Incomplete Routes Deserving Completion

[froggie]

The US 7 Interstate, which was, IIRC, supposed to be the original I-89.

It wasn't, despite "roadgeek legend" that suggests it...

[Henry]

If the so-called US 7 Interstate were to have been I-89, then what number would've gone to the one that actually has it?

[jp the roadgeek]

If the so-called US 7 Interstate were to have been I-89, then what number would've gone to the one that actually has it?

Other than the Burlington-Highgate portion that would be part of the US 7 routed I-89, the NW/SE portion would have been I-92 or I-98.   If that had been the case, would they have extended it along I-189 and built a causeway across Lake Champlain to connect to the Northway near Exit 33?

[mgk920]

The north end of the Taconic State Parkway in New York?

Here in Wisconsin, I would say:

- I/WI-794 Lake Freeway/Parkway southward to at least WI 33 at the Kenosha-Racine County line.
- WI 11 eastward from Brodhead to at least I-39/90.
- US 51 freeway/expressway to the north end of the Lakeland (Minocqua/Woodruff) area.
- US 12 from Madison to Elkhorn.
- WI 21 bypass of Omro.

Mike

[kurumi]

-The US 7 Interstate, which was, IIRC, supposed to be the original I-89.  Currently exists in fragments in CT and VT.

I'd like this to be true, and there certainly was a plan for a 3-state US 7 freeway, but I've never seen evidence of the I-89 number for it.

1947 Public Roads interstate plan map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_August_2,_1947_big_text.jpg
1955 interstate map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_September_1955.jpg
1957 AASHO interstate map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_August_14,_1957.jpg

[hbelkins]

Has there ever been any thought given to completing the US 22 corridor in Ohio between Pittsburgh and Cambridge by finishing the unimproved portion between Cambridge and Cadiz?

[Strider]

I-73 between Greensboro and Roanoke and from Rockingham to Myrtle Beach.

[hbelkins]

I-73 between Greensboro and Roanoke

[D-Dey65]

The north end of the Taconic State Parkway in New York?

I-73 between Greensboro and Roanoke and from Rockingham to Myrtle Beach.

I say yes to both.


Speaking of parkways, mgk920, I also want to see the completion of Bethpage State Parkway to the Northern State Parkway, Wantagh State Parkway to the Long Island Expressway, and the removal of the gap in the Bear Mountain Parkway!!

[Roadgeekteen]

I-73 between Greensboro and Grayling Michigian

FTFY

[2trailertrucker]

US 74 around Shelby and King's Mountain, NC

US 31 in Benton Harbor, MI

I- 555 from Jonesboro to Thayer MO

[Strider]

I-73 between Greensboro and Roanoke

[Strider]

US 74 around Shelby and King's Mountain, NC

US 31 in Benton Harbor, MI

I- 555 from Jonesboro to Thayer MO

US 74 is much deserving. I forgot to add that. Thank you for pointing it out.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

*Cough* I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana! *Cough*

[sparker]

*Cough* I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana! *Cough*

Speaking of Texarkana -- I-69/369 between Houston and Texarkana; arguably the single most deserving segment of the entire I-69 complex (although I'll get arguments about that from Evansville folks!).

[hbelkins]

US 74 around Shelby and King's Mountain, NC

US 31 in Benton Harbor, MI

I- 555 from Jonesboro to Thayer MO

US 74 is much deserving. I forgot to add that. Thank you for pointing it out.

Isn't construction underway on that segment now?

[hm insulators]

I-87 to Greenland
I-40 to Bermuda
I-GOAT to Alanland


On a more  serious note: I-291 between I-84 in Farmington and I-91 in Windsor.

Don't forget I-10 to Honolulu and I-H1 to Kauai (one direction) and Kailua-Kona on the Big Island via Molokai and Maui (the other direction).

Seriously, California 65.

[Bitmapped]

Has there ever been any thought given to completing the US 22 corridor in Ohio between Pittsburgh and Cambridge by finishing the unimproved portion between Cambridge and Cadiz?

