Beltway / Bypass, or Mainline?

[Bickendan]

I-205 is largely very good at doing its job, despite being longer than taking I-5 from Tualatin to Salmon Creek or to Troutdale or Camas.

[DTComposer]

I-405 in CA is the classic beltway that doesn't work. Portions of it that weren't as developed when the freeway was originally built were subsumed by the LA metro area's explosive development, and it's not a viable bypass of anything.

I-405 bypasses downtown Los Angeles, especially the East LA Interchange, which can be congested even on Sundays

In 25 years of going between Long Beach and the Bay Area, it's a crap shoot on whether I-405 or I-710/I-5 was the better bet. Sometimes it had to do with time of day, but honestly there was an equal chance of traffic on I-405 around LAX or the Sepulveda Pass as there was on I-5 downtown. Heck, there were more than a few times when I-5/CA-170/US-101/I-5 was the preferred route.

The same story on the northern "bypass" - sometimes I-210 to I-605 is better, sometimes just staying on I-5 is better. Usually, neither is great.

[Flint1979]

In Detroit neither I-275 or I-696 do a good job bypassing the city. US-23 does the best job of it bypassing I-75 starting in Perrysburg, Ohio and going all the way to Flint.

[webny99]

^ Well, I-275 would be great if it was complete...

[Flint1979]

^ Well, I-275 would be great if it was complete...

Yeah that won't happen now though since there is too much in the way. It would have been nice.

[CtrlAltDel]

I-610 in Houston definitely worked in the past, but similarly to I-285 in Atlanta and I-405 in LA, massive development has sprung up around it and traffic and construction are perennial problems, so it's not super effective (especially the West Loop). Luckily, Houston has two other beltways that you can use if 610 is having issues. I personally think Beltway 8 is the most effective of the three (for me at least), but it is tolled and can have traffic problems depending on the time. The Grand Parkway is out of the way and is not a complete loop but has (relatively) little traffic for Houston.

The moral of the story is any of the 3 beltways can work effectively depending on the situation, but check the construction status and traffic before picking which one to use.

I was thinking that Houston has sprawled out so much that the beltways don't seem to make a difference anymore. Grand Parkway doesn't look like it would save much time for traffic trying to go straight through the city. Much like Atlanta or LA, it seems like there aren't any good choices.

For the record, here are the travel times and distances lateish rush hour yesterday evening from a point on I-10 just west of TX-99 near Katy to a point on I-10 just east of TX-99 near Mont Belvieu:

I-10 straight through
1:13
62.6

I-610 north branch
1:24
64.9

I-610 south branch
1:35
73.9

TX-8 north branch
1:41
80.8

TX-8 south branch
1:34
81.4

TX-99 north branch
1:35
97.0

As you can see, the travel times don't vary all that much while the distances do, but all the same going straight through on I-10 is the fastest.

[05danper42842]

State Loop 12 and Belt Line Road are one the best Beltways in DFW. Especially when there is alot traffic on 635. State Loop 12 is the inner loop and beltline serves as a outer loop for street traffic and also for skipping traffic on highways.

[Avalanchez71]

There is no political will power to build the Nothern half of I-840.  The folks don't want to develop the Northern half like the Southern half.  There was a big showdown to even halt the I-65 to I-40 portion to Dickson.

[freebrickproductions]

I wish they had a real bypass for I-65 though. That is brutal.

Agreed. I-65 northbound at the merge with I-24 is always a parking lot unless you happen to hit it during/just after the morning rush, in my experience.

[SkyPesos]

For the full beltways I've been on...

I-275 Cincinnati: Terrible bypass for I-75 (+16 miles along the east, +19 miles along the west), and a bit better for I-71 (+11 miles along the east).

I-270 Columbus: Works as a bypass for I-70 (+4 miles along the south), less so as an I-71 bypass (+9 miles along the north/west) plus heavy local traffic on that part.

I-465 Indianapolis: Works as a bypass for both I-65 and I-70, at least when the construction wraps up.

I-270/255 St Louis: Works for I-55 and I-70 (add I-370 in for some extra bypass length for I-70).

I have yet to use St. Louis' beltway to follow the spirit of 66 en route to the southwest, so I can't grade that on personal experience. (The one trip that direction I've made so far, I wanted to clinch the east end of I-44. )

Between the I-44/I-270 interchange and the I-55/70/270 interchange, it's 35 miles via I-44/55, 40 miles using I-270/255/55 on the south/east, and 45 miles using I-270 on the north/west. So 270/255 works as a reasonable bypass for the "Route 66" corridor through St Louis, but what I found interesting is that approaching I-270 on I-44 EB, Chicago is signed as the control city for I-270 north instead, even though that's the slower of the two bypass routes.

