Which roads (interstate, state, federal, other) that were never completed deserve to be finished the most and why?
I-366. :bigass:
CT 11. Looking at a map, it is obviously incomplete, as it doesn't seem to have a purpose in its current form.
I-710 serves as secondary way to Pasadena and I-210, and would provide a huge relief for the substandard Arroyo Seco Parkway. It can run as a tunnel and connect with the stub by I-210.
Southern Crossing from Candlestick Park to Alameda Island.
Quote from: bing101 on September 26, 2017, 10:16:39 PM
Southern Crossing from Candlestick Park to Alameda Island.
Agreed. and CASR-65.
Quote from: bing101 on September 26, 2017, 10:16:39 PM
Southern Crossing from Candlestick Park to Alameda Island.
Funny you bring that up; this past weekend I went to visit family, got laid up in Oakland, and flew past where it would be on the way out. Got a few pictures of the would-be site with the Bay Bridge in the background.
Foothills Parkway in Tennessee.
Not to sound cliche about California since there are a ton of incomplete routes I'll go with some Arizona stuff instead. It would be nice if AZ 99 and AZ 288 actually made it to AZ 260 rather than just turning into Forest Routes.
Quote from: michravera on September 26, 2017, 10:56:41 PM
Quote from: bing101 on September 26, 2017, 10:16:39 PM
Southern Crossing from Candlestick Park to Alameda Island.
Agreed. and CASR-65.
How about CA-244 Sacramento its a stub off CA-51 Sacramento and supposedly its supposed to be bigger than that current alignment.
http://www.ssf.net/our-city/biotech/biotech-in-ssf
Back to Southern Crossing at Candlestick Park im surprised that the Biotech CEO's from South City and board members has never come forward to say that they would benefit from this route at the Stick.
I-338 :bigass:
Oregon I-305
Westside Bypass
NJ 55. To get to the shore in half the time.
I-70, to serve both the San Francisco Bay Area and the Delmarva Peninsula/Jersey Shore, take your pick.
Corridor H aka US 48. Just might help taking some of the truck traffic off of I-81. I-73 in VA from Roanoke to Martinsville. is another. Both would make my traveling much easier to events I vend at.
I-87 to Greenland
I-40 to Bermuda
I-GOAT to Alanland
On a more serious note: I-291 between I-84 in Farmington and I-91 in Windsor.
CA-84 there's 2 sections of CA-84 and Vasco Road was going to be an eastern bypass for I-680.
How about I-2 crossing the Gulf of Mexico into Fort Myers, FL and then going across the peninsula to West Palm Beach. Heck why not go further and build it to end in the Bahamas. :)
Hey why not too extend US 1 into Havana from Key West. :)
Another Arizona one I forgot about was AZ 238. The road west of Mobile to Gila Bend was paved this past decade and is under Maricopa County control. I can't imagine that given the quality of some of the county Routes in Maricopa that they will maintain it as well as ADOT can.
And since a couple other posters have mentioned California I'll throw some off kilter Tran-Sierra Routes that never came to be. My favorite incomlete Trans-Sierra route would be CA 168 just for the sheer absurdity of a Piute Pass route. Secondary would be CA 203 along the San Joaquin River which honestly would be probably much more realistic since it never would go above 9,500 feet. Even CA 180 prior to the establishment of Kings Canyon National Park had some crazy high passes it would have had to tackle, more than likely Onion Valley Road would have had to been utilized. CA 190 is probably the only route that ever stood a realistic chance but really isn't needed with Sherman Pass Road.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2017, 11:30:45 AM
How about I-2 crossing the Gulf of Mexico into Fort Myers, FL and then going across the peninsula to West Palm Beach. Heck why not go further and build it to end in the Bahamas. :)
Hey why not too extend US 1 into Havana from Key West. :)
Funny to think that Cape Sable to No Name Key was once considered for the Overseas Railroad. If we're going FritzOwl crazy just extended FL 9336 through Everglades National Park by proxy of the No Name Pub.
Quote from: Henry on September 27, 2017, 09:08:53 AM
I-70, to serve both the San Francisco Bay Area and the Delmarva Peninsula/Jersey Shore, take your pick.
i-70 was supposed to go that far? why didnt they finish it?
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 27, 2017, 12:21:47 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 27, 2017, 09:08:53 AM
I-70, to serve both the San Francisco Bay Area and the Delmarva Peninsula/Jersey Shore, take your pick.
i-70 was supposed to go that far? why didnt they finish it?
It never was intended to go California, a lot of people think it should since the terrain is workable. The problem is that almost all of US 50 across Neveda has no traffic and is perfectly adequate as is. US 95 north of Las Vegas gets drawn into similar debates with I-11 even though the two-lane roadway is pretty damn sufficient. Basically the big debate with I-70 was connecting it to I-15 via the San Rafael Swell versus a more direct route to Salt Lake City.
I heard Delaware don't want no East-West Freeway which could at least make I-70 go to Reehoboth and then if you really want it to go further build a bridge across the Delaware Bay and have it end at the Garden State Parkway in Lower Township, NJ. This would be via I-97, US 50/301 and MD/DE 404 from Baltimore.
Or you can have it follow US 50 all the way to Ocean City.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 27, 2017, 12:21:47 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 27, 2017, 09:08:53 AM
I-70, to serve both the San Francisco Bay Area and the Delmarva Peninsula/Jersey Shore, take your pick.
i-70 was supposed to go that far? why didnt they finish it?
In the original 1947 Interstate System plans (https://www.cambooth.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/aug57int.jpg), I-70 was intended to dead-end in Denver. The FHWA Rambler column (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/covefort.cfm) has a detailed entry on how 70 was extended westward and why it ends in Cove Fort.
As someone who's driven from San Francisco to the East (and back) several times, I don't know that an I-70 extension across Nevada to US 50 would be very useful or necessary, and that's before we talk about the feasibility of building new freeways in California's Sierras.
