Largest Cities Without an Interstate Connection

[hotdogPi]

Boise to Reno! #I-11 North baby!!!!!!!

Step #1:  convince Oregon (ODOT) to contribute to a US 95-based Interstate route that really provides little or no benefit to the state -- or get other parties to pay for it.
Step #2:  Provide enough commerce in Boise/Treasure Valley that needs connectivity to NV or CA to warrant such a route, and which demonstrates that by crowding onto extant US 95.  Might happen if the Boise-area MPO gets above about 1.25M population and additional firms establish HQ's or offices in the area (Albertson's and Motive Power [locomotives] can't carry the region alone!).  Figure at least 2035-2040 before that has a chance to occur. 

And by that time I-11 may be heading to central Oregon; Idaho will have to settle for I-13!

Boise to Winnemucca, avoiding Oregon entirely.

[LM117]

Austin and Houston.

Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.

Make US-290 an interstate from either end of I-10

That's where I-14 should've been if Congress and Texas politicians had any damn sense.

Not only would it connect Houston and Austin, but it would also link El Paso and Austin.

[ilpt4u]

That Texas route would be nice, but no way in hell the route would ever make it thru Downtown Austin. I don't like the 35 multiplex either

Only slightly more realistic, link it in the south end of Austin to Texas SH 45, or possibly SH 71 near the Airport.

[sprjus4]

Upgrade the interchange between the TX-45 freeway and I-35, and there will be a freeway connection from downtown Austin to TX-130 leading to I-10 to Houston. 

25 miles longer than US-290 or TX-71. I thought these routes had to be the most direct or it was vanity.

[sprjus4]

That Texas route would be nice, but no way in hell the route would ever make it thru Downtown Austin. I don't like the 35 multiplex either

The route through Austin follows US-290 all the way through, and inside the urban area it's freeway. It's freeway extending from each end of I-35, hence the reason of the overlap. TX-45 and TX-130 could be used to bypass Austin, if you extended the TX-45 Toll Road east back to US-290, but an continous interstate designation would follow the routing through the city, and overlap I-35. Think of the jungle of overlaps and junctions in Downtown Atlanta, but mostly thru traffic uses I-285 to bypass it all.

[Beltway]

Upgrade the interchange between the TX-45 freeway and I-35, and there will be a freeway connection from downtown Austin to TX-130 leading to I-10 to Houston. 

25 miles longer than US-290 or TX-71. I thought these routes had to be the most direct or it was vanity.

You're looking at 2 opposites, that of using what is already there, and that of building a new corridor.  Building an unneeded new corridor is vanity, any way you slice it, whether longer or shorter.

Building that interchange upgrade and the 15-mile connector have their own regional utility, aside from the long distance utility.

[hotdogPi]

Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.

*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?

[Flint1979]

Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.

*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?

For your last one since it's in my area I just had to comment. I think I understand what you mean. Taking US-10 to US-127 to end up at US-127's northern terminus is about 15 miles longer. And the nice thing about it all is US-10 and US-127 are all freeway between those two points. I-75 will always be the more direct route going anywhere north though.

[sprjus4]

If NCDOT had fully completed constructing their segment of I-87 between the state line and Raleigh, and in 2040 per se Virginia was looking to construct an interstate to the south, you're saying they would use an existing corridor (I-87), which is 20 miles longer, and just upgrade limited-access US-17 up to I-64 to interstate standards as oppose to building a whole new corridor (US-58)?

Just trying to clear some confusion here.

[Beltway]

If NCDOT had fully completed constructing their segment of I-87 between the state line and Raleigh, and in 2040 per se Virginia was looking to construct an interstate to the south, you're saying they would use an existing corridor (I-87), which is 20 miles longer, and just upgrade limited-access US-17 up to I-64 to interstate standards as oppose to building a whole new corridor (US-58)?
Just trying to clear some confusion here.

Confusion on your part.  Hypothesizing 20 to 25 years into the future is Fantasy Highways territory.

[Beltway]

Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.
*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?

Those highways were authorized back when rural Interstate highways cost $1 million per mile to build and there was no need to rehabilitate and reconstruct aging Interstate highways.

