If the purpose of building a beltway (or bypass) around a city is to divert through traffic away from the center, which ones do it better, and which ones do it worse?
If you're approaching said beltway, would it be easier to use it, or simply stay on the mainline through the city?
From personal experience, I-295 around Richmond works very well, when I've traveled through I-295 has been the default route.
On the other hand, I-275 in Cincinnati is too inconvenient to use for bypassing.
Obviously, given my location, the beltway I know best is the Capital Beltway, and it's one where there is no great option for passing straight through instead of bypassing because the mainline straight-thru route was never built. In recent years, it's been more possible to take I-395 into DC, then connect via I-695 over the new 11th Street Bridge to go north on DC-295 to the Baltimore–Washington Parkway. No reasonable person familiar with the area would normally do that, though, just as no reasonable person would take I-295/DC-295 for thru travel either. Most people coming from the east or west would not attempt to go through the District to connect between US-50 in Maryland and either I-66 or US-50 in Virginia, either. The Beltway is just plain a better option.
Some that I find less useful:
I find I-485 around Charlotte to be fine if I'm passing through on I-85 and I take the portion of I-485 located northwest of I-85. (I've never passed through on I-77 as every time I've approached on that road from the north, Charlotte has been my destination, and when I've used I-77 south of Charlotte I've been connecting to or from I-85.) I've never taken the other portion of I-485 located southeast of I-85 because it's way too far out of the way—unlike some cities where the 2di sort of "bisects" the beltway, in the Charlotte area both I-85 and I-77 are quite far to the north and west relative to most of I-485. If you look at a map, it becomes apparent what the problem is: I-485 hangs off I-85 sort of like a nut sack.
Setting aside that you can't use the eastern portion of I-695 right unless your last name is Knievel or Duke, I often found I-695 around Baltimore similar for long-distance travel. The eastern part over the bridge was a good bypass for the tunnels if there was heavy traffic or on Boy Scout trips when we had camping fuel in the trunk, but the western side was a much longer distance around with much more traffic. I used the western side a few years back to connect to I-83 on the way to Hershey for a Bears game and it reminded me why I prefer to use I-270 and US-15 via Frederick instead—the western side of I-695 was just downright unpleasant with the extremely aggressive drivers.
I have not used I-640 around Knoxville or I-287 in New Jersey for similar reasons—looking at them on a map, they look like they go too far out of the way. I ought to measure them out. I believe I once measured I-287 and it turned out it wasn't as much added distance as it appeared to be.
I-275 Cincinnati doesn't work as an alternative to I-75. It better functions as a bypass of the city when connecting from one route to another. That's something to consider.
I-287 for NYC don't work for through traffic, but connecting from I-95 to I-78 or from I-80 to I-87 works.
I-295 in Jacksonville doesn't cause of sprawl being built. Florida don't generally build bypasses as new roads are to encourage more development than to help other congested arteries.
I-475 in GA works better than I-75 through Macon.
I-435 in KS- MO works only to connect highways, not to bypass so much Kansas City.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2024, 09:58:51 AM....
I-295 in Jacksonville doesn't cause of sprawl being built. Florida don't generally build bypasses as new roads are to encourage more development than to help other congested arteries.
....
I forgot about that one. I like using the eastern side of I-295, more recently combined with FL-9B, on long-distance trips when I want to continue on I-95 past Jacksonville. I quite like going over the Dames Point Bridge, for example, because it's an interesting diversion from boring old I-95. I find that portion of I-295 usually works pretty well unless there's been an accident. The western side, on the other hand, is one I use solely for connecting purposes.
I-694 is great bypass of the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Especially since they fixed the lane drop problem years ago.
For north-south travelers, I-465 in Indy works okay. Though they seem to have it under perpetual construction.
Down in Louisville though, I-265 is pretty much useless for I-65 thru traffic. It serves the other spokes much better.
Salt Lake City; usually it was an easier ride on 215 vs 15 when I was out there at peak times. But if it's off peak, 15 has a lot of capacity and moves well enough to where the beltline adds time.
The times I've been on the 470 beltway in Denver, it did not look like it was being used much as a bypass of Denver by many vehicles. It's pretty far out and the toll probably discourages thru trucks and there were few trucks in general. I have the most experience between I-76 and CO 83, so if it was being used by thru trucks on 25 or 70, I would've seen it.
Oh I-255 is always faster than I-55 thru St. Louis. And tho I haven't made that particularly journey myself, 270 is obviously the better option for I-70 thru traffic. I have yet to use St. Louis' beltway to follow the spirit of 66 en route to the southwest, so I can't grade that on personal experience. (The one trip that direction I've made so far, I wanted to clinch the east end of I-44. ;) )
Kansas City's I-435; for my directions of travel, it didn't save any time. Really feels like you're out in the sticks in the NW quadrant. And the south side of it got pretty thick on me. Probably would've been faster to just punch the core.
That covers my personal experience with beltways that go at least most of the way around. (Sorry OKC but your's wasn't finished and it's such a hodge-podge that I don't think it counts.)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 09, 2024, 10:10:36 AMThe times I've been on the 470 beltway in Denver, it did not look like it was being used much as a bypass of Denver by many vehicles. It's pretty far out and the toll probably discourages thru trucks and there were few trucks in general. I have the most experience between I-76 and CO 83, so if it was being used by thru trucks on 25 or 70, I would've seen it.
The tolls are really high, which is why it isn't used more, but E-470 is definitely used as a bypass during rush hour.
I-405 in Washington works pretty well for avoiding I-5 downtown.
I-470 in Topeka is slower (and costs more) than just staying on I-70.
I-275 in the Tampa area takes far longer than staying on I-75.
I-405 in CA is the classic beltway that doesn't work. Portions of it that weren't as developed when the freeway was originally built were subsumed by the LA metro area's explosive development, and it's not a viable bypass of anything.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 09, 2024, 10:56:07 AMI-275 in the Tampa area takes far longer than staying on I-75.
But I-275 in the Tampa area is a loop from the mainline to city centers, not a bypass of anything. I-75 is the real bypass route, even though it's a 2di.
Quote from: oscar on May 09, 2024, 12:25:01 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on May 09, 2024, 10:56:07 AMI-275 in the Tampa area takes far longer than staying on I-75.
But I-275 in the Tampa area is a loop from the mainline to city centers, not a bypass of anything. I-75 is the real bypass route, even though it's a 2di.
I suppose. I was just running off of even numbered 2dis by memory.
Imagine Boston without MA 128 or I-495...
I-185 in SC isn't a very good bypass, not because it's congested, but because its utilization level is very low. For some reason, it's a toll road, so the already poorly located bypass is given another reason to be shunned.
Whenever I am transiting Chicagoland, I'll use I-94 through the city, except during the commuter times when I'll use the I-294 Tri-State Tollway around. Most other people use the Tollway, though.
Mike
I-840 in TN has to be the most useless beltway (or whatever it's supposed to be) I've ever encountered.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 09, 2024, 09:44:07 AMI-287 in New Jersey for similar reasons—looking at them on a map, they look like they go too far out of the way. I ought to measure them out. I believe I once measured I-287 and it turned out it wasn't as much added distance as it appeared to be.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2024, 09:58:51 AMI-287 for NYC don't work for through traffic, but connecting from I-95 to I-78 or from I-80 to I-87 works.
I-287 seems to me like it's mainly useful for trucks bypassing the NYC area or connecting to the other interstates or for cars connecting between I-87, I-80, and I-78. Not so much I-95, however. For I-95 to/from I-87, it's faster to take the GSP and NJ 17 (Google doesn't even suggest I-287 as an option); for I-95 to/from I-78, it's slightly faster or the same and notably less mileage to take NJ 18.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 09, 2024, 09:44:07 AMSome that I find less useful:
I find I-485 around Charlotte to be fine if I'm passing through on I-85 and I take the portion of I-485 located northwest of I-85. (I've never passed through on I-77 as every time I've approached on that road from the north, Charlotte has been my destination, and when I've used I-77 south of Charlotte I've been connecting to or from I-85.) I've never taken the other portion of I-485 located southeast of I-85 because it's way too far out of the way—unlike some cities where the 2di sort of "bisects" the beltway, in the Charlotte area both I-85 and I-77 are quite far to the north and west relative to most of I-485. If you look at a map, it becomes apparent what the problem is: I-485 hangs off I-85 sort of like a nut sack.
I thought about mentioning I-485. I think that one's about 50/50 in terms of effectiveness, the east quadrant between US 74 and I-85 doesn't really work for long-haul traffic.
SC 22 was/is referred to as the Conway Bypass going toward Myrtle Beach, but I don't think it works quite as well to pull traffic off of US 501.
Down in Charleston, I-526 does a better job at dispersing traffic off I-26 to West Ashley and Mount Pleasant or heading toward Columbia off of US 17. When I have to drive through Charleston on US 17, I generally prefer going straight on US 17. I don't feel like there is much of a time difference, 17 has lights but moves pretty well, I-526 is not bad, but has a lot of truck traffic going to the port terminals. Last time I used I-526 a couple weeks ago, I got caught in a tailback in the travel lane at the Long Point Road exit, no accident, just a really congested exit.
In my area, "beltways" are used for local traffic. The northern half of I-495 goes through the large cities of Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill, MA 128 is used by the suburbs, and I-93 bypasses Manchester more than I-293 does.
Quote from: jlam on May 09, 2024, 12:34:15 PMI-185 in SC isn't a very good bypass, not because it's congested, but because its utilization level is very low. For some reason, it's a toll road, so the already poorly located bypass is given another reason to be shunned.
I've used it going to Clemson from the eastern part of the state, that's about all the tolled section of I-185 is good for. Even if you're using it to get to 85, you're better off exiting at SC 153 to get to either.
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2024, 12:40:28 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on May 09, 2024, 09:44:07 AMI-287 in New Jersey for similar reasons—looking at them on a map, they look like they go too far out of the way. I ought to measure them out. I believe I once measured I-287 and it turned out it wasn't as much added distance as it appeared to be.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2024, 09:58:51 AMI-287 for NYC don't work for through traffic, but connecting from I-95 to I-78 or from I-80 to I-87 works.
I-287 seems to me like it's mainly useful for trucks bypassing the NYC area or connecting to the other interstates or for cars connecting between I-87, I-80, and I-78. Not so much I-95, however. For I-95 to/from I-87, it's faster to take the GSP and NJ 17 (Google doesn't even suggest I-287 as an option); for I-95 to/from I-78, it's slightly faster or the same and notably less mileage to take NJ 18.
