AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: jander on December 21, 2013, 02:47:36 PM

Title: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: jander on December 21, 2013, 02:47:36 PM
Reading this: http://www.npr.org/2013/12/17/248757580/even-an-85-mph-highway-cant-fix-austins-traffic-tangle (http://www.npr.org/2013/12/17/248757580/even-an-85-mph-highway-cant-fix-austins-traffic-tangle)
And the quote caught my eye, "Austin is the largest city in America with only one interstate running through it. Just six lanes wide through downtown, Interstate 35 backs up for miles regularly"

So does that make San Francisco the latest city with NO Intersate going through it?

How long is 80 in San Francesco? A mile?
Title: Re: 80 in San Francisco
Post by: hotdogPi on December 21, 2013, 02:51:48 PM
Several things:

1. There are some freeways that are not Interstates, and many people use those.

2. San Francisco has I-80 and I-280.

3. If you are wondering what the largest city (by population) with no Interstate is, it's Fresno California. It has a population of 500000, and it has CA 99, which is a freeway, but not an Interstate.


Edit: Welcome to this forum!
Title: Re: 80 in San Francisco
Post by: jander on December 21, 2013, 03:09:54 PM
1. Yes, San Francisco has 101, a freeway, but a freeway is not an Interstate..
2. Don't know how I forgot about 280, as I live next to it, but even still, its not a complete route through the city.  It ends at 3rd and King and never connects to 80.

The statement still stands, San Francisco is the largest city without a through Interstate.

Thanks for the welcome!
Title: Re: 80 in San Francisco
Post by: NE2 on December 21, 2013, 03:27:31 PM
San Jose is larger than Austin and has only one Interstate sort of through it. Obviously the article writers meant only one Interstate, period.
Title: Re: 80 in San Francisco
Post by: hotdogPi on December 21, 2013, 03:29:26 PM
Sorry. We were using different definitions of "through".
Title: Re: 80 in San Francisco
Post by: Brandon on December 21, 2013, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 21, 2013, 03:27:31 PM
San Jose is larger than Austin and has only one Interstate sort of through it. Obviously the article writers meant only one Interstate, period.

Technically, San Jose has three: I-280, I-680, and I-880, but all are 3dis.
Title: Re: 80 in San Francisco
Post by: hotdogPi on December 21, 2013, 09:23:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 21, 2013, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 21, 2013, 03:27:31 PM
San Jose is larger than Austin and has only one Interstate sort of through it. Obviously the article writers meant only one Interstate, period.

Technically, San Jose has three: I-280, I-680, and I-880, but all are 3dis.

Again, he is using "through" to mean in one end, out the other. Not stopping in the middle.
Title: Re: 80 in San Francisco
Post by: Brandon on December 21, 2013, 09:34:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2013, 09:23:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 21, 2013, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 21, 2013, 03:27:31 PM
San Jose is larger than Austin and has only one Interstate sort of through it. Obviously the article writers meant only one Interstate, period.

Technically, San Jose has three: I-280, I-680, and I-880, but all are 3dis.

Again, he is using "through" to mean in one end, out the other. Not stopping in the middle.

If that's the case, then neither San Francisco nor San Jose would qualify as they are the ending points for interstates.  One could make the case for Sault Sainte Marie or Laredo as equals to both SF and SJ in that regard.  Ditto for Miami and Corpus Christi or any other point on the interstate system served by an ending or a spur.

Might make a good thread in the general section.
Title: Re: 80 in San Francisco
Post by: NE2 on December 21, 2013, 09:35:40 PM
Yes, I used through in the sense that the OP did, in order to point out that he misinterpreted the quote.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Alps on December 21, 2013, 09:43:52 PM
Boston did not have any "through" Interstates until I-95 was moved to MA 128 and I-93 extended.
If you don't count the "nibble" that I-95/495 SB takes of DC, there are no "through" Interstates there either.
Miami is another large one - you could also go with any border city like San Diego (pronounced Sandiahgo).
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: thisdj78 on December 22, 2013, 12:09:26 AM
I think it is safe to say though that Austin has the least developed freeway system of cities similar in size in the US. I think that was the original point of the article's quote.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: roadman65 on December 22, 2013, 12:13:48 AM
Tampa might be considered one, as I-75 only passes through an area of the city several miles from the downtown and urban parts.  I-4 terminates in it and I-275 is 3 digit, and the Lee Roy Selmon is not interstate respectively.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: NE2 on December 22, 2013, 01:29:45 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on December 22, 2013, 12:09:26 AM
I think it is safe to say though that Austin has the least developed freeway system of cities similar in size in the US. I think that was the original point of the article's quote.
NYC has ten times the population of Austin. Does it have ten times the freeway system?

