I've been thinking a bit recently about which states have good freeway connectivity to the population centers within their state, and which are lacking in that regard, especially in terms of long-distance/cross-state trips that require using non-freeways. In other words, if you pick any two cities population ~20k or more, what is the chance of a freeway connection?
I think Michigan and Wisconsin would rank fairly high on the list, and North Carolina is a given because they're constantly adding freeways and interstates. Missouri and Nevada would be near the bottom, since both are lacking north/south interstates or freeways. Then you have many southern states, and to some extent the Dakotas/Minnesota/Iowa, that would be lower based on freeways, but make up for it with four-lane expressways that can easily handle long-distance traffic.
I think New York would be average. Overall long-distance connectivity is good, and all the major population centers are well served. Outside of the North Country, it's rare to have to use two-lane roads in the middle of any 2+ hour trip. But some smaller cities such as Ithaca and Auburn have poor connectivity to the rest of the state, and the I-88 corridor is awkward to access from north or south. Connectivity between New York and Vermont is also a major problem, particularly the US 4 and NY 7 corridors.
Vermont is one that is poor. Only two N-S interstates and not many other freeways. Most of the non interstates are two lane roads and no major direct routes. US 7 comes close but no long distance four lane parts. All but two of the two lane roads have a posted speed limit of 50 in rural parts.
Connecticut and Massachusetts are good with going from major city to major city with Rhode Island being good only cause it’s one major metro area. CT is only via freeways though, as off freeways are suburban roadways of suburban character and very low speed limits and plenty of sprawl.
Illinois has Interstates everywhere. 64, 70, 72, 74, 80, 88, and 90 all crisscross the state. It makes sense that IL has a lot, being !flat!, in the middle of the country, with a huge city that is one of the nation's biggest transportation hubs.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2023, 08:25:27 PM
Vermont is one that is poor. Only two N-S interstates and not many other freeways. Most of the non interstates are two lane roads and no major direct routes. US 7 comes close but no long distance four lane parts. All but two of the two lane roads have a posted speed limit of 50 in rural parts.
Vermont has a very low population though.
California for as much grief it gets during modern times has a bunch of random freeways in places one wouldn't likely expect to find them. There is stuff like full interchanges in cities like Porterville (CA 65/CA 190) and Super Twos (CA 255 and CA 108 in Sonora) which pop into existence removed from other freeways.
Makes me wonder about West Virginia.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 07, 2023, 09:13:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2023, 08:25:27 PM
Vermont is one that is poor. Only two N-S interstates and not many other freeways. Most of the non interstates are two lane roads and no major direct routes. US 7 comes close but no long distance four lane parts. All but two of the two lane roads have a posted speed limit of 50 in rural parts.
Vermont has a very low population though.
But lacks east to west freeways or major highways making you use back roads to go from New York to New Hampshire.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2023, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 07, 2023, 09:13:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2023, 08:25:27 PM
Vermont is one that is poor. Only two N-S interstates and not many other freeways. Most of the non interstates are two lane roads and no major direct routes. US 7 comes close but no long distance four lane parts. All but two of the two lane roads have a posted speed limit of 50 in rural parts.
Vermont has a very low population though.
But lacks east to west freeways or major highways making you use back roads to go from New York to New Hampshire.
Yeah, driving from upstate NY into VT is pretty miserable. Taking NY 7 through Troy and Brunswick is slow as molasses, even with the Bennington Bypass.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2023, 09:33:09 PM
California for as much grief it gets during modern times has a bunch of random freeways in places one wouldn't likely expect to find them. There is stuff like full interchanges in cities like Porterville (CA 65/CA 190) and Super Twos (CA 255 and CA 108 in Sonora) which pop into existence removed from other freeways.
California also has more people than any other state, and more area than all but 2 other states. It should have an excellent freeway network but it is a disaster instead.
New Jersey is almost complete as it lacks connections in South Jersey. The never built US 322 freeway is still needed to connect Delaware with Atlantic City and The Shore with a seam less connection.
Then Route 55 needs to be extended further south, but that's another story as it's dealing with environmental issues. Cape May County needs a better route than Route 47 to facilitate shore to Philly traffic.
NJ 23 needs an interstate like freeway to bypass its congested and rural winding areas.
Other than that the state is okay.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 07, 2023, 09:56:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2023, 09:33:09 PM
California for as much grief it gets during modern times has a bunch of random freeways in places one wouldn't likely expect to find them. There is stuff like full interchanges in cities like Porterville (CA 65/CA 190) and Super Twos (CA 255 and CA 108 in Sonora) which pop into existence removed from other freeways.
California also has more people than any other state, and more area than all but 2 other states. It should have an excellent freeway network but it is a disaster instead.
You sure about that? There is more random freeways than anywhere in the country. Those cities I listed aren't exactly large nor in the major population centers. A Porterville sized city in most states isn't getting two freeways many other places in the country.
Virginia is overall decent... there haven't been any major additions (long distance routes) constructed on either the interstate or freeway system in the state since the original was created, but all of the interstates do a decent job linking the major metropolitan areas together. Northern Virginia, Richmond, Hampton Roads, and Roanoke are all connected via interstate highways (I-95, I-66, I-81, I-64). The major exception here would be Lynchburg, which has no interstate or freeway connection to the rest of the system and is 60+ miles from any interstate highway. The freeways around Lynchburg are decent, though do not extend outside the metropolitan area. Outside of freeways, Lynchburg is well connected via four-lane divided highways (US-29, US-460) to Richmond, Hampton Roads, Roanoke, Northern Virginia, Danville, etc.
North Carolina has good connectivity as well. All of the major metropolitan areas are linked via freeways and interstate highways, for the most part. Raleigh-Durham, Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point are all relatively connected. There are some gaps though in full freeway connectivity, such as Asheville to Charlotte (will be fixed once the Shelby Bypass is completed), Charlotte to Wilmington, Greensboro to Fayetteville, etc.
One glaring connectivity gap between the two states, in terms of full freeway, is Hampton Roads and Raleigh-Durham and the rest of North Carolina. Hampton Roads currently does not have a freeway connection to the south (I-95, I-85 corridors) and requires at least 70-80 miles of arterial connection. For a metropolitan area of over 2 million, it's overdue this be fixed. Virginia has studied improving US-58 out to I-95 into a freeway, along with the proposed I-87 corridor in North Carolina, but both are decades from becoming any reality.
Between both states, North Carolina has done a seemingly better job of improving the interstate highway system through various widening projects to better improve traffic flow between cities. I-85 links Raleigh-Durham, the Triad, and Charlotte with a 6 to 8 lane interstate highway. Various widening projects along I-40 as well has helped to strengthen these links. Virginia undertook a major widening of I-95 in the 1980s to complete a 6 lane highway between Richmond and Northern Virginia, however remains a bottleneck corridor nonetheless (unlike NC's 6-8 lane connection on I-85). A second undertaking is currently ongoing to expand I-64 between Hampton Roads and Richmond to 6 lanes which is almost halfway complete, with more soon to be underway. Outside those two roads, and the urban cities, I-81, I-66, and I-95 remain bottlenecks with little worked planned to expand these routes. I-95 in North Carolina is currently having about 50 miles of roadway widened to 8 lanes and carries less than half the volumes the clogged 6 lane highway in Virginia carries. VDOT is spot widening certain areas of I-81, though the entire 325 mile highway in the state is a freight bottleneck, particularly during peak weekends.
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PMMissouri and Nevada would be near the bottom, since both are lacking north/south interstates or freeways.
Disagree with Missouri being near the bottom if we can count expressways as well as freeways/interstates:
* The west side has I-49 which by way of I-435 around Kansas City can be used to continue north to Iowa on I-29 or I-35.
* The east side of Missouri south of St. Louis has I-55 and a mostly four lane US 67 that only needs 12 more miles widening to reach the Arkansas border (and which would have had more freeway segments if funding wasn't an issue). North of St. Louis there's the mostly expressway grade US 61/Avenue of the Saints Corridor up to Iowa.
* There are three east-west corridors across Missouri: US 36 (mix of freeway and expressway), I-70, and the I-44/MO 360/US 60/I-57 corridor (mix of freeway and expressway, excluding US 60 through Mountain Grove)
The biggest area I would consider Missouri lacking is having decent bypasses for the expressway system:
* US 61 needs a bypass of Hannibal.
* US 63 needs a bypass of Macon.
* The MO 7/MO 13 corridor needs a better bypass of Clinton along with a better tie in to I-44 at Springfield.
* US 65 needs a bypass of Sedalia
* US 60 needs better bypasses for many of the towns between Springfield and Poplar Bluff, with Mountain View being the worst.
IMHO Wisconsin should not be a contender for the best given the missing links in the southeast portion of the state. The system in Wisconsin is good, but Racine (around 75k population) and Kenosha (around 100k population) should have at least expressway grade routes to Madison that do not require going through the Milwaukee area. Janesville (65k) should also have better/more direct connectivity to the east.
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2023, 09:49:54 PM
Makes me wonder about West Virginia.
The terrain doesn't help, but even so, WV's connectivity isn't great. Getting from Wheeling to the rest of the state generally requires going through PA or Ohio, and connectivity to Virginia is lacking too. Parts of Corridor H are nice, but completion is still a long way off, and there's no true east/west alternatives out of Charleston.
One small point in WV's favor: US 19 is a very decent road which cuts a big corner between Beckley and I-79.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 07, 2023, 10:41:54 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PMMissouri and Nevada would be near the bottom, since both are lacking north/south interstates or freeways.
Disagree with Missouri being near the bottom if we can count expressways as well as freeways/interstates:
* The west side has I-49 which by way of I-435 around Kansas City can be used to continue north to Iowa on I-29 or I-35.
* The east side of Missouri south of St. Louis has I-55 and a mostly four lane US 67 that only needs 12 more miles widening to reach the Arkansas border (and which would have had more freeway segments if funding wasn't an issue). North of St. Louis there's the mostly expressway grade US 61/Avenue of the Saints Corridor up to Iowa.
* There are three east-west corridors across Missouri: US 36 (mix of freeway and expressway), I-70, and the I-44/MO 360/US 60/I-57 corridor (mix of freeway and expressway, excluding US 60 through Mountain Grove)
Sure, expressways can count if they're free-flowing (no traffic signals) and can handle the traffic volumes on the corridor without major safety issues or demand for upgrades.
My issue with Missouri isn't really the connections to other states - as you've outlined, those are all pretty good, and that extends to the KC and St. Louis areas in general. It's the smaller cities that are the problem, especially in the center of the state. Jefferson City, Springfield, and to a lesser extent Columbia, do not have very good connectivity to the rest of the state. There is a glaring lack of a north/south corridor through the center of the state, and that extends from central Missouri into Arkansas, where you have to go to either I-49 or I-55 to get to a major north/south corridor.
Jefferson City to Poplar Bluff is one example that has poor in-state connectivity IMO. It's almost a four-hour trip and it looks like mostly two-lane roads and several different route numbers and corridors throughout.
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2023, 09:49:54 PM
Makes me wonder about West Virginia.
The terrain doesn't help, but even so, WV's connectivity isn't great. Getting from Wheeling to the rest of the state generally requires going through PA or Ohio, and connectivity to Virginia is lacking too. Parts of Corridor H are nice, but completion is still a long way off, and there's no true east/west alternatives out of Charleston.
One small point in WV's favor: US 19 is a very decent road which cuts a big corner between Beckley and I-79.
How many people travel from Wheeling to the rest of WV? Economically, is Wheeling more connected to Ohio/PA than the rest of their own state?
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2023, 09:49:54 PM
Makes me wonder about West Virginia.
The terrain doesn't help, but even so, WV's connectivity isn't great. Getting from Wheeling to the rest of the state generally requires going through PA or Ohio, and connectivity to Virginia is lacking too. Parts of Corridor H are nice, but completion is still a long way off, and there's no true east/west alternatives out of Charleston.
One small point in WV's favor: US 19 is a very decent road which cuts a big corner between Beckley and I-79.
I don't see having to go through other states as a negative as long as the needed connection is made.
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2023, 11:16:00 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2023, 09:49:54 PM
Makes me wonder about West Virginia.
The terrain doesn't help, but even so, WV's connectivity isn't great. Getting from Wheeling to the rest of the state generally requires going through PA or Ohio, and connectivity to Virginia is lacking too. Parts of Corridor H are nice, but completion is still a long way off, and there's no true east/west alternatives out of Charleston.
One small point in WV's favor: US 19 is a very decent road which cuts a big corner between Beckley and I-79.
I don't see having to go through other states as a negative as long as the needed connection is made.
I don't disagree with that, just pointing out that there's not much at all in terms of good north/south connectivity so you've pretty much got to go west to I-77 or east to I-79.
Obviously Nevada is not well connected, with 2 isolated systems. But the state is so sparse that you can't really fault it for it (unless you are MMM/Owl).
The two panhandles really don't feel like they're part of West Virginia, but all the major towns (Huntington, Charleston, Beckley, Princeton/Bluefield, Parkersburg, Clarksburg/Fairmont, and Morgantown) are easy to travel between using the interstates and ADHS expressways.
Kentucky has good connectivity. All the major towns are on an interstate or parkway, even if it's easier to get from Louisville to Henderson by going through Indiana.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 07, 2023, 11:32:22 PM
The two panhandles really don't feel like they're part of West Virginia, but all the major towns (Huntington, Charleston, Beckley, Princeton/Bluefield, Parkersburg, Clarksburg/Fairmont, and Morgantown) are easy to travel between using the interstates and ADHS expressways.
Kentucky has good connectivity. All the major towns are on an interstate or parkway, even if it's easier to get from Louisville to Henderson by going through Indiana.
Pikeville... :D
Indiana has pretty good connectivity with its major cities (used to be worse before I-69 connected Indy to Evansville on a direct four-lane corridor)...
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on March 07, 2023, 11:52:35 PM
Indiana has pretty good connectivity with its major cities (used to be worse before I-69 connected Indy to Evansville on a direct four-lane corridor)...
Still gotta complete that Indy to Evansville interstate. Also no Indy-South Bend or Chicago-Fort Wayne but the roads are 4 lanes so it's fine.
In MN, the only major population centers (>50K) you will spend a lot of time on 2-lane roads is between Duluth and St. Cloud on TH 23 from Foley to Hinckley. Duluth to Moorhead is arguably worse, though.
We don't think of it in 2023, but a lot of cities developed independently of each other and thus there was no need for a major connection between them. Reno and Vegas is one pair of such cities.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2023, 10:02:05 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 07, 2023, 09:56:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2023, 09:33:09 PM
California for as much grief it gets during modern times has a bunch of random freeways in places one wouldn't likely expect to find them. There is stuff like full interchanges in cities like Porterville (CA 65/CA 190) and Super Twos (CA 255 and CA 108 in Sonora) which pop into existence removed from other freeways.
California also has more people than any other state, and more area than all but 2 other states. It should have an excellent freeway network but it is a disaster instead.
You sure about that? There is more random freeways than anywhere in the country. Those cities I listed aren't exactly large nor in the major population centers. A Porterville sized city in most states isn't getting two freeways many other places in the country.
Random is the problem. Where California needs more freeways they don't have them. Having them in random locations is not helpful.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 08, 2023, 12:31:40 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2023, 10:02:05 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 07, 2023, 09:56:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2023, 09:33:09 PM
California for as much grief it gets during modern times has a bunch of random freeways in places one wouldn't likely expect to find them. There is stuff like full interchanges in cities like Porterville (CA 65/CA 190) and Super Twos (CA 255 and CA 108 in Sonora) which pop into existence removed from other freeways.
California also has more people than any other state, and more area than all but 2 other states. It should have an excellent freeway network but it is a disaster instead.
You sure about that? There is more random freeways than anywhere in the country. Those cities I listed aren't exactly large nor in the major population centers. A Porterville sized city in most states isn't getting two freeways many other places in the country.
Random is the problem. Where California needs more freeways they don't have them. Having them in random locations is not helpful.
Where does California need more freeways?
^^^
Lots of places, there is a crap ton of shelved freeways. All the same, there is a crap ton of existing freeways outside the Interstate system. All the same, I can't think of many states that literally tried to turn almost all their urban state highways into freeways.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 08, 2023, 12:31:40 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2023, 10:02:05 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 07, 2023, 09:56:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2023, 09:33:09 PM
California for as much grief it gets during modern times has a bunch of random freeways in places one wouldn't likely expect to find them. There is stuff like full interchanges in cities like Porterville (CA 65/CA 190) and Super Twos (CA 255 and CA 108 in Sonora) which pop into existence removed from other freeways.
California also has more people than any other state, and more area than all but 2 other states. It should have an excellent freeway network but it is a disaster instead.
You sure about that? There is more random freeways than anywhere in the country. Those cities I listed aren't exactly large nor in the major population centers. A Porterville sized city in most states isn't getting two freeways many other places in the country.
Random is the problem. Where California needs more freeways they don't have them. Having them in random locations is not helpful.
Works perfectly fine instances like Lemoore-Hanford on CA 198 especially when the eastern half is bridged by four lane expressway. US 101 has numerous isolated freeway segments between Los Angeles and San Jose that are adequately bridged by expressway segments. Probably goes more to show you don't know a ton about the State Highway System given I'm reeling off a ton examples and you haven't cited why.
Oregon isn't great, especially with Bend and Redmond being isolated from the Interstates.
West Bengal is very difficult to comment on as I've only been to Kolkata, and the maps are deceptive on what is grade separated facilities and not (turns out Kolkata has an interesting freeway grade facility continuing east from the Kona Expressway as the Maa Flyover, connecting to the Eastern Metropolitan Bypass), but the lack of easy connection north through the neck between Bangladesh, the state of Bihar, and Nepal up to Siliguri and Darjeeling brings West Bengal down.
The rail network might make up for it, but I'm not versed in it, sadly.
However, a major expressway from Kolkata toward Lucknow is in planning stages.
Quote from: thspfc on March 07, 2023, 09:06:19 PM
Illinois has Interstates everywhere. 64, 70, 72, 74, 80, 88, and 90 all crisscross the state. It makes sense that IL has a lot, being !flat!, in the middle of the country, with a huge city that is one of the nation's biggest transportation hubs.
No mention of the N-S Interstates that connect Chicago to the rest of the state (55, 57, and 94 which is N-S in IL) and then the 2 that don't directly connect to Chicago: 39 and 24 (24 is also mostly N-S in IL, and is one of those few NW-SE Interstates that tend to be lacking)
The glaring holes in IL's system, are US 20 west of Rockford out to Freeport and Galena (one part of the state that is NOT flat), Macomb/home of Western IL University, is not connected well to the Interstate system, tho it is on the so-called Chicago-KC Expressway/IL 110. A more direct Peoria-Chicago route would be nice, but it isn't going to happen. Somewhat selfishly, the Southwest Illinois Connector could/would be nice should it ultimately be built for those of us in SW IL to improve connectivity to St Louis and the Metro East. Getting Jacksonville a four lane divided US 67 all the way to IL 255 and/or to Alton and the MS River Bridge would also help its connectivity to St Louis
Pretty much all of these holes have been looked at, studied, somewhat improved, etc, but still have room for improvement
I agree that California doesn't have many freeways where you need them, but I think Los Angeles has a very good interconnecting freeway grid. Same with Dallas and Houston, tons of freeways, (Houston almost has 3 beltways) Compared to other major cities, like NY, most of the city is accessible by freeways.
Utah is meh. The freeway coverage is pretty good in the northern and central Wasatch Front, but Utah County and the southern half of Salt Lake County are definitely underserved (an east-west freeway somewhere around 10600 South would do wonders but is never ever happening, and Utah County has no freeways at all not named I-15).
The interstates do hit most of the bigger cities and towns. Logan is the only metro not on a freeway, and it maybe could do with a higher standard connection to I-15, but US 91 at least is four lanes. What really should be four lanes is US 6 from I-15 to I-70, as this is a critical connection from SLC and the Pacific Northwest to points southeast as well as an alternate route to Denver. To be fair, there are plenty of places in the mountains where this would be difficult, but there's really no reason it isn't four lanes everywhere east of Price. Would also be nice to see US 191 fully four-laned from I-70 to Moab, which seems like it should be easy but isn't anywhere in UDOT's plans.
Wouldn't mind seeing US 40 four laned from Heber to Vernal either. The Uinta Basin is a rapidly growing area with no four-lane connection to the outside world, and there is a large volume of truck traffic on 40 mostly involved with oil and natural gas transport to refineries north of Salt Lake.
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PM
I think Michigan and Wisconsin would rank fairly high on the list, and North Carolina is a given because they're constantly adding freeways and interstates. Missouri and Nevada would be near the bottom, since both are lacking north/south interstates or freeways. Then you have many southern states, and to some extent the Dakotas/Minnesota/Iowa, that would be lower based on freeways, but make up for it with four-lane expressways that can easily handle long-distance traffic.
Wisconsin's main weaknesses are the lack of a freeway connecting the SW part of the state with the rest (granted, the improvements to US 151 have helped with this issue) and the total lack of a connection between the SE corner of the state (Kenosha) with Madison. That one is glaring because it includes not just the 4th most populous city in the state but also speaks for a larger population area including Kenosha County and nearby Lake County, IL. It's a total PITA to get from this area to Madison and points west. Aside from this, I agree that WI is pretty good. MI is good, yet it sucks because it has 1962-vintage 4-lane freeways trying to do the job of an 8-lane throughout much of S. MI.
Quote from: thspfc on March 07, 2023, 09:06:19 PM
Illinois has Interstates everywhere. 64, 70, 72, 74, 80, 88, and 90 all crisscross the state. It makes sense that IL has a lot, being !flat!, in the middle of the country, with a huge city that is one of the nation's biggest transportation hubs.
You're right, except for one thing and that's the Chicago area where nearly all freeways/expressways were aligined as spokes serving the City of Chicago under the assumption that all traffic would be coming/going from there. Of course, that's not at all the case and suburb to suburb access could be a LOT better. Try to get froim Waukegan/Gurnee to Schaumburg or Aurora. Or from Naperville to Joliet. Or from Elgin to Waukegan. You pretty much have a choice of a very indirect tollway ride or a more direct, but ponderous, ride on a surface road. Yes, the Tri-State and 355 help somewhat, but their alignments are less than ideal (and the Tri-State was designed back when Elmhurst was considered an outer suburb). As these are large population centers in their own right, I'm counting it. Not that there's much that can be done about it at this point,
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2023, 09:49:54 PM
Makes me wonder about West Virginia.
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 10:44:11 PM
The terrain doesn't help, but even so, WV's connectivity isn't great. Getting from Wheeling to the rest of the state generally requires going through PA or Ohio, and connectivity to Virginia is lacking too. Parts of Corridor H are nice, but completion is still a long way off, and there's no true east/west alternatives out of Charleston.
One small point in WV's favor: US 19 is a very decent road which cuts a big corner between Beckley and I-79.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 07, 2023, 11:14:44 PM
How many people travel from Wheeling to the rest of WV? Economically, is Wheeling more connected to Ohio/PA than the rest of their own state?
Amazingly, the folks in the Northern Panhandle staunchly identify with the rest of West Virginia. But perhaps the question should be reversed, as how many people travel from "the rest of West Virginia" to Wheeling? The Mountain East Conference often holds its basketball tournaments at WesBanco Arena in Wheeling, which also rotates in as occasional host to the "State Tournament" (high schools). Also, the Festival of Lights display at Oglebay Park draws folks from throughout the Mountain State at Christmastime. My folks yearned to take us to Wheeling, but we never got to go. Not sure why, to be honest.
