I know already people will screw this up. I am looking at beltways that are entirely composed of two routes, that meet at both ends, unless the ocean or one of the Great Lakes interrupts them from making a full loop. Neither of the two routes can be a through route (2-digit Interstate, US Highway, etc.) - that rules out I-20 in the DFW area. Here's the list I came up with:
Detroit: 275/696
Minneapolis: 494/694
St. Louis: 255/270
Rochester: 390/590
Winnipeg: 100/101
London: M25/A282 (on a technicality)
Any others, either USA or abroad? (OT: it excites me that in two weeks, I'll have been on all of these except probably A282.)
EDIT: Winnipeg, not Calgary, duh
Your restriction against "through routes" rules out a couple possibilities (Norfolk, VA, future Greensboro, NC)
Orlando (future, almost): 417/429
Los Angeles (almost, three routes): 405, 210, 605
Phoenix (future, maybe almost): 101/202
Brooklyn-Queens (three routes): Belt, 278, 678
Baltimore (officially): I-695, MD 695
Jacksonville (former): I-295, SR 9A
Houston: Beltway 8, Sam Houston Tollway
Memphis (former): 240, 255
Charleston (future): I-526, SC 30
Trenton (future): I-195, NJ 29
Kansas City: I-435, Route 152
Maybe you can bullshit something out of Toronto.
Winnipeg: 100/101
If two different designations of the same route number count, then I would say the TN 155/ TN Secondary 155 around Nashville.
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2013, 03:09:29 AM
I know already people will screw this up.
Houston has two beltways. :evilgrin: :pan:
QuoteCalgary: 100/101
Wait, what?
Quote from: empirestate on May 18, 2013, 12:16:28 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2013, 03:09:29 AM
I know already people will screw this up.
Houston has two beltways. :evilgrin: :pan:
Four if you count the Grand Parkway (TxDot-maintained SH 99/future county maintained Fort Bend Grand Parkway Toll Road) and if you want to consider F.M. 1960, plus all of SH 6 south of U.S. 290 down to the Texas City Y Interchange (I-45/SH 146 junction).
Not to mention: Houston actually counts because of the strange status of Beltway 8 wrt the Sam Houston Tollway.
Rochester arguably has three with NY 104, especially since the western part of it in the city was to be made a freeway at one time.
EDIT: While I'm talking about cancelled roads: Syracuse: 481, NY 5 bypass (unbuilt), I-690, John Glenn Blvd (partly unbuilt)
Quote from: NE2 on May 18, 2013, 04:39:02 AM
Kansas City: I-435, Route 152
I-435 is a beltway in its own right...
Quote from: Steve on May 19, 2013, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 18, 2013, 04:39:02 AM
Kansas City: I-435, Route 152
I-435 is a beltway in its own right...
Doesn't stop it from being part of a smaller loop with 152.
Here are a couple close ones:
The 65/5 quarter-beltway around Des Moines
US-31/20 half-belt around South Bend
Whatever is going on between I-474 and IL-6 in Peoria in the future
Boston: I-95/I-93/MA 128, and I-495
Philly (stretching here): I-476, I-276, NJTP or I-295
Hartford (killed off, except for a couple of pieces): I-291, I-491
Lowell, MA I-495, MA 213
Providence: I-295 (outer half belt), RI 10 (US 6/RI 10 briefly, inner half belt)
Wilmington, DE: I-495, DE 141 (unofficially)
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2013, 03:09:29 AM
I know already people will screw this up.
That took longer than expected.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.
Tallahassee, FL has two routes assigned to its Capital Circle. Both US 319 and FL 263 are the two separate routes that make up that particular loop that encompasses most of that city.
Quote from: vdeane on May 18, 2013, 04:43:29 PM
Rochester arguably has three with NY 104, especially since the western part of it in the city was to be made a freeway at one time.
I thought of mentioning that too, but then I figured we could come up with all kinds of places that have triangles and squares of routes around them. :-)
Quote from: NE2 on May 18, 2013, 04:39:02 AM
Orlando (future, almost): 417/429
Los Angeles (almost, three routes): 405, 210, 605
Phoenix (future, maybe almost): 101/202
Brooklyn-Queens (three routes): Belt, 278, 678
Baltimore (officially): I-695, MD 695
Jacksonville (former): I-295, SR 9A
Houston: Beltway 8, Sam Houston Tollway
Memphis (former): 240, 255
Charleston (future): I-526, SC 30
Trenton (future): I-195, NJ 29
Kansas City: I-435, Route 152
Maybe you can bullshit something out of Toronto.
Although in Jax the entire beltway is/was SR 9A
Quote from: empirestate on May 20, 2013, 01:16:59 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 18, 2013, 04:43:29 PM
Rochester arguably has three with NY 104, especially since the western part of it in the city was to be made a freeway at one time.
