Planned Interstate routes built out as non-Interstate roads

[TheStranger]

The potential freeway upgrade of Route 262 in Fremont made me think about this topic - roads that exist as non-interstate highways but were originally planned to get the red/white/blue shield beforehand. (This is not the same as freeways that were once signed as interstate but now are not, which excludes say the former US 395/I-15 alignment through Miramar MCAS in San Diego)


The California examples that come to mind:

- 262 which in its entirety was part of the pre-1965 I-680 routing

- the Route 132 expressway in Modesto, originally conceived as part of I-5W in the 1950s

Elsewhere:

- Arizona Route 51, originally planned (at least in its southernmost segment) as I-510

- the 470 beltway around Denver

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

[zachary_amaryllis]

surprised none of the colorado folks haven't mentioned this yet... tho its early

c-470/e-470/nw parkway in denver area was originally planned as i-470. STILL doesn't go all the way around, i think thanks to nimbyism in golden.

[US 89]

I’ll add a couple from Atlanta:

- Langford Parkway (GA 166), which was supposed to be part of a longer I-420
- Freedom Parkway (GA 10), which would have been half of an I-485 that would have gone up towards 400

[Revive 755]

Parts of US 50 across Illinois.  I-64 was originally proposed along US 50.  Part was built around Vincennes, IN, but US 50 was later proposed as a supplemental freeway across Illinois, with some parts constructed between Lebanon and Carlyle.

[MCRoads]

surprised none of the colorado folks haven't mentioned this yet... tho its early

c-470/e-470/nw parkway in denver area was originally planned as i-470. STILL doesn't go all the way around, i think thanks to nimbyism in golden.

Heard that the gap in the NW quadrant might be shortened, but Golden is still being pissy. Does this even need to be a full loop?

[KeithE4Phx]

- Arizona Route 51, originally planned (at least in its southernmost segment) as I-510

The section that was originally I-510 (and briefly I-410 before that) was never part of the current AZ 51.  That route is now part of I-10.  The 410/510 numbers were assigned back in the '60s, when I-10 was going to be run over the Durango/Tres Rios corridor that is now designated AZ 30.

[zachary_amaryllis]

surprised none of the colorado folks haven't mentioned this yet... tho its early

c-470/e-470/nw parkway in denver area was originally planned as i-470. STILL doesn't go all the way around, i think thanks to nimbyism in golden.

Heard that the gap in the NW quadrant might be shortened, but Golden is still being pissy. Does this even need to be a full loop?

not something i personally would have use for... most of my travels to denver involve the ne/se quadrant which i can use 270/225 or e-470 for... maybe for people coming from the north wanting to go skiing or something.

i say, run the last bit over it via sh93 or something... but not sure how that would play out.

[Elm]

c-470/e-470/nw parkway in denver area was originally planned as i-470. STILL doesn't go all the way around, i think thanks to nimbyism in golden.

The formally designated I-470 was just the southwest quadrant from I-70 to I-25 that led to C-470, although I don't doubt that all the same extensions would've been proposed if the interstate had been built. Here is a high-level map from notes on the withdrawal (more here).

Heard that the gap in the NW quadrant might be shortened, but Golden is still being pissy. Does this even need to be a full loop?

A hypothetical limited access northwest quadrant would have several components; they're all unlikely to happen in full, but the reasons vary from funding limitations (for all) to active opposition (mainly to the Jefferson Parkway, the majority of the diagonal-ish middle section). Golden and CDOT reached an agreement for the portion through the city, and while they don't support the Jefferson Parkway and will criticize it if asked, they no longer put money toward blocking it.

The opposition is now primarily based in the Leyden Rock neighborhood of Arvada, which was designed around Jefferson Parkway right-of-way as a term of annexation and development. Historically, though, a major concern has been its proximity to Rocky Flats, which was an ostensible reason for Broomfield withdrawing support last year; the latest word was a re-confirmation that it's safe enough to build the road on the right-of-way that was peeled off the buffer zone a while back.

