What are some examples of cities that could benefit from/absolutely need at least a partial if not a full beltway around the downtown area, but yet don't have any such facility? The reason for not having a beltway could be that it was never proposed, or that it was cancelled and unbuilt.
The one example that I can think of immediately is Hartford, CT. With the cancellation of the full I-291 and I-484 loops, all Boston-->NYC traffic is forced through downtown Hartford on I-84, which is underbuilt for that level of thru traffic. The same problem exists with Springfield-->New Haven traffic on I-91, which also has no way to bypass center city. The existing segment of I-291 is useful for traffic bound for Bradley Airport from I-84 or points east, but doesn't really have any other good utility beyond that.
Tucson, AZ
Fort Myers/Cape Coral, FL (partial)
North Port/Port Charlotte/Punta Gorda, FL (partial)
Bradenton/Sarasota, FL (partial) (noticing a trend?)
Philadelphia, PA
Related question: Why would a city not benefit from having a beltway?
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 01:03:24 PM
Related question: Why would a city not benefit from having a beltway?
Oh great, now FritzOwl is going to give Kitty Hawk a beltway. (Fortunately, he only reads fictional.)
Baton Rouge.
Marshall, TX would be one that needs a complete loop, though it could probably get by with it being non-freeway.
Another fun question: What cities have beltways planned but are not needed at all? I nominate Lafayette, LA.
Tampa and St. Petersburg
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 01:03:24 PM
Related question: Why would a city not benefit from having a beltway?
Because beltways (and other roads):
1) Convert what could be otherwise productive land into non-revenue generating land (gas taxes and potential tolls notwithstanding).
1a) Obviously highways *can* allow for easier travel to productive locations, and also potentially open up more land for
development. But it does otherwise preclude the ROW from ever being developed.
2) Add to the maintenance obligations of the relevant jurisdiction. Thus the City/County/State of ___ is on the hook for repaving, bridge improvements, etc
How about this tradeoff, which I like to call the DC Model-
You get your regional beltway, and you even get some stub highways to go from the beltway towards the core of the region/city.
But you have to give up (either eliminate from the planning books, or tear down) the highways that actually run through the center of the region/city (usually quite valuable land from a development standpoint).
That would be more, I think, what the original Interstate System had in mind, which is also what you see a lot of in Europe.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on February 18, 2021, 01:30:57 PM
How about this tradeoff, which I like to call the DC Model-
You get your regional beltway, and you even get some stub highways to go from the beltway towards the core of the region/city.
But you have to give up (either eliminate from the planning books, or tear down) the highways that actually run through the center of the region/city (usually quite valuable land from a development standpoint).
That would be more, I think, what the original Interstate System had in mind, which is also what you see a lot of in Europe.
1. Is there any reason why the original plan was better? Usually, ideas improve over time (from thinking of new things, trial and error, etc.).
2. Isn't DC one of the most congested cities in the US, or at least complained about a lot?
Colorado Springs. Maybe it doesn't need it as much as other cities, but it does need something. Because of how long and narrow the city is, the city needs a bypass of downtown purely because everyone needs to use 2 routes: I-25, and Powers Blvd. My mom works in Fountain, but we live up near monument. So she needs to drive a long way through rush hour traffic to get to work. What usually takes us 45 minutes to do during non-rush hour traffic (still fairly busy, mind you), takes her almost 2 hours to do during her commute. There are also some people who live near us that commute to Ft Carson, and also Peterson AFB. I believe the Powers Blvd corridor was intended to be a controlled access freeway, but even if that was upgraded, it would probably still get clogged up with traffic. I believe that the city needs a new freeway further east, and also needs Powers to be widened, as a freeway would be very costly to build with development so close on both sides.
Rutland, VT
Kokomo, IN
Pocatello, ID
Glenrio, TX
Monowi, NE
For real, though, I have heard Nashville could use a NE quadrant bypass.
Montreal would be a good one.
Toronto could use a half-beltway (due to the lake), although I suppose the 407 ETR theoretically accomplishes some of that purpose. I don't know whether it's ever supposed to tie back down to 401 on the east side. The "bypass" route could really extend further west beyond, or around, Hamilton.
Lafayette, IN.
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 01:03:24 PM
Related question: Why would a city not benefit from having a beltway?
At first, I misread this as
what city would not benefit from having a beltway.
My answer to that question would be: Binghamton, NY.
Quote from: webny99 on February 18, 2021, 04:17:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 01:03:24 PM
Related question: Why would a city not benefit from having a beltway?
At first, I misread this as what city would not benefit from having a beltway.
My answer to that question would be: Binghamton, NY.
Then there are cities or metro areas where it's essentially impossible to build one. The Greater Miami area might benefit from a partial beltway around the west side linking the Turnpike and I-95 up around the northern end of the Sawgrass Expressway down to the Homestead area, but no such highway can possibly be constructed any further to the west than the existing Sawgrass, I-75, US-27, and Krome Avenue (FL-997) because of the Everglades, except perhaps all the way at the southern end in the Homestead area. If you're not familiar with the area, it's hard to visualize how dense development abruptly ENDS sharply at the north-south part of the Sawgrass (FL-869) and at US-27, and if you ever go out into the Everglades on a boat, you'd see it would be completely impractical (environmentally, financially, and realistically) and arguably very reprehensible (environmentally) to build an elevated beltway through that area.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2021, 03:51:58 PM
Toronto could use a half-beltway (due to the lake), although I suppose the 407 ETR theoretically accomplishes some of that purpose. I don't know whether it's ever supposed to tie back down to 401 on the east side.
The ON 115/407 ETR interchange seems to leave open the possibility of a further extension, but I don't think there's anything planned at this time. ON 115, 418, and 412 provide sufficient connectivity even though there's no direct connection to 401.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2021, 03:51:58 PM
The "bypass" route could really extend further west beyond, or around, Hamilton.
It's not really needed west of Hamilton (traffic on 403 lightens considerably beyond Hwy 6 South), but east is another story. The Red Hill Valley/QEW interchange is a major bottleneck in the summer, and the QEW can be miserable stop and go traffic all the way from there to Niagara Falls. However, I'm not sure an extension of 407 ETR is the answer even if you could somehow route it through or around the Hamilton area. A fourth lane in each direction through Grimsby and a ban on grape farmers doing 100 km/h in the left lane would help though! :)
First to mind:
Staunton, VA (pop. 24, 932) has a partially freeway, partially limited access beltway.
It's a bit overkill. I'm originally from NC, where the bypass is supreme, but it's not even a bypass, just a 2/3 beltway to the west of the city.
Seattle would be harmed by having a full beltway, as it would enable sprawl and require two new long bridges over the Puget Sound that would disrupt marine traffic and migrations. No thanks.
Quote from: webny99 on February 18, 2021, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2021, 03:51:58 PM
Toronto could use a half-beltway (due to the lake), although I suppose the 407 ETR theoretically accomplishes some of that purpose. I don't know whether it's ever supposed to tie back down to 401 on the east side.
The ON 115/407 ETR interchange seems to leave open the possibility of a further extension, but I don't think there's anything planned at this time. ON 115, 418, and 412 provide sufficient connectivity even though there's no direct connection to 401.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2021, 03:51:58 PM
The "bypass" route could really extend further west beyond, or around, Hamilton.
It's not really needed west of Hamilton (traffic on 403 lightens considerably beyond Hwy 6 South), but east is another story. The Red Hill Valley/QEW interchange is a major bottleneck in the summer, and the QEW can be miserable stop and go traffic all the way from there to Niagara Falls. However, I'm not sure an extension of 407 ETR is the answer even if you could somehow route it through or around the Hamilton area. A fourth lane in each direction through Grimsby and a ban on grape farmers doing 100 km/h in the left lane would help though! :)
Yeah, I couldn't really figure out how to route a bypass on the eastern side of Hamilton. Of course, anyone coming up the QEW from the USA and heading for Toronto would be highly unlikely to use a beltway around the western side of Hamilton barring some MAJOR crash on the east side.
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 18, 2021, 04:40:52 PM
First to mind:
Staunton, VA (pop. 24, 932) has a partially freeway, partially limited access beltway.
It's a bit overkill. I'm originally from NC, where the bypass is supreme, but it's not even a bypass, just a 2/3 beltway to the west of the city.
Wait I read this backwards.
Scranton could use some kind of bypass. Traffic can get a bit tight through it and W-B.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2021, 04:48:17 PM
Of course, anyone coming up the QEW from the USA and heading for Toronto would be highly unlikely to use a beltway around the western side of Hamilton barring some MAJOR crash on the east side.
Which certainly can happen, because anything that affects the Burlington Bay Skyway creates a traffic nightmare. But as long as traffic on that bridge is moving, it doesn't need a bypass at all: It's one of the best and fastest-moving segments of the entire Toronto to Niagara corridor.
If anything, it would make sense to have two disconnected sections of toll road, with the other running from Mount Albion to Niagara Falls.
Birmingham, AL (459 isn't cutting it)
Orlando, Fl
Breezewood, PA :biggrin:
Easy. Albuquerque.
A beltway was planned at one point - see this article (https://betterburque.org/2018/07/16/burque-roadway-history-1989-proposed-inner-beltway/) - but the only part of it that ever got built was the freeway bit of Paseo del Norte between Coors and 2nd St (this has since been extended slightly further east to Jefferson). The rest of Paseo and Tramway probably could have been converted to freeways if not for NIMBYs and otherwise poor planning by NMDOT.
(https://betterburque.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/proposed-inner-beltway.jpg)
In an ideal world, Coors would have also been a freeway or at least a high-grade expressway with ROW to put in interchanges if needed. The full system interchange at 40 looks nice, but it's dumb when you consider that the rest of Coors is stoplight hell. It's too late now but there really should have been some better access control on that.
Nashville TN could use a full beltway.
SM-G950U
Austin has a couple of toll bypass options, but needs either a free beltway or a full 12-lane through I-35 route.
Syracuse, NY - the eastern half is there, but the closest thing the western part has is NY 695 and the portions of NY 5 and John Glen Blvd (the latter not ever a freeway) that were built. Especially now that part of I-81 is slated to be removed.
Rochester, NY was planned to have a full beltway, but only 3/4 of it was built.
Doesn't need to be an interstate, nor a full beltway, but something for Lafayette, IN to make access to Purdue from both directions of I-65 easier.
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2021, 01:34:40 PM
1. Is there any reason why the original plan was better? Usually, ideas improve over time (from thinking of new things, trial and error, etc.).
2. Isn't DC one of the most congested cities in the US, or at least complained about a lot?
I still say getting rid of the original plan (or at least the version before 1977) is why DC is one of the most congested cities in the US.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 18, 2021, 05:02:06 PM
Orlando, Fl
The combination of FL State Toll Roads 417 and 429 were supposed to be just that.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 18, 2021, 10:45:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2021, 01:34:40 PM
1. Is there any reason why the original plan was better? Usually, ideas improve over time (from thinking of new things, trial and error, etc.).
