I thought of this while driving through Bend, OR awhile back. Bend (population 76,621) is only served by US Highways (20, 97, BUS 97), thanks to ODOT never assigning a route # to the Century Lakes Hwy (should be OR 372 if they had) and relinquishing the Powell Butte Hwy (would've been OR 371). But I doubt this is the record for cities only served by US Hwys; seems like there's be some Midwest towns that would beat that.
So what else is out there? I suspect there are plenty of large suburbs with only state routes, but only US or interstates escapes me. Anybody know any?
Quote from: xonhulu on July 21, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
So what else is out there? I suspect there are plenty of large suburbs with only state routes, but only US or interstates escapes me. Anybody know any?
The obvious example of Fresno being only served by State Routes comes to mind.
Anchorage is served by a single state route (AK-1), but if you are of the hypertechnical sort you could argue that said state route is multiplexed with two unsigned Interstates (I-A1 and I-A3) such that you maybe could contend that the city is therefore served solely by Interstates if you're of the opinion that an Interstate designation trumps everything else. Under the circumstances I'd think that would be a weak argument given that the state route number is the only one signed, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
Good examples. I'd buy the argument that Anchorage (pop 291,826) counts, but Fresno (pop 510,365) is bigger.
Any US-only cities bigger than Bend?
And I'm struggling to think of any sizable city served only by interstates.
A little off topic, but I had no idea Bend, OR was that big. Without looking it up, I would have guessed the city was about 30,000. In the 1990 Census, the population was 23,740. That's more than tripling the population in just 20 years. I'm not very familiar with central Oregon-what's the reason for the explosive growth?
It's a resort area. A lot of people moving out from the I-5 corridor, probably.
Depending on whether Route 42 is signed at all on Firestone Bouleard, Norwalk, CA would have distinction of largest city with only interstates: 105,549 folks.
Fresno is the largest city in the country not served by an Interstate highway. Currently, it's served only by state highways, although at one point in time it would have had at least US-99.
Norwalk should count because, despite signage, CA-42 has not officially existed anymore for a long time.
Quote from: Quillz on July 21, 2011, 05:29:04 PM
Norwalk should count because, despite signage, CA-42 has not officially existed anymore for a long time.
I'm not sure simply because, officially, Route 42 hasn't existed from 1968 on (when current I-105 was defined legislatively) BUT it had been well signed from then into the mid-90s when 105 opened.
I don't think the Norwalk section is signed beyond the I-5 junction though.
A couple of California near misses: El Monte (113K) would count were it not for a short piece of the city including Route 19, and Carlsbad (105,328) MIGHT count if the north boundary only skirts Route 78, rather than crosses it (I'm not sure).
I don't think a new 42 sign has been put up since the early 90s (likely when 105 was opened).
that said, I think the 91 freeway comes close enough to Norway that one can consider the city served by it.
Quote from: InterstateNG on July 21, 2011, 02:49:02 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on July 21, 2011, 02:28:41 PM
So what else is out there? I suspect there are plenty of large suburbs with only state routes, but only US or interstates escapes me. Anybody know any?
The obvious example of Fresno being only served by State Routes comes to mind.
I think in general California has more State Route Freeways than any other state.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 21, 2011, 05:20:10 PM
Depending on whether Route 42 is signed at all on Firestone Bouleard, Norwalk, CA would have distinction of largest city with only interstates: 105,549 folks.
You mean I-605, not 549
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 21, 2011, 05:43:47 PM
I don't think a new 42 sign has been put up since the early 90s (likely when 105 was opened).
that said, I think the 91 freeway comes close enough to Norway that one can consider the city served by it.
Well, according to google, my avatar does not touch Norwalk:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Norwalk,+CA&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
(Mini map shows boundaries)
About your point of it being close enough, LA metro is pretty much one giant city so...
San Angelo, TX;
Population - 92,300
US 67, 87, 277
Tom Green County Pop. 110,000
No interstate no plans for any interstate extension..
BigMatt
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 21, 2011, 06:00:06 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 21, 2011, 05:20:10 PM
Depending on whether Route 42 is signed at all on Firestone Bouleard, Norwalk, CA would have distinction of largest city with only interstates: 105,549 folks.
You mean I-605, not 549
105,549 is the population :banghead:
Anyway, this discussion shows the silliness of using city boundaries rather than metropolitan areas.
