Loops That Are Too Big For Their City?

[sprjus4]

I-469 in Fort Wayne Indiana always seemed odd and out of the way.

SM-G996U

It provides a connection towards US-30 and US-24 east from I-69, and has utility for long distance traffic.

[paulthemapguy]

The entire premise of this thread might not make any sense.  The point of bypasses is to provide a bypass around a city, for traffic passing through the metroplex that doesn't want to be slowed down by urban traffic.  These days, we've become so numb to the constant advancement of urban sprawl that we fully expect a bypass route to be engulfed by development, and thus, swarmed with traffic generated by that development.  That defeats the whole purpose of the beltway, though. The intent behind bypasses is to facilitate through-traffic meeting the relevant metroplex as an intermediate stop.  The intent isn't to have its bypass status revoked by an expansion of the metropolis.

Cincinnati's I-275, for example, came to my mind immediately upon seeing the premise of this thread.  I-275 maintains a wide radius from the city center, providing a bypass for anyone who wants to transfer from one radial highway to another.  This is unusual for beltways in the United States, but "unusual" doesn't mean "bad"; "unusual" means "good" in this case, as most beltways in the United States have become too engulfed by urban sprawl to serve as an effective bypass. Bypasses are meant to relieve traffic congestion in the city center by moving the thru traffic somewhere else; if people are moving through town instead of using the bypass, that defeats the purpose of the bypass as well. (And plenty of people on I-75 are using I-275's eastern half to bypass Cincinnati, for trips connecting Columbus to Lexington or Dayton to Lexington.)

My assessment is that loop routes can't be too big for their city, but they can be too small.  Then you get situations like I-610 in Houston where you need another beltway wrapping around it (Loop 8)--and even THAT loop is surrounded by development generating a lot of traffic. Loop routes that are too close to the city center to be effective bypasses: now THERE's a thread.

Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city:  Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis 

[HighwayStar]

The entire premise of this thread might not make any sense.  The point of bypasses is to provide a bypass around a city, for traffic passing through the metroplex that doesn't want to be slowed down by urban traffic.  These days, we've become so numb to the constant advancement of urban sprawl that we fully expect a bypass route to be engulfed by development, and thus, swarmed with traffic generated by that development.  That defeats the whole purpose of the beltway, though. The intent behind bypasses is to facilitate through-traffic meeting the relevant metroplex as an intermediate stop.  The intent isn't to have its bypass status revoked by an expansion of the metropolis.

Cincinnati's I-275, for example, came to my mind immediately upon seeing the premise of this thread.  I-275 maintains a wide radius from the city center, providing a bypass for anyone who wants to transfer from one radial highway to another.  This is unusual for beltways in the United States, but "unusual" doesn't mean "bad"; "unusual" means "good" in this case, as most beltways in the United States have become too engulfed by urban sprawl to serve as an effective bypass. Bypasses are meant to relieve traffic congestion in the city center by moving the thru traffic somewhere else; if people are moving through town instead of using the bypass, that defeats the purpose of the bypass as well. (And plenty of people on I-75 are using I-275's eastern half to bypass Cincinnati, for trips connecting Columbus to Lexington or Dayton to Lexington.)

My assessment is that loop routes can't be too big for their city, but they can be too small.  Then you get situations like I-610 in Houston where you need another beltway wrapping around it (Loop 8)--and even THAT loop is surrounded by development generating a lot of traffic. Loop routes that are too close to the city center to be effective bypasses: now THERE's a thread.

Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city:  Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis 

Notice that the title of the thread uses the term loop not the term bypass. There is a reason for this.
While a "bypass" is unequivocally designed to get around something without going through it, a loop or a beltway is more nuanced. Some might serve as a bypass, but others are meant to serve as part of a city's highway network. An example of this would be the original inner beltway designs for DC which clearly would not have had a primary purpose of being a bypass.

One reason for this is the fact that the main highways serving a city are often "spokes" to the "wheel" shape of the beltway. So the loop serves to connect places on the same side of the wheel, which are not connected by the spokes without going all the way to their central junction and back out.

So while some loops are bypasses, not all of them are. And something can be too far out to serve as a loop, either because it fails to act as a good bypass, or because it fails to act as a good "city loop."