Today it is incredibly expensive just to keep 40,000+ miles of 40 to 50 year old Interstate highway corridors in continuing safe and efficient operation.

Your logic is in fact illogic.  Thanks for playing.

[skluth]

Boise to Reno! #I-11 North baby!!!!!!!

Step #1:  convince Oregon (ODOT) to contribute to a US 95-based Interstate route that really provides little or no benefit to the state -- or get other parties to pay for it.
Step #2:  Provide enough commerce in Boise/Treasure Valley that needs connectivity to NV or CA to warrant such a route, and which demonstrates that by crowding onto extant US 95.  Might happen if the Boise-area MPO gets above about 1.25M population and additional firms establish HQ's or offices in the area (Albertson's and Motive Power [locomotives] can't carry the region alone!).  Figure at least 2035-2040 before that has a chance to occur. 

And by that time I-11 may be heading to central Oregon; Idaho will have to settle for I-13!

Boise to Winnemucca, avoiding Oregon entirely.

Oregon has one reason to build it. Oregon's speed limit is 70. Idaho and Nevada rural interstates are 80 mph. It's the country's most lucrative speed trap waiting to happen.

[sprjus4]

Confusion on your part.  Hypothesizing 20 to 25 years into the future is Fantasy Highways territory.

Can you just answer the hypothetical situation? Would Virginia be in the position to advance construction on 60+ miles of upgrades to non-limited-access US-58 to interstate standards, or would they upgrade 14 miles of limited-access highway to tie into an existing interstate highway (I-87 running from the state line to Raleigh, as authorized by the FHWA in May 2016) at that point in time?

You've made the claim in the past Virginia would see past the vanity of an I-87 corridor even after completed, and if desired a southern connection, would build it out on US-58 even when I-87 existed... yet you're claiming here TxDOT should just stick with I-10 and TX-130 because they're existing freeways, even if it's 20 miles longer then the non-limited-access 4-lane existing route.

Seeing a double standard, and that's what my confusion is.

[webny99]

Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.
*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?

Those highways were authorized back when rural Interstate highways cost $1 million per mile to build and there was no need to rehabilitate and reconstruct aging Interstate highways.
Today it is incredibly expensive just to keep 40,000+ miles of 40 to 50 year old Interstate highway corridors in continuing safe and efficient operation.

Your logic is in fact illogic.  Thanks for playing.

This is an argument about demand, and should not be twisted into an argument about cost. Regardless of the financial feasibility, the demand is there for upgrading the Austin-Houston corridor to a full freeway. It is most certainly warranted when looked at next to the examples mentioned above. The Houston metro is also much larger than anything mentioned above.

[ClassicHasClass]

Oregon's speed limit is 70. ...It's the country's most lucrative speed trap waiting to happen.

Driving US 395 from Lakeview to Burns, which is pretty stinking lonely road, the fuzz in Oregon still managed to nail a couple people in the middle of the desert 90 miles from nuthin'. The speed limit was 55. Ridiculous.

[Beltway]

Confusion on your part.  Hypothesizing 20 to 25 years into the future is Fantasy Highways territory.

Can you just answer the hypothetical situation?

No.  Waaaaayy too far in the future.  Too many variables. 

I don't have to play these games if I can see them for what they are.

[Beltway]

Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.
*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?

Those highways were authorized back when rural Interstate highways cost $1 million per mile to build and there was no need to rehabilitate and reconstruct aging Interstate highways.
Today it is incredibly expensive just to keep 40,000+ miles of 40 to 50 year old Interstate highway corridors in continuing safe and efficient operation.

This is an argument about demand, and should not be twisted into an argument about cost. Regardless of the financial feasibility, the demand is there for upgrading the Austin-Houston corridor to a full freeway. It is most certainly warranted when looked at next to the examples mentioned above. The Houston metro is also much larger than anything mentioned above.

Those examples are irrelevant, for the reasons I stated. 

Cost has to be a factor, otherwise someone might argue for a freeway between Asbury Park and Queens.

Two corridors already exist that are 4-lane arterial or better, US-290 and TX-71/I-10, and I suggested a 15-mile freeway connector that would enable for a decent all-freeway route.