I decided to measure it out using Google Maps. I set the starting point as the Jersey Turnpike's outer roadway ("Cars/Trucks/Buses") just south of Exit 10 and the ending point as a spot on the Thruway just north of where the ramp from northbound I-287 joins. Google shows the following (disregarding travel times because those vary greatly based on traffic—when I ran the search, it showed the first option listed below as being the fastest travel time by one minute over the second option and by four minutes over the third). I had to drag the line to get it to use I-287 the whole way because it didn't suggest that. (For what it's worth, it showed the travel time as being the same as via the third option below.)
So I would describe it as 15 to 20 miles longer. In the context of a longer drive—say if I were driving from Virginia to Montreal—I'd view that as trivial in the overall scheme of things. If I were going somewhere closer, like the Mohonk Mountain House, it might matter more because that part of the trip is fairly close to the destination such that it reaches a point where you just want to get there. And if I were headed to the Tappan Zee Bridge I certainly wouldn't use that part of I-287 unless I were coming from I-78.
- Turnpike to Garden State Parkway to Thruway: 57.1 miles
- Turnpike to Garden State Parkway to NJ-17 to I-287: 52.1 miles
- Turnpike to I-80 to NJ-17 to I-287: 52.9 miles
- I-287 the whole way: 70.2 miles
Quote from: plainI-840 in TN has to be the most useless beltway (or whatever it's supposed to be) I've ever encountered.
It would be dumb (in my opinion) to drive the entire length of I-840 all the way around Nashville rather just driving straight thru on I-40. On the other hand, I-840 can make it easier for someone driving from Memphis to Chattanooga. The motorist can go from I-40 to I-24 without having to go thru Nashville.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 09, 2024, 10:56:07 AMI-405 in Washington works pretty well for avoiding I-5 downtown.
It really doesn't, since often an end-to-end trip takes longer than just staying on I-5, especially if you have the express lanes in your direction. The section between Renton and Bellevue is almost always congested in both directions, whereas I-5 quickly clears up leaving the downtown merge zone.
With regards to I-287: Because the Somerset Freeway I-95 alignment was canceled and 95 moved to more of the Turnpike over time, the geometry is very different than originally planned (the Somerset route would have reached I-287 at its southwest corner if I am not mistaken) and thus cars on 95 go a few more miles out of the way now were they to try to go avoid NYC via 287 entirely.
---
Of the ones I've been on as passenger or driver:
---
I-495, Washington DC
I barely remember using it as part of a childhood trip to DC, a family friend lived in Chevy Chase so that's what had us take the eastern half (the part shared with I-95). this was back when 495 was only signed on one half of the Beltway. Can't really speak too much to how that drive was like overall, though it struck me as weird that 95 didn't continue into town - I was too young then to know of the history of the DC area freeway revolts.
---
I-405, Los Angeles: The north half from around Hawthorne to Sylmar is a replacement for the pre-1964 non-bypass highway, Route 7. Some parts of 405 were even originally built as Route 7 before the Interstate designation took over.
I mention this because:
- This seems more to be "let's create a western belt with Interstate funds to upgrade an existing state highway corridor" rather than an intentional bypass
- LAX was already on that route a couple of decades before 405 as a freeway was ever planned
The developments that basically made 405 much less of a bypass than it could have been are primarily Westwood (which is exacerbated by the Beverly Hills Freeway plans for US 66/Route 2 being canceled entirely), Culver City, and the South Coast Plaza district in Irvine. Until 1992, 405 was also the only freeway to fully link the region with LAX, due to the cancellation of the 170 extension through Laurel Canyon onto the La Cienega corridor and the cancellation of Route 90 between Marina Del Rey and Orange County.
---
I-280, Bay Area:
- functionally only a bypass between the San Francisco border and Cupertino. This is because the original Junipero Serra/Park Presidio/Route 1 segment north of Font Boulevard in San Francisco was canceled by 1968, while the original southern segment along Route 17 (now I-880) from near Santana Row to SJC airport was supplanted by a downtown connector in 1965 that was completed in the mid-1970s.
- I have seen some older regional planning maps showing a continuous through route that is mostly today's 280, but also included the aforementioned Route 1 in SF portion and...the Cupertino-South San Jose portion of Route 85! More on that later.
- The San Bruno-Cupertino segment of I-280 is semi-rural and during the evening rush hour is very effective at bypassing US 101's suburban commute traffic. That is, until a southbound driver reaches Los Altos around 6 PM, when the slowdowns leading to the downtown San Jose segment begin...
Northbound, I've seen some issues specifically mid-afternoon from around I-380 in San Bruno north into Colma/Daly City. The multiple interchanges in Daly City from Serramonte Boulevard to Route 1 to Eastmoor Avenue serve to create too many entry and exit points for that road to comfortably handle.
- The portion of I-280 in San Francisco between Route 1 and US 101 gets busy southbound near the Alemany exit. This actually is mostly former US 101 from when 101 had the El Camino alignment that is now Route 82. This segment is more of a radial route than any sort of bypass. (Interestingly, from the Alemany Maze to San Bruno, US 101 to I-380 is the shorter route than staying on I-280)
- The 280 extension towards the sports venues and Mission Bay is kind of a bypass of the portion of the Bayshore Freeway/101 that goes through Hospital Curve and to the Central Freeway and I-80 junction. I use it very often as my preferred route from the Peninsula to the Bay Bridge for this reason, unless 101 happens to be very clear heading into the connection with I-80.
---
I-210/Route 210, San Fernando to Redlands
The segment through SUnland is usually pretty quick going, I've used it as a bypass of Burbank/I-5 in conjunction with Route 2. I know that it's oft mentioned that that westernmost part of 210 was originally supposed to be a downtown bypass in conjunction with the now-canceled 710 tunnel route from Pasadena to Monterey Park, and there are times I do wish that existed given how challenging the East Los Angeles Interchange can be.
The east-west portion from Pasadena to Redlands does get busy, mostly because it serves more as a regional connector (taking over the historic role of old US 66) that actually goes through the central portions of Pasadena and San Bernardino in comparison to I-10 remaining suburban from Monterey Park all the way past Colton. It's a nice modern freeway compared to 10, just well-used for suburb-to-suburb trips.
---
I-805, San Diego
Though it similarly serves suburban areas in much the same way 405 does in LA, 805 avoids the airport entirely and instead mostly links some key regional shopping districts (University Towne Centre, Mission Valley) and Chula Vista. Notably, the airport (Lindbergh Field/San Diego International Airport) is on the I-5 side, along old US 101. When I've used 805 I find the road to be at ideal capacity, albeit I haven't really checked it out at rush hour yet.
---
Route 52, San Diego (as part of a semi-belt with Route 125 and Route 54)
Given the geography of I-8 dipping a bit southwest towards La Mesa from Alpine, 52 allowing a connection to I-5 without going too close to the core urban area is super useful (especially aided by the connection 52 has had with Route 67 for the past decade and a half).
---
I-15, Ontario (bypass of I-215/former US 395 and I-15E which cuts through San Bernardino and Riverside)
Due to geography around Devore, and some routing history (the southern half is former Route 71 and US 395, the northern half was proposed as Route 31 originally), the western I-15 in the Inland Empire seems to be more suited for "feeding cars towards LA from Vegas or San Diego" more than "regional bypass for folks from SD going to Vegas". CalTrans actually had planned a more direct straight bypass route, Route 81, from south of Riverside north towards Devore, though this will never be built in all likeliehood.
The 91/215/60 junction in Riverside does get pretty busy at times so 15 is effective at avoiding that. IIRC it is shorter to to Devore-Temecula though on 215 rather than 15.
---
I-680, San Jose to Cordelia
Interestingly, 680 in its original form, while more of a "belt" due to the segment that is today's 780 to Vallejo, was not quite the full bypass route it became! The portion from US 101 to Route 262 was only added in 1965 (and had legislatively been Route 17 for a year) and built in the 1970s, and that has provided a nice alternative to the oft-congested 880 between 262 and Santa Clara/Santana Row areas. (The canceled 238 freeway from Fremont to Castro Valley would have made this even more viable as an 880 alternative)
The northernmost portion that was still Route 21 (which is parallel to a former segment of US 40) until 1976 forms a key part of my alternate Oakland-Fairfield route (along with Route 24) that I have used over the years to bypass the congested portion of I-80's Eastshore Freeway segment, aided significantly by the 2010s opening of the fourth Caldecott Tunnel bore.
As for actually using 680 as part of a SJ-Sacramento route, as the control city signage suggests? Using 680-84-580-205-5 is better in terms of toll avoidance and in bypassing the Yolo Causeway portion of I-80 in Davis.
---
KY 841/I-265, Louisville
A friend of mine lives close to the southwest portion of that belt route...I have yet to take the East End Bridge though so I haven't fully tried using the route as a north-south bypass. It's a nice way to avoid going too deep into town if I'm trying to get to points east such as Shelbyville or Lexington.
---
I-264, Louisville
Built originally as a bypass of US 60 - which explains some of the odd shape of the route - the westernmost portion serves as the only freeway-to-freeway link from the Sherman Minton Bridge to points south that avoids downtown, with KY 841/I-265 not extending onto the west side. Interestingly that western part of 264 combines with the northwestern part of I-265 as a decent western bypass of town for I-65 traffic (and geometrically a much better bypass than doing 265 on the east side), though with the Minton Bridge having construction as of late, this isn't as available regularly at the moment.
I have done a full loop of 264 (with 71 and 64) a couple of times, but usually have taken the segment from the airport east to St. Matthews mostly to get to the mall district there.
---
I-275, Cincinnati
Used this once on a northbound trip to Cleveland in 2006, which was cool because I could stop at a then-Roy Rogers restaurant on OH 32. (Roy Rogers recently returned to the metro area a year or two ago...on the west side of that beltway).
On the way home we took I-71 directly instead and that honestly made more sense in terms of drive distance.
---
I-270, Columbus
Used that in the 2006 trip to Cleveland, and remember ending up in some mid-afternoon congestion on the northwest side of it. Not sure what caused it, or if it was just a timing deal.
---
I-80, Sacramento (1964-1982 I-880)
For a long time, this route was six lanes through the top of town - long after Natomas had been developed, long after the Sacramento Kings' arena had been built in that district, though they have since moved to downtown.
I recall that that was finally widened sometime in the last 10-15 years, even though the right of way for it in the median has existed practically since the road opened. Seems that this has alleviated issues in the main portion of the road.
According to Google Maps's measurements, the west end sometimes backs up, which can easily be attributed to the bottleneck that is the Yolo Causeway (which has 6 lanes, while US 50 and I-80 each contribute 6 lanes of their own westbound into that zone) that will be widened...someday.
---
Loop 202, Phoenix
As part of the big roadtrip I did in 2021 (SF to Daytona back to SF), we took US 70 west from New Mexico to Globe, then US 60 to Phoenix. really only used 202 to get to a specific craft beer place, so I can't really speak to the route's efficacy as a bypass.