Back to the topic, if you consider connectivity through other states then the following cities/towns in West Virginia are not connected by freeways/highways*:
- St. Albans #12
- Vienna #13
- Keyser #27
- Grafton #28
- Kingwood #37
- Philippi #42
- Moorefield #48 (located on Corridor H, but still not yet connected to rest of the world)
- Wellsburg #50
Many of these towns are tiny (or perhaps all of them, depending upon your viewpoint). I would be surprised if any other state stacks up like this.
(Quite frankly, I am surprised myself. However, many of the "important" towns from my days in West Virginia never grew - because of the lack of connectivity to freeways and highways).
*Towns located across the river from a freeway/highway were considered as "connected" as long as the bridge and connection route was a fairly short distance.
I'd call Colorado pretty high on the list. Obviously we have mountains, which makes any freeway difficult to build and isolates a good chunk of the state. But, the largest city that isn't served by a freeway is Montrose, population 20K. In fact, there are only four cities in the whole state with populations north of 10K that don't have freeways serving them - Montrose, Durango, Cañon City, and Steamboat Springs.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on March 08, 2023, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PM
I think Michigan and Wisconsin would rank fairly high on the list ...
Wisconsin's main weaknesses are the lack of a freeway connecting the SW part of the state with the rest (granted, the improvements to US 151 have helped with this issue) and the total lack of a connection between the SE corner of the state (Kenosha) with Madison. That one is glaring because it includes not just the 4th most populous city in the state but also speaks for a larger population area including Kenosha County and nearby Lake County, IL. It's a total PITA to get from this area to Madison and points west. Aside from this, I agree that WI is pretty good.
That's a fair point. Connectivity from Kenosha and Lake counties to Janesville and Madison is definitely a bit lacking. Yet I wouldn't say there's a total lack, since the fastest route generally uses I-94, it's just annoying that you have to go up to the Milwaukee area and deal with that instead of taking a more direct route. The area would definitely be well served by a better connection between I-94 and US 12, as well as upgrades to US 12 itself. For areas west of Kenosha where it doesn't make sense to use I-94, I would also consider a need for upgrades to US 14 and WI 50.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 11:28:35 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on March 08, 2023, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PM
I think Michigan and Wisconsin would rank fairly high on the list ...
Wisconsin's main weaknesses are the lack of a freeway connecting the SW part of the state with the rest (granted, the improvements to US 151 have helped with this issue) and the total lack of a connection between the SE corner of the state (Kenosha) with Madison. That one is glaring because it includes not just the 4th most populous city in the state but also speaks for a larger population area including Kenosha County and nearby Lake County, IL. It's a total PITA to get from this area to Madison and points west. Aside from this, I agree that WI is pretty good.
That's a fair point. Connectivity from Kenosha and Lake counties to Janesville and Madison is definitely a bit lacking. Yet I wouldn't say there's a total lack, since the fastest route generally uses I-94, it's just annoying that you have to go up to the Milwaukee area and deal with that instead of taking a more direct route. The area would definitely be well served by a better connection between I-94 and US 12, as well as upgrades to US 12 itself. For areas west of Kenosha where it doesn't make sense to use I-94, I would also consider a need for upgrades to US 14 and WI 50.
Agreed. US 12 from Elkhorn up to the Madison area is not sufficient for this traffic, and the most direct path from the Kenosha area involves cutting off near Whitewater and taking a county road "shortcut" to get you to I-90 at Edgerton. Obviously, this is far from ideal. Taking I-94 the whole way can be faster (during off hours) but can also be horrible if you hit it wrong. But, compared with many states, these are relatively minor quibbles.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 11:17:42 AM
I'd call Colorado pretty high on the list. Obviously we have mountains, which makes any freeway difficult to build and isolates a good chunk of the state. But, the largest city that isn't served by a freeway is Montrose, population 20K. In fact, there are only four cities in the whole state with populations north of 10K that don't have freeways serving them - Montrose, Durango, Cañon City, and Steamboat Springs.
I feel like one major gap that exists with Colorado is the connection between Colorado Springs to I-70 to the east, along with a full freeway on the east beltway of Colorado Springs... otherwise the state seems relatively decent.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 11:17:42 AM
I'd call Colorado pretty high on the list. Obviously we have mountains, which makes any freeway difficult to build and isolates a good chunk of the state. But, the largest city that isn't served by a freeway is Montrose, population 20K. In fact, there are only four cities in the whole state with populations north of 10K that don't have freeways serving them - Montrose, Durango, Cañon City, and Steamboat Springs.
I feel like one major gap that exists with Colorado is the connection between Colorado Springs to I-70 to the east, along with a full freeway on the east beltway of Colorado Springs... otherwise the state seems relatively decent.
That stretch of US24 from Colorado Springs to Limon doesn't really bog down too much. I agree that the Springs will someday need a beltway. CO21 is usable but not ideal.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 01:06:59 PM
That stretch of US24 from Colorado Springs to Limon doesn't really bog down too much.
It's still a gap in the system, nonetheless.
QuoteI agree that the Springs will someday need a beltway. CO21 is usable but not ideal.
Perhaps, I was more thinking along the lines of upgrading the remaining sections to CO-21 to freeway standards by constructing more interchanges to replace intersections.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 01:13:48 PM
Perhaps, I was more thinking along the lines of upgrading the remaining sections to CO-21 to freeway standards by constructing more interchanges to replace intersections.
There are stretches where it passes through heavy commercial areas without much room for freeway ROW. (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8858764,-104.7199986,3a,75y,192.09h,83.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYJiyDNtuO5tPKg8nOzU8tQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DYJiyDNtuO5tPKg8nOzU8tQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D354.79404%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
You could certainly fit a tight SPUI in that space, with perhaps some slight taking of driveway space, or at most one business.
If you'll notice, CO-21 has limited access right of way, so businesses connecting directly is not a problem, which makes a freeway upgrade significantly easier.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 01:13:48 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 01:06:59 PM
That stretch of US24 from Colorado Springs to Limon doesn't really bog down too much.
It's still a gap in the system, nonetheless.
QuoteI agree that the Springs will someday need a beltway. CO21 is usable but not ideal.
Perhaps, I was more thinking along the lines of upgrading the remaining sections to CO-21 to freeway standards by constructing more interchanges to replace intersections.
Access from Colorado Springs to points west is terrible. Try to get to Grand Junction or most big ski towns and it's a long slog from The Springs. I understand why it is, but the lack of any westward connection between CO's 2nd biggest metro and the west is a yawning gap IMO. Lived in CO Spgs for a couple of years some time back, so I remember this issue quite well. Connecting with I-70 eastbound never bothered me much OTOH. That's a fairly easy ride.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 01:13:48 PM
Perhaps, I was more thinking along the lines of upgrading the remaining sections to CO-21 to freeway standards by constructing more interchanges to replace intersections.
There are stretches where it passes through heavy commercial areas without much room for freeway ROW. (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8858764,-104.7199986,3a,75y,192.09h,83.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYJiyDNtuO5tPKg8nOzU8tQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DYJiyDNtuO5tPKg8nOzU8tQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D354.79404%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
That looks very similar to a corridor that Texas has upgraded from arterial to freeway with frontage roads. See US 281 north of San Antonio
2016 (https://goo.gl/maps/ZbTnpmLELDCTPkt66) vs.
2021 (https://goo.gl/maps/k8314bFd2Sqsdn3dA).
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 08, 2023, 12:22:26 AM
We don't think of it in 2023, but a lot of cities developed independently of each other and thus there was no need for a major connection between them. Reno and Vegas is one pair of such cities.
That's true, but in the modern era, it is part of the DOT's job to assess how that's changed over time and make improvements to better accommodate those connections.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on March 08, 2023, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 01:13:48 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 01:06:59 PM
That stretch of US24 from Colorado Springs to Limon doesn't really bog down too much.
It's still a gap in the system, nonetheless.
QuoteI agree that the Springs will someday need a beltway. CO21 is usable but not ideal.
Perhaps, I was more thinking along the lines of upgrading the remaining sections to CO-21 to freeway standards by constructing more interchanges to replace intersections.
Access from Colorado Springs to points west is terrible. Try to get to Grand Junction or most big ski towns and it's a long slog from The Springs. I understand why it is, but the lack of any westward connection between CO's 2nd biggest metro and the west is a yawning gap IMO. Lived in CO Spgs for a couple of years some time back, so I remember this issue quite well. Connecting with I-70 eastbound never bothered me much OTOH. That's a fairly easy ride.
Going via Denver isn't
that out of the way to GJ, especially if you take C-470 around. It seems like most of this thread is about connecting large population centers. GJ is large relative to stuff west of the Front Range, but there's no doubt that the majority of the population in Colorado is connected to other population centers easily by freeway. GJ is smaller than Castle Rock now.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 02:59:17 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on March 08, 2023, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 01:13:48 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 01:06:59 PM
That stretch of US24 from Colorado Springs to Limon doesn't really bog down too much.
It's still a gap in the system, nonetheless.
QuoteI agree that the Springs will someday need a beltway. CO21 is usable but not ideal.
Perhaps, I was more thinking along the lines of upgrading the remaining sections to CO-21 to freeway standards by constructing more interchanges to replace intersections.
Access from Colorado Springs to points west is terrible. Try to get to Grand Junction or most big ski towns and it's a long slog from The Springs. I understand why it is, but the lack of any westward connection between CO's 2nd biggest metro and the west is a yawning gap IMO. Lived in CO Spgs for a couple of years some time back, so I remember this issue quite well. Connecting with I-70 eastbound never bothered me much OTOH. That's a fairly easy ride.
Going via Denver isn't that out of the way to GJ, especially if you take C-470 around. It seems like most of this thread is about connecting large population centers. GJ is large relative to stuff west of the Front Range, but there's no doubt that the majority of the population in Colorado is connected to other population centers easily by freeway. GJ is smaller than Castle Rock now.
The part about sticking to large population centers is fair; however, it's Colorado so the mountains and the west are going to be a big draw. And driving up to the Denver area to head westbound is a PITA. Basically, you're saying to tack 1+ hour on to each end of your trip, wherever you're heading on I-70 west. As we're talking about connecting a fairly major city with fairly major destinations, I think my comment is valid.
I will reiterate that I understand why the aforementioned westbound journey on US-24 is about as good as it will get for a long time, but it's still worthy of note. Albuquerque and Farmington have a better connection and both cities are smaller than the pair I referred to here. Though Gr. Jct is far from the only reason you'd venture west out of COS.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on March 08, 2023, 03:06:16 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 02:59:17 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on March 08, 2023, 02:38:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 01:13:48 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 01:06:59 PM
That stretch of US24 from Colorado Springs to Limon doesn't really bog down too much.
It's still a gap in the system, nonetheless.
QuoteI agree that the Springs will someday need a beltway. CO21 is usable but not ideal.
Perhaps, I was more thinking along the lines of upgrading the remaining sections to CO-21 to freeway standards by constructing more interchanges to replace intersections.
Access from Colorado Springs to points west is terrible. Try to get to Grand Junction or most big ski towns and it's a long slog from The Springs. I understand why it is, but the lack of any westward connection between CO's 2nd biggest metro and the west is a yawning gap IMO. Lived in CO Spgs for a couple of years some time back, so I remember this issue quite well. Connecting with I-70 eastbound never bothered me much OTOH. That's a fairly easy ride.
Going via Denver isn't that out of the way to GJ, especially if you take C-470 around. It seems like most of this thread is about connecting large population centers. GJ is large relative to stuff west of the Front Range, but there's no doubt that the majority of the population in Colorado is connected to other population centers easily by freeway. GJ is smaller than Castle Rock now.
The part about sticking to large population centers is fair; however, it's Colorado so the mountains and the west are going to be a big draw. And driving up to the Denver area to head westbound is a PITA. Basically, you're saying to tack 1+ hour on to each end of your trip, wherever you're heading on I-70 west. As we're talking about connecting a fairly major city with fairly major destinations, I think my comment is valid.
I will reiterate that I understand why the aforementioned westbound journey on US-24 is about as good as it will get for a long time, but it's still worthy of note. Albuquerque and Farmington have a better connection and both cities are smaller than the pair I referred to here. Though Gr. Jct is far from the only reason you'd venture west out of COS.
There are plenty of good spots in the mountains, though, that are easily reached via US24 west. I spend relatively little time in the mountain areas near I-70. I don't ski, but I do hike, camp, and climb mountains, and most of that is about due west of the Springs or farther south. The Collegiate Peaks are easily reached via US24 from the Springs, and with a lot less traffic than US285 from Denver too.
I think I would argue that the missing quadrant of C-470 is a bigger issue for Colorado overall than lack of westbound route out of Colorado Springs. Fort Collins to GJ is probably even worse than Colorado Springs to GJ because of that gap.
The existing route is about 26-27 miles, and a beltway routing would shave it a couple down to about 25 miles. It's probably not as bad as it seems, at least outside peak hours.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 03:10:56 PM
I think I would argue that the missing quadrant of C-470 is a bigger issue for Colorado overall than lack of westbound route out of Colorado Springs. Fort Collins to GJ is probably even worse than Colorado Springs to GJ because of that gap.
Maybe so, but you still have the little stub of I-76 that cuts off having to travel through the Mousetrap that saves a little time. And, you're only missing an octant, not a quadrant since the Northwest Parkway goes between I-25 and US36.
Is there really a need for any interstates west out of Colorado Springs? The terrain would be a huge issue anyways.
In Kansas, the only cities with population over 20,000 that are isolated from the statewide freeway network are Hutchinson (40,000), Garden City (28,000), Dodge City (27,000), and Pittsburg (20,000). Hutchinson already has (AASHTO) expressway connections via K-61 and K-96, while Pittsburg is in the process of receiving one to the US 69 freeway at Fort Scott. The other two function more as regional centers, with the long-distance traffic on their feeder two-lane state-maintained primary highways being served tolerably well with the odd passing lane.
While Colorado does well in terms of freeway connections for populous incorporated cities, it does poorly in terms of the following:
* Engineering standards, especially for older facilities (rural segments of I-25 are full of reduced-speed curves)
* Crosstown mobility (Colorado Springs and Pueblo, both of which lack complete east-west freeway bypasses, are cases in point)
* Traffic capacity west of the Front Range (throughput on state-maintained two-lane primary highways goes down even in the plateau country, notably along US 24 between Artero Junction and Woodland Park)
Underfunding highway infrastructure, as Colorado has done partly as a result of TABOR, has consequences.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2023, 03:22:09 PM
Is there really a need for any interstates west out of Colorado Springs? The terrain would be a huge issue anyways.
No, there isn't. I-70 is an architectural wonder and should remain very unique in Colorado as the only interstate in the mountains.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 03:15:51 PM
The existing route is about 26-27 miles, and a beltway routing would shave it a couple down to about 25 miles. It's probably not as bad as it seems, at least outside peak hours.
True, although to be clear, Fort Collins is not the main reason that quadrant is needed. It would serve a much more important role for Boulder and the other northwestern suburbs, which currently use the mostly two-lane CO 93 and various other arterials to get to I-70 WB.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 03:27:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2023, 03:22:09 PM
Is there really a need for any interstates west out of Colorado Springs? The terrain would be a huge issue anyways.
No, there isn't. I-70 is an architectural wonder and should remain very unique in Colorado as the only interstate in the mountains.
They didn't even build a railroad west of Colorado Springs. Only north-south. In Colorado, the interstates tend to roughly follow where they built the railroads.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2023, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 03:27:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2023, 03:22:09 PM
Is there really a need for any interstates west out of Colorado Springs? The terrain would be a huge issue anyways.
No, there isn't. I-70 is an architectural wonder and should remain very unique in Colorado as the only interstate in the mountains.
They didn't even build a railroad west of Colorado Springs. Only north-south. In Colorado, the interstates tend to roughly follow where they built the railroads.
In West Virginia it seems like the Interstates follow the railroads which follow the rivers.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 03:29:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 03:15:51 PM
The existing route is about 26-27 miles, and a beltway routing would shave it a couple down to about 25 miles. It's probably not as bad as it seems, at least outside peak hours.
True, although to be clear, Fort Collins is not the main reason that quadrant is needed. It would serve a much more important role for Boulder and the other northwestern suburbs, which currently use the mostly two-lane CO 93 and various other arterials to get to I-70 WB.
CO93 flows pretty well though. I take it relatively often as I have friends that live just north of Golden. It'd save a couple of minutes to have a highway connection, but it's not the time saver you'd think.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 08, 2023, 03:25:16 PM
In Kansas, the only cities with population over 20,000 that are isolated from the statewide freeway network are Hutchinson (40,000), Garden City (28,000), Dodge City (27,000), and Pittsburg (20,000). Hutchinson already has (AASHTO) expressway connections via K-61 and K-96, while Pittsburg is in the process of receiving one to the US 69 freeway at Fort Scott. The other two function more as regional centers, with the long-distance traffic on their feeder two-lane state-maintained primary highways being served tolerably well with the odd passing lane.
Interestingly, Dodge City and Garden City are quite close, only about 50 miles apart. Is US 400 between them mostly two-lanes as well?
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 08, 2023, 03:25:16 PM
In Kansas, the only cities with population over 20,000 that are isolated from the statewide freeway network are Hutchinson (40,000), Garden City (28,000), Dodge City (27,000), and Pittsburg (20,000). Hutchinson already has (AASHTO) expressway connections via K-61 and K-96, while Pittsburg is in the process of receiving one to the US 69 freeway at Fort Scott. The other two function more as regional centers, with the long-distance traffic on their feeder two-lane state-maintained primary highways being served tolerably well with the odd passing lane.
Interestingly, Dodge City and Garden City are quite close, only about 50 miles apart. Is US 400 between them mostly two-lanes as well?
Nope, mostly (if not all) four lane if I recall correctly.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Interestingly, Dodge City and Garden City are quite close, only about 50 miles apart. Is US 400 between them mostly two-lanes as well?
Yes. It changes to four lanes divided at the Garden City airport.
↓ AADT map ↓
(https://i.imgur.com/AEADzNb.jpg)
Bottom number is heavy commercial traffic. Numbers are 2021 data.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 03:35:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 03:29:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 03:15:51 PM
The existing route is about 26-27 miles, and a beltway routing would shave it a couple down to about 25 miles. It's probably not as bad as it seems, at least outside peak hours.
True, although to be clear, Fort Collins is not the main reason that quadrant is needed. It would serve a much more important role for Boulder and the other northwestern suburbs, which currently use the mostly two-lane CO 93 and various other arterials to get to I-70 WB.
CO93 flows pretty well though. I take it relatively often as I have friends that live just north of Golden. It'd save a couple of minutes to have a highway connection, but it's not the time saver you'd think.
That's fair. I obviously can't speak to any experience, but Boulder is also almost 20 miles north of Golden. I would guess you'd save at least 10 minutes between Boulder and I-70 if it was all or mostly all freeway.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Interestingly, Dodge City and Garden City are quite close, only about 50 miles apart. Is US 400 between them mostly two-lanes as well?
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2023, 03:46:32 PM
Yes. It changes to four lanes divided at the Garden City airport.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 03:45:16 PM
Nope, mostly (if not all) four lane if I recall correctly.
:fight:
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 03:54:13 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Interestingly, Dodge City and Garden City are quite close, only about 50 miles apart. Is US 400 between them mostly two-lanes as well?
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2023, 03:46:32 PM
Yes. It changes to four lanes divided at the Garden City airport.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 03:45:16 PM
Nope, mostly (if not all) four lane if I recall correctly.
:fight:
Apparently I don't recall correctly. :) I even spot checked two spots on GSV and both were 4-lane, but looking further, it's just two most of the way.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 03:35:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 03:29:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 08, 2023, 03:15:51 PM
The existing route is about 26-27 miles, and a beltway routing would shave it a couple down to about 25 miles. It's probably not as bad as it seems, at least outside peak hours.
True, although to be clear, Fort Collins is not the main reason that quadrant is needed. It would serve a much more important role for Boulder and the other northwestern suburbs, which currently use the mostly two-lane CO 93 and various other arterials to get to I-70 WB.
CO93 flows pretty well though. I take it relatively often as I have friends that live just north of Golden. It'd save a couple of minutes to have a highway connection, but it's not the time saver you'd think.
CO 93 would flow well without the lane drops and traffic lights right in Golden. CDOT really needs to push those grade separations on US 6/CO 93 as these are constant sources of backups.
As for the missing metro Denver beltway quadrant (octant?), the stretch between CO 93 near 64th Ave and CO 128 near Interlocken was supposed to be a toll road called the Jefferson Parkway. But this toll road would have traffic lights at both ends and no freeway connections. Broomfield has pulled out of that project due to an outlier soil test for radiation near the old Rocky Flats plutonium factory (which hasn't been repeated in subsequent investigations). But for the foreseeable future, the NW Denver beltway is likely dead.
Broomfield always being the outlier.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2023, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 03:27:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2023, 03:22:09 PM
Is there really a need for any interstates west out of Colorado Springs? The terrain would be a huge issue anyways.
No, there isn't. I-70 is an architectural wonder and should remain very unique in Colorado as the only interstate in the mountains.
They didn't even build a railroad west of Colorado Springs. Only north-south. In Colorado, the interstates tend to roughly follow where they built the railroads.
There's a difference between pointing out something that's a gap and advocating that the gap be filled. Didn't I say that I get why there's no freeway access west of Colo Spgs? Yes, I did.
Also, having lived there I can assure Jayhawk that I-70 west of Denver is not a good substitute if you live in the Pikes Peak region. You grin and bear it because it's quite out of your way and perhaps not worth passing up US-24 for.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on March 08, 2023, 04:14:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2023, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 08, 2023, 03:27:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2023, 03:22:09 PM
Is there really a need for any interstates west out of Colorado Springs? The terrain would be a huge issue anyways.
No, there isn't. I-70 is an architectural wonder and should remain very unique in Colorado as the only interstate in the mountains.
They didn't even build a railroad west of Colorado Springs. Only north-south. In Colorado, the interstates tend to roughly follow where they built the railroads.
There's a difference between pointing out something that's a gap and advocating that the gap be filled. Didn't I say that I get why there's no freeway access west of Colo Spgs? Yes, I did.
Also, having lived there I can assure Jayhawk that I-70 west of Denver is not a good substitute if you live in the Pikes Peak region. You grin and bear it because it's quite out of your way and perhaps not worth passing up US-24 for.
I never inferred that I-70 was a substitute for Springs residents. I would likely never take it if I lived down there. Again, most of my mountain time is spent over 50 miles away from the interstate, so you don't have to convince me it's not the most ideal route to the mountains for anyone, much less someone who lives south of Denver.
Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2023, 03:49:11 PM
↓ AADT map ↓
[img snipped]
Bottom number is heavy commercial traffic. Numbers are 2021 data.
Oh, Kansas has it easy. Meanwhile in New York, NY 104 between Williamson and Sodus has an AADT of 13k with basically no hope of ever being widened. :angry:
In a theoretical rankings list, I'll place Ohio somewhere between 11th and 15th best. Besides the interstates, lots of 4-lane divided highways around the state. But Columbus-Toledo is important enough to warrant an interstate, dragging it down in the overall rankings.
On paper, Ohio looks like a good state, but when you factor in the lack of a "free-flowing" Northwest‐to‐Southeast artery coughcoughUS-23coughcough, and are not in any hurry to rectify the obvious problems along this corridor.