[PColumbus73]

I'll add that since it's been built, I've used the Greensboro Outer Loop following US 421 (and I-73 & 85) when traveling up to Ohio. In that regard, it works well for me. Since the loop was built, does it make it easier for I-40 traffic to punch straight through Greensboro?

[mgk920]

WI 441 is used pretty much entirely for local access, anyone transiting the Appleton, WI area normally stays on I-41.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

WI 441 is used pretty much entirely for local access, anyone transiting the Appleton, WI area normally stays on I-41.

I would take WI-441 northbound when coming through the area during busy stretches because traffic was usually much lighter, and I could avoid the mess where I-41 drops a lane.

[mgk920]

WI 441 is used pretty much entirely for local access, anyone transiting the Appleton, WI area normally stays on I-41.

I would take WI-441 northbound when coming through the area during busy stretches because traffic was usually much lighter, and I could avoid the mess where I-41 drops a lane.

I would expect that through traffic levels on WI 441 will increase over the next few years due to the I-41 six laning project, but that will likely go back to normal what that is all done.

Mike

[roadman65]

Although not a beltway TX SH 6 is a good bypass of Houston if going from Galveston to points west on I-10.

It's pretty much a beeline from its southern terminus to I-69 with very little stoplights. Then from I-69 to US 90 ALT I'm not sure the drive through Sugarland, but if it's not bad use it to WB US 90 ALT to Grand Parkway to I-10.

If not use I-69 to Grand Parkway ( as I did from I-10 to Galveston) as all the combo works great to bypass Houston.

[CoreySamson]

Although not a beltway TX SH 6 is a good bypass of Houston if going from Galveston to points west on I-10.

It's pretty much a beeline from its southern terminus to I-69 with very little stoplights.

The road might be high capacity and have a high speed limit for an undivided 6 lane road (60 mph for some of the stretch), but it is not a great bypass. It is a busy slog with a lot of traffic lights that adds about 30 minutes to the itinerary (if you are going from Katy to Galveston). There is an incredible amount of development sprouting up along it (especially SE of Sugar Land), which only adds to the amount of traffic and lights. It used to be a good bypass, but that recent development has somewhat ruined its viability as a bypass.

[ilpt4u]

I-270/255 St Louis: Works for I-55 and I-70 (add I-370 in for some extra bypass length for I-70).

I have yet to use St. Louis' beltway to follow the spirit of 66 en route to the southwest, so I can't grade that on personal experience. (The one trip that direction I've made so far, I wanted to clinch the east end of I-44. )

Between the I-44/I-270 interchange and the I-55/70/270 interchange, it's 35 miles via I-44/55, 40 miles using I-270/255/55 on the south/east, and 45 miles using I-270 on the north/west. So 270/255 works as a reasonable bypass for the "Route 66" corridor through St Louis, but what I found interesting is that approaching I-270 on I-44 EB, Chicago is signed as the control city for I-270 north instead, even though that's the slower of the two bypass routes.

We had quite a discussion on how the STL beltway Controls should be signed at the I-44 junction a few years back on the "Redesign This!" thread...

Yes Chicago is signed for I-270 North but it is shorter to get back to I-55/Old US 66 using 270 South

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.3500

[ran4sh]

Saying that a beltway "doesn't work" requires agreement on what the purpose of a beltway is. Because I'm sure the people that live near I-285 in Atlanta like the fact that the beltway is pretty much used as a local route.

[PColumbus73]

Saying that a beltway "doesn't work" requires agreement on what the purpose of a beltway is. Because I'm sure the people that live near I-285 in Atlanta like the fact that the beltway is pretty much used as a local route.

I think in most cases, beltways are planned and built with the goal of relieving traffic by allowing traffic passing through to avoid the center. If taking I-20, 75, or 85 straight through is faster than using I-285, then I-285 doesn't function as intended. Either because the city / metro area has sprawled so much (i.e. Atlanta or Houston) to consume it, or the route it takes makes it a less time-efficient route around the center (i.e. Cincinnati).

[ran4sh]

Again, that's an opinion. What is a fact is, trucks are required to use I-285 and not I-20/75/85 through the center. That rule by itself means I-285 will always be more congested. So it could be argued that the purpose was to remove truck traffic (but not other traffic) from the center.