---
EDSA, metro Manila (Pasay to Makati to Quezon City)
If one looks at EDSA on a map, they'll assume it is an effective loop away from the city of Manila.
They would be pretty wrong.
While the road does allow drivers to avoid going into Manila's city limits...development patterns in Quezon City and Mandaluyong, which specifically involve mall frontages right up to the road itself, have turned what could have been a promising regional bypass road into an overcongested half-expressway/half-boulevard. This could have been avoided; EDSA had existed since the 1930s (including being given the designation Highway 54 during the tail end of the American colonial era and the start of the postwar years), but the SM North EDSA mall in 1985 created the current pattern of uncontrolled commercial builds right up to this road.
There are a few flyovers and grade separations in the Mandaluyong-Quezon City route, none enough to really make the road super functional during daytime and early evening hours.
The only segment that lives up to the road's potential is more of an urban freeway spur, that being the entire portion in Makati which eiter has RORO interchanges or full grade separatipns.
It's telling that the two through-Manila toll freeways (Skyway Stage 3 and NLEX Connector) are effectively bypasses of this ostensible bypass route. In the pre-Skyway Stage 3 era, the drive from NAIA to the Balintawak cloverleaf where EDSA and NLEX meet was potentially 90 minutes to go 13 miles; Skyway has turned this into a 25-35 minute drive between the two points.
---
C-5, metro Manila (Paranaque to Valenzuela)
Not really complete yet, with the NLEX Citi Link portion in Quezon City still waiting to have some right of way cleared - right of way that has been in the route plan since the 1950s.
The southern part, from CAVITEX to Bonifacio Global City, is being upgraded to toll freeway at present.
The portion near Eastwood in Quezon City has some grade separations, though a full freeway upgrade is also slated in that area at some point.
Not quite suffering the same overdevelopment that EDSA received, C-5 still really isn't an effective bypass, as it is the primary route to the popular BGC and Eastwood areas. An outer outer bypass (C-6) is proposed and partially under construction as a result.
--
C2, Tokyo
A taxi used this to take me and my family from Shinjuku through the Yamate Tunnel segment towards the Haneda Route/Route 1 and the airport. really cool to see modern tunneling used to get a freeway built in an otherwise very built up urban district, though I can imagine that was not cheap!
---
Route 85, San Jose
San Jose's freeway network is interesting in that today's 101 is entirely a bypass (of the older El Camino Real/The Alameda/Santa Clara Street/Market Street/Monterey Road route), but completely in existence by 1957. Likewise, 880 is a bypass of the old downtown Route 17 alignment.
This creates the interesting, if weird situation in which the 280 portion of what is otherwise a beltway around the Bay with 680 is a downtown link, while 87 essentially is a downtown spur that connects one bypass route (101) to another (85).
85 benefits massively from Santa Clara County preserving the right of way during an uncertain time in California highway construction (1976-1994). When the southern segment opened in 1994, it completely decongested Blossom Hill Road, which had been the main road in the West Valley area before that.
(As noted later in thread, DTComposer posted some planning maps showing that 280-85 single road west side bypass concept of the 1950s)
85 seems to work as a bypass primarily from 280 south to 101, while the older Stevens Creek Freeway segment from 101/237 south to Cupertino is more of a regional connector towards Mountain View.
While one can argue 85-237 make a bit of a belt route, in reality the 1960s 85 freeway and 237 - both of which took over former segments of Route 9 - are more roads that lead to various suburban job centers instead.
Quote from: Bruce on May 09, 2024, 03:47:15 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on May 09, 2024, 10:56:07 AMI-405 in Washington works pretty well for avoiding I-5 downtown.
It really doesn't, since often an end-to-end trip takes longer than just staying on I-5, especially if you have the express lanes in your direction. The section between Renton and Bellevue is almost always congested in both directions, whereas I-5 quickly clears up leaving the downtown merge zone.
It must have changed dramatically since when I lived there. I would run into traffic all the way from Lynnwood to Sea-Tac on I-5 whereas I-405 only bunched up between WA520 and I-90.
Quote from: plain on May 09, 2024, 12:40:20 PMI-840 in TN has to be the most useless beltway (or whatever it's supposed to be) I've ever encountered.
"Southern bypass"
Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 09, 2024, 03:59:15 PMQuote from: Bruce on May 09, 2024, 03:47:15 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on May 09, 2024, 10:56:07 AMI-405 in Washington works pretty well for avoiding I-5 downtown.
It really doesn't, since often an end-to-end trip takes longer than just staying on I-5, especially if you have the express lanes in your direction. The section between Renton and Bellevue is almost always congested in both directions, whereas I-5 quickly clears up leaving the downtown merge zone.
It must have changed dramatically since when I lived there. I would run into traffic all the way from Lynnwood to Sea-Tac on I-5 whereas I-405 only bunched up between WA520 and I-90.
How long ago was that?
My typical afternoon drive into downtown is smooth until 145th or so, when the backup from the lost Northgate lane really forms. From there, it's pretty much bumper to bumper on I-5 (or I opt for the train, which is usually faster).
I-295 in South Jersey was designed to be a bypass around Philadelphia, but as 95 was never completed as intended north of Trenton, and with the NJ Turnpike being the thru route from Delaware to NY, it never functioned as a beltway.
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2024, 12:40:28 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on May 09, 2024, 09:44:07 AMI-287 in New Jersey for similar reasons—looking at them on a map, they look like they go too far out of the way. I ought to measure them out. I believe I once measured I-287 and it turned out it wasn't as much added distance as it appeared to be.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2024, 09:58:51 AMI-287 for NYC don't work for through traffic, but connecting from I-95 to I-78 or from I-80 to I-87 works.
I-287 seems to me like it's mainly useful for trucks bypassing the NYC area or connecting to the other interstates or for cars connecting between I-87, I-80, and I-78. Not so much I-95, however. For I-95 to/from I-87, it's faster to take the GSP and NJ 17 (Google doesn't even suggest I-287 as an option); for I-95 to/from I-78, it's slightly faster or the same and notably less mileage to take NJ 18.
When I worked NJ Turnpike's Interchange 1, a fair number of travelers wanted to know how far it was to Exit 10 for I-287 to bypass NYC. No one really asked for the Parkway Exit 11. I was always a bit intrigued by this - it's not like people were saying they wanted to avoid paying additional tolls.
I-285 around Atlanta is probably the most broken beltway out there, because of various factors. No matter what direction you approach the city from, you're faced with a conundrum (do you continue straight through or go around?), and the daily traffic problems it gets are made worse by the fact that large trucks cannot go through the city at all (IIRC, it's the only city to be set up this way). Not to mention the ongoing construction at various points...
I-465 around Indianapolis, OTOH, is a great way to bypass downtown, which is most useful for traffic that's also using I-74, and will do the same for I-69 once it's completed.
Quote from: Bruce on May 09, 2024, 05:15:08 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on May 09, 2024, 03:59:15 PMQuote from: Bruce on May 09, 2024, 03:47:15 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on May 09, 2024, 10:56:07 AMI-405 in Washington works pretty well for avoiding I-5 downtown.
It really doesn't, since often an end-to-end trip takes longer than just staying on I-5, especially if you have the express lanes in your direction. The section between Renton and Bellevue is almost always congested in both directions, whereas I-5 quickly clears up leaving the downtown merge zone.
It must have changed dramatically since when I lived there. I would run into traffic all the way from Lynnwood to Sea-Tac on I-5 whereas I-405 only bunched up between WA520 and I-90.
How long ago was that?
My typical afternoon drive into downtown is smooth until 145th or so, when the backup from the lost Northgate lane really forms. From there, it's pretty much bumper to bumper on I-5 (or I opt for the train, which is usually faster).
Granted, about 15 years ago.
I took I-271 end-to-end around Cleveland and remember it being a breeze. The express lanes and being on the outer suburbs help there. I never took 71/90 through downtown.
How does I-480 work as a bypass, if I-271 & 480 work together as a beltway around southern Cleveland, how well does it function?
Also: Any non-interstate belt roads that work well, New Circle Road and Man O War Blvd in Lexington, KY as examples? Although they generally work at bypassing the center, they often get swallowed up as development moves out to the new bypass, so their effectiveness often has a short shelf life.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2024, 03:47:34 PM---
I-280, Bay Area:
...
- I have seen some older regional planning maps showing a continuous through route that is mostly today's 280, but also included the aforementioned Route 1 in SF portion and...the Cupertino-South San Jose portion of Route 85! More on that later.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5135/5510424313_4061ef6f86_3k.jpg)
This is from 1952. As far as Santa Clara County was concerned, the West Valley route was the preferred bypass for San Jose; I-280 would have continued down today's CA-85.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5128/5240084641_f21e6799dc_3k.jpg)
This is from the SF Chronicle in 1957, showing alternate paths for the Junipero Serra Freeway. On the southern end (on the right), both the West Valley route (today's CA-85) and what actually got built as I-280 are shown, as well as two other alternates:
-A southeasterly route which seems to follow the old WPRR alignment in Willow Glen, then meeting US-101 near Ford Road (the junction of US-101 and US-101 Bypass);
-A more southerly dip along Quito Road and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (today's CA-9), meeting CA-17 in downtown Los Gatos.
(images via Erica Fischer on Flickr)
I-610 in Houston definitely worked in the past, but similarly to I-285 in Atlanta and I-405 in LA, massive development has sprung up around it and traffic and construction are perennial problems, so it's not super effective (especially the West Loop). Luckily, Houston has two other beltways that you can use if 610 is having issues. I personally think Beltway 8 is the most effective of the three (for me at least), but it is tolled and can have traffic problems depending on the time. The Grand Parkway is out of the way and is not a complete loop but has (relatively) little traffic for Houston.
The moral of the story is any of the 3 beltways can work effectively depending on the situation, but check the construction status and traffic before picking which one to use.
Quote from: plain on May 09, 2024, 12:40:20 PMI-840 in TN has to be the most useless beltway (or whatever it's supposed to be) I've ever encountered.
It depends on your origin or destination in the area. I found it very useful coming in from Texas - I took 840 from 40 to 65, then came in on 65. It was much better than taking 40 in then taking side roads (in the dark) to Brentwood (where I was headed).
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 09, 2024, 10:10:36 AMOh I-255 is always faster than I-55 thru St. Louis.
It comes down to time of day and construction. I-255 can get really congested or completely closed for construction sometimes. Google has I-255 as 23 min/25.4 miles versus 26 min/24.9 miles for I-55. Maybe it's just due to the amount of interesting things on I-55, but I-55 usually feels faster unless there's a problem with the PSB.