From a quick map search, it appears that a "direct" route on the US 50 corridor saves only about 25 miles vs the existing I-80/I-25 route between SF and Denver. And once you pass the Lake Tahoe/Carson City area, there's practically nothing between there and the existing end of I-70.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2017, 12:42:24 PM
I heard Delaware don't want no East-West Freeway which could at least make I-70 go to Reehoboth and then if you really want it to go further build a bridge across the Delaware Bay and have it end at the Garden State Parkway in Lower Township, NJ. This would be via I-97, US 50/301 and MD/DE 404 from Baltimore.
Or you can have it follow US 50 all the way to Ocean City.
Speaking of Delaware, complete the Delmarva interstate between Norfolk and Churchmans Crossing.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2017, 11:30:45 AM
How about I-2 crossing the Gulf of Mexico into Fort Myers, FL and then going across the peninsula to West Palm Beach. Heck why not go further and build it to end in the Bahamas. :)
Hey why not too extend US 1 into Havana from Key West. :)
How do you intend to do that?
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 27, 2017, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2017, 11:30:45 AM
How about I-2 crossing the Gulf of Mexico into Fort Myers, FL and then going across the peninsula to West Palm Beach. Heck why not go further and build it to end in the Bahamas. :)
Hey why not too extend US 1 into Havana from Key West. :)
How do you intend to do that?
I was being funny. I do not think that even the smartest engineer in the world could bridge that gap. Maybe a floating bridge but why would we really want to have a highway go there really go over the sea anyway.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 27, 2017, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2017, 11:30:45 AM
How about I-2 crossing the Gulf of Mexico into Fort Myers, FL and then going across the peninsula to West Palm Beach. Heck why not go further and build it to end in the Bahamas. :)
Hey why not too extend US 1 into Havana from Key West. :)
How do you intend to do that?
A bridge, of course.
PA 43
I-275 in Michigan. All of what would have been I-275 north of I-696 that got built was as M-5.
The Bluegrass Parkway in Kentucky from its existing terminus at US 60 to I-64.
Also, I-99 from Cumberland, Md. to Bedford, Pa., and also from I-80 northeast to Williamsport.
Quote from: Starfighterace on September 27, 2017, 09:28:04 AMI-73 in VA from Roanoke to Martinsville.
What's wrong with existing US 220? It's a four-lane road and traffic moves pretty well on it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 27, 2017, 03:37:49 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 27, 2017, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2017, 11:30:45 AM
How about I-2 crossing the Gulf of Mexico into Fort Myers, FL and then going across the peninsula to West Palm Beach. Heck why not go further and build it to end in the Bahamas. :)
Hey why not too extend US 1 into Havana from Key West. :)
How do you intend to do that?
A bridge, of course.
U.S. 10 is run along a ferry across Lake Michigan; I was thinking something similar could be done across the Gulf to Florida. It would obviously be slow and expensive, but doable. (Maybe also run I-2 as a southern route south of I-10.)
I-24 across Southern IL to directly reach St Louis...
And to really go off the deep end to Fictional-land...change I-24 to an Odd 2DI and connect this new STL leg to the Avenue of the Saints, upgrade the Ave to Interstate standard, and commission a new 2DI from the Twin Cities, MN to Chattanooga, TN. I would nominate for either I-51 or I-53 (diagonal routes are fun to number; and yes, this I-51/53/24/whatever would cross US 51 near Carbondale, IL and US 24 near Hannibal, MO)
Going Odd, I realize this would result in a wrong-way concurrency with I-69 in KY. So be it
Quote from: briantroutman on September 27, 2017, 01:23:22 PM
In the original 1947 Interstate System plans (https://www.cambooth.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/aug57int.jpg), I-70 was intended to dead-end in Denver. The FHWA Rambler column (https://www.cambooth.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/aug57int.jpg) has a detailed entry on how 70 was extended westward and why it ends in Cove Fort.
(Both links above go to the same map. If you get a moment, would you please edit the second link so it points to the FHWA Rambler column??)
How about the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway (NY 135)? It would be great to have a way to enter and exit Long Island without going through New York City.
I-605 around Seattle, for sure!
Quote from: davewiecking on September 28, 2017, 12:29:54 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 27, 2017, 01:23:22 PM
In the original 1947 Interstate System plans (https://www.cambooth.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/aug57int.jpg), I-70 was intended to dead-end in Denver. The has a detailed entry on how 70 was extended westward and why it ends in Cove Fort.
(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/covefort.cfm%5B/url)
(Both links above go to the same map. If you get a moment, would you please edit the second link so it points to the FHWA Rambler column??)
Sorry–here's the correct link: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/covefort.cfm
(Earlier post has been corrected, too.)
NJ 55 south of Mile 20. It would *really* help to have a second freeway from Philly to the "shore points".
Quote from: bzakharin on September 28, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
NJ 55 south of Mile 20. It would *really* help to have a second freeway from Philly to the "shore points".
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21180.msg2261625#msg2261625
I-39 to US 8.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 27, 2017, 01:23:22 PM
From a quick map search, it appears that a "direct" route on the US 50 corridor saves only about 25 miles vs the existing I-80/I-25 route between SF and Denver. And once you pass the Lake Tahoe/Carson City area, there's practically nothing between there and the existing end of I-70.
Nothing except a series of N-S mountain ranges, most topping out at a 10K+foot elevation that would have to be surmounted along US 50 in NV (quite an undertaking for little potential traffic!). Practically, it would likely have to merge with I-80 near Fernley (joining the projected I-11 in the region); dragging an Interstate alignment around Lake Tahoe and over the US 50 Echo Summit isn't likely something that would be either practicable or even politically feasible! I've heard Carson Pass and CA 88 down to the Stockton area bandied about as an alternative -- but that would involve even more environmental problems with the watershed west of the pass. In the long-term analysis, extending I-70 westward would, plain & simple, be more trouble than it's worth!
why not have it shoot straight up to salt lake city?