And actually, Austin probably has more freeway per capita than Philly, at least if you look at freeways within city limits.

I just noticed that Austin essentially has a full (lopsided) beltway, albeit with a few traffic lights on the south side: one on SH 360 at a shopping center, one on SH 71 at Riverside (being (?) eliminated), and three more on SH 71 near the airport. All the left turns have direct ramps.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: mgk920 on December 22, 2013, 09:56:56 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 22, 2013, 12:13:48 AM
Tampa might be considered one, as I-75 only passes through an area of the city several miles from the downtown and urban parts.  I-4 terminates in it and I-275 is 3 digit, and the Lee Roy Selmon is not interstate respectively.

Green Bay, WI could be considered to be one, unless you look at it as I-43 passing through the city and ending in a suburb (Howard, WI).  Ditto with US(I)-41.

I-39 ends just short of Wausau, WI.  OTOH, I-35 does end in the City of Duluth, MN.

Mike
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 22, 2013, 12:29:46 PM
Buffalo, NY is really only served directly by a 3di (I-190), as is Rochester (I-390 and I-490).  Also, Portland, ME is only served directly by I-295, as I-95/Maine Turnpike bypasses the city. 
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Alps on December 22, 2013, 02:04:17 PM
The question is not whether a "through" Interstate (2di) runs through the city. The question is whether a city has "only one interstate running through it." So count out Rochester, Buffalo, Tampa.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: ski-man on December 22, 2013, 04:21:44 PM
SH/Loop 360 in Austin has quite a few red lights all along it from US 183 south to US 290. Austin's freeway system in the city center has a lot to be desired, as in city there are 2 parallel freeways I-35 & SH/Loop 1. Most freeways/tollways are on the outskirts to suburbs.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: NE2 on December 22, 2013, 05:01:31 PM
Quote from: ski-man on December 22, 2013, 04:21:44 PM
SH/Loop 360 in Austin has quite a few red lights all along it from US 183 south to US 290. Austin's freeway system in the city center has a lot to be desired, as in city there are 2 parallel freeways I-35 & SH/Loop 1. Most freeways/tollways are on the outskirts to suburbs.
That's true about most cities. How many can you name that have three or more parallel freeways?
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Alps on December 22, 2013, 11:43:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2013, 05:01:31 PM
Quote from: ski-man on December 22, 2013, 04:21:44 PM
SH/Loop 360 in Austin has quite a few red lights all along it from US 183 south to US 290. Austin's freeway system in the city center has a lot to be desired, as in city there are 2 parallel freeways I-35 & SH/Loop 1. Most freeways/tollways are on the outskirts to suburbs.
That's true about most cities. How many can you name that have three or more parallel freeways?
Chicago (multiple areas)
Cleveland (2-90-71-480)
New York (multiple areas - how about Saw Mill - 87 - Sprain/Bx River - Hutch - 95, for 5)
NE New Jersey (multiple areas)
Philly/Camden (95-295-Tpk, sometimes US 1)
Baltimore (95-895-695 crossings)
etc.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: NE2 on December 22, 2013, 11:51:27 PM
You're including beltways. Austin has three if you do that.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: jander on December 24, 2013, 12:38:41 AM
I'd say i5 goes "through" San Diego, it just happens to en at the city limits.  80 / 280 end in the middle of San Francisco.  San Jose does not have one Interstate that goes through.  The all turn into CA or US highways.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: NE2 on December 24, 2013, 12:51:44 AM
Quote from: jander on December 24, 2013, 12:38:41 AM
I'd say i5 goes "through" San Diego, it just happens to en at the city limits.  80 / 280 end in the middle of San Francisco.  San Jose does not have one Interstate that goes through.  The all turn into CA or US highways.
So much wrong with this post. I'll just point out that I-280 and I-680 become each other in San Jose. San Jose has a 'through' Interstate as much as Minneapolis-St. Paul has a full Interstate beltway.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Molandfreak on December 24, 2013, 01:07:40 AM
By technicality, I-5 goes through San Diego to National City and Chula Vista and re-enters the city at San Ysidro. I would consider this a "through" interstate because it enters and leaves the city limits. The fact that it re-enters a discontiguous part of the city is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: dgolub on December 24, 2013, 10:45:55 AM
Manhattan technically has I-95 crossing it all the way up in Washington Heights, but the main area has no interstates passing through it.  I-495, I-78, and (unsigned) I-478 come in through tunnels and then just end.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: vdeane on December 24, 2013, 11:12:09 AM
Manhattan isn't a city unto itself, though.  Technically it, and the four surrounding counties/boroughs, is all one big city called New York.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Brandon on December 24, 2013, 12:04:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 24, 2013, 11:12:09 AM
Manhattan isn't a city unto itself, though.  Technically it, and the four surrounding counties/boroughs, is all one big city called New York.

