So we know that right now Las Vegas and Phoenix are right now the two largest metro areas in the U.S. without a direct interstate connection, pending the completion of Interstate 11. Once that's done, which pair of cities will that title pass to next?
Austin and Houston.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 08:41:18 PM
Austin and Houston.
Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 20, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 08:41:18 PM
Austin and Houston.
Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.
Make US-290 an interstate from either end of I-10
(https://i.ibb.co/5cPSvNQ/Houston-To-West10.png)
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 20, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 08:41:18 PM
Austin and Houston.
Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.
Take the new bypass tollway TX-130 to I-10 to Houston. Maybe make the bypass tollway I-235.
There is some extra distance, but it is hardly worth (it's wasteful) building over 200 miles of new Interstate highway to improve on that.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 09:42:18 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 20, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 08:41:18 PM
Austin and Houston.
Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.
Take the new bypass tollway TX-130 to I-10 to Houston. Maybe make the bypass tollway I-235.
There is some extra distance, but it is hardly worth (it's wasteful) building over 200 miles of new Interstate highway to improve on that.
It's closer to 80 miles, and a lot of it is worth it. It's not some easy rural drive with bypasses around every town. Parts of it are rural 75 mph divided highway, though it does pass through a fair amount of towns and urban centers that definitely could be bypassed. Now I will agree, maybe not build an entire freeway, but an expressway type highway would be beneficial - one example that comes to mind is between Houston and Corpus Christi. 4-lane 75 mph divided expressway with bypasses around every town and zero traffic signals exist on the entire route. A very nice drive I must say having done it many times. That road interestingly is apart of Future I-69.
And TX-130 to I-10 is 55 miles slower then the current US-290 routing. Way out of the way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 09:52:47 PM
And TX-130 to I-10 is 55 miles slower then the current US-290 routing. Way out of the way.
And 39 minutes longer.
The 4-lane TX-71 to I-10 is the preferred Google Maps routing, in time and distance.
Fresno is going to be high on the list with since the primary freeway is CA 99. But Sacramento comes to mind primarily since it is also on CA 99.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:01:16 PM
And 39 minutes longer.
I think the time is much faster compared to the distance is due to the fact 40 miles of that routing is 85 mph, and I-10 is 75 mph, whereas all of US-270 probably averages around 70 mph considering the 75 mph rural parts, and the slower town, urban area parts.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:01:16 PM
The 4-lane TX-71 to I-10 is the preferred Google Maps routing, in time and distance.
They're both about the same time and distance. Both work as routes, though it seems TX-71 has more rural, 75 mph segments then US-290 does, making it more preferred for many.
I think we can both agree though one of the routes needs to be selected as the "preferred" option and converted to an expressway throughout. By that I mean a uniform 75 mph speed limit on the entire route, zero traffic signals, and bypasses around every town on the road, and maintaining full continuity. It wouldn't be a freeway
(with the exception of new location segments, those should be built as limited-access freeways), but at least one would be able to travel between the two cities at interstate speeds with no interruptions, slow downs, towns, etc. that exist today.
This goal would mostly be accomplished by completing the remaining bypasses needed, and replacing the remaining traffic signals with interchanges and constructing frontage roads where needed. A lot cheaper than an entire freeway. Most of the rural segments operate as free-flowing 75 mph uninterrupted
(meaning no traffic signals, no major junctions, towns, etc.) highways and would be incorporated into the expressway.
The ultimate goal would end up being to convert the entire roadway into an interstate / freeway roadway from Austin to Houston over time, but an expressway concept would be the first interim step. After the expressway is completed, the remaining rural areas would be upgraded mostly by constructing one-way frontage roads on both sides and interchanges periodically (every 2-3 miles) with Texas U-Turns. Similar concept as proposed on the existing expressway between Houston and Corpus Christi, and farther south to Mexico.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 10:52:01 PM
I think the time is much faster compared to the distance is due to the fact 40 miles of that routing is 85 mph, and I-10 is 75 mph, whereas all of US-270 probably averages around 70 mph considering the 75 mph rural parts, and the slower town, urban area parts.
The point being that if a car driver or truck driver or SUV pulling a trailer, etc. feels the need to use a full freeway for the entire trip, they have an acceptable highway already in place.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 10:52:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 10:01:16 PM
The 4-lane TX-71 to I-10 is the preferred Google Maps routing, in time and distance.
They're both about the same time and distance. Both work as routes, though it seems TX-71 has more rural, 75 mph segments then US-290 does, making it more preferred for many.
I think we can both agree though one of the routes needs to be selected as the "preferred" option and converted to an expressway throughout.
An expressway still has at-grade intersections, which usually provide some 'friction' to traffic that can reduce speeds and capacity at that point.
Austin-Houston is another of those routes where in a paradise world an Interstate highway would seem ideal, but where in the real world there is a "good enough" route already in place that is divided and with 4 or more lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:26:32 PM
they have an acceptable highway already in place.
I-10 to TX-130 is not an acceptable alternative. The point of this thread was to identify large cities not connected -directly- by an interstate. Sure, every city on any interstate therefore is connected to every other city in the US on the system... but in a lot of cases it's not direct to actually use the interstate system, but rather arterial highways.