[vdeane]

I've always thought I-287 goes way too far to the west, at least as to its southern portion.

I'd have to agree with this. It doesn't work very well as a bypass of I-95 as it is. It should either follow a more direct N/S route from Morristown to Edison, or meet up with I-95 at a point further south.

I'll jump on this bandwagon too.  Getting through northern NJ to/from the Thruway is always a little awkward because of this.  The most efficient paths aren't even all-interstate at all - using a starting point on the Turnpike south of exit 8A and an ending point on the Thruway north of exit 15A, the three routes suggested by Google to get to the northern end of I-287 are the Turnpike/I-80 and NJ 17, the GSP and NJ 17, and I-78 and NJ 24 (the only true all-freeway route suggested).  Just adding a shaping point where I-287 turns won't do it (it wants to take NJ 18 then), though a clever one placed between exits 2 and 3 currently will.

[CtrlAltDel]

Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city:  Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis 

On the other hand, a just right bypass of Chicago is I-74 and I-39.

[skluth]

The entire premise of this thread might not make any sense.  The point of bypasses is to provide a bypass around a city, for traffic passing through the metroplex that doesn't want to be slowed down by urban traffic.  These days, we've become so numb to the constant advancement of urban sprawl that we fully expect a bypass route to be engulfed by development, and thus, swarmed with traffic generated by that development.  That defeats the whole purpose of the beltway, though. The intent behind bypasses is to facilitate through-traffic meeting the relevant metroplex as an intermediate stop.  The intent isn't to have its bypass status revoked by an expansion of the metropolis.

Cincinnati's I-275, for example, came to my mind immediately upon seeing the premise of this thread.  I-275 maintains a wide radius from the city center, providing a bypass for anyone who wants to transfer from one radial highway to another.  This is unusual for beltways in the United States, but "unusual" doesn't mean "bad"; "unusual" means "good" in this case, as most beltways in the United States have become too engulfed by urban sprawl to serve as an effective bypass. Bypasses are meant to relieve traffic congestion in the city center by moving the thru traffic somewhere else; if people are moving through town instead of using the bypass, that defeats the purpose of the bypass as well. (And plenty of people on I-75 are using I-275's eastern half to bypass Cincinnati, for trips connecting Columbus to Lexington or Dayton to Lexington.)

My assessment is that loop routes can't be too big for their city, but they can be too small.  Then you get situations like I-610 in Houston where you need another beltway wrapping around it (Loop 8)--and even THAT loop is surrounded by development generating a lot of traffic. Loop routes that are too close to the city center to be effective bypasses: now THERE's a thread.

Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city:  Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis 

Notice that the title of the thread uses the term loop not the term bypass. There is a reason for this.
While a "bypass" is unequivocally designed to get around something without going through it, a loop or a beltway is more nuanced. Some might serve as a bypass, but others are meant to serve as part of a city's highway network. An example of this would be the original inner beltway designs for DC which clearly would not have had a primary purpose of being a bypass.

One reason for this is the fact that the main highways serving a city are often "spokes" to the "wheel" shape of the beltway. So the loop serves to connect places on the same side of the wheel, which are not connected by the spokes without going all the way to their central junction and back out.

So while some loops are bypasses, not all of them are. And something can be too far out to serve as a loop, either because it fails to act as a good bypass, or because it fails to act as a good "city loop."

The inner loop for DC then would be something like 23rd St NW-Florida Av NW-U St-Florida Av NE-8th St NE/SE. The next loop would be Loughboro Rd-Dalecarlia Parkway-Western Av or Nebraska Av-Military Rd-Missouri Av-Riggs Rd-South Dakota Av. They're more de facto loops based on L'Enfant's plan, but they can be used to go around the central city. The DC Beltway is then the third loop around the city and the first that goes completely around since the DC core is adjacent to the Potomac.

[SkyPesos]

Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city:  Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis 

On the other hand, a just right bypass of Chicago is I-74 and I-39.

Don't forget I-43 as part of that Chicago Bypass group, for trips like St Louis-Milwaukee!

