What city in your state doesn't have any spurs/bypass/loop Interstates but should have them?
For example, Springfield, IL is a clusterfucked madness when construction rolls in on I-55. At least have somewhere for the cars to go.
Tucson, AZ!
Charleston, WV, IMO, needs a bypass from the WV Turnpike around the southwest, west, northwest and west to intersect US 119, I-64, I-77 and I-79 to take traffic off the I-64 Kanawha River bridge just before entering downtown.
Only one I can think of is Hagerstown, Maryland. Annapolis has a secret one in I-595, which is concurrent with U.S. 50/301.
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2017, 11:50:56 PM
Rochester is pretty much the polar opposite of what you're looking for, that's all we have!
But Utica and Binghamton probably qualify.
Utica has I-790
In CT, Hartford proper has a couple of peripheral 3di's that act as connectors between I-84 and I-91, and one that is the remnants of the aborted highway to Providence. New Haven and Bridgeport don't have any. Bridgeport doesn't really need one unless CT 8 were promoted, but New Haven could use a northern half belt around Long Wharf that connects to I-95 at both ends in the West Haven and East Haven areas.
Phoenix doesn't have auxiliary Interstates, but has Interstate-grade state routes and the US 60 Superstition Freeway that serves the area. However, just for fun, if they were to become Interstates, here is how I would number them:
- Loop 101 - Interstate 410
- Loop 202 - Interstate 610
- Loop 303 - Interstate 217
- SR 51 - Interstate 510
- SR 143 - Interstate 110
- US 60 - Interstate 317
I really can't think of any for NC. I almost said Durham, but really you already have the two 2 di's (40/85) on either side of town and NC-147 Freeway heading into the city. Winston-Salem, maybe? I'm not really seeing a need for a loop style 3di there and the current routing of I-40 provides an effective bypass of the actual city.
Orlando pretty much has a beltway but it is all toll roads which causes people to pile onto I-4 since its free. Its way too late now but a Interstate bypass along the corridor of 417 or 429 would have been nice. Las Cruces is starting to get large enough to warrant a 3d north bypass to replace US 70.
Quote from: slorydn1 on May 18, 2017, 03:59:01 AM
I really can't think of any for NC. I almost said Durham, but really you already have the two 2 di's (40/85) on either side of town and NC-147 Freeway heading into the city.
If NCDOT has their way, Durham will have I-885. Once the East End Connector project is finished, NCDOT plans to pursue I-885 between I-40 and I-85 by using NC-147 and the Connector/US-70. The idea behind it is to give RTP an interstate connection to I-85.
http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/freeways/triangle-connector-to-i-85/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/freeways/triangle-connector-to-i-85/)
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on May 17, 2017, 10:45:18 PM
What city in your state doesn't have any spurs/bypass/loop Interstates but should have them?
Not sure if there would be any in Virginia.
Maybe --
I-781 -- between I-81/I-64 interchange at Lexington, and Lynchburg area. Connect to US-29 Lynchburg Expressway just north of Madison Heights. Lynchburg does not have a good highway connection to either I-64 west or I-81 north, and Lynchburg does not have any Interstate service. I have wondered why this wasn't included in the original Interstate system, or at least after the 1959 decision to route I-64 by way of Charlottesville and not by way of Lynchburg. Yes it would cross the Blue Ridge Mountains, but no worse terrain than the I-64 crossing at Afton Mountain.
I-281 -- upgrade VA-37 at Winchester to Interstate standards and build northerly interchange with I-81.
I-695 -- the once-planned Outer Connector freeway loop around Fredericksburg.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on May 17, 2017, 10:45:18 PM
For example, Springfield, IL is a clusterfucked madness when construction rolls in on I-55. At least have somewhere for the cars to go.
I can only imagine the madness that will occur if they ever widen 55 to 3 lanes.
I'd add Bloomington, IL, maybe an western loop of Rockford
WV: Back in the day, Huntington and Charleston took different paths. With 64 entering Charleston and crossing the same river multiple times (ending up on the same side as it started), which, as HB points out, causes through traffic to become congested in a town that really is not that big. Meanwhile, Huntington was completly bypassed, and even the promised non-interstate downtown access was never built. Both could be remedied. A southwest bypass of Charleston, although really from the WV Turnpike to Corridor G to I 64 somewhere around MP 40 is about all that is needed, 77 and especially 79 are not that big a deal. And a spur from 64 into downtown Huntington. Actually extending it just into Ohio and ending at OH 7 would be even better.