The OP's example Las Vegas to Phoenix which would be linked by Interstate 11. I could claim from your viewpoint they are connected technically be I-15 and I-10. Sure it's only 250 miles longer and hours longer, but it's still connected. That isn't the point of the thread. Austin-Houston is a reasonable candidate for cities not connected by an interstate. Another example is Norfolk-Raleigh.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:26:32 PM
An expressway still has at-grade intersections, which usually provide some 'friction' to traffic that can reduce speeds and capacity at that point.
I've driven the expressway between Houston and Corpus Christi plenty of times in the past, and I've never noticed an issue with the at-grade intersections causing issues with traffic. Traffic always flows about 80 mph the entire way with no slowdowns or something to hinder traffic.
Quote from: Beltway on June 20, 2019, 11:26:32 PM
in the real world there is a "good enough" route already in place that is divided and with 4 or more lanes.
It still needs improvements with some town bypasses needing to be built and the remaining traffic signals replaced with interchanges, but other than that, it works.
An interstate build out could happen, though it wouldn't be one project, it would be many that would occur years. The I-69 upgrades happening on the US-59 / US-77 corridor (mostly expressway with no signals, with the exception of a few towns that are planned to be bypassed in the future) are happening in phases where a 5-6 mile section at a time will be given a 2-lane one-way frontage road on either side, and interchanges every 2-3 miles with Texas U-Turns. There's a $500 million project proposed on US-281 (I-69C) that would upgrade 40 miles of rural divided highway in the middle of nowhere to interstate standards.
Population-wise, two of the largest cities -- each with an incorporated population well over 1M -- lacking a direct Interstate connection (or at least one that doesn't entail backtracking) would be San Diego and Phoenix. Of course, if the portion of AZ 85 between Gila Bend and Buckeye were to be upgraded and signed as an Interstate (AZ I-11 backers -- pay close attention to this!) that section could serve not only as a solution to the above issue -- but also as the western leg of an effective Phoenix bypass (something that is sorely needed, considering the regular congestion on I-10) using the new freeway plus I-8 from Gila Bend to Casa Grande. Not as grandiose as some of the other I-11-related plans out there, but much more useful as well as cost-effective.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 12:19:51 AM
I-10 to TX-130 is not an acceptable alternative. The point of this thread was to identify large cities not connected -directly- by an interstate. Sure, every city on any interstate therefore is connected to every other city in the US on the system... but in a lot of cases it's not direct to actually use the interstate system, but rather arterial highways.
Building a 15-mile freeway connector between TX-130 at Lockhart and easterly I-10, would be a useful connector, and would be enough to make it sufficiently direct, rather than building 150 miles of new freeway.
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2019, 05:41:55 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 12:19:51 AM
I-10 to TX-130 is not an acceptable alternative. The point of this thread was to identify large cities not connected -directly- by an interstate. Sure, every city on any interstate therefore is connected to every other city in the US on the system... but in a lot of cases it's not direct to actually use the interstate system, but rather arterial highways.
Building a 15-mile freeway connector between TX-130 at Lockhart and easterly I-10, would be a useful connector, and would be enough to make it sufficiently direct, rather than building 150 miles of new freeway.
That would involve upgrading 20 miles of US-181 to freeway standards, and while it would close the gap, it would still be 25 miles longer. Wouldn't it still be considered vanity?
And 90 miles (not 150) of US-290 is not freeway between Austin and Houston, and most of that could easily be upgraded and for the few towns, new location bypasses could be built.
Denver & Salt Lake City need a direct connection that doesn't involve backtracking on I-15 nor through Fort Collins & Cheyenne.
the most direct route now is either (depending on weather & traffic) going to be I-25 to Ft Collins, US 287 to Laramie, then I-80 west or I-70 to Green River, then US 6 to Spanish Fork, then I-15 north (about 10 minutes separate the two routes). If US 6 was made into an interstate between I-70 & I-15, it would make this the fastest route by far (especially given the 80 mph speed limits in rural Utah).
US 6 as an interstate? Perhaps you should see why Helper, UT is called Helper. :D
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2019, 04:49:08 PM
US 6 as an interstate? Perhaps you should see why Helper, UT is called Helper. :D
Oh I know why. I didn't say it was actually feasible (it may be if money were no object), but it would be more direct.
Fresno and Bakersfield not only don't have a direct interstate connection, they have no interstate connection of any kind. Until CA-99 is made an Interstate, of course.
Quote from: Mark68 on June 21, 2019, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2019, 04:49:08 PM
US 6 as an interstate? Perhaps you should see why Helper, UT is called Helper. :D
Oh I know why. I didn't say it was actually feasible (it may be if money were no object), but it would be more direct.