[skluth]

Here's a bypass that might be considered "too big" for its city:  Interstate 57 as a bypass of St. Louis 

On the other hand, a just right bypass of Chicago is I-74 and I-39.

Don't forget I-43 as part of that Chicago Bypass group, for trips like St Louis-Milwaukee!

I was just going to post that.

[CtrlAltDel]

Here's an, admittedly blurry, image of the 1958 plan.

[thenetwork]

I-469 in Fort Wayne Indiana always seemed odd and out of the way.

SM-G996U

I-469: The Route Number?  YES!  The actual freeway itself?  No, for the fact Its a bypass loop for most of the US-24/30/35 traffic which criss-crosses the Fort Wayne area.

There is no real reason for I-69 through traffic to use I-469 as the parent route is, for the most part, a bypass of Fort Wayne to the west already.

[1995hoo]

I've always thought I-287 goes way too far to the west, at least as to its southern portion.

I'd have to agree with this. It doesn't work very well as a bypass of I-95 as it is. It should either follow a more direct N/S route from Morristown to Edison, or meet up with I-95 at a point further south.

I'll jump on this bandwagon too.  Getting through northern NJ to/from the Thruway is always a little awkward because of this.  The most efficient paths aren't even all-interstate at all - using a starting point on the Turnpike south of exit 8A and an ending point on the Thruway north of exit 15A, the three routes suggested by Google to get to the northern end of I-287 are the Turnpike/I-80 and NJ 17, the GSP and NJ 17, and I-78 and NJ 24 (the only true all-freeway route suggested).  Just adding a shaping point where I-287 turns won't do it (it wants to take NJ 18 then), though a clever one placed between exits 2 and 3 currently will.

I remember many years ago I was headed to Parisippany to attend two college friends' wedding in Rockaway, New Jersey. Whatever rudimentary mapping software existed back then suggested the Turnpike to I-287 to I-80 one exit west to the hotel. That route seemed absurd and I took the Turnpike to the Garden State Parkway to I-280 instead. It's interesting to see that measuring it out on Google Maps just now, using a point immediately south of Exit 10 on the Turnpike as the start point and that hotel's location as the endpoint, reveals that the difference in distances is only eight miles (37.8 miles the way I went, 45.8 miles using I-287). I'm really surprised to see the difference is that insignificant. (That trip was prior to E-ZPass, too. Maybe I didn't save any time due to having to stop at the toll plazas.)

Usually on trips to Montreal I've just used the Garden State Parkway to the Thruway because I-287 looks so far out of the way on a map. I've always mildly wanted to clinch I-287 simply because I've never used any of that road in New Jersey, so I just measured out the distance from Exit 10 on the Turnpike to a point just north of where I-287 joins the Thruway. The I-287 route is 70.1 miles, the route I've normally used is 57 miles, and cutting over on NJ-17 instead (which I've never done) makes it 52 miles. That's a bit more significant of a difference, but on the other hand, in the overall context of a 660-mile drive to Montreal, 18 miles longer is trivial unless there were to be a major traffic issue or the like. Maybe I'll have to go that way someday. (Certainly in the context of more localized driving an 18-mile difference could be much more significant.)

I guess looking at a map and seeing that exaggerated curve far to the west on the southern part of I-287 perhaps overlooks the fundamental point of just how small New Jersey really is. It's only 67.9 miles across the state on I-78 from the Pennsylvania state line to the New York state line.

[webny99]

I remember many years ago I was headed to Parisippany to attend two college friends' wedding in Rockaway, New Jersey. Whatever rudimentary mapping software existed back then suggested the Turnpike to I-287 to I-80 one exit west to the hotel. That route seemed absurd and I took the Turnpike to the Garden State Parkway to I-280 instead. It's interesting to see that measuring it out on Google Maps just now, using a point immediately south of Exit 10 on the Turnpike as the start point and that hotel's location as the endpoint, reveals that the difference in distances is only eight miles (37.8 miles the way I went, 45.8 miles using I-287). I'm really surprised to see the difference is that insignificant. (That trip was prior to E-ZPass, too. Maybe I didn't save any time due to having to stop at the toll plazas.)

Parsippany is far enough west that it's basically two sides of a square either way. The bigger issue time-wise is for traffic wanting to use I-287 to bypass Newark/NYC/southern Westchester entirely, as you've noted below...

