Pretty sure this one has not been done yet, but what are examples of loops that are too big for their city?
My prototype example would be Amarillo Texas, on the map it has always seemed too far out to be an effective loop, except perhaps for two segments.
Another example might be I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, as it is really a bit far out to be useful as a loop for Washington.
I-275 Cincinnati. Not an effective bypass for I-75 at all (and barely one for I-71 via the eastern side). It should've crossed the Ohio River near CVG airport as originally planned, instead of looping all the way west to Indiana.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 02, 2022, 12:01:02 AM
I-275 Cincinnati. Not an effective bypass for I-75 at all (and barely one for I-71 via the eastern side). It should've crossed the Ohio River near CVG airport as originally planned, instead of looping all the way west to Indiana.
Yep that is a good one.
I think the origin of many of these is going to involve canceled/altered designs, since competent engineers would not design a loop to be too far out. Alternatively, they may be "aspirational" in nature, based on development that may or may not be coming to fruition.
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 02, 2022, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 02, 2022, 12:01:02 AM
I-275 Cincinnati. Not an effective bypass for I-75 at all (and barely one for I-71 via the eastern side). It should've crossed the Ohio River near CVG airport as originally planned, instead of looping all the way west to Indiana.
Yep that is a good one.
I think the origin of many of these is going to involve canceled/altered designs, since competent engineers would not design a loop to be too far out. Alternatively, they may be "aspirational" in nature, based on development that may or may not be coming to fruition.
Yes, I-275 was altered, because Lawrenceburg, IN wanted to be included on an interstate highway so badly.
I-840 in Nashville is a good example. Though its original intent wasn't necessarily to bypass Nashville, but rather to connect Dickson (pop. 15,579), Franklin (pop. 83,454), Murfreesboro (pop. 152,769), and Lebanon (pop. 38,431). TN 96 between Franklin to Murfreesboro had always been a particularly dangerous two lane road prior to the completion of 840. It became much more subdued after 840 was fully opened between those two cities, and is now undergoing improvements that will probably eventually see it widened for its entire length.
Nowadays I-840 can, during certain rush hour conditions, be faster than I-40 to travel between Dickson and Lebanon. They now have permanent travel time signs telling how long it takes to get to either of those cities via 40 or 840 as you approach the 840 interchanges eastbound from Dickson or westbound from Lebanon. These are very similar to what Virginia posts in many places around the Hampton Roads and Richmond areas.
I-435 around Kansas City loops too far north. I think it could have followed MO 152 rather than loop all the way to I-29.
I-840 is an awesome Nashville bypass if you're going from I-40 on the west side to I-24 on the east side. I used it to that effect last spring.
Another one might be I-269 around Memphis. Memphis is growing, but a lot of 269 is so far out I'm not sure if that growth is fast enough to catch up to where the route is. It is also completely useless if you're following I-55 or I-40 and want to bypass congested parts of the city.
Once upon a time people said it about Denver's 3/4 loop, but development is filling it in pretty quickly.
Definitely I-495 around Boston. Granted, it's the largest city in MA, but it will never spread beyond even the old 128 loop.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 11:29:27 AM
Once upon a time people said it about Denver's 3/4 loop, but development is filling it in pretty quickly.
The same is true of Orlando and its tolled 1/2 loop; it wasn't quite the same size 20 years ago as it is now.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 11:29:27 AM
Once upon a time people said it about Denver's 3/4 loop, but development is filling it in pretty quickly.
I would still say that about Denver's loop in one sense.
While the development has filled it in and given it plenty of local traffic, its still really too far out to serve Denver itself well, its an awkward bypass, etc.
I would say it is roughly the equivalent of the beltway in DC. Its not that its not a useful loop, or has no development by it, but it is not of much use to DC itself. Denver really needed a closer loop but with the Rocky Mountain Arsenal that was always a bit tough.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 02, 2022, 12:01:02 AM
I-275 Cincinnati. Not an effective bypass for I-75 at all (and barely one for I-71 via the eastern side). It should've crossed the Ohio River near CVG airport as originally planned, instead of looping all the way west to Indiana.
Also for Cincinnati, this was only a proposal, but it's definitely way too large, considering that imo I-275 is too large on the west
https://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i875.html
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 02, 2022, 11:45:56 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 11:29:27 AM
Once upon a time people said it about Denver's 3/4 loop, but development is filling it in pretty quickly.
I would still say that about Denver's loop in one sense.
While the development has filled it in and given it plenty of local traffic, its still really too far out to serve Denver itself well, its an awkward bypass, etc.
I would say it is roughly the equivalent of the beltway in DC. Its not that its not a useful loop, or has no development by it, but it is not of much use to DC itself. Denver really needed a closer loop but with the Rocky Mountain Arsenal that was always a bit tough.
