Binghampton is the one I go to.
Yet your interstate plans call for a new interstate out of the southeast of the city?
In before Hennepin, Illinois.
I'm not sure "well-served" and "over-served" are different enough to each warrant their own thread.
Also, I'm not sure I agree about Binghampton (minus the P). How is it over-served? Which interstates could you get rid of?
We could say Albert Lea, MN, Mt. Vernon, IL, and are over-served, but I'm not sure how productive that is. Those interstates are important for other reasons than just serving that metro.
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2020, 12:10:55 PM
Also, I'm not sure I agree about Binghampton (minus the P). How is it over-served? Which interstates could you get rid of?
88.
Bolton, CT. A town of 5000 with an interstate highway leading to and ending in it thanks to NIMBYism to the east.
I'm curious whether "by the Interstate system" you're ascribing particular significance to the presence of an Interstate shield on any given roads or whether you mean Interstate-grade roads in general. For example, New York City comes to mind as one where I'd say as a whole, the city is under-served by that class of road, but has a number of three-digit Interstate routes where the presence of the Interstate shield is probably unnecessary. That's not to say those roads should not exist, however–it's just to suggest that either a state route number or a US route number might fine. Compare New York to, say, Phoenix, where there are multiple excellent highways with state route numbers that would probably be classified as 3di routes if the city were on the East Coast or in California.
I'm going to pick on I-10 in Texas.
Sierra Blanca, TX – Population under 600, has a direct exit via RM-1111, so why does BL-10 need to exist?
Balmorhea, TX – Do the two state highways serving this town of less than 600 people really need to be co-signed as BL-10?
Trent, TX – Population under 400, has a direct exit via FM-1085, so why does BL-10 need to exist?
Quote from: SectorZ on June 09, 2020, 11:31:50 AM
Yet your interstate plans call for a new interstate out of the southeast of the city?
That's just future I-86, and my plan is meant to be unrealistic.
KC and St. L all have four 2dis in their city limits. By comparison, Austin, El Paso, Orlando, Las Vegas, and San Francisco only have 1. San Jose has absolutely none!
Quote from: 1 on June 09, 2020, 12:24:30 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2020, 12:10:55 PM
Also, I'm not sure I agree about Binghampton (minus the P). How is it over-served? Which interstates could you get rid of?
88.
That would overthrow the entire argument about Albany having good connectivity. Also, it would remove the only free(way) alternate to the Thruway. It isn't overwhelmingly busy; AADT volumes are mostly near or above 10K, but that's still too busy for a 2-lane road, considering that a lot of local traffic is already using NY 7.
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2020, 02:59:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 09, 2020, 12:24:30 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2020, 12:10:55 PM
Also, I'm not sure I agree about Binghampton (minus the P). How is it over-served? Which interstates could you get rid of?
88.
That would overthrow the entire argument about Albany having good connectivity. Also, it would remove the only free(way) alternate to the Thruway. It isn't overwhelmingly busy; AADT volumes are mostly near or above 10K, but that's still too busy for a 2-lane road, considering that a lot of local traffic is already using NY 7.
It could probably function as a 4 lane expressway, but it's nice to have the freeway.
I don't think any city is over served by interstates. They just happen to meet where they meet. Like I-35 and I-90 meet where they do simply because that's where they meet based on the route they take.