Usually on trips to Montreal I've just used the Garden State Parkway to the Thruway because I-287 looks so far out of the way on a map. I've always mildly wanted to clinch I-287 simply because I've never used any of that road in New Jersey, so I just measured out the distance from Exit 10 on the Turnpike to a point just north of where I-287 joins the Thruway. The I-287 route is 70.1 miles, the route I've normally used is 57 miles, and cutting over on NJ-17 instead (which I've never done) makes it 52 miles. That's a bit more significant of a difference ...

Another option is I-78 to NJ 24 to I-287. I've used that route going to/from Union County NJ and points north and it seems to work well. It does avoid the worst of the Garden State Parkway, which in my experience seems to often be a slog between Union and Paramus. I-287 is plenty busy too, but it's a bit more rural/exurban in character so it usually moves well and certainly has a lot less of the stop-and-go traffic you'll get on the Garden State.

[Bickendan]

London's M25

[silverback1065]

I-275 Cincinnati. Not an effective bypass for I-75 at all (and barely one for I-71 via the eastern side). It should've crossed the Ohio River near CVG airport as originally planned, instead of looping all the way west to Indiana.

Yep that is a good one.
I think the origin of many of these is going to involve canceled/altered designs, since competent engineers would not design a loop to be too far out. Alternatively, they may be "aspirational" in nature, based on development that may or may not be coming to fruition.

Yes, I-275 was altered, because Lawrenceburg, IN wanted to be included on an interstate highway so badly.

No what happened was they were going to add a bridge there that wasn't an interstate. and 275 was proposed it made no sense for 2 bridges so they just went with 1.

[ran4sh]

Georgia route 10 Loop (serving Athens) is too far from Athens on the west side, it would be more useful if the connection between US 129 on the north and south were shorter. In fact, the shape of the loop is so lopsided that UGA (listed as "Univ of Georgia") is a "control city" for the eastbound loop from the southwest side.

However, instead of a loop with the west side closer to the city, I would probably prefer a larger loop that is farther out on the north, east, and south sides.

Pretty sure this one has not been done yet, but what are examples of loops that are too big for their city?

Another example might be I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, as it is really a bit far out to be useful as a loop for Washington.

I-495, like I-285 in Georgia, is actually too small for its metro area. Regardless of whether a smaller loop is needed, a larger one is definitely needed.

[Ned Weasel]

I-435 around Kansas City loops too far north. I think it could have followed MO 152 rather than loop all the way to I-29.

Arguably, it doesn't loop far enough to the south.  I'd assume they originally wanted it to loop around the airport, though, which would explain why it goes so far north.

[US20IL64]

I remember reading an article about KC in National Geographic way back, said annexed land in north to plan for future suburban growth. Turned out many moved to Overland Park KS area.

[hbelkins]

(And plenty of people on I-75 are using I-275's eastern half to bypass Cincinnati, for trips connecting Columbus to Lexington or Dayton to Lexington.)

I've never noticed this at all, except for times when the Brent Spence Bridge was closed or under construction.

Traffic heading north to Dayton or into Michigan stays on I-75. Traffic heading to Columbus stays on I-71.

I will admit to using the eastern half of 275 as a bypass of I-75 once in my life. I think I had stayed in Dayton the night before and opted for I-275 over I-75 for two reasons. One was for a roadgeeking change of pace; the other was a home Bengals game that I figured would dog-knot traffic approaching the river. I may have taken the AA Highway to Maysville and then south on KY 11 instead of returning to I-75 to head to Lexington on that trip, but I'm not certain.

If I want to go to Columbus, I take the Industrial Parkway and US 23. If I want to go to Dayton, I cross at Maysville and take US 68 and OH 73 to bypass Cincinnati entirely. I've been caught in the afternoon jam-ups, particularly the one near the Lateral and Paddock Drive that has no evident reason for existing, way too many times to ever want to do it again.

My primary use for I-275 is to connect to I-74.

[SkyPesos]

If I want to go to Dayton, I cross at Maysville and take US 68 and OH 73 to bypass Cincinnati entirely.