For the other segments

• The section from the C-470 extension at US 6 north to the Golden city limits is planned as a limited access facility, but generally with the existing speed limits, 45-55mph. The Heritage Rd interchange is in design, but there's no construction funding; funding for the rest is an even bigger "if."  (Concept plan here)
• Hwy 93 from Golden to the potential Jefferson Parkway is planned as a four-lane arterial through the 2018 WestConnect PEL. Funding is unlikely and Boulder is opposed to any expansion of Hwy 93, although the latter would mainly affect a further north section of 93.
• A limited access tolled "Northwest Parkway extension"  between the Jefferson Parkway and the limited access portion of the Northwest Parkway would theoretically be under the jurisdictions of the Northwest Parkway Public Highway Authority and run through Broomfield. With the NWPPHA not being very public-facing, it's hard to gauge their interest, but since the NWP itself isn't particularly financially successful and Broomfield is now opposed to the Jefferson Parkway, I'd say the outlook on this is unlikely and at most neutral.

As far as need goes, a freeway beltway probably isn't strictly necessary–though having the option in the network wouldn't be the worst thing–but transportation improvements are needed, after very little has been done for decades while people fought over building a freeway. Studies always report interest in more multimodal options for the area, too, but development density is mostly low except for the edges, and much of the area is open space or Rocky Flats. What little transit service there is has been gradually reduced, to the point where the last Golden-Boulder bus is going to be suspended (not permanently, but indefinitely) in January.

edited to correct "the latest word" link

[Dirt Roads]

Double trouble:  The Pocahontas Parkway (VA-895) in Richmond was planned as I-895.  But I also remember a map from the early 1970s that showed the Chippenham Parkway (which had recently been upgraded from a state secondary to VA-150) as future I-895, much of which was then being widened to freeway.  The proposed routing ended at what is now the Powhite Parkway (Toll VA-76), leaving me wondering if the plan was for I-895 to also run up the Powhite over the Acca Bridge and replace the section of I-195 that was not part of the RMA Downtown Expressway.  If that all had happened, Richmond would have an urban inner Interstate quality bypass on the southside from I-95/I-64 down to I-95 over to I-295.

While I'm in that part of Virginia, Wagner Road on the south side of Petersburg was originally planned as I-795 but built as a four-lane arterial (never has function as such) that didn't connect to I-85.

[Dustin DeWinn]

NC has several. Signage on existing roads just say "Future Interstate [number]"

Here's a list

http://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/index.html

[kurumi]

CT 3 freeway and Putnam Bridge was to be part of I-491 (or later, I-86)

CT 9 freeway north of New Britain was to be part of I-291. However, it was constructed in the I-291 corridor after I-291 had been cancelled, so maybe this doesn't fit OP's criteria.

I'm leaving out the Conland-Whitehead Highway (SR 598), because it really was I-484 for several years -- just never signed.

One of the Rhode Island I-895 plans included the RI 138 freeway, but that might be after the fact as well.

[MCRoads]

NC has several. Signage on existing roads just say "Future Interstate [number]"

Here's a list

http://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/index.html

I think the OP meant the interstate was planned, but the road was not built to Interstate standards.

[TheStranger]

CT 3 freeway and Putnam Bridge was to be part of I-491 (or later, I-86)

CT 9 freeway north of New Britain was to be part of I-291. However, it was constructed in the I-291 corridor after I-291 had been cancelled, so maybe this doesn't fit OP's criteria.

I'm leaving out the Conland-Whitehead Highway (SR 598), because it really was I-484 for several years -- just never signed.

One of the Rhode Island I-895 plans included the RI 138 freeway, but that might be after the fact as well.

That CT 9 example is perfect - like CA 132, it was planned originally as interstate, and now exists in the corridor chosen, but not under the original interstate designation.

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

[Mapmikey]

Virginia has also had in this category:

VA 164 and VA 288 which were turned down in the 1968 interstate requests
The southern half of I-664 started out qualifying for this thread but Virginia figured out how to get VA 664 into the interstate system after all

North Carolina has NC 540 that qualifies.