Although US 6 between I-70 near Green River and I-15 near Spanish Fork
is a high priority corridor (#53), that status hasn't been sufficient to initiate any major upgrades to the route (the Price bypass preceded the 2005 corridor designation by decades). And the principal obstacle to building a high-capacity facility along this corridor is and always will be Soldier Summit; the aptly-named "Helper" was the location where the old Rio Grande attached helper locomotives to get trains over the 2.2% grade. Just Google Earth the location and look at the convoluted horseshoe-laden path the railroad had to use to get over the pass to ascertain just how difficult it is to traverse that pass in either direction. Of course a rubber-on-concrete/asphalt grade can be considerably steeper and still be functional -- but that would be problematic for an Interstate-grade facility absent extensive & expensive tunneling and/or excavation. At this point, the traffic levels just don't warrant it; most commercial traffic between Denver and SLC simply uses I-25 to I-80 and west from there. IMO, a more practical although longer, mileage-wise, approach to the problem would be a cutoff facility from I-25 near Ft. Collins, CO more or less along CO 14 and US 287 to I-80 in the Laramie area (I-125, anyone?). Cut a few miles off the journey without having to deal with lengthy construction in Utah (as well as winter issues on I-70). True, Laramie in winter is no picnic -- but a cutoff there, topping out at about 7K feet, could be maintained during snow season. Wouldn't be dirt-cheap by any means, but compared with Soldier Summit it is almost certainly more feasible
Largest Cities Without an Interstate Connection:
... To Each Other??
The post title would be better as: "Which Two Of The Largest Cities Has No Direct Connection To Each Other By Interstate?".
Quote from: sparker on June 21, 2019, 06:04:21 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on June 21, 2019, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2019, 04:49:08 PM
US 6 as an interstate? Perhaps you should see why Helper, UT is called Helper. :D
Oh I know why. I didn't say it was actually feasible (it may be if money were no object), but it would be more direct.
Although US 6 between I-70 near Green River and I-15 near Spanish Fork is a high priority corridor (#53), that status hasn't been sufficient to initiate any major upgrades to the route (the Price bypass preceded the 2005 corridor designation by decades). And the principal obstacle to building a high-capacity facility along this corridor is and always will be Soldier Summit; the aptly-named "Helper" was the location where the old Rio Grande attached helper locomotives to get trains over the 2.2% grade. Just Google Earth the location and look at the convoluted horseshoe-laden path the railroad had to use to get over the pass to ascertain just how difficult it is to traverse that pass in either direction. Of course a rubber-on-concrete/asphalt grade can be considerably steeper and still be functional -- but that would be problematic for an Interstate-grade facility absent extensive & expensive tunneling and/or excavation. At this point, the traffic levels just don't warrant it; most commercial traffic between Denver and SLC simply uses I-25 to I-80 and west from there. IMO, a more practical although longer, mileage-wise, approach to the problem would be a cutoff facility from I-25 near Ft. Collins, CO more or less along CO 14 and US 287 to I-80 in the Laramie area (I-125, anyone?). Cut a few miles off the journey without having to deal with lengthy construction in Utah (as well as winter issues on I-70). True, Laramie in winter is no picnic -- but a cutoff there, topping out at about 7K feet, could be maintained during snow season. Wouldn't be dirt-cheap by any means, but compared with Soldier Summit it is almost certainly more feasible
The Price bypass was built in the late 1970s. UDOT seems to still have no interest in four-laning US 6, instead opting to install occasional passing lanes. I think the ultimate goal is to build it out to a 2+1 facility. Personally I really wish they'd just four lane the whole thing. There might be some geographic issues between the aforementioned Helper and Spanish Fork, but there's very little in the way of terrain east of Price.
As for Denver-Salt Lake: according to Google the 25-287-80 route is actually 6 miles shorter than 70-6-15 (519 miles as opposed to 525). Even detouring out to Cheyenne only bumps the mileage up to 535.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 01:46:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2019, 05:41:55 AM
Building a 15-mile freeway connector between TX-130 at Lockhart and easterly I-10, would be a useful connector, and would be enough to make it sufficiently direct, rather than building 150 miles of new freeway.
That would involve upgrading 20 miles of US-181 to freeway standards, and while it would close the gap, it would still be 25 miles longer. Wouldn't it still be considered vanity?
Upgrade the interchange between the TX-45 freeway and I-35, and there will be a freeway connection from downtown Austin to TX-130 leading to I-10 to Houston.
Excellent use of existing assets, rather than building pork.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 01:46:51 PM
And 90 miles (not 150) of US-290 is not freeway between Austin and Houston, and most of that could easily be upgraded and for the few towns, new location bypasses could be built.
$30 million or more per mile...
Boise to Reno! #I-11 North baby!!!!!!!
Quote from: nosrac52 on June 22, 2019, 04:13:33 PM
Boise to Reno! #I-11 North baby!!!!!!!
Step #1: convince Oregon (ODOT) to contribute to a US 95-based Interstate route that really provides little or no benefit to the state -- or get other parties to pay for it.
Step #2: Provide enough commerce in Boise/Treasure Valley that needs connectivity to NV or CA to warrant such a route, and which demonstrates that by crowding onto extant US 95. Might happen if the Boise-area MPO gets above about 1.25M population and additional firms establish HQ's or offices in the area (Albertson's and Motive Power [locomotives] can't carry the region alone!). Figure at least 2035-2040 before that has a chance to occur.
And by that time I-11 may be heading to central Oregon; Idaho will have to settle for I-13!