I-70 deserves to go to California, where it could replace US 50 to SAC.
I-15 also needs to be signed along CA 15
Quote from: Henry on September 27, 2017, 09:08:53 AM
I-70, to serve both the San Francisco Bay Area and the Delmarva Peninsula/Jersey Shore, take your pick.
I'd be happy if they just revived the proposal to bring it to I-95 in Baltimore.
HOW ABOUT COMPLETING INTERSTATE 95 LOL
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 28, 2017, 08:04:54 PM
why not have it shoot straight up to salt lake city?
Check the links in reply #37 above; that'll provide the rationale used to reroute I-70 (originally it was going to intersect I-15 at Spanish Fork, south of Provo) away from the Wasatch Valley down to Salina and Cove Fort. That being said, US 6 between I-70 near Green River and I-15 at Spanish Fork (essentially the pre-reroute I-70 pathway)
is a high-priority corridor (#53); unfortunately the terrain around Soldier Summit is such that reconstructing the corridor to even divided expressway standards would be extremely costly (the 1983 landslide realignment near Thistle and the US 89 junction would also be troublesome to rebuild). It may have been fiscally possible in terms of 1957 dollars -- but at today's cost structure it would probably be prohibitive. "Spot" improvements to US 6 have been done over the years (including the Price bypass); it's likely that this type of project will prevail for the near term.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 28, 2017, 08:54:04 PM
HOW ABOUT COMPLETING INTERSTATE 95 LOL
I think that's going on right now.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 29, 2017, 02:46:28 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 28, 2017, 08:54:04 PM
HOW ABOUT COMPLETING INTERSTATE 95 LOL
I think that's going on right now.
To me even when 95 is open on the new PA Turnpike connection, it will still be incomplete. Somerset freeway made more sense. Now roads like US1 and 206 as well as NJ 31 are even more stressed because the cancellation of the freeway didn't stop development
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on September 29, 2017, 08:48:03 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 29, 2017, 02:46:28 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 28, 2017, 08:54:04 PM
HOW ABOUT COMPLETING INTERSTATE 95 LOL
I think that's going on right now.
To me even when 95 is open on the new PA Turnpike connection, it will still be incomplete. Somerset freeway made more sense. Now roads like US1 and 206 as well as NJ 31 are even more stressed because the cancellation of the freeway didn't stop development
A similar argument can be made about the cancelled segments of I-95 inside of MA 128 and the MD/DC segment inside the Capital Beltway (I-495).
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2017, 08:52:50 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on September 29, 2017, 08:48:03 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 29, 2017, 02:46:28 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 28, 2017, 08:54:04 PM
HOW ABOUT COMPLETING INTERSTATE 95 LOL
I think that's going on right now.
To me even when 95 is open on the new PA Turnpike connection, it will still be incomplete. Somerset freeway made more sense. Now roads like US1 and 206 as well as NJ 31 are even more stressed because the cancellation of the freeway didn't stop development
A similar argument can be made about the cancelled segments of I-95 inside of MA 128 and the MD/DC segment inside the Capital Beltway (I-495).
I can understand that.. however Somerset freeway was not breaking up densely populated urban neighborhoods.. it was wealthy influential people who didn't want freeway near their rural properties
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on September 29, 2017, 09:08:31 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2017, 08:52:50 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on September 29, 2017, 08:48:03 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 29, 2017, 02:46:28 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 28, 2017, 08:54:04 PM
HOW ABOUT COMPLETING INTERSTATE 95 LOL
I think that's going on right now.
To me even when 95 is open on the new PA Turnpike connection, it will still be incomplete. Somerset freeway made more sense. Now roads like US1 and 206 as well as NJ 31 are even more stressed because the cancellation of the freeway didn't stop development
A similar argument can be made about the cancelled segments of I-95 inside of MA 128 and the MD/DC segment inside the Capital Beltway (I-495).
I can understand that.. however Somerset freeway was not breaking up densely populated urban neighborhoods.. it was wealthy influential people who didn't want freeway near their rural properties
Z981
Again, this is hardly the first highway to have undergone alignment design changes. It's just the most notable due to the delays. If PennDOT and the PTC moved to build the interchange between 95 and the PA Turnpike in the early 80's when the feds approved such a change, the abandoned alignment wouldn't be talked about much at all here. That one simple little interchange has caused a 35 year delay in finishing the mainline highway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 29, 2017, 09:52:23 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on September 29, 2017, 09:08:31 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2017, 08:52:50 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on September 29, 2017, 08:48:03 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 29, 2017, 02:46:28 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 28, 2017, 08:54:04 PM
HOW ABOUT COMPLETING INTERSTATE 95 LOL
I think that's going on right now.
To me even when 95 is open on the new PA Turnpike connection, it will still be incomplete. Somerset freeway made more sense. Now roads like US1 and 206 as well as NJ 31 are even more stressed because the cancellation of the freeway didn't stop development
A similar argument can be made about the cancelled segments of I-95 inside of MA 128 and the MD/DC segment inside the Capital Beltway (I-495).
I can understand that.. however Somerset freeway was not breaking up densely populated urban neighborhoods.. it was wealthy influential people who didn't want freeway near their rural properties
Z981
Again, this is hardly the first highway to have undergone alignment design changes. It's just the most notable due to the delays. If PennDOT and the PTC moved to build the interchange between 95 and the PA Turnpike in the early 80's when the feds approved such a change, the abandoned alignment wouldn't be talked about much at all here. That one simple little interchange has caused a 35 year delay in finishing the mainline highway.
The thing is, we really need a freeway along the US 206 corridor to connect Trenton to NYC, but also to upstate New York and Northwest NJ via 287, and the PA Turnpike interchange would not have provided that no matter when it were built.