WA may not have much in the freeway department, but the ones it does have do their job well. I-5 and I-90 obviously provide connections to the rest of the nation from Seattle, but I-82 is a nice shortcut to places like Boise, ID and Salt Lake City, UT. And most of the towns that aren't directly on any freeway corridor (Walla Walla and Pullman come to mind) are not too far from one either.
Quote from: Henry on March 08, 2023, 09:55:39 PM
WA may not have much in the freeway department, but the ones it does have do their job well. I-5 and I-90 obviously provide connections to the rest of the nation from Seattle, but I-82 is a nice shortcut to places like Boise, ID and Salt Lake City, UT. And most of the towns that aren't directly on any freeway corridor (Walla Walla and Pullman come to mind) are not too far from one either.
US 395 as well is almost as good as an interstate
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 11:28:35 AM
That's a fair point. Connectivity from Kenosha and Lake counties to Janesville and Madison is definitely a bit lacking. Yet I wouldn't say there's a total lack, since the fastest route generally uses I-94, it's just annoying that you have to go up to the Milwaukee area and deal with that instead of taking a more direct route. The area would definitely be well served by a better connection between I-94 and US 12, as well as upgrades to US 12 itself. For areas west of Kenosha where it doesn't make sense to use I-94, I would also consider a need for upgrades to US 14 and WI 50.
WI 50 is already four lanes between US 12 and Kenosha. It just needs better access control, a higher speed limit (it never goes above 55), the stoplights replaced with interchanges, and a bypass of Paddock Lake (though Paddock Lake isn't as bad as some of the towns on US 12 and US 14).
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 08, 2023, 08:51:36 PM
In a theoretical rankings list, I'll place Ohio somewhere between 11th and 15th best. Besides the interstates, lots of 4-lane divided highways around the state. But Columbus-Toledo is important enough to warrant an interstate, dragging it down in the overall rankings.
As someone who enters Ohio from the north and Toledo being the first Ohio city I hit I can tell ya that I have tinkered with ways to get to Columbus. US-23 is a decent route but I have found that after you get off I-75 in Findlay you can take US-68 to OH-31 to US-33. It's not all freeway but it's not a bad route. It probably takes an extra 10 minutes to get to Columbus I would think without it being freeway.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 08, 2023, 10:09:10 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 08, 2023, 09:55:39 PM
WA may not have much in the freeway department, but the ones it does have do their job well. I-5 and I-90 obviously provide connections to the rest of the nation from Seattle, but I-82 is a nice shortcut to places like Boise, ID and Salt Lake City, UT. And most of the towns that aren't directly on any freeway corridor (Walla Walla and Pullman come to mind) are not too far from one either.
US 395 as well is almost as good as an interstate
One problem is that US 395 is still a surface street through Kennewick. This makes it a bit annoying to connect between Spokane and points south. An additional Columbia River crossing to connect I-82 and US 395 north of Kennewick would be ideal, probably never happening though.
Other than that, I agree that Washington is pretty good and quite a bit better than Oregon. Having that freeway (or mostly-freeway) triangle to connect the smaller cities in the middle of the state really helps. Not that there's a lot of population in southern Oregon, but parts of it are probably among the furthest from a freeway of anywhere in the entire country.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 08, 2023, 03:32:33 PM
In West Virginia it seems like the Interstates follow the railroads which follow the rivers.
Interesting; I never thought of it that way. It's not entirely true, however, since I-77 doesn't follow a railroad corridor (and doesn't follow either a railroad or river between Charleston and Ravenswood). And I-70 doesn't follow a railroad or a river in the Wheeling area, but it once did follow the old B&O Wheeling Division (there are a few disconnected pieces still remaining: a bit in Wheeling; a bit in Akron; a bit in Cleveland; and the remaining old mainline between Pittsburgh and Little Washington).
OK, I might give I-77 a break here since the Virginian (VGN) ran from Radford -to- Princeton -to- Mullens -to- Deepwater, some of which is parallel to the West Virginia Turnpike.
I've made the mistake of turning this topic into a datastream for analysis, which raises the obvious question: What qualifies as a "highway". As mentioned by several folks in this thread, West Virginia has a strong definition of "partially-limited access highway" (now Access Partially Controlled). But the WVDOH definition has been degraded over the years, now including some two-lane roads and the permitting of large developments in close proximity to the highway (for instance, the Southridge development between Charleston and Alum Creek).
Anywhoosit, the "partially-limited access highway" definition that I have in my head is far to limiting (and subject to lots of flaming rants if I do use it for analysis). But it seems like the following are minimum requirements for "highway": (1) continuous median up to each intersection; (2) no crossovers for private homes and businesses along the route. But using that definition means that College Station and Lynchburg are therefore not connected.
By the way, WVDOH has gone so far as to "qualify" the roads in surrounding states to be shown as Access Partially Controlled on the "Official State Map". At a glance, it looks like the DOH was much more generous to the surrounding states in whether the road qualifies, than to their own state's roads.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 08, 2023, 11:35:44 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2023, 11:28:35 AM
That's a fair point. Connectivity from Kenosha and Lake counties to Janesville and Madison is definitely a bit lacking. Yet I wouldn't say there's a total lack, since the fastest route generally uses I-94, it's just annoying that you have to go up to the Milwaukee area and deal with that instead of taking a more direct route. The area would definitely be well served by a better connection between I-94 and US 12, as well as upgrades to US 12 itself. For areas west of Kenosha where it doesn't make sense to use I-94, I would also consider a need for upgrades to US 14 and WI 50.
WI 50 is already four lanes between US 12 and Kenosha. It just needs better access control, a higher speed limit (it never goes above 55), the stoplights replaced with interchanges, and a bypass of Paddock Lake (though Paddock Lake isn't as bad as some of the towns on US 12 and US 14).
The issue with Paddock Lake is that it's a small town sheriff's dream of a speed trap. A quick drop from 55 (which is already an artifically low speed limit) to 35. Then the KCSD just waits like a grizzly by the rapids during spawning season. Handing out $300 tickets like candy. And, no, I haven't gotten one - but lots of people do. And it's Alabama style crap. Otherwise, Highway 50 west of I-94 is actually quite good. In fact, up until you get to I-43 it's a good ride. The real issue of getting to Madison, WI Dells, etc happens farther northwest when you either hit an overburdened mostly 2-lane US-12 or have to use lots of other indirect side routes to get to I-39/90.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 09, 2023, 10:05:29 AM
I've made the mistake of turning this topic into a datastream for analysis, which raises the obvious question: What qualifies as a "highway". As mentioned by several folks in this thread, West Virginia has a strong definition of "partially-limited access highway" (now Access Partially Controlled). But the WVDOH definition has been degraded over the years, now including some two-lane roads and the permitting of large developments in close proximity to the highway (for instance, the Southridge development between Charleston and Alum Creek).
Anywhoosit, the "partially-limited access highway" definition that I have in my head is far to limiting (and subject to lots of flaming rants if I do use it for analysis). But it seems like the following are minimum requirements for "highway": (1) continuous median up to each intersection; (2) no crossovers for private homes and businesses along the route. But using that definition means that College Station and Lynchburg are therefore not connected.
My main criteria to qualify as freeway/expressway for the purposes of this thread would be four-lanes divided with no traffic signals along the route. At grades are OK, but nothing where through traffic might have to stop, including traffic signals, stop signs and roundabouts. Driveways with direct access are also OK as long as they're not too densely clustered.
Quote from: webny99 on March 09, 2023, 10:31:33 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 09, 2023, 10:05:29 AM
I've made the mistake of turning this topic into a datastream for analysis, which raises the obvious question: What qualifies as a "highway". As mentioned by several folks in this thread, West Virginia has a strong definition of "partially-limited access highway" (now Access Partially Controlled). But the WVDOH definition has been degraded over the years, now including some two-lane roads and the permitting of large developments in close proximity to the highway (for instance, the Southridge development between Charleston and Alum Creek).
Anywhoosit, the "partially-limited access highway" definition that I have in my head is far to limiting (and subject to lots of flaming rants if I do use it for analysis). But it seems like the following are minimum requirements for "highway": (1) continuous median up to each intersection; (2) no crossovers for private homes and businesses along the route. But using that definition means that College Station and Lynchburg are therefore not connected.
My main criteria to qualify as freeway/expressway for the purposes of this thread would be four-lanes divided with no traffic signals along the route. At grades are OK, but nothing where through traffic might have to stop, including traffic signals, stop signs and roundabouts. Driveways with direct access are also OK as long as they're not too densely clustered.
So going back to the US395 example above, it qualifies for most of its length until it's actually in the tri-cities. There are a good amount of at grades in the rural stretch, but nothing you have to slow down for.
Maryland would probably be "middle of the pack" in terms of this thread. My thought process is to break out MD into 4 basic regions:
-Western Maryland
-DC/Baltimore metro
-Southern Maryland
-Eastern Shore
Of those 4, 2 have good interstate coverage (Western MD & DC/Baltimore metro). The other 2 are covered by 4-lane divided highways not without traffic signals. US 50 across the Eastern Shore is a good example - it's mostly free-flow and even has a nice freeway bypass of Salisbury, but then has traffic signals and a lower speed limit in Easton & Cambridge.
Meanwhile, Carroll County in the DC/Baltimore metro is an interesting outlier - it technically has an interstate & US Route within its borders, as I-70 & US 40 clip the southern border for about a mile near Mt. Airy, but otherwise is only served by state routes. Most of them are 2-lane roads with the exception of a ~10-mile stretch of MD 140 connecting Westminster with the northern end of I-795 just across the border into Baltimore County. And said stretch has lights throughout, and oftentimes as soon as you hit one red you're stuck with the bunched-up traffic the rest of the way to Westminster or I-795.
Additionally, I doubt this is a very common movement but any access from Southern MD to the Eastern Shore requires heading out of the way to the north via Annapolis and the Bay Bridge. And then the Bay Bridge, of course, is its own can of worms - the only in-state backup option to the Bay Bridge is crossing the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal via MD 213 and then crossing the Susquehanna via US 40, I-95, or US 1.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 08, 2023, 09:47:30 PM
On paper, Ohio looks like a good state, but when you factor in the lack of a "free-flowing" Northwest‐to‐Southeast artery coughcoughUS-23coughcough, and are not in any hurry to rectify the obvious problems along this corridor.
I think the NW-SE connections are better in the southern half of the state. US 33 is pretty light on the number of signals and traffic most of the time, and US 35 isn't that bad either (though you need to deal with US 23 between Columbus and Chillicothe for the latter if you're coming from Columbus).
I would put Maryland in the lower 1/4. One of the more densely populated states, but suffers from inadequate roadways in the Baltimore and Washington DC areas. I-70 does not connect to Baltimore, I-95 does not connect to DC (which means excess traffic on I-495 in Maryland).
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 10, 2023, 11:15:14 AM
I would put Maryland in the lower 1/4. One of the more densely populated states, but suffers from inadequate roadways in the Baltimore and Washington DC areas. I-70 does not connect to Baltimore, I-95 does not connect to DC (which means excess traffic on I-495 in Maryland).
We just got rid of MMM please not this shit again!
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 10, 2023, 11:15:14 AM
I would put Maryland in the lower 1/4. One of the more densely populated states, but suffers from inadequate roadways in the Baltimore and Washington DC areas. I-70 does not connect to Baltimore, I-95 does not connect to DC (which means excess traffic on I-495 in Maryland).
Highwaystar, go visit I-40 in AZ. You'll find Los Angeles as a control city for all WB entrance ramps west of Flagstaff. I-40 goes nowhere near LA and ditto for I-91 SB ramps in Las Vegas which also uses LA instead of San Diego where it actually heads.
The point is I-70 is not the only road with a control city that's not on it. Get used to it and move on.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 10, 2023, 12:43:48 PM
I-91 SB ramps in Las Vegas which also uses LA instead of San Diego where it actually heads.
This is one of the worst, being over 2,000 miles away.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 10, 2023, 11:15:14 AM
I would put Maryland in the lower 1/4. One of the more densely populated states, but suffers from inadequate roadways in the Baltimore and Washington DC areas. I-70 does not connect to Baltimore, I-95 does not connect to DC (which means excess traffic on I-495 in Maryland).
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 10, 2023, 12:14:47 PM
We just got rid of MMM please not this shit again!
Quote from: roadman65 on March 10, 2023, 12:43:48 PM
The point is I-70 is not the only road with a control city that's not on it. Get used to it and move on.
Sorry, but this thread is about Connectivity and not Control Cities.
HighwayStar has a valid point that many states have highway networks that are interconnected to the suburbs surrounding a large city, but there is no real connectivity into the Central Business District (CBD). So the point to be made is that Annapolis has good connectivity to the Baltimore CBD, but Frederick and Hagerstown do not. Same thing for Washington: Richmond and Fredericksburg have good connectivity to the Mall (and decent connectivity to Downtown), and so does Baltimore and Fairfax, but Frederick and Hagerstown do not. That may not be important to the OP, but it is primary to many folks who need good access to the Regional Core.
To that point, in my railroading/rail transit career I've driven to work in most of the major cities east of the Ohio River (with the exception of New England). Much of this required access to the CBD or the Inner City. This type of connectivity is truly important to folks like me. If you are more interested in shopping experiences, you may not need to go inside "the Beltway".
From the I-70/I-695 interchange to where the I-70/I-95 interchange would have been is all of two miles longer via I-695 and I-95 than it would have been if I-70 was built directly. For DC, I-95 may go around, but the Baltimore-Washington Parkway/MD 295/DC 295 goes in closer and has an easy connection via I-695. It's not as big a deal as HighwayStar is making it out to be (and many of it recognize it as a continuation of his longtime insistence that "I-70 doesn't go to Baltimore" that has become a meme, so there's less inclination to give him the benefit of the doubt than there would be if it was someone else).
Quote from: Henry on March 08, 2023, 09:55:39 PMWA may not have much in the freeway department, but the ones it does have do their job well. I-5 and I-90 obviously provide connections to the rest of the nation from Seattle, but I-82 is a nice shortcut to places like Boise, ID and Salt Lake City, UT. And most of the towns that aren't directly on any freeway corridor (Walla Walla and Pullman come to mind) are not too far from one either.
Interstate 182 as well.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 10, 2023, 01:12:02 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 10, 2023, 11:15:14 AM
I would put Maryland in the lower 1/4. One of the more densely populated states, but suffers from inadequate roadways in the Baltimore and Washington DC areas. I-70 does not connect to Baltimore, I-95 does not connect to DC (which means excess traffic on I-495 in Maryland).
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 10, 2023, 12:14:47 PM
We just got rid of MMM please not this shit again!
Quote from: roadman65 on March 10, 2023, 12:43:48 PM
The point is I-70 is not the only road with a control city that's not on it. Get used to it and move on.
Sorry, but this thread is about Connectivity and not Control Cities. HighwayStar has a valid point that many states have highway networks that are interconnected to the suburbs surrounding a large city, but there is no real connectivity into the Central Business District (CBD). So the point to be made is that Annapolis has good connectivity to the Baltimore CBD, but Frederick and Hagerstown do not. Same thing for Washington: Richmond and Fredericksburg have good connectivity to the Mall (and decent connectivity to Downtown), and so does Baltimore and Fairfax, but Frederick and Hagerstown do not. That may not be important to the OP, but it is primary to many folks who need good access to the Regional Core.
To that point, in my railroading/rail transit career I've driven to work in most of the major cities east of the Ohio River (with the exception of New England). Much of this required access to the CBD or the Inner City. This type of connectivity is truly important to folks like me. If you are more interested in shopping experiences, you may not need to go inside "the Beltway".
Exactly my point. Every trip I have had through Maryland involved either DC or Baltimore, and always involved the use of long bypasses to get to the CBD because no route went there directly from the direction I needed.
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2023, 01:25:22 PM
From the I-70/I-695 interchange to where the I-70/I-95 interchange would have been is all of two miles longer via I-695 and I-95 than it would have been if I-70 was built directly. For DC, I-95 may go around, but the Baltimore-Washington Parkway/MD 295/DC 295 goes in closer and has an easy connection via I-695. It's not as big a deal as HighwayStar is making it out to be (and many of it recognize it as a continuation of his longtime insistence that "I-70 doesn't go to Baltimore" that has become a meme, so there's less inclination to give him the benefit of the doubt than there would be if it was someone else).
Its not simply about millage, in fact, that is a relatively minor point. Its more about capacity. Not having both routes adds significant traffic to the one that does remain.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway is swell, but it would be better if there was an actual I-95 to relieve some of the traffic on it.
Here's to confirm that Virginia has pretty good connectivity. Independent cities plus towns that are not connected by freeways and highways are:
- Lynchburg #12
- Culpeper #28
- Manassas Park #31 (tough call)
- Front Royal #35
- Martinsville #37
- Poquoson #38
- Warrenton #39
- Smithfield #42 (ooh, so close)
- Franklin #45
- Vinton #46 (a very hard call, could go either way)
- South Boston #47
- Farmville #48 (another tough call)
In the same vein, North Carolina (rankings adjusted per 2020 Census):
- Jacksonville #14
- Wake Forest #23
- Holly Springs #25 (oops! NC-55 loses medians near intersections)
- Fuquay-Varina #29 (ditto)
- New Bern #32 (just waiting for I-42)
- Morrisville #35 (another hard call)
- Carrboro #45
- Waxhaw #47
- Kinston #48
Oops! I just disqualified Morrisville, North Carolina because even though it is relatively close to freeways, you've got to doodle through a bunch of traffic signals and cross one of the railroad tracks to get into "town". Would I not also need to disqualify Lexington, Kentucky for the same reason? Morrisville has expanded so much that the town limits now extend to an exit on both I-40 and the Triangle Expressway. Since Fayette County reaches two-thirds of the way down I-64 towards Winchester, it doesn't quite seem fair.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 10, 2023, 07:58:04 PM
- Farmville #48 (another tough call)
Curious - how is it a tough call? The nearest freeway / interstate that is apart of the system in Virginia is about 40 miles east or north (I-64, I-85, VA-288).
I count VA-288 because it is linked to I-64 and I-95 and is continuous freeway. US-460 is freeway around Farmville but does not retain limited access outside of the bypass.
Looking at cities by size, nothing in New York really stands out to me until Ithaca (pop. 30k), which comes up often because it's pretty glaring. It has the NY 13 freeway, but it's not connected to the rest of the network and requires 15+ miles on two-lane roads to get to I-81 or I-86 (and much longer than that to get to I-90). Beyond that, Auburn (pop. 27k) lacks connectivity but isn't too far from the Thruway, and Lockport (21k) is famously disconnected because I-990 was never extended there. Coverage gets a lot more spotty once you get to cities below 20k in population.
There are also some cities that are essentially suburbs of NYC, such as Long Beach, that don't have great connectivity but I consider those somewhat separate for the purposes of this thread.
Poughkeepsie (pop. 32k) is an interesting one, as it's within NYC's sphere of influence but too distinct to just lump in with NYC. It is not connected to the statewide freeway network, and could definitely use an upgraded connection to I-87 in particular. It does have a four-lane connection to I-84 via US 9 which is mostly a divided highway, but it's not even close to a full freeway with many traffic signals as it passes right through Fishkill and Wappingers Falls.
Quote from: webny99 on March 10, 2023, 10:31:47 PM
Looking at cities by size, nothing in New York really stands out to me until Ithaca (pop. 30k), which comes up often because it's pretty glaring. It has the NY 13 freeway, but it's not connected to the rest of the network and requires 15+ miles on two-lane roads to get to I-81 or I-86 (and much longer than that to get to I-90). Beyond that, Auburn (pop. 27k) lacks connectivity but isn't too far from the Thruway, and Lockport (21k) is famously disconnected because I-990 was never extended there. Coverage gets a lot more spotty once you get to cities below 20k in population.
There are also some cities that are essentially suburbs of NYC, such as Long Beach, that don't have great connectivity but I consider those somewhat separate for the purposes of this thread.
Poughkeepsie (pop. 32k) is an interesting one, as it's within NYC's sphere of influence but too distinct to just lump in with NYC. It is not connected to the statewide freeway network, and could definitely use an upgraded connection to I-87 in particular. It does have a four-lane connection to I-84 via US 9 which is mostly a divided highway, but it's not even close to a full freeway with many traffic signals as it passes right through Fishkill and Wappingers Falls.
Wonder if there are disconnected cities on Long Island.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 10, 2023, 07:58:04 PM
- Farmville #48 (another tough call)
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 10, 2023, 09:41:51 PM
Curious - how is it a tough call? The nearest freeway / interstate that is apart of the system in Virginia is about 40 miles east or north (I-64, I-85, VA-288).
I count VA-288 because it is linked to I-64 and I-95 and is continuous freeway. US-460 is freeway around Farmville but does not retain limited access outside of the bypass.
But there are very disqualifiers along US-460 and US-360 from Farmville up to VA-288. But one of those is the Subway in Amelia (along with Papa Johns). Also, the last mile of Hull Street Road before you hit VA-288 is now built up too much.
Quote from: webny99 on March 09, 2023, 08:54:50 AM
Not that there's a lot of population in southern Oregon, but parts of it are probably among the furthest from a freeway of anywhere in the entire country.
I'm curious exactly where that point is. The US freeway pole of inaccessibility, if you will. Eyeballing it, it's probably somewhere in southern Oregon in that I-5/80/84 triangle, but central Nevada between 80 and 15, the Four Corners area, north-central Montana, and southwestern Kansas could also be contenders. Someone should do that math.
Quote from: US 89 on March 11, 2023, 12:46:50 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 09, 2023, 08:54:50 AM
Not that there's a lot of population in southern Oregon, but parts of it are probably among the furthest from a freeway of anywhere in the entire country.
I'm curious exactly where that point is. The US freeway pole of inaccessibility, if you will. Eyeballing it, it's probably somewhere in southern Oregon in that I-5/80/84 triangle, but central Nevada between 80 and 15, the Four Corners area, north-central Montana, and southwestern Kansas could also be contenders. Someone should do that math.
I thought the conventional answer was Copper Harbor, MI for farthest away from an interstate.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 11, 2023, 01:18:31 AM
Quote from: US 89 on March 11, 2023, 12:46:50 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 09, 2023, 08:54:50 AM
Not that there's a lot of population in southern Oregon, but parts of it are probably among the furthest from a freeway of anywhere in the entire country.
I'm curious exactly where that point is. The US freeway pole of inaccessibility, if you will. Eyeballing it, it's probably somewhere in southern Oregon in that I-5/80/84 triangle, but central Nevada between 80 and 15, the Four Corners area, north-central Montana, and southwestern Kansas could also be contenders. Someone should do that math.
I thought the conventional answer was Copper Harbor, MI for farthest away from an interstate.
It is. I knew that bit of information from when I was in Copper Harbor. It's about 230 miles from I-39 in Wassau, Wisconsin.
Quote from: US 89 on March 11, 2023, 12:46:50 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 09, 2023, 08:54:50 AM
Not that there's a lot of population in southern Oregon, but parts of it are probably among the furthest from a freeway of anywhere in the entire country.
I'm curious exactly where that point is. The US freeway pole of inaccessibility, if you will. Eyeballing it, it's probably somewhere in southern Oregon in that I-5/80/84 triangle, but central Nevada between 80 and 15, the Four Corners area, north-central Montana, and southwestern Kansas could also be contenders. Someone should do that math.
Not southern Oregon, but I hear that Bend is doing pretty well, and it doesn't enjoy the best in road connectivity.
Mike
Quote from: US 89 on March 11, 2023, 12:46:50 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 09, 2023, 08:54:50 AM
Not that there's a lot of population in southern Oregon, but parts of it are probably among the furthest from a freeway of anywhere in the entire country.