2. Isn't DC one of the most congested cities in the US, or at least complained about a lot?
I still say getting rid of the original plan (or at least the version before 1977) is why DC is one of the most congested cities in the US.
DC would probably be even worse off without I-66 inside I-495, which I heard came very close to cancellation at some point. Imagine access to Dulles Airport from DC with a boulevard in I-66's place.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 18, 2021, 03:35:14 PM
For real, though, I have heard Nashville could use a NE quadrant bypass.
Either an upgraded TN 109 (Portland bypass) or a connector (4-lane divided controlled access at minimum) from I-65 between KY exits 52 and 58 to TN 111 near Cookeville would work for a NE quadrant bypass, although the latter would mainly be useful for Chicago/Indianapolis/Louisville to Atlanta/Florida traffic and vice versa
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 18, 2021, 10:45:02 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 18, 2021, 05:02:06 PM
Orlando, Fl
The combination of FL State Toll Roads 417 and 429 were supposed to be just that.
Once the current construction to extend 429 along Route 46 to the interchange of I-4 and FL-417 is finished, those two roads will combine to give an almost-complete beltway–except there'll be that one notable gap on the southern end along I-4 between 429 and World Drive, which also happens to be the location of perpetual congestion on eastbound I-4 due to World Drive being a significant access point for Disney World. The connection between 417 and I-4 in that area functions sort of like C/D roads through the World Drive interchange. Maybe they should complete the full beltway loop by extending that configuration down to the existing interchange with FL-429–or perhaps beyond, because I-4 regularly backs up beyond FL-429. On the other hand, there may not be enough "thru beltway traffic" to warrant that sort of configuration. No question that it would be a lot more direct distance-wise to go from 417 to 429 via US-192, though that does mean traffic lights.
We've used FL-429 several times as a way to connect from points to the southwest, mainly Venice and Fort Myers, to FL-46 in Sanford because the latter is where the Auto Train depot is. Going that way has worked really well to avoid the traffic on I-4 downtown. It's a longer distance, of course–the most direct route from the I-4/FL-429 junction to the Auto Train via I-4 through Orlando is 47 miles, whereas taking FL-429 and FL-46 around the west side is 57.9 miles and taking FL-417 around the east side and then using US-17 and FL-46 through Sanford to connect is 58 miles. But taking 429 is an easier drive with very little traffic.
Hartford, CT.
I'm not certain that a full beltway is necessary...but the lack of something for the northwest quadrant is painful.
* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL
Charleston, WV.
The Portland metro area I feel would benefit from a full beltway.
Want to get across the Columbia? Here are your options, and you've got a grand total of two.
5 and the antiquated Interstate Bridge
205 and the equally congested Glen Jackson Bridge
A third option would be nice, and being able to get around Portland on the west side would be great.
Granted the terrain, and that part of Oregon's hatred for roads means this will never happen....
Metro Manila, if only because...the first through limited access expressway in the region opened up a mere 6 weeks ago (Skyway Stage 3). But there are proposals for belt routes:
- full upgrade of C-5 to expressway; right now it is an awkward mix of partial expressway (i.e. next to BGC, and the under-construction C-5 Southlink) and boulevard, plus a segment that is currently using a temporary routing (from the end of NLEX Mindanao Avenue Extension through Tandang Sora, Quezon City towards Congressional Avenue) due to right of way that was reserved as far back as the late 1940s for road construction but not cleared of informal settlements yet.
- C-6, the wider belt route that will reach Antipolo from Taguig and then continue north to the La Mesa area of Quezon City then northwest to Bulacan not too far east from the New Manila International Airport in Bulacan. Currently part of it is under construction as the Southeast Metro Manila Expressway/SEMME.
- One could argue that if Skyway Stage 3 and the NLEX Connector/Harbor Link will be the through routes of Manila, then in concert with C-5, the proposed Port Link Expressway would serve as the west portion of the belt. NLEX/MPTC essentially view that Roxas Boulevard/Mel Lopez Boulevard corridor as such.
- EDSA has been ineffective as a bypass loop for decades due to the fact Quezon City grew up around it, as well as parts of Mandaluyong. (Makati is the only city that really ensured that their segment of EDSA functions like a freeway with no business frontages and a significant amount of grade separation and flyovers). San Miguel Corporation, the same folks who got Skyway Stage 3 built, have shown in their long term plans an EDSA Skyway as a fully limited-access route from Mall of Asia in Pasay to Monumento, Caloocan.
- In addition, SMC has also shown concepts for a short connector between Harbor Link and the SS3 Sgt. Rivera exit in Caloocan + a short expressway spur on Quirino Avenue from Osmena Highway in Paco to Roxas Boulevard in Malate; these two connectors plus any Roxas corridor highway would create an inner belt around Manila itself with Skyway Stage 3 between Osmena and A. Bonifacio as the east loop.
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2021, 01:01:33 PM
Tucson, AZ
Fort Myers/Cape Coral, FL (partial)
North Port/Port Charlotte/Punta Gorda, FL (partial)
Bradenton/Sarasota, FL (partial) (noticing a trend?)
Philadelphia, PA
I-75 goes far to the east of downtown Bradenton, Sarasota, North Port, etc. I am not sure what the need is for a beltway in these areas of SW FL.
Someone else mentioned Tampa/St. Petersburg. A beltway here is never going to happen and I'm not sure it should. When the country was in freeway building mode (50's, 60's, 70's), this area screwed the pooch with freeway revolts and poor planning, which is why the freeway network here is inadequate compared to other large metros. The advantage of that is that as transportation planning has trended away from endless freeway building, the area is well-suited to take advantage of not having endless legacy freeways to plan for more robust multimodal transportation options.
Quote from: democratic nole on February 21, 2021, 12:05:15 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2021, 01:01:33 PM
Tucson, AZ
Fort Myers/Cape Coral, FL (partial)
North Port/Port Charlotte/Punta Gorda, FL (partial)
Bradenton/Sarasota, FL (partial) (noticing a trend?)
Philadelphia, PA
I-75 goes far to the east of downtown Bradenton, Sarasota, North Port, etc. I am not sure what the need is for a beltway in these areas of SW FL.
I'm imagining something similar to Wheeling, WV, where I-75 forms one half and the 3di (or state route freeway) forms the other half. The main difference is that FL is growing, while WV is shrinking. Also see Lakeland, FL.
Springfield MA could use a full beltway. Unfortunately existing 291 wouldn't be a good fit for part of it because of it going right thru Springfield.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on February 18, 2021, 01:30:57 PM
How about this tradeoff, which I like to call the DC Model-
You get your regional beltway, and you even get some stub highways to go from the beltway towards the core of the region/city.
But you have to give up (either eliminate from the planning books, or tear down) the highways that actually run through the center of the region/city (usually quite valuable land from a development standpoint).
That would be more, I think, what the original Interstate System had in mind, which is also what you see a lot of in Europe.
I see you haven't been on the Kennedy, Ryan or Eisenhower in Chicago.
Athens GA's beltway (GA 10 Loop) is used to manage traffic leaving the University of Georgia after football games. Specifically, some campus lots are directed to the inner/clockwise loop and other lots are directed to the outer/counterclockwise loop, and motorists are expected to continue in the direction that they got on the beltway until reaching the exit for the route they are using to leave Athens. The beltway is less than 20 miles long, so most traffic doesn't have to go too far out of the way.
A beltway could be used similarly for other cities that may get high volumes of traffic for certain events.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 19, 2021, 10:07:15 PM
Charleston, WV.
As far as cities that need beltways, don't have them, and will never in a million years get them, Charleston WV is at the top of that list. Plus it's a declining city anyways.
I went through the largest metros to see which ones stood out, and it looks like Sacramento, CA, Tampa, FL, and Pittsburgh, PA are the largest metro areas that lack either a full or partial beltway. Although in all three cases, there is a freeway route for through traffic that bypasses the urban core (I-505, I-75, and I-76, respectively).
You have to get pretty far down the list to find metro areas that have neither a beltway, a partial beltway, or a bypass. Some examples include Hartford, CT, Albany, NY, Worcester, MA, and Baton Rouge, LA.
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 06:23:08 PM
I went through the largest metros to see which ones stood out, and it looks like Sacramento, CA, Tampa, FL, and Pittsburgh, PA are the largest metro areas that lack either a full or partial beltway. Although in all three cases, there is a freeway route for through traffic that bypasses the urban core (I-505, I-75, and I-76, respectively).
You have to get pretty far down the list to find metro areas that have neither a beltway, a partial beltway, or a bypass. Some examples include Hartford, CT, Albany, NY, Worcester, MA, and Baton Rouge, LA.
What happened to Tucson?
Quote from: 1 on February 21, 2021, 06:26:58 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 06:23:08 PM
I went through the largest metros to see which ones stood out, and it looks like Sacramento, CA, Tampa, FL, and Pittsburgh, PA are the largest metro areas that lack either a full or partial beltway. Although in all three cases, there is a freeway route for through traffic that bypasses the urban core (I-505, I-75, and I-76, respectively).
You have to get pretty far down the list to find metro areas that have neither a beltway, a partial beltway, or a bypass. Some examples include Hartford, CT, Albany, NY, Worcester, MA, and Baton Rouge, LA.
What happened to Tucson?
I started skimming when I got to that part of the list. That's another good example - probably one of the best in terms of lacking freeways in general.
Quote from: thspfc on February 21, 2021, 06:16:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 19, 2021, 10:07:15 PM
Charleston, WV.
As far as cities that need beltways, don't have them, and will never in a million years get them, Charleston WV is at the top of that list. Plus it's a declining city anyways.
Oh boy that's be great. I HATE driving through Charleston on a busy day. Being able to pass the town from 77-79 or 77-77 would be fantastic and really help reduce congestion
New York City Los Angeles and Philadelphia
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2021, 06:23:08 PM
I went through the largest metros to see which ones stood out, and it looks like Sacramento, CA, Tampa, FL, and Pittsburgh, PA are the largest metro areas that lack either a full or partial beltway. Although in all three cases, there is a freeway route for through traffic that bypasses the urban core (I-505, I-75, and I-76, respectively).
You have to get pretty far down the list to find metro areas that have neither a beltway, a partial beltway, or a bypass. Some examples include Hartford, CT, Albany, NY, Worcester, MA, and Baton Rouge, LA.
In the case of Sacramento, today's I-80 between US 50 and Business 80 was intended as part of a wider belt route around the region, albeit one that would be multiple designations and routes:
I-880 (today's I-80 through Natomas and Del Paso Heights), only portion fully built as intended. Part of it includes a section of parking lots and light rail stations over what would have been an I-80 realignment along railroad right of way from North Highlands southwest to midtown Sacramento, which was partially constructed but halted in 1979 in favor of light rail.