Given how bad I-25 traffic in Denver city limits is, I would argue it makes a decent (if not expensive) bypass heading north/south. It's for sure a good bypass avoiding I-270 since that hellhole of a road is always congested.
It's also a very helpful road to get to the airport more quickly from various parts of the city.
I've read Aurora will likely add 500,000 people in the next 30 years, so likely a lot of that will be on the E-470 corridor.
In Houston, no loop is too far away. Even SH 99 which won’t be long before it’s fully developed. This when all done will not even be bedroom communities to Houston as it will feature all kinds of developments to be self contained with SH 99 to be a local commuter artery rather than a crossroad to work.
For Houston I-14 would be the best bypass for I-10 to circumvent Houston. Given that there is no rush this part of the century to get it done our grandchildren will be the ones to finally see it get built all the way across Texas.
Quote from: US 89 on February 02, 2022, 11:27:43 AM
I-840 is an awesome Nashville bypass if you're going from I-40 on the west side to I-24 on the east side. I used it to that effect last spring.
Another one might be I-269 around Memphis. Memphis is growing, but a lot of 269 is so far out I'm not sure if that growth is fast enough to catch up to where the route is. It is also completely useless if you're following I-55 or I-40 and want to bypass congested parts of the city.
I was just thinking about 269. It would only be useful if you're going from, say, Nashville to Jackson, MS or vice versa and want to avoid I-240 in Memphis. Desoto and eastern Shelby counties are growing, so it may be legit for it to be built.
Quote from: Henry on February 02, 2022, 11:37:42 AM
Definitely I-495 around Boston. Granted, it's the largest city in MA, but it will never spread beyond even the old 128 loop.
Wut.
I-495 provides a critical route to northern New England and Cape Cod from the Pike. It's in a great spot and you're still in suburbia.
I've always thought I-287 goes way too far to the west, at least as to its southern portion.
Edited to add: Same as to I-485 around Charlotte.
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 01, 2022, 11:42:02 PM
Another example might be I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, as it is really a bit far out to be useful as a loop for Washington.
can you explain your reasoning on this one?
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 01, 2022, 11:42:02 PM
Another example might be I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, as it is really a bit far out to be useful as a loop for Washington.
495 nicks the District on the Wilson Bridge.
Quote from: epzik8 on February 02, 2022, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 01, 2022, 11:42:02 PM
Another example might be I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, as it is really a bit far out to be useful as a loop for Washington.
495 nicks the District on the Wilson Bridge.
I am aware of that technicality.
Quote from: odditude on February 02, 2022, 04:33:49 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 01, 2022, 11:42:02 PM
Another example might be I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, as it is really a bit far out to be useful as a loop for Washington.
can you explain your reasoning on this one?
Well for starters it never actually enters Washington save a few hundred feet of it over the river. Not that by itself means much, but realistically if you are in Washington and want to go anywhere within Washington I-495 does not really help you. You can use it to get around some of the suburbs of course, and it makes an okay bypass on one side.
DC was supposed to have an inner loop, which is a clue as to why I-495 is too far out. So perhaps more specifically it is not that it is too far out for a second loop, but that it is too far out for being a primary loop.
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 02, 2022, 05:47:54 PM
Quote from: odditude on February 02, 2022, 04:33:49 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 01, 2022, 11:42:02 PM
Another example might be I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, as it is really a bit far out to be useful as a loop for Washington.
can you explain your reasoning on this one?
Well for starters it never actually enters Washington save a few hundred feet of it over the river. Not that by itself means much, but realistically if you are in Washington and want to go anywhere within Washington I-495 does not really help you. You can use it to get around some of the suburbs of course, and it makes an okay bypass on one side.
DC was supposed to have an inner loop, which is a clue as to why I-495 is too far out. So perhaps more specifically it is not that it is too far out for a second loop, but that it is too far out for being a primary loop.
Many, if not most, of the beltways do not enter the city limits of the primary city. They go, believe it or not, around it.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on February 02, 2022, 05:53:00 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 02, 2022, 05:47:54 PM
Quote from: odditude on February 02, 2022, 04:33:49 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 01, 2022, 11:42:02 PM
Another example might be I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, as it is really a bit far out to be useful as a loop for Washington.
can you explain your reasoning on this one?
Well for starters it never actually enters Washington save a few hundred feet of it over the river. Not that by itself means much, but realistically if you are in Washington and want to go anywhere within Washington I-495 does not really help you. You can use it to get around some of the suburbs of course, and it makes an okay bypass on one side.
DC was supposed to have an inner loop, which is a clue as to why I-495 is too far out. So perhaps more specifically it is not that it is too far out for a second loop, but that it is too far out for being a primary loop.