[Dirt Roads]

I'll add that since it's been built, I've used the Greensboro Outer Loop following US 421 (and I-73 & 85) when traveling up to Ohio. In that regard, it works well for me. Since the loop was built, does it make it easier for I-40 traffic to punch straight through Greensboro?

Yes, indeed, especially when heading westbound on I-40.  The southern portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop was originally designed as the through route for I-40 and only takes a few minutes longer than heading down the throat of Death Valley during [normal] conditions.  There's a newer VMS just before the I-840/I-785 junction that compares I-40 through times to both the southern arc and the northern arc.  Amazingly, it almost always shows the I-840 northern arc as only 3 minutes longer than the southern arc.

Note that the I-85//I-73 southern arc is shown at the top of the VMS to encourage more traffic to stay off of Death Valley.

All that being said, I find Death Valley to be reminiscent of the old original Interstate System and drive that way most of the time, even when traffic is slower.

[Dirt Roads]

Saying that a beltway "doesn't work" requires agreement on what the purpose of a beltway is. Because I'm sure the people that live near I-285 in Atlanta like the fact that the beltway is pretty much used as a local route.

I think in most cases, beltways are planned and built with the goal of relieving traffic by allowing traffic passing through to avoid the center. If taking I-20, 75, or 85 straight through is faster than using I-285, then I-285 doesn't function as intended. Either because the city / metro area has sprawled so much (i.e. Atlanta or Houston) to consume it, or the route it takes makes it a less time-efficient route around the center (i.e. Cincinnati).

Again, that's an opinion. What is a fact is, trucks are required to use I-285 and not I-20/75/85 through the center. That rule by itself means I-285 will always be more congested. So it could be argued that the purpose was to remove truck traffic (but not other traffic) from the center.

It is highly unusual for someone to argue against the OP's official opinion, but in this case ran4sh makes an intriguing argument.  I-285 is forced upon truckers to be the "Beltway that Works", but for I-75 traffic and I-20 traffic, the Perimeter was never designed to work well as a true bypass.  But in the old days, most folks felt that the Perimeter was a wonderful bypass of I-75 through Atlanta after several hours slogging around Cartersville and Kennesaw before the Interstate was completed across the lake.

[webny99]

This is sort of a sub-topic that may end up being worth its own thread.

Full beltways are somewhat limited in their scope of discussion. Either it works well, or it doesn't because it's congested and/or poorly located, but that's usually a reflection of the metro's overall network, while the concept of a beltway itself is a relatively fixed concept that doesn't vary much from one metro to another. You could argue for secondary beltways for some cities due to growth, but the initial one still serves pretty much the same purpose even if the metro has outgrown it.

However, what are some PARTIAL beltways that work and don't work? This has a bit more nuance and variability from one metro area to another, since the idea isn't to bypass/get around the metro from all directions. Instead it's usually just used from one direction to another or to bypass a single route corridor.

An example that works IMO: US 13/50 around Salisbury, MD. It can be used and easily accessed from all directions of travel, its termini are sufficiently distant from the city center to prevent arterial development beyond the bypass, it has enough exits to have some utility for local traffic but not enough to cause congestion, and it provides easy access to the city center while encouraging all through traffic to stay on the bypass.

An example that does NOT work IMO: US 64 around Asheboro, NC. It's poorly located for US 64 through traffic, time savings versus using the business route are minimal at best, it is redundant for I-74 traffic connecting to US 64 west, and it does not sufficiently serve or provide any benefit for locations north of the city center. Frankly, the southwestern quadrant does not need to exist, the North Carolina Zoo is probably the strongest case for why the southeastern quadrant needs to exist, and even if US 64 does warrant a full bypass, it could have been built around the north side of Asheboro using significantly less mileage and state resources (roughly 7.5 miles instead of 13).

[PColumbus73]

Saying that a beltway "doesn't work" requires agreement on what the purpose of a beltway is. Because I'm sure the people that live near I-285 in Atlanta like the fact that the beltway is pretty much used as a local route.

I think in most cases, beltways are planned and built with the goal of relieving traffic by allowing traffic passing through to avoid the center. If taking I-20, 75, or 85 straight through is faster than using I-285, then I-285 doesn't function as intended. Either because the city / metro area has sprawled so much (i.e. Atlanta or Houston) to consume it, or the route it takes makes it a less time-efficient route around the center (i.e. Cincinnati).

