Is a city "served by" a certain Interstate?

[bing101]

According to one forum user, I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore.

Just like I-40 don't serve Los Angeles, yet AZDOT Signs it west of Flagstaff.

By this logic this could be like I-5 to San Francisco if you are from Southern California trying to reach the Bay Area or from Redding heading south to the Bay Area. Although to reach San Francisco via I-5 you would have to go through I-580 West to get to the city or from Redding that would be I-505 south to Vacaville and I-80 West to reach San Francisco.

[HighwayStar]

I would like to have some way of knowing what "served by" means in this context.  If an Interstate carries a bunch of traffic to and from a city, saying that the city isn't served by that Interstate just because it's technically 10 feet outside of the city limit is absurd.

I propose a definition of service that's based on proximity and destination.  First, if an Interstate has an access point inside a city, that's service.  If an Interstate is inside a city and has an access point nearby, that's service.  If an Interstate is never inside a city, that's when we use the proximity and destination criteria.

Is Dallas "served by" I-10?  If you're in Dallas and want to drive to Los Angeles, then the road serves you.  But that's an extreme example.  I propose using a reasonably short distance, about 30 miles or about a half-hour of driving time at reasonable speeds (not 0 mph in heavy traffic or 150 mph in no traffic).  If the Interstate is within that distance of some part of a city, along other Interstates, then it meets the proximity eligibility.  The second question is destination, by which I mean that the Interstate is the best way to get from the place "served by" it to the places that Interstate goes.  By my criteria, Fort Worth is served by I-45, because it's within about 30 miles of the city along other Interstates, and it's the best way to get from there to Houston.  Chicago is served by I-65, because it starts close to the city and is the best way to get to Indianapolis, and the best way to get from there to Chicago.  Dallas is not served by I-10 because it's too far away and couldn't reasonably be considered a road important to people in Dallas.

For smaller towns, I would say that the town is served by an Interstate if it's the best way to get to the nearest bigger city that serves the town's populace.

Nope, in your example the city is still not served by the interstate.
The interstate dumps traffic onto the town, without actually providing a conduit through or about the city.

Prime example 1: I-70 and Baltimore is almost exactly as you describe, I-70 dumps traffic into the metro but does not serve Baltimore in any meaningful way, you cannot get on I-70 and use it to get to a different part of Baltimore, therefore no service.

Prime example 2: I-95 in DC, same thing, road not built, just dumps traffic into the area.

The case where this breaks down is when you have a small enough town that the it will not be practicable to use the interstate for travel within it.

[SkyPesos]

According to one forum user, I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore.

I don't think that would be me

That user I'm referring to just posted right above this post 

[HighwayStar]

According to one forum user, I-70 doesn't serve Baltimore.

I don't think that would be me

That user I'm referring to just posted right above this post 

Sorry I was late to my own party! 

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Prime example 1: I-70 and Baltimore is almost exactly as you describe, I-70 dumps traffic into the metro but does not serve Baltimore in any meaningful way, you cannot get on I-70 and use it to get to a different part of Baltimore, therefore no service.

Sure, but if I leave Baltimore to the west, I'm probably ending up on I-70.

Try again.

[HighwayStar]

Prime example 1: I-70 and Baltimore is almost exactly as you describe, I-70 dumps traffic into the metro but does not serve Baltimore in any meaningful way, you cannot get on I-70 and use it to get to a different part of Baltimore, therefore no service.

Sure, but if I leave Baltimore to the west, I'm probably ending up on I-70.

Try again.

Eventually ending up on some road is not the same as being served by that. If I go west of Dallas I am probably ending up on I-10 too.
Serving the place means you can use the road for intraurban travel, as intended, rather than driving over miles of surface streets to accomplish the same.

[Roadgeekteen]

Prime example 1: I-70 and Baltimore is almost exactly as you describe, I-70 dumps traffic into the metro but does not serve Baltimore in any meaningful way, you cannot get on I-70 and use it to get to a different part of Baltimore, therefore no service.

Sure, but if I leave Baltimore to the west, I'm probably ending up on I-70.