Many, if not most, of the beltways do not enter the city limits of the primary city. They go, believe it or not, around it.
That may well be the case, but city limits vary widely from one place to the next in terms of their extent, so like I said that is not really my criteria as to why I-495 seems to big.
I suppose there are various ways to have a loop/beltway that is too big for a city, but I think part of that determination involves which beltway it is. For being the sole beltway I-495 seems too far out, while as a second beltway it seems about right.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2022, 02:45:36 PM
I've always thought I-287 goes way too far to the west, at least as to its southern portion.
Edited to add: Same as to I-485 around Charlotte.
Yeah, but developing Piscataway, NJ from a rural farming community to a Corporate Office Mega Development expanded NYC Metro Area Big Time😳.
Then Bridgewater and the communities from there up to Parsippany-Troy Hills blew up big with corporate headquarters galore. So I -287 ain't no more bypass to NYC like original plans.
I-469 in Fort Wayne Indiana always seemed odd and out of the way.
SM-G996U
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2022, 02:45:36 PM
I've always thought I-287 goes way too far to the west, at least as to its southern portion.
I'd have to agree with this. It doesn't work very well as a bypass of I-95 as it is. It should either follow a more direct N/S route from Morristown to Edison, or meet up with I-95 at a point further south.
Quote from: ibthebigd on February 03, 2022, 10:45:57 AM
I-469 in Fort Wayne Indiana always seemed odd and out of the way.
SM-G996U
It provides a connection towards US-30 and US-24 east from I-69, and has utility for long distance traffic.
The entire premise of this thread might not make any sense. The point of bypasses is to provide a bypass around a city, for traffic passing through the metroplex that doesn't want to be slowed down by urban traffic. These days, we've become so numb to the constant advancement of urban sprawl that we fully expect a bypass route to be engulfed by development, and thus, swarmed with traffic generated by that development. That defeats the whole purpose of the beltway, though. The intent behind bypasses is to facilitate through-traffic meeting the relevant metroplex as an intermediate stop. The intent isn't to have its bypass status revoked by an expansion of the metropolis.
Cincinnati's I-275, for example, came to my mind immediately upon seeing the premise of this thread. I-275 maintains a wide radius from the city center, providing a bypass for anyone who wants to transfer from one radial highway to another. This is unusual for beltways in the United States, but "unusual" doesn't mean "bad"; "unusual" means "good" in this case, as most beltways in the United States have become too engulfed by urban sprawl to serve as an effective bypass. Bypasses are meant to relieve traffic congestion in the city center by moving the thru traffic somewhere else; if people are moving through town instead of using the bypass, that defeats the purpose of the bypass as well. (And plenty of people on I-75 are using I-275's eastern half to bypass Cincinnati, for trips connecting Columbus to Lexington or Dayton to Lexington.)
My assessment is that loop routes can't be too big for their city, but they can be too small. Then you get situations like I-610 in Houston where you need another beltway wrapping around it (Loop 8)--and even THAT loop is surrounded by development generating a lot of traffic. Loop routes that are too close to the city center to be effective bypasses: now THERE's a thread.
Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city: Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis :bigass:
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 03, 2022, 12:11:09 PM
The entire premise of this thread might not make any sense. The point of bypasses is to provide a bypass around a city, for traffic passing through the metroplex that doesn't want to be slowed down by urban traffic. These days, we've become so numb to the constant advancement of urban sprawl that we fully expect a bypass route to be engulfed by development, and thus, swarmed with traffic generated by that development. That defeats the whole purpose of the beltway, though. The intent behind bypasses is to facilitate through-traffic meeting the relevant metroplex as an intermediate stop. The intent isn't to have its bypass status revoked by an expansion of the metropolis.
Cincinnati's I-275, for example, came to my mind immediately upon seeing the premise of this thread. I-275 maintains a wide radius from the city center, providing a bypass for anyone who wants to transfer from one radial highway to another. This is unusual for beltways in the United States, but "unusual" doesn't mean "bad"; "unusual" means "good" in this case, as most beltways in the United States have become too engulfed by urban sprawl to serve as an effective bypass. Bypasses are meant to relieve traffic congestion in the city center by moving the thru traffic somewhere else; if people are moving through town instead of using the bypass, that defeats the purpose of the bypass as well. (And plenty of people on I-75 are using I-275's eastern half to bypass Cincinnati, for trips connecting Columbus to Lexington or Dayton to Lexington.)
My assessment is that loop routes can't be too big for their city, but they can be too small. Then you get situations like I-610 in Houston where you need another beltway wrapping around it (Loop 8)--and even THAT loop is surrounded by development generating a lot of traffic. Loop routes that are too close to the city center to be effective bypasses: now THERE's a thread.
Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city: Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis :bigass:
Notice that the title of the thread uses the term
loop not the term
bypass. There is a reason for this.
While a "bypass" is unequivocally designed to get around something without going through it, a loop or a beltway is more nuanced. Some might serve as a bypass, but others are meant to serve as part of a city's highway network. An example of this would be the original inner beltway designs for DC which clearly would not have had a primary purpose of being a bypass.
One reason for this is the fact that the main highways serving a city are often "spokes" to the "wheel" shape of the beltway. So the loop serves to connect places on the same side of the wheel, which are not connected by the spokes without going all the way to their central junction and back out.
So while some loops are bypasses, not all of them are. And something can be too far out to serve as a loop, either because it fails to act as a good bypass, or because it fails to act as a good "city loop."
Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2022, 11:53:45 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2022, 02:45:36 PM
I've always thought I-287 goes way too far to the west, at least as to its southern portion.
I'd have to agree with this. It doesn't work very well as a bypass of I-95 as it is. It should either follow a more direct N/S route from Morristown to Edison, or meet up with I-95 at a point further south.
I'll jump on this bandwagon too. Getting through northern NJ to/from the Thruway is always a little awkward because of this. The most efficient paths aren't even all-interstate at all - using a starting point on the Turnpike south of exit 8A and an ending point on the Thruway north of exit 15A, the three routes suggested by Google to get to the northern end of I-287 are the Turnpike/I-80 and NJ 17, the GSP and NJ 17, and I-78 and NJ 24 (the only true all-freeway route suggested). Just adding a shaping point where I-287 turns won't do it (it wants to take NJ 18 then), though a clever one placed between exits 2 and 3 currently will.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 03, 2022, 12:11:09 PM
Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city: Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis :bigass:
On the other hand, a just right bypass of Chicago is I-74 and I-39.
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 03, 2022, 12:28:30 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 03, 2022, 12:11:09 PM
The entire premise of this thread might not make any sense. The point of bypasses is to provide a bypass around a city, for traffic passing through the metroplex that doesn't want to be slowed down by urban traffic. These days, we've become so numb to the constant advancement of urban sprawl that we fully expect a bypass route to be engulfed by development, and thus, swarmed with traffic generated by that development. That defeats the whole purpose of the beltway, though. The intent behind bypasses is to facilitate through-traffic meeting the relevant metroplex as an intermediate stop. The intent isn't to have its bypass status revoked by an expansion of the metropolis.
Cincinnati's I-275, for example, came to my mind immediately upon seeing the premise of this thread. I-275 maintains a wide radius from the city center, providing a bypass for anyone who wants to transfer from one radial highway to another. This is unusual for beltways in the United States, but "unusual" doesn't mean "bad"; "unusual" means "good" in this case, as most beltways in the United States have become too engulfed by urban sprawl to serve as an effective bypass. Bypasses are meant to relieve traffic congestion in the city center by moving the thru traffic somewhere else; if people are moving through town instead of using the bypass, that defeats the purpose of the bypass as well. (And plenty of people on I-75 are using I-275's eastern half to bypass Cincinnati, for trips connecting Columbus to Lexington or Dayton to Lexington.)
My assessment is that loop routes can't be too big for their city, but they can be too small. Then you get situations like I-610 in Houston where you need another beltway wrapping around it (Loop 8)--and even THAT loop is surrounded by development generating a lot of traffic. Loop routes that are too close to the city center to be effective bypasses: now THERE's a thread.
Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city: Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis :bigass:
Notice that the title of the thread uses the term loop not the term bypass. There is a reason for this.
While a "bypass" is unequivocally designed to get around something without going through it, a loop or a beltway is more nuanced. Some might serve as a bypass, but others are meant to serve as part of a city's highway network. An example of this would be the original inner beltway designs for DC which clearly would not have had a primary purpose of being a bypass.
One reason for this is the fact that the main highways serving a city are often "spokes" to the "wheel" shape of the beltway. So the loop serves to connect places on the same side of the wheel, which are not connected by the spokes without going all the way to their central junction and back out.
So while some loops are bypasses, not all of them are. And something can be too far out to serve as a loop, either because it fails to act as a good bypass, or because it fails to act as a good "city loop."
The inner loop for DC then would be something like 23rd St NW-Florida Av NW-U St-Florida Av NE-8th St NE/SE. The next loop would be Loughboro Rd-Dalecarlia Parkway-Western Av or Nebraska Av-Military Rd-Missouri Av-Riggs Rd-South Dakota Av. They're more de facto loops based on L'Enfant's plan, but they can be used to go around the central city. The DC Beltway is then the third loop around the city and the first that goes completely around since the DC core is adjacent to the Potomac.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 03, 2022, 12:58:59 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 03, 2022, 12:11:09 PM
Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city: Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis :bigass:
On the other hand, a just right bypass of Chicago is I-74 and I-39.
