Cities which need beltways that don't have them

[thspfc]

Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.

That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)

Madison has a 3/4 beltway, and the other 1/4 is on the other side of a lake without really much need.

Do you not consider it a beltway, even though part of it is called the Beltline?

I do consider the Beltline and I-39/90 to make up three quarters of a full beltway. The last quarter isn't needed super badly, but it would be nice, and the communities that it would connect (Sun Prairie, Windsor, Waunakee, and Middleton) are growing very quickly.

[Dirt Roads]

Charleston, WV.

As far as cities that need beltways, don't have them, and will never in a million years get them, Charleston WV is at the top of that list. Plus it's a declining city anyways.

From the day that I-64 was completed into Charleston from the west in 1975, rush hour traffic has been terrible.  Connecting I-64/I-77 to the West Virginia Turnpike a year or so later didn't improve anything.  Back in the late 1980s, I recall a push to get a 3DI bypass of Charleston from I-64 west to the Turnpike.  This effort was short lived.  West Virginia simply doesn't have the tax base to solve traffic issues with new freeways.

Oh boy that's be great. I HATE driving through Charleston on a busy day. Being able to pass the town from 77-79 or 77-77 would be fantastic and really help reduce congestion

Most of the through traffic gets funneled through downtown on I-64, but I never considered that north-south traffic on I-77 would also need a bypass.

[SkyPesos]

Most of the through traffic gets funneled through downtown on I-64, but I never considered that north-south traffic on I-77 would also need a bypass.

Charleston have a bypass for the 77-79 movement already though. It's US 19.

As for 64-turnpike, there's also the US 35 connection to 64, which links up the area to Ohio and the upper midwest. That brings in a lot of traffic too. So something could be done there.

[jeffandnicole]

Philly already practically has a full-freeway beltway; it's just a bit awkward, has several different route numbers, may involve numerous tolls, and isn't useable due to a few key interchanges missing.

Surrounding Philly, starting southwest of the city, going clockwise from I-95:  You have I-476, I-276 (PA Turnpike), I-95 into NJ (PA/NJ Turnpikes), 295, 130, 322, then North on 95 for a few miles back to 476.

In its simplest form, there are only 2 ramps missing to complete a full beltway, and they are already proposed (and should have been built several years ago):  The 276 East to 295 East ramp and the 295 West to 276 West ramp at the new PA Turnpike interchange for 95.  With this, there will be a full, non-stop beltway around not only Philly, but Trenton as well. 

Other options, which are much more expensive, a bit of fantasy, but not necessarily fictional:

Ramps from the NJ/PA Extension in NJ between I-95 and I-295.

Replace much of the I-295 option in NJ and use the NJ Turnpike instead:  New Ramps between the NJ Turnpike and NJ 42, connecting into the new missing moves ramps with 42 and 295.

Replace the entire I-295 option in NJ and use the NJ Turnpike instead:  Build a 322 Freeway between the NJ Turnpike Interchange 2 or vicinity and the Commodore Barry Bridge.

With any of the above options, we can utilize a single Interstate Route Number to denote the beltway, having it run concurrent with the existing route.  I-895 would be an obvious choice with I-95 running thru Philly, but I-876 would be just as effective, as I-76 runs fully thru 2 of the 4 options above.

While some of this appears to be more fictional than function, realize that, again, talking simple, Philly is just less than a mile of pavement away via 2 ramps from having what would pass as a fully functional beltway.

[MCRoads]

Some people have commented about Tucson, and there is an interesting story here. AZ did freeways a bit different, starting rural, and working their way to the cities. This basically caused cities in AZ to not have freeways in/around them until very recently, in the 80's and 90's. Phoenix started building freeways to sole every bit of traffic they had. Makes sense. But Tucson? Tucson just connected the freeways to get traffic off of local roads. While Phoenix has a very large amount of sprawl, Tucson doesn't. And I'll let you guess why. Attempts have been made to build more freeways in Tucson, but the city has decidedly said "NO F&@$ING WAY!!!"  several times. And, from what I hear, Tucson has only a smallish amount of traffic during rush hour. I remember all this from a video I watched, but can't find it. If anyone else knows the video I am talking about, feel free to link it.

