I thought maybe this had done before, but perhaps not.
What are the largest cities in the continental US not connected to each other by a freeway?
The combined population of the two metro areas in question would be a good way to estimate this.
To clarify: the two cities must be "next in line" according to a theoretical grid. You cannot skip intermediate cities, and nominate, say, Indianapolis > Nashville. Yes, technically there is no arrow-straight freeway between the two, but Nashville is not the next city south of Indianapolis. I-65 maintains a relatively straight path in connecting the two via Louisville, so that's good enough.
A good rule of thumb would be, if Google Maps routes you on existing freeways between the two, then it does not qualify.
Also, if the current route is at least >80% freeway, it doesn't count, as it would fall under the header of "local/regional issues", not an issue with the entire corridor.
Finally, how much work would need to be done to upgrade each corridor to a full freeway? Is it mostly expressway, or mostly two-lane road?
Some starter candidates:
Des Moines > St. Louis
Phoenix > Las Vegas
Austin > Houston
Buffalo > Washington DC
St Louis-Twin cities
LA-San Jose
Las Vegas-San Francisco
Providence-Hartford
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:19:44 AM
Las Vegas-San Francisco
Or for a closer one, Las Vegas-Reno.
I remember this thread before, with a formula involving the population of the two cities and the distance between them.
Found the one I was looking for:
aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14844 (http://aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14844) (considers Interstates only, but the list won't be that different)
Another relevant thread: aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20846 (http://aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20846)
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:19:44 AM
St Louis-Twin cities
If St Louis > Des Moines (one of the ones I nominated) had a freeway, then that would suffice.
A direct St Louis > Twin Cities corridor would exclude Des Moines.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:19:44 AM
LA-San Jose
I just added something to the OP to address this type of situation:
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 10:17:27 AM
Also, if the current route is at least <80% freeway, it doesn't count, as it would fall under the header of "local/regional issues", not an issue with the entire corridor.
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 10:34:07 AM
I just added something to the OP to address this type of situation:
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 10:17:27 AM
Also, if the current route is at least <80% freeway, it doesn't count, as it would fall under the header of "local/regional issues", not an issue with the entire corridor.
You probably meant >80%.
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 10:17:27 AM
Buffalo > Washington DC
I-270, I-70, I-76, I-79, I-90.
I wouldn't do that because of the high tolls and the greater distance, but this is what Google Maps claims --
455 miles, 7 hours and 1 minute
By way of I-99 and US-219 --
384 miles, 6 hours and 57 minutes
Quote from: oscar on January 14, 2019, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:19:44 AM
Las Vegas-San Francisco
Or for a closer one, Las Vegas-Reno.
Yeah, I think Las Vegas > Reno is a better candidate.
Las Vegas > San Fran is over 90% freeway; the only non-freeway segments are on CA 58.
Indirect as it may be (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San+Francisco,+CA/Las+Vegas,+NV/@36.9412315,-121.0228284,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501367f076adff!2m2!1d-122.4194155!2d37.7749295!1m5!1m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!2m2!1d-115.1398296!2d36.1699412!3e0!5m1!1e1), it works, and anything more direct than that would require an immense amount of upgrades.
Quote from: 1 on January 14, 2019, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 10:34:07 AM
I just added something to the OP to address this type of situation:
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 10:17:27 AM
Also, if the current route is at least <80% freeway, it doesn't count, as it would fall under the header of "local/regional issues", not an issue with the entire corridor.
You probably meant >80%.
Whoops. Fixed.
Phoenix to Albuquerque and Phoenix to Salt Lake City also work. Wow, I just realized who underserved Phoenix is by the interstate system.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
Wow, I just realized who underserved Phoenix is by the interstate system.
Who underserved Phoenix? :popcorn:
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
Wow, I just realized who underserved Phoenix is by the interstate system.
Who undeserved Phoenix? :popcorn:
I said underserved
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:59:31 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
Wow, I just realized who underserved Phoenix is by the interstate system.
Who underserved Phoenix? :popcorn:
I said underserved
Yeah, I know. I think you meant "how" instead of "who".
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
Wow, I just realized who underserved Phoenix is by the interstate system.
Who underserved Phoenix? :popcorn:
*crosses fingers*
*hopes no one just saw the most epic failure ever*
:-D
Cincy or Dayton or Columbus, OH and Charleston, WV...basically "missing" I-74
Huntsville, AL and Chattanooga, TN or Atlanta
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
Wow, I just realized who underserved Phoenix is by the interstate system.
Who underserved Phoenix? :popcorn:
Congress and Eisenhower in the 50s.
Boise-Spokane
Boise-Las Vegas
Portland-Las Vegas.