However, that said, only one interstate actually goes through NYC - I-95, IIRC.  Everything else, I-87, I-78, all the spurs and loops, either end/begin in the city or never leave the city.  A stark contrast to Chicago where I-90, I-94, and I-294 (yes, a small sliver) go through the city while I-55, I-57, I-190, and I-290 end in the city.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: vdeane on December 24, 2013, 02:38:18 PM
1 is still greater than 0.  And I-278 pairs nicely with I-95, seeing as the Bruckner Expressway is shared between the two.  Had the freeways across Manhattan been built, I-78 (maybe) and I-495 (definitely) would have counted as well.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2013, 10:16:36 PM
Annapolis, Md. has exactly one Interstate that may "touch" its corporate limits - "secret" I-595 (the east end of 595 is at Md. 70 (Rowe Boulevard)).  The SHA Highway Location Reference does not show it crossing the limits of Annapolis, and the maps on the city's Web site are not clear.

Oh, and I-97 does not quite make it to Annapolis.
Title: Re: 80 in San Francisco
Post by: silverback1065 on December 24, 2013, 11:29:42 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2013, 02:51:48 PM
Several things:

1. There are some freeways that are not Interstates, and many people use those.

2. San Francisco has I-80 and I-280.

3. If you are wondering what the largest city (by population) with no Interstate is, it's Fresno California. It has a population of 500000, and it has CA 99, which is a freeway, but not an Interstate.


Edit: Welcome to this forum!

Aren't there plans to change CA-99 to I-9? 
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: formulanone on December 24, 2013, 11:48:11 PM
I think a quick check of population sizes versus distances from any type of freeway was determined to be Cape Coral, Florida; according to NE2's post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10833.msg258608#msg258608).
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: hotdogPi on December 25, 2013, 09:11:03 AM
Quote from: formulanone on December 24, 2013, 11:48:11 PM
I think a quick check of population sizes versus distances from any type of freeway was determined to be Cape Coral, Florida; according to NE2's post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10833.msg258608#msg258608).

Wrong thread?
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: roadman65 on December 25, 2013, 09:50:15 AM
Vineland, NJ; Atlantic City, NJ; Salisbury, MD; up until recently Virginia Beach (as I-264 was a late bloomer); and even Suffolk, VA to this day has no interstate actually within it.

All of these, with the exception of Salisbury, have freeways, though, that eventually connect to the interstate system interestingly enough.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Sonic99 on December 25, 2013, 01:29:42 PM
Phoenix only has I-10 go "through" it, as I-17 ends near downtown.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: roadman65 on December 25, 2013, 01:50:21 PM
Actually Virginia Beach does not have a through interstate.  I-264 terminates into a one way pair of streets in Downtown Virginia Beach.