Looking at US 290 from Austin to Houston:
* Travis County: Through Austin, it is already a freeway, albeit with a toll section. From the end of the toll section up to the Bastrop line, it is an upgradeable route with space for frontage roads.
* Bastrop County: A bypass would definitely be needed around Elgin, probably to the south. The bypass could reconnect east of Elgin, although it might be better to continue it to just short of Paige, as the next section is 4-lane undivided (although there is probably sufficient space in the ROW for the major upgrade needed). A new interchange was built on a divided section at SH 21 and the urban Paige section is probably upgradeable due to the wide ROW. The rest of it to the Lee County line is upgradeable (although with major ROW changes at it is undivided again).
* Lee County: A new alignment would be needed across most of, if not all of, the county. It would probably go south of Giddings. It might be possible to reconnect to existing US 290 just east of Giddings, or the bypass could continue to near FM 180.
* Fayette County: Other than access controls (interchanges/grade separations) and perhaps minor design changes, the existing route is very workable.
* Washington County: West of Brenham, the corridor is easy to upgrade with frontage roads (where they don't already exist) and access controls needed. One area that an option exists is between the SH 36 interchange and just west of FM 2679. It may be desirable to build a new alignment to the north, although the existing alignment is workable with a median barrier and frontage roads. It would also allow for higher-speed flyovers. Around Brenham, minor upgrades are needed to what is now a substandard freeway. In the eastern part of the county, it is again a manageable upgrade requiring frontage roads and access controls.
* Waller County: West of Hempstead, upgrading should be fairly easy. The eastern 45 miles is already a freeway, and from what I can tell, Interstate standard.
Most likely, there will need to be 2 sections with new alignments and an option on a third. The rest appears to be upgradeable as is. The AADT on the non-freeway sections is generally around 15,000 to 20,000 right now, which is okay for the open road but quite busy for urban slowdowns on a through arterial. Since Houston and Austin are two of the fastest growing metro areas though, that will only increase significantly in the years to come.
Quote from: sparker on June 22, 2019, 04:34:10 PM
Quote from: nosrac52 on June 22, 2019, 04:13:33 PM
Boise to Reno! #I-11 North baby!!!!!!!
Step #1: convince Oregon (ODOT) to contribute to a US 95-based Interstate route that really provides little or no benefit to the state -- or get other parties to pay for it.
Step #2: Provide enough commerce in Boise/Treasure Valley that needs connectivity to NV or CA to warrant such a route, and which demonstrates that by crowding onto extant US 95. Might happen if the Boise-area MPO gets above about 1.25M population and additional firms establish HQ's or offices in the area (Albertson's and Motive Power [locomotives] can't carry the region alone!). Figure at least 2035-2040 before that has a chance to occur.
And by that time I-11 may be heading to central Oregon; Idaho will have to settle for I-13!
Boise to Winnemucca, avoiding Oregon entirely.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 09:18:31 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 20, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 08:41:18 PM
Austin and Houston.
Definitely the largest without even a freeway connection. Although US 290 is fairly easy to upgrade to a western I-12.
Make US-290 an interstate from either end of I-10
(https://i.ibb.co/5cPSvNQ/Houston-To-West10.png)
That's where I-14 should've been if Congress and Texas politicians had any damn sense. :banghead:
Not only would it connect Houston and Austin, but it would also link El Paso and Austin.
That Texas route would be nice, but no way in hell the route would ever make it thru Downtown Austin. I don't like the 35 multiplex either
Only slightly more realistic, link it in the south end of Austin to Texas SH 45, or possibly SH 71 near the Airport.
Quote from: Beltway on June 22, 2019, 11:52:52 AM
Upgrade the interchange between the TX-45 freeway and I-35, and there will be a freeway connection from downtown Austin to TX-130 leading to I-10 to Houston.
25 miles longer than US-290 or TX-71. I thought these routes had to be the most direct or it was vanity.
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 22, 2019, 05:10:00 PM
That Texas route would be nice, but no way in hell the route would ever make it thru Downtown Austin. I don't like the 35 multiplex either
The route through Austin follows US-290 all the way through, and inside the urban area it's freeway. It's freeway extending from each end of I-35, hence the reason of the overlap. TX-45 and TX-130 could be used to bypass Austin, if you extended the TX-45 Toll Road east back to US-290, but an continous interstate designation would follow the routing through the city, and overlap I-35. Think of the jungle of overlaps and junctions in Downtown Atlanta, but mostly thru traffic uses I-285 to bypass it all.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2019, 05:16:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 22, 2019, 11:52:52 AM
Upgrade the interchange between the TX-45 freeway and I-35, and there will be a freeway connection from downtown Austin to TX-130 leading to I-10 to Houston.
25 miles longer than US-290 or TX-71. I thought these routes had to be the most direct or it was vanity.
You're looking at 2 opposites, that of using what is already there, and that of building a new corridor. Building an unneeded new corridor is vanity, any way you slice it, whether longer or shorter.
Building that interchange upgrade and the 15-mile connector have their own regional utility, aside from the long distance utility.
Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.
*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2019, 09:08:17 AM
Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.
*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?