St. Louis Des Moines and Minneapolis are all connected by 4 lane expressway. Most of which handles the traffic volumes fine no need for near term upgrades. Iowa is doing some north of Waterloo and Missouri would like to bypassHannibal but they dont have the money
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 05:41:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
Wow, I just realized who underserved Phoenix is by the interstate system.
Who underserved Phoenix? :popcorn:
Congress and Eisenhower in the 50s.
Of course, Phoenix had in 1950 less than a tenth of the population it has now (http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/phoenix-population/).
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 03:04:10 PM
*crosses fingers*
*hopes no one just saw the most epic failure ever*
:-D
I am quite pleased to see someone using the correct word "failure" instead of the annoying and incorrect "fail" that has become the current fad.
I'm not totally sure this meets the 80% criterion, but...
The Indianapolis—Detroit corridor uses US-24, which is not completely freeway-grade. Combined MSA = 6.3 million. I'm too lazy right now to measure how much of the route is not a freeway.
Norfolk - Raleigh.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 06:46:39 PM
I'm not totally sure this meets the 80% criterion, but...
The Indianapolis—Detroit corridor uses US-24, which is not completely freeway-grade. Combined MSA = 6.3 million. I'm too lazy right now to measure how much of the route is not a freeway.
Wouldn't Fort Wayne and Toledo be the next cities in line to each one though?
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 08:40:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 07:04:07 PM
Norfolk - Raleigh.
I-64, I-95, I-495.
Fair point, you could traverse it all by freeway. Though U.S. 64 and I-87, not I-495. I-495 got decommissioned last year.
Memphis, Tennessee and Springfield, MO
Tokyo to Beijing
/thread
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 14, 2019, 08:15:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 06:46:39 PM
I'm not totally sure this meets the 80% criterion, but...
The Indianapolis–Detroit corridor uses US-24, which is not completely freeway-grade. Combined MSA = 6.3 million. I'm too lazy right now to measure how much of the route is not a freeway.
Wouldn't Fort Wayne and Toledo be the next cities in line to each one though?
I suppose you're right. I misunderstood that point in the OP.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 09:29:23 PM
Tokyo to Beijing
/thread
Why Beijing? Shanghai metro area is about 40% larger.
:ded: /thread :ded:
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 09:44:32 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 09:29:23 PM
Tokyo to Beijing
/thread
Why Beijing? Shanghai metro area is about 40% larger.
:ded: /thread :ded:
That too, as well as New York to Tokyo.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 06:46:39 PM
I'm not totally sure this meets the 80% criterion, but...
The Indianapolis—Detroit corridor uses US-24, which is not completely freeway-grade. Combined MSA = 6.3 million. I'm too lazy right now to measure how much of the route is not a freeway.
US 24 looks to be at least four lanes from Fort Wayne to Toledo, but it accounts for more than 20% of the total route mileage, so I think it counts.
It should also be noted that there are two all-freeway routes, both of which add about 15-20 minutes to the travel time: I-69 to I-94, and I-70 to I-75.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 09:41:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 14, 2019, 08:15:31 PM
Wouldn't Fort Wayne and Toledo be the next cities in line to each one though?
I suppose you're right. I misunderstood that point in the OP.
Fort Wayne and Toledo are both, in terms of size, in what I would consider to be kind of a gray area.
I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be connected to
each other by freeway, but they both have a freeway connection to the larger metro, Indy and Detroit respectively.
Quote from: webny99 on January 15, 2019, 10:15:10 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 06:46:39 PM
I'm not totally sure this meets the 80% criterion, but...
The Indianapolis—Detroit corridor uses US-24, which is not completely freeway-grade. Combined MSA = 6.3 million. I'm too lazy right now to measure how much of the route is not a freeway.
US 24 looks to be at least four lanes from Fort Wayne to Toledo, but it accounts for more than 20% of the total route mileage, so I think it counts.
The wrinkle is that US-24 is partially a freeway and partially not.
Bend to... Oh wait, there is no four lane connection to any interstate despite it being the fastest growing city in Oregon and one of the fastest in the country. Hitting 100k soon.
LG-TP260
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 14, 2019, 03:22:35 PM
Cincy or Dayton or Columbus, OH and Charleston, WV...basically "missing" I-74
By the same token, Columbus and Toledo ("missing" I-73). Much of it is freeway, but there is a painful gap through Delaware County.
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 08:40:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 07:04:07 PM
Norfolk - Raleigh.
I-64, I-95, I-495.
While true, taking Interstate 64 from the Norfolk Metro Area all the way up to Richmond, then taking I-95 South down to North Carolina (then I-495 to Raleigh) is
extremely out of the way, and it is a major backtrack. It would probably be enough out of the way where it could not work by the guidelines for this thread. But the Norfolk-to-Raleigh situation may not forever be a contender for this thread, if/when the new I-87 is fully completed in North Carolina and Virginia. But for it being completed in its entirety, there may be no telling how long that might be from now.
