Largest Cities without a freeway connection? or even a 4-lane connection?

[webny99]

The point is that both questions have threads devoted to them. Whether this one gets merged is up to the mods, but it has been sufficiently stated that there are threads where all of the above can be discussed.

[sprjus4]

The point is that both questions have threads devoted to them. Whether this one gets merged is up to the mods, but it has been sufficiently stated that there are threads where all of the above can be discussed.

Yet to see a thread that talks about cities without freeway links to the network.

The threads so far existing are cities without freeways at all, and cities without four-lane.

[hotdogPi]

Brownsville, TX

[Mark68]

I believe that Durango (population approximately 19k, micropolitan statistical area population over 50k) would be the largest city in Colorado not served by either a freeway or four-lane connection to the main network.

[thspfc]

Brownsville, TX

What about US-77 (soon to be I-69E) or US-83 (soon to be I-2)?

[hotdogPi]

Brownsville, TX

What about US-77 (soon to be I-69E) or US-83 (soon to be I-2)?

Doesn't connect with the rest of the system yet.

[RoadMaster09]

Isolated freeways don't count. If it drops to an arterial then that is not a freeway connection. It builds on the Interstate question.

[GaryV]

Michigan: Traverse City or Marquette, and no long range plans include a four lane connection to either (even though TC is only ~25 miles from the northern end of the US-131 freeway; Grand Traverse County (the county in which Traverse City is in) is on pace to hit 100k population by 2030 and most of the infrastructure is built for a county of maybe 50k)

Marquette is larger than Traverse City.  (Interestingly enough, Garfield Twp just to the south of TC is bigger than TC.)

Both of them have 4-lanes, but the roads turn into 2 lane highways as you leave town.

The question is what to consider a "4-lane connection" means in the context of this thread.  US 31 is 4-lane as it goes from TC to Garfield Twp.  Does that eliminate them from consideration, as they both have a 4-lane "connection" to somewhere outside their specific borders?

As for Marquette, US-41/M-28 is 4 lane from Marquette out through the township and into Negaunee - I would submit that qualifies as a "connection" to somewhere and so Marquette is DQ'd.

What about Adrian?  It has a higher population than TC too - and while the 4-lane US-223 exits the city to the township, it doesn't "connect" to anything beyond that.

[sprjus4]

Michigan: Traverse City or Marquette, and no long range plans include a four lane connection to either (even though TC is only ~25 miles from the northern end of the US-131 freeway; Grand Traverse County (the county in which Traverse City is in) is on pace to hit 100k population by 2030 and most of the infrastructure is built for a county of maybe 50k)

Marquette is larger than Traverse City.  (Interestingly enough, Garfield Twp just to the south of TC is bigger than TC.)

Both of them have 4-lanes, but the roads turn into 2 lane highways as you leave town.

The question is what to consider a "4-lane connection" means in the context of this thread.  US 31 is 4-lane as it goes from TC to Garfield Twp.  Does that eliminate them from consideration, as they both have a 4-lane "connection" to somewhere outside their specific borders?

As for Marquette, US-41/M-28 is 4 lane from Marquette out through the township and into Negaunee - I would submit that qualifies as a "connection" to somewhere and so Marquette is DQ'd.

What about Adrian?  It has a higher population than TC too - and while the 4-lane US-223 exits the city to the township, it doesn't "connect" to anything beyond that.

4-lane connection is referring to a 4-lane connection to the state's freeway system. In order for a freeway to be apart of the state's system, it has to link directly into an interstate highway - also interstate highways themselves are apart of the system.

A standalone or isolated freeway (for instance a freeway within an area, but then it drops off onto a non-limited-access roadway) is not apart of the system as it does not connect into the interstate highway system directly.