For your last one since it's in my area I just had to comment. I think I understand what you mean. Taking US-10 to US-127 to end up at US-127's northern terminus is about 15 miles longer. And the nice thing about it all is US-10 and US-127 are all freeway between those two points. I-75 will always be the more direct route going anywhere north though.
If NCDOT had fully completed constructing their segment of I-87 between the state line and Raleigh, and in 2040 per se Virginia was looking to construct an interstate to the south, you're saying they would use an existing corridor (I-87), which is 20 miles longer, and just upgrade limited-access US-17 up to I-64 to interstate standards as oppose to building a whole new corridor (US-58)?
Just trying to clear some confusion here.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2019, 11:16:27 AM
If NCDOT had fully completed constructing their segment of I-87 between the state line and Raleigh, and in 2040 per se Virginia was looking to construct an interstate to the south, you're saying they would use an existing corridor (I-87), which is 20 miles longer, and just upgrade limited-access US-17 up to I-64 to interstate standards as oppose to building a whole new corridor (US-58)?
Just trying to clear some confusion here.
Confusion on your part. Hypothesizing 20 to 25 years into the future is Fantasy Highways territory.
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2019, 09:08:17 AM
Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.
*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?
Those highways were authorized back when rural Interstate highways cost $1 million per mile to build and there was no need to rehabilitate and reconstruct aging Interstate highways.
Today it is incredibly expensive just to keep 40,000+ miles of 40 to 50 year old Interstate highway corridors in continuing safe and efficient operation.
Your logic is in fact illogic. Thanks for playing.
Quote from: 1 on June 22, 2019, 04:44:34 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 22, 2019, 04:34:10 PM
Quote from: nosrac52 on June 22, 2019, 04:13:33 PM
Boise to Reno! #I-11 North baby!!!!!!!
Step #1: convince Oregon (ODOT) to contribute to a US 95-based Interstate route that really provides little or no benefit to the state -- or get other parties to pay for it.
Step #2: Provide enough commerce in Boise/Treasure Valley that needs connectivity to NV or CA to warrant such a route, and which demonstrates that by crowding onto extant US 95. Might happen if the Boise-area MPO gets above about 1.25M population and additional firms establish HQ's or offices in the area (Albertson's and Motive Power [locomotives] can't carry the region alone!). Figure at least 2035-2040 before that has a chance to occur.
And by that time I-11 may be heading to central Oregon; Idaho will have to settle for I-13!
Boise to Winnemucca, avoiding Oregon entirely.
Oregon has one reason to build it. Oregon's speed limit is 70. Idaho and Nevada rural interstates are 80 mph. It's the country's most lucrative speed trap waiting to happen.
Quote from: Beltway on June 23, 2019, 11:26:06 AM
Confusion on your part. Hypothesizing 20 to 25 years into the future is Fantasy Highways territory.
Can you just answer the hypothetical situation? Would Virginia be in the position to advance construction on 60+ miles of upgrades to non-limited-access US-58 to interstate standards, or would they upgrade 14 miles of limited-access highway to tie into an existing interstate highway
(I-87 running from the state line to Raleigh, as authorized by the FHWA in May 2016) at that point in time?
You've made the claim in the past Virginia would see past the vanity of an I-87 corridor even after completed, and if desired a southern connection, would build it out on US-58 even when I-87 existed... yet you're claiming here TxDOT should just stick with I-10 and TX-130 because they're existing freeways, even if it's 20 miles longer then the non-limited-access 4-lane existing route.
Seeing a double standard, and that's what my confusion is.
Quote from: Beltway on June 23, 2019, 11:30:27 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2019, 09:08:17 AM
Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.
*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?
Those highways were authorized back when rural Interstate highways cost $1 million per mile to build and there was no need to rehabilitate and reconstruct aging Interstate highways.
Today it is incredibly expensive just to keep 40,000+ miles of 40 to 50 year old Interstate highway corridors in continuing safe and efficient operation.
Your logic is in fact illogic. Thanks for playing.
This is an argument about demand, and should not be twisted into an argument about cost. Regardless of the financial feasibility, the demand is there for upgrading the Austin-Houston corridor to a full freeway. It is most certainly warranted when looked at next to the examples mentioned above. The Houston metro is also much larger than anything mentioned above.
QuoteOregon's speed limit is 70. ...It's the country's most lucrative speed trap waiting to happen.
Driving US 395 from Lakeview to Burns, which is pretty stinking lonely road, the fuzz in Oregon still managed to nail a couple people in the middle of the desert 90 miles from nuthin'. The speed limit was 55. Ridiculous.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2019, 01:35:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 23, 2019, 11:26:06 AM
Confusion on your part. Hypothesizing 20 to 25 years into the future is Fantasy Highways territory.
Can you just answer the hypothetical situation?
No. Waaaaayy too far in the future. Too many variables.
I don't have to play these games if I can see them for what they are.
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2019, 06:34:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 23, 2019, 11:30:27 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 23, 2019, 09:08:17 AM
Austin to Houston is absolutely needed.
*If I-71 didn't exist between Columbus and Cincinnati, would you argue that I-70 to I-675 to I-75 was sufficient?
*Is I-93 between Concord, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT redundant to I-89 and I-91?