[oscar]

Boise to Winnemucca, avoiding Oregon entirely.

The existing Boise-Winnemucca route, US 95, includes a lot of mileage in Oregon. Avoiding Oregon would require a new and longer corridor, through pretty much roadless and unpopulated parts of Idaho and Nevada.

[webny99]

This is an argument about demand, and should not be twisted into an argument about cost. Regardless of the financial feasibility, the demand is there for upgrading the Austin-Houston corridor to a full freeway. It is most certainly warranted when looked at next to the examples mentioned above. The Houston metro is also much larger than anything mentioned above.

Those examples are irrelevant, for the reasons I stated. 

Cost has to be a factor, otherwise someone might argue for a freeway between Asbury Park and Queens.

Two corridors already exist that are 4-lane arterial or better, US-290 and TX-71/I-10, and I suggested a 15-mile freeway connector that would enable for a decent all-freeway route.

Cost is absolutely not a factor in whether its needed. Cost is a factor in whether it gets built. As mentioned, the two shouldn't be twisted.

There isn't a basis to claim those examples are irrelevant. If anything, they aren't superlative enough; Austin to Houston is needed to a greater extent than any of those except arguably I-71.

[sprjus4]

TxDOT has plans to upgrade 40 miles of rural US-281 divided highway to interstate standards by building continuous frontage roads and 10+ interchanges... the cost estimate is $500 million. About $12.5 million per mile.

This isn't Virginia where new location construction costs $50+ million per mile, and not to mention most of this isn't new location construction, it's upgrading existing rural roadway by constructing continuous frontage roads, bridges every few miles, and slip ramps between the mainline and frontage road every few miles.

Construction costs are a lot cheaper in Texas, especially rural construction. And design standards are a lot different in Texas... different then pretty much any other state.

[doorknob60]

Oregon's speed limit is 70. ...It's the country's most lucrative speed trap waiting to happen.

Driving US 395 from Lakeview to Burns, which is pretty stinking lonely road, the fuzz in Oregon still managed to nail a couple people in the middle of the desert 90 miles from nuthin'. The speed limit was 55. Ridiculous.

Back in those days, my experience is they wouldn't ticket you if you kept it below 70. I was riding with a friend (with Washington plates) between Burns and Bend, same deal. He got pulled over for going 70 in the 55, but just got a warning. I had told him "you can go 65" (not wanting to be stuck in the car for 5 hours at 55 MPH lol), indicating that even though the limit was 55, 65 was safe from being pulled over. I guess he interpreted that as "the speed limit is 65, so I'll go 5 over that". Luckily didn't result in a ticket or I would have felt bad. And I'd driven it many times (in Oregon plates), usually going right around 70, never an issue.

You can feel better about the fact that these highways are 65 now (and 70 on US-95), not 55.

[skluth]

Confusion on your part.  Hypothesizing 20 to 25 years into the future is Fantasy Highways territory.

Can you just answer the hypothetical situation? Would Virginia be in the position to advance construction on 60+ miles of upgrades to non-limited-access US-58 to interstate standards, or would they upgrade 14 miles of limited-access highway to tie into an existing interstate highway (I-87 running from the state line to Raleigh, as authorized by the FHWA in May 2016) at that point in time?

You've made the claim in the past Virginia would see past the vanity of an I-87 corridor even after completed, and if desired a southern connection, would build it out on US-58 even when I-87 existed... yet you're claiming here TxDOT should just stick with I-10 and TX-130 because they're existing freeways, even if it's 20 miles longer then the non-limited-access 4-lane existing route.

Seeing a double standard, and that's what my confusion is.

Going by the past, Virginia didn't see the need to upgrade US 17 in Chesapeake to four lanes for several years after North Carolina did on their side of the border despite an agreement of sorts (similar to the MO/AR I-49 impasse). When they did, they only upgraded the section alongside the Great Dismal Swamp and stopped when it became Dominion Blvd. (As an aside, I admit it's a very nice stretch of road with long wildlife underpasses.) Chesapeake finally went ahead and paid for the remaining upgrade by making the US 17 Elizabeth River Bridge a toll, much like they did with VA 168 to bypass Great Bridge after waiting for the Commonwealth to build a new Intercoastal Waterway bridge. Virginia doesn't have a long-term plan. Guessing what the Commonwealth will do is like predicting how dice will roll. They will likely continue to piecemeal upgrade the US 58 corridor in erratic chunks like they've done over the last few decades regardless of whatever NC does.

