Excluding purpose-built bypasses and cutoffs, the following Interstates are not the most direct or fastest ways between their endpoints:
Built to serve particular metro areas, another Interstate is more direct (no remediation needed)
10 — New Orleans (12)
41 — Fond Du Lac/Appleton (43)
55 — St. Louis (57)
90 — Rapid City/Sioux Falls (94)
94 — Milwaukee, Hammond, Detroit (90, 90, 69)
Built to serve particular metro areas, complex more direct route (no remediation needed)
69 — Evansville/Indianapolis, Lansing (W KY Pky-65-71-75-94, 24-75-94)
75 — Tampa/Fort Myers, Toledo (826-Fla's Tpk, 475-23)
79 — Morgantown/Pittsburgh (77-90)
95 — Providence/Boston (91-84-90-290-495)
Only a small piece of the route is indirect (proposed solution)
40 — E. of I-95 (22-20-95-74) — extend 40 down US 64/264 to Rocky Mount or Greenville and designate 340 to Wilmington
49 — S. of I-10 (55-63-60-65-44-13-7) — number as I-210
74 — E. of US 1 (73) — end 74 at Randleman, number as I-273
87 — S. of I-287 NJ (87-95-4-17-87) — extend down I-287 to Bridgewater, number I-287 remainder as I-387, number I-87 south of Elmsford as I-487
Quote from: Steve on April 12, 2013, 05:30:31 PM
75 — Tampa/Fort Myers, Toledo (826-Fla's Tpk, 475-23)
It's worth using I-75 northbound to avoid the 'breezewood' at Golden Glades. If you're CP.
In Fictionalland you'd be able to use a northern extension of I-45 and I-49 as a shortcut to I-35 between Dallas and Kansas City. It's currently shorter but not necessarily faster.
I was going to say Chicago to Niagara Falls is faster via Ontario vs I-90, but then I realized Niagara Falls isn't really on I-90. Moving the eastern endpoint to Rochester, it becomes faster to stay in the US.
And for some reason I find it fun to ask Mapquest the shortest route between Rochester MN and Rochester NY.
Quote from: vtk on April 12, 2013, 09:57:07 PM
I was going to say Chicago to Niagara Falls is faster via Ontario vs I-90, but then I realized Niagara Falls isn't really on I-90. Moving the eastern endpoint to Rochester, it becomes faster to stay in the US.
And for some reason I find it fun to ask Mapquest the shortest route between Rochester MN and Rochester NY.
What about Buffalo? 3 minutes shorter in Canada according to Google!
It probably depends on where the exact endpoint is in Buffalo. In order to count as "indirect" for this thread, I think you have to compare routes that actually include part of I-90 on either end.
In any case, I'm pretty sure you'd burn up at least those extra 3 minutes in customs.
Quote from: Steve on April 12, 2013, 05:30:31 PM
79 — Morgantown/Pittsburgh (77-90)
I would not have believed that had I not gotten directions on Google Maps. It's 10 miles shorter to take 77/271/90 from Charleston to
Buffalo Erie than to take 79. I would not have even though about any route other than I-79. However, I would definitely use I-12 if, say, I was going from Mobile to Texas, or use I-57 if going from Chicago to Memphis.
FIFMe
If or when the I-95 & PA Turnpike interchange ever gets completed, we all know that the NJ Turnpike between Wilmington and Mansfield will be the shorter run over I-95.
Then you have the Baltimore- Washington Parkway/ MD 295 combination that is shorter between College Park, MD and Baltimore than staying on I-95 itself.
Then going through DC on I-395 and surface streets to connect with the BW Parkway is shorter than that long loop around the Nation's Capital except maybe during rush hours.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 13, 2013, 01:00:47 PM
If or when the I-95 & PA Turnpike interchange ever gets completed, we all know that the NJ Turnpike between Wilmington and Mansfield will be the shorter run over I-95.
Then you have the Baltimore- Washington Parkway/ MD 295 combination that is shorter between College Park, MD and Baltimore than staying on I-95 itself.
Then going through DC on I-395 and surface streets to connect with the BW Parkway is shorter than that long loop around the Nation's Capital except maybe during rush hours.
1st point: It's only a couple of miles, and not really unexpected. The NJ Turnpike is effectively a Philadelphia bypass.
2nd and 3rd points: I thought about it, but realized that you're looking at partially the intended I-95 routing (395) and partially a parallel road (295). It's partway between a bypass and a cutoff, IMO.