Nope, and there's no real reason to upgrade that section. There's minimal through traffic. According to Google Maps, Columbus to Pittsburgh is only 2 miles shorter via US 22 rather than via I-70 and I-79.

ODOT does have a Macro Corridor defined from Columbus to Steubenville via SR 161, SR 37, SR 16, US 36, US 250, and then US 22 east of Cadiz. There has been incremental process on the sections further west, but there's nothing really in the pipeline east of I-77. I'd like to see the 2-lane section of US 22 between the Cadiz bypass and SR 151 dualized to close the gap, but otherwise the routes handle their traffic pretty well.

[sparker]

Seriously, California 65.

Unfortunately, that route's still an unadopted dotted line on the state highway map, although periodic rumblings, primarily from the Fresno area, have presented ideas for at least an expressway along a segment of this corridor between CA 180 east of Fresno and the CA 41/145 junction north of that city; this is conceived as an access facility for the ever-expanding eastern Fresno suburbs; an extension of that concept a bit northwest then west as an effective eastern extension of CA 152 has also been proposed.  The latter is also one of the infamous "dotted lines" delineating "future" Caltrans corridors; like CA 65 (originally LRN 249), it's been proposed since 1959!  Since no statewide need has been demonstrated (the alignment is too far east to function as a relief route for I-5, and CA 99 only exhibits recurring congestion within its urban portions),  it's more than likely the only way any of the CA 65 corridor will see development is as a series of local SIU's such as the east Fresno server. 

[kkt]

I-366.

The Hypotenuse.

[Max Rockatansky]

Seriously, California 65.

Unfortunately, that route's still an unadopted dotted line on the state highway map, although periodic rumblings, primarily from the Fresno area, have presented ideas for at least an expressway along a segment of this corridor between CA 180 east of Fresno and the CA 41/145 junction north of that city; this is conceived as an access facility for the ever-expanding eastern Fresno suburbs; an extension of that concept a bit northwest then west as an effective eastern extension of CA 152 has also been proposed.  The latter is also one of the infamous "dotted lines" delineating "future" Caltrans corridors; like CA 65 (originally LRN 249), it's been proposed since 1959!  Since no statewide need has been demonstrated (the alignment is too far east to function as a relief route for I-5, and CA 99 only exhibits recurring congestion within its urban portions),  it's more than likely the only way any of the CA 65 corridor will see development is as a series of local SIU's such as the east Fresno server.

Speaking of 180, too bad that never got built out to 25 or even US 101 like it was originally planned.  Really 180 pretty much did exist through the Diablos on Panoche as a County maintained state highway through part of the 1930s...at least on maps:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=69&trs=86

Really a state highway along the County Route J1 corridor would certainly relieve some of the Pacheco Pass traffic on 152.  Granted the poor condition of J1 has really never stopped me from using it as a scenic detour. 

[sparker]

Really a state highway along the County Route J1 corridor would certainly relieve some of the Pacheco Pass traffic on 152.  Granted the poor condition of J1 has really never stopped me from using it as a scenic detour. 

You, and to a lesser extent myself and likely any number of forum posters, treat roads such as J1 as a challenge.  The general public tends to view them as something to be avoided whenever possible.  The fact that back in the '20's and '30's the present condition of J1 typified many rural roads in general -- even state-maintained highways -- making virtually all roads outside urbanized areas something of a challenge.  It's just that in the ensuing years all extension plans for CA 180 have essentially "cut the corner", running south of the J1 alignment -- so the impetus for upgrading J1 itself just hasn't been there; while most state highways have seen some level of improvement, many county-maintained routes such as J1 remain artifacts of bygone alignment and construction techniques. 