Another contender might be:
DFW ---> Denver
This one is a tad tricky. You can take I-35 to I-135 to I-70 there, but it is about an hour longer than what Google Maps says is the quickest route. Along the quickest route there, some parts of US 287 are limited-access, and the route includes much of I-25 in Colorado. However, it is still far from being an entirely freeway route from Dallas/Fort Worth to Denver. This could be fixed if US 287 from DFW to Amarillo is upgraded to an interstate corridor (such as I-32), and if I-27 is extended north from Amarillo, TX, possibly to Limon, CO, where it would then terminate at Interstate 70, and you would get to Denver then via I-70 West after that.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
Phoenix to Albuquerque and Phoenix to Salt Lake City also work. Wow, I just realized who underserved Phoenix is by the interstate system.
Also: Albuquerque to SLC metro. To paraphrase Maxwell Smart, the kid
"missed it by that much!" (Shit, that dates me!) Boise & Los Angeles
Denver & Minneapolis/St. Paul
Phoenix & Denver
DFW & Denver
Memphis & KC
One needs to remember that when the Interstate network was being laid out from 1944-58, Phoenix wasn't even close to 100K population -- hardly the regional hub it is today.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 16, 2019, 01:33:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 14, 2019, 08:40:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2019, 07:04:07 PM
Norfolk - Raleigh.
I-64, I-95, I-495.
While true, taking Interstate 64 from the Norfolk Metro Area all the way up to Richmond, then taking I-95 South down to North Carolina (then I-495 to Raleigh) is extremely out of the way, and it is a major backtrack. It would probably be enough out of the way where it could not work by the guidelines for this thread. But the Norfolk-to-Raleigh situation may not forever be a contender for this thread, if/when the new I-87 is fully completed in North Carolina and Virginia. But for it being completed in its entirety, there may be no telling how long that might be from now.
I was being sarcastic, as Sprjus4 is an "I-87" booster. While the routing I posted is well out of the way, the cities are connected by freeway and have been for about 15 years. His route is also well out of the way in distance and time, about 25 miles further that the current connection via US-58.
Quote from: sparker on January 16, 2019, 02:30:30 AMBoise & Los Angeles
That is one heck of a corridor, but I think it qualifies. Lancaster-Palmdale, CA and Winnemucca, NV are the only places that even come close to being considered a "city" on the entire 840 mile route.
Quote from: sparker on January 16, 2019, 02:30:30 AMDenver & Minneapolis/St. Paul
Google Maps currently routes along I-76, I-80, and I-35. Hardly "direct", but no question that said all-freeway route is the best option.
Quote from: sparker on January 16, 2019, 02:30:30 AMMemphis & KC
Another good candidate, one reflective of the lack of north-south corridors in Missouri in general.
The below are all north-south non-freeway connections made through or within Missouri, and just scratching the surface here:
Little Rock > St Louis
Des Moines > St Louis
Little Rock > Columbia
Des Moines > Columbia
Little Rock > Springfield
Columbia > Springfield
Memphis > Kansas City
Memphis > Des Moines
Twin Cities > St Louis
How about a REAL CKC Expressway/Freeway that does not include the jogs thru Des Moines or STL
Quote from: webny99 on January 16, 2019, 10:39:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 16, 2019, 02:30:30 AMBoise & Los Angeles
That is one heck of a corridor, but I think it qualifies. Lancaster-Palmdale, CA and Winnemucca, NV are the only places that even come close to being considered a "city" on the entire 840 mile route.
Quote from: sparker on January 16, 2019, 02:30:30 AMDenver & Minneapolis/St. Paul
Google Maps currently routes along I-76, I-80, and I-35. Hardly "direct", but no question that said all-freeway route is the best option.
Quote from: sparker on January 16, 2019, 02:30:30 AMMemphis & KC
Another good candidate, one reflective of the lack of north-south corridors in Missouri in general.
The below are all north-south non-freeway connections made through or within Missouri, and just scratching the surface here:
Little Rock > St Louis
Des Moines > St Louis
Little Rock > Columbia
Des Moines > Columbia
Little Rock > Springfield
Columbia > Springfield
Memphis > Kansas City
Memphis > Des Moines
Twin Cities > St Louis
L.A. to Boise: Essentially up CA 14/US 395 -- but either (a) staying on 395 (I-580) up to Reno and "piggybacking" on I-80 to Winnemucca, then up US 95/ID 55, hitting I-84 near Caldwell; (b) would cut some mileage out of the entire process, cutting over on CA 167/NV 359 and duplicating the most likely I-11 corridor as far north as Fallon before striking off north on US 95 to I-80, then proceeding as with option (a).