I'm curious exactly where that point is. The US freeway pole of inaccessibility, if you will. Eyeballing it, it's probably somewhere in southern Oregon in that I-5/80/84 triangle, but central Nevada between 80 and 15, the Four Corners area, north-central Montana, and southwestern Kansas could also be contenders. Someone should do that math.
I played around with it a little bit. Riley, OR is well over 3 hours from a freeway in any direction, but I was focused on time, not mileage. To do it legitimately, I would go with road mileage since that could be significantly different than crow-flies mileage in such remote areas. I do think it's somewhere within that I-5/I-80/I-84 triangle, I'll come back to it if/when I have a bit more time.
Cities not connected in Kentucky:
- Lexington #2
- Nicholasville #11
- Radcliff #17
- Ashland #18
- Mount Washington #22
- Murray #23
- Danville #25
- Lawrenceburg #35
- Campbellsville #36
- Middlesboro #45
- Harrodsburg #47
- Maysville #48
Independence makes the cut, but the fact that Madison Pike (KY-17) connects it back north to I-275 allows it to qualify. This does reduce my view on its connectivity, as it is important to provide connections from large towns and county seats to their state capitals. Similarly, Somerset is connected via the Cumberland Parkway that takes you way back to the west messing up the connectivity to more important regional localities; say Corbin, London and Lexington. I'd say this is much worse for Versailles.
I would count Radcliffe if you include two-lane partially limited access highways, in this case KY-313. Similarly, you could say that Ashland is connected via US-52 through Ohio and West Virginia, which includes a short Super Two across the West Huntington Bridge.
Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area.
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area.
Quite a few well funded and connected Horse farms around Lexington. Same reason the Bluegrass stops short of Lexington
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area.
I am not sure how it could be considered disconnected from those Interstates.
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area.
How do you figure they aren't connected to Lexington?
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 10, 2023, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2023, 01:25:22 PM
From the I-70/I-695 interchange to where the I-70/I-95 interchange would have been is all of two miles longer via I-695 and I-95 than it would have been if I-70 was built directly. For DC, I-95 may go around, but the Baltimore-Washington Parkway/MD 295/DC 295 goes in closer and has an easy connection via I-695. It's not as big a deal as HighwayStar is making it out to be (and many of it recognize it as a continuation of his longtime insistence that "I-70 doesn't go to Baltimore" that has become a meme, so there's less inclination to give him the benefit of the doubt than there would be if it was someone else).
Its not simply about millage, in fact, that is a relatively minor point. Its more about capacity. Not having both routes adds significant traffic to the one that does remain.
Baltimore-Washington Parkway is swell, but it would be better if there was an actual I-95 to relieve some of the traffic on it.
That's true with the Parkway/DC 295, especially in the era of GPS routing thru traffic there because it's shorter than staying on I-95, but Maryland's traffic counts don't bear that out with respect to I-70. From I-70 eastbound, more traffic heads north on I-695 than south.
Quote from: webny99 on March 10, 2023, 10:31:47 PM
Poughkeepsie (pop. 32k) is an interesting one, as it's within NYC's sphere of influence but too distinct to just lump in with NYC. It is not connected to the statewide freeway network, and could definitely use an upgraded connection to I-87 in particular. It does have a four-lane connection to I-84 via US 9 which is mostly a divided highway, but it's not even close to a full freeway with many traffic signals as it passes right through Fishkill and Wappingers Falls.
I'd say that US 9 to I-84 is even slower than NY 299 to I-87. Despite being a multi-lane divided highway, there's too much traffic, too many lights, and too many strip malls for traffic to move well.
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 11, 2023, 01:31:13 PM
How do you figure they aren't connected to Lexington?
There's no freeway or partially limited access highway from I-75/I-64 to New Circle Road (KY-4). which itself doesn't completely fit those categories in the section closest to the Interstate. That's a totally different situation than Baltimore or Washington, where you have to go part-way around their respective beltways to reach the Central Business District.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 11, 2023, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 11, 2023, 01:31:13 PM
How do you figure they aren't connected to Lexington?
There's no freeway or partially limited access highway from I-75/I-64 to New Circle Road (KY-4). which itself doesn't completely fit those categories in the section closest to the Interstate. That's a totally different situation than Baltimore or Washington, where you have to go part-way around their respective beltways to reach the Central Business District.
Technically Lexington is connected. Since I believe 1974, Lexington and Fayette County have had a merged metropolitan government. If you‘re looking at a map and notice something that looks like city limits for Lexington within Fayette County, you’re actually looking at the boundary between the Urban Services District and the Rural Services District. The population of both Lexington and Fayette County have always been exactly the same since the two governments merged.
(Nashville also has a similar type boundary with Davidson County, but instead of Rural Services District they call it General Services District. But Davidson County’s population is always higher than that of Nashville since it includes the populations of Belle Meade, Berry Hill, the Davidson County portion of Goodlettsville, Forest Hills, Oak Hill, and the very small Davidson County sliver of Ridgetop.)
So anyway, I-64 and I-75 very much enter Lexington (but don’t touch KY 4 or get anywhere near the CBD), and KTC ought to update all of the Fayette County signs to make them say Metropolitan Lexington/Fayette County. They replaced all of the Jefferson County signage to “Welcome To Louisville Metro”.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 11, 2023, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 11, 2023, 01:31:13 PM
How do you figure they aren't connected to Lexington?
There's no freeway or partially limited access highway from I-75/I-64 to New Circle Road (KY-4). which itself doesn't completely fit those categories in the section closest to the Interstate. That's a totally different situation than Baltimore or Washington, where you have to go part-way around their respective beltways to reach the Central Business District.
They both enter Lexington so they are connected to Lexington. I've spent the night in Lexington quite a few times I know the area fairly well it's built up to I-75 I know that much.
Yeah, I have family in Lexington/Winchester and the idea that the Interstates don't connect to Lexington is pretty asinine, despite someone looking at Google Maps and concluding the feeder routes from the Interstate somehow "don't count."
I would agree that Maryland has one of the best completed grid systems near the cities, but with I-70 not going to and through Baltimore, it cannot be considered to have good connectivity. That state shouldn't be on this list due to that.
Ohio is quite impressive. Here's the three cities that are not connected to freeways and highways:
- Cleveland Heights #25
- Delaware #30
- Kent #49
Lorain (#10) might ought to be on this list. I-90 is too far away from the old main part of town, but the city limits extend out to OH-2.
Middletown throws us a different curveball. Neither I-75 nor OH-63 are close enough to the so-called "downtown", and neither OH-4 nor OH-122 qualify as partially limited access highways. But throwing in OH-73 and University Boulevard (and perhaps others), the town is so well "interconnected" that I can't make a strong enough case to put it on the list.
I was wondering when I would find something "not connected" inside of an "outer loop freeway". Cleveland Heights is too far from I-90 and also from I-271. The new routing of OH-10 (Opportunity Corridor Road) into the east side of Cleveland almost gets us there, but as long as you have to slog through CLE you can't count it.
On the other hand, Warren stays just far enough away from I-80, I-76, I-680 and OH-11 freeways, but OH-82 (Warren Outer Belt) makes a pretty tough case against disqualification.
What do I do with Lancaster? US-33 has been upgrade all the around the town, but this bypass is several miles out of town. If you are trying to get from Lancaster to Columbus, then I would say it is connected. Vice versa (trying to get into Lancaster from somewhere else), well not so great.
Another one on the "reverse rule": Marion is connected to I-75 by US-23 and OH-15, but that is a heck of way to get to Columbus. But it is "connected".
Disqualified due to the "Lexington rule": Kent isn't very far off of I-76, but it doesn't have a decent highway connection and it is partially surrounded on the southeast side by OH-261, which appears to be a "baby beltway" in the making.
The inclusion of "highway" in this throws some of these statements off, in my opinion.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 11, 2023, 12:53:45 PM
Cities not connected in Kentucky:
- Lexington #2
- Nicholasville #11
- Radcliff #17
- Ashland #18
- Mount Washington #22
- Murray #23
- Danville #25
- Lawrenceburg #35
- Campbellsville #36
- Middlesboro #45
- Harrodsburg #47
- Maysville #48
Independence makes the cut, but the fact that Madison Pike (KY-17) connects it back north to I-275 allows it to qualify. This does reduce my view on its connectivity, as it is important to provide connections from large towns and county seats to their state capitals. Similarly, Somerset is connected via the Cumberland Parkway that takes you way back to the west messing up the connectivity to more important regional localities; say Corbin, London and Lexington. I'd say this is much worse for Versailles.
I would count Radcliffe if you include two-lane partially limited access highways, in this case KY-313. Similarly, you could say that Ashland is connected via US-52 through Ohio and West Virginia, which includes a short Super Two across the West Huntington Bridge.
Each of these, except Campbellsville and Maysville, is connected to the interstate and parkway system via a four-lane road.
For Massachusetts:
1. Boston
2. Worcester
1-2: I-90
3. Springfield
1-3: I-90
2-3: I-90
4. Cambridge
Close enough to Boston that it doesn't need to be considered separately.
5: Lowell
1-5: I-93 → I-495. While not perfectly direct, it's not too bad.
2-5: I-290 → I-495, pretty direct.
3-5: I-90 → I-495, pretty direct.
6. Brockton
1-6: I-93 → MA 24, not much of a loss.
2-6: No good connection from Worcester to Brockton.
Quote from: 1 on March 11, 2023, 09:29:42 PM
For Massachusetts:
1. Boston
2. Worcester
1-2: I-90
3. Springfield
1-3: I-90
2-3: I-90
4. Cambridge
Close enough to Boston that it doesn't need to be considered separately.
5: Lowell
1-5: I-93 → I-495. While not perfectly direct, it's not too bad.
2-5: I-290 → I-495, pretty direct.
3-5: I-90 → I-495, pretty direct.
6. Brockton
1-6: I-93 → MA 24, not much of a loss.
2-6: No good connection from Worcester to Brockton.
Pittsfield...North Adams...
While Boston might be better off than some places in Mass, it really is lacking in proper freeway connections for the same reasons as Baltimore and DC, parts of the grid were not built and as a result too much traffic is forced onto what are supposed to be loops.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 12, 2023, 12:15:42 AM
While Boston might be better off than some places in Mass, it really is lacking in proper freeway connections for the same reasons as Baltimore and DC, parts of the grid were not built and as a result too much traffic is forced onto what are supposed to be loops.
Pfft. I-90 and I-93 are enough.
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 12:37:37 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 12, 2023, 12:15:42 AM
While Boston might be better off than some places in Mass, it really is lacking in proper freeway connections for the same reasons as Baltimore and DC, parts of the grid were not built and as a result too much traffic is forced onto what are supposed to be loops.
Pfft. I-90 and I-93 are enough.
If they were enough I-95 would not have been designed to go into Boston in the first place. And that was long ago with lower traffic. I-90 serves no purpose for traffic coming from the south on I-95 without a long awkward dog leg. I-93 is better placed, but without the capacity from I-95 going directly to Boston it is too congested.
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 12, 2023, 01:16:43 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 12:37:37 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 12, 2023, 12:15:42 AM
While Boston might be better off than some places in Mass, it really is lacking in proper freeway connections for the same reasons as Baltimore and DC, parts of the grid were not built and as a result too much traffic is forced onto what are supposed to be loops.
Pfft. I-90 and I-93 are enough.
If they were enough I-95 would not have been designed to go into Boston in the first place. And that was long ago with lower traffic. I-90 serves no purpose for traffic coming from the south on I-95 without a long awkward dog leg. I-93 is better placed, but without the capacity from I-95 going directly to Boston it is too congested.
I-95's corridor was instead used to build the hugely important southwest corridor rail line. The residents of those areas of Boston, which are among the poorer areas of the city, would have their neighborhoods torn apart even further by an interstate.
Overall, Pennsylvania does a decent job connecting its more populous municipalities via freeway, not always directly but fairly easily using the system as a whole.
There are almost 90 municipalities (cities, boroughs, townships) in PA with a population over 20k. The vast majority of them either have a freeway within their limits or there's one no more than 10 miles away.
Notable gaps include:
-Numerous interchanges between the PA Turnpike system and other freeways. The I-95 interchange is incomplete but planned to be completed, and the Scranton Beltway project will fix the connections between I-476 and I-81.
-I-99 does not directly connect to I-80 or I-70/I-76. The I-80 interchange is due to be constructed starting later this year.
-Pittsburgh lacks a connection to I-80 via PA 28.
-Reading and Allentown are not connected via freeway (or even a proper four-lane at-grade route).
-US 422 between Reading and Pottstown.
-US 322 at Duncannon and between Potters Mills and Boalsburg (completion of this gap is in the study phase) hinders the connection between Harrisburg and State College.
-The incomplete Mon-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway projects.
-Harrisburg and Williamsport. The CSVT project will bypass the only section remaining with traffic signals. US 11/15 is (more or less) expressway-grade between Duncannon and Selinsgrove with no signals.
-There are numerous formerly planned freeways that were never built around Philly, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere. Some maybe should have been built, while others are best left on the drawing board, but that's a whole other discussion.
My Massachusetts list above was supposed to be a starting point for comparison using the metric "largest pair of cities that isn't connected".
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 12, 2023, 01:16:43 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 12:37:37 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on March 12, 2023, 12:15:42 AM
While Boston might be better off than some places in Mass, it really is lacking in proper freeway connections for the same reasons as Baltimore and DC, parts of the grid were not built and as a result too much traffic is forced onto what are supposed to be loops.
Pfft. I-90 and I-93 are enough.
If they were enough I-95 would not have been designed to go into Boston in the first place. And that was long ago with lower traffic. I-90 serves no purpose for traffic coming from the south on I-95 without a long awkward dog leg. I-93 is better placed, but without the capacity from I-95 going directly to Boston it is too congested.
Inadequate capacity doesn't mean the connections aren't there. I-95 to I-93 from the south is all that is needed.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 11, 2023, 04:03:39 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 11, 2023, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 11, 2023, 01:31:13 PM
How do you figure they aren't connected to Lexington?
There's no freeway or partially limited access highway from I-75/I-64 to New Circle Road (KY-4). which itself doesn't completely fit those categories in the section closest to the Interstate. That's a totally different situation than Baltimore or Washington, where you have to go part-way around their respective beltways to reach the Central Business District.
They both enter Lexington so they are connected to Lexington. I've spent the night in Lexington quite a few times I know the area fairly well it's built up to I-75 I know that much.
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2023, 07:16:37 PM
Yeah, I have family in Lexington/Winchester and the idea that the Interstates don't connect to Lexington is pretty asinine, despite someone looking at Google Maps and concluding the feeder routes from the Interstate somehow "don't count."
Well, that escalated quickly. This is just a case of me not being specific enough. What I meant was that although I-64/I-75 enter Lexington's city limits, it is odd that they are disconnected from KY 4.
Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2023, 07:31:04 AM
My Massachusetts list above was supposed to be a starting point for comparison using the metric "largest pair of cities that isn't connected".
I like this metric, but it can get iffy when there is an all interstate/freeway route but it's not necessarily the fastest route. For New York state, this occurs immediately between #1 NYC and #2 Buffalo. I would count them as having a freeway connection, including the alternative through PA/NJ, but others may disagree.
Excluding those type of issues, you can get quite a ways down the list. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like #10 Utica and #14 Binghamton are the largest unconnected pair.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 11, 2023, 12:53:45 PM
Cities not connected in Kentucky:
- Lexington #2
- Nicholasville #11
- Radcliff #17
- Ashland #18
- Mount Washington #22
- Murray #23
- Danville #25
- Lawrenceburg #35
- Campbellsville #36
- Middlesboro #45
- Harrodsburg #47
- Maysville #48
Quote from: hbelkins on March 11, 2023, 09:24:50 PM
Each of these, except Campbellsville and Maysville, is connected to the interstate and parkway system via a four-lane road.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 11, 2023, 09:24:50 PM
The inclusion of "highway" in this throws some of these statements off, in my opinion.
Agreed, plus it is worse when West Virginia's concept of partially limited access highways (now Partially Controlled) is set as the standard bar. I'm trying to bend as much as possible, but it seems fair that the vague term "highway/freeway" needs to adhere to some basic rules. Heading down the path of my typical NHS rant, the standard that I used there was four lanes (or Super Two) and no sections where congestion was so bad that 45MPH was not possible (no matter what the posted speed limit says). Throwing safety into the mix, it seems like [continuous median] and elimination of private driveways crossing the median seems reasonable.
WebNY99's admonition that there be no traffic signals seems impractical, but it also doesn't seem right to include four lane roads that have any stretch of consecutive traffic signals.
As this effort progresses, I'm getting a collection of oddities that might need to factor into the analysis phase. I'm also watching the New York discussions in how they discuss what we rail transit guys call "origin/destination pairs" (O/D pairs). All of this plays into how many "holes" there are in our nationwide transportation system (and how to "fix" them).
For the record, I've always held that Kentucky's system of parkways was the gold standard for "local highway" networks, not just here in the United States but worldwide.
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 01:03:13 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 11, 2023, 04:03:39 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 11, 2023, 03:23:24 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 11, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 11, 2023, 01:31:13 PM
How do you figure they aren't connected to Lexington?
There's no freeway or partially limited access highway from I-75/I-64 to New Circle Road (KY-4). which itself doesn't completely fit those categories in the section closest to the Interstate. That's a totally different situation than Baltimore or Washington, where you have to go part-way around their respective beltways to reach the Central Business District.
They both enter Lexington so they are connected to Lexington. I've spent the night in Lexington quite a few times I know the area fairly well it's built up to I-75 I know that much.
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2023, 07:16:37 PM
Yeah, I have family in Lexington/Winchester and the idea that the Interstates don't connect to Lexington is pretty asinine, despite someone looking at Google Maps and concluding the feeder routes from the Interstate somehow "don't count."
Well, that escalated quickly. This is just a case of me not being specific enough. What I meant was that although I-64/I-75 enter Lexington's city limits, it is odd that they are disconnected from KY 4.
No, this is another example of you moving the goalposts, since you said:
"Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area."
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 01:03:13 PM
Well, that escalated quickly. This is just a case of me not being specific enough. What I meant was that although I-64/I-75 enter Lexington's city limits, it is odd that they are disconnected from KY 4.
No, this is another example of you moving the goalposts, since you said:
"Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area."
I lazily said Lexington when what I actually meant was
Lexington's downtown and (mostly) freeway loop are disconnected from the interstates. I was not aware until looking it up that parts of I-64 and I-75 enter the way oversized city limits.
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 01:03:13 PM
Well, that escalated quickly. This is just a case of me not being specific enough. What I meant was that although I-64/I-75 enter Lexington's city limits, it is odd that they are disconnected from KY 4.
No, this is another example of you moving the goalposts, since you said:
"Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area."
I lazily said Lexington when what I actually meant was Lexington's downtown and (mostly) freeway loop are disconnected from the interstates. I was not aware until looking it up that parts of I-64 and I-75 enter the way oversized city limits.
It's a whopping two miles from I-64/I-75 to downtown Lexington. The idea they do not provide a connection to Lexington is just silly to us who are familiar with the city.
It's like saying I-81 isn't connected to Hazleton, PA just because it didn't plow right down Church Street. Locals would look at you as if you had two heads.
South Carolina gets slapped here because of all the great little getaways that have attracted too many retirees:
- Sumter #9 (ooh, so close!)
- Hilton Head Island #12 (even closer)
- Myrtle Beach #13
- Aiken #15 (oops, got hit with the "Lexington rule")
- Conway #18
- Easley #24
- Greenwood #25
- North Myrtle Beach #27
- Clemson #28
- Port Royal #30
- Beaufort #32
- Moncks Corner #33
- James Island #37
- Seneca #43
- York #44
- Lancaster #45
- Georgetown #46
- Union #47
- Travelers Rest #49
Oh, the little things that drive you crazy. Anderson is close enough to I-85, but then there's that finger of Lake Hartwell (Six and Twenty Creek) in between. Plus, US-76 gets a "chicken lane" (TWLTL) just before you cross over. It looks like I've already been too tough on South Carolina, so it can stay off the list for now.
Give SCDOT extra credit for extra effort! US-17 cuts a diagonal through the Ellenborough section and Cannonborough section of Charleston. Usually, a city street is an automatically disqualified, but this comes with a beautiful tree-line median that turns most of the grid into RIROs along the way. Unfortunately, the Spring Street connection to Lockwood Drive doesn't make the cut.
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 11:14:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 01:03:13 PM
Well, that escalated quickly. This is just a case of me not being specific enough. What I meant was that although I-64/I-75 enter Lexington's city limits, it is odd that they are disconnected from KY 4.
No, this is another example of you moving the goalposts, since you said:
"Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area."
I lazily said Lexington when what I actually meant was Lexington's downtown and (mostly) freeway loop are disconnected from the interstates. I was not aware until looking it up that parts of I-64 and I-75 enter the way oversized city limits.
It's a whopping two miles from I-64/I-75 to downtown Lexington. The idea they do not provide a connection to Lexington is just silly to us who are familiar with the city.
It's like saying I-81 isn't connected to Hazleton, PA just because it didn't plow right down Church Street. Locals would look at you as if you had two heads.
The difference is there's a freeway loop around Lexington, and it's just interesting there's no freeway link between that and I-64/I-75.
No need to get so defensive, yikes. Just an observation about the area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 13, 2023, 12:16:30 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 11:14:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 01:03:13 PM
Well, that escalated quickly. This is just a case of me not being specific enough. What I meant was that although I-64/I-75 enter Lexington's city limits, it is odd that they are disconnected from KY 4.
No, this is another example of you moving the goalposts, since you said:
"Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area."
I lazily said Lexington when what I actually meant was Lexington's downtown and (mostly) freeway loop are disconnected from the interstates. I was not aware until looking it up that parts of I-64 and I-75 enter the way oversized city limits.
It's a whopping two miles from I-64/I-75 to downtown Lexington. The idea they do not provide a connection to Lexington is just silly to us who are familiar with the city.
It's like saying I-81 isn't connected to Hazleton, PA just because it didn't plow right down Church Street. Locals would look at you as if you had two heads.
The difference is there's a freeway loop around Lexington, and it's just interesting there's no freeway link between that and I-64/I-75.
No need to get so defensive, yikes. Just an observation about the area.
The freeway loop mentioned is not all freeway. KY 4/New Circle Road is a surface arterial around the east of downtown Lexington from the northern US 25 interchange to the southern US 25 interchange.
Yes, I-64/75 do enter the "city limits" of Lexington because Fayette County and Lexington are the same entity.
There are many four-lane highways used to get from I-64/75 into downtown Lexington. Starting from the north, KY 922 (Exit 115), US 27/68 (113), US 60 (110), and KY 418 (104) all provide four-lane access. KY 418 intersects, then becomes US 25/421 on that highway's northerly trek into the downtown area. Man-O-War (108) indirectly feeds to the southern areas of Lexington. Sure, these highways have traffic lights and some are prone to backups (mainly KY 922), however, it is only 1.5-2 miles between I-64/75 and New Circle between KY 922 and US 60 and another 1.5-2 miles to downtown.
There is connectivity, it is just not "freeway connectivity" . So, according to some opinions offered, Lexington does not have the "BEST" overall connectivity. It is good though, as I have had few issues getting from I-64/75 to the downtown area whenever I have traveled there.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 13, 2023, 12:16:30 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 11:14:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2023, 05:41:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 01:03:13 PM
Well, that escalated quickly. This is just a case of me not being specific enough. What I meant was that although I-64/I-75 enter Lexington's city limits, it is odd that they are disconnected from KY 4.