Maryland Route 165 is a different example. It emerges from York County, Pennsylvania and winds through Harford County, and goes briefly into Baltimore County, where at Baldwin, it just stops at a point where three other county roads - Pleasantville Road, Long Green Pike and Fork Road - meet. It was planned like this all along, though, because this was the approximate point where the Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad once passed through. Fork Road would have to be upgraded to State Highway Administration standards for Route 165 to be extended out to U.S. Route 1 at Kingsville, something that will happen when hell freezes over.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 29, 2017, 09:52:23 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on September 29, 2017, 09:08:31 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2017, 08:52:50 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on September 29, 2017, 08:48:03 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 29, 2017, 02:46:28 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 28, 2017, 08:54:04 PM
HOW ABOUT COMPLETING INTERSTATE 95 LOL
I think that's going on right now.
To me even when 95 is open on the new PA Turnpike connection, it will still be incomplete. Somerset freeway made more sense. Now roads like US1 and 206 as well as NJ 31 are even more stressed because the cancellation of the freeway didn't stop development
A similar argument can be made about the cancelled segments of I-95 inside of MA 128 and the MD/DC segment inside the Capital Beltway (I-495).
I can understand that.. however Somerset freeway was not breaking up densely populated urban neighborhoods.. it was wealthy influential people who didn't want freeway near their rural properties
Z981
Again, this is hardly the first highway to have undergone alignment design changes. It's just the most notable due to the delays. If PennDOT and the PTC moved to build the interchange between 95 and the PA Turnpike in the early 80's when the feds approved such a change, the abandoned alignment wouldn't be talked about much at all here. That one simple little interchange has caused a 35 year delay in finishing the mainline highway.
This is a bit more than alignment change.
Z981
Does NY-135 spanning Long Island Sound count? ;)
More closer to my neck of woods, A-50 between Mirabel and Joliette as well as A-13 between St-Eustache and Mirabel and A-19.
* I-70 in Pennsylvania around Exit 161 on the Turnpike
* I-49/Bella Vista Bypass in Missouri and Arkansas
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 27, 2017, 12:34:15 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 27, 2017, 12:21:47 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 27, 2017, 09:08:53 AM
I-70, to serve both the San Francisco Bay Area and the Delmarva Peninsula/Jersey Shore, take your pick.
i-70 was supposed to go that far? why didnt they finish it?
It never was intended to go California, a lot of people think it should since the terrain is workable. The problem is that almost all of US 50 across Neveda has no traffic and is perfectly adequate as is. US 95 north of Las Vegas gets drawn into similar debates with I-11 even though the two-lane roadway is pretty damn sufficient. Basically the big debate with I-70 was connecting it to I-15 via the San Rafael Swell versus a more direct route to Salt Lake City.
I recently had the chance to travel the US-6/191 corridor between Green River and Provo. While there is definitely a need to 4-lane (and raise the speed limit on) US-6 between I-70 and Price/US-191 Split, anything west of Soldier Summit -- including putting in a limited access freeway -- is damn near impossible due to the terrain and the lack of available open/ROW space Between I-15 and about 10 miles east of Spanish Fork, as that area is growing like a bamboo forest.
That being said, there is enough traffic, IMHO, to warrant an interstate-grade connection between I-70 and I-15, and a completed freeway could pull a noticable chunk of DEN->SLC traffic off of I-80 and I-25, especially on good weather days/seasons.
US 30 freeway between Lancaster (PA) and Sadsburyville/Coatesville. Better IMHO than the PA 23 Goat Path.
PA 23 Schuylkill Parkway
I'll third the Foothills Parkway in TN. That was a nice drive.
Nexus 6P
US 30 freeway East of Canton OH also. US 30 from Indiana to I-71 is great. US 30 East of Canton to OH 11 less so.
Nexus 6P
I-49 in AR. That and I-29 should then be renumbered together as I-45 (And I-45 in TX to something else, as it's far from major), but that is fictional territory.
One for this side of the pond: Spanish A-22. Luckily the final section to A-23 is now tendered after years of NIMBYism and budget cuts.
Quote from: thenetwork on October 01, 2017, 10:25:39 AM
That being said, there is enough traffic, IMHO, to warrant an interstate-grade connection between I-70 and I-15, and a completed freeway could pull a noticable chunk of DEN->SLC traffic off of I-80 and I-25, especially on good weather days/seasons.
Would the extra traffic on I-70 through Colorado be worth pulling it off I-25 and I-80? Assuming the traffic volumes keep growing, I-70 would be impractical to widen in many spots. I-25 north of Denver would be easier to widen (IIRC), or relieve with a parallel corridor to the east. I can't say about I-80 between Cheyenne and Salt Lake City - I've always been enticed by the scenery along I-70 in Colorado to take the extra travel time.
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 01, 2017, 11:43:05 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on October 01, 2017, 10:25:39 AM
That being said, there is enough traffic, IMHO, to warrant an interstate-grade connection between I-70 and I-15, and a completed freeway could pull a noticeable chunk of DEN->SLC traffic off of I-80 and I-25, especially on good weather days/seasons.
Would the extra traffic on I-70 through Colorado be worth pulling it off I-25 and I-80? Assuming the traffic volumes keep growing, I-70 would be impractical to widen in many spots. I-25 north of Denver would be easier to widen (IIRC), or relieve with a parallel corridor to the east. I can't say about I-80 between Cheyenne and Salt Lake City - I've always been enticed by the scenery along I-70 in Colorado to take the extra travel time.
The real bottlenecks on I-70 really only happen on the weekends when the urban traffic heads up into the mountains on Friday Night and return on Sunday (or a Monday holiday). They could add a few additional stretches of truck lanes on the upgrades each way (cough cough Vail Pass cough cough) and that would satisfy normal day-to-day movements.
Once west of Vail, the existing 2-lanes per direction is more than adequate for decades to come. The current freeway from Vail to Green River can handle additional traffic.