I thought of mentioning that too, but then I figured we could come up with all kinds of places that have triangles and squares of routes around them. :-)
Well, as per the original plans, 104 and 590 would have made a full freeway beltway.
Quote from: pianocello on May 19, 2013, 10:01:19 PM
Whatever is going on between I-474 and IL-6 in Peoria in the future
That one depends upon where the eastern terminus of the northern half ends up; last I heard some of the alternatives have the eastern terminus east of I-155, which would have part of the loop including a through route (I-74).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2013, 10:22:46 PM
Providence: I-295 (outer half belt), RI 10 (US 6/RI 10 briefly, inner half belt)
Wasn't Providence at one time going to be a full with I-295 for the west half and I-895 for the east half?
St. Louis was originally going to be a three route beltway with I-270, I-244, and I-255. But if one goes with original plans, St. Louis could be considered disqualified with I-255 north of I-55/I-70 being part of the unbuilt St. Louis - Quad Cities freeway, and the I-255/IL 3 overlap being an overlap with an unbuilt East St. Louis - Marion freeway.
The through out criteria throws out any hope of St. Louis going to three if the Gateway Connector would get built - there would be a short section joint with I-55/I-70 in Troy.
Chicago could have been another three route half beltway had the section of I-355 south of I-80 been built into Indiana and the IL 53 (I-594?) corridor been completed to I-94 near Gurnee - or does the section with I-290 count as a through route?
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 20, 2013, 09:37:18 PM
Wasn't Providence at one time going to be a full with I-295 for the west half and I-895 for the east half?
Only in the original plans; later the south end of I-895 would have been way to the south, after crossing the Jamestown Bridge.
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 20, 2013, 09:37:18 PM
St. Louis was originally going to be a three route beltway with I-270, I-244, and I-255. But if one goes with original plans, St. Louis could be considered disqualified with I-255 north of I-55/I-70 being part of the unbuilt St. Louis - Quad Cities freeway, and the I-255/IL 3 overlap being an overlap with an unbuilt East St. Louis - Marion freeway.
That argument also disqualifies Minneapolis-St. Paul, since the loop route overlaps one of the radials.
Raleigh, NC counts as it is composed of I-440 and I-40 since the multiplex was eliminated. When completed the outer loop will be I-540, NC-540, and NC-540 TOLL (I'm only seperating that since NCDOT insists on doing it on their signs).
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2013, 03:09:29 AM
Neither of the two routes can be a through route (2-digit Interstate, US Highway, etc.) - that rules out I-20 in the DFW area.
any of these meet a strict standard? where the two halves end at each other, twice?
255/270 in St. Louis comes close: 255 continues north as IL-255, and 270 continues east (as I-270) for only a very short while.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2013, 10:19:59 PM
any of these meet a strict standard? where the two halves end at each other, twice?
494/694, 100/101, M25/A282.
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2013, 03:09:29 AM
London: M25/A282 (on a technicality)
why is that one small segment an A-road as opposed to an M-road? a brief glance at the map and aerial imagery shows no at-grade crossings...
Quote from: Steve on May 20, 2013, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 20, 2013, 01:16:59 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 18, 2013, 04:43:29 PM
Rochester arguably has three with NY 104, especially since the western part of it in the city was to be made a freeway at one time.
I thought of mentioning that too, but then I figured we could come up with all kinds of places that have triangles and squares of routes around them. :-)
Well, as per the original plans, 104 and 590 would have made a full freeway beltway.
But it's all moot, since with I-390 (and NY 104) being a through route, the whole thing doesn't qualify for this thread anyway!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 24, 2013, 09:15:28 AM
Quote from: Steve on May 18, 2013, 03:09:29 AM
London: M25/A282 (on a technicality)
why is that one small segment an A-road as opposed to an M-road? a brief glance at the map and aerial imagery shows no at-grade crossings...
I think it has to do with what type of traffic can use that section. IIRC, motorways (M##) are restricted to motor vehicles only.
Quote from: Brandon on May 24, 2013, 10:27:53 AM
I think it has to do with what type of traffic can use that section. IIRC, motorways (M##) are restricted to motor vehicles only.
dang; here in the US they don't interrupt I-5 simply because they shunt bicycles onto it when there is no other crossing of a body of water. (one of the lagoons here in San Diego comes to mind.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 24, 2013, 10:30:04 AM
Quote from: Brandon on May 24, 2013, 10:27:53 AM
I think it has to do with what type of traffic can use that section. IIRC, motorways (M##) are restricted to motor vehicles only.
dang; here in the US they don't interrupt I-5 simply because they shunt bicycles onto it when there is no other crossing of a body of water. (one of the lagoons here in San Diego comes to mind.)
Well in Britain the motorway classification is more of a legal one than a functional one, like US Interstates.