[sprjus4]

Going by the past, Virginia didn't see the need to upgrade US 17 in Chesapeake to four lanes for several years after North Carolina did on their side of the border despite an agreement of sorts (similar to the MO/AR I-49 impasse). When they did, they only upgraded the section alongside the Great Dismal Swamp and stopped when it became Dominion Blvd. (As an aside, I admit it's a very nice stretch of road with long wildlife underpasses. Chesapeake finally went ahead and paid for the remaining upgrade by making the US 17 Elizabeth River Bridge a toll, much like they did with VA 168 to bypass Great Bridge after waiting for the Commonwealth to build a new Intercoastal Waterway bridge. Virginia doesn't have a long-term plan. Guessing what the Commonwealth will do is like predicting how dice will roll. They will likely continue to piecemeal upgrade the US 58 corridor in erratic chunks like they've done over the last few decades regardless of whatever NC does.

Gotta disagree with a few things... Virginia never built the US-17 realignment until 2005 due to lack of funding, not because they "didn't see the need", and the same applies with VA-168 - lack of funding. They had planned to widen US-17 on alignment for decades before, and finally went with a relocated alignment in the early 2000s when funding came around.

Dominion Blvd has been in the works since the 90s, and was always intended to be a 4-lane limited-access arterial south of Cedar Rd, and 4-lane freeway north of Cedar Rd. Again, VDOT was lacking funding for years, and Chesapeake didn't want to wait any longer and pushed ahead with their own project that would fully build it out, and paid for it mostly by tolls, though about $80 million came from state & federal funding.

As for VA-168, the ultimate plan for the corridor was set in the 60s, 4-lane freeway on new location from I-64 to south of Great Bridge, and then widen to 4-lane rural divided non-limited-access highway south of there to the North Carolina state line, with a new-location relocation around of Hickory. VDOT constructed the 4 mile Great Bridge Bypass (including the Intracoastal Waterway brige) that opened in March 1981, but did not have funding to complete the rest of the project. Chesapeake funded & constructed the $38 million Oak Grove Connector between I-64 and VA-168 Business north of Great Bridge that opened in July 1999 using traditional funding, and today is a regular 4-lane urban freeway. South of Great Bridge is where it had been back and forth planning for decades. Around the late 80s is when Chesapeake took over the project since VDOT did not have funding, and planned to construct it as a toll road, and determined instead of widening the existing road like planned, it would be a new location toll freeway parallel to the old road. That opened in May 2001 as a regular 4-lane rural freeway, and a toll is collected near the state line.

The funding of these two key highways has been a roller coaster for many decades and as of 2016 are both finally completed. Future potential projects, like upgrading US-17 into I-87 would be easier to fund nowadays, because in 2013 the HRTAC was created, which generates $200 - $400 million annually for Hampton Roads highway construction projects, funded by a gas tax increase that went in effect for the Hampton Roads area in 2013. That program has since been able to fully fund the $4 billion HRBT expansion, $400 million High Rise Bridge expansion, $500 million I-64 expansions on the Peninsula, the $300 million I-64 / I-264 interchange overhaul, and more projects are planned over the next 20 years, and I-87 may become one of those projects in later years, especially if NCDOT completes at least the segment between Elizabeth City and the Virginia state line.

It's going to be interesting to see how I-87 plays out over the next 20 years, and even more interesting what happens to the project in Virginia as North Carolina completes it up to the state line.

It's important to note, and many keep forgetting as they criticize North Carolina for forcing Virginia to play, I-87's current approved routing does not enter Virginia - it starts at the state line and ends in Raleigh. Virginia would have to apply to extend the designation from there to I-64 and Norfolk to even bring it above the state line, and nobody is forcing them too. It's a mere choice Virginia has if they want to complete a seamless connection to I-64 - if they don't, the existing US-17 will continue handling traffic adequately, and will handle any future traffic generated from the interstate.