Denver-M/St.P: Always envisioned something up the HPC #23 2005-added alternative, crossing I-80 at US 81 (York, NE) and proceeding N and NE via Norfolk and IA 35 to Sioux City, then NE on MSR 60 and US 169 for the remainder of the route.
Memphis-KC: Pretty straightforward: I-555/US 63, US 60, MO 13 and MO 7, with I-49 completing the corridor.
Quote from: webny99 on January 15, 2019, 10:15:10 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 06:46:39 PM
I'm not totally sure this meets the 80% criterion, but...
The Indianapolis—Detroit corridor uses US-24, which is not completely freeway-grade. Combined MSA = 6.3 million. I'm too lazy right now to measure how much of the route is not a freeway.
US 24 looks to be at least four lanes from Fort Wayne to Toledo, but it accounts for more than 20% of the total route mileage, so I think it counts.
It should also be noted that there are two all-freeway routes, both of which add about 15-20 minutes to the travel time: I-69 to I-94, and I-70 to I-75.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 09:41:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 14, 2019, 08:15:31 PM
Wouldn't Fort Wayne and Toledo be the next cities in line to each one though?
I suppose you're right. I misunderstood that point in the OP.
Fort Wayne and Toledo are both, in terms of size, in what I would consider to be kind of a gray area.
I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be connected to each other by freeway, but they both have a freeway connection to the larger metro, Indy and Detroit respectively.
I have driven on US-24 between Toledo and Fort Wayne and vice versa before. For Ohio starting at the Indiana state line and going to Defiance it's an expressway that mostly has interchanges but has intersections with some county roads. The Indiana portion is a rural four lane freeway.
Here's one of the intersections: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1665493,-84.7663753,170m/data=!3m1!1e3
Albuquerque > Phoenix
Albuquerque > Las Vegas (NV)
Albuquerque > Salt Lake City
ABQ > DFW
ABQ > Austin
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 16, 2019, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 15, 2019, 10:15:10 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 06:46:39 PM
I'm not totally sure this meets the 80% criterion, but...
The Indianapolis—Detroit corridor uses US-24, which is not completely freeway-grade. Combined MSA = 6.3 million. I'm too lazy right now to measure how much of the route is not a freeway.
US 24 looks to be at least four lanes from Fort Wayne to Toledo, but it accounts for more than 20% of the total route mileage, so I think it counts.
It should also be noted that there are two all-freeway routes, both of which add about 15-20 minutes to the travel time: I-69 to I-94, and I-70 to I-75.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 09:41:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 14, 2019, 08:15:31 PM
Wouldn't Fort Wayne and Toledo be the next cities in line to each one though?
I suppose you're right. I misunderstood that point in the OP.
Fort Wayne and Toledo are both, in terms of size, in what I would consider to be kind of a gray area.
I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be connected to each other by freeway, but they both have a freeway connection to the larger metro, Indy and Detroit respectively.
I have driven on US-24 between Toledo and Fort Wayne and vice versa before. For Ohio starting at the Indiana state line and going to Defiance it's an expressway that mostly has interchanges but has intersections with some county roads. The Indiana portion is a rural four lane freeway.
Here's one of the intersections: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1665493,-84.7663753,170m/data=!3m1!1e3
OK, I un-lazy-ed myself and measured the non-freeway portion, and it comes out to
41 miles (https://goo.gl/maps/LjkjAjDCgYT2).
That works out to 86% of the Indianapolis—Detroit corridor being freeway and therefore disqualified from the running.
It works out to only 60% of the Fort Wayne—Toledo corridor being freeway. However, the combined population of those two MSAs barely tops 1 million.
Quote from: kphoger on January 16, 2019, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 16, 2019, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 15, 2019, 10:15:10 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 06:46:39 PM
I'm not totally sure this meets the 80% criterion, but...
The Indianapolis—Detroit corridor uses US-24, which is not completely freeway-grade. Combined MSA = 6.3 million. I'm too lazy right now to measure how much of the route is not a freeway.
US 24 looks to be at least four lanes from Fort Wayne to Toledo, but it accounts for more than 20% of the total route mileage, so I think it counts.
It should also be noted that there are two all-freeway routes, both of which add about 15-20 minutes to the travel time: I-69 to I-94, and I-70 to I-75.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2019, 09:41:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 14, 2019, 08:15:31 PM
Wouldn't Fort Wayne and Toledo be the next cities in line to each one though?
I suppose you're right. I misunderstood that point in the OP.
Fort Wayne and Toledo are both, in terms of size, in what I would consider to be kind of a gray area.
I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be connected to each other by freeway, but they both have a freeway connection to the larger metro, Indy and Detroit respectively.
I have driven on US-24 between Toledo and Fort Wayne and vice versa before. For Ohio starting at the Indiana state line and going to Defiance it's an expressway that mostly has interchanges but has intersections with some county roads. The Indiana portion is a rural four lane freeway.