Chesapeake, VA may have a through freeway (I-64 into I-664), but all the three interstates there are not through completely.  I-64, I-264, and I-664 all end at each other in Bowers Hill.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: golden eagle on December 26, 2013, 07:27:48 PM
I believe Huntsville, AL, would qualify. I'll need to look at a map, but I don't believe I-565 goes completely through the city.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Molandfreak on December 27, 2013, 01:18:20 AM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 26, 2013, 07:27:48 PM
I believe Huntsville, AL, would qualify. I'll need to look at a map, but I don't believe I-565 goes completely through the city.
I-565 doesn't completely go through Huntsville, but it does enter and leave the city limits when it travels through Madison. Technically, I-65 is also a through interstate in Huntsville. http://goo.gl/maps/HUiJR
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: formulanone on December 27, 2013, 09:15:12 AM
In terms of serving a city's downtown core, I-65 is far closer to Athens than Huntsville. 65 only just brushes its limits, due to creative gerrymandering of it's borders.

Still, before 565 was built, it must have taken 20 minutes or more to get from the freeway into town...rather odd for a city of its size.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: akotchi on December 27, 2013, 10:00:57 AM
Trenton, NJ, has no through Interstates.  I-95 and I-295 go around it, and I-195 ends before entering town.  There is a freeway that goes through town -- U.S. 1 -- but it is not Interstate.

Lancaster, York and Gettysburg, PA, are other cities that have freeways but no Interstates.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: mgk920 on December 27, 2013, 10:14:35 AM
Quote from: akotchi on December 27, 2013, 10:00:57 AM
Trenton, NJ, has no through Interstates.  I-95 and I-295 go around it, and I-195 ends before entering town.  There is a freeway that goes through town -- U.S. 1 -- but it is not Interstate.

Lancaster, York and Gettysburg, PA, are other cities that have freeways but no Interstates.

OTOH, if Pennsylvania had an annexation law like those of several other states, York would certainly have I-83 passing through, well within it.

Ditto Erie, now only entered by I-79, which ends in the city, but with I-90 passing through well within its urbanized area, but outside of the city.

Mike
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: dgolub on December 27, 2013, 11:07:37 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 24, 2013, 02:38:18 PM
1 is still greater than 0.  And I-278 pairs nicely with I-95, seeing as the Bruckner Expressway is shared between the two.  Had the freeways across Manhattan been built, I-78 (maybe) and I-495 (definitely) would have counted as well.

If you include all five boroughs, you can easily travel through the city on interstates.  For example, taking I-278 to I-495, I-87, or I-95.  If you consider only Manhattan, most of it is not really served by the interstate system.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: hbelkins on December 27, 2013, 12:16:05 PM
I clinched all five counties that comprise the five boroughs of NYC without ever leaving the interstate system.  I did it by taking I-278 to I-87 (I-87 clips a corner of Manhattan).
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 27, 2013, 12:46:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2013, 12:16:05 PM
(I-87 clips a corner of Manhattan).

I don't see where it does; it looks to me like it misses Marble Hill by a good block or two.  However, Randalls Island is part of Manhattan, therefore I-278 over the Triboro Bridge clinches Manhattan for you.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: hbelkins on December 27, 2013, 02:37:01 PM
OK, I knew it was one of the interstates, I just got 'em mixed up.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 27, 2013, 02:57:30 PM
I-278 is the only interstate which touches all five boroughs. I-87 is only in the Bronx (as the Major Deegan Expressway) while I-95 covers the Bronx and the northern edge of Manhattan.

Heading south on Amtrak, the order is Pelham Manor (village), the Bronx, Manhattan (paralleling the RFK Bridge), Queens, Manhattan and then Weehawken, NJ.