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 10, 2024, 07:46:49 PMI-610 in Houston definitely worked in the past, but similarly to I-285 in Atlanta and I-405 in LA, massive development has sprung up around it and traffic and construction are perennial problems, so it's not super effective (especially the West Loop). Luckily, Houston has two other beltways that you can use if 610 is having issues. I personally think Beltway 8 is the most effective of the three (for me at least), but it is tolled and can have traffic problems depending on the time. The Grand Parkway is out of the way and is not a complete loop but has (relatively) little traffic for Houston.
The moral of the story is any of the 3 beltways can work effectively depending on the situation, but check the construction status and traffic before picking which one to use.
I was thinking that Houston has sprawled out so much that the beltways don't seem to make a difference anymore. Grand Parkway doesn't look like it would save much time for traffic trying to go straight through the city. Much like Atlanta or LA, it seems like there aren't any good choices.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on May 10, 2024, 10:28:30 AMI took I-271 end-to-end around Cleveland and remember it being a breeze. The express lanes and being on the outer suburbs help there. I never took 71/90 through downtown.
How does I-480 work as a bypass, if I-271 & 480 work together as a beltway around southern Cleveland, how well does it function?
This works very well, in my experience. 271/480 was my usual route around Cleveland when I used to drive I-90 between upstate NY and the upper Midwest once or twice a year. It is a couple of extra miles and might be a minute or two longer if there's no traffic downtown, but avoiding the nasty curves on 90 was worth it. The express lanes on 271 also make it a pretty stress-free drive.
Quote from: DTComposer on May 10, 2024, 04:55:59 PMThis is from the SF Chronicle in 1957, showing alternate paths for the Junipero Serra Freeway. On the southern end (on the right), both the West Valley route (today's CA-85) and what actually got built as I-280 are shown, as well as two other alternates:
-A southeasterly route which seems to follow the old WPRR alignment in Willow Glen, then meeting US-101 near Ford Road (the junction of US-101 and US-101 Bypass);
-A more southerly dip along Quito Road and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (today's CA-9), meeting CA-17 in downtown Los Gatos.
(images via Erica Fischer on Flickr)
Also interesting in that 1957 map: how one of the planned routes basically became what is today's Foothill Expressway.
Kinda wish both the Central Expressway and Foothill Expressway had slightly better connectivity to 101 and 280 respectively - the Foothill Expressway in particular would be a better alternative to some of the Los Altos Hills congestion along 280 at the evening rush hour.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on May 11, 2024, 08:18:36 AMQuote from: CoreySamson on May 10, 2024, 07:46:49 PMI-610 in Houston definitely worked in the past, but similarly to I-285 in Atlanta and I-405 in LA, massive development has sprung up around it and traffic and construction are perennial problems, so it's not super effective (especially the West Loop). Luckily, Houston has two other beltways that you can use if 610 is having issues. I personally think Beltway 8 is the most effective of the three (for me at least), but it is tolled and can have traffic problems depending on the time. The Grand Parkway is out of the way and is not a complete loop but has (relatively) little traffic for Houston.
The moral of the story is any of the 3 beltways can work effectively depending on the situation, but check the construction status and traffic before picking which one to use.
I was thinking that Houston has sprawled out so much that the beltways don't seem to make a difference anymore. Grand Parkway doesn't look like it would save much time for traffic trying to go straight through the city. Much like Atlanta or LA, it seems like there aren't any good choices.
That's what Jacksonville will become. Like IH 610 around Houston, it once was a good bypass, but developers built along it to expand the city and now it's an urban loop. Give Jacksonville time. Heck I remember when the 429 opened west of Orlando how nice it was in 2006. I even said this will soon change and so did it. Now drive SR 429 from I-4 to Floridas Turnpike on the west leg and it's all homes and suburban in nature 18 years later.
BTW give SH 99 time. It will develop as well and be a new place for newbies to Southeast Texas. Homes, businesses, shopping centers, and apartments will line the Grand Parkway for sure.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2024, 08:45:08 AMThat's what Jacksonville will become. Like IH 610 around Houston, it once was a good bypass, but developers built along it to expand the city and now it's an urban loop. Give Jacksonville time. Heck I remember when the 429 opened west of Orlando how nice it was in 2006. I even said this will soon change and so did it. Now drive SR 429 from I-4 to Floridas Turnpike on the west leg and it's all homes and suburban in nature 18 years later.
BTW give SH 99 time. It will develop as well and be a new place for newbies to Southeast Texas. Homes, businesses, shopping centers, and apartments will line the Grand Parkway for sure.
I find it mildly amusing that Jacksonville also is getting it's own secondary, tolled beltway in the form of the First Coast Expressway. It's currently only being built as a quarter loop from I-10 to I-95 in the Southwest side of the metro, but it still works, in theory, as a bypass of Jacksonville for traffic going onto I-10.
I also remember going to a home builder for an interview a couple months ago and seeing a northern arc of the Expressway to I-95 in Nassau County near the state line mapped out as a possible future development corridor (Couldn't snap a photo sadly). However, Nassau County is very anti-suburban growth compared to St John's and Clay County and the northwest side of I-295 already doesn't see as much development or traffic so I doubt they'll announce or build it anytime soon.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 09, 2024, 02:19:12 PMQuote from: plainI-840 in TN has to be the most useless beltway (or whatever it's supposed to be) I've ever encountered.
It would be dumb (in my opinion) to drive the entire length of I-840 all the way around Nashville rather just driving straight thru on I-40. On the other hand, I-840 can make it easier for someone driving from Memphis to Chattanooga. The motorist can go from I-40 to I-24 without having to go thru Nashville.
I disagree entirely. What's a couple extra minutes if it means avoiding the stress and annoyance of fighting Nashville traffic? Usually don't even have to tap off the cruise on 840. Meanwhile, the 24/40 concurrency is always jammed up and aggravating as everyone has to change lanes.
Just like this: I'm up here in Madison and if I'm going toward Indy or any points beyond, the nav apps will try and route you thru Chicago because it's marginally faster. But it's way more of a stressful drive dealing with maniacs on the Tri-State and the wall of trucks on the Borman. Much easier to go via Bloomington and not deal with any of it. I'd do that every single time. Same deal with 840 in Tennessee.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 14, 2024, 11:48:55 AMI disagree entirely. What's a couple extra minutes if it means avoiding the stress and annoyance of fighting Nashville traffic? Usually don't even have to tap off the cruise on 840. Meanwhile, the 24/40 concurrency is always jammed up and aggravating as everyone has to change lanes.
Just like this: I'm up here in Madison and if I'm going toward Indy or any points beyond, the nav apps will try and route you thru Chicago because it's marginally faster. But it's way more of a stressful drive dealing with maniacs on the Tri-State and the wall of trucks on the Borman. Much easier to go via Bloomington and not deal with any of it. I'd do that every single time. Same deal with 840 in Tennessee.
Someday, Google will come up with a "least stressful" route option, including factoring in tolls vs. fuel cost.
Baltimore's I-695 used to work :bigass:
But seriously, ever since the Key Bridge collapsed, rush hour traffic on I-95 approaching the McHenry Tunnel and MD 295 approaching I-95 has been unbearable, with backups as far as 4 miles away from the tunnel.
As far as I-895 goes, not being a beltway, but a technical bypass of Baltimore, it too is suffering from the Key Bridge collapse, with similar traffic jams.
Pre collapse, I probably would take 95 through the city as it never really got bad except during rush hour near the tunnel and even then it wasn't stop and go, just sluggish, because 895 only has so many access points, and 695 is slightly out the way . Now? Good luck crossing the harbor during rush hour.
Quote from: triplemultiplexI disagree entirely. What's a couple extra minutes if it means avoiding the stress and annoyance of fighting Nashville traffic? Usually don't even have to tap off the cruise on 840. Meanwhile, the 24/40 concurrency is always jammed up and aggravating as everyone has to change lanes.
The I-40/I-65/I-24 "mixmaster" isn't
-always- jammed up. Certainly I wouldn't advise anyone on a road trip to go through there during the morning rush. At other times I-40 thru there isn't as bad what I've seen in other cities (such as Dallas or Houston) during off-peak times. The I-440 loop isn't very long yet it's a decent bypass for downtown Nashville. The TN-155 loop can be a decent way to make connections between I-40, I-24 and I-65 while avoiding downtown.
I-840 is 77 1/4 miles long. It adds 18 miles to a trip versus staying on I-40 straight thru the Nashville metro. If I was on a road trip thru Tennessee and happened to be going near Nashville during the morning or late afternoon rush I might consider taking I-840. That hasn't been the case the all the previous times I've made that long drive on I-40.
To each, their own. That 18 miles is far less mentally taxing, so that's my priority when transiting an urban area, if it's an option.
Not many places with that type of "super bypass", though.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 15, 2024, 11:57:04 AMTo each, their own. That 18 miles is far less mentally taxing, so that's my priority when transiting an urban area, if it's an option.
Not many places with that type of "super bypass", though.
And also, to each their own, but I'd much rather go through the heart of a city so I can actually see something different as opposed to suburban/exurban sprawl.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 15, 2024, 12:18:43 PMQuote from: triplemultiplex on May 15, 2024, 11:57:04 AMTo each, their own. That 18 miles is far less mentally taxing, so that's my priority when transiting an urban area, if it's an option.
Not many places with that type of "super bypass", though.
And also, to each their own, but I'd much rather go through the heart of a city so I can actually see something different as opposed to suburban/exurban sprawl.
I'll do this my first trip or 2 thru a city, or if I know the skyline has changed. After that, I'll take the more relaxing route, even if it's slightly longer.
One drawback of using 840 is the lack of services along most of its length. Zero truck stops. The best exits for finding nearby gas stations are probably Exit 28 for US 31, Exit 42 for US 31A/41A, and Exit 55 for US 41/70S. And it looks like they built a Publix, a McDonald's, and other minor shopping by Exit 50 on the outskirts of Murfreesboro, but no gas stations. Still, for the first 28 miles from its beginning in Dickson all the way to Thompson's Station (and add four miles to the Dickson exit on I-40), there are no gas stations. So be sure to fill up in Dickson or Lebanon when using all of 840 (the gas is usually reasonsbly priced in either place).
Myself, I generally only use 840 if I have to be near it. My parents used to live about 6 miles from the TN 100 exit but moved back into Nashville a couple of years ago so I don't travel it very often. Most of the time, I stick with Briley Pkwy or 440 for my Nashville bypassing needs. And sometimes the route to my parents' new place has me get off of 440.
