AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 on: Today at 06:06:40 PM 
Started by Pink Jazz - Last post by roadfro
Nevada was left out of the list. Logo signs are allowed in all areas, but use in urban areas is limited by sign spacing standards so these signs are usually on the edges of urban areas.

 on: Today at 05:45:48 PM 
Started by sdmichael - Last post by MaxConcrete
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.

I was optimistic that the project would move forward, especially since it recently survived the effort to kill it in the California legislature.

But I agree with Sparker and Andy 3175: this is probably the end.

It seems like the Metro board's intent is to use up the $700 million on the planned traffic control measures to ensure none of it is available for the freeway/tollway tunnel.

So that seems to leave only Caltrans funds and maybe some kind of mostly or fully private funding with tolls. I don't expect anything to come out of Trump infrastructure initiative, but that seems like the only (very long) longshot: some kind of federal-level legislation promoting private investment and/or PPPs which would make this kind of project attractive to investors.

 on: Today at 05:35:28 PM 
Started by 74/171FAN - Last post by cpzilliacus
WTOP Radio: Remembering When There Wasn’t a Chesapeake Bay Bridge

By 1919, the demand and pressure for some sort of Bay crossing led to the inauguration of regular ferry service between Annapolis and Claiborne, a 23-mile trip requiring two hours. Aside from the colonial ferry, this was the first regularly scheduled Bay ferry service in the State’s history. Mounting pressure for a bridge culminated in 1938, with legislation authorizing the crossing, but World War II postponed the efforts. Under the leadership of Governor William Preston Lane Jr., during the regular and extraordinary sessions of the 1947 General Assembly, the State Roads Commission was directed to proceed with building a Bay Bridge.

All earlier proposals for a bridge had planned for a crossing in the Bay Shore-Tolchester area. However, by 1938, the growing network of highways on the East Coast, the need to avoid hazardous navigation and the need to provide access to the lower Eastern Shore made a bridge location in the Sandy Point-Matapeake area most desirable.

After four decades of planning and waiting, the first shovelful of earth was turned in January 1949, in the area now occupied by the western approach roadway — and the largest public project in the history of the State had begun. Underwater work began, and the first permanent piles were driven into the Bay’s bottom in March 1950. By the end of the year, the bridge was more than one-third complete. The underwater work had been finished, including construction of the massive concrete piers to support the main towers and the anchor piers to hold the suspension-span cables.

 on: Today at 05:34:12 PM 
Started by briantroutman - Last post by plain
There's 3 in Virginia I know of:

VA 895 ending at I-295. Looks like this one was designed in a way where VA 895 could be extended eastward sometime in the future (I seriously doubt that will ever happen)

VA 288 ending at I-95

VA 33 beginning/leaving its duplex with I-64. This one also looks like there's room for the road to be extended but I've never heard of any talks about that and I'm not sure why this interchange is designed this way

 on: Today at 05:13:12 PM 
Started by roadgeek01 - Last post by roadgeek01
So, what is your favorite food?  I wonder if you for can guess mine.   :bigass:

 on: Today at 05:11:11 PM 
Started by MaxConcrete - Last post by MaxConcrete
This year's session will complete tomorrow. (The Texas legislature meets in odd-numbered years only.) This session was not expected to have much impact on TxDOT, but the main issue of concern was if the legislature would fully fund proposition 7, the transfer of general funds to TxDOT.

TxDOT was up for reauthorization this year, the so-called sunset process. This bill had to pass, and it became a vehicle for transportation legislation which could not proceed as standalone bills.

There was a procedural meltdown earlier this month which killed a large number of bills. I don't know if TxDOT-related bills were affected, but it appears some issues were added as amendments to the TxDOT reauthorization. Here is the conference committee report http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/85ccrs/sb0312.pdf#navpanes=0

Funding: TxDOT was due around $4.7 billion in proposition 7 funding funding over two years, and only $2.9 billion was allocated in the next fiscal cycle, with the missing $1.8 billion being used to close a budget gap. However, the missing $1.8 billion was delayed by only one month to push it into the next budget cycle, so this is not expected to have any impact on project funding and progress. However, it is unclear if if TxDOT will get that $1.8 billion during the lifespan of proposition 7, or if the money is permanently lost. According to a report in the Dallas Morning News, legislators say they are committed to delivering the money as soon as budget conditions allow.

Anti-toll legislation: Many anti-toll bills were filed, and it appears that all died and most made minimal or negligible progress. However, the conference committee report had some token anti-toll provisions.

Conference Report Highlights
* (p  33) Removes tolls from State Highway 255 in Laredo. This is the former Camino-Columbia toll road that went bankrupt and was later bought by TxDOT and operated as a toll road. It generates about $2 million per year in tolls.
* (p 33-34)  El Paso.: Appears to authorize the removal of tolls on the tolled manged lanes on the southeast section of Loop 375, from downtown to Interstate 10.
* (p 16) Requires that TxDOT funds used in toll roads must be repaid. This appears to not be retroactive.
* Imposes a large number of reporting and administrative requirements on TxDOT relating to project cost, schedule, coordination with MPOs
* Requires TxDOT contractors to use E-Verify

 on: Today at 04:41:43 PM 
Started by I-39 - Last post by sparker
The plan on paper (per the statute Richie quoted) is still expansion of US 69 to expressway or better all the way to the Oklahoma state line.  Fort Scott-Arma, which is currently under construction, is probably the easiest remaining part.  Apeman33 has already mentioned the stoplights in Fort Scott itself, which are not easily bypassable, and although the Pittsburg bypass itself has reasonable access control, there are more stoplights north from its northern end and through Frontenac as well as some ribbon development that would have to be addressed.  South of Pittsburg, US 69 is on a circuit-diagram routing and it would almost certainly save time and miles to build a relocation along US 400 and Alternate US 69, closer to Baxter Springs than to Columbus.  But since this is the heart of the old Tri-State mining district, I envisage a major challenge will be addressing subsidence due to abandoned and imperfectly mapped tunnels, which are a huge headache especially in the K-7 corridor.