I wonder how different Boston would be if I-95 had been the through interstate instead of I-93?
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 27, 2013, 05:37:03 PM
Amtrak *does* cut through Marble Hill, so technically, it's Bronx-Manhattan-Bronx-Manhattan-Queens-Manhattan.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 27, 2013, 02:57:30 PM
I-278 is the only road which touches all five boroughs.
FTFY, although it's really several roads with a common number. It's a tautology, because no other road leaves Staten Island without leaving NY.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: ronaldlee11 on December 27, 2013, 08:01:30 PM
Ashland Kentucky would qualify as I 64 runs several miles south of the city limits
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Captain Jack on December 27, 2013, 08:13:10 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 27, 2013, 09:15:12 AM
Still, before 565 was built, it must have taken 20 minutes or more to get from the freeway into town...rather odd for a city of its size.

Ditto for Evansville before I-164 was constructed.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: empirestate on December 28, 2013, 02:11:50 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 27, 2013, 05:37:03 PM
Amtrak *does* cut through Marble Hill, so technically, it's Bronx-Manhattan-Bronx-Manhattan-Queens-Manhattan.

No, that's the Metro North Hudson line that does that; Amtrak service from the Hudson valley takes the Empire connection at Spuyten Duyvil (site of the recent Metro North derailment) straight south into Manhattan.

Amtrak service from New England does what Kevin described, via the Hell Gate Bridge and East River tubes to Penn Station, then the Hudson River tubes into NJ.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: dgolub on December 28, 2013, 10:48:13 AM
Quote from: empirestate on December 28, 2013, 02:11:50 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 27, 2013, 05:37:03 PM
Amtrak *does* cut through Marble Hill, so technically, it's Bronx-Manhattan-Bronx-Manhattan-Queens-Manhattan.

No, that's the Metro North Hudson line that does that; Amtrak service from the Hudson valley takes the Empire connection at Spuyten Duyvil (site of the recent Metro North derailment) straight south into Manhattan.

The Hudson line of Metro-North merges with the Harlem and New Haven lines in the Bronx and then crosses directly into Manhattan and stays there until reaching Grand Central.  It never goes into Queens, so it's just Bronx-Manhattan-Bronx-Manhattan, not Bronx-Manhattan-Bronx-Manhattan-Queens-Manhattan.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Zeffy on December 28, 2013, 11:19:17 AM
New Brunswick, New Jersey:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstaticmap%3Fcenter%3D40.484966%2C-74.45265%26amp%3Bsize%3D640x400%26amp%3Bzoom%3D12%26amp%3Bmaptype%3Droadmap%26amp%3Bsensor%3Dfalse&hash=f7e6f6d8ef347a43868ab7d211cf5c1ca6a4ca88)

The New Jersey Turnpike appears to not enter the city limits at all.

Hoboken, New Jersey:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstaticmap%3Fcenter%3D40.74315%2C-74.031216%26amp%3Bsize%3D640x400%26amp%3Bzoom%3D13%26amp%3Bmaptype%3Droadmap%26amp%3Bsensor%3Dfalse&hash=9b575efc7b51be83b1a39b5d5915734980da2f7d)

I-78 is way outside the city limits here.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 28, 2013, 11:47:36 AM
Quote from: empirestate on December 28, 2013, 02:11:50 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 27, 2013, 05:37:03 PM
Amtrak *does* cut through Marble Hill, so technically, it's Bronx-Manhattan-Bronx-Manhattan-Queens-Manhattan.

No, that's the Metro North Hudson line that does that; Amtrak service from the Hudson valley takes the Empire connection at Spuyten Duyvil (site of the recent Metro North derailment) straight south into Manhattan.

Amtrak service from New England does what Kevin described, via the Hell Gate Bridge and East River tubes to Penn Station, then the Hudson River tubes into NJ.

My bad, I had my wires crossed and for some reason recalled incorrectly that all northbound service headed east out of Penn.  (I know it's off topic, but is there a connection that would allow trains to travel as I described?)
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: NE2 on December 28, 2013, 07:30:24 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 28, 2013, 11:47:36 AM
(I know it's off topic, but is there a connection that would allow trains to travel as I described?)
Only if you reverse direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Point_Link
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Brandon on December 29, 2013, 07:25:33 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 28, 2013, 11:19:17 AM
New Brunswick, New Jersey:

The New Jersey Turnpike appears to not enter the city limits at all.

Hoboken, New Jersey:

I-78 is way outside the city limits here.