Here's one of the intersections: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1665493,-84.7663753,170m/data=!3m1!1e3
OK, I un-lazy-ed myself and measured the non-freeway portion, and it comes out to 41 miles (https://goo.gl/maps/LjkjAjDCgYT2).
That works out to 86% of the Indianapolis—Detroit corridor being freeway and therefore disqualified from the running.
It works out to only 60% of the Fort Wayne—Toledo corridor being freeway. However, the combined population of those two MSAs barely tops 1 million.
I thought that Indy-Detroit used I-69 to I-94.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 16, 2019, 01:54:51 PM
I thought that Indy-Detroit used I-69 to I-94.
You could. But that's not what Google recommends whenever I've looked in the past. And it's not the way people I personally know drive between the two.
Juneau to the rest of Alaska.
Quote from: Ben114 on January 16, 2019, 02:46:48 PM
Juneau ... Alaska.
FTFY.
The population of the Juneau statistical area is less than 40,000.
The population of the largest MSA in Alaska is less than 400,000.
So I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be a winner on this thread, no matter what.
How about a big one that's been overlooked: Houston to Little Rock?
Looks like a total pick your poison situation as far as getting between Nacogdoches and Texarkana. Maybe someone who's done that route could say what the best option is. Google seems to recommend taking US 259 to TX 315 to the Carthage bypass back to US 59. Taking US 59 all the way would be another option. You could also hop over to I-49 and take that to Texarkana, maybe using TX 7.
I guess this just points up that it's not very easy to get into the Houston area from points north and northeast.
Quote from: webny99 on March 28, 2020, 09:48:16 PM
How about a big one that's been overlooked: Houston to Little Rock?
I-45, I-30.
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2020, 10:24:56 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 28, 2020, 09:48:16 PM
How about a big one that's been overlooked: Houston to Little Rock?
I-45, I-30.
Not a direct connection, over 100 miles longer than the current quickest route up US-59 to Texarkana / I-30. The point is to identify cities not directly connected. Of course any cities on an interstate are connected to the other, but is not always direct. Not the point of this thread.
I-69 and I-369 between Houston and Texarkana, once completed, will complete this connection along with I-30.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 28, 2020, 10:58:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2020, 10:24:56 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 28, 2020, 09:48:16 PM
How about a big one that's been overlooked: Houston to Little Rock?
I-45, I-30.
Not a direct connection, over 100 miles longer than the current quickest route up US-59 to Texarkana / I-30. The point is to identify cities not directly connected. Of course any cities on an interstate are connected to the other, but is not always direct. Not the point of this thread.
I-69 and I-369 between Houston and Texarkana, once completed, will complete this connection along with I-30.
Houston is very large, but Little Rock isn't.
Little Rock is a smallish area, 1/2 the metro population of Richmond, for example.
Quote from: webny99 on March 28, 2020, 09:48:16 PM
How about a big one that's been overlooked: Houston to Little Rock?
Looks like a total pick your poison situation as far as getting between Nacogdoches and Texarkana. Maybe someone who's done that route could say what the best option is. Google seems to recommend taking US 259 to TX 315 to the Carthage bypass back to US 59. Taking US 59 all the way would be another option. You could also hop over to I-49 and take that to Texarkana, maybe using TX 7.
I guess this just points up that it's not very easy to get into the Houston area from points north and northeast.
I've driven that route many times and it seems that 259 to 315 is the fastest option, however, at the moment 315 at the Carthage loop has some construction; last time I passed through the area that intersection had a poorly timed light so it took maybe 5-10 minutes just to get through that intersection.
To me the next best alternative is taking 259 all the way to Henderson then to TX 43 to Loop 390 around Marshall. Not as busy as the other routes, plus you don't have to go through the time-consuming traffic lights in Marshall.
Taking 59 the entire distance takes you out of the way and goes through some towns with low speed limits, so it's not the best option.
From Marshall to Texarkana it's fastest just to take 59.
Of course, when I-69 and 369 are done, that will be the fastest route.
I think the being a part of a theoretical grid statement by the original poster has been completely ignored by most everyone. SF-Vegas, Des Moines-St Louis, and several other suggestions are diagonals, even if they are potentially quite useful. But being part of a grid is why this is challenging. We can find hundreds of diagonal routes where a freeway could really help connect two cites. It's much harder to find cities that fit the requirement when the directions between two cities are limited to the four cardinal directions.
Quote from: skluth on March 29, 2020, 11:12:28 AM
I think the being a part of a theoretical grid statement by the original poster has been completely ignored by most everyone. SF-Vegas, Des Moines-St Louis, and several other suggestions are diagonals, even if they are potentially quite useful. But being part of a grid is why this is challenging. We can find hundreds of diagonal routes where a freeway could really help connect two cites. It's much harder to find cities that fit the requirement when the directions between two cities are limited to the four cardinal directions.
