Cities with two-route beltways

[NE2]

any of these meet a strict standard?  where the two halves end at each other, twice?

494/694, 100/101, M25/A282.

[agentsteel53]

London: M25/A282 (on a technicality)

why is that one small segment an A-road as opposed to an M-road?  a brief glance at the map and aerial imagery shows no at-grade crossings...

[empirestate]

Rochester arguably has three with NY 104, especially since the western part of it in the city was to be made a freeway at one time.

I thought of mentioning that too, but then I figured we could come up with all kinds of places that have triangles and squares of routes around them. :-)

Well, as per the original plans, 104 and 590 would have made a full freeway beltway.

But it's all moot, since with I-390 (and NY 104) being a through route, the whole thing doesn't qualify for this thread anyway!

[Brandon]

London: M25/A282 (on a technicality)

why is that one small segment an A-road as opposed to an M-road?  a brief glance at the map and aerial imagery shows no at-grade crossings...

I think it has to do with what type of traffic can use that section.  IIRC, motorways (M##) are restricted to motor vehicles only.

[agentsteel53]

I think it has to do with what type of traffic can use that section.  IIRC, motorways (M##) are restricted to motor vehicles only.

dang; here in the US they don't interrupt I-5 simply because they shunt bicycles onto it when there is no other crossing of a body of water.  (one of the lagoons here in San Diego comes to mind.)

[deathtopumpkins]

I think it has to do with what type of traffic can use that section.  IIRC, motorways (M##) are restricted to motor vehicles only.

dang; here in the US they don't interrupt I-5 simply because they shunt bicycles onto it when there is no other crossing of a body of water.  (one of the lagoons here in San Diego comes to mind.)

Well in Britain the motorway classification is more of a legal one than a functional one, like US Interstates.

[vtk]

Isn't there a messed up x95 situation around Philly/Trenton that kinda fits this topic?

[Kacie Jane]

Isn't there a messed up x95 situation around Philly/Trenton that kinda fits this topic?

Nothing that really constitutes a full beltway, and nothing that wouldn't include a through route.

[national highway 1]

In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.

Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.

[kkt]

In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.

Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.

That wasn't what I was referring to.  The qualifications were that a primary interstate route couldn't be part of the loop, and 280-680 don't come very close at all in the north end.  To make a loop out of 680 and 280, you'd need to take I-80 for a much longer distance than if you were driving a loop out of 280-880.

[DTComposer]

In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.

Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.

That wasn't what I was referring to.  The qualifications were that a primary interstate route couldn't be part of the loop, and 280-680 don't come very close at all in the north end.  To make a loop out of 680 and 280, you'd need to take I-80 for a much longer distance than if you were driving a loop out of 280-880.

But with 280-880, I wouldn't consider a route that connects the downtowns of the three major Bay Area cities to be functioning as a "beltway."

[TheStranger]

In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.

Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.

That wasn't what I was referring to.  The qualifications were that a primary interstate route couldn't be part of the loop, and 280-680 don't come very close at all in the north end.  To make a loop out of 680 and 280, you'd need to take I-80 for a much longer distance than if you were driving a loop out of 280-880.

But with 280-880, I wouldn't consider a route that connects the downtowns of the three major Bay Area cities to be functioning as a "beltway."

This is what fascinates me:

280 would have been more of a true beltway, at least in SF, had the 19th Avenue/Route 1 alignment been built north of Font Boulevard.  But on the south end, the finalized Interstate always passed right next to downtown San Jose!  I guess at the time, San Jose was just not large enough for its downtown to be considered as something that needed to be bypassed by the new freeway; today's Route 85 is what ultimately served that purpose.

[DTComposer]

In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.

Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.

That wasn't what I was referring to.  The qualifications were that a primary interstate route couldn't be part of the loop, and 280-680 don't come very close at all in the north end.  To make a loop out of 680 and 280, you'd need to take I-80 for a much longer distance than if you were driving a loop out of 280-880.

But with 280-880, I wouldn't consider a route that connects the downtowns of the three major Bay Area cities to be functioning as a "beltway."

This is what fascinates me:

280 would have been more of a true beltway, at least in SF, had the 19th Avenue/Route 1 alignment been built north of Font Boulevard.  But on the south end, the finalized Interstate always passed right next to downtown San Jose!  I guess at the time, San Jose was just not large enough for its downtown to be considered as something that needed to be bypassed by the new freeway; today's Route 85 is what ultimately served that purpose.

The original route options for the Junipero Serra Freeway passed well south of downtown San Jose; one of the options indeed used the CA-85 corridor. Since the interstate designation was approved in 1955, and the route (LRN 239) was approved in 1957, I assume the original intent was to bypass downtown. I'm unsure why it was changed (including the whole CA-17/I-280/I-680 switcheroo in 1963-1965).

[TheStranger]

The original route options for the Junipero Serra Freeway passed well south of downtown San Jose; one of the options indeed used the CA-85 corridor. Since the interstate designation was approved in 1955, and the route (LRN 239) was approved in 1957, I assume the original intent was to bypass downtown. I'm unsure why it was changed (including the whole CA-17/I-280/I-680 switcheroo in 1963-1965).

What also intrigues me: of the major cities in California, were San Jose and Fresno the last two to have any sort of downtown freeway?

Prior to the 1960s, San Francisco already had the Central Freeway and the Skyway, LA of course had its extensive system, Sacramento had US 40 (today's converted-to-city-street former Route 275), San Diego had the US 101 Montgomery Freeway and US 395 Cabrillo Freeway (today's I-5 and Route 163).  But San Jose's only freeways - the Nimitz Freeway (then Route 17) and the Bayshore Freeway (US 101) - both were nowhere close to the city center.

I wonder if that previous lack of access explained the 280 alignment being much further north once finalized than the proposal that resembled today's Route 85.  (I'm also not sure if Route 87 was originally meant to extend into downtown until after the segment north of San Jose was canceled in the late 1960s.)