Isn't US 68 to US 35 faster than US 68/OH 73/I-75 from Maysville to Dayton? Unless you have an issue with US 35 between Dayton and Xenia as well...

I've been caught in the afternoon jam-ups, particularly the one near the Lateral and Paddock Drive that has no evident reason for existing, way too many times to ever want to do it again.

I got caught in a jam on a few Sunday afternoons going from OH 562 WB to I-75 NB. My guess is the high amount of I-75 traffic and the short merge area on the 562 on-ramp to I-75 NB. Always seems like a good chunk of traffic exits at OH 126, and it's a breeze north of that.

The issue here (along with the Brent Spence Bridge) would be less if Cincinnati had a better bypass for I-75.

[hbelkins]

If I want to go to Dayton, I cross at Maysville and take US 68 and OH 73 to bypass Cincinnati entirely.

Isn't US 68 to US 35 faster than US 68/OH 73/I-75 from Maysville to Dayton? Unless you have an issue with US 35 between Dayton and Xenia as well...

It might be, but the times I've done that routing, I was staying at Miamisburg.

[Road Hog]

I-840 wasn't completed back when I made a regular yearly visit to a farm in Coffee County. But I would cut across through Franklin and Leiper's Fork on 2-lane roads anyway, and greatly enjoyed the side trip.

[skluth]

^ I personally found I-275 around Cincinnati very useful when I wanted to connect to OH 32. There is no good way to go from the city to the I-275/OH 32 interchange.

[SSR_317]

I-469 in Fort Wayne Indiana always seemed odd and out of the way.

SM-G996U

I-469: The Route Number?  YES!  The actual freeway itself?  No, for the fact Its a bypass loop for most of the US-24/30/35 traffic which criss-crosses the Fort Wayne area.

There is no real reason for I-69 through traffic to use I-469 as the parent route is, for the most part, a bypass of Fort Wayne to the west already.

Uh, I think you meant US 33 not US 35, which comes nowhere NEAR the Ft. Wayne region... unless you count Gas City, IN as part of the Summit City's metro area.

And what is strange about the route number 469? Are you thinking it should've been I-869 because of its location? You have to remember, at the time I-469 was first proposed, extending its parent route south of Indianapolis was still only a dream.

As for the original poster's comment about I-469's routing being "odd and out of the way", you have to consider the city's growth pattern and the location of I-69 within surrounding Allen County. For nearly 7 decades now, the city has had a northeast to southwest orientation for most development. With Baer Field (now Ft. Wayne International Airport) to the southwest of town, any connection to I-69 south of the city was by nature gonna be "out in the country". Add in that an interchange already existed at Lafayette Center Road (named after the township in which it is located) and the fact that it continues west for about 5 miles to US 24 at Roanoke, and that leg was pretty much destined to be as it was constructed. On the southeast, east, and northeast sides of town, the freeway was built as close to the core city as the rivers, railroads, existing development, and the City of New Haven allowed it to be. I see very little "odd" or "out of the way" about that!

One last note: because it is a half loop, and precisely because I-69 is itself a west & north bypass of Ft. Wayne, taking I-469 is 11 miles longer than just staying on the parent route.

[dvferyance]

I-840 in Nashville is a good example.  Though its original intent wasn't necessarily to bypass Nashville, but rather to connect Dickson (pop. 15,579), Franklin (pop. 83,454), Murfreesboro (pop. 152,769), and Lebanon (pop. 38,431).  TN 96 between Franklin to Murfreesboro had always been a particularly dangerous two lane road prior to the completion of 840.  It became much more subdued after 840 was fully opened between those two cities, and is now undergoing improvements that will probably eventually see it widened for its entire length.

Nowadays I-840 can, during certain rush hour conditions, be faster than I-40 to travel between Dickson and Lebanon.  They now have permanent travel time signs telling how long it takes to get to either of those cities via 40 or 840 as you approach the 840 interchanges eastbound from Dickson or westbound from Lebanon.  These are very similar to what Virginia posts in many places around the Hampton Roads and Richmond areas.

Nashville is growing by leaps and bounds. Sure it may seem far out now but give it 20 years it's all going to fill in.

[NE2]

M-185.