No, this is another example of you moving the goalposts, since you said:
"Lexington not being connected to I-64 and/or I-75 is very odd for such a sizeable metro area."
I lazily said Lexington when what I actually meant was Lexington's downtown and (mostly) freeway loop are disconnected from the interstates. I was not aware until looking it up that parts of I-64 and I-75 enter the way oversized city limits.
It's a whopping two miles from I-64/I-75 to downtown Lexington. The idea they do not provide a connection to Lexington is just silly to us who are familiar with the city.
It's like saying I-81 isn't connected to Hazleton, PA just because it didn't plow right down Church Street. Locals would look at you as if you had two heads.
The difference is there's a freeway loop around Lexington, and it's just interesting there's no freeway link between that and I-64/I-75.
No need to get so defensive, yikes. Just an observation about the area.
Webny can speak for himself...unless, you're his sockpuppet (:D).
I agree that it looks funny on the map that New Circle isn't connected to the Interstate, but the context was the claim that the Interstates do not provide a connection to Lexington.
New Circle Road is a state highway not an Interstate. I don't see why it would have to connect to I-64 or I-75 both of which do indeed enter Lexington city limits.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 13, 2023, 07:14:55 AM
New Circle Road is a state highway not an Interstate. I don't see why it would have to connect to I-64 or I-75 both of which do indeed enter Lexington city limits.
I never said I-75 or I-64 don't connect to Lexington?
I never said New Circle Road was an interstate?
I never said it
has to connect to I-64 or I-75?
I'm simply pointing out it is interesting that a sizable metro like Lexington has a disconnected freeway system.
Again... no need to get all defensive.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 13, 2023, 08:22:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 13, 2023, 07:14:55 AM
New Circle Road is a state highway not an Interstate. I don't see why it would have to connect to I-64 or I-75 both of which do indeed enter Lexington city limits.
I never said I-75 or I-64 don't connect to Lexington?
I never said New Circle Road was an interstate?
I never said it has to connect to I-64 or I-75?
I'm simply pointing out it is interesting that a sizable metro like Lexington has a disconnected freeway system.
Again... no need to get all defensive.
This is getting weird.
New Circle Road does see a lot of traffic at rush hour due to the lack of freeways within the loop but it's not a full freeway around Lexington either. There are driveways and intersections as well.
Quote from: Rothman on March 13, 2023, 08:26:32 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 13, 2023, 08:22:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 13, 2023, 07:14:55 AM
New Circle Road is a state highway not an Interstate. I don't see why it would have to connect to I-64 or I-75 both of which do indeed enter Lexington city limits.
I never said I-75 or I-64 don't connect to Lexington?
I never said New Circle Road was an interstate?
I never said it has to connect to I-64 or I-75?
I'm simply pointing out it is interesting that a sizable metro like Lexington has a disconnected freeway system.
Again... no need to get all defensive.
This is getting weird.
:wow:
To break this subtopic: Can anyone else do a "largest pair unconnected" analysis for other states? It was #2-#6 for Massachusetts.
For Connecticut:
#1: Bridgeport
#2: Stamford
1-2: I-95
#3: New Haven
1-2: I-95
2-3: I-95
#4: Hartford
1-4: I-95 → I-91; pretty direct
2-4: I-95 → I-91; pretty direct
3-4: I-91
#5: Waterbury
1-5: CT 8
2-5: I-95 → CT 8; pretty direct
3-5: No good connection.
For Maine:
#1: Portland
#2: Lewiston
1-2: I-95
#3: Bangor
1-3: I-95
2-3: I-95
#4: South Portland
Adjacent to Portland, it doesn't need to be considered separately.
#5: Auburn
Adjacent to Lewiston, it doesn't need to be considered separately.
#6: Biddeford
1-6: I-95
2-6: I-95
3-6: I-95
#7: Sanford
1-7: Sanford has no freeways, and there is no direct route for Portland to Sanford.
New Hampshire wasn't going to rank top (this is a "best" thread, not a "worst" thread), but it fails on #3-#4 with Nashua-Derry.
Quote from: 1 on March 13, 2023, 08:39:32 AM
To break this subtopic: Can anyone else do a "largest pair unconnected" analysis for other states?
I tried New York below; although I didn't do a full written breakdown, I did go through each city and came up with #10-#14:
Quote from: webny99 on March 12, 2023, 01:18:47 PM
I like this metric, but it can get iffy when there is an all interstate/freeway route but it's not necessarily the fastest route. For New York state, this occurs immediately between #1 NYC and #2 Buffalo. I would count them as having a freeway connection, including the alternative through PA/NJ, but others may disagree.
Excluding those type of issues, you can get quite a ways down the list. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like #10 Utica and #14 Binghamton are the largest unconnected pair.
New Circle Road was first built as a surface bypass of US 25 in the 1950, probably before the interstate routings were drawn up.
The best route from the interstates to New Circle is North Broadway (US 27/68). There are fewer traffic lights on it than on Newtown Pike (KY 922). If you are going north on I-75/west on I-64 and want to make the connection to the outer loop of New Circle (to get to the BG Parkway, for example) it is faster to take 27/68 than 922 because there are fewer signals on 27/68 and New Circle combined than the stretch of Newtown between the interstates and New Circle.
My understanding is that when the interstate system was conceived, Lexington officials made the conscious decision to keep the interstates out of downtown.
Quote from: webny99 on March 13, 2023, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 13, 2023, 08:39:32 AM
To break this subtopic: Can anyone else do a "largest pair unconnected" analysis for other states?
I tried New York below; although I didn't do a full written breakdown, I did go through each city and came up with #10-#14
Predictably, I decided to do the full breakdown for New York after all, to the same end:
#1 New York City pop. 8.8m#2 Buffalo pop. 278k1<>2 via NY33/I-90/I-81/NY17/I-87
#3 Yonkers pop. 212k1<>3 via I-87
2<>3 via I-87/NY17/I-81/I-90/NY33
#4 Rochester pop. 211k1<>4 via I-90/I-81/NY17/I-87
2<>4 via I-490/I-90/NY33
3<>4 via I-90/I-81/NY17/I-87
#5 Syracuse pop. 149k1<>5 via I-81/NY17/I-87
2<>5 via I-690/I-90/NY33
3<>5 via I-81/NY17/I-87
4<>5 via I-690/I-90/I-490
#6 Albany pop. 99k1<>6 via I-87
2<>6 via I-90/NY33
3<>6 via I-87
4<>6 via I-90/I-490
5<>6 via I-90/I-481/I-690
#7 New Rochelle pop. 77kN/A (suburb of #1)
#8 Mount Vernon pop. 67kN/A (suburb of #1)
#9 Schenectady pop. 67k1<>9 via I-890/I-90/I-87
2<>9 via I-890/I-90/NY33
3<>9 via I-890/I-90/I-87
4<>9 via I-890/I-90/I-490
5<>9 via I-890/I-90/I-481/I-690
6<>9 via I-890/I-90
#10 Utica pop. 65k1<>10 via I-90/I-87
2<>10 via I-90/NY33
3<>10 via I-90/I-87
4<>10 via I-90/I-490
5<>10 via I-90/I-481/I-690
6<>10 via I-90
9<>10 via I-90/I-890
#11 White Plains pop. 60kN/A (suburb of #1)
#12 Troy pop. 51k1<>12 via I-787/I-87
2<>12 via NY7/I-87/I-90/NY33
3<>12 via I-787/I-97
4<>12 via NY7/I-87/I-90/I-490
5<>12 via NY7/I-87/I-90/I-481/I-690
6<>12 via I-787
9<>12 via NY7/I-87/I-90/I-890
10<>12 via NY7/I-87/I-90
#13 Niagara Falls pop. 49k1<>13 via I-190/I-290/I-90/I-81/NY17/I-87
2<>13 via I-190
3<>13 via I-190/I-90/I-81/NY17/I-87
4<>13 via I-190/I-290/I-90/I-490
5<>13 via I-190/I-290/I-90/I-690
6<>13 via I-190/I-290/I-90
9<>13 via I-190/I-290/I-90
10<>13 via I-190/I-290/I-90/I-890
12<>13 via I-190/I-290/I-90/I-87/NY7
#14 Binghamton pop. 48k1<>14 via NY17/I-87
2<>14 via I-81/I-90/NY33
3<>14 via NY17/I-87
4<>14 via I-81/I-90/I-490
5<>14 via I-81
6<>14 via I-88/I-90
9<>14 via I-88/I-90/I-890
10<>14 via NY12 >> no direct connection
1/2/4/6-11. Twin Cities Area
3. Rochester
1 <-> 3: US 52
5. Duluth
1 <-> 5: I-35
3 <-> 5: I-35 and US 52 (easy transition in downtown St. Paul, all freeway/expressway)
12. St. Cloud
1 <-> 12: I-94
3 <-> 12: US 52 :bigass:
5 <-> 12: I-35, TH 23 (as outlined, no good connection between them)
Colorado
#1 Denver (715,522)
#2 Colorado Springs (478,961)
1 <> 2 via I-25
#3 Aurora (386,261)
Suburb of #1
#4 Fort Collins (169,810)
1 & 3 <> 4 via I-25
2 <> 4 via I-25
#5 Lakewood (155,984)
Suburb of #1
#6 Thornton (141,867)
Suburb of #1
#7 Arvada (124,402)
Suburb of #1
#8 Westminster (116,317)
Suburb of #1
#9 Pueblo (111,876)
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 <> 9 via I-25
2 <> 9 via I-25
4 <> 9 via I-25
#10 Greeley (108,795)
Arguable if it connects to the freeway system, but its metro area certainly does
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 <> 10 via I-25
2 <> 10 via I-25
4 <> 10 via I-25
9 <> 10 via I-25
If it doesn't end there, then...
#11 Centennial (108,418)
Suburb of #1
#12 Boulder (108,250)
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 <> 12 via US36
2 <> 12 via I-25 & US36
4 <> 12 via I-25, Northwest Parkway, & US36
9 <> 12 via I-25 & US36
10 <> 12 via I-25, Northwest Parkway, & US36
#13 Longmont (98,885)
Suburb of #12
#14 Loveland (76,378)
Suburb of #4
#15 Broomfield (74,112)
Suburb of #1
#16 Castle Rock (73,158)
Suburb of #1
#17 Grand Junction (65,560)
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 <> 17 via I-70
2 <> 17 - No direct connection
4, 14 <> 17 - No direct connection
9 <> 17 - No direct connection
10 <> 17 - No direct connection
12, 13 <> 17 - No direct connection
Again, as stated elsewhere, going from Fort Collins or Colorado Springs to Grand Junction has an all freeway route that isn't thaaaaaat far away from a straight shot, but strictly speaking, there isn't a direct routing.
Quote from: 1 on March 13, 2023, 08:39:32 AM
To break this subtopic: Can anyone else do a "largest pair unconnected" analysis for other states?
North Carolina:
#1 Charlotte -to- #6 Fayetteville
- US-74*//NC-144*//US-401* = 132 miles = 2h 32m
- NC-24* = 132 miles = 2h 44m
- I-85//US-421*//NC-87** = 182 miles = 2h 51m
- I-85/I-40//I-95
*None of these qualifies as a "highway".
**NC-87/NC-24 southeast of Spout Springs is congested, but hard to disqualify as a highway
#1 Charlotte -to- #8 Wilmington
- US-74*//I-74/US-74 = 198 miles = 3h 10m
- I-77//I-20//I-95//I-74/US-74*** = 283 miles = 4h 04m
- I-85/I-40 = 299 miles = 4h 18m
*US-74 west of Rockingham does not qualify as a "highway"
***US-74 and US-74/US-76 east of NC-41 near Lumberton fully qualifies as a "partially-limited access highway"
#8 Wilmington -to- #12 Greenville
- I-40//NC-41*//NC-111*/NC-241*//NC-11 = 115 miles = 2h 08m
- US-17//NC-43* = 131 miles = 2h 44m
- I-40//US-117*//I-795//I-587 = 163 miles = 2h 45m
- I-40//I-95//I-587
*None of these qualify as "highways".
Dirt Roads' post has me questioning my own methodology. For this exercise, if the quickest way (not shortest way) includes all freeways, i.e. Colorado Springs to Grand Junction, would that be considered "connected"? Even Pueblo to Grand Junction, right now according to Google Maps, taking I-25->CO470->I-70 is one minute quicker than taking the more direct US50, and it's the beginning of rush hour.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 13, 2023, 06:18:31 PM
Dirt Roads' post has me questioning my own methodology. For this exercise, if the quickest way (not shortest way) includes all freeways, i.e. Colorado Springs to Grand Junction, would that be considered "connected"? Even Pueblo to Grand Junction, right now according to Google Maps, taking I-25->CO470->I-70 is one minute quicker than taking the more direct US50, and it's the beginning of rush hour.
I think it is fair to say that if the all freeway (or all freeway plus "highways") path is the quickest (or even close timewise), that should qualify as "connected" (even if you have to backtrack a bit). But perhaps the OP should weigh in with an opinion.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 13, 2023, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 13, 2023, 06:18:31 PM
Dirt Roads' post has me questioning my own methodology. For this exercise, if the quickest way (not shortest way) includes all freeways, i.e. Colorado Springs to Grand Junction, would that be considered "connected"? Even Pueblo to Grand Junction, right now according to Google Maps, taking I-25->CO470->I-70 is one minute quicker than taking the more direct US50, and it's the beginning of rush hour.
I think it is fair to say that if the all freeway (or all freeway plus "highways") path is the quickest (or even close timewise), that should qualify as "connected" (even if you have to backtrack a bit). But perhaps the OP should weigh in with an opinion.
No, it shouldn't. In my Massachusetts example, Worcester to Brockton's fastest path is all freeway, but a hypothetical straight line would be much faster. It's 61 miles driving and 41 miles as the crow flies.
Quote from: 1 on March 13, 2023, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 13, 2023, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 13, 2023, 06:18:31 PM
Dirt Roads' post has me questioning my own methodology. For this exercise, if the quickest way (not shortest way) includes all freeways, i.e. Colorado Springs to Grand Junction, would that be considered "connected"? Even Pueblo to Grand Junction, right now according to Google Maps, taking I-25->CO470->I-70 is one minute quicker than taking the more direct US50, and it's the beginning of rush hour.
I think it is fair to say that if the all freeway (or all freeway plus "highways") path is the quickest (or even close timewise), that should qualify as "connected" (even if you have to backtrack a bit). But perhaps the OP should weigh in with an opinion.
No, it shouldn't. In my Massachusetts example, Worcester to Brockton's fastest path is all freeway, but a hypothetical straight line would be much faster. It's 61 miles driving and 41 miles as the crow flies.
I tend to agree with DirtRoads here. I would say if that if a freeway (or non-stop divided highway) connection is the fastest route (or within a few minutes of being the fastest route, or within 5% for a longer trip), that would count as connected.
There's often shorter routes available on two-lane roads or four-lane arterials, but these are often along pre-interstate routes/corridors that would be difficult to upgrade and/or adversely affected by geography/terrain. As such, I think in most cases it's unreasonable to expect the shortest route to also be all freeway if there is already a reasonable freeway alternate. To use your example, I don't think Worcester<>Brockton not having a direct freeway connection between them means the connectivity is poor. It's just a matter of the freeways being located such that you have to backtrack a bit to use them, but that is inevitable in many cases. A true lack of connectivity would be where you are
forced to use two-lane roads or arterials because the city has no freeways at all, or take a
significantly longer route to stay on the freeway.
So I did this exercise with California...
Where things get interesting: Route 152 currently has numerous stoplights as an arterial in Los Banos (though a bypass has been proposed for decades).
If that counts as highway, that expands the state's 4-lane highway connectivity massively.
BUT if that segment is viewed as a local boulevard only and not a highway...
1. Los Angeles at around 4 million
2. San Diego at 1.38 million
1 <> 2 via I-5
3. San Jose at 1 million
1 <> 2 via US 101 (directly), I-5/CA 152/US 101 (shorter)
1 <> 3 via either I-5/US 101 (historically all US 101) or I-5/CA 152/US 101
4. San Francisco at 815K
1 <> 4 via US 101 (directly), I-5/I-580/I-80 or I-5/CA 152/US 101 (shorter)
2 <> 4 via I-5/US 101 or I-5/I-580/I-80 or I-5/CA 152/US 101
3 <> 4 via US 101 or I-280 directly
5. Fresno at 544K
1 <> 5 via I-5/CA 99 (historically all US 99) directly
2 <> 5 via I-5/CA 99
3 <> 5 via US 101/CA 152/CA 99
4 <> 5 via I-80/I-580/I-205/I-5 north/CA 120/CA 99 or US 101/CA 152/CA 99
If 152 is considered a highway through Los Banos, then I've so far made it to the top 20 cities in California in population where each city pairing is connected by at least a four-lane highway; but if we are excluding any segment which can be seen as an arterial (with multiple stoplights or stop signs) then the pairing of San Jose and Fresno (3rd largest and 5th largest) qualifies as the largest two-city pairing in this state without a direct no-stoplight route!
Quote from: 1 on March 13, 2023, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 13, 2023, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 13, 2023, 06:18:31 PM
Dirt Roads' post has me questioning my own methodology. For this exercise, if the quickest way (not shortest way) includes all freeways, i.e. Colorado Springs to Grand Junction, would that be considered "connected"? Even Pueblo to Grand Junction, right now according to Google Maps, taking I-25->CO470->I-70 is one minute quicker than taking the more direct US50, and it's the beginning of rush hour.
I think it is fair to say that if the all freeway (or all freeway plus "highways") path is the quickest (or even close timewise), that should qualify as "connected" (even if you have to backtrack a bit). But perhaps the OP should weigh in with an opinion.
No, it shouldn't. In my Massachusetts example, Worcester to Brockton's fastest path is all freeway, but a hypothetical straight line would be much faster. It's 61 miles driving and 41 miles as the crow flies.
How is it not connected? The fastest route is I-90 to I-95 to I-93 to SH-24. It's all freeway / interstate.
If you disqualified every city pair that didn't have direct connections, but instead had to use two interstate highways and transfer at some junction point, you'd be eliminating a lot of connectivity.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 13, 2023, 10:34:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 13, 2023, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 13, 2023, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 13, 2023, 06:18:31 PM
Dirt Roads' post has me questioning my own methodology. For this exercise, if the quickest way (not shortest way) includes all freeways, i.e. Colorado Springs to Grand Junction, would that be considered "connected"? Even Pueblo to Grand Junction, right now according to Google Maps, taking I-25->CO470->I-70 is one minute quicker than taking the more direct US50, and it's the beginning of rush hour.
I think it is fair to say that if the all freeway (or all freeway plus "highways") path is the quickest (or even close timewise), that should qualify as "connected" (even if you have to backtrack a bit). But perhaps the OP should weigh in with an opinion.
No, it shouldn't. In my Massachusetts example, Worcester to Brockton's fastest path is all freeway, but a hypothetical straight line would be much faster. It's 61 miles driving and 41 miles as the crow flies.
How is it not connected? The fastest route is I-90 to I-95 to I-93 to SH-24. It's all freeway / interstate.
If you disqualified every city pair that didn't have direct connections, but instead had to use two interstate highways and transfer at some junction point, you'd be eliminating a lot of connectivity.
I think the point is if an as the crow flies interstate is build directly connecting the 2 it would be shorter.
Quote from: webny99 on March 13, 2023, 09:43:48 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 13, 2023, 06:27:57 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 13, 2023, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 13, 2023, 06:18:31 PM
Dirt Roads' post has me questioning my own methodology. For this exercise, if the quickest way (not shortest way) includes all freeways, i.e. Colorado Springs to Grand Junction, would that be considered "connected"? Even Pueblo to Grand Junction, right now according to Google Maps, taking I-25->CO470->I-70 is one minute quicker than taking the more direct US50, and it's the beginning of rush hour.
I think it is fair to say that if the all freeway (or all freeway plus "highways") path is the quickest (or even close timewise), that should qualify as "connected" (even if you have to backtrack a bit). But perhaps the OP should weigh in with an opinion.
No, it shouldn't. In my Massachusetts example, Worcester to Brockton's fastest path is all freeway, but a hypothetical straight line would be much faster. It's 61 miles driving and 41 miles as the crow flies.
I tend to agree with DirtRoads here. I would say if that if a freeway (or non-stop divided highway) connection is the fastest route (or within a few minutes of being the fastest route, or within 5% for a longer trip), that would count as connected.
There's often shorter routes available on two-lane roads or four-lane arterials, but these are often along pre-interstate routes/corridors that would be difficult to upgrade and/or adversely affected by geography/terrain. As such, I think in most cases it's unreasonable to expect the shortest route to also be all freeway if there is already a reasonable freeway alternate. To use your example, I don't think Worcester<>Brockton not having a direct freeway connection between them means the connectivity is poor. It's just a matter of the freeways being located such that you have to backtrack a bit to use them, but that is inevitable in many cases. A true lack of connectivity would be where you are forced to use two-lane roads or arterials because the city has no freeways at all, or take a significantly longer route to stay on the freeway.
It has to be a case-by-case basis. What if the all-freeway route is only faster because the direct route is clogged with traffic because it's underbuilt? In the case of Colorado, I doubt that US-50 is ever backed up and it certainly does not need to be a freeway, so having to drive CO Springs to Grand Junction via Denver in order to stay on freeways should not be counted against the state's highway network.
Well on that note while I'm coming up with edge cases, how about Greeley, CO? Is it "served" by I-25 when its suburbs are close to it and the highway goes through Weld County which is Greeley's MSA? Or does the fact that US34 isn't limited access from I-25 mean it's not on the highway network?
Another twist I wasn't thinking about, coming from the PPP I-495 HOT Lanes thread:
Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2023, 12:04:38 AM
<snipped> I-95 north of Baltimore is officially an MdTA toll facility...the entire distance from the Baltimore city limit to the Delaware line. It gives the illusion of being a freeway but in reality is not...<more snipped>
I didn't consider toll roads as not qualifying as "freeways" (even though they aren't "free"). But I do consider situations where ticket tolls cause such bad traffic issues that the connection between a toll road and a "highway" no longer functions in the sense of connectivity. But I suspect that the majority of the folks here at AARoads don't consider toll roads as "freeways".
In that case, much of the southeastern part of West Virginia becomes "disconnected" from the rest of the state. While I'm at it, let me go ahead and disqualify Corridor G (US-119) over the Southridge development issue.
- St. Albans #12
- Vienna #13
- Bluefield #14
- Princeton #23
- Keyser #27
- Grafton #28
- Lewisburg #33
- Kingwood #37
- Williamson #41
- Philippi #42
- Madison #44
- Moorefield #48 (located on Corridor H, but still not yet connected to rest of the world)
- Wellsburg #50
Beckley remains connected to the rest of the state via Corridor L (US-19). Princeton and Bluefield remain connected to the Eastern Panhandle via I-77 and I-81, but loses connectivity elsewhere. Similarly, Lewisburg remains connected to the Eastern Panhandle via I-64 and I-81. But other than Beckley and Oak Hill, the rest of the southern part of the state got just wiped off this map. Perhaps that is what
Rothman was wondering about?
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2023, 09:49:54 PM
Makes me wonder about West Virginia.
Quote from: thspfc on March 13, 2023, 11:19:05 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 13, 2023, 09:43:48 PM
I would say if that if a freeway (or non-stop divided highway) connection is the fastest route (or within a few minutes of being the fastest route, or within 5% for a longer trip), that would count as connected.