Route 244 (the existing short highway spur from I-80 to Auburn Boulevard, plus a route east approximately along Winding Way corridor through Fair Oaks to US 50 in Gold River)
Route 143 (north-south route from the original planned Route 102/Elkhorn Boulevard corridor, south crossing Route 244 and running parallel to Watt Avenue, to Route 99 in Elk Grove)
Route 148 (east-west route approximately covered by the modern Cosumnes River Boulevard from I-5 in Freeport east to Route 143, but also somewhat reminiscent of the Capital Southeast Corridor project that is currently active)
From Cahighways, here is what the planned belt freeway system would have looked like:
(https://cahighways.org/maps/1963sac.jpg)
LRN 242 - I-880, now post-1982 I-80
LRN 238 - Route 148
LRN 288 - Route 244
LRN 247 - Route 143
80 through Natomas is still called the North Beltline occasionally.
Dallas amazes me with I-635 only being a half circle, but Fort Worth gets full beltway if you count I-20 with I-820. In fact I-20 was I-820 in Fort Worth as I-20 used the old DFW Turnpike and tied into via the US 80 freeway between Terrell and Dallas.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2021, 04:29:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 18, 2021, 04:17:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 01:03:24 PM
Related question: Why would a city not benefit from having a beltway?
At first, I misread this as what city would not benefit from having a beltway.
My answer to that question would be: Binghamton, NY.
I started a thread a while back asking about the most isolated area the closest to a metropolitan area and Miami, FL was the clear winner due to the Everglades.
Then there are cities or metro areas where it's essentially impossible to build one. The Greater Miami area might benefit from a partial beltway around the west side linking the Turnpike and I-95 up around the northern end of the Sawgrass Expressway down to the Homestead area, but no such highway can possibly be constructed any further to the west than the existing Sawgrass, I-75, US-27, and Krome Avenue (FL-997) because of the Everglades, except perhaps all the way at the southern end in the Homestead area. If you're not familiar with the area, it's hard to visualize how dense development abruptly ENDS sharply at the north-south part of the Sawgrass (FL-869) and at US-27, and if you ever go out into the Everglades on a boat, you'd see it would be completely impractical (environmentally, financially, and realistically) and arguably very reprehensible (environmentally) to build an elevated beltway through that area.
Quote from: ibthebigd on February 18, 2021, 06:27:52 PM
Nashville TN could use a full beltway.
SM-G950U
Not going to happen. Too much pollical and local opposition. Nashville needs folks funneling through town as it relies heavily on tourist and sales tax.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 19, 2021, 10:06:40 PM
* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL
Two new Mississippi River crossings? Wow that is huge money. Two jurisdictions to deal with and the cost sharing just will not work. Not to mention that the bridges have to withstand the New Madrid Fault as well.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2021, 09:22:14 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 19, 2021, 10:06:40 PM
* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL
Two new Mississippi River crossings? Wow that is huge money. Two jurisdictions to deal with and the cost sharing just will not work. Not to mention that the bridges have to withstand the New Madrid Fault as well.
Doesn't Memphis only have 2 Mississippi river crossings currently, with 10 lanes total? That's not a lot for a city that's a major freight hub. Compare that to St Louis upstream, which have 23 lanes across 4 bridges crossing the Mississippi for the interstates only + however much from the local roads.
Yes that is correct. Memphis does have two river crossings. There is also one up a ways on I-155/US 412/SR 20.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2021, 09:33:08 AM
Yes that is correct. Memphis does have two river crossings. There is also one up a ways on I-155/US 412/SR 20.
The I-269 freeway should really be extended west of its southern terminus and cross the Mississippi just west of the US 61 and MS 304 intersection and loop north to tie into I-40 west of West Memphis for through I-40 travelers and as a shortcut north to west or east to south.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 22, 2021, 09:58:58 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2021, 09:33:08 AM
Yes that is correct. Memphis does have two river crossings. There is also one up a ways on I-155/US 412/SR 20.
The I-269 freeway should really be extended west of its southern terminus and cross the Mississippi just west of the US 61 and MS 304 intersection and loop north to tie into I-40 west of West Memphis for through I-40 travelers and as a shortcut north to west or east to south.
I personally think I-22 should follow that route, but it's supposed to be a shortcut of 40 so ig it would need only one number.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 22, 2021, 09:58:58 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2021, 09:33:08 AM
Yes that is correct. Memphis does have two river crossings. There is also one up a ways on I-155/US 412/SR 20.
The I-269 freeway should really be extended west of its southern terminus and cross the Mississippi just west of the US 61 and MS 304 intersection and loop north to tie into I-40 west of West Memphis for through I-40 travelers and as a shortcut north to west or east to south.
Tennessee is big on using transient dollars to fund the government. I don't see that happing any time soon.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 22, 2021, 09:27:19 AM
Doesn't Memphis only have 2 Mississippi river crossings currently, with 10 lanes total? That's not a lot for a city that's a major freight hub. Compare that to St Louis upstream, which have 23 lanes across 4 bridges crossing the Mississippi for the interstates only + however much from the local roads.
Memphis doesn't have the same degree of cross-river commuting that St. Louis does.
A third bridge, would help reduce congestion downtown; but there's not enough demand for four bridges, especially in light of the environmental and geological challenges.
In Lincoln, NE, they're building the Lincoln South Beltway (https://dot.nebraska.gov/lincoln-south-beltway/) right now and I think they will do the West Beltway (https://dot.nebraska.gov/projects/bna/first10/fy-2020-2023/lincoln-west-beltway/) project at some point (not sure when).
There's also been talk of an East beltway (https://www.lincoln.ne.gov/City/Departments/LTU/LTU-Projects/Design/East-Beltway)to complete the loop around the city, but that's probably not being built anytime soon. The latest article (https://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/toll-booths-should-be-on-table-as-way-to-build-lincoln-east-beltway-state-transportation/article_18ee588c-db82-5d91-b2b3-7081243f70e4.html) I could find on it said that it's going to be twice as expensive as the South Beltway project.
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Long Beach has entered the chat
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
yes Virginia Beach totally needs a beltway
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Or we could do this case-by-case instead of trying to stick a full beltway around Honolulu and Fresno.
Quote from: Bruce on February 23, 2021, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Or we could do this case-by-case instead of trying to stick a full beltway around Honolulu and Fresno.
We could ask FritzOwl to make a beltway for every city, but here's too busy extending the interstate system to the North Pole.
Austin TX. They built 130 on the east side too far out but there is still a gap on the south end and no connection at all on the west.
Rather than beltways, a grid of freeways is better because it allows for easier expansion should development spread outwards.
Quote from: Bruce on February 23, 2021, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Or we could do this case-by-case instead of trying to stick a full beltway around Honolulu and Fresno.
Fresno kind of has one already.
The urban sprawl phenomenon comes into affect with a beltway. Just look at I-285. Unless I am running into rush hour or lunch traffic I just use I-75 in lieu of I-285 these days.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 23, 2021, 07:34:40 AM
The urban sprawl phenomenon comes into affect effect with a beltway. Just look at I-285. Unless I am running into rush hour or lunch traffic I just use I-75 in lieu of I-285 these days.
There's sprawl along the Acworth/Woodstock/Alpharetta/Johns Creek/Suwanee corridor. No beltway there.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 22, 2021, 09:27:19 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2021, 09:22:14 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 19, 2021, 10:06:40 PM
* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL
Two new Mississippi River crossings? Wow that is huge money. Two jurisdictions to deal with and the cost sharing just will not work. Not to mention that the bridges have to withstand the New Madrid Fault as well.
Doesn't Memphis only have 2 Mississippi river crossings currently, with 10 lanes total? That's not a lot for a city that's a major freight hub. Compare that to St Louis upstream, which have 23 lanes across 4 bridges crossing the Mississippi for the interstates only + however much from the local roads.
In the case for St. Louis there is a pretty sizable population on both sides of the river. Crittenden County, Arkansas only has about 50,000 people. So I don't think there is a need to have as many bridges in Memphis. It's just I-55 and I-40
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)
The Lehigh Valley will need a kinda-sorta beltway in the future to alleviate congestion on 78 and especially 22, though I don't know if it'll ever come to fruition due to the terrain.
Come to think of it (though this has been mentioned), Philadelphia also strangely lacks a bona fide beltway.
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 08:54:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)
Madison has a 3/4 beltway, and the other 1/4 is on the other side of a lake without really much need.
Do you not consider it a beltway, even though part of it is called the Beltline?
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 08:57:23 AM
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 08:54:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)
Madison has a 3/4 beltway, and the other 1/4 is on the other side of a lake without really much need.
Do you not consider it a beltway, even though part of it is called the Beltline?
I do consider the Beltline and I-39/90 to make up three quarters of a full beltway. The last quarter isn't needed super badly, but it would be nice, and the communities that it would connect (Sun Prairie, Windsor, Waunakee, and Middleton) are growing very quickly.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 19, 2021, 10:07:15 PM
Charleston, WV.
Quote from: thspfc on February 21, 2021, 06:16:19 PM
As far as cities that need beltways, don't have them, and will never in a million years get them, Charleston WV is at the top of that list. Plus it's a declining city anyways.
From the day that I-64 was completed into Charleston from the west in 1975, rush hour traffic has been terrible. Connecting I-64/I-77 to the West Virginia Turnpike a year or so later didn't improve anything. Back in the late 1980s, I recall a push to get a 3DI bypass of Charleston from I-64 west to the Turnpike. This effort was short lived. West Virginia simply doesn't have the tax base to solve traffic issues with new freeways.
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 21, 2021, 06:38:47 PM
Oh boy that's be great. I HATE driving through Charleston on a busy day. Being able to pass the town from 77-79 or 77-77 would be fantastic and really help reduce congestion
Most of the through traffic gets funneled through downtown on I-64, but I never considered that north-south traffic on I-77 would also need a bypass.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 23, 2021, 09:20:57 AM
Most of the through traffic gets funneled through downtown on I-64, but I never considered that north-south traffic on I-77 would also need a bypass.
Charleston have a bypass for the 77-79 movement already though. It's US 19.
As for 64-turnpike, there's also the US 35 connection to 64, which links up the area to Ohio and the upper midwest. That brings in a lot of traffic too. So something could be done there.
Philly already practically has a full-freeway beltway; it's just a bit awkward, has several different route numbers, may involve numerous tolls, and isn't useable due to a few key interchanges missing.
Surrounding Philly, starting southwest of the city, going clockwise from I-95: You have I-476, I-276 (PA Turnpike), I-95 into NJ (PA/NJ Turnpikes), 295, 130, 322, then North on 95 for a few miles back to 476.