They now have fixed drive time signs at either end along 40 for the time to Dickson or Lebanon via 40 or 840. If traffic is majorly backed up through the city, the drive time may be lower using 840.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 15, 2024, 12:18:43 PMQuote from: triplemultiplex on May 15, 2024, 11:57:04 AMTo each, their own. That 18 miles is far less mentally taxing, so that's my priority when transiting an urban area, if it's an option.
Not many places with that type of "super bypass", though.
And also, to each their own, but I'd much rather go through the heart of a city so I can actually see something different as opposed to suburban/exurban sprawl.
There is virtually no suburban sprawl along 840. Most of it is pretty rural. Near Lebanon you will see a few large warehouses and a high school, but little to no housing developments can be seen from it. Murfreesboro would be the best place to catch a glimpse of it, but it's mostly along 24.
Quote from: wriddle082 on May 15, 2024, 12:25:11 PMQuoteAnd also, to each their own, but I'd much rather go through the heart of a city so I can actually see something different as opposed to suburban/exurban sprawl.
There is virtually no suburban sprawl along 840. Most of it is pretty rural. Near Lebanon you will see a few large warehouses and a high school, but little to no housing developments can be seen from it. Murfreesboro would be the best place to catch a glimpse of it, but it's mostly along 24.
Nashville's sprawl is somewhat unique in that it is not at all concentric. It's almost exclusively linear along the I-65, I-24, I-40, and TN 386 corridors between Nashville and Spring Hill, Murfreesboro, Lebanon, and Gallatin respectively.
To the thread subject, I would argue that TX 130/TX 45 is a "beltway that works" for Austin, or at least it will be when complete. It's somewhat oval-shaped, much like the metro itself, and though there are parts that feel suburban, most of it is sufficiently rural for traffic to move well, even at busy times.
Quote from: wriddle082 on May 15, 2024, 12:25:11 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on May 15, 2024, 12:18:43 PMQuote from: triplemultiplex on May 15, 2024, 11:57:04 AMTo each, their own. That 18 miles is far less mentally taxing, so that's my priority when transiting an urban area, if it's an option.
Not many places with that type of "super bypass", though.
And also, to each their own, but I'd much rather go through the heart of a city so I can actually see something different as opposed to suburban/exurban sprawl.
There is virtually no suburban sprawl along 840. Most of it is pretty rural. Near Lebanon you will see a few large warehouses and a high school, but little to no housing developments can be seen from it. Murfreesboro would be the best place to catch a glimpse of it, but it's mostly along 24.
So even worse then, from my perspective.
IH 610 in Houston definitely don't work. Too much traffic jams. Mostly an inner city route with all the sprawl concentrated along it.
IH 410 in San Antonio works on its south side having a rural character. Plus it's east end between I-10 and I-35 works as a connection between the interstates real well.
Quote from: roadman65IH 610 in Houston definitely don't work. Too much traffic jams. Mostly an inner city route with all the sprawl concentrated along it.
Houston is so big I-610 seems more like an
urban core loop. While I-610 doesn't enter the original downtown district it does pass through other zones with their own clusters of high rise buildings and major destinations. The Williams Tower stands out in the Uptown district.
In Houston the problem with the beltways (and other freeways in general) has more to do with the horribly outdated surface street grid. The main streets have every side street and driveway dumping traffic out onto them. The layout of surface streets don't show any contemporary traffic filtering designs until you get outside the Loop-8 beltway.
Many of the freeways in Houston can carry huge volumes of traffic. But getting off the freeway is the real trick. The jams often begin at the surface street level. The main arterials have too damned many traffic signals and other conflicts blocking the flow of traffic. Add the modern factor of too many inattentive motorists obsessed with the friggin' phones, not paying attention to the traffic lights. Vehicles just trying to exit the freeway can't do so. The jam builds backward up the exit ramp and into the main lanes of the freeway.
^ Regarding Houston, this seems pertinent:
https://twitter.com/stefondiggs/status/1787175184392225143
Quote from: roadman65 on May 15, 2024, 02:01:44 PMIH 610 in Houston definitely don't work. Too much traffic jams. Mostly an inner city route with all the sprawl concentrated along it.
Your criteria's faulty. I don't see how an inner city beltway "doesn't work," especially with Houston's concentric system. Just because it jams? Then most beltways "don't work" by that one, and, given how a bunch I can think of off-hand still keep traffic outside of a city core, I think they work.
Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2024, 11:02:33 PMQuote from: roadman65 on May 15, 2024, 02:01:44 PMIH 610 in Houston definitely don't work. Too much traffic jams. Mostly an inner city route with all the sprawl concentrated along it.
Your criteria's faulty. I don't see how an inner city beltway "doesn't work," especially with Houston's concentric system. Just because it jams? Then most beltways "don't work" by that one, and, given how a bunch I can think of off-hand still keep traffic outside of a city core, I think they work.
Well, does it, or the other two loops around Houston, save time or are otherwise preferrable versus staying on I-10, 45, or any of the other spokes all the way through downtown?
Quote from: mgk920 on May 09, 2024, 12:39:33 PMWhenever I am transiting Chicagoland, I'll use I-94 through the city, except during the commuter times when I'll use the I-294 Tri-State Tollway around. Most other people use the Tollway, though.
Mike
Best Chicago bypass? I-39 to I-80. :-D
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 09, 2024, 11:55:05 AMI-405 in CA is the classic beltway that doesn't work. Portions of it that weren't as developed when the freeway was originally built were subsumed by the LA metro area's explosive development, and it's not a viable bypass of anything.
I-405 bypasses downtown Los Angeles, especially the East LA Interchange, which can be congested even on Sundays
Quote from: PColumbus73 on May 16, 2024, 08:09:27 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 15, 2024, 11:02:33 PMQuote from: roadman65 on May 15, 2024, 02:01:44 PMIH 610 in Houston definitely don't work. Too much traffic jams. Mostly an inner city route with all the sprawl concentrated along it.
Your criteria's faulty. I don't see how an inner city beltway "doesn't work," especially with Houston's concentric system. Just because it jams? Then most beltways "don't work" by that one, and, given how a bunch I can think of off-hand still keep traffic outside of a city core, I think they work.
Well, does it, or the other two loops around Houston, save time or are otherwise preferrable versus staying on I-10, 45, or any of the other spokes all the way through downtown?
It certainly makes getting around the inner ring a lot easier than if it didn't exist at all.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 16, 2024, 08:12:07 AMQuote from: mgk920 on May 09, 2024, 12:39:33 PMWhenever I am transiting Chicagoland, I'll use I-94 through the city, except during the commuter times when I'll use the I-294 Tri-State Tollway around. Most other people use the Tollway, though.
Mike
Best Chicago bypass? I-39 to I-80. :-D
Or to I-74
OTOH, it you are driving to or from somewhere in the I-41 corridor in Wisconsin . . .
Mike
Quote from: TheStranger on May 09, 2024, 03:47:34 PMWith regards to I-287: Because the Somerset Freeway I-95 alignment was canceled and 95 moved to more of the Turnpike over time, the geometry is very different than originally planned (the Somerset route would have reached I-287 at its southwest corner if I am not mistaken) and thus cars on 95 go a few more miles out of the way now were they to try to go avoid NYC via 287 entirely.
If you're not a truck then GSP to 287 is the best way to bypass NYC on the I-95 corridor. It's not even as far out of the way as it seems because I-95 runs ESE through Manhattan and the Bronx, which I-287 roughly parallels further north.
Quote from: plain on May 09, 2024, 12:40:20 PMI-840 in TN has to be the most useless beltway (or whatever it's supposed to be) I've ever encountered.
I am going to disagree. I have spent a fair amount of time in Nashville. It is much better going 840 vs 40. 40 can be a snail's pace like 65 even when it is not rush hour.
I wish they had a real bypass for I-65 though. That is brutal.
I-229 in St. Joseph, MO.
MoDOT says it doesn't work.
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 17, 2024, 09:38:56 PMI-229 in St. Joseph, MO.
MoDOT says it doesn't work.
Isn't that technically more a downtown loop with I-29 being the "belt"?
Kinda like what's currently going on with I-481 (future I-81) and I-81 (future Business I-81) in Syracuse.
Obviously I-695 around Baltimore "doesn't work" right now after the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse.
If we're talking about "partial" beltways, I-295 in RI/MA works as a bypass around Providence, particularly when traveling south. I always hit a gridlock on I-95 south approaching downtown Providence and can save time taking 295. Going north though, it's less effective because at the northern end of 295, you have a single lane 270 degree loop ramp to rejoin 95 north.
In MA, I-495 doesn't work as a "bypass" around Boston, as it makes a rather wide loop around the metro area.
Quote from: kramie13 on May 20, 2024, 10:43:36 AMIn MA, I-495 doesn't work as a "bypass" around Boston, as it makes a rather wide loop around the metro area.
I would say it works very well as a bypass, especially for traffic approaching from the west and headed to either New Hampshire/Maine or Cape Cod. It's a bit further from the city than most beltways, but it's still plenty useful given the sprawling nature of Boston suburbia/exurbia. It's even busy enough for 6+ lanes on most of it.
Quote from: webny99 on May 20, 2024, 12:10:30 PMQuote from: kramie13 on May 20, 2024, 10:43:36 AMIn MA, I-495 doesn't work as a "bypass" around Boston, as it makes a rather wide loop around the metro area.
I would say it works very well as a bypass, especially for traffic approaching from the west and headed to either New Hampshire/Maine or Cape Cod. It's a bit further from the city than most beltways, but it's still plenty useful given the sprawling nature of Boston suburbia/exurbia. It's even busy enough for 6+ lanes on most of it.
I think in this thread, there are some people talking about a "full bypass", and some people talking about a "partial bypass". In the OP, if you're coming from NC and going to DC, I-295 around Richmond is a good option. That's the full bypass. If you're going from Fort Collins to Limon, taking the NE quadrant of E-470 is a good option. That's the partial bypass.
I-495 isn't a good option coming from Maine and going to Rhode Island, but it is a good partial bypass.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 20, 2024, 12:18:38 PMI-495 isn't a good option coming from Maine and going to Rhode Island, but it is a good partial bypass.
Google Maps shows I-495 as only five minutes slower than the fastest route from Portland to Providence.
Quote from: hotdogPi on May 20, 2024, 12:28:37 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on May 20, 2024, 12:18:38 PMI-495 isn't a good option coming from Maine and going to Rhode Island, but it is a good partial bypass.
Google Maps shows I-495 as only five minutes slower than the fastest route from Portland to Providence.
Fair enough. Was just going based on webny99's comment.
Quote from: mgk920 on May 16, 2024, 11:13:42 PMQuote from: OCGuy81 on May 16, 2024, 08:12:07 AMQuote from: mgk920 on May 09, 2024, 12:39:33 PMWhenever I am transiting Chicagoland, I'll use I-94 through the city, except during the commuter times when I'll use the I-294 Tri-State Tollway around. Most other people use the Tollway, though.