Try again.

Eventually ending up on some road is not the same as being served by that. If I go west of Dallas I am probably ending up on I-10 too.
Serving the place means you can use the road for intraurban travel, as intended, rather than driving over miles of surface streets to accomplish the same.

Not true. If a road dead ends at another roads in a metro area, it still serves the metro area. I-66 deadends in DC but it still serves DC.

[wxfree]

Nope, in your example the city is still not served by the interstate.
The interstate dumps traffic onto the town, without actually providing a conduit through or about the city.

Prime example 1: I-70 and Baltimore is almost exactly as you describe, I-70 dumps traffic into the metro but does not serve Baltimore in any meaningful way, you cannot get on I-70 and use it to get to a different part of Baltimore, therefore no service.

Prime example 2: I-95 in DC, same thing, road not built, just dumps traffic into the area.

The case where this breaks down is when you have a small enough town that the it will not be practicable to use the interstate for travel within it.

To me, an Interstate serves a city when it's useful for going somewhere far away where people are likely to go from that city.  I don't view Interstate highway service as going from the far-south side of town to the near-south side.  That use is convenient, and it's to be the purpose of a three-digit Interstate, or a state highway freeway that carries a lot of traffic across town, but Interstates (one- and two-digit), specifically, have the purpose of providing all-freeway access to far-away places.  That's what I view as an Interstate serving a city, not going across town, but carrying traffic into and out of town.  The cross-town function is secondary, and is an added benefit if the Interstate goes across.

I think we're not disagreeing about different types of utility, but about what types of utility constitute service.  If the Interstates had been built around big cities and weren't useful for getting around inside the cities, I'd say that they would still serve the cities, because providing freeway travel between towns is what that system is for.  Cross-town traffic can be handled by avenues and expressways, or state highway freeways, and if there happens to be an Interstate there, then it can serve that additional purpose, but to serve a town means to provide its primary purpose, which is access in and out.

[hbelkins]

Serving the place means you can use the road for intraurban travel, as intended, rather than driving over miles of surface streets to accomplish the same.

Then by this definition, neither I-64 nor I-75 serve Lexington, as they bypass downtown proper to the northeast. There's very little local use for the interstates; the main spokes in and out of downtown, New Circle Road (KY 4), and other routes such as Man O'War Boulevard are the primary routes between points in town. The interstates are good at delivering traffic from elsewhere in Kentucky and from the posted control cities (Louisville, Cincinnati, etc.) to the area, but they don't get you to any major destinations in town.

[Rothman]

Serving the place means you can use the road for intraurban travel, as intended, rather than driving over miles of surface streets to accomplish the same.

Then by this definition, neither I-64 nor I-75 serve Lexington, as they bypass downtown proper to the northeast. There's very little local use for the interstates; the main spokes in and out of downtown, New Circle Road (KY 4), and other routes such as Man O'War Boulevard are the primary routes between points in town. The interstates are good at delivering traffic from elsewhere in Kentucky and from the posted control cities (Louisville, Cincinnati, etc.) to the area, but they don't get you to any major destinations in town.

Then that definition is incorrect.  My direct route to Lexington includes I-64 and I-75.  There is no better way to get there and they certainly serve Lexington in my book.

[HighwayStar]

Prime example 1: I-70 and Baltimore is almost exactly as you describe, I-70 dumps traffic into the metro but does not serve Baltimore in any meaningful way, you cannot get on I-70 and use it to get to a different part of Baltimore, therefore no service.

Sure, but if I leave Baltimore to the west, I'm probably ending up on I-70.

Try again.

Eventually ending up on some road is not the same as being served by that. If I go west of Dallas I am probably ending up on I-10 too.
Serving the place means you can use the road for intraurban travel, as intended, rather than driving over miles of surface streets to accomplish the same.

Not true. If a road dead ends at another roads in a metro area, it still serves the metro area. I-66 deadends in DC but it still serves DC.

No, read what I wrote above, by my definition I-66 does not serve DC, you cannot use it to get anywhere within DC.