KY: Said a 1000 times, but from 64 on the northeast side of Lexington, to New Circle Road, resign a part of that, and then from New Circle to the Blue Grass Parkway. Never will happen due to the land values.
Albuquerque for sure
Only one I can think of for WA is Spokane; then again, it would be nice to have an I-x90 there, especially now that the new US 395 freeway spur is being built.
Trenton, NJ doesn't have any sort of Interstate. It has two freeways that connects with the Interstate network (NJ 29 and US 1), but they are not nearly enough.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2017, 09:26:39 AM
WV: Back in the day, Huntington and Charleston took different paths. With 64 entering Charleston and crossing the same river multiple times (ending up on the same side as it started), which, as HB points out, causes through traffic to become congested in a town that really is not that big. Meanwhile, Huntington was completly bypassed, and even the promised non-interstate downtown access was never built. Both could be remedied. A southwest bypass of Charleston, although really from the WV Turnpike to Corridor G to I 64 somewhere around MP 40 is about all that is needed, 77 and especially 79 are not that big a deal. And a spur from 64 into downtown Huntington. Actually extending it just into Ohio and ending at OH 7 would be even better.
I've been in a number of epic slowdowns between the Charleston and South Charleston bridges on I-64. That being said, some of them happened during construction projects. I've also seen a number of wrecks in the big curve just before/beyond (depending on direction of travel) the Charleston crossing that dog-knotted traffic. I'm not sure how bad traffic gets on 64/77 between the Yeager Bridge and the split downtown, but I've been in at least a couple of slowdowns there over the years.
[/quote]KY: Said a 1000 times, but from 64 on the northeast side of Lexington, to New Circle Road, resign a part of that, and then from New Circle to the Blue Grass Parkway. Never will happen due to the land values.
[/quote]
I'd be in favor of a full southern/southwestern bypass of Lexington. Start at I-75 somewhere south of Lexington and loop around to access Jessamine County, then pick up the end of the Bluegrass Parkway near Versailles and tie into I-64 somewhere between Midway and Lexington. Of course the latter will never happen and the proposed connector between Nicholasville and I-75 is going to be a surface route.
Medford OR is getting a bypass paralleling SR 62. I'd name it I-905 and add in the interchanges where the overpasses are so trucks can get into the back of the Big Box stores easier.
Either that or give Salem I-305 back!
Rick
Redding, CA just passed the 100K mark (city only; metro's about double that); maybe it's time to designate I-705 over the CA 44 freeway as a double-edged spur -- west into downtown and east into the burbs.
And (getting a bit into fictional here) if & when I-7 or I-9 is ever designated/signed over CA 99 between Wheeler Ridge and either Stockton or Sacramento, CA 198 east from the present 99 junction east to the end of the freeway at CA 65 would make a decent I-309 or I-509; Visalia's large enough to warrant such a spur.
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2017, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on May 17, 2017, 10:45:18 PM
What city in your state doesn't have any spurs/bypass/loop Interstates but should have them?
Not sure if there would be any in Virginia.
Maybe --
I-781 -- between I-81/I-64 interchange at Lexington, and Lynchburg area. Connect to US-29 Lynchburg Expressway just north of Madison Heights. Lynchburg does not have a good highway connection to either I-64 west or I-81 north, and Lynchburg does not have any Interstate service. I have wondered why this wasn't included in the original Interstate system, or at least after the 1959 decision to route I-64 by way of Charlottesville and not by way of Lynchburg. Yes it would cross the Blue Ridge Mountains, but no worse terrain than the I-64 crossing at Afton Mountain.
I-281 -- upgrade VA-37 at Winchester to Interstate standards and build northerly interchange with I-81.
I-695 -- the once-planned Outer Connector freeway loop around Fredericksburg.
Virginia is indeed pretty tricky and because of that I'll go with one that I'm not sure whether or not counts...
The Southside Richmond, VA metro area has I-95,VA-76, VA-150, and VA-288. I-295 is close by, but I don't think that area is still considered "Southside Richmond".
I'd say Lancaster, PA. It's pretty far away from interstates such as I-76 and I-83, plus Lancaster being almost 10,000 people larger than Harrisburg.