Quote from: NE2 on July 21, 2011, 06:21:20 PM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 21, 2011, 06:00:06 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 21, 2011, 05:20:10 PM
Depending on whether Route 42 is signed at all on Firestone Bouleard, Norwalk, CA would have distinction of largest city with only interstates: 105,549 folks.
You mean I-605, not 549
105,549 is the population :banghead:
Anyway, this discussion shows the silliness of using city boundaries rather than metropolitan areas.
Sorry, I saw "105" and immediately thought you were referring to the interstates. :-D
Well if we include metropolitan areas then Angelo's would be 105,781, or a 2009 population of 110,119.
BigMatt
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 21, 2011, 06:04:12 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 21, 2011, 05:43:47 PM
that said, I think the 91 freeway comes close enough to Norway that one can consider the city served by it.
Well, according to google, my avatar does not touch Norwalk:
just noticed my typo. the 91 freeway definitely does not come anywhere close to Norway.
not even the one in Maine.
Quote from: xonhulu on July 21, 2011, 03:31:58 PM
Good examples. I'd buy the argument that Anchorage (pop 291,826) counts, but Fresno (pop 510,365) is bigger.
....
I guess I misunderstood the last paragraph in the OP. I thought state routes were being excluded. I was using Anchorage as a theoretical example of one that MAYBE could be argued to be served only by Interstates, though as I said I think it's a weak argument.
Quote from: NE2 on July 21, 2011, 06:21:20 PM
Anyway, this discussion shows the silliness of using city boundaries rather than metropolitan areas.
I'm not sure though that there are very many metro areas that could qualify under this - i.e. metropolitan Fresno DOES fit as an entire metro area on just state routes, but one with just Interstates probably would be pretty hard to find.
Let's stick to signed routes and specific cities, not metro areas. Anchorage, though, may have the distinction of being the largest city served by only one signed route of any kind.
And there are cities/towns served by only interstates; it's just that I can't think of any sizable ones! Kalama, WA, for example, only has I-5, but its population is only 2344.
I'll see your Kalama, and raise you Mercer Island, which has only I-90, and about 10x as many people.
If Norwalk doesn't count due to Route 42...
nearby South Gate (another Los Angeles suburb) is a prime candidate for largest Interstate-only city: 102K according to California population statistics, 94K according to 2010 Census, with only numbered highways being I-105 and I-710.
Route 42 isn't even a state highway, so Norwalk, CA would count.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 21, 2011, 10:19:55 PM
If Norwalk doesn't count due to Route 42...
nearby South Gate (another Los Angeles suburb) is a prime candidate for largest Interstate-only city: 102K according to California population statistics, 94K according to 2010 Census, with only numbered highways being I-105 and I-710.
I kind of figured the interstate-only city would be a suburb of some kind.
Any US-only cities that beat Bend?
Ely, NV
Quote from: BigMatt on July 21, 2011, 06:04:38 PM
San Angelo, TX;
Population - 92,300
US 67, 87, 277
Tom Green County Pop. 110,000
No interstate no plans for any interstate extension..
BigMatt
San Angelo is served by state routes.
The only notable city in my area is St. Marys, PA which is just under 15,000 residents, but is only served by two state routes (PA 120/PA 255), without any US or interstates directly serving the community.
Quote from: xonhulu on July 21, 2011, 10:55:07 PM
Any US-only cities that beat Bend?
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 21, 2011, 10:57:09 PM
Ely, NV
Ely, NV has a 2010 population of 4,255. While it does have only US Highways (US 6, US 50 & US 93), it doesn't beat Bend.
Nevada's largest city that would fit this description is probably Boulder City. With a 2010 census population of 15,023, the only state maintained highway served by the community is US 93 (US 95 also technically serves the city, since it passes through undeveloped lands away from the core of town that have been annexed by the city). Bend's population is still higher, though.
Quote from: ftballfan on July 21, 2011, 10:29:24 PM
Route 42 isn't even a state highway, so Norwalk, CA would count.
I think it comes down to several things:
1. Is Route 42 signed at all in the area? (Its legislative status isn't so relevant because it hasn't been a legislative route since 1968, but had been actively signed for decades afterward) AFAIK there's at least the one at the 5/42 split. But I agree that if it's not being actively signed beyond that, then Norwalk's a great candidate.
2. Has Norwalk been surpassed in population by South Gate at some point? They're close enough that this could happen, depending on what the year-to-year totals are.