*Ignoring numbering, is I-35 between Emporia and Overland Park redundant to I-335 and I-70?
*Again ignoring numbering, is I-75 between Bay City and Grayling, MI redundant to US 10 and US 127?
Those highways were authorized back when rural Interstate highways cost $1 million per mile to build and there was no need to rehabilitate and reconstruct aging Interstate highways.
Today it is incredibly expensive just to keep 40,000+ miles of 40 to 50 year old Interstate highway corridors in continuing safe and efficient operation.
This is an argument about demand, and should not be twisted into an argument about cost. Regardless of the financial feasibility, the demand is there for upgrading the Austin-Houston corridor to a full freeway. It is most certainly warranted when looked at next to the examples mentioned above. The Houston metro is also much larger than anything mentioned above.
Those examples are irrelevant, for the reasons I stated.
Cost has to be a factor, otherwise someone might argue for a freeway between Asbury Park and Queens.
Two corridors already exist that are 4-lane arterial or better, US-290 and TX-71/I-10, and I suggested a 15-mile freeway connector that would enable for a decent all-freeway route.
Quote from: 1 on June 22, 2019, 04:44:34 PM
Boise to Winnemucca, avoiding Oregon entirely.
The existing Boise-Winnemucca route, US 95, includes a lot of mileage in Oregon. Avoiding Oregon would require a new and longer corridor, through pretty much roadless and unpopulated parts of Idaho and Nevada.
Quote from: Beltway on June 23, 2019, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2019, 06:34:42 PM
This is an argument about demand, and should not be twisted into an argument about cost. Regardless of the financial feasibility, the demand is there for upgrading the Austin-Houston corridor to a full freeway. It is most certainly warranted when looked at next to the examples mentioned above. The Houston metro is also much larger than anything mentioned above.
Those examples are irrelevant, for the reasons I stated.
Cost has to be a factor, otherwise someone might argue for a freeway between Asbury Park and Queens.
Two corridors already exist that are 4-lane arterial or better, US-290 and TX-71/I-10, and I suggested a 15-mile freeway connector that would enable for a decent all-freeway route.
Cost is absolutely not a factor in whether its
needed. Cost is a factor in whether it
gets built. As mentioned, the two shouldn't be twisted.
There isn't a basis to claim those examples are irrelevant. If anything, they aren't superlative enough; Austin to Houston is needed to a greater extent than any of those except arguably I-71.
TxDOT has plans to upgrade 40 miles of rural US-281 divided highway to interstate standards by building continuous frontage roads and 10+ interchanges... the cost estimate is $500 million. About $12.5 million per mile.
This isn't Virginia where new location construction costs $50+ million per mile, and not to mention most of this isn't new location construction, it's upgrading existing rural roadway by constructing continuous frontage roads, bridges every few miles, and slip ramps between the mainline and frontage road every few miles.
Construction costs are a lot cheaper in Texas, especially rural construction. And design standards are a lot different in Texas... different then pretty much any other state.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 23, 2019, 06:50:29 PM
QuoteOregon's speed limit is 70. ...It's the country's most lucrative speed trap waiting to happen.
Driving US 395 from Lakeview to Burns, which is pretty stinking lonely road, the fuzz in Oregon still managed to nail a couple people in the middle of the desert 90 miles from nuthin'. The speed limit was 55. Ridiculous.
Back in those days, my experience is they wouldn't ticket you if you kept it below 70. I was riding with a friend (with Washington plates) between Burns and Bend, same deal. He got pulled over for going 70 in the 55, but just got a warning. I had told him "you can go 65" (not wanting to be stuck in the car for 5 hours at 55 MPH lol), indicating that even though the limit was 55, 65 was safe from being pulled over. I guess he interpreted that as "the speed limit is 65, so I'll go 5 over that". Luckily didn't result in a ticket or I would have felt bad. And I'd driven it many times (in Oregon plates), usually going right around 70, never an issue.
You can feel better about the fact that these highways are 65 now (and 70 on US-95), not 55.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2019, 01:35:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 23, 2019, 11:26:06 AM
Confusion on your part. Hypothesizing 20 to 25 years into the future is Fantasy Highways territory.
Can you just answer the hypothetical situation? Would Virginia be in the position to advance construction on 60+ miles of upgrades to non-limited-access US-58 to interstate standards, or would they upgrade 14 miles of limited-access highway to tie into an existing interstate highway (I-87 running from the state line to Raleigh, as authorized by the FHWA in May 2016) at that point in time?
You've made the claim in the past Virginia would see past the vanity of an I-87 corridor even after completed, and if desired a southern connection, would build it out on US-58 even when I-87 existed... yet you're claiming here TxDOT should just stick with I-10 and TX-130 because they're existing freeways, even if it's 20 miles longer then the non-limited-access 4-lane existing route.
Seeing a double standard, and that's what my confusion is.