[vdeane]

Some of the examples listed here make me think we should differentiate between cities which need beltways and don't have them vs. cities that don't have beltways but don't need them.

Regarding Phoenix vs. Tucson, as I understand it, Phoenix was already starting to sprawl even before the freeways were built, and the growth was overwhelming the transportation system.

[thspfc]

One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city. In the case of Tucson, I don't think a beltway would reduce congestion on I-10 through the city.

[Flint1979]

Detroit has a beltway that isn't even considered a beltway. It's called I-69. From where I-94 meets I-69 at I-94's exit 108 it is a lot quicker to take I-69 to Port Huron than it is to stay on I-94. US-23 is considered a Detroit bypass too. I-275 and I-696 do not do any justice for bypassing Detroit.

[OCGuy81]

One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city. In the case of Tucson, I don't think a beltway would reduce congestion on I-10 through the city.

Very true, much like how many a city has had a bypass that's just as congested as the route it's meant to relieve, and sometimes worse....cough cough the 405 in Southern California or 205 in Portland 😁

[webny99]

One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city. In the case of Tucson, I don't think a beltway would reduce congestion on I-10 through the city.

Not if it was circle shaped. If it was an oval, then it might, as through I-10 and I-10>I-19 traffic would consider using it.

[kphoger]

Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.

Long Beach has entered the chat

And so has residents of metro LA not realizing they live in the suburbs, not their own city. 

Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.

Or we could do this case-by-case instead of trying to stick a full beltway around Honolulu and Fresno.

Fresno kind of has one already.

Huh?  I'm not seeing it...  Or do you mean the tiny triangle around downtown?

One important thing to consider is that a full beltway doesn't always solve congestion problems within the city.

I've wondered on more than one occasion if anyone drives I-20/635 all the way around Dallas rather than using I-35E through downtown.  Likewise, I-20/820 all the way around Fort Worth rather than using I-35W through downtown.

[SkyPesos]

* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL

Two new Mississippi River crossings?  Wow that is huge money.  Two jurisdictions to deal with and the cost sharing just will not work.  Not to mention that the bridges have to withstand the New Madrid Fault as well.

Doesn't Memphis only have 2 Mississippi river crossings currently, with 10 lanes total? That's not a lot for a city that's a major freight hub. Compare that to St Louis upstream, which have 23 lanes across 4 bridges crossing the Mississippi for the interstates only + however much from the local roads.

In the case for St. Louis there is a pretty sizable population on both sides of the river. Crittenden County, Arkansas only has about 50,000 people. So I don't think there is a need to have as many bridges in Memphis. It's just I-55 and I-40

Almost all long distance traffic from the northeast and Ohio to Texas, especially truck ones, goes through Memphis. Not sure about the ground transportation, but MEM airport is a FedEx fortress hub, so I assume there's a good amount of ground freight transportation just because of that. Think Memphis can take a 3rd bridge or a widening of one of the two current bridges.

[hbelkins]

My most frequent forays through Charleston have been I-64 east to I-79 north, or I-79 south to I-64 west. Less frequently have I done a through route on I-64 where it picks up or drops I-77.

My biggest issues with Charleston traffic have always been from the Kanawha River bridge at the US 119 exit, west through South Charleston to the Cross Lanes area (or vice-versa if heading east). I've never really encountered a lot of congestion in downtown Charleston or at the 64-77 split or 77-79 interchange. The new bridge between South Charleston and Dunbar on I-64 has helped some.

[Flint1979]

* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL

Two new Mississippi River crossings?  Wow that is huge money.  Two jurisdictions to deal with and the cost sharing just will not work.  Not to mention that the bridges have to withstand the New Madrid Fault as well.

Doesn't Memphis only have 2 Mississippi river crossings currently, with 10 lanes total? That's not a lot for a city that's a major freight hub. Compare that to St Louis upstream, which have 23 lanes across 4 bridges crossing the Mississippi for the interstates only + however much from the local roads.