Quote from: Steve on April 13, 2013, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 13, 2013, 01:00:47 PM
If or when the I-95 & PA Turnpike interchange ever gets completed, we all know that the NJ Turnpike between Wilmington and Mansfield will be the shorter run over I-95.
Then you have the Baltimore- Washington Parkway/ MD 295 combination that is shorter between College Park, MD and Baltimore than staying on I-95 itself.
Then going through DC on I-395 and surface streets to connect with the BW Parkway is shorter than that long loop around the Nation's Capital except maybe during rush hours.
1st point: It's only a couple of miles, and not really unexpected. The NJ Turnpike is effectively a Philadelphia bypass.
2nd and 3rd points: I thought about it, but realized that you're looking at partially the intended I-95 routing (395) and partially a parallel road (295). It's partway between a bypass and a cutoff, IMO.
True the NJT is a bypass of Philadelphia and it is only a few miles, but nonetheless it is more direct and in the eyes of many, even here, it should really be I-95.
Between Baltimore and Washington, it does save some time as you have to trek west and then trek back east if heading north and trek west and back east heading south. My dad always said it saved him 10 miles each time he went between the two cities and throughout the years he always used that cutoff. Even I used it between NJ and FL during my trips.
I see your point, so it could be questionable, but I-475 in GA only saves a few miles as well following its parent route. It is the Macon Bypass for I-75. We both know that interstates do not always go in a straight line and you have rare cases where deviation is shorter than staying on the main road.
At best my examples are quite in the direction of the topic if I understand it correctly.
QuoteThen going through DC on I-395 and surface streets to connect with the BW Parkway is shorter than that long loop around the Nation's Capital except maybe during rush hours.
No longer need to use "surface streets to connect" as the direct connections at I-295/I-695/DC 295 are now open. It's 5 miles shorter than staying on the Beltway, but I haven't had the opportunity to test it out time-wise.
Now, using the Beltway versus I-295/DC 295/B-W Pkwy is something I have considerable experience with...while it's about 3 miles longer staying on the Beltway, you're usually better off time-wise because DC 295/B-W Pkwy has a greater tendency to jam up, plus has less-than-55-MPH speed limits along most of it.
Now, in the I-95 vs. MD 295 debate between the Beltway and Baltimore, I-95 is typically better, even though it's 5 miles longer. MD 295 has significant sections of recurring congestion, including weekends, while I-95 congestion is typically limited to incidents and occasional slowdowns near I-495. I-95 also has a 65 MPH speed limit. And the distance difference drops from 5 to 3 miles if your destination is the west side of I-695 or I-83 north of Baltimore (via I-695). And if I-95 is jammed, detouring over to US 29 only adds about a mile as long as your destination is north of the 70/695 interchange.
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2013, 09:33:56 AM
QuoteThen going through DC on I-395 and surface streets to connect with the BW Parkway is shorter than that long loop around the Nation's Capital except maybe during rush hours.
No longer need to use "surface streets to connect" as the direct connections at I-295/I-695/DC 295 are now open. It's 5 miles shorter than staying on the Beltway, but I haven't had the opportunity to test it out time-wise.
Beltway doesn't have low speed limits with traffic cameras. I'd stick with 295 instead of 395-695.
I wish they'd take this opportunity to sign 95 along 395, 695, and DC/MD 295, then have it jog over the Beltway to the current route. Upgrades would be necessary, though.
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2013, 09:33:56 AM
QuoteThen going through DC on I-395 and surface streets to connect with the BW Parkway is shorter than that long loop around the Nation's Capital except maybe during rush hours.
No longer need to use "surface streets to connect" as the direct connections at I-295/I-695/DC 295 are now open. It's 5 miles shorter than staying on the Beltway, but I haven't had the opportunity to test it out time-wise.
D.C. 295 is no wider than it was before (3 lanes each way between the Maryland border and East Capitol Street, 2 lanes each way between East Capitol and Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.), and is frequently congested, even during off-peak times.
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2013, 09:33:56 AM
Now, using the Beltway versus I-295/DC 295/B-W Pkwy is something I have considerable experience with...while it's about 3 miles longer staying on the Beltway, you're usually better off time-wise because DC 295/B-W Pkwy has a greater tendency to jam up, plus has less-than-55-MPH speed limits along most of it.
Most of the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is only 2 lanes each way, and can also be severely congested even during off-peak times.