In its simplest form, there are only 2 ramps missing to complete a full beltway, and they are already proposed (and should have been built several years ago): The 276 East to 295 East ramp and the 295 West to 276 West ramp at the new PA Turnpike interchange for 95. With this, there will be a full, non-stop beltway around not only Philly, but Trenton as well.
Other options, which are much more expensive, a bit of fantasy, but not necessarily fictional:
Ramps from the NJ/PA Extension in NJ between I-95 and I-295.
Replace much of the I-295 option in NJ and use the NJ Turnpike instead: New Ramps between the NJ Turnpike and NJ 42, connecting into the new missing moves ramps with 42 and 295.
Replace the entire I-295 option in NJ and use the NJ Turnpike instead: Build a 322 Freeway between the NJ Turnpike Interchange 2 or vicinity and the Commodore Barry Bridge.
With any of the above options, we can utilize a single Interstate Route Number to denote the beltway, having it run concurrent with the existing route. I-895 would be an obvious choice with I-95 running thru Philly, but I-876 would be just as effective, as I-76 runs fully thru 2 of the 4 options above.
While some of this appears to be more fictional than function, realize that, again, talking simple, Philly is just less than a mile of pavement away via 2 ramps from having what would pass as a fully functional beltway.
Some people have commented about Tucson, and there is an interesting story here. AZ did freeways a bit different, starting rural, and working their way to the cities. This basically caused cities in AZ to not have freeways in/around them until very recently, in the 80's and 90's. Phoenix started building freeways to sole every bit of traffic they had. Makes sense. But Tucson? Tucson just connected the freeways to get traffic off of local roads. While Phoenix has a very large amount of sprawl, Tucson doesn't. And I'll let you guess why. Attempts have been made to build more freeways in Tucson, but the city has decidedly said "NO F&@$ING WAY!!!" several times. And, from what I hear, Tucson has only a smallish amount of traffic during rush hour. I remember all this from a video I watched, but can't find it. If anyone else knows the video I am talking about, feel free to link it.
Some of the examples listed here make me think we should differentiate between cities which need beltways and don't have them vs. cities that don't have beltways but don't need them.
Regarding Phoenix vs. Tucson, as I understand it, Phoenix was already starting to sprawl even before the freeways were built, and the growth was overwhelming the transportation system.
One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city. In the case of Tucson, I don't think a beltway would reduce congestion on I-10 through the city.
Detroit has a beltway that isn't even considered a beltway. It's called I-69. From where I-94 meets I-69 at I-94's exit 108 it is a lot quicker to take I-69 to Port Huron than it is to stay on I-94. US-23 is considered a Detroit bypass too. I-275 and I-696 do not do any justice for bypassing Detroit.
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 01:35:14 PM
One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city. In the case of Tucson, I don't think a beltway would reduce congestion on I-10 through the city.
Very true, much like how many a city has had a bypass that's just as congested as the route it's meant to relieve, and sometimes worse....cough cough the 405 in Southern California or 205 in Portland 😁
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 01:35:14 PM
One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city. In the case of Tucson, I don't think a beltway would reduce congestion on I-10 through the city.
Not if it was circle shaped. If it was an oval, then it might, as through I-10 and I-10>I-19 traffic would consider using it.
Quote from: I-55 on February 22, 2021, 11:20:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Long Beach has entered the chat
And so has residents of metro LA not realizing they live in the suburbs, not their own city. :)
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 04:43:18 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 23, 2021, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Or we could do this case-by-case instead of trying to stick a full beltway around Honolulu and Fresno.
Fresno kind of has one already.
Huh? I'm not seeing it... Or do you mean the tiny triangle around downtown?
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 01:35:14 PM
One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city.
I've wondered on more than one occasion if anyone drives I-20/635 all the way around Dallas rather than using I-35E through downtown. Likewise, I-20/820 all the way around Fort Worth rather than using I-35W through downtown.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 08:41:31 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 22, 2021, 09:27:19 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2021, 09:22:14 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 19, 2021, 10:06:40 PM
* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL
Two new Mississippi River crossings? Wow that is huge money. Two jurisdictions to deal with and the cost sharing just will not work. Not to mention that the bridges have to withstand the New Madrid Fault as well.
Doesn't Memphis only have 2 Mississippi river crossings currently, with 10 lanes total? That's not a lot for a city that's a major freight hub. Compare that to St Louis upstream, which have 23 lanes across 4 bridges crossing the Mississippi for the interstates only + however much from the local roads.
In the case for St. Louis there is a pretty sizable population on both sides of the river. Crittenden County, Arkansas only has about 50,000 people. So I don't think there is a need to have as many bridges in Memphis. It's just I-55 and I-40
Almost all long distance traffic from the northeast and Ohio to Texas, especially truck ones, goes through Memphis. Not sure about the ground transportation, but MEM airport is a FedEx fortress hub, so I assume there's a good amount of ground freight transportation just because of that. Think Memphis can take a 3rd bridge or a widening of one of the two current bridges.
My most frequent forays through Charleston have been I-64 east to I-79 north, or I-79 south to I-64 west. Less frequently have I done a through route on I-64 where it picks up or drops I-77.
My biggest issues with Charleston traffic have always been from the Kanawha River bridge at the US 119 exit, west through South Charleston to the Cross Lanes area (or vice-versa if heading east). I've never really encountered a lot of congestion in downtown Charleston or at the 64-77 split or 77-79 interchange. The new bridge between South Charleston and Dunbar on I-64 has helped some.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 23, 2021, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 08:41:31 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 22, 2021, 09:27:19 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2021, 09:22:14 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 19, 2021, 10:06:40 PM
* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL
Two new Mississippi River crossings? Wow that is huge money. Two jurisdictions to deal with and the cost sharing just will not work. Not to mention that the bridges have to withstand the New Madrid Fault as well.
Doesn't Memphis only have 2 Mississippi river crossings currently, with 10 lanes total? That's not a lot for a city that's a major freight hub. Compare that to St Louis upstream, which have 23 lanes across 4 bridges crossing the Mississippi for the interstates only + however much from the local roads.
In the case for St. Louis there is a pretty sizable population on both sides of the river. Crittenden County, Arkansas only has about 50,000 people. So I don't think there is a need to have as many bridges in Memphis. It's just I-55 and I-40
Almost all long distance traffic from the northeast and Ohio to Texas, especially truck ones, goes through Memphis. Not sure about the ground transportation, but MEM airport is a FedEx fortress hub, so I assume there's a good amount of ground freight transportation just because of that. Think Memphis can take a 3rd bridge or a widening of one of the two current bridges.
I'm looking at the AADT on the bridges in Memphis. The I-55 bridge had an AADT of 62,355 in 2016. The I-40 bridge had an AADT of 37,308 in 2018. So just under 100,000 total.
Now in St. Louis how are you going to count this? You want just the Interstate's or all bridges?
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 10:35:49 PM
Doesn't need to be an interstate, nor a full beltway, but something for Lafayette, IN to make access to Purdue from both directions of I-65 easier.
That's one that could be argued, IMO -- Sagamore Pkwy was the original 52 bypass (yes, I'm showing my age -- I remember when Northwestern Ave. was 52/231), then I-65 became the bypass of that. Now, you've got the 231 bypass to the WEST of campus, and arguably, the old back way into West Lafayette (the 231 Roundgrove exit) could be widened from two to four lanes down to 52 and the new bypass (do they cross, or is there an overlap? I haven't been through Lafayette since the new roadway was opened) from the northwest of Purdue to make a western and southern belt.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 23, 2021, 02:18:48 PM
Almost all long distance traffic from the northeast and Ohio to Texas, especially truck ones, goes through Memphis. Not sure about the ground transportation, but MEM airport is a FedEx fortress hub, so I assume there's a good amount of ground freight transportation just because of that. Think Memphis can take a 3rd bridge or a widening of one of the two current bridges.
I'm looking at the AADT on the bridges in Memphis. The I-55 bridge had an AADT of 62,355 in 2016. The I-40 bridge had an AADT of 37,308 in 2018. So just under 100,000 total.
Now in St. Louis how are you going to count this? You want just the Interstate's or all bridges?
I didn't know I-40's was that low, thought it would be double of that number as it has more lanes than the I-55 bridge.
For St Louis, just the 4 interstate bridges (255, 55/64, 70, 270). St Louis would be naturally higher though, with more than double the lane count over the Mississippi river on the interstate bridges. Though is there a site that you can see the percentage of truck traffic on a certain bridge or roadway? My guess is that Memphis's truck percentage is higher than StL's with the cargo hub.
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 09:03:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 08:57:23 AM
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 08:54:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)
Madison has a 3/4 beltway, and the other 1/4 is on the other side of a lake without really much need.
Do you not consider it a beltway, even though part of it is called the Beltline?
I do consider the Beltline and I-39/90 to make up three quarters of a full beltway. The last quarter isn't needed super badly, but it would be nice, and the communities that it would connect (Sun Prairie, Windsor, Waunakee, and Middleton) are growing very quickly.
What's tough for those who haven't experienced it directly to really understand is that the Beltline is *THE* only way to move traffic across town. US 151/E Wash isn't a good through traffic route or even a good access route from 90/94 to downtown, and there is obviously no access from the north or northwest because of geography. Your options are to take 12 in from Baraboo if you're going to Middleton or the west side, or take 90 to the Beltline if you're going to downtown or the east side.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 23, 2021, 05:47:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 09:03:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 08:57:23 AM
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 08:54:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)
Madison has a 3/4 beltway, and the other 1/4 is on the other side of a lake without really much need.
Do you not consider it a beltway, even though part of it is called the Beltline?
I do consider the Beltline and I-39/90 to make up three quarters of a full beltway. The last quarter isn't needed super badly, but it would be nice, and the communities that it would connect (Sun Prairie, Windsor, Waunakee, and Middleton) are growing very quickly.
What's tough for those who haven't experienced it directly to really understand is that the Beltline is *THE* only way to move traffic across town. US 151/E Wash isn't a good through traffic route or even a good access route from 90/94 to downtown, and there is obviously no access from the north or northwest because of geography. Your options are to take 12 in from Baraboo if you're going to Middleton or the west side, or take 90 to the Beltline if you're going to downtown or the east side.
Exactly. I've sort-of-joked, sort-of-seriously said before that there are only two roads you need to know to get around the Madison area, I-39/90/94 and the Beltline.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 23, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 23, 2021, 02:18:48 PM
Almost all long distance traffic from the northeast and Ohio to Texas, especially truck ones, goes through Memphis. Not sure about the ground transportation, but MEM airport is a FedEx fortress hub, so I assume there's a good amount of ground freight transportation just because of that. Think Memphis can take a 3rd bridge or a widening of one of the two current bridges.