[HighwayStar]

Nope, in your example the city is still not served by the interstate.
The interstate dumps traffic onto the town, without actually providing a conduit through or about the city.

Prime example 1: I-70 and Baltimore is almost exactly as you describe, I-70 dumps traffic into the metro but does not serve Baltimore in any meaningful way, you cannot get on I-70 and use it to get to a different part of Baltimore, therefore no service.

Prime example 2: I-95 in DC, same thing, road not built, just dumps traffic into the area.

The case where this breaks down is when you have a small enough town that the it will not be practicable to use the interstate for travel within it.

To me, an Interstate serves a city when it's useful for going somewhere far away where people are likely to go from that city.  I don't view Interstate highway service as going from the far-south side of town to the near-south side.  That use is convenient, and it's to be the purpose of a three-digit Interstate, or a state highway freeway that carries a lot of traffic across town, but Interstates (one- and two-digit), specifically, have the purpose of providing all-freeway access to far-away places.  That's what I view as an Interstate serving a city, not going across town, but carrying traffic into and out of town.  The cross-town function is secondary, and is an added benefit if the Interstate goes across.

I think we're not disagreeing about different types of utility, but about what types of utility constitute service.  If the Interstates had been built around big cities and weren't useful for getting around inside the cities, I'd say that they would still serve the cities, because providing freeway travel between towns is what that system is for.  Cross-town traffic can be handled by avenues and expressways, or state highway freeways, and if there happens to be an Interstate there, then it can serve that additional purpose, but to serve a town means to provide its primary purpose, which is access in and out.

Ever tried to drive across DC? Its obvious that I-95 is not serving it. Driving the city streets takes forever and is not interstate level service. So if interstate level service clearly does not exist then how can we say that interstate "serves" that city?

[michravera]

I would like to have some way of knowing what "served by" means in this context.  If an Interstate carries a bunch of traffic to and from a city, saying that the city isn't served by that Interstate just because it's technically 10 feet outside of the city limit is absurd.

I propose a definition of service that's based on proximity and destination.  First, if an Interstate has an access point inside a city, that's service.  If an Interstate is inside a city and has an access point nearby, that's service.  If an Interstate is never inside a city, that's when we use the proximity and destination criteria.

Is Dallas "served by" I-10?  If you're in Dallas and want to drive to Los Angeles, then the road serves you.  But that's an extreme example.  I propose using a reasonably short distance, about 30 miles or about a half-hour of driving time at reasonable speeds (not 0 mph in heavy traffic or 150 mph in no traffic).  If the Interstate is within that distance of some part of a city, along other Interstates, then it meets the proximity eligibility.  The second question is destination, by which I mean that the Interstate is the best way to get from the place "served by" it to the places that Interstate goes.  By my criteria, Fort Worth is served by I-45, because it's within about 30 miles of the city along other Interstates, and it's the best way to get from there to Houston.  Chicago is served by I-65, because it starts close to the city and is the best way to get to Indianapolis, and the best way to get from there to Chicago.  Dallas is not served by I-10 because it's too far away and couldn't reasonably be considered a road important to people in Dallas.

For smaller towns, I would say that the town is served by an Interstate if it's the best way to get to the nearest bigger city that serves the town's populace.

I would say that an Interstate X "serves" a city when one doesn't have to ask someone or something "How do I get to I-X?" from some part of the city. If you can see it from downtown, or there are signs directing you to it, or you can just drive on some major road and get to it before a reasonable person would give up or get to some freeway where the BGS would show it before a reasonable person would give up, I would say that it "serves" the city.
By that definition, neither I-15 nor I-40 "serves" LA. I-10 and I-5 (as well as a number of I-x05 and I-x10s) do.
I-5 serves Sacramento because you can see if from downtown. I-80 serves Sacramento because there are signs all over Sacramento directing you to it.
I-505 might be a useful route to people from Sacramento, San Francisco, and the East Bay, but no one in those area can see it from Downtown nor happen onto it before a reasonable person would give up (like crossing a couple of bridges) and no signs in the East Bay direct anyone to I-505.
... and so it goes...