Going by the past, Virginia didn't see the need to upgrade US 17 in Chesapeake to four lanes for several years after North Carolina did on their side of the border despite an agreement of sorts (similar to the MO/AR I-49 impasse). When they did, they only upgraded the section alongside the Great Dismal Swamp and stopped when it became Dominion Blvd. (As an aside, I admit it's a very nice stretch of road with long wildlife underpasses.) Chesapeake finally went ahead and paid for the remaining upgrade by making the US 17 Elizabeth River Bridge a toll, much like they did with VA 168 to bypass Great Bridge after waiting for the Commonwealth to build a new Intercoastal Waterway bridge. Virginia doesn't have a long-term plan. Guessing what the Commonwealth will do is like predicting how dice will roll. They will likely continue to piecemeal upgrade the US 58 corridor in erratic chunks like they've done over the last few decades regardless of whatever NC does.
Quote from: skluth on June 24, 2019, 05:55:01 PM
Going by the past, Virginia didn't see the need to upgrade US 17 in Chesapeake to four lanes for several years after North Carolina did on their side of the border despite an agreement of sorts (similar to the MO/AR I-49 impasse). When they did, they only upgraded the section alongside the Great Dismal Swamp and stopped when it became Dominion Blvd. (As an aside, I admit it's a very nice stretch of road with long wildlife underpasses. Chesapeake finally went ahead and paid for the remaining upgrade by making the US 17 Elizabeth River Bridge a toll, much like they did with VA 168 to bypass Great Bridge after waiting for the Commonwealth to build a new Intercoastal Waterway bridge. Virginia doesn't have a long-term plan. Guessing what the Commonwealth will do is like predicting how dice will roll. They will likely continue to piecemeal upgrade the US 58 corridor in erratic chunks like they've done over the last few decades regardless of whatever NC does.
Gotta disagree with a few things... Virginia never built the US-17 realignment until 2005 due to lack of funding, not because they "didn't see the need", and the same applies with VA-168 - lack of funding. They had planned to widen US-17 on alignment for decades before, and finally went with a relocated alignment in the early 2000s when funding came around.
Dominion Blvd has been in the works since the 90s, and was always intended to be a 4-lane limited-access arterial south of Cedar Rd, and 4-lane freeway north of Cedar Rd. Again, VDOT was lacking funding for years, and Chesapeake didn't want to wait any longer and pushed ahead with their own project that would fully build it out, and paid for it mostly by tolls, though about $80 million came from state & federal funding.
As for VA-168, the ultimate plan for the corridor was set in the 60s, 4-lane freeway on new location from I-64 to south of Great Bridge, and then widen to 4-lane rural divided non-limited-access highway south of there to the North Carolina state line, with a new-location relocation around of Hickory. VDOT constructed the 4 mile Great Bridge Bypass (including the Intracoastal Waterway brige) that opened in March 1981, but did not have funding to complete the rest of the project. Chesapeake funded & constructed the $38 million Oak Grove Connector between I-64 and VA-168 Business north of Great Bridge that opened in July 1999 using traditional funding, and today is a regular 4-lane urban freeway. South of Great Bridge is where it had been back and forth planning for decades. Around the late 80s is when Chesapeake took over the project since VDOT did not have funding, and planned to construct it as a toll road, and determined instead of widening the existing road like planned, it would be a new location toll freeway parallel to the old road. That opened in May 2001 as a regular 4-lane rural freeway, and a toll is collected near the state line.
The funding of these two key highways has been a roller coaster for many decades and as of 2016 are both finally completed. Future potential projects, like upgrading US-17 into I-87 would be easier to fund nowadays, because in 2013 the HRTAC was created, which generates $200 - $400 million annually for Hampton Roads highway construction projects, funded by a gas tax increase that went in effect for the Hampton Roads area in 2013. That program has since been able to fully fund the $4 billion HRBT expansion, $400 million High Rise Bridge expansion, $500 million I-64 expansions on the Peninsula, the $300 million I-64 / I-264 interchange overhaul, and more projects are planned over the next 20 years, and I-87 may become one of those projects in later years, especially if NCDOT completes at least the segment between Elizabeth City and the Virginia state line.
It's going to be interesting to see how I-87 plays out over the next 20 years, and even more interesting what happens to the project in Virginia as North Carolina completes it up to the state line.
It's important to note, and many keep forgetting as they criticize North Carolina for forcing Virginia to play, I-87's current approved routing does not enter Virginia - it starts at the state line and ends in Raleigh. Virginia would have to apply to extend the designation from there to I-64 and Norfolk to even bring it above the state line, and nobody is forcing them too. It's a mere choice Virginia has if they want to complete a seamless connection to I-64 - if they don't, the existing US-17 will continue handling traffic adequately, and will handle any future traffic generated from the interstate.
Quote from: skluth on June 24, 2019, 05:55:01 PM
They will likely continue to piecemeal upgrade the US 58 corridor in erratic chunks like they've done over the last few decades regardless of whatever NC does.
Now that the entire corridor is 4-lane divided with town bypasses, no more large-scale upgrades are planned and probably will never come for many decades. The latest upgrade was an interchange in Courtland, which helped flow traffic through a signal, but nothing major. In that same area, they just reduced the speed limit to 50 mph, and also increased the police presence in the area. The only other thing coming is a 6-lane widening near Suffolk for congestion relief, which is needed, but again, doesn't have a large impact on the corridor outside of rush hours. They recently completed a study on the US-58 corridor between Bowers Hill and I-95, but all that ended up being was recommending where innovative intersections should be, and that a diverging diamond should be constructed with US-58 and I-95 in Emporia. No mention of an interstate buildout of US-58.