Don't forget I-43 as part of that Chicago Bypass group, for trips like St Louis-Milwaukee!
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 03, 2022, 01:10:01 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 03, 2022, 12:58:59 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 03, 2022, 12:11:09 PM
Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city: Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis :bigass:
On the other hand, a just right bypass of Chicago is I-74 and I-39.
Don't forget I-43 as part of that Chicago Bypass group, for trips like St Louis-Milwaukee!
I was just going to post that.
Here's an, admittedly blurry, image of the 1958 plan.
(https://americascanceledhighways.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Basic-Freeway-Plan-1958.jpg)
Quote from: ibthebigd on February 03, 2022, 10:45:57 AM
I-469 in Fort Wayne Indiana always seemed odd and out of the way.
SM-G996U
I-469: The Route Number? YES! The actual freeway itself? No, for the fact Its a bypass loop for most of the US-24/30/35 traffic which criss-crosses the Fort Wayne area.
There is no real reason for I-69 through traffic to use I-469 as the parent route is, for the most part, a bypass of Fort Wayne to the west already.
Quote from: vdeane on February 03, 2022, 12:55:57 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2022, 11:53:45 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2022, 02:45:36 PM
I've always thought I-287 goes way too far to the west, at least as to its southern portion.
I'd have to agree with this. It doesn't work very well as a bypass of I-95 as it is. It should either follow a more direct N/S route from Morristown to Edison, or meet up with I-95 at a point further south.
I'll jump on this bandwagon too. Getting through northern NJ to/from the Thruway is always a little awkward because of this. The most efficient paths aren't even all-interstate at all - using a starting point on the Turnpike south of exit 8A and an ending point on the Thruway north of exit 15A, the three routes suggested by Google to get to the northern end of I-287 are the Turnpike/I-80 and NJ 17, the GSP and NJ 17, and I-78 and NJ 24 (the only true all-freeway route suggested). Just adding a shaping point where I-287 turns won't do it (it wants to take NJ 18 then), though a clever one placed between exits 2 and 3 currently will.
I remember many years ago I was headed to Parisippany to attend two college friends' wedding in Rockaway, New Jersey. Whatever rudimentary mapping software existed back then suggested the Turnpike to I-287 to I-80 one exit west to the hotel. That route seemed absurd and I took the Turnpike to the Garden State Parkway to I-280 instead. It's interesting to see that measuring it out on Google Maps just now, using a point immediately south of Exit 10 on the Turnpike as the start point and that hotel's location as the endpoint, reveals that the difference in distances is only eight miles (37.8 miles the way I went, 45.8 miles using I-287). I'm really surprised to see the difference is that insignificant. (That trip was prior to E-ZPass, too. Maybe I didn't save any time due to having to stop at the toll plazas.)
Usually on trips to Montreal I've just used the Garden State Parkway to the Thruway because I-287 looks so far out of the way on a map. I've always mildly wanted to clinch I-287 simply because I've never used any of that road in New Jersey, so I just measured out the distance from Exit 10 on the Turnpike to a point just north of where I-287 joins the Thruway. The I-287 route is 70.1 miles, the route I've normally used is 57 miles, and cutting over on NJ-17 instead (which I've never done) makes it 52 miles. That's a bit more significant of a difference, but on the other hand, in the overall context of a 660-mile drive to Montreal, 18 miles longer is trivial unless there were to be a major traffic issue or the like. Maybe I'll have to go that way someday. (Certainly in the context of more localized driving an 18-mile difference could be much more significant.)
I guess looking at a map and seeing that exaggerated curve far to the west on the southern part of I-287 perhaps overlooks the fundamental point of just how small New Jersey really is. It's only 67.9 miles across the state on I-78 from the Pennsylvania state line to the New York state line.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2022, 04:04:05 PM
I remember many years ago I was headed to Parisippany to attend two college friends' wedding in Rockaway, New Jersey. Whatever rudimentary mapping software existed back then suggested the Turnpike to I-287 to I-80 one exit west to the hotel. That route seemed absurd and I took the Turnpike to the Garden State Parkway to I-280 instead. It's interesting to see that measuring it out on Google Maps just now, using a point immediately south of Exit 10 on the Turnpike as the start point and that hotel's location as the endpoint, reveals that the difference in distances is only eight miles (37.8 miles the way I went, 45.8 miles using I-287). I'm really surprised to see the difference is that insignificant. (That trip was prior to E-ZPass, too. Maybe I didn't save any time due to having to stop at the toll plazas.)