[sparker]

For the Pacific Coast states, it looks like there are some significant metro areas (over 100K @) within each of them that do require travel on a 2-lane road at some point to reach the "outside world":

CA:  Eureka (Humboldt County); metro area (2017) approximately 110K population.  Both US 101 in either direction and CA 299 (and CA 36 as well) to the east have unavoidable 2-lane sections.
OR:  Bend (Deschutes County); metro area (again, 2017) approximately 175K.  No avoiding 2-lane sections to get out of town.  Metro area includes Redmond & Prineville.
WA:  Wenatchee (Chelan County); metro area -- 2017 -- approximately 115K.  Same thing; 2-lane segments in all directions. 

[vdeane]

Ithaca is noteworthy in NY as being the only metro area large enough to have an MPO that requires using two-lane roads to head anywhere else.  Population 102k.  Poughkeepsie is close (population 424k), but has US 9 as a multi-lane route to the south.

[webny99]

Ithaca is noteworthy in NY as being the only metro area large enough to have an MPO that requires using two-lane roads to head anywhere else.  Population 102k.

I wonder what effect that is having on the growth of the area. It adds to the charm of the region, but the lack of connectivity could also hamper growth.

[Rothman]

They're happy enough without growth, especially as tourists descend en masse in the region every summer.

[Road Hog]

A few others in the Southeast I can think of:

Alabama - Florence

Arkansas - Hot Springs

Georgia - Athens, Rome

Louisiana - New Iberia

Mississippi - Columbus

In Texas, I can think of a bunch: Brownsville-Harlingen-McAllen (probably the largest metro area not in the freeway network), College Station, Del Rio (all 2 lanes!), Lufkin, Nacogdoches, San Angelo, Victoria, and probably others. I know I-69 once completed (as a freeway to those locations continuously in at least one direction) will remove the Rio Grande Valley, Lufkin, Nacogdoches and Victoria from that list though..

Hot Springs is off the list now that ARDOT has expanded US 70 to 5-lane all the way to I-30. According to the most recent official state map it appears that El Dorado now wears the dubious belt.

ADD: Hot Springs shouldn't have been listed in the first place because US 270 has been 4-lane to I-30 at Malvern.

[sprjus4]

A few others in the Southeast I can think of:

Alabama - Florence

Arkansas - Hot Springs

Georgia - Athens, Rome

Louisiana - New Iberia

Mississippi - Columbus

In Texas, I can think of a bunch: Brownsville-Harlingen-McAllen (probably the largest metro area not in the freeway network), College Station, Del Rio (all 2 lanes!), Lufkin, Nacogdoches, San Angelo, Victoria, and probably others. I know I-69 once completed (as a freeway to those locations continuously in at least one direction) will remove the Rio Grande Valley, Lufkin, Nacogdoches and Victoria from that list though..

Hot Springs is off the list now that ARDOT has expanded US 70 to 5-lane all the way to I-30. According to the most recent official state map it appears that El Dorado now wears the dubious belt.

ADD: Hot Springs shouldn't have been listed in the first place because US 270 has been 4-lane to I-30 at Malvern.

That list was referring to cities without a -freeway- connection. Most or all of them have 4-lane connection.

US-270 or US-70 is not a -freeway- to I-30, so it does not have a -freeway- connection.

[webny99]

They're happy enough without growth, especially as tourists descend en masse in the region every summer.

I would consider that growth... growth of the tourism industry.

[mgk920]

I would agree on the Bend, OR area.

Mike

[Life in Paradise]

For Indiana, I'm going with Jasper as the largest city with no 4 lane highways connecting it with the outside world, although there is a plan, and it's probably listed in either a new thread or Indiana Notes (Mid-States Corridor Project).

[JREwing78]

Michigan: Traverse City or Marquette, and no long range plans include a four lane connection to either (even though TC is only ~25 miles from the northern end of the US-131 freeway; Grand Traverse County (the county in which Traverse City is in) is on pace to hit 100k population by 2030 and most of the infrastructure is built for a county of maybe 50k)

Marquette is larger than Traverse City.  (Interestingly enough, Garfield Twp just to the south of TC is bigger than TC.)

Both of them have 4-lanes, but the roads turn into 2 lane highways as you leave town.