They will likely continue to piecemeal upgrade the US 58 corridor in erratic chunks like they've done over the last few decades regardless of whatever NC does.

Now that the entire corridor is 4-lane divided with town bypasses, no more large-scale upgrades are planned and probably will never come for many decades. The latest upgrade was an interchange in Courtland, which helped flow traffic through a signal, but nothing major. In that same area, they just reduced the speed limit to 50 mph, and also increased the police presence in the area. The only other thing coming is a 6-lane widening near Suffolk for congestion relief, which is needed, but again, doesn't have a large impact on the corridor outside of rush hours. They recently completed a study on the US-58 corridor between Bowers Hill and I-95, but all that ended up being was recommending where innovative intersections should be, and that a diverging diamond should be constructed with US-58 and I-95 in Emporia. No mention of an interstate buildout of US-58.

A doubt we'll be seeing any progress towards freeway upgrades along US-58 in the next few decades, unless a serious push is made to improve US-58 to interstate standards throughout. Only spot improvements here and there, but that's about all I'm seeing on the radar. Meanwhile, planning continues in North Carolina, and 80 miles of US-17 is planned to be upgraded to interstate standards, and about 45 miles of freeway have been built in the US-64 / US-17 corridor since the late 90s, and now the remaining gaps are planned to be closed creating one seamless freeway. It's easy to see VDOT is more likely to fall to I-87 if any southern freeway is desired once it gets well underway through the Tar Heel State, seeing only a few interchanges will need to built on the limited-access US-17, some upgrades to the roadway and the Oak Grove Connector interchange, and that's it. Far less needed and far less expensive then upgrading 60+ miles of non-limited-access to interstate, and at least 25 miles of new location construction needed. It'd likely be at least $2 billion to complete a US-58 connection compared to $200 - $300 million for an I-87 connection. A few tricky areas to tackle with US-58 as well, Emporia and western Suffolk standing out. It'd involve expensive construction to seamlessly tie in the existing Suffolk Bypass to a new location freeway, and the I-95 junction will involve a massive interchange likely being needed as apart of a bypass extension back to US-58 west of Emporia. Not impossible, but a lot of construction and expensive. Upgrading the Oak Grove Connector interchange won't be a huge task for an I-87 connection, especially since most of the substandard features of it are programmed to be completely overhauled apart of I-64 Phase 2 widening to 8-lanes.

[Beltway]

Gotta disagree with a few things... Virginia never built the US-17 realignment until 2005 due to lack of funding, not because they "didn't see the need", and the same applies with VA-168 - lack of funding. They had planned to widen US-17 on alignment for decades before, and finally went with a relocated alignment in the early 2000s when funding came around.

Not true.  This has been discussed before.

It took many years of work with the ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and other resource agencies to work out how to expand US-17 south of Dominion Blvd., various alternatives were evaluated.  The old highway was too close to the canal and had subbase drainage issues due to having so little elevation above ground level.  Close to the Dismal Swamp. 

Changing decisions at ACOE was the biggest factor in the delays.

Most of the length of the new highway was constructed about 1,000 yards east of the old road location in order to limit disturbance to the Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge and surrounding forests and wetlands.

As part of this project, VDOT donated 758 acres (that is over 1 square mile) of existing wetlands to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as wetland preservation. In addition to the wetlands donation, VDOT purchased about 16 acres of mineral soil wetlands, and is created about 9.6 acres of forested, organic soil wetlands within the project corridor.

The cost was only $41 million for 12 miles of highway construction, so cost was not a major issue.

Now that the entire corridor is 4-lane divided with town bypasses, no more large-scale upgrades are planned and probably will never come for many decades.

I have actually been following highway issues for "many decades" and anyone that can make a statement like that is full of baloney (or their hobby is VI-87).

[Beltway]

There isn't a basis to claim those examples are irrelevant. If anything, they aren't superlative enough; Austin to Houston is needed to a greater extent than any of those except arguably I-71.

I-71 was built when rural Interstate highway construction cost $1 million per mile.  The segment between Cincinnati and Columbus would not be built today if it did not already exist.