In the case for St. Louis there is a pretty sizable population on both sides of the river. Crittenden County, Arkansas only has about 50,000 people. So I don't think there is a need to have as many bridges in Memphis. It's just I-55 and I-40

Almost all long distance traffic from the northeast and Ohio to Texas, especially truck ones, goes through Memphis. Not sure about the ground transportation, but MEM airport is a FedEx fortress hub, so I assume there's a good amount of ground freight transportation just because of that. Think Memphis can take a 3rd bridge or a widening of one of the two current bridges.

I'm looking at the AADT on the bridges in Memphis. The I-55 bridge had an AADT of 62,355 in 2016. The I-40 bridge had an AADT of 37,308 in 2018. So just under 100,000 total.

Now in St. Louis how are you going to count this? You want just the Interstate's or all bridges?

[mhking]

Doesn't need to be an interstate, nor a full beltway, but something for Lafayette, IN to make access to Purdue from both directions of I-65 easier.

That's one that could be argued, IMO -- Sagamore Pkwy was the original 52 bypass (yes, I'm showing my age -- I remember when Northwestern Ave. was 52/231), then I-65 became the bypass of that. Now, you've got the 231 bypass to the WEST of campus, and arguably, the old back way into West Lafayette (the 231 Roundgrove exit) could be widened from two to four lanes down to 52 and the new bypass (do they cross, or is there an overlap? I haven't been through Lafayette since the new roadway was opened) from the northwest of Purdue to make a western and southern belt.

[SkyPesos]

Almost all long distance traffic from the northeast and Ohio to Texas, especially truck ones, goes through Memphis. Not sure about the ground transportation, but MEM airport is a FedEx fortress hub, so I assume there's a good amount of ground freight transportation just because of that. Think Memphis can take a 3rd bridge or a widening of one of the two current bridges.

I'm looking at the AADT on the bridges in Memphis. The I-55 bridge had an AADT of 62,355 in 2016. The I-40 bridge had an AADT of 37,308 in 2018. So just under 100,000 total.

Now in St. Louis how are you going to count this? You want just the Interstate's or all bridges?

I didn't know I-40's was that low, thought it would be double of that number as it has more lanes than the I-55 bridge.

For St Louis, just the 4 interstate bridges (255, 55/64, 70, 270). St Louis would be naturally higher though, with more than double the lane count over the Mississippi river on the interstate bridges. Though is there a site that you can see the percentage of truck traffic on a certain bridge or roadway? My guess is that Memphis's truck percentage is higher than StL's with the cargo hub.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.

That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)

Madison has a 3/4 beltway, and the other 1/4 is on the other side of a lake without really much need.

Do you not consider it a beltway, even though part of it is called the Beltline?

I do consider the Beltline and I-39/90 to make up three quarters of a full beltway. The last quarter isn't needed super badly, but it would be nice, and the communities that it would connect (Sun Prairie, Windsor, Waunakee, and Middleton) are growing very quickly.

What's tough for those who haven't experienced it directly to really understand is that the Beltline is *THE* only way to move traffic across town. US 151/E Wash isn't a good through traffic route or even a good access route from 90/94 to downtown, and there is obviously no access from the north or northwest because of geography. Your options are to take 12 in from Baraboo if you're going to Middleton or the west side, or take 90 to the Beltline if you're going to downtown or the east side.

[thspfc]

Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.

That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)

Madison has a 3/4 beltway, and the other 1/4 is on the other side of a lake without really much need.

Do you not consider it a beltway, even though part of it is called the Beltline?

I do consider the Beltline and I-39/90 to make up three quarters of a full beltway. The last quarter isn't needed super badly, but it would be nice, and the communities that it would connect (Sun Prairie, Windsor, Waunakee, and Middleton) are growing very quickly.

What's tough for those who haven't experienced it directly to really understand is that the Beltline is *THE* only way to move traffic across town. US 151/E Wash isn't a good through traffic route or even a good access route from 90/94 to downtown, and there is obviously no access from the north or northwest because of geography. Your options are to take 12 in from Baraboo if you're going to Middleton or the west side, or take 90 to the Beltline if you're going to downtown or the east side.