The question is what to consider a "4-lane connection" means in the context of this thread.  US 31 is 4-lane as it goes from TC to Garfield Twp.  Does that eliminate them from consideration, as they both have a 4-lane "connection" to somewhere outside their specific borders?

As for Marquette, US-41/M-28 is 4 lane from Marquette out through the township and into Negaunee - I would submit that qualifies as a "connection" to somewhere and so Marquette is DQ'd.

What about Adrian?  It has a higher population than TC too - and while the 4-lane US-223 exits the city to the township, it doesn't "connect" to anything beyond that.

4-lane connection is referring to a 4-lane connection to the state's freeway system. In order for a freeway to be apart of the state's system, it has to link directly into an interstate highway - also interstate highways themselves are apart of the system.

A standalone or isolated freeway (for instance a freeway within an area, but then it drops off onto a non-limited-access roadway) is not apart of the system as it does not connect into the interstate highway system directly.

To clarify things a bit, in Michigan I'm looking at county populations instead of that of the cities:

Delta County (Escanaba) - 35,965
Marquette County (Marquette) - 66,502
Grand Traverse County (Traverse City) - 91,807 (125,438 with Benzie & Leelanau counties included)
Lenawee County (Adrian) - 98,623

Take anywhere in the U.P. off the table in the "largest cities" race. Adrian (20,689) beats Marquette (20,629) in that contest. When you factor in county populations, Lenawee trumps Marquette before even factoring in population density.

Adrian beats Traverse City in population (20,689 to 15,515), but the county populations better defines the traffic demands of the area.  That doesn't take summer tourism into account - Grand Traverse County's summer population is considerably higher during the summer than Lenawee County's (though Lenawee also has a fair number of summer-only residents).

If you're looking at an area in Michigan that desperately needs 4-lane highway access, Traverse City is it. Ideally, it would have connections to the south to US-131 and east to I-75 near Grayling. The 2-lanes into and out of the area are highly overworked.

Lenawee County gets an honorable mention - a freeway connecting Jackson to Toledo would take a lot of pressure off US-23 between Brighton and Toledo, and thus have statewide benefit. 4-lane highways to Traverse City would basically serve just that area.

[keithvh]

For the Pacific Coast states, it looks like there are some significant metro areas (over 100K @) within each of them that do require travel on a 2-lane road at some point to reach the "outside world":

CA:  Eureka (Humboldt County); metro area (2017) approximately 110K population.  Both US 101 in either direction and CA 299 (and CA 36 as well) to the east have unavoidable 2-lane sections.
OR:  Bend (Deschutes County); metro area (again, 2017) approximately 175K.  No avoiding 2-lane sections to get out of town.  Metro area includes Redmond & Prineville.
WA:  Wenatchee (Chelan County); metro area -- 2017 -- approximately 115K.  Same thing; 2-lane segments in all directions.

A bit off topic - but I find the city of Wenatchee (35K population) interesting in that there are literally only 2 roads out of town that connect Wenatchee to the rest of America.  285 across the Wenatchee River or 285 across the Columbia River.  Any other road out of town inevitably dead ends in the mountains.

That's a fairly large population in a wildfire-prone area with limited egress.

I know there is a plan for a 3rd way out of town - on the north end across the Wenatchee River.

[TEG24601]

Oak Harbor, WA - Connected to the outside world by 2-lane roads connecting to two ferry routes and an 80-year old bridge (which needs a bypass for a majority of the traffic).  Through downtown the highway is 4-lane, but reduces to 2 at the city limits.  Home of NAS Whidbey Island.  City population around 25,000, much more in the surrounding community.

[Road Hog]

A few others in the Southeast I can think of:

Alabama - Florence

Arkansas - Hot Springs

Georgia - Athens, Rome

Louisiana - New Iberia

Mississippi - Columbus

In Texas, I can think of a bunch: Brownsville-Harlingen-McAllen (probably the largest metro area not in the freeway network), College Station, Del Rio (all 2 lanes!), Lufkin, Nacogdoches, San Angelo, Victoria, and probably others. I know I-69 once completed (as a freeway to those locations continuously in at least one direction) will remove the Rio Grande Valley, Lufkin, Nacogdoches and Victoria from that list though..