Des Moines-St. Louis was mentioned in the OP.
Reading and Allentown, for one.
Quote from: 1 on March 29, 2020, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 29, 2020, 11:12:28 AM
I think the being a part of a theoretical grid statement by the original poster has been completely ignored by most everyone. SF-Vegas, Des Moines-St Louis, and several other suggestions are diagonals, even if they are potentially quite useful. But being part of a grid is why this is challenging. We can find hundreds of diagonal routes where a freeway could really help connect two cites. It's much harder to find cities that fit the requirement when the directions between two cities are limited to the four cardinal directions.
Des Moines-St. Louis was mentioned in the OP.
Yes, sorry, I guess that's my bad for not being more clear in the OP.
When I mentioned "theoretical grid" I was not actually thinking about the cardinal directions. Maybe there's a better word than grid that we can use, but essentially the question is what corridors would need to be improved in order for all major cities to be connected by freeway.
More specifically, the fastest route needs to be freeway, regardless of whether or not the connection is direct.
It really all comes down to whether the current fastest route is freeway or not.
Maybe me mentioning "grid" caused more confusion than it's worth, but let me try to explain.
Take Knoxville and Atlanta as an example. Knoxville has a freeway connection to Atlanta through Chattanooga. Therefore, we don't need a direct freeway connection from Knoxville to Atlanta. So basically, for cases where the fastest route is already freeway, we can ignore the other more direct routes and just follow the "grid". Essentially, if the fastest route uses existing freeways to go city-hopping until you reach your destination, then we don't need to explore improvements to other corridors, regardless of how indirect the freeway route may be.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 29, 2020, 12:24:57 PM
Reading and Allentown, for one.
This is definitely needed. My wife grew up along the 222 corridor in between and the traffic can be terrible at times. It's been studied, and they've upgraded 222 to a freeway around and south of Reading, as well as a partial fix south of Allentown to an expressway with some signals. They've also added a roundabout in the middle of the corridor (ugh!) and of course there's the Kutztown bypass. But the corridor really needs a full freeway from Reading to the Kutztown bypass, and then from the north end of Kutztown out to 78 (or to the new section north of Breinigsville upgraded to full freeway). There's a lot of through truck traffic along that route and no good alternative routes. The corridor is not particularly long, built up or topographically challenging either - not saying it won't cost big bucks, but it could be a lot worse and the benefits would be significant.
It is counterintuitive that a full freeway would be needed between Reading and Allentown. Neither city is on the up-and-up.
Quote from: Rothman on March 29, 2020, 03:43:38 PM
It is counterintuitive that a full freeway would be needed between Reading and Allentown. Neither city is on the up-and-up.
Allentown has been growing nearly-consistently since 1950; it's been Reading on the decline since then (Reading was at one point considered the poorest city in the nation, with ~45% of residents below the poverty line). A full 222 freeway between them and Lancaster could
hopefully spur some growth between the three cities, with the added benefit of easing traffic.
Quote from: Rothman on March 29, 2020, 03:43:38 PM
It is counterintuitive that a full freeway would be needed between Reading and Allentown. Neither city is on the up-and-up.
Even a declining population doesn't change the fact that the 2- and 3-lane sections of US 222 are overburdened, and have been for many years. Whether it's a full freeway or just a widening that's needed could be debated.
Quote from: Rothman on March 29, 2020, 03:43:38 PM
It is counterintuitive that a full freeway would be needed between Reading and Allentown. Neither city is on the up-and-up.
Maybe, but drive that stretch sometime. It was particularly terrible just north of Reading, where the freeway ends at the Route 73 intersection. Even widening to four lanes throughout might be a compromise, although widening of the existing roadway will be difficult in a couple spots to avoid wiping out entire villages. It's a big trucking corridor, and it's part of a larger corridor from points north and east down to Lancaster as well.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on March 29, 2020, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 29, 2020, 03:43:38 PM
It is counterintuitive that a full freeway would be needed between Reading and Allentown. Neither city is on the up-and-up.
Maybe, but drive that stretch sometime. It was particularly terrible just north of Reading, where the freeway ends at the Route 73 intersection. Even widening to four lanes throughout might be a compromise, although widening of the existing roadway will be difficult in a couple spots to avoid wiping out entire villages. It's a big trucking corridor, and it's part of a larger corridor from points north and east down to Lancaster as well.
Seems like it would be better to entirely bypass the existing road with a new location 4-lane freeway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2020, 04:19:02 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on March 29, 2020, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 29, 2020, 03:43:38 PM
It is counterintuitive that a full freeway would be needed between Reading and Allentown. Neither city is on the up-and-up.