I'm looking at the AADT on the bridges in Memphis. The I-55 bridge had an AADT of 62,355 in 2016. The I-40 bridge had an AADT of 37,308 in 2018. So just under 100,000 total.
Now in St. Louis how are you going to count this? You want just the Interstate's or all bridges?
I didn't know I-40's was that low, thought it would be double of that number as it has more lanes than the I-55 bridge.
For St Louis, just the 4 interstate bridges (255, 55/64, 70, 270). St Louis would be naturally higher though, with more than double the lane count over the Mississippi river on the interstate bridges. Though is there a site that you can see the percentage of truck traffic on a certain bridge or roadway? My guess is that Memphis's truck percentage is higher than StL's with the cargo hub.
Ok for St. Louis anyway this is what I got.
I-255 is 63,199 but the number is from 2008 I'm sure there is a more current number available though. 6 lanes
I-55/64 is 106,500 from 2014 so this bridge alone blows both bridges combined in Memphis away and is 9 lanes.
The Stan Span is 53,700 I can't figure out what year it's from but the bridge opened in 2014 so it isn't too old. 4 lanes on this one but expandable to 6.
I-270 is 56,800 and it's 4 lanes.
So 280,199 for St. Louis on 4 bridges with 23 lanes which comes down to 12,183 per lane and 70,050 per bridge. Not sure about how much of it is truck traffic in either city.
For Memphis the I-40 bridge has 6 lanes and the I-55 bridge has 4 lanes so 10 total with an AADT of 99,563 so 9,966 per lane and 49,782 per bridge.
I'm not sure how many truckers would take I-70 to I-57 south and then stay on I-55 south to I-40 on the Arkansas side of the river not even crossing either bridge on their way to Texas. Honestly my favorite Interstate across the western part of the country is I-40 but if you are coming from the Northeast you might meet up with I-40 on I-55 on the forementioned Arkansas side of the river. These numbers seem kind of low to me too so not sure on that one.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 08:26:53 PM
I'm not sure how many truckers would take I-70 to I-57 south and then stay on I-55 south to I-40 on the Arkansas side of the river not even crossing either bridge on their way to Texas. Honestly my favorite Interstate across the western part of the country is I-40 but if you are coming from the Northeast you might meet up with I-40 on I-55 on the forementioned Arkansas side of the river. These numbers seem kind of low to me too so not sure on that one.
Here's my general list for the best routing from Midwest cities to TX, and there's pretty much 2 routings from West Memphis norteastward: I-55/57 and I-40/65. The former group doesn't require the Memphis bridges, and will be even more viable when I-57 gets extended to Little Rock. West of West Memphis, they're all I-40/30 for Dallas, I-40/30/35 for Austin and Fort Worth, I-40/30/US 59 for Houston.
I-55/57 CitiesChicago (55/57)
Milwaukee (55/57/94)
Indianapolis (55/57/70)
Grand Rapids (55/57/80/94/196)
Ft Wayne (55/57/70/69)
Detroit (55/57/70/69/US 24/75)
Toronto (55/57/70/69/US 24/75/ON 401)
I-40/65 CitiesLouisville (40/65)
Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland (40/65/71)
Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse (40/65/71/90)
Pittsburgh (40/65/71/70)
East of the I-40/65/71 cities, there's the I-40/81 cities, which are pretty much the remaining cities in the northeast. They would also cross the Memphis bridges when heading into TX.
I'm not sure which cities out of the ones I listed above have more truckers, but my guess are that Chicago and Detroit would be the most.
Quote from: US 89 on February 18, 2021, 05:04:14 PM
Easy. Albuquerque.
A beltway was planned at one point - see this article (https://betterburque.org/2018/07/16/burque-roadway-history-1989-proposed-inner-beltway/) - but the only part of it that ever got built was the freeway bit of Paseo del Norte between Coors and 2nd St (this has since been extended slightly further east to Jefferson). The rest of Paseo and Tramway probably could have been converted to freeways if not for NIMBYs and otherwise poor planning by NMDOT.
(https://betterburque.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/proposed-inner-beltway.jpg)
In an ideal world, Coors would have also been a freeway or at least a high-grade expressway with ROW to put in interchanges if needed. The full system interchange at 40 looks nice, but it's dumb when you consider that the rest of Coors is stoplight hell. It's too late now but there really should have been some better access control on that.
NMDOT not only dropped the ball, they then kicked it a few times. Albuquerque could build a southwest quadrant of a beltway but that is probably it. Topography and sprawl have hemmed them in, and outside of extremely large influx of money, permanently.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 23, 2021, 08:41:31 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 22, 2021, 09:27:19 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2021, 09:22:14 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 19, 2021, 10:06:40 PM
* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL
Two new Mississippi River crossings? Wow that is huge money. Two jurisdictions to deal with and the cost sharing just will not work. Not to mention that the bridges have to withstand the New Madrid Fault as well.
Doesn't Memphis only have 2 Mississippi river crossings currently, with 10 lanes total? That's not a lot for a city that's a major freight hub. Compare that to St Louis upstream, which have 23 lanes across 4 bridges crossing the Mississippi for the interstates only + however much from the local roads.
In the case for St. Louis there is a pretty sizable population on both sides of the river. Crittenden County, Arkansas only has about 50,000 people. So I don't think there is a need to have as many bridges in Memphis. It's just I-55 and I-40
Arkansas' insistence on folks paying state income tax has a lot to do with that. The state used to give a pass to people who lived in Texarkana because Texas doesn't have a state income tax. It never gave that benefit to West Memphis even though Tennessee doesn't have a state income tax either.
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 06:16:40 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 23, 2021, 05:47:28 PM
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 09:03:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 08:57:23 AM
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 08:54:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)
Madison has a 3/4 beltway, and the other 1/4 is on the other side of a lake without really much need.
Do you not consider it a beltway, even though part of it is called the Beltline?
I do consider the Beltline and I-39/90 to make up three quarters of a full beltway. The last quarter isn't needed super badly, but it would be nice, and the communities that it would connect (Sun Prairie, Windsor, Waunakee, and Middleton) are growing very quickly.
What's tough for those who haven't experienced it directly to really understand is that the Beltline is *THE* only way to move traffic across town. US 151/E Wash isn't a good through traffic route or even a good access route from 90/94 to downtown, and there is obviously no access from the north or northwest because of geography. Your options are to take 12 in from Baraboo if you're going to Middleton or the west side, or take 90 to the Beltline if you're going to downtown or the east side.
Exactly. I've sort-of-joked, sort-of-seriously said before that there are only two roads you need to know to get around the Madison area, I-39/90/94 and the Beltline.
There has been talk of a "North Mendota Parkway" over the years connecting the Beltline just north of Middleton with I-39/90/94 by upgrading county highways and WIS 19, but it hasn't gone anywhere, and wouldn't be a freeway. It's probably not going to happen, too much opposition.
Detroit needs one for sure. Though US 23 is a great through route for I-75 users being freeway all the way, but I-275 should be extended north to meet I-75 again.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 24, 2021, 11:33:09 AM
Detroit needs one for sure. Though US 23 is a great through route for I-75 users being freeway all the way, but I-275 should be extended north to meet I-75 again.
How is I-275 going to be extended? Detroit has a couple bypasses that aren't really considered bypasses, I-69 between Marshall and Port Huron is one, US-23 between Flint and Toledo is another one. I-275 was suppose to meet I-75 again near Davisburg but there are too many lakes and too much development between I-275's northern terminus and Davisburg that I-275 can't be built to rejoin I-75.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 24, 2021, 12:44:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 24, 2021, 11:33:09 AM
Detroit needs one for sure. Though US 23 is a great through route for I-75 users being freeway all the way, but I-275 should be extended north to meet I-75 again.
How is I-275 going to be extended? Detroit has a couple bypasses that aren't really considered bypasses, I-69 between Marshall and Port Huron is one, US-23 between Flint and Toledo is another one. I-275 was suppose to meet I-75 again near Davisburg but there are too many lakes and too much development between I-275's northern terminus and Davisburg that I-275 can't be built to rejoin I-75.
275 would've been tough to get through even in the 1960s as there already appeared to be significant development along the lakes then!
Quote from: ftballfan on February 24, 2021, 10:14:21 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 24, 2021, 12:44:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 24, 2021, 11:33:09 AM
Detroit needs one for sure. Though US 23 is a great through route for I-75 users being freeway all the way, but I-275 should be extended north to meet I-75 again.
How is I-275 going to be extended? Detroit has a couple bypasses that aren't really considered bypasses, I-69 between Marshall and Port Huron is one, US-23 between Flint and Toledo is another one. I-275 was suppose to meet I-75 again near Davisburg but there are too many lakes and too much development between I-275's northern terminus and Davisburg that I-275 can't be built to rejoin I-75.
275 would've been tough to get through even in the 1960s as there already appeared to be significant development along the lakes then!
Yeah my guess is that the development started in the 50's when Detroit started it's long decline.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 22, 2021, 08:56:00 AM
Dallas amazes me with I-635 only being a half circle, but Fort Worth gets full beltway if you count I-20 with I-820. In fact I-20 was I-820 in Fort Worth as I-20 used the old DFW Turnpike and tied into via the US 80 freeway between Terrell and Dallas.
I think that partially had to do with the presence of Loop 12. It was upgraded to a freeway on the west side of Dallas between Texas 183/35E and I-20 (via Spur 408). The PGBT now serves essentially as the final connector of I-635.
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 02:12:05 PM
Quote from: I-55 on February 22, 2021, 11:20:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Long Beach has entered the chat
And so has residents of metro LA not realizing they live in the suburbs, not their own city. :)
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 04:43:18 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 23, 2021, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Or we could do this case-by-case instead of trying to stick a full beltway around Honolulu and Fresno.
Fresno kind of has one already.
Huh? I'm not seeing it... Or do you mean the tiny triangle around downtown?
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 01:35:14 PM
One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city.
I've wondered on more than one occasion if anyone drives I-20/635 all the way around Dallas rather than using I-35E through downtown. Likewise, I-20/820 all the way around Fort Worth rather than using I-35W through downtown.
I certainly can't imagine anyone driving the LBJ Freeway to get around Dallas. The stretch between 35E and Central Expressway arguably had the worst traffic in the county 20 years ago. Maybe Loop 820 is just as bad, but the traffic on it was always fairly light in my experience.
Dallas is a nightmare to drive through. I did it about 7 years ago and it took awhile to get through Dallas I'm talking like two hours.