Exactly. I've sort-of-joked, sort-of-seriously said before that there are only two roads you need to know to get around the Madison area, I-39/90/94 and the Beltline.

[Flint1979]

Almost all long distance traffic from the northeast and Ohio to Texas, especially truck ones, goes through Memphis. Not sure about the ground transportation, but MEM airport is a FedEx fortress hub, so I assume there's a good amount of ground freight transportation just because of that. Think Memphis can take a 3rd bridge or a widening of one of the two current bridges.

I'm looking at the AADT on the bridges in Memphis. The I-55 bridge had an AADT of 62,355 in 2016. The I-40 bridge had an AADT of 37,308 in 2018. So just under 100,000 total.

Now in St. Louis how are you going to count this? You want just the Interstate's or all bridges?

I didn't know I-40's was that low, thought it would be double of that number as it has more lanes than the I-55 bridge.

For St Louis, just the 4 interstate bridges (255, 55/64, 70, 270). St Louis would be naturally higher though, with more than double the lane count over the Mississippi river on the interstate bridges. Though is there a site that you can see the percentage of truck traffic on a certain bridge or roadway? My guess is that Memphis's truck percentage is higher than StL's with the cargo hub.

Ok for St. Louis anyway this is what I got.

I-255 is 63,199 but the number is from 2008 I'm sure there is a more current number available though. 6 lanes

I-55/64 is 106,500 from 2014 so this bridge alone blows both bridges combined in Memphis away and is 9 lanes.

The Stan Span is 53,700 I can't figure out what year it's from but the bridge opened in 2014 so it isn't too old. 4 lanes on this one but expandable to 6.

I-270 is 56,800 and it's 4 lanes.

So 280,199 for St. Louis on 4 bridges with 23 lanes which comes down to 12,183 per lane and 70,050 per bridge. Not sure about how much of it is truck traffic in either city.

For Memphis the I-40 bridge has 6 lanes and the I-55 bridge has 4 lanes so 10 total with an AADT of 99,563 so 9,966 per lane and 49,782 per bridge.

I'm not sure how many truckers would take I-70 to I-57 south and then stay on I-55 south to I-40 on the Arkansas side of the river not even crossing either bridge on their way to Texas. Honestly my favorite Interstate across the western part of the country is I-40 but if you are coming from the Northeast you might meet up with I-40 on I-55 on the forementioned Arkansas side of the river. These numbers seem kind of low to me too so not sure on that one.

[SkyPesos]

I'm not sure how many truckers would take I-70 to I-57 south and then stay on I-55 south to I-40 on the Arkansas side of the river not even crossing either bridge on their way to Texas. Honestly my favorite Interstate across the western part of the country is I-40 but if you are coming from the Northeast you might meet up with I-40 on I-55 on the forementioned Arkansas side of the river. These numbers seem kind of low to me too so not sure on that one.

Here's my general list for the best routing from Midwest cities to TX, and there's pretty much 2 routings from West Memphis norteastward: I-55/57 and I-40/65. The former group doesn't require the Memphis bridges, and will be even more viable when I-57 gets extended to Little Rock. West of West Memphis, they're all I-40/30 for Dallas, I-40/30/35 for Austin and Fort Worth, I-40/30/US 59 for Houston.

I-55/57 Cities
Chicago (55/57)
Milwaukee (55/57/94)
Indianapolis (55/57/70)
Grand Rapids (55/57/80/94/196)
Ft Wayne (55/57/70/69)
Detroit (55/57/70/69/US 24/75)
Toronto (55/57/70/69/US 24/75/ON 401)

I-40/65 Cities
Louisville (40/65)
Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland (40/65/71)
Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse (40/65/71/90)
Pittsburgh (40/65/71/70)

East of the I-40/65/71 cities, there's the I-40/81 cities, which are pretty much the remaining cities in the northeast. They would also cross the Memphis bridges when heading into TX.

I'm not sure which cities out of the ones I listed above have more truckers, but my guess are that Chicago and Detroit would be the most.