Maybe, but drive that stretch sometime. It was particularly terrible just north of Reading, where the freeway ends at the Route 73 intersection. Even widening to four lanes throughout might be a compromise, although widening of the existing roadway will be difficult in a couple spots to avoid wiping out entire villages. It's a big trucking corridor, and it's part of a larger corridor from points north and east down to Lancaster as well.
Seems like it would be better to entirely bypass the existing road with a new location 4-lane freeway.
Yes, agreed. It's been studied and pops up in the news periodically. They've had to settle for some spot improvements, and they built a section of "almost freeway" approaching Allentown which did clear up some jams in that area. However, at one point I heard they were considering extending 222 straight out to 78 north of Kutztown, and avoiding this section entirely. It's really just two freeway segments needed on each end of the Kutztown bypass, neither of which are particularly long. A significant amount of truck traffic comes from 78 via the interchange with 100, extending down Schantz Road to 222. If I recall they banned truck traffic from this road to push it onto the new section of widened 222 and installed a signal on what is mostly a freeway for access into the nearby industrial park. As a side note it looks like from Streetview that PennDOT more recently wised up and put in some advance signage for that intersection, rather than have people rely on the signs on the signals themselves - particularly bad for a high speed route with heavy truck traffic at that light.
A freeway connecting the existing US-222 freeway at Reading to the US-222 Kutztown Bypass (7-8 miles new location), then another freeway from the Kutztown Bypass to I-78 (3-4 miles new location), would be a reasonable proposal.
10-12 miles of new freeway, and would complete the link between Reading and Allentown. May also necessitate I-78 widening to 3x3.
Indianapolis to Grand Rapids.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2020, 10:21:33 PM
Indianapolis to Grand Rapids.
I-65 -> I-94 -> I-196 is a reasonable freeway connection between the two if desired.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2020, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2020, 10:21:33 PM
Indianapolis to Grand Rapids.
I-65 -> I-94 -> I-196 is a reasonable freeway connection between the two if desired.
FTFY.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2020, 10:21:33 PM
Indianapolis to Grand Rapids.
Applying my logic from upthread, in this case I don't think it makes sense to look at Indianapolis-Grand Rapids as a single corridor.
The next city due north from Indy is South Bend. If we can get to South Bend, then we can get from there to Grand Rapids on the freeway (or will be able to once the US 131/I-94/I-196 debacle is sorted). Therefore, we can reduce the scope of the problem: it's really just US 31 between Indy and South Bend that's the issue, not US 131 in Michigan and all the various state routes between Vistula and Indy.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2020, 10:23:12 PM
I-65 -> I-94 -> I-196 is a reasonable freeway connection between the two if desired.
I would have thought I-69 > I-94 > US 131 would be a shorter/faster option.
Google suggests otherwise, but it's actually very close, within 5 minutes or so.
Honolulu to Los Angeles?
Quote from: Beltway on March 30, 2020, 12:02:41 AM
Honolulu to Los Angeles?
Would need a plane or boat to connect the two.
FritzOwl interstate ferries
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2020, 01:13:36 PM
FritzOwl interstate ferries
One of his classics is the ferry to Hawaii.
Has anybody mentioned Hartford-Providence yet?
^ Page 1
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 14, 2019, 10:19:44 AM
St Louis-Twin cities
LA-San Jose
Las Vegas-San Francisco
Providence-Hartford
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 30, 2020, 10:49:49 PM
Has anybody mentioned Hartford-Providence yet?
They had proposed I-84.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2020, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2020, 10:21:33 PM
Indianapolis to Grand Rapids.
I-65 -> I-94 -> I-196 is a reasonable freeway connection between the two if desired.
I-65 takes you out of the way it goes northwest then you have to backtrack east.
Wichita to Lincoln.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 31, 2020, 12:50:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2020, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 29, 2020, 10:21:33 PM
Indianapolis to Grand Rapids.
I-65 -> I-94 -> I-196 is a reasonable freeway connection between the two if desired.
I-65 takes you out of the way it goes northwest then you have to backtrack east.
Yes, but if an all freeway connection is desired, it's only 15 minutes slower, 30 additional miles. If the time difference was less, perhaps only ~5 minutes, it would certainly be an option.