Appleton, WI :D
Green Bay, WI
West Bend, WI
Madison, WI
Sheboygan, WI
River Falls, WI
La Crosse, WI
Eau Claire, WI
Rockford, IL
Mike
Santa Fe, NM - NM 599 could become a hypothetical I-525.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 18, 2017, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2017, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on May 17, 2017, 10:45:18 PM
What city in your state doesn't have any spurs/bypass/loop Interstates but should have them?
Not sure if there would be any in Virginia.
Maybe --
I-781 -- between I-81/I-64 interchange at Lexington, and Lynchburg area. Connect to US-29 Lynchburg Expressway just north of Madison Heights. Lynchburg does not have a good highway connection to either I-64 west or I-81 north, and Lynchburg does not have any Interstate service. I have wondered why this wasn't included in the original Interstate system, or at least after the 1959 decision to route I-64 by way of Charlottesville and not by way of Lynchburg. Yes it would cross the Blue Ridge Mountains, but no worse terrain than the I-64 crossing at Afton Mountain.
I-281 -- upgrade VA-37 at Winchester to Interstate standards and build northerly interchange with I-81.
I-695 -- the once-planned Outer Connector freeway loop around Fredericksburg.
Virginia is indeed pretty tricky and because of that I'll go with one that I'm not sure whether or not counts...
The Southside Richmond, VA metro area has I-95,VA-76, VA-150, and VA-288. I-295 is close by, but I don't think that area is still considered "Southside Richmond".
VA-288 is built to Interstate standards and IMO should be designated as an Interstate.
That is where I-695 should actually go.
Quote from: webny99 on May 18, 2017, 09:11:18 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 18, 2017, 12:04:14 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2017, 11:50:56 PM
Rochester is pretty much the polar opposite of what you're looking for, that's all we have!
But Utica and Binghamton probably qualify.
Utica has I-790
Utica qualifies because I-790 doesn't :bigass:
Where else would you put a 3di in Utica?
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2017, 07:40:20 AM
I-781 -- between I-81/I-64 interchange at Lexington, and Lynchburg area. Connect to US-29 Lynchburg Expressway just north of Madison Heights. Lynchburg does not have a good highway connection to either I-64 west or I-81 north, and Lynchburg does not have any Interstate service. I have wondered why this wasn't included in the original Interstate system, or at least after the 1959 decision to route I-64 by way of Charlottesville and not by way of Lynchburg. Yes it would cross the Blue Ridge Mountains, but no worse terrain than the I-64 crossing at Afton Mountain.
I would postulate that mountain crossings south of Afton are actually a good bit worse. If you compare US 250's crossing of Afton Mtn it is light years easier than VA 56 and significantly better than US 60, the original VA 13 crossing, or US 501. This could be partly why when Lynchburg was still on I-64's path, it followed US 460 over to the Roanoke area and US 220 up to Covington...
I poked around CTB minutes of the late 50s and did not find anything that speaks to this specific question...
Boston. To much traffic. Need 695!
Quote from: inkyatari on May 18, 2017, 09:19:53 AM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on May 17, 2017, 10:45:18 PM
For example, Springfield, IL is a clusterfucked madness when construction rolls in on I-55. At least have somewhere for the cars to go.
I can only imagine the madness that will occur if they ever widen 55 to 3 lanes.
I'd add Bloomington, IL, maybe an western loop of Rockford
* Agree with Springfield
* Agree with Bloomington - may happen if the Eastern Bypass gets built.
* Rockford - I'm not sure about this one. While the I-39/US 20 overlap is bad, I think so far that I-39/I-90 is still good enough that a relief route is warranted is probably not warranted at this time. If one does happen I would go ahead and try and get Wisconsin on board for the route to bypass Beloit as well.
* Carbondale - Needs a spur from I-57 to bypass all the lights and congestion on IL 13.
* Champaign - Could use an I-x57 loop around to the east
Indiana* Lafayette should have gotten a loop route for a western bypass
* Any one of the cities around and including Gary - Should have been at least one instead of cramming everything on the Borman and Toll Road.
* Muncie - Should have gotten a spur off of I-69
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 18, 2017, 08:45:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2017, 07:40:20 AM
I-781 -- between I-81/I-64 interchange at Lexington, and Lynchburg area. Connect to US-29 Lynchburg Expressway just north of Madison Heights. Lynchburg does not have a good highway connection to either I-64 west or I-81 north, and Lynchburg does not have any Interstate service. I have wondered why this wasn't included in the original Interstate system, or at least after the 1959 decision to route I-64 by way of Charlottesville and not by way of Lynchburg. Yes it would cross the Blue Ridge Mountains, but no worse terrain than the I-64 crossing at Afton Mountain.