There's often shorter routes available on two-lane roads or four-lane arterials, but these are often along pre-interstate routes/corridors that would be difficult to upgrade and/or adversely affected by geography/terrain. As such, I think in most cases it's unreasonable to expect the shortest route to also be all freeway if there is already a reasonable freeway alternate. To use your example, I don't think Worcester<>Brockton not having a direct freeway connection between them means the connectivity is poor. It's just a matter of the freeways being located such that you have to backtrack a bit to use them, but that is inevitable in many cases. A true lack of connectivity would be where you are forced to use two-lane roads or arterials because the city has no freeways at all, or take a significantly longer route to stay on the freeway.
It has to be a case-by-case basis. What if the all-freeway route is only faster because the direct route is clogged with traffic because it's underbuilt? In the case of Colorado, I doubt that US-50 is ever backed up and it certainly does not need to be a freeway, so having to drive CO Springs to Grand Junction via Denver in order to stay on freeways should not be counted against the state's highway network.
I agree to a certain extent, but the first question is whether there's actually a single corridor that goes directly between those two points to begin with. For Worcester to Brockton, there definitely isn't. Using click and drag to try to find the route with the shortest possible distance involves a route with dozens of turns and at least five different numbered routes, and
still only reduces the mileage from to 61 miles to 52 miles, while almost doubling up the freeway route in travel time. Trying to upgrade the connectivity strikes me as a total lost cause considering the multitude of different roads involved, the limited mileage savings, and the massive scale of improvements that would be needed to get the trip time into the same ballpark as the existing freeway route.
To me that doesn't mean connectivity is poor, it's just a reminder that MA - like much of New England - was densely populated and had an established road network long before the interstate system, so they're working with a much more complex framework than other parts of the country.
Interestingly, Pueblo to Grand Junction does have a more-or-less direct non-freeway routing (US 50) which is currently identical time-wise to I-25>I-70. I would consider that connected; since there is a freeway option that won't take much extra time, traffic is not reliant on US 50 to get between those cities. Also, US 50 is clearly impacted by the terrain, which is part of the reason it takes longer and would be a major factor in any potential upgrades.
For an example to your point where I do think there is a debate to be had, how about Charlotte to Raleigh, NC? The fastest route is I-85 to I-40, but there is a more direct route using NC 49 and US 64 which saves about 20 miles, but adds 20 minutes travel time because it's mostly non-freeway. That to me a case where it's not immediately clear whether that's acceptable connectivity, and there's a lot more room for debate about whether the extra distance is acceptable or if NC should be addressing that corridor.
Quote from: webny99 on March 14, 2023, 10:36:48 AM
For an example to your point where I do think there is a debate to be had, how about Charlotte to Raleigh, NC? The fastest route is I-85 to I-40, but there is a more direct route using NC 49 and US 64 which saves about 20 miles, but adds 20 minutes travel time because it's mostly non-freeway. That to me a case where it's not immediately clear whether that's acceptable connectivity, and there's a lot more room for debate about whether the extra distance is acceptable or if NC should be addressing that corridor.
This is certainly an interesting case... I've always viewed I-85/I-40 as the Raleigh to Charlotte corridor, and NCDOT has improved this corridor significantly over the last 30 years, with probably around 80-90 miles of 8 lane widening, a 70 mph 6 lane bypass around Greensboro, and ongoing 6 lane widening on I-40 which will complete a minimum 6 lane corridor between the two cities.
Obviously, these improvements are geared at improving I-85, but if you look at its role in connectivity within not only North Carolina, but further south, I-85 provides a major link connecting Raleigh (via I-40), Durham, Greensboro, Winston-Salem (via I-40 and I-285), High Point, Charlotte, Spartanburg / Greenville, SC, and Atlanta. Raleigh would certainly be part of this, with that connection via I-40 which is busy enough to receive ongoing 6 lane widening. Some of this I-40 traffic may be heading west on I-40 past Greensboro, but a lot is likely bound to I-85 South.
It's not the most direct corridor, but probably the most common routing. I view the slightly shorter, but arterial alignment as an alternative. Any improvements on that routing should consist of 4 lane widening, not necessarily limited access. I just don't see the traffic volumes to warrant full freeway, and it's not like Charlotte to Raleigh does not have a freeway to begin with.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 14, 2023, 10:20:05 AM
I didn't consider toll roads as not qualifying as "freeways" (even though they aren't "free"). But I do consider situations where ticket tolls cause such bad traffic issues that the connection between a toll road and a "highway" no longer functions in the sense of connectivity. But I suspect that the majority of the folks here at AARoads don't consider toll roads as "freeways".
The term "freeway" does not necessarily refer to charging tolls or not.
The FHWA defines a "freeway" as the following:
Quote The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (7) defines a freeway as a divided highway with full control of access and two or more lanes for the exclusive use of traffic in each direction. Freeways provide uninterrupted flow (Note: "Uninterrupted" is used to describe the type of facility, not the quality of the traffic flow at any given time. A freeway experiencing extreme congestion, for example, is still an uninterrupted-flow facility because the causes of congestion are internal.) Opposing directions of flow are continuously separated by a raised barrier, an at-grade median, or a continuous raised median (Figure 1-4). Operating conditions on a freeway primarily result from interactions among vehicles and drivers in the traffic stream and among vehicles, drivers, and the geometric characteristics of the freeway.
Additionally, there is an excerpt about toll roads:
Quote A tollway or toll road is similar to a freeway, except that tolls are collected at designated points along the facility, either electronically, manually, or some combination. Although the collection of tolls may involve interruptions of traffic flow (Figure 1-5), these facilities should generally be treated as "freeways", particularly with respect to strategies and technologies for management and operations. Special attention should be given to the unique characteristics, lane management opportunities, and constraints associated with toll collection facilities. Accordingly, the term "freeway" as used in this Handbook refers to any limited access facility, including the interstate system, expressways, toll roads, and connecting bridges and tunnels.
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/frwy_mgmt_handbook/chapter1_02.htm
Quote from: webny99 on March 14, 2023, 10:36:48 AM
For an example to your point where I do think there is a debate to be had, how about Charlotte to Raleigh, NC? The fastest route is I-85 to I-40, but there is a more direct route using NC 49 and US 64 which saves about 20 miles, but adds 20 minutes travel time because it's mostly non-freeway. That to me a case where it's not immediately clear whether that's acceptable connectivity, and there's a lot more room for debate about whether the extra distance is acceptable or if NC should be addressing that corridor.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 14, 2023, 11:31:30 AM
This is certainly an interesting case... I've always viewed I-85/I-40 as the Raleigh to Charlotte corridor, and NCDOT has improved this corridor significantly over the last 30 years, with probably around 80-90 miles of 8 lane widening, a 70 mph 6 lane bypass around Greensboro, and ongoing 6 lane widening on I-40 which will complete a minimum 6 lane corridor between the two cities
It's not the most direct corridor, but probably the most common routing. I view the slightly shorter, but arterial alignment as an alternative. Any improvements on that routing should consist of 4 lane widening, not necessarily limited access. I just don't see the traffic volumes to warrant full freeway, and it's not like Charlotte to Raleigh does not have a freeway to begin with.
Don't forget that NCDOT has been incrementally improving the NC-49//US-64 Corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh for decades, greatly improving the trip time by at least one hour over the last 25 years alone. I'm particularly fond of the Farmer Bypass (as if Farmer ever really needed a bypass), which was completed in 1959 and has a distinct feel of a "Super Two" with a few interchanges and even a local road underpass, but doesn't quite make the cut.
^ That is true, and the US-64 Bypass around Asheboro that was completed recently also helps to improve this routing.
So if there's a not quite direct freeway route that's the fastest, having a direct road between the two cities that's a surface road somehow reduces connectivity?
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 14, 2023, 10:20:05 AM
Another twist I wasn't thinking about, coming from the PPP I-495 HOT Lanes thread:
Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2023, 12:04:38 AM
<snipped> I-95 north of Baltimore is officially an MdTA toll facility...the entire distance from the Baltimore city limit to the Delaware line. It gives the illusion of being a freeway but in reality is not...<more snipped>
I didn't consider toll roads as not qualifying as "freeways" (even though they aren't "free"). But I do consider situations where ticket tolls cause such bad traffic issues that the connection between a toll road and a "highway" no longer functions in the sense of connectivity. But I suspect that the majority of the folks here at AARoads don't consider toll roads as "freeways".
In that case, much of the southeastern part of West Virginia becomes "disconnected" from the rest of the state. While I'm at it, let me go ahead and disqualify Corridor G (US-119) over the Southridge development issue.
- St. Albans #12
- Vienna #13
- Bluefield #14
- Princeton #23
- Keyser #27
- Grafton #28
- Lewisburg #33
- Kingwood #37
- Williamson #41
- Philippi #42
- Madison #44
- Moorefield #48 (located on Corridor H, but still not yet connected to rest of the world)
- Wellsburg #50
Beckley remains connected to the rest of the state via Corridor L (US-19). Princeton and Bluefield remain connected to the Eastern Panhandle via I-77 and I-81, but loses connectivity elsewhere. Similarly, Lewisburg remains connected to the Eastern Panhandle via I-64 and I-81. But other than Beckley and Oak Hill, the rest of the southern part of the state got just wiped off this map. Perhaps that is what Rothman was wondering about?
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2023, 09:49:54 PM
Makes me wonder about West Virginia.
If you're gong to disqualify Corridor G based on Southridge, you have to disqualify Corridor L based on Summersville.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 14, 2023, 02:00:02 PM
If you're gong to disqualify Corridor G based on Southridge, you have to disqualify Corridor L based on Summersville.
Do you mean because of the shopping center traffic or because of the speed trap? :pan:
I'm not trying to defend West Virginia here, but it seems that a "no shopping centers" rule is going to disqualify a lot of otherwise perfectly good "highways" (in both of these cases, truly ultra-high quality partially-limited access highways). The main issue that I have with Southridge is that the so-called Southridge Boulevard is a glorified entrance to the parking lot of a large big box complex. There's also several other shopping center entrances (on both sides of Corridor G) that function as parking lot entrances. Indeed, the roads leading to shopping centers along Corridor L in Summersville have some of those same qualities.
Quote from: 1 on March 14, 2023, 12:58:11 PM
So if there's a not quite direct freeway route that's the fastest, having a direct road between the two cities that's a surface road somehow reduces connectivity?
No, and I don't think anyone is arguing that. However, the value/importance of the freeway increases when there's not a direct surface road, since it's needed for
all trips, not just long-distance ones.
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PM
I think New York would be average. Overall long-distance connectivity is good, and all the major population centers are well served. Outside of the North Country, it's rare to have to use two-lane roads in the middle of any 2+ hour trip.
I forgot about another major exception, which is related to, but distinct from, the connectivity issues to/from Vermont.
From the Mohawk Valley and points west, getting to the I-87 corridor north of Albany requires either two-lane NY 30A/NY 29, two-lane NY 30/NY 67 (which is a
slog (https://goo.gl/maps/FWoZNSdL6P5DYLuV9)
through (https://goo.gl/maps/kp4j3sW1WVZr6rKH7) Amsterdam) or going well out of the way to stay on I-90/I-87. From west of Utica, NY 12 or NY 365 to NY 8 is also an option that's roughly equal time-wise and saves significant mileage, but it's almost two hours on somewhat mountainous backroads that are scenic during the day but not suitable for long-distance night driving.
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 08:42:54 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PM
I think New York would be average. Overall long-distance connectivity is good, and all the major population centers are well served. Outside of the North Country, it's rare to have to use two-lane roads in the middle of any 2+ hour trip.
I forgot about another major exception, which is related to, but distinct from, the connectivity issues to/from Vermont.
From the Mohawk Valley and points west, getting to the I-87 corridor north of Albany requires either two-lane NY 30A/NY 29, two-lane NY 30/NY 67 (which is a slog (https://goo.gl/maps/FWoZNSdL6P5DYLuV9) through (https://goo.gl/maps/kp4j3sW1WVZr6rKH7) Amsterdam) or going well out of the way to stay on I-90/I-87. From west of Utica, NY 12 or NY 365 to NY 8 is also an option that's roughly equal time-wise and saves significant mileage, but it's almost two hours on somewhat mountainous backroads that are scenic during the day but not suitable for long-distance night driving.
That's connecting nothing to nothing.
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PM
I think New York would be average. Overall long-distance connectivity is good, and all the major population centers are well served. Outside of the North Country, it's rare to have to use two-lane roads in the middle of any 2+ hour trip.
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 08:42:54 AM
I forgot about another major exception, which is related to, but distinct from, the connectivity issues to/from Vermont.
From the Mohawk Valley and points west, getting to the I-87 corridor north of Albany requires either two-lane NY 30A/NY 29, two-lane NY 30/NY 67 (which is a slog (https://goo.gl/maps/FWoZNSdL6P5DYLuV9) through (https://goo.gl/maps/kp4j3sW1WVZr6rKH7) Amsterdam) or going well out of the way to stay on I-90/I-87. From west of Utica, NY 12 or NY 365 to NY 8 is also an option that's roughly equal time-wise and saves significant mileage, but it's almost two hours on somewhat mountainous backroads that are scenic during the day but not suitable for long-distance night driving.
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 11:44:37 AM
That's connecting nothing to nothing.
It's much less of a priority in today's world of Internet connections, but many states place higher priority on the "connectivity" between county seats (or regional commercial centers) and their respective state capitols. States like Ohio and Georgia have a spoke-and-hub arrangement including non-Interstate freeways, "highways" and [former] "highways" reaching out from their capital cities. Indiana has a similar hub-and-spoke layout, except that all but one are Interstates. North Carolina and Kentucky works similarly, except that spines and diagonal branches collect the non-Interstate freeways and "highways".
This may not the be case in New York. It certainly isn't in huge states like California and Texas, but quite frankly I know a bunch of government employees in both of those states that had to travel regularly to their department headquarters in their respective capitals.
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 11:44:37 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 08:42:54 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PM
I think New York would be average. Overall long-distance connectivity is good, and all the major population centers are well served. Outside of the North Country, it's rare to have to use two-lane roads in the middle of any 2+ hour trip.
I forgot about another major exception, which is related to, but distinct from, the connectivity issues to/from Vermont.
From the Mohawk Valley and points west, getting to the I-87 corridor north of Albany requires either two-lane NY 30A/NY 29, two-lane NY 30/NY 67 (which is a slog (https://goo.gl/maps/FWoZNSdL6P5DYLuV9) through (https://goo.gl/maps/kp4j3sW1WVZr6rKH7) Amsterdam) or going well out of the way to stay on I-90/I-87. From west of Utica, NY 12 or NY 365 to NY 8 is also an option that's roughly equal time-wise and saves significant mileage, but it's almost two hours on somewhat mountainous backroads that are scenic during the day but not suitable for long-distance night driving.
That's connecting nothing to nothing.
There might not be a distinct medium/large metro to the north (well, Montréal, but that's not the best route to get there from anywhere other than Utica, and maybe not even Utica), but I'd hardly say nothing. In fact, Google doesn't suggest going I-90->I-87 for ANY suburbs in the Capital District north of the Mohawk River bar Halfmoon and Waterford. Clifton Park it suggests going through Schenectady to NY 146; for everywhere else in Saratoga County it suggests NY 67. There's also Glens Falls/Lake George and the Adirondacks as mentioned. Plus Burlington, VT. Considering that all of upstate NY bar the Capital District and the Southern Tier are affected by this, it is notable.
I wouldn't say that Ohio has a spoke-and-hub system. It has routes in every direction (including multiple diagonals) that hit smaller areas, such as US 30, US 22 and US 42 (both bypass Columbus), US 35, US 250, and for state route freeways, the jumble in the northeast corner. It also has three major cities, meaning there isn't a single hub.
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 11:44:37 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 08:42:54 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PM
I think New York would be average. Overall long-distance connectivity is good, and all the major population centers are well served. Outside of the North Country, it's rare to have to use two-lane roads in the middle of any 2+ hour trip.
I forgot about another major exception, which is related to, but distinct from, the connectivity issues to/from Vermont.
From the Mohawk Valley and points west, getting to the I-87 corridor north of Albany requires either two-lane NY 30A/NY 29, two-lane NY 30/NY 67 (which is a slog (https://goo.gl/maps/FWoZNSdL6P5DYLuV9) through (https://goo.gl/maps/kp4j3sW1WVZr6rKH7) Amsterdam) or going well out of the way to stay on I-90/I-87. From west of Utica, NY 12 or NY 365 to NY 8 is also an option that's roughly equal time-wise and saves significant mileage, but it's almost two hours on somewhat mountainous backroads that are scenic during the day but not suitable for long-distance night driving.
That's connecting nothing to nothing.
Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo to the eastern Adirondacks?? That's not nothing at all, that's basically the Upstate NY knockoff version of Denver to the Rockies. Concur with all of what vdeane said. It's a connection I've made myself close to a dozen times.
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 11:44:37 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 08:42:54 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2023, 08:15:03 PM
I think New York would be average. Overall long-distance connectivity is good, and all the major population centers are well served. Outside of the North Country, it's rare to have to use two-lane roads in the middle of any 2+ hour trip.
I forgot about another major exception, which is related to, but distinct from, the connectivity issues to/from Vermont.
From the Mohawk Valley and points west, getting to the I-87 corridor north of Albany requires either two-lane NY 30A/NY 29, two-lane NY 30/NY 67 (which is a slog (https://goo.gl/maps/FWoZNSdL6P5DYLuV9) through (https://goo.gl/maps/kp4j3sW1WVZr6rKH7) Amsterdam) or going well out of the way to stay on I-90/I-87. From west of Utica, NY 12 or NY 365 to NY 8 is also an option that's roughly equal time-wise and saves significant mileage, but it's almost two hours on somewhat mountainous backroads that are scenic during the day but not suitable for long-distance night driving.
That's connecting nothing to nothing.
Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo to the eastern Adirondacks?? That's not nothing at all, that's basically the Upstate NY knockoff version of Denver to the Rockies. Concur with all of what vdeane said. It's a connection I've made myself close to a dozen times.
Rochester, Syracuse and Bufallo to...nothing.
We were talking about urban connectivity rather than just getting people to their cabins.
Saratoga is nothing? I'll try to remember that the next time the Northway is a parking lot all the way down to the Thruway.
Fun fact: the two worse weeks for Northway traffic in the entire year and the ones leading up to Labor Day and Travers.
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2023, 09:00:34 PM
Saratoga is nothing? I'll try to remember that the next time the Northway is a parking lot all the way down to the Thruway.
Fun fact: the two worse weeks for Northway traffic in the entire year and the ones leading up to Labor Day and Travers.
Given the scale of the thread, yes. It's like saying Fall River, MA isn't connected to Norfhmapton, MA and therefore MA should be dinged a few points.
Doing the "largest pair unconnected" analysis for Texas...
#1. Houston (2.3M)
#2. San Antonio (1.45M)
1-2 (I-10)
#3. Dallas (1.3M)
1-3 (I-45)
2-3 (I-35)
#4. Austin (964K)
1-4 (Well connected with I-10/SH 71 and US 290 expressways [which is enough for it to count in my books], but not full freeway)
2-4 (I-35)
3-4 (I-35)
#5. Fort Worth (935K)
(Part of DFW metro, see #3)
#6. El Paso (678K)
1-6 (I-10)
2-6 (I-10)
3-6 (I-20/I-10)
4-6 (No great connection, but fastest route is around 75% freeway)
#7. Arlington (393K)
(Part of DFW metro, see #3)
#8. Corpus Christi (318K)
1-8 (US 77/US 59 is good enough)
2-8 (I-37)
3-8 (I-37/I-35)
4-8 (I-37/I-35)
6-8 (I-37/I-10)
Overall largest unconnected pairs:
- Austin - El Paso
- Lubbock - Houston
- Lubbock - San Antonio
- Lubbock - Dallas
- Lubbock - Austin
As a result, I think Texas's biggest population centers are very well connected, but good connections suffer between them and western Texas (which is no shame considering how big Texas is).
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 04:00:44 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 11:44:37 AM
That's connecting nothing to nothing.
Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo to the eastern Adirondacks?? That's not nothing at all, that's basically the Upstate NY knockoff version of Denver to the Rockies. Concur with all of what vdeane said. It's a connection I've made myself close to a dozen times.
Rochester, Syracuse and Bufallo to...nothing.
We were talking about urban connectivity rather than just getting people to their cabins.
Saratoga Springs and most of Saratoga County is urbanized and accounts for almost a third of the greater Albany area. Plus Glens Falls (15k), Plattsburgh (20k), most of Vermont including Burlington (45k), etc. I'm not putting it on the same level as a large metro to large metro, but it is notable in the context of the "largest pair unconnected" discussion.
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 09:07:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2023, 09:00:34 PM
Saratoga is nothing? I'll try to remember that the next time the Northway is a parking lot all the way down to the Thruway.
Fun fact: the two worse weeks for Northway traffic in the entire year and the ones leading up to Labor Day and Travers.
Given the scale of the thread, yes. It's like saying Fall River, MA isn't connected to Norfhmapton, MA and therefore MA should be dinged a few points.
Except that Fall River
is connected to Northampton by freeway or very close to it. Even if you don't count MA 146 south of the Mass Pike, it's a lot better than NY 67. But either way, I didn't bring up the connectivity between Western NY and I-87 to ding NY; if anything it speaks
well of the state's connectivity that I even thought it was worth mentioning in a statewide context.
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 11:07:25 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 04:00:44 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 11:44:37 AM
That's connecting nothing to nothing.
Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo to the eastern Adirondacks?? That's not nothing at all, that's basically the Upstate NY knockoff version of Denver to the Rockies. Concur with all of what vdeane said. It's a connection I've made myself close to a dozen times.
Rochester, Syracuse and Bufallo to...nothing.
We were talking about urban connectivity rather than just getting people to their cabins.
Saratoga Springs and most of Saratoga County is urbanized and accounts for almost a third of the greater Albany area. Plus Glens Falls (15k), Plattsburgh (20k), most of Vermont including Burlington (45k), etc. I'm not putting it on the same level as a large metro to large metro, but it is notable in the context of the "largest pair unconnected" discussion.
Quote from: Rothman on March 16, 2023, 09:07:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2023, 09:00:34 PM
Saratoga is nothing? I'll try to remember that the next time the Northway is a parking lot all the way down to the Thruway.
Fun fact: the two worse weeks for Northway traffic in the entire year and the ones leading up to Labor Day and Travers.
Given the scale of the thread, yes. It's like saying Fall River, MA isn't connected to Norfhmapton, MA and therefore MA should be dinged a few points.
Except that Fall River is connected to Northampton by freeway or very close to it. Even if you don't count MA 146 south of the Mass Pike, it's a lot better than NY 67. But either way, I didn't bring up the connectivity between Western NY and I-87 to ding NY; if anything it speaks well of the state's connectivity that I even thought it was worth mentioning in a statewide context.
No community north of Albany counts as fhe largest of anything in NY, especially spread over as many miles you're talking about: Saratoga to Plattsburgh (130 miles)? I suppose if you draw a rectangle large enough you can find a lot of people anywhere. That's the same distance from Pittsfield to Boston, so should we talk about the entire state of MA as a single urban area (where western MA jokes about shutting off the Quabbin?)?
I also thought we didn't like leaving the state or whatever other silly rules people have come up with in this thread (the freeway doesn't clip the downtown of the city and therefore doesn't connect...).
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 06:57:04 AM
I also thought we didn't like leaving the state
I thought leaving the state was allowed. Worcester and New Bedford are directly connected via 146 → 95 → 195.