Parsippany is far enough west that it's basically two sides of a square either way. The bigger issue time-wise is for traffic wanting to use I-287 to bypass Newark/NYC/southern Westchester entirely, as you've noted below...
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2022, 04:04:05 PM
Usually on trips to Montreal I've just used the Garden State Parkway to the Thruway because I-287 looks so far out of the way on a map. I've always mildly wanted to clinch I-287 simply because I've never used any of that road in New Jersey, so I just measured out the distance from Exit 10 on the Turnpike to a point just north of where I-287 joins the Thruway. The I-287 route is 70.1 miles, the route I've normally used is 57 miles, and cutting over on NJ-17 instead (which I've never done) makes it 52 miles. That's a bit more significant of a difference ...
Another option is I-78 to NJ 24 to I-287. I've used that route going to/from Union County NJ and points north and it seems to work well. It does avoid the worst of the Garden State Parkway, which in my experience seems to often be a slog between Union and Paramus. I-287 is plenty busy too, but it's a bit more rural/exurban in character so it usually moves well and certainly has a lot less of the stop-and-go traffic you'll get on the Garden State.
London's M25 :bigass:
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 02, 2022, 12:08:38 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 02, 2022, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 02, 2022, 12:01:02 AM
I-275 Cincinnati. Not an effective bypass for I-75 at all (and barely one for I-71 via the eastern side). It should've crossed the Ohio River near CVG airport as originally planned, instead of looping all the way west to Indiana.
Yep that is a good one.
I think the origin of many of these is going to involve canceled/altered designs, since competent engineers would not design a loop to be too far out. Alternatively, they may be "aspirational" in nature, based on development that may or may not be coming to fruition.
Yes, I-275 was altered, because Lawrenceburg, IN wanted to be included on an interstate highway so badly.
No what happened was they were going to add a bridge there that wasn't an interstate. and 275 was proposed it made no sense for 2 bridges so they just went with 1.
Georgia route 10 Loop (serving Athens) is too far from Athens on the west side, it would be more useful if the connection between US 129 on the north and south were shorter. In fact, the shape of the loop is so lopsided that UGA (listed as "Univ of Georgia") is a "control city" for the eastbound loop from the southwest side.
However, instead of a loop with the west side closer to the city, I would probably prefer a larger loop that is farther out on the north, east, and south sides.
Quote from: HighwayStar on February 01, 2022, 11:42:02 PM
Pretty sure this one has not been done yet, but what are examples of loops that are too big for their city?
Another example might be I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, as it is really a bit far out to be useful as a loop for Washington.
I-495, like I-285 in Georgia, is actually too small for its metro area. Regardless of whether a smaller loop is needed, a larger one is definitely needed.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 02, 2022, 11:11:19 AM
I-435 around Kansas City loops too far north. I think it could have followed MO 152 rather than loop all the way to I-29.
Arguably, it doesn't loop far enough to the south. I'd assume they originally wanted it to loop around the airport, though, which would explain why it goes so far north.
I remember reading an article about KC in National Geographic way back, said annexed land in north to plan for future suburban growth. Turned out many moved to Overland Park KS area.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 03, 2022, 12:11:09 PM(And plenty of people on I-75 are using I-275's eastern half to bypass Cincinnati, for trips connecting Columbus to Lexington or Dayton to Lexington.)
I've never noticed this at all, except for times when the Brent Spence Bridge was closed or under construction.
Traffic heading north to Dayton or into Michigan stays on I-75. Traffic heading to Columbus stays on I-71.
I will admit to using the eastern half of 275 as a bypass of I-75 once in my life. I think I had stayed in Dayton the night before and opted for I-275 over I-75 for two reasons. One was for a roadgeeking change of pace; the other was a home Bengals game that I figured would dog-knot traffic approaching the river. I may have taken the AA Highway to Maysville and then south on KY 11 instead of returning to I-75 to head to Lexington on that trip, but I'm not certain.
If I want to go to Columbus, I take the Industrial Parkway and US 23. If I want to go to Dayton, I cross at Maysville and take US 68 and OH 73 to bypass Cincinnati entirely. I've been caught in the afternoon jam-ups, particularly the one near the Lateral and Paddock Drive that has no evident reason for existing, way too many times to ever want to do it again.
My primary use for I-275 is to connect to I-74.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 01:43:40 PM
If I want to go to Dayton, I cross at Maysville and take US 68 and OH 73 to bypass Cincinnati entirely.
Isn't US 68 to US 35 faster than US 68/OH 73/I-75 from Maysville to Dayton? Unless you have an issue with US 35 between Dayton and Xenia as well...