[HighwayStar]

Serving the place means you can use the road for intraurban travel, as intended, rather than driving over miles of surface streets to accomplish the same.

Then by this definition, neither I-64 nor I-75 serve Lexington, as they bypass downtown proper to the northeast. There's very little local use for the interstates; the main spokes in and out of downtown, New Circle Road (KY 4), and other routes such as Man O'War Boulevard are the primary routes between points in town. The interstates are good at delivering traffic from elsewhere in Kentucky and from the posted control cities (Louisville, Cincinnati, etc.) to the area, but they don't get you to any major destinations in town.

Not overwhelmingly familiar with KY geography, but looking at the map I would argue that both do in fact serve Lexington by my definition. Lexington is a good deal smaller than Baltimore or DC, and while they do not pass through center city, at least I-75 transverses a decent chunk of town. Depending on where you lived, it would be of significant use.
Also tipping in favor of this is that, as far as I know, those routes are running where they were designed to give an acceptable level of service, unlike I-70 or I-95 where the route does not run where it was designed to give an acceptable level of service.

[hbelkins]

Prime example 1: I-70 and Baltimore is almost exactly as you describe, I-70 dumps traffic into the metro but does not serve Baltimore in any meaningful way, you cannot get on I-70 and use it to get to a different part of Baltimore, therefore no service.

Sure, but if I leave Baltimore to the west, I'm probably ending up on I-70.

Try again.

Eventually ending up on some road is not the same as being served by that. If I go west of Dallas I am probably ending up on I-10 too.
Serving the place means you can use the road for intraurban travel, as intended, rather than driving over miles of surface streets to accomplish the same.

Not true. If a road dead ends at another roads in a metro area, it still serves the metro area. I-66 deadends in DC but it still serves DC.

No, read what I wrote above, by my definition I-66 does not serve DC, you cannot use it to get anywhere within DC.

Huh? It literally puts you out on Constitution Avenue, and if you continue on it until its end, it puts you out on Pennsylvania Avenue. Again, using your definition. the interstates in Fayette County, Ky., don't "serve" Lexington. While it's true that Lexington and Fayette County are one governmental body (a city-county merged government) neither interstate significantly "serves" the urban services boundary, with the possible exception of I-75 skirting Hamburg Pavilion. There's been some buildup, but traditionally, the routes between the interstate and New Circle (KY 922/Newtown Pike), US 27-68/Paris Pike, and US 60/Winchester Road) were very reminiscent of rural roads with highway services located at the exits and either farmland or residential areas between the interstate and New Circle.

[HighwayStar]

Prime example 1: I-70 and Baltimore is almost exactly as you describe, I-70 dumps traffic into the metro but does not serve Baltimore in any meaningful way, you cannot get on I-70 and use it to get to a different part of Baltimore, therefore no service.

Sure, but if I leave Baltimore to the west, I'm probably ending up on I-70.

Try again.

Eventually ending up on some road is not the same as being served by that. If I go west of Dallas I am probably ending up on I-10 too.
Serving the place means you can use the road for intraurban travel, as intended, rather than driving over miles of surface streets to accomplish the same.

Not true. If a road dead ends at another roads in a metro area, it still serves the metro area. I-66 deadends in DC but it still serves DC.

No, read what I wrote above, by my definition I-66 does not serve DC, you cannot use it to get anywhere within DC.

Huh? It literally puts you out on Constitution Avenue, and if you continue on it until its end, it puts you out on Pennsylvania Avenue. Again, using your definition. the interstates in Fayette County, Ky., don't "serve" Lexington. While it's true that Lexington and Fayette County are one governmental body (a city-county merged government) neither interstate significantly "serves" the urban services boundary, with the possible exception of I-75 skirting Hamburg Pavilion. There's been some buildup, but traditionally, the routes between the interstate and New Circle (KY 922/Newtown Pike), US 27-68/Paris Pike, and US 60/Winchester Road) were very reminiscent of rural roads with highway services located at the exits and either farmland or residential areas between the interstate and New Circle.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/''/Masterson+Station+Neighborhood,+328+Masterson+Station+Dr,+Lexington,+KY+40511/@38.0890128,-84.5367781,12z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x88424fd01417d6d9:0x58a370518ba7f674!2m2!1d-84.4098281!2d38.0243244!1m5!1m1!1s0x884243c28d60436b:0xe236d05fe1c06fb6!2m2!1d-84.5442661!2d38.093444!3e0