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2023, 07:20:49 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 06:57:04 AM
I also thought we didn't like leaving the state
I thought leaving the state was allowed. Worcester and New Bedford are directly connected via 146 → 95 → 195.
See the previous discussion about West Virginia.
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 06:57:04 AM
No community north of Albany counts as fhe largest of anything in NY, especially spread over as many miles you're talking about: Saratoga to Plattsburgh (130 miles)? I suppose if you draw a rectangle large enough you can find a lot of people anywhere.
To spell it out a bit more... Saratoga Springs is the 22nd largest city in NY. In my list above, I got down to #10<>#14 before finding any pair that wasn't connected. This particular non-connection involves the #2, #4, #5, #9, #10, and #13 cities to #22 (which is itself part of an urbanized area, plus everything north of there including #30 Plattsburgh and #38 Glens Falls).
In terms of drawing a rectangle, you're really looking at two disconnected rectangles: one from Amsterdam west to Buffalo, and one from Clifton Park north to Plattsburgh (and technically east to encompass most of Vermont). The first is roughly 4 million population, the second roughly 300-400k in NY and that much again in Vermont. It's not the worst non-connection in the world, but it is a notable one that would be four lanes divided in many (most?) other states.
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 06:57:04 AM
I also thought we didn't like leaving the state
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2023, 07:20:49 AM
I thought leaving the state was allowed. Worcester and New Bedford are directly connected via 146 → 95 → 195.
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 07:47:00 AM
See the previous discussion about West Virginia.
All of this depends on the semantics. If you are trying to judge whether any particular large, well-funded state has spent its money on highway connectivity, then the need to leave the state is probably a sign that the state had [other priorities]. West Virginia has always been financially strapped. But I think some degree of common sense needs to be applied here. The connectivity between Wheeling -and- Morgantown/Fairmont/Clarksburg via I-79 in Little Washington (Pennsylvania) makes sense, but using that route to "connect" to Charleston/Huntington doesn't. Fortunately, Ohio chipped in with OH-7 and connects Weirton/Wheeling/Moundsville with Parkersburg/Charleston. So with that in mind, how would Weirton fare in connectivity with Morgantown/Fairmont/Clarksburg when connecting via Carnegie (ergo almost Pittsburgh)? Fortunately, Toll PA-576 (Southern Beltway) cuts a chunk of that off nowadays.
All that being said, Rhode Island stands directly in the path between Worcester -and- New Bedford (just like Western Pennsylvania in the direct path between Wheeling -and- Morgantown). Makes sense to me, and given the historical issues with roads and towns in New England, it doesn't make any sense for folks in Massachusetts to spend more money further connecting the two.
Quote from: webny99 on March 17, 2023, 08:43:55 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 06:57:04 AM
No community north of Albany counts as fhe largest of anything in NY, especially spread over as many miles you're talking about: Saratoga to Plattsburgh (130 miles)? I suppose if you draw a rectangle large enough you can find a lot of people anywhere.
To spell it out a bit more... Saratoga Springs is the 22nd largest city in NY. In my list above, I got down to #10<>#14 before finding any pair that wasn't connected. This particular non-connection involves the #2, #4, #5, #9, #10, and #13 cities to #22 (which is itself part of an urbanized area, plus everything north of there including #30 Plattsburgh and #38 Glens Falls).
In terms of drawing a rectangle, you're really looking at two disconnected rectangles: one from Amsterdam west to Buffalo, and one from Clifton Park north to Plattsburgh (and technically east to encompass most of Vermont). The first is roughly 4 million population, the second roughly 300-400k in NY and that much again in Vermont. It's not the worst non-connection in the world, but it is a notable one that would be four lanes divided in many (most?) other states.
Despite your fanciful and unique creations of your own large regions in NY, it really just does boil down to someone saying that the lack of a four-lane connection between Syracuse and Glens Falls or Rochester and Plattsburgh or whatever else is significant...
...which, by all accounts of traffic patterns, it isn't. When it comes down to it, connections are from point-to-point, not made up fanciful rectangle to made up fanciful rectangle.
That said, I do agree with the much earlier comments that Ithaca is isolated. Not much can be done about that, though, due to terrain, conservation and local opposition. Heck, there's even talk of some road diet on NY 13 coming in from the north now.
Four lane widening projects isn't always about traffic counts. It's about connectivity. At least in most states it is. Maybe New York is just different, but certainly something like that in Virginia would at least have four lane divided highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 10:49:55 AM
Four lane widening projects isn't always about traffic counts. It's about connectivity. At least in most states it is. Maybe New York is just different, but certainly something like that in Virginia would at least have four lane divided highway.
Like what, exactly?
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 10:37:30 AM
it really just does boil down to someone saying that the lack of a four-lane connection between Syracuse and Glens Falls or Rochester and Plattsburgh or whatever else is significant...
...which, by all accounts of traffic patterns, it isn't.
It's significant not only by my account of traffic patterns, but personal experience as well. And you can't just look at AADT's on NY 67, because traffic is split between several different non-freeway/expressway corridors.
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 10:37:30 AM
Despite your fanciful and unique creations of your own large regions in NY [...]
When it comes down to it, connections are from point-to-point, not made up fanciful rectangle to made up fanciful rectangle.
Well, it wasn't me that suggested a rectangle. I was naming the actual cities. Even so, the Adirondacks are a case-in-point that not all major destinations are major cities.
Anyways... as we go in circles, this has given me a grand idea to take this over to fictional and see what I can come up with for an Amsterdam-Malta corridor.
Quote from: webny99 on March 17, 2023, 11:12:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 10:37:30 AM
it really just does boil down to someone saying that the lack of a four-lane connection between Syracuse and Glens Falls or Rochester and Plattsburgh or whatever else is significant...
...which, by all accounts of traffic patterns, it isn't.
It's significant not only by my account of traffic patterns, but personal experience as well. And you can't just look at AADT's on NY 67, because traffic is split between several different non-freeway/expressway corridors.
So...don't look at the data and just look at your own experience. If I had a dime for every time I've had to throw out that argument... :D
And no, the traffic patterns do not warrant an urgent expansion along NY 67 or NY 29 or whatever other road.
Finally, since we've really just narrowed this down to an Amsterdam to Saratoga connection, that's one that matters little for this thread.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 10:49:55 AM
Four lane widening projects isn't always about traffic counts. It's about connectivity. At least in most states it is. Maybe New York is just different, but certainly something like that in Virginia would at least have four lane divided highway.
So, to give an analogy to the Adirondacks issue, do you think there should be four lane divided highways between Fort Collins and Montrose here in Colorado? After all, it's the 3rd largest city to the 2nd largest city west of the Front Range. That's not too far afield from Syracuse to Saratoga.
Connecticut has a good overall freeway to highway connection, hence I-95 interchanging with every crossroad it crosses. You won't find Pennsylvania type situations here with many non interchangeable intersections.
West Virginia has two panhandles that make connectivity with the center of the state problematic.
Wow, nobody has suggested Alaska?
Quote from: hbelkins on March 17, 2023, 01:56:29 PM
West Virginia has two panhandles that make connectivity with the center of the state problematic.
Not as bad as NW AZ being cut off by the Grand Canyon.
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 12:44:56 PM
So...don't look at the data and just look at your own experience. If I had a dime for every time I've had to throw out that argument... :D
I-95 in North and South Carolina have traffic volumes that generally are adequate for a rural 4 lane interstate highway. But when I travel them during peak season, they're often congested. Is widening not necessary / should be thrown out, just because strict data says otherwise?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 12:44:56 PM
So...don't look at the data and just look at your own experience. If I had a dime for every time I've had to throw out that argument... :D
I-95 in North and South Carolina have traffic volumes that generally are adequate for a rural 4 lane interstate highway. But when I travel them during peak season, they're often congested. Is widening not necessary / should be thrown out, just because strict data says otherwise?
The problem is, why stop there? Why not have anecdotes drive all of our decisions? "I once got stuck behind a slow moving truck on the Dalton Highway. It needs to be four lanes."
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 17, 2023, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 12:44:56 PM
So...don't look at the data and just look at your own experience. If I had a dime for every time I've had to throw out that argument... :D
I-95 in North and South Carolina have traffic volumes that generally are adequate for a rural 4 lane interstate highway. But when I travel them during peak season, they're often congested. Is widening not necessary / should be thrown out, just because strict data says otherwise?
The problem is, why stop there? Why not have anecdotes drive all of our decisions? "I once got stuck behind a slow moving truck on the Dalton Highway. It needs to be four lanes."
I'm not saying anecdotes should decide everything at all... I'm merely saying you can't just throw them out altogether.
Stuck behind a slow moving truck? Let's look at other factors. How much traffic was on their road overall? Is there a lot of truck traffic? Steep grades? Are climbing lanes needed?
Many factors need to be looked at.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 17, 2023, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 12:44:56 PM
So...don't look at the data and just look at your own experience. If I had a dime for every time I've had to throw out that argument... :D
I-95 in North and South Carolina have traffic volumes that generally are adequate for a rural 4 lane interstate highway. But when I travel them during peak season, they're often congested. Is widening not necessary / should be thrown out, just because strict data says otherwise?
The problem is, why stop there? Why not have anecdotes drive all of our decisions? "I once got stuck behind a slow moving truck on the Dalton Highway. It needs to be four lanes."
I'm not saying anecdotes should decide everything at all... I'm merely saying you can't just throw them out altogether.
Stuck behind a slow moving truck? Let's look at other factors. How much traffic was on their road overall? Is there a lot of truck traffic? Steep grades? Are climbing lanes needed?
Many factors need to be looked at.
Sure, but all of the questions you're asking about my truck example are data, not anecdotes.
Quote from: kphoger on March 17, 2023, 01:57:31 PM
Wow, nobody has suggested Alaska?
At least 10 of the top 25 cities in population are connected to the main highway network.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 12:44:56 PM
So...don't look at the data and just look at your own experience. If I had a dime for every time I've had to throw out that argument... :D
I-95 in North and South Carolina have traffic volumes that generally are adequate for a rural 4 lane interstate highway. But when I travel them during peak season, they're often congested. Is widening not necessary / should be thrown out, just because strict data says otherwise?
Yes.
^ It's funny, because over a hundred miles of widening are planned, with over 50 currently under construction :bigass:
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 12:44:56 PM
So...don't look at the data and just look at your own experience. If I had a dime for every time I've had to throw out that argument... :D
And no, the traffic patterns do not warrant an urgent expansion along NY 67 or NY 29 or whatever other road.
Oh, I'm looking at the data all right, and it supports that NY 67, NY 29, and NY 30A south of Johnstown are serviceable rural trunk routes on the cusp of needing upgrades, with AADTs ranging from 6k to 12k and around 10% truck traffic. NY 67 would be even busier, but trucks tend to use NY 29/30A because there's a big truck stop in Fultonville and NY 67 goes right through Amsterdam and Ballston Spa. I agree that "urgent expansion" is not needed, but that was not my point.
For a route carrying medium to long range traffic, that certainly would be in reasonable range to widen one of the routes to 4 lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:14:31 PM
I-95 in North and South Carolina have traffic volumes that generally are adequate for a rural 4 lane interstate highway. But when I travel them during peak season, they're often congested. Is widening not necessary / should be thrown out, just because strict data says otherwise?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:25:26 PM
Many factors need to be looked at.
And peak congestion is one such factor, is it not? I'm curious to know how big a part peak traffic factors into decisions (over "plain" AADT).
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:46:25 PM
^ It's funny, because over a hundred miles of widening are planned, with over 50 currently under construction :bigass:
Then your characterization of the data was incorrect.
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:46:25 PM
^ It's funny, because over a hundred miles of widening are planned, with over 50 currently under construction :bigass:
Then your characterization of the data was incorrect.
How so?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 04:13:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2023, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:46:25 PM
^ It's funny, because over a hundred miles of widening are planned, with over 50 currently under construction :bigass:
Then your characterization of the data was incorrect.
How so?
Because SCDOT would be unable to secure federal funding for a widening project without justification based upon data analysis.
There's data that definitely supports the need for widening, particular peak volumes. My point is that standard AADT data, without taking peak volumes into account, do not paint a full picture. I-95 is adequate off peak, it's only certain times of the year it's problematic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:14:31 PM
I-95 in North and South Carolina have traffic volumes that generally are adequate for a rural 4 lane interstate highway. But when I travel them during peak season, they're often congested. Is widening not necessary / should be thrown out, just because strict data says otherwise?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:25:26 PM
Many factors need to be looked at.
Quote from: kphoger on March 17, 2023, 03:54:00 PM
And peak congestion is one such factor, is it not? I'm curious to know how big a part peak traffic factors into decisions (over "plain" AADT).
I had to dabble in this world when arguing throughput capacity on planned PRT (personal rapid transit) systems that had overly optimistic throughputs. We used to be able to get FHWA listings of the freeways with the highest peak VPHPL counts (vehicles per hour per lane). The average Joe can't get to those numbers these days. Anyhow, the main issue with I-95 in North Carolina is that the peak volume is usually related to holiday through traffic that is simply passing through the state. Fayetteville is eventually getting a bypass to deal with local traffic issues. If Rocky Mount ever gets big enough to have an I-95 rush hour, NCDOT will need to deal with that issue sometime. Of course, if this problem ever gets bad enough that vacationers can't get here because of the traffic volumes on I-95, have no fear that NCDOT will find the money to deal with that issue.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 05:24:11 PM
There's data that definitely supports the need for widening, particular peak volumes. My point is that standard AADT data, without taking peak volumes into account, do not paint a full picture. I-95 is adequate off peak, it's only certain times of the year it's problematic.
So, you were arguing against the biggest strawman ever.
I suppose I'll do the "closest pair unconnected" analysis for Utah. It's a little harder than it is in other states because so much of the population is in various suburbs in the Wasatch Front region, so I'll go by Census defined urban areas:
#1 Salt Lake City (1,178,533)
#2 Ogden-Layton (608,857)
1 --> 2 via I-15
#3 Provo-Orem (588,609)
1/2 --> 3 via I-15
#4 St George (134,109)
1/2/3 --> 4 via I-15
#5 Logan (113,927)
1/2/3/4 --> 5 via I-15 and US 91
US 91 isn't a freeway, but just about all of it is a four-lane expressway, which I think is just fine.
#6 Cedar City (40,899)
1/2/3/4 --> 6 via I-15
5 --> 6 via US 91 and I-15
#7 Tooele (34,892)
1 --> 7 via I-80 and SR 36
2 --> 7 via I-15, I-80, and SR 36
3 --> 7 via I-15 and I-80 (or SR 73) and SR 36
4/6 --> 7 via I-15, SR 100, US 50, SR 136, US 6, and SR 36
5 --> 7 via US 91, I-15, I-80, and SR 36
The key here is SR 36 is four lanes divided north of Tooele but only two to the south, so southward connectivity isn't great. The fastest way from the southwest Utah cities to Tooele is to leave I-15 at Fillmore and take a series of two-lane US highways and state routes north, which is almost half the mileage...but at a cost of only 20 minutes, you can stay on the interstates and go through Salt Lake, which is probably the right move if it's nighttime and you can guarantee there isn't traffic.
#8 Payson-Santaquin (31,132) - which somehow isn't lumped in with Provo yet?
1/2/3/4/6 --> 8 via I-15
5 --> 8 via US 91 and I-15
7 --> 8 via SR 36, I-80, and I-15 (note that it is only two minutes slower to use the two-lane SR 36/SR 73 or SR 73/US 6 routes to reach I-15)
#9 Brigham City (25,827)
1/2/3/4/6/8 --> 9 via I-15
5 --> 9 via US 91
7 --> 9 via SR 36, I-80, and I-15
#10 Heber City (25,059)
1 --> 10 via I-80 and US 40
2 --> 10 via I-15/I-80 (or I-84/I-80) and US 40
3 --> 10 via US 189
4/6/8 --> 10 via I-15 and US 189
5 --> 10 via US 91, I-15, I-80 (or I-84 and I-80), and US 40
7 --> 10 via SR 36, I-80, and US 40
9 --> 10 via I-15, I-80 (or I-84 and I-80), and US 40
US 40 is entirely freeway and four-lane expressway north of Heber, so that connection is great. It turns out it's a coin flip whether it's faster to take I-80/15 or I-80/84 from the north end of US 40 to Ogden. Only issue here is US 189 to get to places southwest, which is almost all four lanes other than a short 2-lane section by Deer Creek that I think is getting widened soon, as well as having to drive directly through downtown Provo.
#11 Vernal (19,620)
1 --> 11 via I-80 and US 40
2 --> 11 via I-15 or I-84, I-80, US 40
3 --> 11 via US 189 and US 40
4/6/8 --> 11 via I-15, US 6, (Emma Park Road), US 191, US 40 OR I-15, I-70, SR 10, US 6, US 191, and US 40
5 --> 11 via US 91, I-15, I-80 (or I-84 and I-80), US 40
7 --> 11 via SR 36, I-80, US 40
9 --> 11 via I-15, I-80 (or I-84 and I-80), US 40
10 --> 11 via US 40
This is the first one that truly requires a large amount of mileage on 2-lane roads - in fact, Vernal is the largest city in Utah not connected to any sort of 4-lane highway. Furthermore, there is no good way to get there from southwest Utah - the fastest way there in summer involves going up to Spanish Fork on I-15, taking US 6 east to US 191 using Emma Park Road (which closes in winter) as a shortcut, then on to US 40. If Emma Park is closed, it is in fact one minute shorter to take I-70 to SR 10 to Price, then take US 6 north to US 191. The SR 10 route involves more two-lane mileage, but avoids any potential Wasatch Front congestion. On either route, basically all of those non-interstate routes are two-lane roads.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 17, 2023, 07:37:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:14:31 PM
I-95 in North and South Carolina have traffic volumes that generally are adequate for a rural 4 lane interstate highway. But when I travel them during peak season, they're often congested. Is widening not necessary / should be thrown out, just because strict data says otherwise?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 02:25:26 PM
Many factors need to be looked at.
Quote from: kphoger on March 17, 2023, 03:54:00 PM
And peak congestion is one such factor, is it not? I'm curious to know how big a part peak traffic factors into decisions (over "plain" AADT).
I had to dabble in this world when arguing throughput capacity on planned PRT (personal rapid transit) systems that had overly optimistic throughputs. We used to be able to get FHWA listings of the freeways with the highest peak VPHPL counts (vehicles per hour per lane). The average Joe can't get to those numbers these days. Anyhow, the main issue with I-95 in North Carolina is that the peak volume is usually related to holiday through traffic that is simply passing through the state. Fayetteville is eventually getting a bypass to deal with local traffic issues. If Rocky Mount ever gets big enough to have an I-95 rush hour, NCDOT will need to deal with that issue sometime. Of course, if this problem ever gets bad enough that vacationers can't get here because of the traffic volumes on I-95, have no fear that NCDOT will find the money to deal with that issue.
Kind of interesting that they won't let the average person have those numbers...
To attempt an answer to the original question, what are some states we can agree on as contenders for "best" overall connectivity?
I would put Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio at the top of the list for starters. Georgia and Florida haven't been discussed much, I might put them in a fringe/top-ten tier that's pretty good but probably not #1, along with Indiana, New York, and Wisconsin. (10 states listed)
Separating "average" into two tiers, I would include Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, and all of New England except Maine and Vermont in the first tier. (14 states listed)
In the second tier I would include Alabama, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. (14 states listed)
And finally, states that we can definitely eliminate from contention, even if placing them in a higher tier could be debated: Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. (10 states listed)
Alaska and Hawaii are tough to rank, but I'd be glad for input on where they should be.
I don't understand why Colorado and Nebraska are so far down. 84% of Colorado's population is on the front range, so pretty much directly served by I-25. Nebraska has to be pretty similar with I-80.
Colorado Springs->points east
Fort Collins->anywhere on I-80 that isn't Cheyenne
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2023, 12:46:13 PM
Colorado Springs->points east
Fort Collins->anywhere on I-80 that isn't Cheyenne
Now we're concerned with other states? I thought the whole discussion has been related to "how well does the freeway system connect the people of a certain state".
I would say Vermont Ranks well as it only has two primary interstates and one full interchange to intersect them. :bigass:
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 23, 2023, 12:48:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2023, 12:46:13 PM
Colorado Springs->points east
Fort Collins->anywhere on I-80 that isn't Cheyenne
Now we're concerned with other states? I thought the whole discussion has been related to "how well does the freeway system connect the people of a certain state".
It is primarily about the connectivity within a state, but connections to nearby major cities/interstate corridors should be considered too.
Throw in Pueblo to points east, and you could also argue that a secondary/alternative corridor is needed between the western Denver suburbs/Boulder and Loveland/Fort Collins, in addition to the gap in E470 discussed earlier. I know most of the population is along the I-25 corridor, but it's still doing a lot of heavy lifting for the state as a whole.
Nebraska could probably move up a tier, but I was trying to get 10 states in the last tier and I don't see an obvious candidate to replace it.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2023, 12:50:39 PM
I would say Vermont Ranks well as it only has two primary interstates and one full interchange to intersect them. :bigass:
Not to mention that they're both N/S corridors, and that one interstate junction is on the very eastern edge of the state. The E/W connectivity is really pretty poor, you know it's bad when the fastest route from Saratoga Springs, NY to Portsmouth, NH goes all the way down to I-90 through southern MA!
Quote from: webny99 on March 23, 2023, 10:54:02 AM
To attempt an answer to the original question, what are some states we can agree on as contenders for "best" overall connectivity?
I would put Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio at the top of the list for starters. Georgia and Florida haven't been discussed much, I might put them in a fringe/top-ten tier that's pretty good but probably not #1, along with Indiana, New York, and Wisconsin. (10 states listed)
At a glance, Illinois appears to be well connected. But the top cities "not connected" are:
- Waukegan #9
- Evanston #14
- Orland Park #21
- Plainfield #33
- Belleville #37
- Crystal Lake #40
- Streamwood #44
- Quincy #45
Mount Prospect (#24) ought to be on this list, but its hard to make that argument and not think of nearby Cicero (#11) being similar.
You could make an argument that Plainfield (#33) ought not be on this list, but the natural barrier of the twin lakes says otherwise.
There's a bunch of stop lights along North Avenue (IL-64) to get into Carol Stream (#42), but I try to be forgiving in these circumstances.
Ouch! Quincy has it's own Interstate spur route (I-172), but then its downtown is not connected to it directly.
Kansas doesn't look so good in comparison. Here's the cities that are "not connected":
- Leavenworth #12
- Garden City #14
- Dodge City #15
- Derby #16
- Pittsburg #22
- Liberal #23
- Great Bend #26
- Arkansas City #30
- Winfield #31
- Atchison #35
- Parsons #37
- Augusta #38
- Coffeyville #39
- Chanute #40
- Independence #41
- Spring Hill #44
- Fort Scott #47
Wow! Michigan looks mighty good in comparison:
- Clinton #8
- Waterford #21
- Commerce #42
West Bloomfield (#24) ought to be on this list as well, but it is fairly close to several freeways, plus the Northwestern Highway (MI-10) and Telegraph Road (US-24) are awfully close to counting as "highways". Could go either way here.
Just eyeballing it and not simply accepting stats as fact, Arkansas is probably right in the middle. They have plenty of 4-lane "spokes" from Little Rock both freeway and expressway and the east-west connectivity (mainly US 64) is improving. Other parts of the state are playing catch-up but it's getting better.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2023, 12:50:39 PM
I would say Vermont Ranks well as it only has two primary interstates and one full interchange to intersect them. :bigass:
Vermont actually isn't great with no US 7 interstate. But not sure if more interstates are really needed with the states low population.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 24, 2023, 12:14:43 AM
Wow! Michigan looks mighty good in comparison:
- Clinton #8
- Waterford #21
- Commerce #42
West Bloomfield (#24) ought to be on this list as well, but it is fairly close to several freeways, plus the Northwestern Highway (MI-10) and Telegraph Road (US-24) are awfully close to counting as "highways". Could go either way here.
