown. It started land and engineering with federal interstate money and the ditched it as soon as it could flip the money to something else.So one could argue that Cook county and Chicago completed their late 40s plan and never officially planned anything else.. ...now the suburban counties as mentioned had cancellations as mentioned.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 11, 2018, 04:09:36 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 11, 2018, 03:35:38 PM
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.
I'm also not aware of what NYC is missing other than the Lower Manhattan, the Mid-Manhattan, and the cancelled expressway on Staten Island.
There were several major cancelled expressways/freeways in the outer boroughs. For example, the Clearview Expressway was planned to continue southward and then curve westward to pass by JFK and feed into the Lower Manhattan Expressway via the Manhattan Bridge. The whole thing northward across the Throgs Neck Bridge to I-95 in the Bronx was to be 'I-78'. There are other 'unbuilts' such as the rest of the Sheridan in the Bronx.
Mike
Richmond, VA metro built all the planned Interstates and the planned state freeways VA-195, VA-76, VA-150, VA-895 and VA-288.
Battlefield historic issues blocked the direct connection of I-295 to VA-288 and I-95 at Chester, but VDOT got FHWA to approve the extension of I-295 to I-95 south of Petersburg, a net increase of 16 miles of I-295.
Quote from: 3467 on August 11, 2018, 06:44:33 PM
I found a couple of papers on Chicago area highway planning. I will try to post those. Chicago Area Transportation study did come out with their map full of lines in 1963 and 1971. Due to objections from Chicago neither were adopted. Chicago said it would only consider the crosstown. It started land and engineering with federal interstate money and the ditched it as soon as it could flip the money to something else.So one could argue that Cook county and Chicago completed their late 40s plan and never officially planned anything else.. ...now the suburban counties as mentioned had cancellations as mentioned.
Please do post them, I'd be curious to see what the original plans were.
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.
The Chicago Area Transportation Study. Creating the First Plan 1955-1962. Andrew Plummer Google should work. Page 29. It was jealously that California had a big post Interstate plan that helped create this Chicago as well as downstate dream. The downstate one was official from 72 to 79 and then downgraded.
The other one is the Regional transportation interim plan and program March 1971 Cats. It merged the 1962 plans of other counties but on page 34 a section called Problems the city of Chicago made it clear it considers these lines nothing more than important corridors not Freeways
In IDOTs 72 plan out months after it has the downstate corridors and that included the Elgin Ohare and 355 as well as the Foxway which was cancelled and the 53 extension now under study. It also had the Amstutz extension which was studied and completed as an arterial. It shows land acquisition for the crosstown from 55 to Midway but no other action for that corridor.So in terms of a concrete so to speak plan it appears only the Foxway was cancelled since even 420 seems to be in the new 53 study.
Quote from: BakoCondors on August 11, 2018, 08:50:28 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 12:49:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2018, 05:26:34 PM
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?
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 11, 2018, 08:33:57 AM
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).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 11, 2018, 11:20:43 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 12:49:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2018, 05:26:34 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on August 12, 2018, 12:34:55 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 11, 2018, 11:20:43 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 12:49:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2018, 05:26:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 12, 2018, 10:54:05 AM
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.
Quote from: sparker on August 12, 2018, 08:23:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 12, 2018, 10:54:05 AM
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.
Quote from: BeltwayRichmond, 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.
Quote from: froggie on August 12, 2018, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: BeltwayRichmond, 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.
Quote from: froggie
Quote from: webny99I 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... (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/minnesota/cancelled/cancelled-map.htm)
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.
^ 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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 12, 2018, 08:59:07 PM
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).
Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 12, 2018, 08:59:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2018, 01:47:15 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 12, 2018, 08:59:07 PM
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:
QuotePost 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 JoaquÃn 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 JoaquÃn 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 JoaquÃn Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route."
Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2018, 02:05:54 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2018, 01:47:15 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2018, 01:41:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 12, 2018, 08:59:07 PM
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:
QuotePost 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 JoaquÃn 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 JoaquÃn 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 JoaquÃn 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
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2018, 04:45:38 PM
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)
Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2018, 04:45:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2018, 05:26:34 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2018, 02:21:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Tom958 on August 15, 2018, 06:14:34 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2018, 02:21:03 AM
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!
Quote from: 1 on August 11, 2018, 03:35:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2018, 01:36:43 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on August 15, 2018, 06:14:34 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2018, 02:21:03 AM
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/XXi4CRT.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OGGOJNM.jpg)
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?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 11, 2018, 11:18:30 PM
Quote from: BakoCondors on August 11, 2018, 08:50:28 PM
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/ (https://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/).
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 15, 2018, 10:40:25 PM
Phoenix also had a route running west from the curve on I-17 around Durango Street cancelled - see https://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/ (https://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/).
That was built farther north as I-10.
Quote from: NE2 on August 15, 2018, 11:23:58 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 15, 2018, 10:40:25 PM
Phoenix also had a route running west from the curve on I-17 around Durango Street cancelled - see https://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/ (https://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/).
That was built farther north as I-10.
Looks more like I-10 was shifted north to the "Southern East-West Freeway" corridor. There's another document out there, "City of Phoenix Then And Now Transportation" which has a better map showing both freeways.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2018, 02:21:03 AM
What about Las Vegas? I've always been curious to know about planned freeways there. The beltway has incomplete sections. Anything else?
Las Vegas is pretty much complete with anything that has been formally planned.
The 215 beltway still has a couple sections that are still expressway and not full freeway: [1] The northern US 95 interchange, and [2] northern leg between N 5th St & I-15 (a project to convert this segment, except the I-15 interchange, began in July 2018). Keep in mind that an eastern beltway leg was never formally planned as part of the original beltway, and a feasibility study rejected the concept later on.
There has been a outer north beltway (Sheep Mountain Parkway?) concept proposed for the Las Vegas Valley. Given northward growth has slowed down significantly, I'm not sure that is still alive. I also don't know whether the concept ever made it to any formal planning documents.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 12, 2018, 12:08:34 AM
For my nominations of most complete:
* Salt Lake City (1 cancellation - kind of a southeasterly corridor from the downtown area to I-215)
What was this? I've never heard of this before. I assume it would have roughly followed Foothill? It would be nice, too: rush hour traffic is brutal on Foothill and 13th East.
Other than this, the only NIMBY issues Utah ever truly ran into involved the southeastern quadrant of I-215. Originally, it would have run northeast from the I-15 junction, reaching the base of the mountains at 3900 South. The preferred alternative was moved to the modern alignment a few years later, but then there was a long series of NIMBY lawsuits. Alignments that followed 7200 South and 9000 South were considered, in addition to the no-build alternative, before settling on the current route.
Of course, Legacy Parkway ran into significant problems, but those were more environmentalist than NIMBY related. And it still got built, though as a watered-down parkway with a reduced speed limit and truck restriction.
Salt Lake as a whole still doesn't have enough freeways, but unlike other cities, that's because they weren't planned. Nobody anticipated the level of growth that has occurred, and as a result, Bangerter is still an expressway, there's no east-west freeway in the south valley...I could go on.
Quote from: roadfro on August 25, 2018, 12:42:20 PM
There has been a outer north beltway (Sheep Mountain Parkway?) concept proposed for the Las Vegas Valley. Given northward growth has slowed down significantly, I'm not sure that is still alive. I also don't know whether the concept ever made it to any formal planning documents.
Yup, Sheep MOuntain Parkway. I( just did some googling on this because I was curious. Looks like the BLM did some resource assessment in 2013 on the west leg. I highly doubt this will ever go anywhere now, because of the creation of Tule Springs National Monument in the area of the proposed path, just a few years ago.