Hot Springs is off the list now that ARDOT has expanded US 70 to 5-lane all the way to I-30. According to the most recent official state map it appears that El Dorado now wears the dubious belt.

ADD: Hot Springs shouldn't have been listed in the first place because US 270 has been 4-lane to I-30 at Malvern.

That list was referring to cities without a -freeway- connection. Most or all of them have 4-lane connection.

US-270 or US-70 is not a -freeway- to I-30, so it does not have a -freeway- connection.

Thread title is 4-lane/freeway.

[sprjus4]

A few others in the Southeast I can think of:

Alabama - Florence

Arkansas - Hot Springs

Georgia - Athens, Rome

Louisiana - New Iberia

Mississippi - Columbus

In Texas, I can think of a bunch: Brownsville-Harlingen-McAllen (probably the largest metro area not in the freeway network), College Station, Del Rio (all 2 lanes!), Lufkin, Nacogdoches, San Angelo, Victoria, and probably others. I know I-69 once completed (as a freeway to those locations continuously in at least one direction) will remove the Rio Grande Valley, Lufkin, Nacogdoches and Victoria from that list though..

Hot Springs is off the list now that ARDOT has expanded US 70 to 5-lane all the way to I-30. According to the most recent official state map it appears that El Dorado now wears the dubious belt.

ADD: Hot Springs shouldn't have been listed in the first place because US 270 has been 4-lane to I-30 at Malvern.

That list was referring to cities without a -freeway- connection. Most or all of them have 4-lane connection.

US-270 or US-70 is not a -freeway- to I-30, so it does not have a -freeway- connection.

Thread title is 4-lane/freeway.

But you were saying a lot of his cities were wrong in the context of 4-lane connection. The thread is either or, but in his particular post, he was specifically referring to freeway connections, which none of those have.

[RoadMaster09]

For the Pacific Coast states, it looks like there are some significant metro areas (over 100K @) within each of them that do require travel on a 2-lane road at some point to reach the "outside world":

CA:  Eureka (Humboldt County); metro area (2017) approximately 110K population.  Both US 101 in either direction and CA 299 (and CA 36 as well) to the east have unavoidable 2-lane sections.
OR:  Bend (Deschutes County); metro area (again, 2017) approximately 175K.  No avoiding 2-lane sections to get out of town.  Metro area includes Redmond & Prineville.
WA:  Wenatchee (Chelan County); metro area -- 2017 -- approximately 115K.  Same thing; 2-lane segments in all directions.

IMO, those need to be fixed. A metro area of 100,000 ideally should have an Interstate, but at a minimum a high quality 4-lane.

[Road Hog]

A few others in the Southeast I can think of:

Alabama - Florence

Arkansas - Hot Springs

Georgia - Athens, Rome

Louisiana - New Iberia

Mississippi - Columbus

In Texas, I can think of a bunch: Brownsville-Harlingen-McAllen (probably the largest metro area not in the freeway network), College Station, Del Rio (all 2 lanes!), Lufkin, Nacogdoches, San Angelo, Victoria, and probably others. I know I-69 once completed (as a freeway to those locations continuously in at least one direction) will remove the Rio Grande Valley, Lufkin, Nacogdoches and Victoria from that list though..

Hot Springs is off the list now that ARDOT has expanded US 70 to 5-lane all the way to I-30. According to the most recent official state map it appears that El Dorado now wears the dubious belt.

ADD: Hot Springs shouldn't have been listed in the first place because US 270 has been 4-lane to I-30 at Malvern.

That list was referring to cities without a -freeway- connection. Most or all of them have 4-lane connection.

US-270 or US-70 is not a -freeway- to I-30, so it does not have a -freeway- connection.

Thread title is 4-lane/freeway.

But you were saying a lot of his cities were wrong in the context of 4-lane connection. The thread is either or, but in his particular post, he was specifically referring to freeway connections, which none of those have.

Um, the thread title is the thread title, which I was referring to. But nice try.