I would postulate that mountain crossings south of Afton are actually a good bit worse. If you compare US 250's crossing of Afton Mtn it is light years easier than VA 56 and significantly better than US 60, the original VA 13 crossing, or US 501. This could be partly why when Lynchburg was still on I-64's path, it followed US 460 over to the Roanoke area and US 220 up to Covington...
I poked around CTB minutes of the late 50s and did not find anything that speaks to this specific question...
I wonder if a corridor that departed I-81 at the MM 184 area, headed south to Glasgow, followed the James River cut through the Blue Ridge, and then paralleled VA-130 to meet the US-29 bypass near Amelon would be feasible from a terrain perspective.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 18, 2017, 08:45:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2017, 07:40:20 AM
I-781 -- between I-81/I-64 interchange at Lexington, and Lynchburg area. Connect to US-29 Lynchburg Expressway just north of Madison Heights. Lynchburg does not have a good highway connection to either I-64 west or I-81 north, and Lynchburg does not have any Interstate service. I have wondered why this wasn't included in the original Interstate system, or at least after the 1959 decision to route I-64 by way of Charlottesville and not by way of Lynchburg. Yes it would cross the Blue Ridge Mountains, but no worse terrain than the I-64 crossing at Afton Mountain.
I would postulate that mountain crossings south of Afton are actually a good bit worse. If you compare US 250's crossing of Afton Mtn it is light years easier than VA 56 and significantly better than US 60, the original VA 13 crossing, or US 501. This could be partly why when Lynchburg was still on I-64's path, it followed US 460 over to the Roanoke area and US 220 up to Covington...
I would need to look at a USGS topo map of the area. It is probably something similar to the Afton Mountain area, given the high design of I-64 that makes it look fairly routine to cross the mountain there. There is about 10 mile band as to where it could cross.
I have a link to the I-64 route alternates -- http://www.roadstothefuture.com/i64vastudy.html
You wanna know what I really think about that I-64 route that followed US-460 over to the Roanoke area and US-220 up to Covington? That someone was trying to make it look ridiculous zig-zagging so far from a straighter corridor, to discredit the Lynchburg route, to lend more support to the Charlottesville route. They should have studied a more direct route between Lynchburg and Clifton Forge, and that would have crossed I-81 at about a right angle. Now I could be wrong here, but that route on the map looks mighty suspicious! :-)
That map does correctly show the initial concept between Clifton Forge and Lexington, a direct route that included a tunnel near Collierstown. The as-built dogleg by way of North Mountain was conceived to avoid having to build a tunnel.
US-460 crossing the Blue Ridge has mild terrain compared to Afton Mountain.
Interstate highway designers do whatever it takes to cross mountains, look at all the mountainous areas that I-77 crosses.
Quote
I poked around CTB minutes of the late 50s and did not find anything that speaks to this specific question...
Oh, I don't think any such highway was ever studied. It could have been logically put in the Arterial System as a 4-lane arterial on new alignment, but I don't think that was ever proposed.
It is just something that I myself have thought would have been logical.
Jefferson City.
Quote from: webny99 on May 18, 2017, 09:11:18 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 18, 2017, 12:04:14 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2017, 11:50:56 PM
Rochester is pretty much the polar opposite of what you're looking for, that's all we have!
But Utica and Binghamton probably qualify.
Utica has I-790
Utica qualifies because I-790 doesn't :bigass:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBn7pdazl.png&hash=4bde58617972716e459008cb7f7812bcdc16e594)
Quote from: bzakharin on May 18, 2017, 02:19:13 PM
Trenton, NJ doesn't have any sort of Interstate. It has two freeways that connects with the Interstate network (NJ 29 and US 1), but they are not nearly enough.
Trenton is served by 195 and 295 and for the being 95... Yes i know not in city limits but in most states trenton city limits would include at least parts of Hamilton and Ewing Townships
LGMS428
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2017, 11:32:20 PM
You wanna know what I really think about that I-64 route that followed US-460 over to the Roanoke area and US-220 up to Covington? That someone was trying to make it look ridiculous zig-zagging so far from a straighter corridor, to discredit the Lynchburg route, to lend more support to the Charlottesville route. They should have studied a more direct route between Lynchburg and Clifton Forge, and that would have crossed I-81 at about a right angle. Now I could be wrong here, but that route on the map looks mighty suspicious! :-)
It can't have been too bad of an option as the CTB repeatedly voted to build the Lynchburg option and even studied whether to carry 64 up 81 to Lexington from Roanoke, which would really be looping around...