Isn't there a messed up x95 situation around Philly/Trenton that kinda fits this topic?
Quote from: vtk on May 24, 2013, 04:39:10 PM
Isn't there a messed up x95 situation around Philly/Trenton that kinda fits this topic?
Nothing that really constitutes a full beltway, and nothing that wouldn't include a through route.
Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2013, 11:47:44 PM
In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.
Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 25, 2013, 02:33:14 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2013, 11:47:44 PM
In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.
Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.
That wasn't what I was referring to. The qualifications were that a primary interstate route couldn't be part of the loop, and 280-680 don't come very close at all in the north end. To make a loop out of 680 and 280, you'd need to take I-80 for a much longer distance than if you were driving a loop out of 280-880.
Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2013, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 25, 2013, 02:33:14 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2013, 11:47:44 PM
In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.
Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.
That wasn't what I was referring to. The qualifications were that a primary interstate route couldn't be part of the loop, and 280-680 don't come very close at all in the north end. To make a loop out of 680 and 280, you'd need to take I-80 for a much longer distance than if you were driving a loop out of 280-880.
But with 280-880, I wouldn't consider a route that connects the downtowns of the three major Bay Area cities to be functioning as a "beltway."
Quote from: DTComposer on May 25, 2013, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2013, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 25, 2013, 02:33:14 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2013, 11:47:44 PM
In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.
Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.
That wasn't what I was referring to. The qualifications were that a primary interstate route couldn't be part of the loop, and 280-680 don't come very close at all in the north end. To make a loop out of 680 and 280, you'd need to take I-80 for a much longer distance than if you were driving a loop out of 280-880.
But with 280-880, I wouldn't consider a route that connects the downtowns of the three major Bay Area cities to be functioning as a "beltway."
This is what fascinates me:
280 would have been more of a true beltway, at least in SF, had the 19th Avenue/Route 1 alignment been built north of Font Boulevard. But on the south end, the finalized Interstate always passed right next to downtown San Jose! I guess at the time, San Jose was just not large enough for its downtown to be considered as something that needed to be bypassed by the new freeway; today's Route 85 is what ultimately served that purpose.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 27, 2013, 03:59:38 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 25, 2013, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2013, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 25, 2013, 02:33:14 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2013, 11:47:44 PM
In the San Francisco Bay Area, I-280 and I-880 meet at the south end and are only separated by the Bay Bridge at the north end.
Well, I-280 and I-880/CA 17 meet at an interchange south of San Jose, but I believe you're trying to refer I-280 and I-680 as one 'beltway'.
That wasn't what I was referring to. The qualifications were that a primary interstate route couldn't be part of the loop, and 280-680 don't come very close at all in the north end. To make a loop out of 680 and 280, you'd need to take I-80 for a much longer distance than if you were driving a loop out of 280-880.
But with 280-880, I wouldn't consider a route that connects the downtowns of the three major Bay Area cities to be functioning as a "beltway."
This is what fascinates me:
280 would have been more of a true beltway, at least in SF, had the 19th Avenue/Route 1 alignment been built north of Font Boulevard. But on the south end, the finalized Interstate always passed right next to downtown San Jose! I guess at the time, San Jose was just not large enough for its downtown to be considered as something that needed to be bypassed by the new freeway; today's Route 85 is what ultimately served that purpose.
The original route options for the Junipero Serra Freeway passed well south of downtown San Jose; one of the options indeed used the CA-85 corridor. Since the interstate designation was approved in 1955, and the route (LRN 239) was approved in 1957, I assume the original intent was to bypass downtown. I'm unsure why it was changed (including the whole CA-17/I-280/I-680 switcheroo in 1963-1965).
Quote from: DTComposer on May 27, 2013, 11:11:26 AM
The original route options for the Junipero Serra Freeway passed well south of downtown San Jose; one of the options indeed used the CA-85 corridor. Since the interstate designation was approved in 1955, and the route (LRN 239) was approved in 1957, I assume the original intent was to bypass downtown. I'm unsure why it was changed (including the whole CA-17/I-280/I-680 switcheroo in 1963-1965).
What also intrigues me: of the major cities in California, were San Jose and Fresno the last two to have any sort of downtown freeway?
Prior to the 1960s, San Francisco already had the Central Freeway and the Skyway, LA of course had its extensive system, Sacramento had US 40 (today's converted-to-city-street former Route 275), San Diego had the US 101 Montgomery Freeway and US 395 Cabrillo Freeway (today's I-5 and Route 163). But San Jose's only freeways - the Nimitz Freeway (then Route 17) and the Bayshore Freeway (US 101) - both were nowhere close to the city center.
I wonder if that previous lack of access explained the 280 alignment being much further north once finalized than the proposal that resembled today's Route 85. (I'm also not sure if Route 87 was originally meant to extend into downtown until after the segment north of San Jose was canceled in the late 1960s.)