San Jose to just about anywhere south/southeast. It's touch-and-go whether US 101 will ever reach full freeway status; the various Caltrans districts, even those not hogtied by Coastal Commission requirements, have elected to effect relatively "half-measure" upgrades (cf. Prunedale) along that corridor, so the future prospects there are indeed cloudy. The best bet -- even though it's been "kicked down the road" for quite some time, is a full-freeway upgrade of CA 152 from Gilroy over to at least I-5 -- considering the route's deficiencies, a pretty daunting task. But it's already a major regional commercial corridor, with traffic levels rivaling and at times exceeding those of CA 58 from Barstow to Bakersfield. However, it -- or at least the segment between US 101 and CA 156 -- has been "studied to death" over the past few decades, with issues (wetlands, farmer objections) that have prompted endless "returns to the drawing board". But recently, with the attention given to the adjacent CA 25 corridor because of regional housing growth, some 152 divergence concepts have been attached to plans for that route -- so there is a glimmer of hope. Now whether the plans involve a facility that is or can readily be upgraded to a full freeway has yet TBD; one can only hope!
Quote from: dvferyance on March 31, 2020, 12:50:34 PM
Wichita to Lincoln.
Wouldn't I-135, US 81, and I-80 get the job done?
Salt Lake City > Denver
While technically connected by I-80 to I-25, that is a significantly longer routing that taking I-15 to US-6 to i-70 or I-80 to US-287 to CO-14 to I-25. Made this trip many times and it's a PITA, taking longer than you'd think it would.
Salt Lake's interstate connections are far better to the northwest and west coast than to most other cities in the Mountain Time zone.
Fact is that cities in the mountain west are not as well connected by the interstate system as the rest of the country is. Probably because they were all small back in the 1950's when the interstate system was plotted out.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 01, 2020, 11:56:04 AM
Salt Lake City > Denver
While technically connected by I-80 to I-25, that is a significantly longer routing that taking I-15 to US-6 to i-70 or I-80 to US-287 to CO-14 to I-25. Made this trip many times and it's a PITA, taking longer than you'd think it would.
Per Google Maps, I-80 to I-25 is only 5 minutes, 15 miles longer. I would say that's close enough to say the cities are connected by an interstate, relatively directly if you're staying on the interstate system. For me personally, it would be more of a hassle to get off, follow largely 2-lane road down, go through Fort Collins, just to save 5 minutes (assuming you don't get caught behind slower traffic with minimal opportunity to pass, assuming you don't get stuck at a long red light, etc. that would easily eliminate any time savings) rather than just to stay on and meet I-25 at Cheyenne.
Houston>Corpus Christi
Houston>Laredo
Corpus Christi>Laredo
Houston>College Staton>Waco
DFW>Witchita Falls>Amarillo
DFW>Lubbock
Austin>San Angelo
San Antonio>San Angelo
Laredo>Rio Grande Valley
There's a lot of decent-sized cities in Texas not connected by freeways. However, the current options are stoplight-free, and there are plans to upgrade some of these routes to interstates (though it'll take a long time to complete, if ever).
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 12:11:33 PM
Quote from: Some one on April 01, 2020, 12:09:58 PM
Houston>Laredo
I-10 and I-35.
It's faster if you take US 59 to Laredo, although it's only by 4 minutes.
Quote from: Some one on April 01, 2020, 12:47:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2020, 12:11:33 PM
Quote from: Some one on April 01, 2020, 12:09:58 PM
Houston>Laredo
I-10 and I-35.
It's faster if you take US 59 to Laredo, although it's only by 4 minutes.
Towns, red lights, slow traffic, etc. can all hinder that 4 minutes. Granted, heavy I-10 traffic, truck micropassing, and San Antonio can to.
I suppose it's a "pick your own poison" scenario.
On a regular day, I'd just take the interstate, but maybe not during peak traffic periods.
There can be cities not connected by freeway where a freeway is still the fastest route, specifically if there is no direct route connecting the two (as opposed to a surface route).
Quote from: 1 on April 01, 2020, 03:28:53 PM
There can be cities not connected by freeway where a freeway is still the fastest route
For the purposes of this thread, though, if the fastest route is already freeway, or if it's a toss-up (within 3% travel time) between the freeway or the non-freeway, then that's close enough.
Personally, I would say Houston-Laredo is fine as-is. US 59 is a decently high-quality route, and anybody that wants to take the freeway can do so for an extra 5-10 minutes added a 5-hour trip. It's not completely lacking freeway options like Phoenix-Vegas or St. Louis-Des Moines.
Quote from: webny99 on April 01, 2020, 03:58:11 PM
Personally, I would say Houston-Laredo is fine as-is. US 59 is a decently high-quality route, and anybody that wants to take the freeway can do so for an extra 5-10 minutes added a 5-hour trip. It's not completely lacking freeway options like Phoenix-Vegas or St. Louis-Des Moines.
Agreed, and this is one of the reasons I feel that I-69W will be the last to be completed, if ever. The existing route is largely super 2 (not limited-access, rather high quality 2-lane, full paved shoulders, 75 mph speed limit, etc) with light traffic volumes. The other two routes (I-69E and I-69C) actually connect Houston and San Antonio to the Rio Grande Valley up two major trucking corridors that lack interstate access.