AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: VICTORY! South Mountain Freeway Lawsuit dismissed!  (Read 5243 times)

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 286
  • Location: Dona Ana New Mexico USA
  • Last Login: September 24, 2017, 05:03:08 PM
Re: VICTORY! South Mountain Freeway Lawsuit dismissed!
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2016, 11:47:23 AM »

From the Phoenix Business Journal article, I saw this and am confused.

Quote
When construction of the mainline freeway begins early next year, all Pecos Road traffic will be temporarily shifted to the eastbound lanes for approximately two years, and two lanes of traffic in each direction will be maintained at most times during construction, with the exception of periodic traffic restrictions at intersections with cross streets.

As I look at Pecos Rd, it's currently two lanes each direction with a small dirt median in the middle. I have no clue how they plan on having four lanes of travel on what is currently a two-lane configuration.

I also find it interesting that the entire freeway appears to elevate over all of the cross streets. No cross streets pass over the freeway at any location. Even the frontage road crossovers along the 59th Ave alignment pass underneath the 202. Is there any particular reason for that? Is it cheaper to elevate the freeway as opposed to elevate the cross streets?

The entire four lane divided arterial will be replaced by an eight lane facility - none of the existing pavement will survive.   
By elevating the future freeway over the cross streets, no disturbance to surrounding properties will occur.  That is outside the widened future ROW.   Elevating a cross street over a level facility would necessitate fill movements to allow it to cross the facility.  With fill movements into and well outside the proposed widened ROW.   
While I disagree with the 59th Ave. alignment, it will be elevated at interchanges, through that area.  MSE walls will support the future facility, between the main lanes and the frontages at interchanges.  This minimizes land takings, and the needed width of required ROW.  Depression of Loop 202 would be preferable, but the amount of fill, needed to be excavated, and no use for it on the project elsewhere nearby, makes depression impractible.  The 59th Ave corridor is considerably more "built up" than the Pecos Rd. section.   
Still believe it would be more beneficial and provide far better "connectivity" by tying directly into the existing Loop 101 interchange on I-10.   A Papago I-10 Freeway style tunnel through Tolleson's downtown, while certainly more expensive could achieve this.   
Even better, long term, would be to have an "extension" travelling straight west through Goodyear's southern area and turning north to directly tie into Loop 303.  The northerly extension of the Gila tribes territory makes that it bit too close to existing I-10 however.   And most likely redundant.   
« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 12:05:56 PM by DJStephens »
Logged

pumpkineater2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 256
  • Jamie O' Neal lied. It does exist.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Flagstaff, Arizona
  • Last Login: September 23, 2017, 03:22:07 AM
Re: VICTORY! South Mountain Freeway Lawsuit dismissed!
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2016, 03:58:57 PM »

Even better, long term, would be to have an "extension" travelling straight west through Goodyear's southern area and turning north to directly tie into Loop 303.  The northerly extension of the Gila tribes territory makes that it bit too close to existing I-10 however.   And most likely redundant.
Is something kind of like this what you had in mind?
http://www.azdot.gov/projects/phoenix-metro-area/state-route-30


I agree that it would be much better to connect to 101, but what is planned is still better than nothing, IMO.
Logged
Come ride with me to the distant shore...

Sonic99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Prescott, AZ
  • Last Login: September 24, 2017, 02:32:02 PM
Re: VICTORY! South Mountain Freeway Lawsuit dismissed!
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2016, 03:42:25 PM »

I apologize if this is old news, but I hadn't seen this posted yet. ADOT has posted their detailed "Preliminary Design Maps" on the South Mountain Freeway page and there are some very interesting things here that have changed.

https://www.azdot.gov/projects/phoenix-metro-area/loop-202-(south-mountain-freeway)

Brief summary of what I've seen so far.

  • "Crossover" connections for the 59th Ave frontage roads have been eliminated. Traffic wishing to stay on 59th Ave at each end will use Lower Buckeye Road (SB) and Roosevelt St (NB) to get back onto 59th Ave proper
  • Desert Foothills Parkway and 17th Ave interchanges are designed as diverging diamond interchanges (would to my knowledge be Arizona's first DDI's)
  • Broadway, Southern, Dobbins, Elliott, and Estrella Roads are now all designed to be elevated over the SMF, instead of the SMF being elevated over all interchanges as was previously shown in the "flyover" video ADOT released a while ago
  • Estrella Drive interchange is designed as a roundabout interchange
  • The alteration of 51st Ave to interchange with the SMF has been deleted. 51st Ave will now simply go over the SMF with no direct connection. The SMF will have interchanges with Estrella Road and Ivanhoe Street instead, with Ivanhoe being the connection to the Vee Quiva Casino.
  • The "crossovers" shown in the old ADOT video at Dobbins has also been eliminated, and a standard interchange is now planned. In addition, as mentioned above, Dobbins is now elevated above the SMF instead of the original plan of the other way around.

Interesting changes, I must admit. Thoughts?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2016, 03:38:49 AM by Sonic99 »
Logged
If you used to draw freeways on your homework and got reprimanded by your Senior English teacher for doing so, you might be a road geek!

 


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.