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 01:43:40 PM
I've been caught in the afternoon jam-ups, particularly the one near the Lateral and Paddock Drive that has no evident reason for existing, way too many times to ever want to do it again.
I got caught in a jam on a few Sunday afternoons going from OH 562 WB to I-75 NB. My guess is the high amount of I-75 traffic and the short merge area on the 562 on-ramp to I-75 NB. Always seems like a good chunk of traffic exits at OH 126, and it's a breeze north of that.
The issue here (along with the Brent Spence Bridge) would be less if Cincinnati had a better bypass for I-75.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 04, 2022, 01:58:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 04, 2022, 01:43:40 PM
If I want to go to Dayton, I cross at Maysville and take US 68 and OH 73 to bypass Cincinnati entirely.
Isn't US 68 to US 35 faster than US 68/OH 73/I-75 from Maysville to Dayton? Unless you have an issue with US 35 between Dayton and Xenia as well...
It might be, but the times I've done that routing, I was staying at Miamisburg.
I-840 wasn't completed back when I made a regular yearly visit to a farm in Coffee County. But I would cut across through Franklin and Leiper's Fork on 2-lane roads anyway, and greatly enjoyed the side trip.
^ I personally found I-275 around Cincinnati very useful when I wanted to connect to OH 32. There is no good way to go from the city to the I-275/OH 32 interchange.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 03, 2022, 04:01:53 PM
Quote from: ibthebigd on February 03, 2022, 10:45:57 AM
I-469 in Fort Wayne Indiana always seemed odd and out of the way.
SM-G996U
I-469: The Route Number? YES! The actual freeway itself? No, for the fact Its a bypass loop for most of the US-24/30/35 traffic which criss-crosses the Fort Wayne area.
There is no real reason for I-69 through traffic to use I-469 as the parent route is, for the most part, a bypass of Fort Wayne to the west already.
Uh, I think you meant
US 33 not US 35, which comes nowhere NEAR the Ft. Wayne region... unless you count Gas City, IN as part of the Summit City's metro area.
And what is strange about the route number 469? Are you thinking it should've been I-869 because of its location? You have to remember, at the time I-469 was first proposed, extending its parent route south of Indianapolis was still only a dream.
As for the original poster's comment about I-469's routing being "odd and out of the way", you have to consider the city's growth pattern and the location of I-69 within surrounding Allen County. For nearly 7 decades now, the city has had a northeast to southwest orientation for most development. With Baer Field (now Ft. Wayne International Airport) to the southwest of town, any connection to I-69 south of the city was by nature gonna be "out in the country". Add in that an interchange already existed at Lafayette Center Road (named after the township in which it is located) and the fact that it continues west for about 5 miles to US 24 at Roanoke, and that leg was pretty much destined to be as it was constructed. On the southeast, east, and northeast sides of town, the freeway was built as close to the core city as the rivers, railroads, existing development, and the City of New Haven allowed it to be. I see very little "odd" or "out of the way" about that!
One last note: because it is a half loop, and precisely because I-69 is itself a west & north bypass of Ft. Wayne, taking I-469 is 11 miles longer than just staying on the parent route.
Quote from: wriddle082 on February 02, 2022, 06:20:31 AM
I-840 in Nashville is a good example. Though its original intent wasn't necessarily to bypass Nashville, but rather to connect Dickson (pop. 15,579), Franklin (pop. 83,454), Murfreesboro (pop. 152,769), and Lebanon (pop. 38,431). TN 96 between Franklin to Murfreesboro had always been a particularly dangerous two lane road prior to the completion of 840. It became much more subdued after 840 was fully opened between those two cities, and is now undergoing improvements that will probably eventually see it widened for its entire length.
Nowadays I-840 can, during certain rush hour conditions, be faster than I-40 to travel between Dickson and Lebanon. They now have permanent travel time signs telling how long it takes to get to either of those cities via 40 or 840 as you approach the 840 interchanges eastbound from Dickson or westbound from Lebanon. These are very similar to what Virginia posts in many places around the Hampton Roads and Richmond areas.
Nashville is growing by leaps and bounds. Sure it may seem far out now but give it 20 years it's all going to fill in.
M-185.
Quote from: Road Hog on February 05, 2022, 02:10:47 AM
I-840 wasn't completed back when I made a regular yearly visit to a farm in Coffee County. But I would cut across through Franklin and Leiper's Fork on 2-lane roads anyway, and greatly enjoyed the side trip.
I used to do the same thing back when I used to live in Murfreesboro and my folks lived in Dickson County. Now I live in South Carolina and they have moved back into Nashville proper.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 03, 2022, 01:10:01 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 03, 2022, 12:58:59 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 03, 2022, 12:11:09 PM
Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city: Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis :bigass:
On the other hand, a just right bypass of Chicago is I-74 and I-39.