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 01, 2017, 11:43:05 AM
I can't say about I-80 between Cheyenne and Salt Lake City - I've always been enticed by the scenery along I-70 in Colorado to take the extra travel time.
I-80 would be relatively easy to widen through most of WY, though there are some canyon bottlenecks in places. Once you get into UT, Echo Canyon and Parley's Canyon don't have that much room for expansion.
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 01, 2017, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 01, 2017, 11:43:05 AM
I can't say about I-80 between Cheyenne and Salt Lake City - I've always been enticed by the scenery along I-70 in Colorado to take the extra travel time.
I-80 would be relatively easy to widen through most of WY, though there are some canyon bottlenecks in places. Once you get into UT, Echo Canyon and Parley's Canyon don't have that much room for expansion.
The real question for the I-70/US-6 vs. I-80/I-25 between Denver & Salt Lake topic is during the winter,...:
- Which route has more road closures in the winter?
- Which route has more bad weather in the winter? In the case of I-70, most of the bad weather & closures run between Glenwood Springs and Denver (moreso Vail to Denver). I rarely hear of any I-70 closures in Utah between CO and Green River due to weather.
- Which state gets their interstate cleared and open quicker during and after bad weather?
- Which route has more alternate routes / frontage roads? (Both I-70 & I-80 have stretches where if there is an accident or closure, there is no nearby parallel alternative).
If Colorado has the advantage, and if there ever was an interstate to parallel/replace the US-6 corridor, then more traffic would use it.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 30, 2017, 07:37:51 PM
* I-70 in Pennsylvania around Exit 161 on the Turnpike
I had an idea on how to solve the Breezewood problem:
Build two EZ-Pass-only ramps; one from the Turnpike EB to I-70 EB, and the other one from I-70 WB to the Turnpike WB. Thought it seems kind of workable. (Though knowing PA, it'll take between now and the Second Coming, maybe more, to complete them.)
On the Breezewood, it looks like they can fit two ramps where I-70 crosses over the portion of the (original) Turnpike which is between the Exit 161 Toll Booths and US-30: A Westbound I-70 loop ramp or 2-lane flyover from Free 70 to the original segment just before the toll gate and a simple one or two-lane off ramp EB Tolled I-70 just after the toll booths to Free I-70. The new westbound ramp might be congested for a bit until the PTC goes ticketless, then the required stop at the toll plaza would be eliminated.
You would still have the current roadways end at US-30 like before.
The solution is too easy, it's those damn Breezewood NIMBYs that are not.
Turn Breezewood into a giant service plaza.
Quote from: inkyatari on October 02, 2017, 10:44:12 AM
Turn Breezewood into a giant service plaza.
I thought it already was???
^ Breezewood is ok the way it is. I actually like stopping there, and I dig the fact that it entices long distance truckers to stop for a break (well at least I-70 trucks anyway).
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2017, 09:51:55 PM
The Bluegrass Parkway in Kentucky from its existing terminus at US 60 to I-64.
Agreed, though I think I've read somewhere the reason why it hasn't been extended is because it would've went through some horse pastures or something and the owners of them wasn't having it. I didn't realize at the time when I went to drive it (2002 or 3) that it was going to take so long to reach it from I-64 WB, really I just wanted to check out one of those funky cloverleaf setups, which turned out unnecessary anyway as I drove through an actual toll on the Audubon Pkwy a year later lol
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 30, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
Does NY-135 spanning Long Island Sound count? ;)
It does to me. Not just that, but reaching down to the Wantagh Parkway just south of Merrick Road.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 02, 2017, 08:22:35 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 30, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
Does NY-135 spanning Long Island Sound count? ;)
It does to me. Not just that, but reaching down to the Wantagh Parkway just south of Merrick Road.
I'd rather extend I-91 across Long island Sound to the William Floyd Parkway. Would chop 3 hours off a trip to Eastern LI for me.
-The US 7 Interstate, which was, IIRC, supposed to be the original I-89. Currently exists in fragments in CT and VT.
-I-290 (MA) from Marlborough to I-95 in Waltham. Could take slack off US 20 and provide a free alternative to get to I-95.
- I-84 (or US 6) (CT) from Bolton, CT to Providence, RI. I say "or US 6" because it could be replaced with either a full Interstate or a Virginia-style 4-lane divided road with at-grade intersections.
- CT 2, from freeway end in Norwich to I-95 in North Stonington.
- I-284 (CT) from East Hartford to East Windsor. Currently stubs at both ends, southern stub was actually logged as I-284 in the 70s but never signed. IMO US 5 is due for a bypass in that area, especially in East Windsor.
- I-291 (CT) from Bloomfield to West Hartford (duh)
I'll say complete CT 78 to I-95 in Stonington, but I might get another weird comment about golf courses and breasts. :sombrero:
Quote from: RobbieL2415The US 7 Interstate, which was, IIRC, supposed to be the original I-89.
It wasn't, despite
"roadgeek legend" that suggests it...
If the so-called US 7 Interstate were to have been I-89, then what number would've gone to the one that actually has it?
Quote from: Henry on October 03, 2017, 08:54:20 AM
If the so-called US 7 Interstate were to have been I-89, then what number would've gone to the one that actually has it?
Other than the Burlington-Highgate portion that would be part of the US 7 routed I-89, the NW/SE portion would have been I-92 or I-98. If that had been the case, would they have extended it along I-189 and built a causeway across Lake Champlain to connect to the Northway near Exit 33?
The north end of the Taconic State Parkway in New York?
Here in Wisconsin, I would say:
- I/WI-794 Lake Freeway/Parkway southward to at least WI 33 at the Kenosha-Racine County line.
- WI 11 eastward from Brodhead to at least I-39/90.
- US 51 freeway/expressway to the north end of the Lakeland (Minocqua/Woodruff) area.
- US 12 from Madison to Elkhorn.