There's also I-275 in Cincinnati. Traffic levels can't compare to the Dallas freeways, but it takes you so out of the way that I don't see long distance traffic using it as a bypass for its parent highway I-75 at all. It's slightly more feasible as a bypass for I-71, but still adds a lot of miles. I have used it as a bypass for I-71 before, but only when traffic in the section of I-71 between it is pretty bad. It works well for I-74 E to I-71 N (I have done that many times), but if you're driving long distance wanting to bypass Cincinnati and end up having to use that movement, I-70 is the better bypass. And for the I-74 E to I-75 S movement, specifically Indy to Lexington, I think more drivers go through Louisville than Cincinnati for that trip because of how out of the way I-275 takes you.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 02, 2021, 10:56:32 AM
There's also I-275 in Cincinnati. Traffic levels can't compare to the Dallas freeways, but it takes you so out of the way that I don't see long distance traffic using it as a bypass for its parent highway I-75 at all. It's slightly more feasible as a bypass for I-71, but still adds a lot of miles. I have used it as a bypass for I-71 before, but only when traffic in the section of I-71 between it is pretty bad. It works well for I-74 E to I-71 N (I have done that many times), but if you're driving long distance wanting to bypass Cincinnati and end up having to use that movement, I-70 is the better bypass. And for the I-74 E to I-75 S movement, specifically Indy to Lexington, I think more drivers go through Louisville than Cincinnati for that trip because of how out of the way I-275 takes you.
Kind of reminds me of my dad asking me if he should stay on 75 to go through Cincinnati or around it, same thing with Atlanta, should I stay on 75 or go around it. My answer for both was to stay on 75 and my reasoning is for Cincinnati you already mentioned it I-275 takes you too far out of the way for it to be an effective bypass of Cincinnati. Now for Atlanta you have I-285 so I answered that question with a question of my own, if you were to take I-285 what exactly are you bypassing? You're still going to be contending with a lot of traffic, it's longer in distance and of course that would mean it's going to be longer in time as well. Well he listened to me for Cincinnati but he didn't listen to me for Atlanta and all I heard about Atlanta is how fast they drive and how much traffic there is. So I was like right so taking I-285 isn't bypassing Atlanta it's just putting you in another area of the metro that you don't need to be.
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2021, 02:12:05 PM
Quote from: I-55 on February 22, 2021, 11:20:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Long Beach has entered the chat
And so has residents of metro LA not realizing they live in the suburbs, not their own city. :)
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2021, 04:43:18 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 23, 2021, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 22, 2021, 10:36:36 PM
Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.
Or we could do this case-by-case instead of trying to stick a full beltway around Honolulu and Fresno.
Fresno kind of has one already.
Huh? I'm not seeing it... Or do you mean the tiny triangle around downtown?
Quote from: thspfc on February 23, 2021, 01:35:14 PM
One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city.
I've wondered on more than one occasion if anyone drives I-20/635 all the way around Dallas rather than using I-35E through downtown. Likewise, I-20/820 all the way around Fort Worth rather than using I-35W through downtown.
Using Loop 12 and I-20 is a pretty good bypass for I-35E.
iPhone
Quote from: bassoon1986 on March 02, 2021, 12:52:57 PM
Using Loop 12 and I-20 is a pretty good bypass for I-35E.
Yes, and I've done that. Unfortunately, Loop-12 can have its own traffic jams.
Do beltways, and the development they spur, in time necessitate another beltway??
Seems to be the case in Houston. Beltway 8 was meant to be an outer beltway, and then Grand Parkway an outer outer beltway??
It's much like a bypass being just as congested as the route it was meant to relieve....or often worse (see 405 California)
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 02, 2021, 07:08:43 PM
Do beltways, and the development they spur, in time necessitate another beltway??
Seems to be the case in Houston. Beltway 8 was meant to be an outer beltway, and then Grand Parkway an outer outer beltway??
It's much like a bypass being just as congested as the route it was meant to relieve....or often worse (see 405 California)
This never happened with I-495 in Massachusetts. The southern two thirds doesn't have sprawl congestion. (The northern third serves a dual purpose, connecting Lowell-Lawrence-Haverhill, so it isn't comparable to a typical outer beltway.)
Nashville could use a full one. There are two pseudo ones in SR 155 and I-840, but neither goes all the way around.
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 09:12:29 PM
Nashville could use a full one. There are two pseudo ones in SR 155 and I-840, but neither goes all the way around.
I'm looking at Nashville, and wondering why I-440 is built the way it is instead of using TN 155 south of I-40, eventually forming into a full beltway with the rest of TN 155. At their closest point, those two roads are only 1200 feet apart, and about 2200 feet apart at the I-65 junction
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 02, 2021, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 09:12:29 PM
Nashville could use a full one. There are two pseudo ones in SR 155 and I-840, but neither goes all the way around.
I'm looking at Nashville, and wondering why I-440 is built the way it is instead of using TN 155 south of I-40, eventually forming into a full beltway with the rest of TN 155. At their closest point, those two roads are only 1200 feet apart, and about 2200 feet apart at the I-65 junction
That's an excellent question. Probably a lack of foresight.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 02, 2021, 10:56:32 AM
And for the I-74 E to I-75 S movement, specifically Indy to Lexington, I think more drivers go through Louisville than Cincinnati for that trip because of how out of the way I-275 takes you.
Nope. I have to make a conscious decision to go through Louisville because you have to go through downtown. Every routing service I've ever used (software, AAA, Google Maps, etc.) picks 75-275-74 as the first choice over 64-65. And now that there's a toll required to cross the river on I-65, I'd think even more long-distance traffic would shunpike. Traffic, in my experience, has also been lighter on I-74 than I-65. I will automatically choose going through (around) Cincy over going through Louisville.
I used I-275 as a bypass of I-75 once. I was coming south and there was a game going on (can't remember if it was a Reds game or a Bengals game) and I knew traffic around the river would be a mess. I would rather drive and go out of my way and keep moving than sit still or barely move in traffic.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2021, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 02, 2021, 10:56:32 AM
And for the I-74 E to I-75 S movement, specifically Indy to Lexington, I think more drivers go through Louisville than Cincinnati for that trip because of how out of the way I-275 takes you.
Nope. I have to make a conscious decision to go through Louisville because you have to go through downtown. Every routing service I've ever used (software, AAA, Google Maps, etc.) picks 75-275-74 as the first choice over 64-65. And now that there's a toll required to cross the river on I-65, I'd think even more long-distance traffic would shunpike. Traffic, in my experience, has also been lighter on I-74 than I-65. I will automatically choose going through (around) Cincy over going through Louisville.
Google, at least right now, seems to think it's basically a toss-up. If downtown Louisville is a concern, what's wrong with the Lewis and Clark Bridge? Too expensive?
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2021, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 02, 2021, 10:56:32 AM
And for the I-74 E to I-75 S movement, specifically Indy to Lexington, I think more drivers go through Louisville than Cincinnati for that trip because of how out of the way I-275 takes you.
Nope. I have to make a conscious decision to go through Louisville because you have to go through downtown. Every routing service I've ever used (software, AAA, Google Maps, etc.) picks 75-275-74 as the first choice over 64-65. And now that there's a toll required to cross the river on I-65, I'd think even more long-distance traffic would shunpike. Traffic, in my experience, has also been lighter on I-74 than I-65. I will automatically choose going through (around) Cincy over going through Louisville.
Hmm... I just did a search between Indy and Lexington on Google Maps, and the Louisville routing seems to be the first choice even with the No Tolls option on (it have you use the US 31 bridge into Louisville instead of I-65), but it's only 2 minutes faster with no traffic compared to the 74-275-75 routing, so I think it's still safe to say that the Cincinnati routing is better as it's all freeway. The section of I-275 between I-74 and the airport is a pretty nice drive though, with rolling hills and little traffic.
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 09:20:26 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 02, 2021, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 09:12:29 PM
Nashville could use a full one. There are two pseudo ones in SR 155 and I-840, but neither goes all the way around.
I'm looking at Nashville, and wondering why I-440 is built the way it is instead of using TN 155 south of I-40, eventually forming into a full beltway with the rest of TN 155. At their closest point, those two roads are only 1200 feet apart, and about 2200 feet apart at the I-65 junction
That's an excellent question. Probably a lack of foresight.
It wasn't lack of foresight. It was planned that way. The people in power did not want Nashville to be fully bypassed.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 07:26:30 AM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 09:20:26 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 02, 2021, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 09:12:29 PM
Nashville could use a full one. There are two pseudo ones in SR 155 and I-840, but neither goes all the way around.
I'm looking at Nashville, and wondering why I-440 is built the way it is instead of using TN 155 south of I-40, eventually forming into a full beltway with the rest of TN 155. At their closest point, those two roads are only 1200 feet apart, and about 2200 feet apart at the I-65 junction
That's an excellent question. Probably a lack of foresight.
It wasn't lack of foresight. It was planned that way. The people in power did not want Nashville to be fully bypassed.
And now we suffer the consequences of lack of foresight, but that's ok because Tennessee is overbuilt as it is right?
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:44:25 AM
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
At least right now, it seems Louisville would be better as it is slightly less crowded and you don't have to deal with the Brent Spence bridge drama.
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:47:06 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:44:25 AM
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
At least right now, it seems Louisville would be better as it is slightly less crowded and you don't have to deal with the Brent Spence bridge drama.
You use I-275 around Cincinnati with the Cincy routing and avoid downtown/Brent Spence. I don't know how I-65 between Indy and Louisville is like (as I have no reason to use it from all 3 cities I lived in) though, but as mentioned earlier, I-74 isn't that bad in terms on traffic.
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:43:28 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 07:26:30 AM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 09:20:26 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 02, 2021, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 02, 2021, 09:12:29 PM
Nashville could use a full one. There are two pseudo ones in SR 155 and I-840, but neither goes all the way around.
I'm looking at Nashville, and wondering why I-440 is built the way it is instead of using TN 155 south of I-40, eventually forming into a full beltway with the rest of TN 155. At their closest point, those two roads are only 1200 feet apart, and about 2200 feet apart at the I-65 junction
That's an excellent question. Probably a lack of foresight.
It wasn't lack of foresight. It was planned that way. The people in power did not want Nashville to be fully bypassed.
And now we suffer the consequences of lack of foresight, but that's ok because Tennessee is overbuilt as it is right?
No way a beltway will cure your woes with Nashville traffic. The city is not a grid layout type of city. The terrain, environmental issues and high dollar property forces the way the roads are built in the area.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 03, 2021, 09:04:32 AM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:47:06 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:44:25 AM
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
At least right now, it seems Louisville would be better as it is slightly less crowded and you don't have to deal with the Brent Spence bridge drama.
You use I-275 around Cincinnati with the Cincy routing and avoid downtown/Brent Spence. I don't know how I-65 between Indy and Louisville is like (as I have no reason to use it from all 3 cities I lived in) though, but as mentioned earlier, I-74 isn't that bad in terms on traffic.