Mike
Best Chicago bypass? I-39 to I-80. :-D
Or to I-74
OTOH, it you are driving to or from somewhere in the I-41 corridor in Wisconsin . . .
Mike
I'm not sure how much traffic on I-39 is "new" or just re-routed from the Chicago area, but back in the late 80s we typically had traffic counts of 7-8k along the 2-lane US 51 south of I-80. I-39 now carries 16-20k in the same stretch, while old US 51 (now IL 251) still has about 1-2k of residual traffic. It's not a ton of relief to the Chicago area but counts for something.
Re: Boston -
Isn't Route 128 the main inner beltway of that area, more so than I-495? Even if it carries I-95 for part of its length (and part of I-93 as a followup consequence of the cancellation of inside-128 I-95)
I've only been to the area once (in 1998, in the midst of Big Dig construction) so I'm not sure what the traffic patterns are these days, specifically if people opt to do I-93/US 1 to go through town instead of taking 128.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 20, 2024, 12:31:50 PMQuote from: hotdogPi on May 20, 2024, 12:28:37 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on May 20, 2024, 12:18:38 PMI-495 isn't a good option coming from Maine and going to Rhode Island, but it is a good partial bypass.
Google Maps shows I-495 as only five minutes slower than the fastest route from Portland to Providence.
Fair enough. Was just going based on webny99's comment.
I was countering that I-495 is not a good bypass. Though it's most commonly used as a partial bypass, it's not bad as a full bypass either. In addition to Portsmouth<>Providence, it's also currently showing as the fastest route from Portsmouth to Bourne (Cape Cod). Though this is variable based on Boston traffic, it's very fair to say it has ulitity as a bypass for its entire length.
On the subject of bypasses, I-287 is pretty effective as a NYC area bypass, especially when coupled with I-87/I-84 to bypass southern CT. It's mostly 6+ lanes and has minimal recurring congestion outside of the Danbury area.
Indianapolis' bypass is effective going from one interstate to the other. I found it handy to use from I-65 SB to I-74 EB from Chicago to Cincinnati. I also found it handy to use from I-69 SB to I-70 WB into Downtown using the east side.
I-287 works very well long distance as I've used it to get to Virginia several times via I-78 and I-81. Coming from the New Jersey Turnpike it's a bit out of the way to bypass New York City due to its awkward trajectory south of I-78.
Quote from: MATraveler128 on May 22, 2024, 11:25:38 AMI-287 works very well long distance as I've used it to get to Virginia several times via I-78 and I-81. Coming from the New Jersey Turnpike it's a bit out of the way to bypass New York City due to its awkward trajectory south of I-78.
True, although that can be countered a bit by using NJ 18. The routing of I-287 does add a bit of mileage, but often congestion on the GSP, I-95, and/or I-287 is bad enough that it's still worth it.
Quote from: epzik8 on May 09, 2024, 04:38:25 PMQuote from: plain on May 09, 2024, 12:40:20 PMI-840 in TN has to be the most useless beltway (or whatever it's supposed to be) I've ever encountered.
"Southern bypass"
And until the Northern Bypass is built (as we speak, there's a very fat chance of it ever happening), then I-840 will never be a true beltway.
I-205 is largely very good at doing its job, despite being longer than taking I-5 from Tualatin to Salmon Creek or to Troutdale or Camas.
Quote from: SeriesE on May 16, 2024, 01:32:59 PMQuote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 09, 2024, 11:55:05 AMI-405 in CA is the classic beltway that doesn't work. Portions of it that weren't as developed when the freeway was originally built were subsumed by the LA metro area's explosive development, and it's not a viable bypass of anything.
I-405 bypasses downtown Los Angeles, especially the East LA Interchange, which can be congested even on Sundays
In 25 years of going between Long Beach and the Bay Area, it's a crap shoot on whether I-405 or I-710/I-5 was the better bet. Sometimes it had to do with time of day, but honestly there was an equal chance of traffic on I-405 around LAX or the Sepulveda Pass as there was on I-5 downtown. Heck, there were more than a few times when I-5/CA-170/US-101/I-5 was the preferred route.
The same story on the northern "bypass" - sometimes I-210 to I-605 is better, sometimes just staying on I-5 is better. Usually, neither is great.
In Detroit neither I-275 or I-696 do a good job bypassing the city. US-23 does the best job of it bypassing I-75 starting in Perrysburg, Ohio and going all the way to Flint.
^ Well, I-275 would be great if it was complete...
Quote from: webny99 on May 23, 2024, 12:14:43 PM^ Well, I-275 would be great if it was complete...
Yeah that won't happen now though since there is too much in the way. It would have been nice.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on May 11, 2024, 08:18:36 AMQuote from: CoreySamson on May 10, 2024, 07:46:49 PMI-610 in Houston definitely worked in the past, but similarly to I-285 in Atlanta and I-405 in LA, massive development has sprung up around it and traffic and construction are perennial problems, so it's not super effective (especially the West Loop). Luckily, Houston has two other beltways that you can use if 610 is having issues. I personally think Beltway 8 is the most effective of the three (for me at least), but it is tolled and can have traffic problems depending on the time. The Grand Parkway is out of the way and is not a complete loop but has (relatively) little traffic for Houston.
The moral of the story is any of the 3 beltways can work effectively depending on the situation, but check the construction status and traffic before picking which one to use.
I was thinking that Houston has sprawled out so much that the beltways don't seem to make a difference anymore. Grand Parkway doesn't look like it would save much time for traffic trying to go straight through the city. Much like Atlanta or LA, it seems like there aren't any good choices.
For the record, here are the travel times and distances lateish rush hour yesterday evening from a point on I-10 just west of TX-99 near Katy to a point on I-10 just east of TX-99 near Mont Belvieu:
I-10 straight through1:13
62.6
I-610 north branch1:24
64.9
I-610 south branch1:35
73.9
TX-8 north branch1:41
80.8
TX-8 south branch1:34
81.4
TX-99 north branch1:35
97.0
As you can see, the travel times don't vary all that much while the distances do, but all the same going straight through on I-10 is the fastest.
State Loop 12 and Belt Line Road are one the best Beltways in DFW. Especially when there is alot traffic on 635. State Loop 12 is the inner loop and beltline serves as a outer loop for street traffic and also for skipping traffic on highways.
There is no political will power to build the Nothern half of I-840. The folks don't want to develop the Northern half like the Southern half. There was a big showdown to even halt the I-65 to I-40 portion to Dickson.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 17, 2024, 06:48:06 PMI wish they had a real bypass for I-65 though. That is brutal.
Agreed. I-65 northbound at the merge with I-24 is always a parking lot unless you happen to hit it during/just after the morning rush, in my experience.
For the full beltways I've been on...
I-275 Cincinnati: Terrible bypass for I-75 (+16 miles along the east, +19 miles along the west), and a bit better for I-71 (+11 miles along the east).
I-270 Columbus: Works as a bypass for I-70 (+4 miles along the south), less so as an I-71 bypass (+9 miles along the north/west) plus heavy local traffic on that part.
I-465 Indianapolis: Works as a bypass for both I-65 and I-70, at least when the construction wraps up.
I-270/255 St Louis: Works for I-55 and I-70 (add I-370 in for some extra bypass length for I-70).
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 09, 2024, 10:10:36 AMI have yet to use St. Louis' beltway to follow the spirit of 66 en route to the southwest, so I can't grade that on personal experience. (The one trip that direction I've made so far, I wanted to clinch the east end of I-44. ;) )
Between the I-44/I-270 interchange and the I-55/70/270 interchange, it's 35 miles via I-44/55, 40 miles using I-270/255/55 on the south/east, and 45 miles using I-270 on the north/west. So 270/255 works as a reasonable bypass for the "Route 66" corridor through St Louis, but what I found interesting is that approaching I-270 on I-44 EB, Chicago is signed as the control city for I-270 north instead, even though that's the slower of the two bypass routes.
I'll add that since it's been built, I've used the Greensboro Outer Loop following US 421 (and I-73 & 85) when traveling up to Ohio. In that regard, it works well for me. Since the loop was built, does it make it easier for I-40 traffic to punch straight through Greensboro?
WI 441 is used pretty much entirely for local access, anyone transiting the Appleton, WI area normally stays on I-41.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 24, 2024, 10:24:12 AMWI 441 is used pretty much entirely for local access, anyone transiting the Appleton, WI area normally stays on I-41.
I would take WI-441 northbound when coming through the area during busy stretches because traffic was usually much lighter, and I could avoid the mess where I-41 drops a lane.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 24, 2024, 10:38:49 AMQuote from: mgk920 on June 24, 2024, 10:24:12 AMWI 441 is used pretty much entirely for local access, anyone transiting the Appleton, WI area normally stays on I-41.
I would take WI-441 northbound when coming through the area during busy stretches because traffic was usually much lighter, and I could avoid the mess where I-41 drops a lane.
I would expect that through traffic levels on WI 441 will increase over the next few years due to the I-41 six laning project, but that will likely go back to normal what that is all done.
Mike
Although not a beltway TX SH 6 is a good bypass of Houston if going from Galveston to points west on I-10.
It's pretty much a beeline from its southern terminus to I-69 with very little stoplights. Then from I-69 to US 90 ALT I'm not sure the drive through Sugarland, but if it's not bad use it to WB US 90 ALT to Grand Parkway to I-10.
If not use I-69 to Grand Parkway ( as I did from I-10 to Galveston) as all the combo works great to bypass Houston.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2024, 12:10:18 AMAlthough not a beltway TX SH 6 is a good bypass of Houston if going from Galveston to points west on I-10.
It's pretty much a beeline from its southern terminus to I-69 with very little stoplights.
The road might be high capacity and have a high speed limit for an undivided 6 lane road (60 mph for some of the stretch), but it is not a great bypass. It is a busy slog with a lot of traffic lights that adds about 30 minutes to the itinerary (if you are going from Katy to Galveston). There is an incredible amount of development sprouting up along it (especially SE of Sugar Land), which only adds to the amount of traffic and lights. It used to be a good bypass, but that recent development has somewhat ruined its viability as a bypass.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 24, 2024, 07:45:21 AMI-270/255 St Louis: Works for I-55 and I-70 (add I-370 in for some extra bypass length for I-70).