- WI 21 bypass of Omro.
Mike
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 03, 2017, 12:41:58 AM
-The US 7 Interstate, which was, IIRC, supposed to be the original I-89. Currently exists in fragments in CT and VT.
I'd like this to be true, and there certainly was a plan for a 3-state US 7 freeway, but I've never seen evidence of the I-89 number for it.
1947 Public Roads interstate plan map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_August_2,_1947_big_text.jpg
1955 interstate map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_September_1955.jpg
1957 AASHO interstate map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_August_14,_1957.jpg
Has there ever been any thought given to completing the US 22 corridor in Ohio between Pittsburgh and Cambridge by finishing the unimproved portion between Cambridge and Cadiz?
I-73 between Greensboro and Roanoke and from Rockingham to Myrtle Beach.
Quote from: Strider on October 03, 2017, 01:53:31 PM
I-73 between Greensboro and Roanoke
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Quote from: mgk920 on October 03, 2017, 10:44:58 AM
The north end of the Taconic State Parkway in New York?
Quote from: Strider on October 03, 2017, 01:53:31 PM
I-73 between Greensboro and Roanoke and from Rockingham to Myrtle Beach.
I say yes to both.
Speaking of parkways, mgk920, I also want to see the completion of Bethpage State Parkway to the Northern State Parkway, Wantagh State Parkway to the Long Island Expressway, and the removal of the gap in the Bear Mountain Parkway!!
US 74 around Shelby and King's Mountain, NC
US 31 in Benton Harbor, MI
I- 555 from Jonesboro to Thayer MO
Quote from: hbelkins on October 03, 2017, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: Strider on October 03, 2017, 01:53:31 PM
I-73 between Greensboro and Roanoke
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Quote from: 2trailertrucker on October 03, 2017, 08:03:26 PM
US 74 around Shelby and King's Mountain, NC
US 31 in Benton Harbor, MI
I- 555 from Jonesboro to Thayer MO
US 74 is much deserving. I forgot to add that. Thank you for pointing it out.
*Cough* I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana! *Cough*
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 04, 2017, 11:34:21 AM
*Cough* I-49 between Fort Smith and Texarkana! *Cough*
Speaking of Texarkana -- I-69/369 between Houston and Texarkana; arguably the single most deserving segment of the entire I-69 complex (although I'll get arguments about that from Evansville folks!).
Quote from: Strider on October 04, 2017, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: 2trailertrucker on October 03, 2017, 08:03:26 PM
US 74 around Shelby and King's Mountain, NC
US 31 in Benton Harbor, MI
I- 555 from Jonesboro to Thayer MO
US 74 is much deserving. I forgot to add that. Thank you for pointing it out.
Isn't construction underway on that segment now?
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 27, 2017, 11:00:15 AM
I-87 to Greenland
I-40 to Bermuda
I-GOAT to Alanland
On a more serious note: I-291 between I-84 in Farmington and I-91 in Windsor.
Don't forget I-10 to Honolulu and I-H1 to Kauai (one direction) and Kailua-Kona on the Big Island via Molokai and Maui (the other direction). :D
Seriously, California 65.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 03, 2017, 12:07:04 PM
Has there ever been any thought given to completing the US 22 corridor in Ohio between Pittsburgh and Cambridge by finishing the unimproved portion between Cambridge and Cadiz?
Nope, and there's no real reason to upgrade that section. There's minimal through traffic. According to Google Maps, Columbus to Pittsburgh is only 2 miles shorter via US 22 rather than via I-70 and I-79.
ODOT does have a Macro Corridor defined from Columbus to Steubenville via SR 161, SR 37, SR 16, US 36, US 250, and then US 22 east of Cadiz. There has been incremental process on the sections further west, but there's nothing really in the pipeline east of I-77. I'd like to see the 2-lane section of US 22 between the Cadiz bypass and SR 151 dualized to close the gap, but otherwise the routes handle their traffic pretty well.
Quote from: hm insulators on October 06, 2017, 12:00:16 PM
Seriously, California 65.
Unfortunately, that route's still an unadopted dotted line on the state highway map, although periodic rumblings, primarily from the Fresno area, have presented ideas for at least an expressway along a segment of this corridor between CA 180 east of Fresno and the CA 41/145 junction north of that city; this is conceived as an access facility for the ever-expanding eastern Fresno suburbs; an extension of that concept a bit northwest then west as an effective eastern extension of CA 152 has also been proposed. The latter is also one of the infamous "dotted lines" delineating "future" Caltrans corridors; like CA 65 (originally LRN 249), it's been proposed since 1959! Since no statewide need has been demonstrated (the alignment is too far east to function as a relief route for I-5, and CA 99 only exhibits recurring congestion within its urban portions), it's more than likely the only way any of the CA 65 corridor will see development is as a series of local SIU's such as the east Fresno server.
Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2017, 04:27:06 PM
Quote from: hm insulators on October 06, 2017, 12:00:16 PM
Seriously, California 65.
Unfortunately, that route's still an unadopted dotted line on the state highway map, although periodic rumblings, primarily from the Fresno area, have presented ideas for at least an expressway along a segment of this corridor between CA 180 east of Fresno and the CA 41/145 junction north of that city; this is conceived as an access facility for the ever-expanding eastern Fresno suburbs; an extension of that concept a bit northwest then west as an effective eastern extension of CA 152 has also been proposed. The latter is also one of the infamous "dotted lines" delineating "future" Caltrans corridors; like CA 65 (originally LRN 249), it's been proposed since 1959! Since no statewide need has been demonstrated (the alignment is too far east to function as a relief route for I-5, and CA 99 only exhibits recurring congestion within its urban portions), it's more than likely the only way any of the CA 65 corridor will see development is as a series of local SIU's such as the east Fresno server.