Don't forget I-43 as part of that Chicago Bypass group, for trips like St Louis-Milwaukee!
I-12 is a New Orleans bypass.
I-15 is a by-pass of Los Angles County. :colorful:
I-81 is a bypass of the East Coast. Now, back to loops:
Houston probably doesn't need three loops. They only need two. Now, if Houston drastically expands, then I can see a case for TX 99.
Quote from: jlam on February 08, 2022, 04:53:19 PM
Houston probably doesn't need three loops. They only need two. Now, if Houston drastically expands, then I can see a case for TX 99.
Someone hasn't been stuck in huge traffic jams on Beltway 8 or US 290 at non-rush hour times...
Quote from: jlam on February 08, 2022, 04:53:19 PM
Houston probably doesn't need three loops. They only need two. Now, if Houston drastically expands, then I can see a case for TX 99.
Definitely not all directions of the metro have sprawled out equally, partially due to geographic constraints (such as the bay). But much of TX 99 already goes through some pretty thick suburban development. Of course the portion where it is currently being built east of I-69 is predominantly rural, but that seems to be changing fast as a glance at Google Maps satellite reveals a ton of what looks like future neighborhoods and/or possibly a huge planned community nearby. It's amazing how fast some metros in the country are sprawling out, it's hard to keep up. :wow:
Considering the size of the metro area now, another "outer beltway" for DFW would be almost unfathomably large. But then again if/when fully completed in a circle, TX 99 wouldn't be much smaller. Both of these metros, the 4th and 5th largest in the nation, and growing insanely fast, will definitely be testing the boundaries for what can be done with outer beltways. TX 99 may be headed on its way to become the largest (full) beltway in the country, but it's still badly needed.
I-275 in Cincinnati is the quintessential example that pops into my head when seeing this thread. The routing tends to be awkward and way too far out of the way, especially since it even enters Indiana. Going so far to the west is probably the only reason it has a concurrency with I-74 as well.
Quote from: jlam on February 08, 2022, 04:53:19 PM
Houston probably doesn't need three loops. They only need two. Now, if Houston drastically expands, then I can see a case for TX 99.
Dallas has a net total of 2 loops already, a full one and two half-loops: LBJ / TX 360 / I-20 that makes a full loop, then there's the Bush and the Sam Rayburn that make half-loops to the north. The south is finally starting to fill in and the contract for Loop 9 was just let. There are more loops and loopy thoroughfares in the works, including the US 380 upgrade and the Collin County Outer Loop.
Not aware of any broader loop that takes in DFW writ large, but no doubt it's coming. Just not this half-century.
Quote from: Road Hog on February 08, 2022, 09:32:19 PM
Quote from: jlam on February 08, 2022, 04:53:19 PM
Houston probably doesn't need three loops. They only need two. Now, if Houston drastically expands, then I can see a case for TX 99.
Dallas has a net total of 2 loops already, a full one and two half-loops: LBJ / TX 360 / I-20 that makes a full loop, then there's the Bush and the Sam Rayburn that make half-loops to the north. The south is finally starting to fill in and the contract for Loop 9 was just let. There are more loops and loopy thoroughfares in the works, including the US 380 upgrade and the Collin County Outer Loop.
Not aware of any broader loop that takes in DFW writ large, but no doubt it's coming. Just not this half-century.
Phoenix already has three loops: 101, 202 and 303 (although 202 goes to the east and the other two to the north). It's rather amazing how it's grown from a small town to a big metropolis in 40 years!
Quote from: Henry on February 10, 2022, 11:45:54 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on February 08, 2022, 09:32:19 PM
Quote from: jlam on February 08, 2022, 04:53:19 PM
Houston probably doesn't need three loops. They only need two. Now, if Houston drastically expands, then I can see a case for TX 99.
Dallas has a net total of 2 loops already, a full one and two half-loops: LBJ / TX 360 / I-20 that makes a full loop, then there's the Bush and the Sam Rayburn that make half-loops to the north. The south is finally starting to fill in and the contract for Loop 9 was just let. There are more loops and loopy thoroughfares in the works, including the US 380 upgrade and the Collin County Outer Loop.
Not aware of any broader loop that takes in DFW writ large, but no doubt it's coming. Just not this half-century.
Phoenix already has three loops: 101, 202 and 303 (although 202 goes to the east and the other two to the north). It's rather amazing how it's grown from a small town to a big metropolis in 40 years!
The timescale is closer to 80 years, it started growing after the Second World War thanks to the rise of the air conditioner and the promise of good jobs in the various cold war defense industries. Then the retirement wave added on top of that.