I-65 from Indy to Louisville is okay, but will be better when it's completely three-laned as a lot of trucks run that road. Also there's the pesky (but thankfully toll-by-plate) toll entering Kentucky
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:47:06 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:44:25 AM
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
At least right now, it seems Louisville would be better as it is slightly less crowded and you don't have to deal with the Brent Spence bridge drama.
Right. I think the Brent Spence is the single most frustrating thing about driving through Cincinnati.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 03, 2021, 09:04:32 AM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:47:06 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:44:25 AM
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
At least right now, it seems Louisville would be better as it is slightly less crowded and you don't have to deal with the Brent Spence bridge drama.
You use I-275 around Cincinnati with the Cincy routing and avoid downtown/Brent Spence. I don't know how I-65 between Indy and Louisville is like (as I have no reason to use it from all 3 cities I lived in) though, but as mentioned earlier, I-74 isn't that bad in terms on traffic.
I-65 between Indy and Louisville is better than I-75 and I-71 south of Cincinnati and I-74 or I-75 in Cincinnati. Louisville isn't as big of a traffic problem as Cincinnati is.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:47:06 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:44:25 AM
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
At least right now, it seems Louisville would be better as it is slightly less crowded and you don't have to deal with the Brent Spence bridge drama.
Right. I think the Brent Spence is the single most frustrating thing about driving through Cincinnati.
Will be even more frustrating for the next 8 months as they're closing half of the lanes for maintenance work.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 03, 2021, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:47:06 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:44:25 AM
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
At least right now, it seems Louisville would be better as it is slightly less crowded and you don't have to deal with the Brent Spence bridge drama.
Right. I think the Brent Spence is the single most frustrating thing about driving through Cincinnati.
Will be even more frustrating for the next 8 months as they're closing half of the lanes for maintenance work.
Nice I'm thinking about bypassing Cincinnati for awhile now.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:47:06 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:44:25 AM
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
At least right now, it seems Louisville would be better as it is slightly less crowded and you don't have to deal with the Brent Spence bridge drama.
Right. I think the Brent Spence is the single most frustrating thing about driving through Cincinnati.
Disagree, unless there's an event at one of the stadiums. My biggest frustration is the bottleneck between the Norwood Lateral and the Paddock Road exit.
State College is growing quite fast. It might very well need a beltway sometime soon.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2021, 10:21:04 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: I-39 on March 03, 2021, 08:47:06 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 08:44:25 AM
From Indy to Lexington it's roughly the same time and distance going through Cincinnati as it is Louisville.
At least right now, it seems Louisville would be better as it is slightly less crowded and you don't have to deal with the Brent Spence bridge drama.
Right. I think the Brent Spence is the single most frustrating thing about driving through Cincinnati.
Disagree, unless there's an event at one of the stadiums. My biggest frustration is the bottleneck between the Norwood Lateral and the Paddock Road exit.
I haven't always encountered traffic problems in that stretch but have always encountered something just before crossing the river.
Have you tried US 25?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 06, 2021, 02:47:29 PM
Have you tried US 25?
You mean to cross the river or bypass I-75 or something? US-25 is only on the Kentucky side though but I have used US-25 before for long distance travel as well.
The I-471 bridge is another alternative to Brent Spence. There's signs on I-71 S in the Ohio side that tells airport traffic to use I-471 to I-275.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 06, 2021, 03:14:11 PM
The I-471 bridge is another alternative to Brent Spence. There's signs on I-71 S in the Ohio side that tells airport traffic to use I-471 to I-275.
The only problem with that is if the Brent Spence Bridge is open and not much of a problem it's 10 miles back to I-75 once you get to I-275.
The only cities in CA that topographically lend themselves to the beltway concept are in the San Joaquin/Sacramento Valley; if limited to 250K+ population, that would constitute five: Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton, and Sacramento. The last one, previously discussed, missed its opportunity with the 1978 round of recissions; even then, lacking a Sacramento River crossing at in the Elk Grove/Freeport area, a real beltway not shunted through downtown via I-5 would be missing one quadrant. Currently, there's not a snowball's chance in hell of new full-freeway construction in Sacramento County for both political & economic reasons -- development occupies the areas up to and into the Sierra foothills, and even if there was consensus that a beltway was necessary, the cost of securing a reasonable ROW is prohibitive. Fresno might well be the only Valley city where a true beltway, albeit one that utilizes several existing highway corridors, including the longstanding CA 65 corridor as the eastern leg, might be marginally feasible as well as warranted. But the current system there resembles pre-Interstate L.A. modes -- radial routes largely following existing state highway corridors. AFAIK, no one has formally -- or even seriously -- proposed a loop around the south, west, and north perimeters of Fresno to complete a functional belt route. Perhaps the gargantuan agribusinesses that dominate the west side of the valley have put a kibosh on any such activity that would disrupt their operations. And with the other three significant city/metro areas on the list, beltways aren't actually warranted -- and Stockton's west side would be out in the Delta anyway. Regardless, the chances for any actual beltway in CA aren't terribly promising.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 06, 2021, 09:58:39 AM
State College is growing quite fast. It might very well need a beltway sometime soon.
I'd agree to help with the lobbying for that... IF Pennsylvania will decommission I-99 in favor of US 220 (or even make it a 3-di) AND build the missing I-70 ramps at Breeezewood first. :biggrin:
Quote from: ftballfan on March 03, 2021, 01:17:36 PM
... Also there's the pesky (but thankfully toll-by-plate) toll entering Kentucky
One can get around that quite easily by hopping off I-65 onto US 31 and using the George Rogers Clark Memorial Bridge (a/k/a Second Street Bridge) to cross the Ohio River. Then, after a few blocks of downtown Louisville traffic (which is generally light unless there's a game at the neighboring KFC Yum! Center), you can zip back onto I-65 South (or connect to I-64 or I-71) and owe no money whatsoever to the evil Toll gods.
New Haven, Connecticut. Just New Haven. It's the second-largest city in Connecticut (180k pop in city limits) and it doesn't even have a road surrounding it.
Oklahoma City has this weird, crufted-together partial beltway made of toll roads but it doesn't go where it needs to be the most.
Quote from: SSR_317 on March 07, 2021, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 06, 2021, 09:58:39 AM
State College is growing quite fast. It might very well need a beltway sometime soon.
I'd agree to help with the lobbying for that... IF Pennsylvania will decommission I-99 in favor of US 220 (or even make it a 3-di) AND build the missing I-70 ramps at Breeezewood first. :biggrin:
Hear ye hear ye. Get I-99 out of its grid confounding location and sign it something else (and leave the number for a real I-99). Breezewood, I don't know, I feel like its one of those oddities that might be best left as is.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2021, 02:54:24 AM
Oklahoma City has this weird, crufted-together partial beltway made of toll roads but it doesn't go where it needs to be the most.
I mean, it sort of has an inner beltway in the form of I-44/I-35/I-40/I-240...
How far-fetched would it be to extend the Kickapoo down to SH-9 and then upgrade that to freeway status? On paper that looks like a half-decent idea...and from what I've personally seen in Norman, 9 needs some sort of upgrade in that area anyway.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2021, 02:54:24 AM
Oklahoma City has this weird, crufted-together partial beltway made of toll roads but it doesn't go where it needs to be the most.
Starting on August 2 (and pending concurrence from AASHTO), Oklahoma City may have a weird, crufted-together
full beltway made of both toll and free roads but it mostly won't go where it needs to be the most.
Quote from: US 89 on April 05, 2021, 10:20:12 PM
How far-fetched would it be to extend the Kickapoo down to SH-9 and then upgrade that to freeway status? On paper that looks like a half-decent idea...and from what I've personally seen in Norman, 9 needs some sort of upgrade in that area anyway.
It's a half-decent idea, meaning it can't happen in the world of ODOT and OTA.
Eau Claire Wisconsin which have a metro population of 161,000 have almost a full freeway beltway (part of WIS 29 is an expressway and also its connection to I-94 is way outside of town.) I don't think a city that small really needs a beltway and people don't like that Green Bay Wisconsin have a beltway and Eau Claire is about half it's size
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 05, 2021, 02:45:42 PM. Breezewood, I don't know, I feel like its one of those oddities that might be best left as is.
Now, I could agree with this... in regards to another segment of I-70 in a neighboring state.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 16, 2021, 01:29:24 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 05, 2021, 02:45:42 PM. Breezewood, I don't know, I feel like its one of those oddities that might be best left as is.
Now, I could agree with this... in regards to another segment of I-70 in a neighboring state.
Nope, because one is a minor gap, the other is a serious omission.
Breezewood is a forced gap, there's no alternative. You have to traverse slow city streets.
Baltimore... you take I-695 to I-95. All freeway, no inconvenience.
I-70 will never be complete in Baltimore. Get over it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 15, 2021, 04:46:46 PM
Breezewood is a forced gap, there's no alternative. You have to traverse slow city streets.
Baltimore... you take I-695 to I-95. All freeway, no inconvenience.
I-70 will never be complete in Baltimore. Get over it.
Its a forced gap, but a minor and trivial one.
The other routes in Baltimore never actually put you where you are trying to get to ON THE INTERSTATE.
And it could be complete, if this country ever gets off its dead ass and gets with the programme.
Quote from: US 89 on April 05, 2021, 10:20:12 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2021, 02:54:24 AM
Oklahoma City has this weird, crufted-together partial beltway made of toll roads but it doesn't go where it needs to be the most.
I mean, it sort of has an inner beltway in the form of I-44/I-35/I-40/I-240...
How far-fetched would it be to extend the Kickapoo down to SH-9 and then upgrade that to freeway status? On paper that looks like a half-decent idea...and from what I've personally seen in Norman, 9 needs some sort of upgrade in that area anyway.
Isn't I-240 being routed on this loop? See OK forums here.
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 15, 2021, 09:05:48 PM
Quote from: US 89 on April 05, 2021, 10:20:12 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2021, 02:54:24 AM
Oklahoma City has this weird, crufted-together partial beltway made of toll roads but it doesn't go where it needs to be the most.
I mean, it sort of has an inner beltway in the form of I-44/I-35/I-40/I-240...
How far-fetched would it be to extend the Kickapoo down to SH-9 and then upgrade that to freeway status? On paper that looks like a half-decent idea...and from what I've personally seen in Norman, 9 needs some sort of upgrade in that area anyway.
Isn't I-240 being routed on this loop? See OK forums here.
Yes. This wasn't the case when it was posted on April 5.
Quote from: HighwayStar on September 15, 2021, 04:54:25 PM
Its a forced gap, but a minor and trivial one.
And a hindrance, a road block for long haul traffic not wishing to stop, etc.
Quote
The other routes in Baltimore never actually put you where you are trying to get to ON THE INTERSTATE.
Last I checked, I-695 and I-95 are apart of the interstate highway system.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 16, 2021, 12:07:35 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on September 15, 2021, 04:54:25 PM
Its a forced gap, but a minor and trivial one.