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 09, 2024, 10:10:36 AMI have yet to use St. Louis' beltway to follow the spirit of 66 en route to the southwest, so I can't grade that on personal experience. (The one trip that direction I've made so far, I wanted to clinch the east end of I-44. ;) )
Between the I-44/I-270 interchange and the I-55/70/270 interchange, it's 35 miles via I-44/55, 40 miles using I-270/255/55 on the south/east, and 45 miles using I-270 on the north/west. So 270/255 works as a reasonable bypass for the "Route 66" corridor through St Louis, but what I found interesting is that approaching I-270 on I-44 EB, Chicago is signed as the control city for I-270 north instead, even though that's the slower of the two bypass routes.
We had quite a discussion on how the STL beltway Controls should be signed at the I-44 junction a few years back on the "Redesign This!" thread...
Yes Chicago is signed for I-270 North but it is shorter to get back to I-55/Old US 66 using 270 South
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.3500
Saying that a beltway "doesn't work" requires agreement on what the purpose of a beltway is. Because I'm sure the people that live near I-285 in Atlanta like the fact that the beltway is pretty much used as a local route.
Quote from: ran4sh on July 01, 2024, 08:59:55 AMSaying that a beltway "doesn't work" requires agreement on what the purpose of a beltway is. Because I'm sure the people that live near I-285 in Atlanta like the fact that the beltway is pretty much used as a local route.
I think in most cases, beltways are planned and built with the goal of relieving traffic by allowing traffic passing through to avoid the center. If taking I-20, 75, or 85 straight through is faster than using I-285, then I-285 doesn't function as intended. Either because the city / metro area has sprawled so much (i.e. Atlanta or Houston) to consume it, or the route it takes makes it a less time-efficient route around the center (i.e. Cincinnati).
Again, that's an opinion. What is a fact is, trucks are required to use I-285 and not I-20/75/85 through the center. That rule by itself means I-285 will always be more congested. So it could be argued that the purpose was to remove truck traffic (but not other traffic) from the center.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 24, 2024, 08:50:16 AMI'll add that since it's been built, I've used the Greensboro Outer Loop following US 421 (and I-73 & 85) when traveling up to Ohio. In that regard, it works well for me. Since the loop was built, does it make it easier for I-40 traffic to punch straight through Greensboro?
Yes, indeed, especially when heading westbound on I-40. The southern portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop was originally designed as the through route for I-40 and only takes a few minutes longer than heading down the throat of Death Valley during [normal] conditions. There's a newer VMS just before the I-840/I-785 junction that compares I-40 through times to both the southern arc and the northern arc. Amazingly, it almost always shows the I-840 northern arc as only 3 minutes longer than the southern arc.
Note that the I-85//I-73 southern arc is shown at the top of the VMS to encourage more traffic to stay off of Death Valley.
All that being said, I find Death Valley to be reminiscent of the old original Interstate System and drive that way most of the time, even when traffic is slower.
Quote from: ran4sh on July 01, 2024, 08:59:55 AMSaying that a beltway "doesn't work" requires agreement on what the purpose of a beltway is. Because I'm sure the people that live near I-285 in Atlanta like the fact that the beltway is pretty much used as a local route.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on July 01, 2024, 09:42:36 AMI think in most cases, beltways are planned and built with the goal of relieving traffic by allowing traffic passing through to avoid the center. If taking I-20, 75, or 85 straight through is faster than using I-285, then I-285 doesn't function as intended. Either because the city / metro area has sprawled so much (i.e. Atlanta or Houston) to consume it, or the route it takes makes it a less time-efficient route around the center (i.e. Cincinnati).
Quote from: ran4sh on July 01, 2024, 09:50:33 AMAgain, that's an opinion. What is a fact is, trucks are required to use I-285 and not I-20/75/85 through the center. That rule by itself means I-285 will always be more congested. So it could be argued that the purpose was to remove truck traffic (but not other traffic) from the center.
It is highly unusual for someone to argue against the OP's official opinion, but in this case
ran4sh makes an intriguing argument. I-285 is forced upon truckers to be the "Beltway that Works", but for I-75 traffic and I-20 traffic, the Perimeter was never designed to work well as a true bypass. But in the old days, most folks felt that the Perimeter was a wonderful bypass of I-75 through Atlanta after several hours slogging around Cartersville and Kennesaw before the Interstate was completed across the lake.
This is sort of a sub-topic that may end up being worth its own thread.
Full beltways are somewhat limited in their scope of discussion. Either it works well, or it doesn't because it's congested and/or poorly located, but that's usually a reflection of the metro's overall network, while the concept of a beltway itself is a relatively fixed concept that doesn't vary much from one metro to another. You could argue for secondary beltways for some cities due to growth, but the initial one still serves pretty much the same purpose even if the metro has outgrown it.
However, what are some PARTIAL beltways that work and don't work? This has a bit more nuance and variability from one metro area to another, since the idea isn't to bypass/get around the metro from all directions. Instead it's usually just used from one direction to another or to bypass a single route corridor.
An example that works IMO: US 13/50 around Salisbury, MD. It can be used and easily accessed from all directions of travel, its termini are sufficiently distant from the city center to prevent arterial development beyond the bypass, it has enough exits to have some utility for local traffic but not enough to cause congestion, and it provides easy access to the city center while encouraging all through traffic to stay on the bypass.
An example that does NOT work IMO: US 64 around Asheboro, NC. It's poorly located for US 64 through traffic, time savings versus using the business route are minimal at best, it is redundant for I-74 traffic connecting to US 64 west, and it does not sufficiently serve or provide any benefit for locations north of the city center. Frankly, the southwestern quadrant does not need to exist, the North Carolina Zoo is probably the strongest case for why the southeastern quadrant needs to exist, and even if US 64 does warrant a full bypass, it could have been built around the north side of Asheboro using significantly less mileage and state resources (roughly 7.5 miles instead of 13).
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 01, 2024, 10:41:24 AMQuote from: ran4sh on July 01, 2024, 08:59:55 AMSaying that a beltway "doesn't work" requires agreement on what the purpose of a beltway is. Because I'm sure the people that live near I-285 in Atlanta like the fact that the beltway is pretty much used as a local route.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on July 01, 2024, 09:42:36 AMI think in most cases, beltways are planned and built with the goal of relieving traffic by allowing traffic passing through to avoid the center. If taking I-20, 75, or 85 straight through is faster than using I-285, then I-285 doesn't function as intended. Either because the city / metro area has sprawled so much (i.e. Atlanta or Houston) to consume it, or the route it takes makes it a less time-efficient route around the center (i.e. Cincinnati).
Quote from: ran4sh on July 01, 2024, 09:50:33 AMAgain, that's an opinion. What is a fact is, trucks are required to use I-285 and not I-20/75/85 through the center. That rule by itself means I-285 will always be more congested. So it could be argued that the purpose was to remove truck traffic (but not other traffic) from the center.
It is highly unusual for someone to argue against the OP's official opinion, but in this case ran4sh makes an intriguing argument. I-285 is forced upon truckers to be the "Beltway that Works", but for I-75 traffic and I-20 traffic, the Perimeter was never designed to work well as a true bypass. But in the old days, most folks felt that the Perimeter was a wonderful bypass of I-75 through Atlanta after several hours slogging around Cartersville and Kennesaw before the Interstate was completed across the lake.
I guess it also goes back to what the intent was for the bypass or beltway when it was being planned and built. If the intent was to keep trucks out of downtown Atlanta and not necessarily provide a faster way around the city, then yes, I-285 is working as intended.
The origin of the post comes from the perception that when a beltway or bypass is being built around a city, that it's supposed to be an overall faster and more convenient than going straight through. Perhaps it depends from city to city whether that perception is accurate or not, also considering highways like CC-215 (Las Vegas) and the Loops around Phoenix which seem more aimed at encouraging development, convenience for long-distance traffic might not be that much a priority.
Quote from: webny99 on July 01, 2024, 11:13:18 AMThis is sort of a sub-topic that may end up being worth its own thread.
Full beltways are somewhat limited in their scope of discussion. Either it works well, or it doesn't because it's congested and/or poorly located, but that's usually a reflection of the metro's overall network, while the concept of a beltway itself is a relatively fixed concept that doesn't vary much from one metro to another. You could argue for secondary beltways for some cities due to growth, but the initial one still serves pretty much the same purpose even if the metro has outgrown it.
However, what are some PARTIAL beltways that work and don't work? This has a bit more nuance and variability from one metro area to another, since the idea isn't to bypass/get around the metro from all directions. Instead it's usually just used from one direction to another or to bypass a single route corridor.
An example that works IMO: US 13/50 around Salisbury, MD. It can be used and easily accessed from all directions of travel, its termini are sufficiently distant from the city center to prevent arterial development beyond the bypass, it has enough exits to have some utility for local traffic but not enough to cause congestion, and it provides easy access to the city center while encouraging all through traffic to stay on the bypass.
An example that does NOT work IMO: US 64 around Asheboro, NC. It's poorly located for US 64 through traffic, time savings versus using the business route are minimal at best, it is redundant for I-74 traffic connecting to US 64 west, and it does not sufficiently serve or provide any benefit for locations north of the city center. Frankly, the southwestern quadrant does not need to exist, the North Carolina Zoo is probably the strongest case for why the southeastern quadrant needs to exist, and even if US 64 does warrant a full bypass, it could have been built around the north side of Asheboro using significantly less mileage and state resources (roughly 7.5 miles instead of 13).
I think in the first post, I mentioned I-295 around Richmond / Petersburg as being in the camp of 'beltways that work'. To avoid the title being too wordy, I just kept it as 'beltway'. Maybe something like 'Best & Worst of Beltways and Bypasses' would be more accurate, but that might lead back into the question of what makes a beltway or bypass better or worse than another.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on July 01, 2024, 12:54:27 PMThe origin of the post comes from the perception that when a beltway or bypass is being built around a city, that it's supposed to be an overall faster and more convenient than going straight through. Perhaps it depends from city to city whether that perception is accurate or not, also considering highways like CC-215 (Las Vegas) and the Loops around Phoenix which seem more aimed at encouraging development, convenience for long-distance traffic might not be that much a priority.
Using an example mentioned earlier in the thread:
I-405 in California partially took over an existing arterial corridor, the southern segment of 1934-1958 Route 7 between Sylmar and Lawndale. (The segment from Route 107 southeast to El Toro is the new-corridor segment, with the portion southeast of Route 19 being the only part of 405 that is not parallel to any portion of Sepulveda Boulevard)
Because of that, even though the routing does take one away from downtown Los Angeles, it is close enough to some significant traffic-generating locales (Long Beach, LAX) that it served more as an outer suburban loop than it ever did as a regional bypass.
Developments from the 1960s on (Westwood, Sherman Oaks, Irvine) all contributed to even more usage of the road over time and have solidified 405's character as a commute link than any sort of traffic avoidance path.