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2013, 09:33:56 AM
Now, in the I-95 vs. MD 295 debate between the Beltway and Baltimore, I-95 is typically better, even though it's 5 miles longer. MD 295 has significant sections of recurring congestion, including weekends, while I-95 congestion is typically limited to incidents and occasional slowdowns near I-495. I-95 also has a 65 MPH speed limit. And the distance difference drops from 5 to 3 miles if your destination is the west side of I-695 or I-83 north of Baltimore (via I-695). And if I-95 is jammed, detouring over to US 29 only adds about a mile as long as your destination is north of the 70/695 interchange.
Agreed.
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 20, 2013, 03:15:52 PM
I wish they'd take this opportunity to sign 95 along 395, 695, and DC/MD 295, then have it jog over the Beltway to the current route. Upgrades would be necessary, though.
The Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" Md. 295) enjoys full access control, but is
definitely not built to freeway standards. The shoulders are deliberately narrower than the 10 feet required for freeways, and many of the interchange ramps are too narrow for a freeway.
Quote from: Steve on April 12, 2013, 05:30:31 PM
Only a small piece of the route is indirect (proposed solution)
49 — S. of I-10 (55-63-60-65-44-13-7) — number as I-210
What becomes the Lake Charles LA loop, then?
Would I-84/I-684/Hutch vs I-91/I-95 or (CT-15/Hutch) for Hartford to NYC traffic count?
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 20, 2013, 04:31:22 PM
Quote from: Steve on April 12, 2013, 05:30:31 PM
Only a small piece of the route is indirect (proposed solution)
49 — S. of I-10 (55-63-60-65-44-13-7) — number as I-210
What becomes the Lake Charles LA loop, then?
I-410 is open for Steve's suggestion.
Oh yeah, when I drove to Boston in '10, AAA suggested bypassing Hartford on I-691, I-91, CT 15. (I realized later that this kept me from clinching I-84, d'oh!) I told my uncle about it who lives northeast of Hartford, and when he later drove that way enroute to Ohio he concluded it saved 15 minutes vs staying on I-84.
CT-15 (Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways) is also pretty pleasant drive too.
@ VTK: You still go through Hartford along CT Route 15 and the Charter Oak Bridge into East Hartford. True, you do skip downtown, though. It's also the connection one needs to make to go from I-91 North to I-84/US 6 East. Otherwise, you'd take Exit 32B (Trumbull Street) and be stuck on city streets looping around to I-84/US 6 East that way.
Quote from: vtk on April 20, 2013, 08:30:35 PM
Oh yeah, when I drove to Boston in '10, AAA suggested bypassing Hartford on I-691, I-91, CT 15. (I realized later that this kept me from clinching I-84, d'oh!) I told my uncle about it who lives northeast of Hartford, and when he later drove that way enroute to Ohio he concluded it saved 15 minutes vs staying on I-84.
They put up a whole bunch of ALT I-84 and ALT I-91 signs on many roads around the SW of Hartford. You see them for one on the other route, as well as on I-691, CT 72, and CT 9. Only time it may work to take an alternate is if you hear about an accident, or if there's construction. If I hear about traffic near Hartford on I-84, I actually take CT 72 to CT 9 to CT 175 to US 5/CT 15 to get around it. Of course, if they followed my suggestion in my signature line, that would be amazing too.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 20, 2013, 04:26:50 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 20, 2013, 03:15:52 PM
I wish they'd take this opportunity to sign 95 along 395, 695, and DC/MD 295, then have it jog over the Beltway to the current route. Upgrades would be necessary, though.
The Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" Md. 295) enjoys full access control, but is definitely not built to freeway standards. The shoulders are deliberately narrower than the 10 feet required for freeways, and many of the interchange ramps are too narrow for a freeway.
You mean interstate standards. A freeway is any limited access highway with no at-grade intersections. In NY we have plenty of freeways built to 1930s standards.
Quote from: vdeane on April 21, 2013, 10:49:47 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 20, 2013, 04:26:50 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 20, 2013, 03:15:52 PM
I wish they'd take this opportunity to sign 95 along 395, 695, and DC/MD 295, then have it jog over the Beltway to the current route. Upgrades would be necessary, though.
The Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" Md. 295) enjoys full access control, but is definitely not built to freeway standards. The shoulders are deliberately narrower than the 10 feet required for freeways, and many of the interchange ramps are too narrow for a freeway.
You mean interstate standards. A freeway is any limited access highway with no at-grade intersections. In NY we have plenty of freeways built to 1930s standards.
I wonder if they considered doing that years ago, but being that the BWP is maintained by the National Park Service, engineers have encountered a lot of red tape and decided to go with the current alignment? If MDOT did upgrade the parkway to complete interstate standards then the park type of environment would perish plus trucks would be allowed.