Again, that's an opinion. What is a fact is, trucks are required to use I-285 and not I-20/75/85 through the center. That rule by itself means I-285 will always be more congested. So it could be argued that the purpose was to remove truck traffic (but not other traffic) from the center.

It is highly unusual for someone to argue against the OP's official opinion, but in this case ran4sh makes an intriguing argument.  I-285 is forced upon truckers to be the "Beltway that Works", but for I-75 traffic and I-20 traffic, the Perimeter was never designed to work well as a true bypass.  But in the old days, most folks felt that the Perimeter was a wonderful bypass of I-75 through Atlanta after several hours slogging around Cartersville and Kennesaw before the Interstate was completed across the lake.

I guess it also goes back to what the intent was for the bypass or beltway when it was being planned and built. If the intent was to keep trucks out of downtown Atlanta and not necessarily provide a faster way around the city, then yes, I-285 is working as intended.

The origin of the post comes from the perception that when a beltway or bypass is being built around a city, that it's supposed to be an overall faster and more convenient than going straight through. Perhaps it depends from city to city whether that perception is accurate or not, also considering highways like CC-215 (Las Vegas) and the Loops around Phoenix which seem more aimed at encouraging development, convenience for long-distance traffic might not be that much a priority.

This is sort of a sub-topic that may end up being worth its own thread.

Full beltways are somewhat limited in their scope of discussion. Either it works well, or it doesn't because it's congested and/or poorly located, but that's usually a reflection of the metro's overall network, while the concept of a beltway itself is a relatively fixed concept that doesn't vary much from one metro to another. You could argue for secondary beltways for some cities due to growth, but the initial one still serves pretty much the same purpose even if the metro has outgrown it.

However, what are some PARTIAL beltways that work and don't work? This has a bit more nuance and variability from one metro area to another, since the idea isn't to bypass/get around the metro from all directions. Instead it's usually just used from one direction to another or to bypass a single route corridor.

An example that works IMO: US 13/50 around Salisbury, MD. It can be used and easily accessed from all directions of travel, its termini are sufficiently distant from the city center to prevent arterial development beyond the bypass, it has enough exits to have some utility for local traffic but not enough to cause congestion, and it provides easy access to the city center while encouraging all through traffic to stay on the bypass.

An example that does NOT work IMO: US 64 around Asheboro, NC. It's poorly located for US 64 through traffic, time savings versus using the business route are minimal at best, it is redundant for I-74 traffic connecting to US 64 west, and it does not sufficiently serve or provide any benefit for locations north of the city center. Frankly, the southwestern quadrant does not need to exist, the North Carolina Zoo is probably the strongest case for why the southeastern quadrant needs to exist, and even if US 64 does warrant a full bypass, it could have been built around the north side of Asheboro using significantly less mileage and state resources (roughly 7.5 miles instead of 13).

I think in the first post, I mentioned I-295 around Richmond / Petersburg as being in the camp of 'beltways that work'. To avoid the title being too wordy, I just kept it as 'beltway'. Maybe something like 'Best & Worst of Beltways and Bypasses' would be more accurate, but that might lead back into the question of what makes a beltway or bypass better or worse than another.

[TheStranger]

The origin of the post comes from the perception that when a beltway or bypass is being built around a city, that it's supposed to be an overall faster and more convenient than going straight through. Perhaps it depends from city to city whether that perception is accurate or not, also considering highways like CC-215 (Las Vegas) and the Loops around Phoenix which seem more aimed at encouraging development, convenience for long-distance traffic might not be that much a priority.

Using an example mentioned earlier in the thread:

I-405 in California partially took over an existing arterial corridor, the southern segment of 1934-1958 Route 7 between Sylmar and Lawndale.  (The segment from Route 107 southeast to El Toro is the new-corridor segment, with the portion southeast of Route 19 being the only part of 405 that is not parallel to any portion of Sepulveda Boulevard)

Because of that, even though the routing does take one away from downtown Los Angeles, it is close enough to some significant traffic-generating locales (Long Beach, LAX) that it served more as an outer suburban loop than it ever did as a regional bypass. 

Developments from the 1960s on (Westwood, Sherman Oaks, Irvine) all contributed to even more usage of the road over time and have solidified 405's character as a commute link than any sort of traffic avoidance path.

In comparison, I-280 in San Mateo County ran along an existing bypass route (the Junipero Serra Boulevard corridor) and then along some of where that bypass route had been proposed to extend southward in the late 1940s/early 1950s; this plus a strictly maintained level of rural zoning between Millbrae and Cupertino has allowed that freeway to remain a viable relief route for US 101.