[rarnold]

Easy. Albuquerque.

A beltway was planned at one point - see this article - but the only part of it that ever got built was the freeway bit of Paseo del Norte between Coors and 2nd St (this has since been extended slightly further east to Jefferson). The rest of Paseo and Tramway probably could have been converted to freeways if not for NIMBYs and otherwise poor planning by NMDOT.



In an ideal world, Coors would have also been a freeway or at least a high-grade expressway with ROW to put in interchanges if needed. The full system interchange at 40 looks nice, but it's dumb when you consider that the rest of Coors is stoplight hell. It's too late now but there really should have been some better access control on that.

NMDOT not only dropped the ball, they then kicked it a few times. Albuquerque could build a southwest quadrant of a beltway but that is probably it. Topography and sprawl have hemmed them in, and outside of extremely large influx of money, permanently.

[Road Hog]

* Des Moines, IA, especially if growth keeps up
* Memphis, TN, including two new Mississippi River crossings
* Champaign - Urbana, IL
* Terre Haute, IN - IN 641 doesn't go far enough for through traffic using US 41 and IN 63
* Lafayette, IN
EDIT:
* Joliet, IL

Two new Mississippi River crossings?  Wow that is huge money.  Two jurisdictions to deal with and the cost sharing just will not work.  Not to mention that the bridges have to withstand the New Madrid Fault as well.

Doesn't Memphis only have 2 Mississippi river crossings currently, with 10 lanes total? That's not a lot for a city that's a major freight hub. Compare that to St Louis upstream, which have 23 lanes across 4 bridges crossing the Mississippi for the interstates only + however much from the local roads.

In the case for St. Louis there is a pretty sizable population on both sides of the river. Crittenden County, Arkansas only has about 50,000 people. So I don't think there is a need to have as many bridges in Memphis. It's just I-55 and I-40

Arkansas' insistence on folks paying state income tax has a lot to do with that. The state used to give a pass to people who lived in Texarkana because Texas doesn't have a state income tax. It never gave that benefit to West Memphis even though Tennessee doesn't have a state income tax either.

[tchafe1978]

Every city with more than 400,000 people should have a beltway.

That ship has long sailed for Madison (MSA 640K)

Madison has a 3/4 beltway, and the other 1/4 is on the other side of a lake without really much need.

Do you not consider it a beltway, even though part of it is called the Beltline?

I do consider the Beltline and I-39/90 to make up three quarters of a full beltway. The last quarter isn't needed super badly, but it would be nice, and the communities that it would connect (Sun Prairie, Windsor, Waunakee, and Middleton) are growing very quickly.

What's tough for those who haven't experienced it directly to really understand is that the Beltline is *THE* only way to move traffic across town. US 151/E Wash isn't a good through traffic route or even a good access route from 90/94 to downtown, and there is obviously no access from the north or northwest because of geography. Your options are to take 12 in from Baraboo if you're going to Middleton or the west side, or take 90 to the Beltline if you're going to downtown or the east side.

Exactly. I've sort-of-joked, sort-of-seriously said before that there are only two roads you need to know to get around the Madison area, I-39/90/94 and the Beltline.

There has been talk of a "North Mendota Parkway" over the years connecting the Beltline just north of Middleton with I-39/90/94 by upgrading county highways and WIS 19, but it hasn't gone anywhere, and wouldn't be a freeway. It's probably not going to happen, too much opposition.

[roadman65]

Detroit needs one for sure. Though US 23 is a great through route for I-75 users being freeway all the way, but I-275 should be extended north to meet I-75 again.

[Flint1979]

Detroit needs one for sure. Though US 23 is a great through route for I-75 users being freeway all the way, but I-275 should be extended north to meet I-75 again.

How is I-275 going to be extended? Detroit has a couple bypasses that aren't really considered bypasses, I-69 between Marshall and Port Huron is one, US-23 between Flint and Toledo is another one. I-275 was suppose to meet I-75 again near Davisburg but there are too many lakes and too much development between I-275's northern terminus and Davisburg that I-275 can't be built to rejoin I-75.