Quote from: vtk on April 20, 2013, 08:30:35 PM
Oh yeah, when I drove to Boston in '10, AAA suggested bypassing Hartford on I-691, I-91, CT 15. (I realized later that this kept me from clinching I-84, d'oh!) I told my uncle about it who lives northeast of Hartford, and when he later drove that way enroute to Ohio he concluded it saved 15 minutes vs staying on I-84.
Depends on traffic. If it's off hours, may as well stick with 84 through the city just out of convenience. Rush hour, 691.
Quote from: Steve on April 21, 2013, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 20, 2013, 08:30:35 PM
Oh yeah, when I drove to Boston in '10, AAA suggested bypassing Hartford on I-691, I-91, CT 15. (I realized later that this kept me from clinching I-84, d'oh!) I told my uncle about it who lives northeast of Hartford, and when he later drove that way enroute to Ohio he concluded it saved 15 minutes vs staying on I-84.
Depends on traffic. If it's off hours, may as well stick with 84 through the city just out of convenience. Rush hour, 691.
Been there, done that. If it's not rush hour or there isn't a major accident or construction in Hartford; it was just better for me to just stay on 84.
I-90 between Billings and Rapid City. US 212 is 56 miles shorter and crosses similar terrain. The Goog gives almost equal times, but I don't trust their times. Routing I-90 on the more direct alignment would have added about 45 miles of construction due to I-25.
Quote from: NE2 on May 24, 2013, 11:37:39 PM
I-90 between Billings and Rapid City. US 212 is 56 miles shorter and crosses similar terrain. The Goog gives almost equal times, but I don't trust their times. Routing I-90 on the more direct alignment would have added about 45 miles of construction due to I-25.
Similarly, Montana 47 is the fastest way between westbound 94 and eastbound 90.
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 25, 2013, 12:06:17 AM
Similarly, I-75 is the fastest way between westbound 94 and eastbound 90.
Fixed for you. PS: you're missing the point of this thread.
Quote from: NE2 on May 25, 2013, 12:22:22 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 25, 2013, 12:06:17 AM
Similarly, I-75 is the fastest way between westbound 94 and eastbound 90.
Fixed for you. PS: you're missing the point of this thread.
You did the same thing with 212 pretty much, as a shortcut.
As a shortcut FROM I-90 TO I-90. READ THE FUCKING THREAD.
Quote from: NE2 on May 25, 2013, 12:34:32 AM
As a shortcut FROM I-90 TO I-90. READ THE FUCKING THREAD.
Yeah. And I pointed out another thing similar to that. And I guess I shouldn't have. I only thought it was similar in the fact that I-25 traffic's basic continuity patterns would go here if they wanted EB 94.
Either way, just... Nothing happened... Please... I'm already facepalming my stupidity far too much here...
Here we go... It is shorter to use U.S. 12 between Minneapolis and Miles City than it is to use 94. Thus, the shortest possible route between Tomah and Billings is (90)-94-12-94-(90)
I-10 through New Orleans is shorted by I-12.
I-70 through St. Louis (shorted by I-270 across the north).
I-70 through St. Louis to (shorted by I-64 from the new west end to PSB)
I-94 through Milwaukee (shorted by I-90 from Chicago to Madison)
I-94 through Gary/Chicago (shorted by I-90 and the Chicago Skyway)
I-69 through Michigan from Port Huron to Indianapolis (shorted by I-94/I-75/US24/I-469 by 30+ miles)
Another slight one:
I-77 through Ohio from Cleveland to Cambridge (shorted by current OH21 former US21 through Massillon)
I-95 around Boston is shortened by MA-128/I-93 by about five miles.
but I don't know if it makes sense to use this, given the traffic patterns.
There are many, many places where taking the old surface road is slightly shorter but not faster. If we list all of those we're idiots.
Quote from: NE2 on May 25, 2013, 08:55:16 PM
There are many, many places where taking the old surface road is slightly shorter but not faster. If we list all of those we're idiots.
This is true :biggrin:
Quote from: NE2 on May 25, 2013, 08:55:16 PM
There are many, many places where taking the old surface road is slightly shorter but not faster. If we list all of those we're idiots.
I think the OP is looking for the more 'off the regular routing'. For instance, US11 may be shorter than I-81 in places, but it's the same general routing. if I-81 were to branch off to DC and then up what is I-83, we could say US11 was the short way.