[sprjus4]

NC-295 was originally in this category, though is now being designated as I-295.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Virginia has also had in this category:

VA 164 and VA 288 which were turned down in the 1968 interstate requests
The southern half of I-664 started out qualifying for this thread but Virginia figured out how to get VA 664 into the interstate system after all

North Carolina has NC 540 that qualifies.

Would VA 895 also qualify, since it was originally intended as I-895?

[TheStranger]

Virginia has also had in this category:

VA 164 and VA 288 which were turned down in the 1968 interstate requests
The southern half of I-664 started out qualifying for this thread but Virginia figured out how to get VA 664 into the interstate system after all

North Carolina has NC 540 that qualifies.

Would VA 895 also qualify, since it was originally intended as I-895?

Absolutely!

TN 840 used to count, until it finally became I-840.

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

[Tom958]

I'll add a couple from Atlanta:

- Langford Parkway (GA 166), which was supposed to be part of a longer I-420

No, I-420 didn't appear until after the East Atlanta, South Atlanta, and Lakewood Tollways were canceled. The Lakewood Tollway would've extended the Lakewood Freeway, now called Langford Parkway, to the GA 400 East Atlanta/South Atlanta, while I-420 was to extend further east to I-20.

EDIT: Actually, while the official state map never showed GA 166 extending east of GA 400, the Lakewood Tollway was planned to extend all the way to I-20. Still, it was I-420 that picked up the corridor after the tollways were canceled, not vice versa.

[US 89]

I’ll add a couple from Atlanta:

- Langford Parkway (GA 166), which was supposed to be part of a longer I-420

No, I-420 didn't appear until after the East Atlanta, South Atlanta, and Lakewood Tollways were canceled. The Lakewood Tollway would've extended the Lakewood Freeway, now called Langford Parkway, to the GA 400 East Atlanta/South Atlanta, while I-420 was to extend further east to I-20.

EDIT: Actually, while the official state map never showed GA 166 extending east of GA 400, the Lakewood Tollway was planned to extend all the way to I-20. Still, it was I-420 that picked up the corridor after the tollways were canceled, not vice versa.

Interesting. I did find this 1981 map online showing proposed I-420 from 75/85 all the way to 20. So I guess technically, the short stub of Langford from the connector to Lakewood Ave is former I-420:



I didn't realize I-420 was never intended to apply to what is now the Langford Parkway west of the Connector. But it makes sense - you'd have to put a whole lot of money into Langford to bring it close to anything resembling interstate standards.

[KeithE4Phx]

- Arizona Route 51, originally planned (at least in its southernmost segment) as I-510

The section that was originally I-510 (and briefly I-410 before that) was never part of the current AZ 51.  That route is now part of I-10.  The 410/510 numbers were assigned back in the '60s, when I-10 was going to be run over the Durango/Tres Rios corridor that is now designated AZ 30.

Upon further review, the sections of the current I-10 and AZ 51 that are on the 20th St (and 18th St. north of Thomas Rd.) alignment, were supposed to be built as I-510 in the mid '60s. 

That, of course, never happened, and I have no idea what the northern endpoint would have been, given that what is now the Loop 101 wasn't even on the drawing board yet.  The area where Glendale Ave. becomes Lincoln Dr?  The point where Northern Ave. went through the Dreamy Draw (now part of the 51)?  All the way to Bell Rd?

[Roadsguy]

Various sections of the proposed I-73/74 corridor through VA, WV, and OH were built/are being built as four-lane limited-access divided highways, not freeways.

[tigerwings]

M-5 was built in the cancelled I-275 ROW north of the I-96/I-275/I-696 mixing bowl.

[FrCorySticha]

IDOT publicly stated when they built IL 255 to Alton that it wasn't intended to be an Interstate extension of I-255. I wonder if it was originally planned to be Interstate, but built by IDOT.