Quote
I poked around CTB minutes of the late 50s and did not find anything that speaks to this specific question...
Quote
Oh, I don't think any such highway was ever studied. It could have been logically put in the Arterial System as a 4-lane arterial on new alignment, but I don't think that was ever proposed.
It is just something that I myself have thought would have been logical.
No idea if they studied more direct ways across the Blue Ridge from Lynchburg, but sometimes they used to make statements like "due to the difficult terrain" or whatever. Was trying to see if they put that qualifier onto the mention of the Lynchburg routing.
For some reason neither my work or home computer will play these clips (used to be able to), but here is a 1961 news story on I-64's cost estimates for both options:
http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2396741
Another tidbit: http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2220287
Most of these videos have no sound but have the script:
Here is another on failing to come to a resolution on it:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2252063/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Another relevant story script;
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2249861/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Here is the script of a 4th story:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2216627/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Another:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2249711/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Albemarle County group didn't want it run there:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2217022/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
This one identifies who actually came up with the idea of the southern routing (Roanoke Businessman George Willis)
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2382360/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Here is the story where the CTB finally voted to approve the Northern route in 1961:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2393263/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
There could be other articles...got tired of searching
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 19, 2017, 10:41:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2017, 11:32:20 PM
You wanna know what I really think about that I-64 route that followed US-460 over to the Roanoke area and US-220 up to Covington? That someone was trying to make it look ridiculous zig-zagging so far from a straighter corridor, to discredit the Lynchburg route, to lend more support to the Charlottesville route. They should have studied a more direct route between Lynchburg and Clifton Forge, and that would have crossed I-81 at about a right angle. Now I could be wrong here, but that route on the map looks mighty suspicious! :-)
It can't have been too bad of an option as the CTB repeatedly voted to build the Lynchburg option and even studied whether to carry 64 up 81 to Lexington from Roanoke, which would really be looping around...
They definitely did seriously study a Lynchburg route, the question is what was the exact routing.
Quote
I poked around CTB minutes of the late 50s and did not find anything that speaks to this specific question...
Quote
Quote
Oh, I don't think any such highway was ever studied. It could have been logically put in the Arterial System as a 4-lane arterial on new alignment, but I don't think that was ever proposed.
It is just something that I myself have thought would have been logical.
No idea if they studied more direct ways across the Blue Ridge from Lynchburg, but sometimes they used to make statements like "due to the difficult terrain" or whatever. Was trying to see if they put that qualifier onto the mention of the Lynchburg routing.
For some reason neither my work or home computer will play these clips (used to be able to), but here is a 1961 news story on I-64's cost estimates for both options:
http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2396741
Another tidbit: http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2220287
Most of these videos have no sound but have the script:
Here is another on failing to come to a resolution on it:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2252063/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Another relevant story script;
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2249861/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Here is the script of a 4th story:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2216627/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Another:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2249711/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Albemarle County group didn't want it run there:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2217022/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
This one identifies who actually came up with the idea of the southern routing (Roanoke Businessman George Willis)
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2382360/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
Here is the story where the CTB finally voted to approve the Northern route in 1961:
http://fedoraproxy.lib.virginia.edu/fedora/objects/uva-lib:2393263/datastreams/scriptPDF/content
There could be other articles...got tired of searching
Thanks! I will take some time to look at those links.
I was the one who injected that map into the roads/highways online arena, and I see that it is on the Wikipedia I-64 article. Posted here in 2000 --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I64_VA_Desc.html
That said I think we need to do some more research. The video documentary on Henrico County Interstates published several months ago by Henrico public TV, the one where I was one of the interviewees, discussed the I-64 routing controversy, and showed a map of the southern route following US-60 between Richmond and Lexington, passing about 5 miles north of Lynchburg. That would be a fairly direct routing.
This brings into question whether the map I found in a study at the state library, was ever an approved alternate for the Lynchburg route.