In comparison, I-280 in San Mateo County ran along an existing bypass route (the Junipero Serra Boulevard corridor) and then along some of where that bypass route had been proposed to extend southward in the late 1940s/early 1950s; this plus a strictly maintained level of rural zoning between Millbrae and Cupertino has allowed that freeway to remain a viable relief route for US 101.
Changed the thread name to 'Beltway / Bypass, or Mainline?'
Hopefully it clears up the discussion a bit and avoid sinking into a 'good/bad' argument.
Since it comes down to personal preference, as well as convenience, distance, and congestion, when does one prefer to use the beltway (or bypass), and when would one rather stay on the mainline instead of using the beltway (or bypass)?
It sounds like for cities like Los Angeles and Houston, it doesn't really matter which highway use, 405 vs 5 or 610 vs 10. Atlanta and Nashville, maybe it's better to stay on the mainline, and Richmond and Portland, the bypasses are preferred over going through downtown.
Quote from: webny99 on July 01, 2024, 11:13:18 AMAn example that does NOT work IMO: US 64 around Asheboro, NC. It's poorly located for US 64 through traffic, time savings versus using the business route are minimal at best, it is redundant for I-74 traffic connecting to US 64 west, and it does not sufficiently serve or provide any benefit for locations north of the city center. Frankly, the southwestern quadrant does not need to exist, the North Carolina Zoo is probably the strongest case for why the southeastern quadrant needs to exist, and even if US 64 does warrant a full bypass, it could have been built around the north side of Asheboro using significantly less mileage and state resources (roughly 7.5 miles instead of 13).
This is an example where the route numbering system is quite misleading. Nowadays, most of the east-west traffic through Asheboro from US-64 is heading towards heading towards Charlotte on NC-49. The rest of the Asheboro Bypass is designed for NC Zoo traffic: Coming from Raleigh on US-64; coming from Greensboro on US-220 (oops, I-73/I-74); and coming from Lexington proper on US-64. So I will disagree with you and say that the northwest quadrant is the one that is least important.
Here's where the history comes in (pardon, since many of you have seen me post this many times over). For much of the 1960s and 1970s, the main route from the Great Lakes -to- Myrtle Beach was I-77 -to- US-52 -to- US-64 -to- US-220 -to- US-74 (then pick your best route). The routing of I-74 mirrors this concept.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 02, 2024, 12:32:28 PMThis is an example where the route numbering system is quite misleading. Nowadays, most of the east-west traffic through Asheboro from US-64 is heading towards heading towards Charlotte on NC-49. The rest of the Asheboro Bypass is designed for NC Zoo traffic: Coming from Raleigh on US-64; coming from Greensboro on US-220 (oops, I-73/I-74); and coming from Lexington proper on US-64. So I will disagree with you and say that the northwest quadrant is the one that is least important.
OK, I can see where the bypass is useful for US 64 WB to NC 49. However, I would still argue that it would be equally beneficial to have a northern bypass as a southern one to make that movement, since it would be about 9 miles instead of about 11 using the current bypass.
In terms of quadrants, the western quadrants are obviously much less important than the eastern ones, because I-74 passes west of downtown Asheboro, it's already sort of a western bypass, so the importance of the northwest vs. southwest quadrant is kind of irrelevant.
NJTP from I-295 to the I-95/PATP.
Going to the "bypass or mainline" deal, California version, looking at google maps during the afternoon:
Sacramento area
West Sacramento to Foothill Farms
80 through Natomas is usually the better option, due to how many traffic generating spots occur on Business 80 (Midtown Sacramento, Arden Fair, the auto row along Auburn/old US 40 & 99E) and the older nature of the Business 80 crossing of the American River
Downtown Sacramento to Elk Grove
99 goes through the much more populated side, while 5 is less congested due to mostly reaching post-1970s suburban development, with the Elk Grove segment in particular being less intensely built up than the 99 portion. 99 thus takes a bit more southbound traffic at rush hour than 5
---
Bay Area
San Francisco to San Jose
280 can be faster at times in its middle section, but to some degree that is negated once you get in SF (due to the 19th Avenue section never being built) or from Los Altos Hills into SJ in the evening rush hour. Also some northbound congestion between 380 and 1 in the afternoon.
Within SF
280 usually is a smoother route to SOMA/Bay Bridge than 101-80 during commute hours, even factoring in the stoplights along 6th Street. (Of course this is negated when the Warriors have games)
Macarthur Maze to Cordelia
Eastbound in the afternoon, both 80 and 24 have their slow spots. Westbound, 680/24 is very effective in allowing drivers to avoid the slowdowns on 80 that begin in Albany/Berkeley (and with the use of Route 13, can get you to San Mateo easily without requiring any driving through the MacArthur Maze or SF at all).
Mountain View to South San Jose
85 and 101 each essentially serve different suburban neighborhoods and both get congested at rush hour.
San Jose to Vallejo
680 and 780 are a newer corridor overall than 880 and 80; for that matter, 880 north of 262 has few freeway alternatives and 680 goes through a relatively rural segment south of San Ramon and is the clear better option.
---
Southern California
Devore to Temecula
Depends on direction. Looking at Google Maps at 5:40 today, 215 is the better option northbound and 15 is the better option southbound.
Arleta to East Los Angeles
Both 170/101 and 5 run into congestion in the afternoon south of 134, though 5 clears up after 110 (before slowing down again after 60) and 101 clears up after 10.
Los Angeles to Beaumont:
60, 210, and 10 all are congested going eastbound
10 does have the advantage of the El Monte Busway HOT lanes from downtown LA to San Gabriel
East of 215, 210 and 60 are less busy than 10
Sylmar to Irvine
5 and 405 are equally congested in different spots in both directions
210-57-71-91-241-133 has more clear spots southbound, but has severe congestion on 210 from Pasadena tO San Dimas and on 71 between 83 and 91
San Juan Capistrano to Fountain Valley
73 is the better option traffic-wise (but requires toll) up to 55, 405 from 133 to 73 is noticeably slower.
Del Mar to San Ysidro
Both 5 and 805 are busy southbound at afternoon rush hour between Sorrento Valley and 54, then equally clear afterwards; northbound is pretty clear on either route
El Cajon to downtown San Diego
125-94 is clear westbound and eastbound according to Google Maps
8 west is clear, but the routes that then scoot you to downtown SD would not be (15 or 163 south)
Del Mar to El Cajon
According to Google Maps; afternoon rush hour equally hits southbound 805 between 52 and 8, and eastbound 52 between 805 and 125
Miramar to National City
15 and 163 are busy southbound, though Google is showing this occurring in different spots (163 south primarily from 805 to 5, 15 from 163 to Aero Drive and from 8 to 94)
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 02, 2024, 12:32:28 PMThis is an example where the route numbering system is quite misleading. Nowadays, most of the east-west traffic through Asheboro from US-64 is heading towards heading towards Charlotte on NC-49. The rest of the Asheboro Bypass is designed for NC Zoo traffic: Coming from Raleigh on US-64; coming from Greensboro on US-220 (oops, I-73/I-74); and coming from Lexington proper on US-64. So I will disagree with you and say that the northwest quadrant is the one that is least important.
Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2024, 02:43:36 PMOK, I can see where the bypass is useful for US 64 WB to NC 49. However, I would still argue that it would be equally beneficial to have a northern bypass as a southern one to make that movement, since it would be about 9 miles instead of about 11 using the current bypass.
In terms of quadrants, the western quadrants are obviously much less important than the eastern ones, because I-74 passes west of downtown Asheboro, it's already sort of a western bypass, so the importance of the northwest vs. southwest quadrant is kind of irrelevant.
Keep in mind that NC-49 west of the short old US-64 entanglement (near I-73/I-74) is almost a Super Two arrangement (with some short fourlane sections) all the way to the other side of the Tuckertown Reservoir. The Asheboro Bypass makes a great connection. [By the way, this weekend is the Old Fashion Farmer's Days celebration at the Denton Farm Park, just off this stretch of NC-49].
Quote from: TheStranger on July 02, 2024, 08:58:14 PMSacramento area
Downtown Sacramento to Elk Grove
99 goes through the much more populated side, while 5 is less congested due to mostly reaching post-1970s suburban development, with the Elk Grove segment in particular being less intensely built up than the 99 portion. 99 thus takes a bit more southbound traffic at rush hour than 5
Is it me or is 99's lanes in city of Sacramento narrower than the standard 12 feet?
Quote from: SeriesE on July 04, 2024, 03:58:46 PMQuote from: TheStranger on July 02, 2024, 08:58:14 PMSacramento area
Downtown Sacramento to Elk Grove
99 goes through the much more populated side, while 5 is less congested due to mostly reaching post-1970s suburban development, with the Elk Grove segment in particular being less intensely built up than the 99 portion. 99 thus takes a bit more southbound traffic at rush hour than 5
Is it me or is 99's lanes in city of Sacramento narrower than the standard 12 feet?
North of 47th Avenue I do think this is the case - that freeway was built as US 99/US 50 in the late 1950s/early 1960s, with the portion of what is now Business 80/I-305 between Oak Park and N Street being built in the mid-1960s as US 99E/US 50 (and I-80). Arguably not even Interstate standard until after the railroad crossing between Elk Grove and Galt.
99 basically is a mix of slightly older design history and serving existing population centers (South Sacramento/Florin Mall) area first, followed by the portions of Elk Grove that boomed first in the 90s and 2000s. (It is also closer to old town Elk Grove as well)
Quote from: TheStranger on July 05, 2024, 04:57:03 PMQuote from: SeriesE on July 04, 2024, 03:58:46 PMQuote from: TheStranger on July 02, 2024, 08:58:14 PMSacramento area
Downtown Sacramento to Elk Grove
99 goes through the much more populated side, while 5 is less congested due to mostly reaching post-1970s suburban development, with the Elk Grove segment in particular being less intensely built up than the 99 portion. 99 thus takes a bit more southbound traffic at rush hour than 5
Is it me or is 99's lanes in city of Sacramento narrower than the standard 12 feet?
North of 47th Avenue I do think this is the case - that freeway was built as US 99/US 50 in the late 1950s/early 1960s, with the portion of what is now Business 80/I-305 between Oak Park and N Street being built in the mid-1960s as US 99E/US 50 (and I-80). Arguably not even Interstate standard until after the railroad crossing between Elk Grove and Galt.
99 basically is a mix of slightly older design history and serving existing population centers (South Sacramento/Florin Mall) area first, followed by the portions of Elk Grove that boomed first in the 90s and 2000s. (It is also closer to old town Elk Grove as well)
I've noticed it most south of 47th Avenue to Elk Grove Blvd since there's no inside shoulder in that segment until past Mack Road. Seems like they opted for LA-style widening to add the HOV lane there.