In Oklahoma there is more to do and less funding to do it with.  From the Red River to the Kansas border along a plausible I-45 extension routing (Alternate US 69 to Miami, US 69 from Miami to the Texas border) is about 256 miles, of which the currently existing McAlester-Muskogee freeway comprises only 53 miles, the Durant-Caddo freeway a further 12 miles, and the freeway stub north of the Red River just 4 miles, for a total of 69 miles.  The entire corridor would not have to be upgraded to freeway as long as there were grade separations at major intersections and planning control (not just access control) sufficiently ironclad not just to prevent ribbon development but also to avoid traffic at sideroad intersections rising to the extent that signals are justified.  Unfortunately, Muskogee and the length just south of Durant are already built up, though McAlester seems to have an all-but-freeway.

So this is to become part of the proposed I-45 extension?

I really don't see a need for an I-45 extension to be honest.

An I-45 extension from Dallas to I-44 at Big Cabin would be a rational addition to the Interstate system due to not only a significant AADT on US 69 but the high percentage of commercial trucks within that data.  Between I-44 and Kansas City it's much less necessary due to the upgrading of US 71 to I-49 a few years ago.  That being said -- if Kansas elected to complete the US 69 corridor to or within shouting distance of I-44, there's no reason why, if I-45 ever made it north to I-44 down the line (albeit unlikely at present), it couldn't be continued north to KC along the new KS freeway; as Belushi as "Bluto" said in Animal House, "won't cost ya nothin'" (save signage).

 on: Today at 04:19:09 PM 
Started by briantroutman - Last post by sparker
The trumpet interchange between I-80 and CA 65 in Rocklin, CA features twin bridges on the 65 overpass.  This is an interesting interchange in that the main movement within the "trumpet" segment south of I-80 utilizes the loop rather than the direct connection due to the topology of the region (there's a stream bed immediately south of the interchange that was deemed too environmentally fragile to be disturbed (which it would have if the trumpet had been configured otherwise).  I lived in the area when the interchange opened in mid-1987 and wondered about its construction details (my cousin, who was interning with Caltrans then while in college, supplied me with the reasons it was built that way).  Commuter traffic heading for north Roseville and Lincoln (and there's plenty these days) must take the 25mph 2-lane loop; while the direct trumpet component sees relatively little use.  For budgetary reasons, it'll probably stay that way for quite some time (a long flyover is a long-term possibility, but not in the near term). 

 on: Today at 04:04:29 PM 
Started by jbnv - Last post by 7/8
Here are three new signs taken today:

ON 19 and CR 119 on the 401 in Ingersoll, ON

Brant CR 24A in Paris, ON

Elgin CR 74 (former highway 74) north of New Sarum, ON

 on: Today at 03:34:19 PM 
Started by sdmichael - Last post by sparker
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.


The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted unanimously to withdraw its support and funding for a five-mile, $3.2-billion tunnel through El Sereno, South Pasadena and Pasadena connecting the 710 and 210 freeways.

Instead, the board voted to spend $700 million on a range of transportation fixes to ease congestion and other problems arising from traffic spilling onto the streets of Alhambra at the 710’s abrupt northern terminus. ...

“To have a unanimous vote is a reflection of the mood in the boardroom,” said Jan Soohoo of La Cañada Flintridge, a member of the No 710 Action Committee. “We’ve been fighting and fighting for years just to get seven votes” — the minimum that tunnel foes needed to kill the idea. ...

“As a city and county, we’ve moved away from freeways,” said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Metro board member. “Voters don’t see freeways as meeting their transportation needs anymore.” ...

The 710 corridor project obtained about $780 million through Measure R, the half-cent sales tax increase voters approved in 2008. Some of the money has already been spent on planning, studies and environmental work.

The motion approved Thursday would allocate $105 million of the remaining funds toward synchronized traffic signals, new meters on freeway ramps, capacity enhancements at three dozen intersections and local streets as well as incentives to encourage carpooling, transit use and staggered work schedules.

The board voted to defer decisions on other transportation options that will use the remaining funding until cities along the north 710 corridor and other interested parties can agree. Metro staff will report back in 90 days on a process to identify potential projects.

There will be dancing over this particular grave in South Pasadena.  In retrospect, the shift within the Metro board was all but inevitable -- urban activists and transit supporters now dominate pretty much all of the policymaking entities in greater L.A.  Except for finishing CA 71 in Pomona, don't expect a single foot of new freeway to be even considered within L.A. County south of the San Gabriel mountains.  The 710 extension was the last formally adopted corridor remaining in the basin that has not been deleted or relinquished; now that it's effectively dead, the folks at Metro will almost certainly be pressing Caltrans for more funding shifts to local streets and transit facilities (the STIP has, for the past few iterations, been itself dominated by joint state/local projects -- some for congestion relief, but some for "traffic calming" (which has zero relationship to driver calming!) efforts.  Looks like the spiritual home of the freeway will have to make do with what's on the ground right now!

Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.