And a hindrance, a road block for long haul traffic not wishing to stop, etc.
Quote
The other routes in Baltimore never actually put you where you are trying to get to ON THE INTERSTATE.
Last I checked, I-695 and I-95 are apart of the interstate highway system.
But they do not actually serve downtown Baltimore as I-70 was designed to. Go look at any map of the intended I-70, it clearly provides a higher level of service than what we have now.
Quote from: HighwayStar on September 16, 2021, 12:40:32 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 16, 2021, 12:07:35 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on September 15, 2021, 04:54:25 PM
Its a forced gap, but a minor and trivial one.
And a hindrance, a road block for long haul traffic not wishing to stop, etc.
Quote
The other routes in Baltimore never actually put you where you are trying to get to ON THE INTERSTATE.
Last I checked, I-695 and I-95 are apart of the interstate highway system.
But they do not actually serve downtown Baltimore as I-70 was designed to. Go look at any map of the intended I-70, it clearly provides a higher level of service than what we have now.
I-70 wasn't intended to serve downtown Baltimore either. East of the current terminus, an I-170 would branch off to serve downtown, while I-70 turns south and ends at I-95 just east of exit 50 (satellite image (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2710102,-76.6490974,346m/data=!3m1!1e3) of two I-70 stub ramps from I-95).
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 18, 2021, 03:53:11 PM
Lafayette, IN.
partially agree, it should be a partial beltway not built to interstate standards. a simple divided highway would suffice.
Having just returned to Boise for the first time over a decade the traffic increase was quite something to behold. Really the city could benefit immensely from a freeway running along the corridor of ID 44 but State Street is far too built up for that likely to be a reality. Getting ID 16 to I-84 will help a lot but it level off as more people move to places like Eagle and Meridian.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 16, 2021, 09:06:53 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 18, 2021, 03:53:11 PM
Lafayette, IN.
partially agree, it should be a partial beltway not built to interstate standards. a simple divided highway would suffice.
Upgrade Veterans Memorial Pkwy to 4 lanes the entire way, and combined with the US 231 expressway, the south and west sides are pretty much covered.
a kokomo beltway us absurd as an interstate. as an at grade 2 lane loop road i guess...
Quote from: Bruce on February 18, 2021, 04:46:46 PM
Seattle would be harmed by having a full beltway, as it would enable sprawl and require two new long bridges over the Puget Sound that would disrupt marine traffic and migrations. No thanks.
it would also make no sense. but the city already sprawled anyway :-D
New York City
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2021, 04:06:14 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on September 17, 2021, 03:58:53 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2021, 06:56:39 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on September 16, 2021, 06:56:19 PM
New York City
I-287
That is not a beltway, its a halfway.
It's about as much of a beltway as it can possibly have without running into the ocean/sound.
Well yes, but the idea would be a proper beltway would use additional cross water links. Something like a New York-New Jersey Bay Bridge Tunnel
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 16, 2021, 01:23:52 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 18, 2021, 04:46:46 PM
Seattle would be harmed by having a full beltway, as it would enable sprawl and require two new long bridges over the Puget Sound that would disrupt marine traffic and migrations. No thanks.
it would also make no sense. but the city already sprawled anyway :-D
Notice how the sprawl isn't as widespread on the Kitsap Peninsula. The lack of a direct bridge connection helps keep it in check.
If a Seattle-Kitsap bridge had been built as proposed in the 1960s, we'd have homes in the foothills of the Olympics by now. Would have meant a tremendous loss of habitat.
Quote from: Bruce on September 17, 2021, 04:30:46 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 16, 2021, 01:23:52 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 18, 2021, 04:46:46 PM
Seattle would be harmed by having a full beltway, as it would enable sprawl and require two new long bridges over the Puget Sound that would disrupt marine traffic and migrations. No thanks.
it would also make no sense. but the city already sprawled anyway :-D
Notice how the sprawl isn't as widespread on the Kitsap Peninsula. The lack of a direct bridge connection helps keep it in check.
If a Seattle-Kitsap bridge had been built as proposed in the 1960s, we'd have homes in the foothills of the Olympics by now. Would have meant a tremendous loss of habitat.
Would also have meant decent and affordable housing for people instead of a city overrun with homeless people.
Sedona, AZ
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 19, 2021, 10:22:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 19, 2021, 05:42:06 PM
Sedona, AZ
:hmmm: why?
I was there on Labor Day. Traffic was backed up 6 miles from uptown. It was the worst traffic jam by far on my trip to Arizona, which included 2 days in Phoenix, the 5th most populous city in the United States. All traffic in that town, by design, has to use either SR 179 or SR 89, and that's just a recipe for traffic jams.
The first obvious fix would be to build a bridge between Verde Valley School Road and Red Rock Crossing, or more accurately, rebuild the bridge that was destroyed by a flood in 1979. That would allow traffic between West Sedona and Oak Creek to avoid Uptown.
Yes I am aware this would be very expensive and controversial, but this thread is meant to be speculative.
i think Houston could use a Outer Beltway, maybe a x45 or a x69 but i think a I-245 Could work
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on September 20, 2021, 11:58:46 AM
i think Houston could use a Outer Beltway, maybe a x45 or a x69 but i think a I-245 Could work
TX 99, if completed
Quote from: HighwayStar on September 17, 2021, 05:45:46 PM
Would also have meant decent and affordable housing for people instead of a city overrun with homeless people.
"Overrun" according to who? We have a problem but it's not that bad outside of certain neighborhoods.
And paving over the forests of the region would make quality of life so much worse for everyone. More heat, more traffic, more air pollution, more water use, more strain on the electrical grid... It would cost society a helluva lot more instead of our current strategy of densifying existing areas.
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 20, 2021, 12:00:44 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on September 20, 2021, 11:58:46 AM
i think Houston could use a Outer Beltway, maybe a x45 or a x69 but i think a I-245 Could work
TX 99, if completed
I just had a crazy idea... a third inner beltway around Houston...using SH 6, FM 1960, FM 2100, Crosby-Lynchburg Road, Spur 330, SH 146, NASA 1 and FM 528... maybe make them one route...Interstate 245
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 02, 2021, 07:08:43 PM
Do beltways, and the development they spur, in time necessitate another beltway??
Seems to be the case in Houston. Beltway 8 was meant to be an outer beltway, and then Grand Parkway an outer outer beltway??
It's much like a bypass being just as congested as the route it was meant to relieve....or often worse (see 405 California)
It's kind of what happened here in Houston. Loop 610 was the original beltway around the city...but its really rather close to downtown in some places...its not perfectly centered...its 3 miles from Interstate 10 to the North Loop, but 6 miles from 10 to the curve where it becomes the South Loop, at South Post Oak and 225 respectively..in fact its almost exactly six miles from downtown to the South, West, and East Loops, but only three miles from downtown to the north loop...and that area has always been pretty heavily developed since it runs along the north edge of the heights.... but development did grow massively along almost stretch of 610 except the east loop and the south loop from alameda to 225...but the west loop runs along Uptown, which is essentially a second downtown... and then through a major suburb before skirting the medical center and the sports stadium.
So IH 610 long ago lost any usefulness as a bypass route...traffic on most of it is just as thick as anywhere else.. So they planned beltway 8.... as a new bypass, kind of longer, and with access to the airport. But its a toll road so not much non-local traffic is going to want to use it, especially since its now all electronic. The Northeast segment has only been a full freeway since 2010...and its very sparse and empty out there...the only real development is near the airport and on the west side from SH 249 down to US 59/IH 69...
Most of SH 99/Grand Parkway is rural and likely to stay that way aside from the sections through Katy and Spring...and those are pretty rural still..and no one is going to be using the Grand Parkway to bypass Houston....from Spring to Katy its 41 minutes and like an extra 20 miles
SH-99 is certainly growing, though. The segment between I-10 and I-69 South should've been / needs to be built with at least 6 lanes, if not 8. And having the current situation where the mainline is free except at interchanges where the overpasses are tolled creates a situation where toll "dodgers" exit and re-enter the highway at every junction, increasing the choke points on the merges. Then the substandard areas that are narrow and lack any shoulders, and a couple areas with "at-grade" intersections, curb and gutter, etc. to nowhere with a wide median for a future overpass - because there's no actual road intersection, there's no interruption to traffic flow, but it's still a very substandard design regardless.
Expand the highway to a proper 6-8 lane throughout, full interstate standard design, 70 mph, and eliminate the "free areas" or at least construct continuous running frontage roads so "free" traffic isn't entering the mainline then getting off at the next exit. The mainline should be fully tolled.
Also, the I-69 South interchange badly needs to be upgraded to at least include a flyover between I-69 North and SH-99 North. That interchange backs up badly during peak hours with traffic having to exit, wait at the light, and turn left, just to transition between two freeways.
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 21, 2021, 01:04:08 AM
NYC's "beltway" is their subway system and commuter trains.
Not sure about NJ transit, Metro North and LIRR, but the subway only have one non-shuttle line that doesn't enter Manhattan, and runs pretty close to the East River, which doesn't count as even part of a beltway imo.
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 21, 2021, 01:06:49 AM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 21, 2021, 01:04:08 AM
NYC's "beltway" is their subway system and commuter trains.
Not sure about NJ transit, Metro North and LIRR, but the subway only have one non-shuttle line that doesn't enter Manhattan, and runs pretty close to the East River, which doesn't count as even part of a beltway imo.
Mainly jokingly meant that transit options are so many, that no need for beltway of Interstate.
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 21, 2021, 09:42:18 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 21, 2021, 01:06:49 AM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 21, 2021, 01:04:08 AM
NYC's "beltway" is their subway system and commuter trains.
Not sure about NJ transit, Metro North and LIRR, but the subway only have one non-shuttle line that doesn't enter Manhattan, and runs pretty close to the East River, which doesn't count as even part of a beltway imo.
Mainly jokingly meant that transit options are so many, that no need for beltway of Interstate.
Note that when posts on here not contain articles of speech, I read them in a Russian accent,
yesp
yecially when k
yont
yent of k
yomment nyet m
yaking sense.
I-287 is NYC's beltway.
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 21, 2021, 01:04:08 AM
NYC's "beltway" is their subway system and commuter trains.
Riding around in other people's filth is not a beltway
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 21, 2021, 09:42:18 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 21, 2021, 01:06:49 AM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 21, 2021, 01:04:08 AM
NYC's "beltway" is their subway system and commuter trains.
Not sure about NJ transit, Metro North and LIRR, but the subway only have one non-shuttle line that doesn't enter Manhattan, and runs pretty close to the East River, which doesn't count as even part of a beltway imo.
Mainly jokingly meant that transit options are so many, that no need for beltway of Interstate.
NYC's trains are mostly radial, with most lines heading to/from Manhattan. Pretty much the opposite of a beltway.