Zeffy, neither one of these maps shows municipal boundaries at all.  From my experience here in the Midwest, a lot of municipalities tend to have strange twists and turns to them.  It's better to use their boundary maps and zoning maps instead of Google.

New Brunswick, NJ zoning map: http://thecityofnewbrunswick.org/planninganddevelopment/files/Zoning-Map-20113.pdf

I-95 does in fact enter the city limits of New Brunswick.  Look at the far right of the map.

Hoboken, NJ zoning map: http://www.hobokennj.org/docs/communitydev/Zoning-Map.pdf

I-78 does not enter the city limits (north is to the right).
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: Zeffy on December 29, 2013, 11:15:51 AM
Yep, I forgot that if you type in the location name in Google, the boundaries of the location are outlined. I should've used that, because I-95/NJTP definitely passes into New Brunswick's city limits. Hoboken remains the same, however.

Adding one to the list, Union City (if you don't count NJ 495 as an Interstate...) doesn't contain any through Interstates.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: PHLBOS on December 30, 2013, 10:51:55 AM
Quote from: Steve on December 21, 2013, 09:43:52 PM
Boston did not have any "through" Interstates until I-95 was moved to MA 128 and I-93 extended.
That change also denied the City of Lynn of ever getting a through-Interstate (95) built.  Although the originally-planned I-95 would not have gone through Downtown Lynn; the aborted-corridor (which was to be situated near/along the eastern edge of the Lynn Woods Reservation) was definitely in Lynn's city limits.

The nearby City of Salem also has no through Interstates.  Although two aborted connectors (Vinnin Square & Downtown Salem) would've technically run through Salem's borders but essentially terminate just outside said-borders.  These connectors were, at one time, planned as "Business Spurs" from I-95 but no known number was offically proposed/assigned.  One segment of the aborted Downtown Salem Connector was recently built (opened a few years ago) as a downsized 2-lane arterial bypass (Bridge St. Bypass/Relocated MA 107) linking the new Salem-Beverly Bridge (MA 1A).
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2013, 11:03:02 AM
Johnstown, PA has no through interstates.  Nearby Altoona used to have none, but thanks to ole Buddy it now does.

Then Lancaster, PA has none, although connected to the interstate system via two freeways: PA 283 and US 222 it still has none to or through.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: yakra on January 02, 2014, 10:36:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 22, 2013, 12:29:46 PM
Buffalo, NY is really only served directly by a 3di (I-190), as is Rochester (I-390 and I-490).  Also, Portland, ME is only served directly by I-295, as I-95/Maine Turnpike bypasses the city. 
I-95 is actually completely within the city of Portland between Exit 46 (South Portland city line) to Exit 52 (Falmouth town line).
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: bing101 on January 04, 2014, 11:28:14 AM
You mean Bakersfield, Fresno? they rely on CA-99. There are no interstates in the area.
Title: Re: Cities with no "through" Interstates
Post by: dgolub on January 04, 2014, 11:48:28 AM
Quote from: Brandon on December 29, 2013, 07:25:33 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 28, 2013, 11:19:17 AM
New Brunswick, New Jersey:

The New Jersey Turnpike appears to not enter the city limits at all.

Hoboken, New Jersey:

I-78 is way outside the city limits here.

Zeffy, neither one of these maps shows municipal boundaries at all.  From my experience here in the Midwest, a lot of municipalities tend to have strange twists and turns to them.  It's better to use their boundary maps and zoning maps instead of Google.

New Brunswick, NJ zoning map: http://thecityofnewbrunswick.org/planninganddevelopment/files/Zoning-Map-20113.pdf

I-95 does in fact enter the city limits of New Brunswick.  Look at the far right of the map.

Hoboken, NJ zoning map: http://www.hobokennj.org/docs/communitydev/Zoning-Map.pdf

I-78 does not enter the city limits (north is to the right).

Well, if we're including small cities, then Glen Cove and Long Beach on Long Island have no interstate in them at all.  In fact, Long Beach doesn't even have any state routes in it.  Up in the Hudson Valley, Peekskill and Poughkeepsie have no interstates within their boundaries, although they're both served by US routes.