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/''/''/@38.028307,-84.4682538,10.83z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8842423545f234ef:0x6f7f659f197fdddb!2m2!1d-84.5600986!2d38.085026!1m5!1m1!1s0x884251ca7d73e865:0x4ffbdca30b3bd39e!2m2!1d-84.394515!2d37.993782!3e0

Seems to provide some utility. Just because it does not go from your house to the store does not mean it is not serving the area. I will agree it is not perhaps the primary route, or a particularly high level of service, but it is miles above the nonexistent I-70 or nonexistent I-95.
(Actually I like that idea, they should have to sign the route that way as a reminder to motorists that they have been screwed out of a decent route,  "Nonexistent I-95 Left Lane" has a good ring to it)

[SkyPesos]

Here's a similar scenario to I-70 in Baltimore, another route that didn't make it to its intended endpoint: Does I-75 "serve" Miami?

[HighwayStar]

Here's a similar scenario to I-70 in Baltimore, another route that didn't make it to its intended endpoint: Does I-75 "serve" Miami?

I would argue no.
Obviously you can get to Miami via I-75, but it provides no real benefit to people traveling locally, particularly for such a large city.

[Rothman]

Here's a similar scenario to I-70 in Baltimore, another route that didn't make it to its intended endpoint: Does I-75 "serve" Miami?

I would argue no.
Obviously you can get to Miami via I-75, but it provides no real benefit to people traveling locally, particularly for such a large city.

How to get from Tampa to Miami...

Our sillyness in here knows no bounds.

[SkyPesos]

Here's a similar scenario to I-70 in Baltimore, another route that didn't make it to its intended endpoint: Does I-75 "serve" Miami?

I would argue no.
Obviously you can get to Miami via I-75, but it provides no real benefit to people traveling locally, particularly for such a large city.

How to get from Tampa to Miami...

Our sillyness in here knows no bounds.

Surprisingly (to me, at least), the FL 60 and Turnpike routing between Tampa and Miami is only 8 minutes longer than I-75. Turning to I-95 from FL 60 instead of the turnpike would add another 4 minutes.

[achilles765]

Per the I-10 and Dallas example, I could say that I-95 serves Seattle because it's part of the route between Seattle and Portland, ME.

My definition would be that the Interstate has to have at least one of three things:

a. an access point within city limits
b. a freeway connection of less than 20 miles
c. a non-freeway connection of less than 10 miles

I like this criteria...

[SkyPesos]

Per the I-10 and Dallas example, I could say that I-95 serves Seattle because it's part of the route between Seattle and Portland, ME.

My definition would be that the Interstate has to have at least one of three things:

a. an access point within city limits
b. a freeway connection of less than 20 miles
c. a non-freeway connection of less than 10 miles

If I'm understanding your criteria correctly, that would barely include I-65 for serving Chicago (as it's 17 miles between its northern terminus and Chicago city limits), but exclude I-70 for serving DC, as I-270 is 33 miles long plus however long it is from I-495 to DC city limits, despite both routes entering their respective metro areas.

[Rothman]

Here's a similar scenario to I-70 in Baltimore, another route that didn't make it to its intended endpoint: Does I-75 "serve" Miami?

I would argue no.
Obviously you can get to Miami via I-75, but it provides no real benefit to people traveling locally, particularly for such a large city.

How to get from Tampa to Miami...

Our sillyness in here knows no bounds.

Surprisingly (to me, at least), the FL 60 and Turnpike routing between Tampa and Miami is only 8 minutes longer than I-75. Turning to I-95 from FL 60 instead of the turnpike would add another 4 minutes.

Not sure what your point is by pointing out routes that take longer.