[thefraze_1020]

The Salem Parkway in Salem, OR. It was going to be I-305, but eventually was built as a expressway, signed as OR-99E Business.

http://historic.oroads.com/roads/or99e/business/salem.html#history

[zzcarp]

c-470/e-470/nw parkway in denver area was originally planned as i-470. STILL doesn't go all the way around, i think thanks to nimbyism in golden.

The formally designated I-470 was just the southwest quadrant from I-70 to I-25 that led to C-470, although I don't doubt that all the same extensions would've been proposed if the interstate had been built. Here is a high-level map from notes on the withdrawal (more here).

Heard that the gap in the NW quadrant might be shortened, but Golden is still being pissy. Does this even need to be a full loop?

A hypothetical limited access northwest quadrant would have several components; they're all unlikely to happen in full, but the reasons vary from funding limitations (for all) to active opposition (mainly to the Jefferson Parkway, the majority of the diagonal-ish middle section). Golden and CDOT reached an agreement for the portion through the city, and while they don't support the Jefferson Parkway and will criticize it if asked, they no longer put money toward blocking it.

The opposition is now primarily based in the Leyden Rock neighborhood of Arvada, which was designed around Jefferson Parkway right-of-way as a term of annexation and development. Historically, though, a major concern has been its proximity to Rocky Flats, which was an ostensible reason for Broomfield withdrawing support last year; the latest word was a re-confirmation that it's safe enough to build the road on the right-of-way that was peeled off the buffer zone a while back.

For the other segments

• The section from the C-470 extension at US 6 north to the Golden city limits is planned as a limited access facility, but generally with the existing speed limits, 45-55mph. The Heritage Rd interchange is in design, but there's no construction funding; funding for the rest is an even bigger "if."  (Concept plan here
• Hwy 93 from Golden to the potential Jefferson Parkway is planned as a four-lane arterial through the 2018 WestConnect PEL. Funding is unlikely and Boulder is opposed to any expansion of Hwy 93, although the latter would mainly affect a further north section of 93.
• A limited access tolled "Northwest Parkway extension"  between the Jefferson Parkway and the limited access portion of the Northwest Parkway would theoretically be under the jurisdictions of the Northwest Parkway Public Highway Authority and run through Broomfield. With the NWPPHA not being very public-facing, it's hard to gauge their interest, but since the NWP itself isn't particularly financially successful and Broomfield is now opposed to the Jefferson Parkway, I'd say the outlook on this is unlikely and at most neutral.

As far as need goes, a freeway beltway probably isn't strictly necessary–though having the option in the network wouldn't be the worst thing–but transportation improvements are needed, after very little has been done for decades while people fought over building a freeway. Studies always report interest in more multimodal options for the area, too, but development density is mostly low except for the edges, and much of the area is open space or Rocky Flats. What little transit service there is has been gradually reduced, to the point where the last Golden-Boulder bus is going to be suspended (not permanently, but indefinitely) in January.

The people upset with Rocky Flats are using that as a NIMBY no-highway issue just as Louisville and Boulder NIMBY'd the NW Parkway path. The section through part of Rocky Flats is immediately adjacent to Indiana Street, literally 300' of a buffer zone where the actual former plant site is miles away. Broomfield has been taken over by NIMBYs of a similar stripe which has effectively killed the project.

The real problem with the Jefferson Parkway is the double-Breezewood, one at each end. Yes, the NW Parkway was supposed to connect to it, and there were no concrete plans for that connection even when the Jefferson Parkway was supposedly moving forward. Few if anyone would use a toll road with no freeway connections at either end (I assert).

At the other end is Golden where CDOT is slowly building overpasses over US 6 between C-470 and SH 93. Per an IGA, speed limits cannot be increased so it will remain at 55 and/or 45 mph (posted at least 10 mph under what traffic typically drives today, making it open season for revenue enforcement).

The stretch of SH 93 from US 6 to north of 64th Avenue hypothetically would be widened to a freeway. However, Golden allowed development up to a very narrow right-of-way which makes any expansion difficult and expensive. Besides that, CDOT has little money and little inclination to spend the money it has on actual highway improvements.