Speaking of 180, too bad that never got built out to 25 or even US 101 like it was originally planned. Really 180 pretty much did exist through the Diablos on Panoche as a County maintained state highway through part of the 1930s...at least on maps:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=69&trs=86
Really a state highway along the County Route J1 corridor would certainly relieve some of the Pacheco Pass traffic on 152. Granted the poor condition of J1 has really never stopped me from using it as a scenic detour.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 06, 2017, 11:33:28 PM
Really a state highway along the County Route J1 corridor would certainly relieve some of the Pacheco Pass traffic on 152. Granted the poor condition of J1 has really never stopped me from using it as a scenic detour.
You, and to a lesser extent myself and likely any number of forum posters, treat roads such as J1 as a challenge. The general public tends to view them as something to be avoided whenever possible. The fact that back in the '20's and '30's the present condition of J1 typified many rural roads in general -- even state-maintained highways -- making virtually
all roads outside urbanized areas something of a challenge. It's just that in the ensuing years all extension plans for CA 180 have essentially "cut the corner", running south of the J1 alignment -- so the impetus for upgrading J1 itself just hasn't been there; while most state highways have seen some level of improvement, many county-maintained routes such as J1 remain artifacts of bygone alignment and construction techniques.
When the legal definition of CA 180 extended west over present CA 25 all the way to US 101 south of Gilroy, I always wondered if there were "back-room" long-range plans to not only build the entire 180 corridor out to freeway standards as an alternate to CA 152 -- but possibly apply for Interstate status as I-180, using a co-signed US 101 from Gilroy to the I-280/680 interchange in San Jose as the western connection to the Bay Area Interstate network -- and then extending that I-180 designation east all the way to Fresno -- giving that city its long-sought Interstate service. I went so far as to ask my Caltrans-employee cousin (this was circa 1981-82 or so when he was working at their HQ in Sacramento) whether such plans had ever been discussed; after a few days he got back to me with the information that the idea had indeed been "tossed around" back in the pre-Gianturco days, but had always been dismissed due to the huge cost of such a project; and after 1975 such an immense project would have been a non-starter. The re-establishment of CA 25 over the route NW of the Pacines Road junction a couple of years later functionally put a nail in the coffin of any freeway concept along that alignment; it was about that time that the improvement of CA 152 on the west side of Pacheco Pass began, signaling Caltrans' intention to concentrate on that corridor as the principal facility crossing the Coast Range.
Quote from: sparker on October 07, 2017, 04:06:45 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 06, 2017, 11:33:28 PM
Really a state highway along the County Route J1 corridor would certainly relieve some of the Pacheco Pass traffic on 152. Granted the poor condition of J1 has really never stopped me from using it as a scenic detour.
You, and to a lesser extent myself and likely any number of forum posters, treat roads such as J1 as a challenge. The general public tends to view them as something to be avoided whenever possible. The fact that back in the '20's and '30's the present condition of J1 typified many rural roads in general -- even state-maintained highways -- making virtually all roads outside urbanized areas something of a challenge. It's just that in the ensuing years all extension plans for CA 180 have essentially "cut the corner", running south of the J1 alignment -- so the impetus for upgrading J1 itself just hasn't been there; while most state highways have seen some level of improvement, many county-maintained routes such as J1 remain artifacts of bygone alignment and construction techniques.
When the legal definition of CA 180 extended west over present CA 25 all the way to US 101 south of Gilroy, I always wondered if there were "back-room" long-range plans to not only build the entire 180 corridor out to freeway standards as an alternate to CA 152 -- but possibly apply for Interstate status as I-180, using a co-signed US 101 from Gilroy to the I-280/680 interchange in San Jose as the western connection to the Bay Area Interstate network -- and then extending that I-180 designation east all the way to Fresno -- giving that city its long-sought Interstate service. I went so far as to ask my Caltrans-employee cousin (this was circa 1981-82 or so when he was working at their HQ in Sacramento) whether such plans had ever been discussed; after a few days he got back to me with the information that the idea had indeed been "tossed around" back in the pre-Gianturco days, but had always been dismissed due to the huge cost of such a project; and after 1975 such an immense project would have been a non-starter. The re-establishment of CA 25 over the route NW of the Pacines Road junction a couple of years later functionally put a nail in the coffin of any freeway concept along that alignment; it was about that time that the improvement of CA 152 on the west side of Pacheco Pass began, signaling Caltrans' intention to concentrate on that corridor as the principal facility crossing the Coast Range.
Pretty much all those county routes west of the Diablo Range all have similar construction methods like G17, G16, and G15. I even drove all of G17 coming back from Monterey the other day just because I wanted to see the entire route and have a more engaging drive...which it certainly was. Really though, J1 is probably the most poorly maintained Signed County Route I've had the chance to finish. Its in even in worse shape than the routes Tulare County doesn't bother to sign anymore like J21.
Really the interesting thing is that if Little Panoche Road was utilized like modern J1 does then the terrain is actually the easiest to wor with in the entire Diablo Range. I don't know if a freeway would be needed but it would certainly worth exploring some sort of expansion given the lack of progress on 152 becoming an expressway to Gilroy. I would imagine some of those ranchers might be more willing to give up some land in San Benito County given that there isn't much out there to support them other than a new solar station near Mercy Hot Springs. All the mining in the area has been long dead in Idria and declared a Superfund sight, might as well bring some other source of revenue into town.
I just thought of another one;
Extend US 331 to US 31 in Montgomery, Alabama!
^ Why? There's no physical way to...there's no physical NEED to...it's in an urban area...they're already connected by the myriad of other US highways along South Blvd...and it doesn't meet the OP's criteria of being a proposed highway that was never finished.
Quote from: mgk920 on October 03, 2017, 10:44:58 AM
The north end of the Taconic State Parkway in New York?
Here in Wisconsin, I would say:
- I/WI-794 Lake Freeway/Parkway southward to at least WI 33 at the Kenosha-Racine County line.
- WI 11 eastward from Brodhead to at least I-39/90.