When the legal definition of CA 180 extended west over present CA 25 all the way to US 101 south of Gilroy, I always wondered if there were "back-room" long-range plans to not only build the entire 180 corridor out to freeway standards as an alternate to CA 152 -- but possibly apply for Interstate status as I-180, using a co-signed US 101 from Gilroy to the I-280/680 interchange in San Jose as the western connection to the Bay Area Interstate network -- and then extending that I-180 designation east all the way to Fresno -- giving that city its long-sought Interstate service.  I went so far as to ask my Caltrans-employee cousin (this was circa 1981-82 or so when he was working at their HQ in Sacramento) whether such plans had ever been discussed; after a few days he got back to me with the information that the idea had indeed been "tossed around" back in the pre-Gianturco days, but had always been dismissed due to the huge cost of such a project; and after 1975 such an immense project would have been a non-starter.  The re-establishment of CA 25 over the route NW of the Pacines Road junction a couple of years later functionally put a nail in the coffin of any freeway concept along that alignment; it was about that time that the improvement of CA 152 on the west side of Pacheco Pass began, signaling Caltrans' intention to concentrate on that corridor as the principal facility crossing the Coast Range. 
   

[Max Rockatansky]

Really a state highway along the County Route J1 corridor would certainly relieve some of the Pacheco Pass traffic on 152.  Granted the poor condition of J1 has really never stopped me from using it as a scenic detour. 

You, and to a lesser extent myself and likely any number of forum posters, treat roads such as J1 as a challenge.  The general public tends to view them as something to be avoided whenever possible.  The fact that back in the '20's and '30's the present condition of J1 typified many rural roads in general -- even state-maintained highways -- making virtually all roads outside urbanized areas something of a challenge.  It's just that in the ensuing years all extension plans for CA 180 have essentially "cut the corner", running south of the J1 alignment -- so the impetus for upgrading J1 itself just hasn't been there; while most state highways have seen some level of improvement, many county-maintained routes such as J1 remain artifacts of bygone alignment and construction techniques. 

When the legal definition of CA 180 extended west over present CA 25 all the way to US 101 south of Gilroy, I always wondered if there were "back-room" long-range plans to not only build the entire 180 corridor out to freeway standards as an alternate to CA 152 -- but possibly apply for Interstate status as I-180, using a co-signed US 101 from Gilroy to the I-280/680 interchange in San Jose as the western connection to the Bay Area Interstate network -- and then extending that I-180 designation east all the way to Fresno -- giving that city its long-sought Interstate service.  I went so far as to ask my Caltrans-employee cousin (this was circa 1981-82 or so when he was working at their HQ in Sacramento) whether such plans had ever been discussed; after a few days he got back to me with the information that the idea had indeed been "tossed around" back in the pre-Gianturco days, but had always been dismissed due to the huge cost of such a project; and after 1975 such an immense project would have been a non-starter.  The re-establishment of CA 25 over the route NW of the Pacines Road junction a couple of years later functionally put a nail in the coffin of any freeway concept along that alignment; it was about that time that the improvement of CA 152 on the west side of Pacheco Pass began, signaling Caltrans' intention to concentrate on that corridor as the principal facility crossing the Coast Range. 

Pretty much all those county routes west of the Diablo Range all have similar construction methods like G17, G16, and G15.  I even drove all of G17 coming back from Monterey the other day just because I wanted to see the entire route and have a more engaging drive...which it certainly was.  Really though, J1 is probably the most poorly maintained Signed County Route I've had the chance to finish.   Its in even in worse shape than the routes Tulare County doesn't bother to sign anymore like J21.

Really the interesting thing is that if Little Panoche Road was utilized like modern J1 does then the terrain is actually the easiest to wor with in the entire Diablo Range.  I don't know if a freeway would be needed but it would certainly worth exploring some sort of expansion given the lack of progress on 152 becoming an expressway to Gilroy.  I would imagine some of those ranchers might be more willing to give up some land in San Benito County given that there isn't much out there to support them other than a new solar station near Mercy Hot Springs.  All the mining in the area has been long dead in Idria and declared a Superfund sight, might as well bring some other source of revenue into town.

[D-Dey65]

I just thought of another one;

Extend US 331 to US 31 in Montgomery, Alabama!

[froggie]

^ Why?  There's no physical way to...there's no physical NEED to...it's in an urban area...they're already connected by the myriad of other US highways along South Blvd...and it doesn't meet the OP's criteria of being a proposed highway that was never finished.