Since 42 was more actively signed in the 1990s, there's a distinct possibility that South Gate was the clear winner in largest Interstate-only city from 1984 to the late 1990s (from when I-710 was first signed along former Route 7).
Quote from: TheStranger on July 22, 2011, 05:15:16 AM
1. Is Route 42 signed at all in the area? (Its legislative status isn't so relevant because it hasn't been a legislative route since 1968, but had been actively signed for decades afterward)
I believe the newest signs date to the early 90s. I know of button copy signs with the 42 shield on them, as opposed to porcelain.
QuoteAFAIK there's at least the one at the 5/42 split.
there is. the sign dates to 1965, I believe. I was once stuck in traffic underneath it and read off the date stamp, but I forget what it is.
an interesting fact about that sign is that the gantry holding it is the older style, with only vertical (no diagonal) trusses. It dates to about 1950-1956. One of the very last ones of that style left in the state!
Quote2. Has Norwalk been surpassed in population by South Gate at some point?
I have never even
heard of the town of South Gate. I barely know that Norwalk is its own incorporated community. I think we need some more impressive candidates on this thread, not "Generic Suburb of Los Angeles XYZ".
At one point, Rochester, MN would have beaten Bend...but they recently annexed land that crosses MN 30.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 22, 2011, 10:25:37 AM
Quote2. Has Norwalk been surpassed in population by South Gate at some point?
I have never even heard of the town of South Gate. I barely know that Norwalk is its own incorporated community. I think we need some more impressive candidates on this thread, not "Generic Suburb of Los Angeles XYZ".
This would require a little bit more digging as I think that "generic suburbs" would continue to show up here - if not those of Los Angeles, I'm thinking other California cities. (For instance, Richmond comes very close were it not for a sliver of Route 123; Murietta would qualify if one of its borders wasn't directly adjacent to Route 79)
Norwalk was the largest city to qualify for Interstates-only listed on Wikipedia's top-250-cities-in-the-US-by-size page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
Quote from: InterstateNG on July 21, 2011, 10:57:58 PM
San Angelo is served by state routes.
Ha, oops forgot those existed for a second.. Surprisingly there's only one "major" state highway here in Angelo.. But then again we have FM roads, and RM roads, and loops..
BigMatt
Quote from: TheStranger on July 22, 2011, 04:37:30 PMNorwalk was the largest city to qualify for Interstates-only listed on Wikipedia's top-250-cities-in-the-US-by-size page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
really? shitty little Norwalk is among the top 250 of cities? I think not. Norwalk is a city about as much as Bart Simpson is the actual leader of Springfield's mob.
In Mississippi, I believe Natchez may be the largest city that is served only by US routes. 61, 65 and 84 all come through the city. I'll need to look at a state map to verify if there are any state routes that run through Natchez.
I'll also need to check about the Clarksdale area. Currently, 49, 61 and 278 run through the area. There is MS 6 and MS 322, but I don't know if they actually run through the city. I was in the Clarksdale area earlier this month, but I didn't notice if the two state routes go through there. 278 is multiplexed with 6, but in situations like these, I'll give the it to the higher classification.
Quote from: golden eagle on July 23, 2011, 03:28:56 PM
In Mississippi, I believe Natchez may be the largest city that is served only by US routes. 61, 65 and 84 all come through the city. I'll need to look at a state map to verify if there are any state routes that run through Natchez.
I'll also need to check about the Clarksdale area. Currently, 49, 61 and 278 run through the area. There is MS 6 and MS 322, but I don't know if they actually run through the city. I was in the Clarksdale area earlier this month, but I didn't notice if the two state routes go through there. 278 is multiplexed with 6, but in situations like these, I'll give the it to the higher classification.
From Google Maps, it looks like MS-555 enters Natchez proper. Also, add in US-98 and US-425 forn the US highways in Natchez. And in Clarksdale, it looks like MS-322 goes right through downtown.
Quote from: ftballfan on July 23, 2011, 08:36:56 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on July 23, 2011, 03:28:56 PM
In Mississippi, I believe Natchez may be the largest city that is served only by US routes. 61, 65 and 84 all come through the city. I'll need to look at a state map to verify if there are any state routes that run through Natchez.
I'll also need to check about the Clarksdale area. Currently, 49, 61 and 278 run through the area. There is MS 6 and MS 322, but I don't know if they actually run through the city. I was in the Clarksdale area earlier this month, but I didn't notice if the two state routes go through there. 278 is multiplexed with 6, but in situations like these, I'll give the it to the higher classification.