- US 51 freeway/expressway to the north end of the Lakeland (Minocqua/Woodruff) area.
- US 12 from Madison to Elkhorn.
- WI 21 bypass of Omro.
Mike
As far as the first one goes WI 33 is north of Milwaukee so this extension dosen't even make sense. WI 11 already exist between Brodhead and Janesville. The third one was the one I brought up. Upgrade US 51 to a full freeway to US 8 and extend I-39. From there to Woodruf widen US 51 to four lane but not a full freeway. I don't think the last 2 are all that needed. I would like to see the Lake Parkway upgraded to a freeway but I think it's fine where it ends.
Quote from: froggie on October 09, 2017, 03:46:08 PMWhy?
Oh gee, um... reconnecting 331 to it's parent route? Yeah, that's it.
And I thought this was about all routes that were incomplete, not just proposed limited-access highways.
The Amstutz Highway.
j/k
Palatine Road (junior expressway to full expressway)
IL-53 + IL-120
Elgin—O'Hare Expressway.
And don't tell me it's in the works. It still won't reach Elgin.
Quote from: kphoger on October 11, 2017, 04:11:44 PM
Elgin—O'Hare Expressway.
And don't tell me it's in the works. It still won't reach Elgin.
well if they can do the next small part with no stop lights maybe just maybe they can half ass it and make us-20 RIRO
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on October 11, 2017, 03:59:42 PM
Palatine Road (junior expressway to full expressway)
IL-53 + IL-120
Not to the Wisconsin state line at Richmond?
Mike
Quote from: dvferyance on October 09, 2017, 04:18:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 03, 2017, 10:44:58 AM
The north end of the Taconic State Parkway in New York?
Here in Wisconsin, I would say:
- I/WI-794 Lake Freeway/Parkway southward to at least WI 33 at the Kenosha-Racine County line.
- WI 11 eastward from Brodhead to at least I-39/90.
- US 51 freeway/expressway to the north end of the Lakeland (Minocqua/Woodruff) area.
- US 12 from Madison to Elkhorn.
- WI 21 bypass of Omro.
Mike
As far as the first one goes WI 33 is north of Milwaukee so this extension dosen't even make sense. WI 11 already exist between Brodhead and Janesville. The third one was the one I brought up. Upgrade US 51 to a full freeway to US 8 and extend I-39. From there to Woodruf widen US 51 to four lane but not a full freeway. I don't think the last 2 are all that needed. I would like to see the Lake Parkway upgraded to a freeway but I think it's fine where it ends.
US 12 is needed. I-39/I-90 will be better after the widening is finished, but given the size of Chicagoland and the amount of growth around Madison, there needs to be another corridor/option for getting between the two - which even if the route into Illinois is never completed, would be provided via the WI 50 corridor over to Kenosha. Plus there's all the safety issues with current US 12 north of Elkhorn.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 09, 2017, 04:18:29 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 03, 2017, 10:44:58 AM
The north end of the Taconic State Parkway in New York?
Here in Wisconsin, I would say:
- I/WI-794 Lake Freeway/Parkway southward to at least WI 33 at the Kenosha-Racine County line.
- WI 11 eastward from Brodhead to at least I-39/90.
- US 51 freeway/expressway to the north end of the Lakeland (Minocqua/Woodruff) area.
- US 12 from Madison to Elkhorn.
- WI 21 bypass of Omro.
Mike
As far as the first one goes WI 33 is north of Milwaukee so this extension dosen't even make sense. WI 11 already exist between Brodhead and Janesville. The third one was the one I brought up. Upgrade US 51 to a full freeway to US 8 and extend I-39. From there to Woodruf widen US 51 to four lane but not a full freeway. I don't think the last 2 are all that needed. I would like to see the Lake Parkway upgraded to a freeway but I think it's fine where it ends.
Brainfart at the time, I meant WI 31, not WI 33.
:spin:
Mike
The gap in the US-127 freeway between Ithaca and St. Johns. At least it's four lane divided (with an interchange already built at M-57)
Quote from: ftballfan on November 20, 2017, 11:52:03 AM
The gap in the US-127 freeway between Ithaca and St. Johns. At least it's four lane divided (with an interchange already built at M-57)
It's so lightly populated up there that it would be some major overkill. When I lived in DeWitt I was surprised at how people really wanted the US 127 freeway north of I-69. US 27 from I-69 to St. John's never seemed to me to adequate when I drove it. Really the only thing that was probably necessary was a bypass of St Johns around the east side of town.
Connecting Georgia 400 and I-675 like the original design of Atlanta expressways had it.
I always hated the idea of US-2 being discontinuous...not really sure how that came to be.
CA 138 as a freeway east from the completed I-5 "stub/ramps" to at least CA 14. Palmdale/Lancaster combined has a population near 350K; a freeway connection to I-5 would not only be appropriate for that area in and of itself, but as a connection to the proposed Palmdale-Victorville corridor. While not particularly direct, such combined facilities (CA 14 would be easily expanded by median lanes) would, in the long haul, help to divert traffic destined for or originating in the "Inland Empire" or other areas east of L.A. metro away from the L.A. basin itself.
Quote from: roadgeek on November 22, 2017, 03:07:51 PM
I always hated the idea of US-2 being discontinuous...not really sure how that came to be.
I thought I had heard early on it was "signed" through Canada to connect the sections, but it didn't last long. Then later the eastern terminus of the western 2 was cut back some time after I-75 was finished in the UP anyway.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 22, 2017, 03:59:53 PM
Quote from: roadgeek on November 22, 2017, 03:07:51 PM
I always hated the idea of US-2 being discontinuous...not really sure how that came to be.
I thought I had heard early on it was "signed" through Canada to connect the sections, but it didn't last long. Then later the eastern terminus of the western 2 was cut back some time after I-75 was finished in the UP anyway.
How? Real signs or just on paper?