Northwestern and Telegraph both are highways.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 24, 2023, 12:14:43 AM
Wow! Michigan looks mighty good in comparison:
- Clinton #8
- Waterford #21
- Commerce #42
West Bloomfield (#24) ought to be on this list as well, but it is fairly close to several freeways, plus the Northwestern Highway (MI-10) and Telegraph Road (US-24) are awfully close to counting as "highways". Could go either way here.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 24, 2023, 07:26:26 AM
Northwestern and Telegraph both are highways.
I'm not inclined to agree. But they certainly add positively to the "connectivity" into West Bloomfield. A number of the more populous cities and townships in Michigan don't have well-defined downtowns and/or industrial districts, both of which factor heavily into whether the city is "well connected" to the [in-state] freeway/highway network.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 24, 2023, 08:53:42 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 24, 2023, 12:14:43 AM
Wow! Michigan looks mighty good in comparison:
- Clinton #8
- Waterford #21
- Commerce #42
West Bloomfield (#24) ought to be on this list as well, but it is fairly close to several freeways, plus the Northwestern Highway (MI-10) and Telegraph Road (US-24) are awfully close to counting as "highways". Could go either way here.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 24, 2023, 07:26:26 AM
Northwestern and Telegraph both are highways.
I'm not inclined to agree. But they certainly add positively to the "connectivity" into West Bloomfield. A number of the more populous cities and townships in Michigan don't have well-defined downtowns and/or industrial districts, both of which factor heavily into whether the city is "well connected" to the [in-state] freeway/highway network.
Lol what makes you think they aren't? One is a US highway and the other one is a state highway.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 23, 2023, 11:21:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 23, 2023, 10:54:02 AM
To attempt an answer to the original question, what are some states we can agree on as contenders for "best" overall connectivity?
I would put Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio at the top of the list for starters. Georgia and Florida haven't been discussed much, I might put them in a fringe/top-ten tier that's pretty good but probably not #1, along with Indiana, New York, and Wisconsin. (10 states listed)
At a glance, Illinois appears to be well connected. But the top cities "not connected" are:
[list snipped][/list]
Mount Prospect (#24) ought to be on this list, but its hard to make that argument and not think of nearby Cicero (#11) being similar.
You could make an argument that Plainfield (#33) ought not be on this list, but the natural barrier of the twin lakes says otherwise.
There's a bunch of stop lights along North Avenue (IL-64) to get into Carol Stream (#42), but I try to be forgiving in these circumstances.
Ouch! Quincy has it's own Interstate spur route (I-172), but then its downtown is not connected to it directly.
Very fair points. I'm tempted to give a bit of a pass for Waukegan because it's pretty close to I-94 and essentially a Chicago suburb. The rest aren't as egregious, but it is notable that some of Illinois' interstate corridors are somewhat redundant and don't do a great job bringing connectivity to smaller cities. Rockford to points west also appears to be a gap, but I'm not sure what existing US 20 is like.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 23, 2023, 11:48:23 PM
Kansas doesn't look so good in comparison. Here's the cities that are "not connected":
[list snipped][/list]
Also remember that Kansas is a lot less populous overall, so those cities are probably quite a bit smaller than similarly-ranked cities would be in state like Illinois or Michigan.
Quote from: Road Hog on March 24, 2023, 02:43:26 AM
Just eyeballing it and not simply accepting stats as fact, Arkansas is probably right in the middle. They have plenty of 4-lane "spokes" from Little Rock both freeway and expressway and the east-west connectivity (mainly US 64) is improving. Other parts of the state are playing catch-up but it's getting better.
Little Rock is well-connected to the rest of the state, but many other point-to-points are lacking, especially north/south. Hot Springs is also lacking an expressway/freeway connection.
Kansas' problems are less noticeable, perhaps, than the map might suggest at first glance.
For example, to get from Manhattan (home of K-State) to Wichita, you either go out of your way to Salina first or drive a bunch of two-lane roads. Also, Wichita–Hutchinson–Great Bend–Hays (pop. 75,000 between the latter three) would be an excellent corridor for a multilane highway that would certainly get some in-state truck traffic. Instead, the Hutchinson–Great Bend–Hays portion is a series of 90° angles.
On second thought, Kansas is probably top ten, but I'm not sure it's top five. It's looking increasingly likely that we're headed for a collision course between Michigan and North Carolina. If that is the case, I think Michigan wins right now, but North Carolina wins the endgame because they're much more active in improving their network.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 23, 2023, 11:21:35 PM
At a glance, Illinois appears to be well connected. But the top cities "not connected" are:
[list snipped][/list]
Mount Prospect (#24) ought to be on this list, but its hard to make that argument and not think of nearby Cicero (#11) being similar.
You could make an argument that Plainfield (#33) ought not be on this list, but the natural barrier of the twin lakes says otherwise.
There's a bunch of stop lights along North Avenue (IL-64) to get into Carol Stream (#42), but I try to be forgiving in these circumstances.
Ouch! Quincy has it's own Interstate spur route (I-172), but then its downtown is not connected to it directly.
Quote from: webny99 on March 24, 2023, 10:05:13 AM
Very fair points. I'm tempted to give a bit of a pass for Waukegan because it's pretty close to I-94 and essentially a Chicago suburb. The rest aren't as egregious, but it is notable that some of Illinois' interstate corridors are somewhat redundant and don't do a great job bringing connectivity to smaller cities. Rockford to points west also appears to be a gap, but I'm not sure what existing US 20 is like.
Indeed, and this is a very important consideration. "Almost connected" is much better than "not connected whatsoever".
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 23, 2023, 11:48:23 PM
Kansas doesn't look so good in comparison. Here's the cities that are "not connected":
[list snipped][/list]
Quote from: webny99 on March 24, 2023, 10:05:13 AM
Also remember that Kansas is a lot less populous overall, so those cities are probably quite a bit smaller than similarly-ranked cities would be in state like Illinois or Michigan.
Another good point. The rankings and relative population need to be factored into the puzzle. But there ought to be a caveat here. The lack of connection to a county seat with a smaller population in a county that has a much higher population (or perhaps a region that covers multiple counties, can't think of any offhand) needs to be factored as a transportation issue.
I was hoping to come up with a multi-prong ranking system for connectivity (or lack thereof). But there's so much data to consider (including how well connected one node is to the closest major node), that I don't see any of us tackling the problem without a well-programmed Bot.
Quote from: webny99 on March 23, 2023, 10:54:02 AM
To attempt an answer to the original question, what are some states we can agree on as contenders for "best" overall connectivity?
I would put Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio at the top of the list for starters. Georgia and Florida haven't been discussed much, I might put them in a fringe/top-ten tier that's pretty good but probably not #1, along with Indiana, New York, and Wisconsin. (10 states listed)
Separating "average" into two tiers, I would include Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, and all of New England except Maine and Vermont in the first tier. (14 states listed)
for California there are several specific questions that my initial ranking of the top 5-6 cities touched upon:
- Route 152 is a key Bay Area-Central Valley connector (especially with any Route 180 expressway upgrade west of Fresno not being likely to start construction in the next decade or so), but does have one portion where it is a through-town boulevard with numerous stoplights, in Los Banos a few miles east of I-5.
In particular, this means the current most direct route from San Jose to Fresno absolutely requires going through Los Banos. Talks of a bypass have been around for decades, and some funding progress has occurred, but construction is not yet imminent.
How much does this one gap between pure highway segments hurt the measurements of California's overall connectivity? Or is Route 152 considered (by your measure) highway even in this arterial section?
- Doing some of the calculations, I think it takes until the 27th largest city in California (Santa Rosa) before any of its individual connections to the cities larger than it involves a 2-lane road as the only practical choice. That's pretty good. But I also recall that one of the posters here did Utah a few pages back and specifically went metro area-to-metro area, rather than by individual cities (due to the suburban development of the Wastach Front, and the relative small size of Salt Lake City proper in terms of poplation). Should California's connectivity be measured by metro areas, and if so...how should that be defined (i.e. the Bay Area as one region? or SF/San Jose/Oakland somewhat separately. How would the Los Angeles metro area be considered? etc.)
- Should I attempt to also measure pure freeway connectivity between cities or regions, as opposed to via four-lane highways (with and without stoplights)? This might be where a state like North Carolina does have an advantage in this sort of measurement.
To answer this kind of question, I would include states that have 4 lane divided highways with some limited access. Highways like US 30 between Valparaiso and Ft Wayne or US 287 between Wichita Falls and Ft Worth or US 151 between Cedar Rapids and Fond du Lac come to mind. While they are not interstates or freeways over the entire length, they still have a high quality way of getting between cities.
So with my previous statement in mind, let's break it down by states to try and quantify this. Take the biggest metro areas per state (depending on the size of the state) or metros near the border in other states and let's see if there are good connections. As a rule of thumb, if the city has an inset in the atlas or state issued map, then it should be considered important enough for connections to the other cities in the state. Obviously, there will be exceptions. The first thing is are there connections between the state capital and largest (or next largest) metro area from a various smaller metro area.
I will not include Alaska and Hawaii since they are not in the contiguous US.
Currently doing the calculations for the California links between urban areas, and it seems to me the first "not entirely four lane" one would be Norcal urban areas with the 16th largest urban area in the state Palmdale/Lancaster (where the fastest route is I-5 to the two-lane Route 138).
Santa Rosa to Sacramento is another one where one does not have a direct four-lane option between the two areas...
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 29, 2023, 12:25:06 PM
To answer this kind of question, I would include states that have 4 lane divided highways with some limited access. Highways like US 30 between Valparaiso and Ft Wayne or US 287 between Wichita Falls and Ft Worth or US 151 between Cedar Rapids and Fond du Lac come to mind. While they are not interstates or freeways over the entire length, they still have a high quality way of getting between cities.
I agree that it's important to consider at-grade expressways when considering highway connectivity. That being said, I really don't think that US 30 in Indiana belongs in a list of 'high quality' connections.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 29, 2023, 09:43:55 PM
Currently doing the calculations for the California links between urban areas, and it seems to me the first "not entirely four lane" one would be Norcal urban areas with the 16th largest urban area in the state Palmdale/Lancaster (where the fastest route is I-5 to the two-lane Route 138).
Santa Rosa to Sacramento is another one where one does not have a direct four-lane option between the two areas...
It will be interesting to see if Lancaster/Palmdale become better connected once the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield is complete.
Quote from: skluth on April 02, 2023, 06:16:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 29, 2023, 09:43:55 PM
Currently doing the calculations for the California links between urban areas, and it seems to me the first "not entirely four lane" one would be Norcal urban areas with the 16th largest urban area in the state Palmdale/Lancaster (where the fastest route is I-5 to the two-lane Route 138).
Santa Rosa to Sacramento is another one where one does not have a direct four-lane option between the two areas...
It will be interesting to see if Lancaster/Palmdale become better connected once the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield is complete.
Let me do a quick distance check from Buttonwillow at the southern 5/58 junction, to Lancaster:
I-5 to Route 138 is 97.5 miles (important to note that 138 was supposed to be, but never was four-laned as the shelved Metropolitan Bypass project)
Route 58 to Business Route 58 in Mojave (former US 466) to Route 14 is 105-106 miles, this is presumably the future four-lane-entirely route. (Mojave area has some stoplights, and geographically a southbound driver would be doubling back slightly to the north on 58 between Arvin and Tehachapi)
Notable is that the Antelope Valley Freeway currently stops before reaching Mojave city limits, with no direct connection to the 58 freeway bypass (not sure when or if this link will ever be made).
Quote from: IowaTraveler on April 02, 2023, 03:51:37 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 29, 2023, 12:25:06 PM
To answer this kind of question, I would include states that have 4 lane divided highways with some limited access. Highways like US 30 between Valparaiso and Ft Wayne or US 287 between Wichita Falls and Ft Worth or US 151 between Cedar Rapids and Fond du Lac come to mind. While they are not interstates or freeways over the entire length, they still have a high quality way of getting between cities.
I agree that it's important to consider at-grade expressways when considering highway connectivity. That being said, I really don't think that US 30 in Indiana belongs in a list of 'high quality' connections.
I disagree. US 30 between Ind 49 and I-69 has a posted 55-65 mph for most of that stretch. I would say that's a much higher quality of connectivity than say a 2 lane rural road.
The route is four lanes divided but has numerous traffic signals and passes near towns on non-access control bypasses that have led to developments, multiple conflict points, etc.
The maximum speed limit on the route is only 60 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 07, 2023, 11:59:35 AM
The route is four lanes divided but has numerous traffic signals and passes near towns on non-access control bypasses that have led to developments, multiple conflict points, etc.
The maximum speed limit on the route is only 60 mph.
Between Ind 49 in Valpo and I-69 in Ft Wayne, there are a total of 28 stoplights over 90 miles. 2 by Valpo, US 421, Ind 39, 3 by Plymouth, Ind 19, 9 by Warsaw, Ind 13, Ind 5, 6 by Columbia City and 3 west of Ft Wayne.
So that disqualifies it from being a good connection? It certainly is the quickest way between Chicago and Ft Wayne. And it is used as a shunpike in both Indiana and Ohio. So I would say that still qualifies.
It's a decent connection, but it isn't as high quality as it could be. An improvement would be free-flow with no lights (or minimal lights), and the highest would be a limited access freeway.
It suffices but certainly needs improvement.
^^^^
Irrespective of what I've said previously in this thread, my "definition" of a "highway" requires a four-lane divided highway with a minimum average speed of 45MPH over every 5-mile segment, except for short rush hours (7-8AM, 5-6PM) or except in truly urban areas (huge cities). That is average speed, not necessarily the speed limit (but it is hard to have any 35MPH speed limits and meet this definition).
[This is a primary issue in my ongoing rant against how National Highway System funds are administered].
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 07, 2023, 12:31:14 PM
It's a decent connection, but it isn't as high quality as it could be. An improvement would be free-flow with no lights (or minimal lights), and the highest would be a limited access freeway.
It suffices but certainly needs improvement.
Now that I agree with.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on April 07, 2023, 01:23:09 PM
^^^^
Irrespective of what I've said previously in this thread, my "definition" of a "highway" requires a four-lane divided highway with a minimum average speed of 45MPH over every 5-mile segment, except for short rush hours (7-8AM, 5-6PM) or except in truly urban areas (huge cities). That is average speed, not necessarily the speed limit (but it is hard to have any 35MPH speed limits and meet this definition).
[This is a primary issue in my ongoing rant against how National Highway System funds are administered].
Ooh.
Going back to my question above re: Route 152 in Los Banos, speed limit (based on Google Street View) is just 35 MPH:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0569595,-120.8519103,3a,75y,275.05h,74.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJgAsY1ycxH1LPm1nXcTAJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Does that through-town segment then disqualify 152 as a fully high quality four-lane connection between the South Bay and Fresno? (For comparison, SF/Oakland-Fresno can be done entirely via freeway: 80 to 580 to 205 to 5 to 120 to 99)
Quote from: Dirt Roads on April 07, 2023, 01:23:09 PM
^^^^
Irrespective of what I've said previously in this thread, my "definition" of a "highway" requires a four-lane divided highway with a minimum average speed of 45MPH over every 5-mile segment, except for short rush hours (7-8AM, 5-6PM) or except in truly urban areas (huge cities). That is average speed, not necessarily the speed limit (but it is hard to have any 35MPH speed limits and meet this definition).
Quote from: TheStranger on April 07, 2023, 05:13:43 PM
Ooh.
Going back to my question above re: Route 152 in Los Banos, speed limit (based on Google Street View) is just 35 MPH:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0569595,-120.8519103,3a,75y,275.05h,74.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJgAsY1ycxH1LPm1nXcTAJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Does that through-town segment then disqualify 152 as a fully high quality four-lane connection between the South Bay and Fresno? (For comparison, SF/Oakland-Fresno can be done entirely via freeway: 80 to 580 to 205 to 5 to 120 to 99)
I'm not the OP, so my opinion isn't important here. But the issue on the table is connectivity. Once you "get there", the only reason to continue to adhere to [highway design practices] is to provide upstream connectivity for other locations. Los Banos is the only location that I've looked at thus far that has some level of connectivity on both sides (in this case CA-152 west and east).
From the looks of it, Los Banos should qualify as "well connected" to anything along the I-5 Corridor. It's a different question looking along CA-152 eastward to the CA-99 Corridor. Because of the sharp triangle, I don't think it is reasonable to consider Los Banos connected to anything north of Chowchilla. Me personally, I would disqualify CA-152 west of Los Banos because of the lack of a continuous median in many locations. My rationale is simple. If the route is [designed] primarily for through traffic, the DOT should protect the through traffic (both safety and throughput). Otherwise, the route is [designed] for local traffic (maybe not primarily, but with tradeoffs against through traffic).
The Los Banos scenario raises a different question. How far perpendicular off of a freeway corridor is appropriate to consider a city "well connected" in cases like this where the city is connected to the freeway and not directly to another city (located at or near that freeway). I've wondered about perhaps 50 miles. But there's a math problem here, as a diagonal non-highway route might be a faster connection than the perpendicular highway route, even for shorter distances.
For the record, that section of CA-152 is part of the National Highway System.
In order to Shunpike US-30 would be the best route to go if you were going between like Chicago and Pittsburgh. There might be a few areas where it's faster to take another route but you'll end up back on US-30 before you get to Pittsburgh in that example. US-20 is alright but I like US-30 better.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on April 08, 2023, 11:02:09 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on April 07, 2023, 01:23:09 PM
^^^^
Irrespective of what I've said previously in this thread, my "definition" of a "highway" requires a four-lane divided highway with a minimum average speed of 45MPH over every 5-mile segment, except for short rush hours (7-8AM, 5-6PM) or except in truly urban areas (huge cities). That is average speed, not necessarily the speed limit (but it is hard to have any 35MPH speed limits and meet this definition).
Quote from: TheStranger on April 07, 2023, 05:13:43 PM
Ooh.
Going back to my question above re: Route 152 in Los Banos, speed limit (based on Google Street View) is just 35 MPH:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0569595,-120.8519103,3a,75y,275.05h,74.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJgAsY1ycxH1LPm1nXcTAJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Does that through-town segment then disqualify 152 as a fully high quality four-lane connection between the South Bay and Fresno? (For comparison, SF/Oakland-Fresno can be done entirely via freeway: 80 to 580 to 205 to 5 to 120 to 99)
I'm not the OP, so my opinion isn't important here. But the issue on the table is connectivity. Once you "get there", the only reason to continue to adhere to [highway design practices] is to provide upstream connectivity for other locations. Los Banos is the only location that I've looked at thus far that has some level of connectivity on both sides (in this case CA-152 west and east).
From the looks of it, Los Banos should qualify as "well connected" to anything along the I-5 Corridor. It's a different question looking along CA-152 eastward to the CA-99 Corridor. Because of the sharp triangle, I don't think it is reasonable to consider Los Banos connected to anything north of Chowchilla. Me personally, I would disqualify CA-152 west of Los Banos because of the lack of a continuous median in many locations. My rationale is simple. If the route is [designed] primarily for through traffic, the DOT should protect the through traffic (both safety and throughput). Otherwise, the route is [designed] for local traffic (maybe not primarily, but with tradeoffs against through traffic).
The Los Banos scenario raises a different question. How far perpendicular off of a freeway corridor is appropriate to consider a city "well connected" in cases like this where the city is connected to the freeway and not directly to another city (located at or near that freeway). I've wondered about perhaps 50 miles. But there's a math problem here, as a diagonal non-highway route might be a faster connection than the perpendicular highway route, even for shorter distances.
For the record, that section of CA-152 is part of the National Highway System.
IIRC what else might disqualify this too, that only occurred to me a minute ago: the infamous 2-lane section of 152 between Gilroy and Route 156 (which there's been talk of bypassing, though when that will occur is uncertain). That basically takes out the whole "stoplight-free" aspect between 101 and 156, as well as the aspect of being four-lane to begin with.
What this does mean:
San Jose is very well connected going north/northeast (Sacramento, Stockton, San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Rosa) with freeways or no-stoplight four-lane roads. Going south, anything on the central coast is fair game (i.e. Santa Barbara, Ventura) as well as stuff along current and former US 101 beyond that (Los Angeles metro area all the way to San Diego, Anaheim, Riverside and points beyond).
BUT to connect towards the San Joaquin Valley south of Modesto (Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia), that's where the South Bay isn't quite as strongly linked at this time, due to the issues on Route 152 in both Gilroy and in Los Banos.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 08, 2023, 12:35:13 PM
In order to Shunpike US-30 would be the best route to go if you were going between like Chicago and Pittsburgh. There might be a few areas where it's faster to take another route but you'll end up back on US-30 before you get to Pittsburgh in that example. US-20 is alright but I like US-30 better.
Agreed. I do like using Ohio 2 if I am going to Cleveland.
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 12, 2023, 06:58:20 AM
Overall, Pennsylvania does a decent job connecting its more populous municipalities via freeway, not always directly but fairly easily using the system as a whole.
There are almost 90 municipalities (cities, boroughs, townships) in PA with a population over 20k. The vast majority of them either have a freeway within their limits or there's one no more than 10 miles away.
Notable gaps include:
-Numerous interchanges between the PA Turnpike system and other freeways. The I-95 interchange is incomplete but planned to be completed, and the Scranton Beltway project will fix the connections between I-476 and I-81.
-I-99 does not directly connect to I-80 or I-70/I-76. The I-80 interchange is due to be constructed starting later this year.
-Pittsburgh lacks a connection to I-80 via PA 28.
-Reading and Allentown are not connected via freeway (or even a proper four-lane at-grade route).
-US 422 between Reading and Pottstown.
-US 322 at Duncannon and between Potters Mills and Boalsburg (completion of this gap is in the study phase) hinders the connection between Harrisburg and State College.
-The incomplete Mon-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway projects.
-Harrisburg and Williamsport. The CSVT project will bypass the only section remaining with traffic signals. US 11/15 is (more or less) expressway-grade between Duncannon and Selinsgrove with no signals.
-There are numerous formerly planned freeways that were never built around Philly, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere. Some maybe should have been built, while others are best left on the drawing board, but that's a whole other discussion.
Besides the connections between highways, which are gradually getting corrected, I think this is what Pennsylvania needs the most:
- Upgrade U.S. 6 to a "shared four" across the entire Commonwealth
- Upgrade U.S. 30 to a four-lane divided highway from Breezewood to York via Chambersburg and Gettysburg, and a "shared four" from Ligonier to Bedford
- Upgrade U.S. 219 to a four-lane divided highway from Ebensburg to Bradford via DuBois
- Upgrade U.S. 220 to a four-lane divided highway from the Maryland state line to Bedford, and a "shared four" from I-180 to the New York state line
- Upgrade U.S. 222 to a controlled-access highway from Reading to Allentown
- Upgrade U.S. 322 to a four-lane divided highway from Meadville to State College via Franklin, Clarion, DuBois and Clearfield (including a concurrency with I-80 from Clarion to Clearfield)
- Upgrade U.S. 422 to a four-lane divided highway from New Castle to Ebensburg via Butler, Kittanning and Indiana
- Upgrade PA 28 to a four-lane divided highway from Kittanning to Brookville