From Google Maps, it looks like MS-555 enters Natchez proper. Also, add in US-98 and US-425 forn the US highways in Natchez. And in Clarksdale, it looks like MS-322 goes right through downtown.
Since I haven't found my state map, I'll take your word for it. I do believe, however, that Philadelphia may be the largest city in the state that is served only by state highways. That distinction could've gone to Oxford, had it not been for US 278 multiplexing with MS 6.
The "largest" city in Kentucky to only be served by one type of route would likely be a quite small town that only has state routes. I was going to nominate Hazard but then I realized that the Hal Rogers Parkway enters the city limits. Most other towns of any size in Kentucky are on US routes.
My hometown, Manistee, MI (pop. ~6000), is only served directly by US-31. M-55 and M-22 end at US-31 northeast of town. Also, M-110 used to end right at the city boundary (in fact, the city limit sign is just past its former terminus at US-31).
Amboy California, who's population is about 20 I think, is served by two roads.
In Nebraska, Fremont(pop. 26,397) is served by 3 US routes(US 30, US 77, US 275) and no state or Interstate routes.
Quote from: roadfro on July 22, 2011, 04:44:08 AM
Nevada's largest city that would fit this description is probably Boulder City. With a 2010 census population of 15,023, the only state maintained highway served by the community is US 93
I need to correct myself...
Nevada's largest settlement that fits the description of the thread is actually Pahrump, Nevada, which has become quite the bedroom community for the Las Vegas area in the last decade or so. (Technically speaking, Pahrump is an unincorporated town, not a city--for the intended purpose of the thread, I think it qualifies.) Pahrump had a 2010 census population of 41,654. It is only served by state highways, with SR 160 being the main road of the town and SR 372 acting as a spur to California.
Boulder City is the largest
incorporated city in Nevada with only one type of route, as well as the largest settlement in Nevada with only US highways serving it.
La Tuque in Quebec is around 20 000 of population and only served by PQ-155. Also, Sept-ÃŽles with 35 000 is only served by PQ-138.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 22, 2011, 04:37:30 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 22, 2011, 10:25:37 AM
Quote2. Has Norwalk been surpassed in population by South Gate at some point?
I have never even heard of the town of South Gate. I barely know that Norwalk is its own incorporated community. I think we need some more impressive candidates on this thread, not "Generic Suburb of Los Angeles XYZ".
This would require a little bit more digging as I think that "generic suburbs" would continue to show up here - if not those of Los Angeles, I'm thinking other California cities. (For instance, Richmond comes very close were it not for a sliver of Route 123; Murietta would qualify if one of its borders wasn't directly adjacent to Route 79)
Norwalk was the largest city to qualify for Interstates-only listed on Wikipedia's top-250-cities-in-the-US-by-size page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
If we want to exclude suburbs that qualify only because they happen to be carved into a grid of freeways (I'd imagine my Mercer Island example would also be one of these), I'll nominate Ferndale, Washington (pop. 11,415) served only by I-5. SR 539 is located a good 4 miles outside city limits to the east.
Since I don't believe there are any municipalities in Ohio served only by US routes,
The largest city served only by state highways would be Middletown (between Cincy and Dayton) at 51,000
As far as a non-suburb (at least in terms of non-contiguous urban development), how about Vacaville, CA?
Population 92,248, only served by I-80 and I-505.
QuoteIn Mississippi, I believe Natchez may be the largest city that is served only by US routes. 61, 65 and 84 all come through the city. I'll need to look at a state map to verify if there are any state routes that run through Natchez.
MS 555 (http://www.gomdot.com/Divisions/IntermodalPlanning/Resources/Maps/pdf/CityMaps/Natchez.pdf) and a couple of unsigned routes.
QuoteI'll also need to check about the Clarksdale area. Currently, 49, 61 and 278 run through the area. There is MS 6 and MS 322, but I don't know if they actually run through the city.
MS 322 hits the western part of the city, but even discounting that, you've had MS 149 and MS 161 ever since the bypass was finished about 10 years ago.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 25, 2011, 01:40:41 AM
As far as a non-suburb (at least in terms of non-contiguous urban development), how about Vacaville, CA?
Population 92,248, only served by I-80 and I-505.
I think its population may be a tad higher now - not sure - but it certainly would fit, especially since Route 179 (the Pleasant Valley Road corridor) has never been signed or maintained by CalTrans.