Another potential place to find information is in Virginia Highway Bulletins of the late 1950s-early 1960s. That is where I found (Aug 1960) a map showing the eastern studied path for I-77 north of I-81 via Glen Lyn...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fi77optionnorth-aug60.jpg&hash=061490133c5345ae3a095d1ac2b673da6109bdc1)
The Richmond to Lynchburg routing was around long enough that they changed where it left Richmond
See last page at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1960-01.pdf
Oddly, on the previous page, a commissioner made a motion to approve the eastern I-77 route above I-81 and imediately after a motion was put out to approve the western route. In this same meeting they approved the western route of I-77 south of I-81 (later changed to the eastern route in 1965 after NC approved the eastern path in their state).
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 19, 2017, 01:24:38 PM
Another potential place to find information is in Virginia Highway Bulletins of the late 1950s-early 1960s. That is where I found (Aug 1960) a map showing the eastern studied path for I-77 north of I-81 via Glen Lyn...
The Richmond to Lynchburg routing was around long enough that they changed where it left Richmond
See last page at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1960-01.pdf
Oddly, on the previous page, a commissioner made a motion to approve the eastern I-77 route above I-81 and imediately after a motion was put out to approve the western route. In this same meeting they approved the western route of I-77 south of I-81 (later changed to the eastern route in 1965 after NC approved the eastern path in their state).
I have a number of old Virginia Highway Bulletins, and some of my cites on my website includes them. Published by VDH so a very solid source for the I-77 alternates.
I recall a newspaper article about 1973 that said that a federal law had been rescinded, a 1950s law that mandated that new rural Interstate routings follow the most direct route possible.
That law in and of itself should have been ample grounds not to select the eastern I-77 route as it looks about 10 miles longer. Without that law if a DOT had reasons they could consider a longer route.
By 1973 probably about 85% of the rural Interstates nationally were either built or if not yet built had their locations approved. By then, north of I-81, part of I-77 was open and the rest was under construction.
In Louisiana, Lafayette needs it most. A loop or a partial bypass. Monroe is the next largest place that could (maybe) use one. If nothing else just to add a fourth river crossing. Alexandria/Pineville needs it least. US 71 is a good enough bypass/detour route.
iPhone
In Nebraska, Hastings and Grand Island should have got a double spur. I would call it I-380. I also think the freeway between Fremont and Omaha should be I-780.
In Minnesota, the obvious candidate is Rochester, but I would have to think St. Cloud is a good candidate for a 3di as well. Fargo-Moorhead (which obviously includes North Dakota) could be as well.
To Nebraska I'd add Lincoln, even though it has one (180) really should have a second, and perhaps when they finally build the south and east beltway they will.
Colorado Springs. I also thought 36 to Boulder could be an x70; the problem is 270 is even and wouldn't really make a good extension for that reason. Maybe they could change it to 370.
Austin, TX should probably have one.
South Pasadena!
Quote from: mrose on May 20, 2017, 03:35:45 AM
To Nebraska I'd add Lincoln, even though it has one (180) really should have a second, and perhaps when they finally build the south and east beltway they will.
Given that last time I checked, the proposed beltway interchanges with US 75 and the Highway 2 expressway to Nebraska City were both going to treat the beltway as the through route, I think there is a very good chance of the beltway at least trying for an even I-x80.
----------------------------
For Wisconsin, I am going to suggest Kenosha with a spur off I-94 since neither the Lake Freeway nor what appears to have been a less seriously considered extension of the Amstutz Expressway from Waukegan were ever built.
Athens, GA should probably have one. The GA 316 freeway to it will probably be completed by the early 23rd century or so; maybe we can put an Interstate shield on it then. I'd also go ahead with the originally-planned I-175 to Albany (roughly along GA 300).
Quote from: Eth on May 20, 2017, 12:56:24 PM
Athens, GA should probably have one. The GA 316 freeway to it will probably be completed by the early 23rd century or so; maybe we can put an Interstate shield on it then. I'd also go ahead with the originally-planned I-175 to Albany (roughly along GA 300).
Athens, Greece also needs one :bigass:.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on May 17, 2017, 10:45:18 PM
What city in your state doesn't have any spurs/bypass/loop Interstates but should have them?
Roanoke, VA has the I-581 spur to the downtown. This would become part of I-73 if that highway was built down to NC. I-73 would be a logical upgrade to the US-220 corridor, but at $4 billion I don't know how it can be funded.
I have wondered at times if a partial circumferential to the south of Salem and Roanoke, connecting to I-81 at either end, would be needed or to the advantage to develop. This would be I-481.