A doubt we'll be seeing any progress towards freeway upgrades along US-58 in the next few decades, unless a serious push is made to improve US-58 to interstate standards throughout. Only spot improvements here and there, but that's about all I'm seeing on the radar. Meanwhile, planning continues in North Carolina, and 80 miles of US-17 is planned to be upgraded to interstate standards, and about 45 miles of freeway have been built in the US-64 / US-17 corridor since the late 90s, and now the remaining gaps are planned to be closed creating one seamless freeway. It's easy to see VDOT is more likely to fall to I-87 if any southern freeway is desired once it gets well underway through the Tar Heel State, seeing only a few interchanges will need to built on the limited-access US-17, some upgrades to the roadway and the Oak Grove Connector interchange, and that's it. Far less needed and far less expensive then upgrading 60+ miles of non-limited-access to interstate, and at least 25 miles of new location construction needed. It'd likely be at least $2 billion to complete a US-58 connection compared to $200 - $300 million for an I-87 connection. A few tricky areas to tackle with US-58 as well, Emporia and western Suffolk standing out. It'd involve expensive construction to seamlessly tie in the existing Suffolk Bypass to a new location freeway, and the I-95 junction will involve a massive interchange likely being needed as apart of a bypass extension back to US-58 west of Emporia. Not impossible, but a lot of construction and expensive. Upgrading the Oak Grove Connector interchange won't be a huge task for an I-87 connection, especially since most of the substandard features of it are programmed to be completely overhauled apart of I-64 Phase 2 widening to 8-lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2019, 06:18:16 PM
Gotta disagree with a few things... Virginia never built the US-17 realignment until 2005 due to lack of funding, not because they "didn't see the need", and the same applies with VA-168 - lack of funding. They had planned to widen US-17 on alignment for decades before, and finally went with a relocated alignment in the early 2000s when funding came around.
Not true. This has been discussed before.
It took many years of work with the ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and other resource agencies to work out how to expand US-17 south of Dominion Blvd., various alternatives were evaluated. The old highway was too close to the canal and had subbase drainage issues due to having so little elevation above ground level. Close to the Dismal Swamp.
Changing decisions at ACOE was the biggest factor in the delays.
Most of the length of the new highway was constructed about 1,000 yards east of the old road location in order to limit disturbance to the Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge and surrounding forests and wetlands.
As part of this project, VDOT donated 758 acres (that is over 1 square mile) of existing wetlands to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as wetland preservation. In addition to the wetlands donation, VDOT purchased about 16 acres of mineral soil wetlands, and is created about 9.6 acres of forested, organic soil wetlands within the project corridor.
The cost was only $41 million for 12 miles of highway construction, so cost was not a major issue.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2019, 06:18:16 PM
Now that the entire corridor is 4-lane divided with town bypasses, no more large-scale upgrades are planned and probably will never come for many decades.
I have actually been following highway issues for "many decades" and anyone that can make a statement like that is full of baloney (or their hobby is VI-87).
Quote from: webny99 on June 24, 2019, 02:17:24 PM
There isn't a basis to claim those examples are irrelevant. If anything, they aren't superlative enough; Austin to Houston is needed to a greater extent than any of those except arguably I-71.
I-71 was built when rural Interstate highway construction cost $1 million per mile. The segment between Cincinnati and Columbus would not be built today if it did not already exist.
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:02:26 PM
I have actually been following highway issues for "many decades" and anyone that can make a statement like that is full of baloney
What upgrades are programmed and planned for US-58 that would bring it closer to interstate standards over the next 10-15 years?
At least the I-87 corridor has had a feasibility study conducted, and there is an active push to get it funded piece by piece. Projects near Hertford are programmed for 2025, and more to come over the next couple of decades. It's not going to get built in one project, but it's going to get done piece by piece. I-73 in Virginia is a clear example of what happens when you try to get it done in one project - it sits dormant for decades. They're now deciding to go piece by piece (as seen with the MSC), and actually have a shot of getting some of it done for once. I've seen nothing in regards to bringing US-58 to interstate standards.
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:02:26 PM
(or their hobby is VI-87).
You just can't help yourself can you? Couldn't one say you're equally as invested in it as much as you post about it? You may not be supportive of the project, but you've invested a similar amount of time into the highway and posting about it as I have.
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:06:42 PM
I-71 was built when rural Interstate highway construction cost $1 million per mile.
Rural construction in Texas is around $10 million per mile. For 80 miles of new construction, $800 million. To give some cushion, we'll say about $1 billion needed to complete an interstate grade highway between Austin and Houston. TX-130 cost $2 billion for 80 miles, though it has a much larger footprint (extremely wide median due to 85 mph speed limit) and was mostly new location construction, whereas a US-290 or TX-71 upgrade would use existing highway, and likely have a smaller 46 foot median, comparable to the US-281 project proposed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2019, 11:10:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:02:26 PM
I have actually been following highway issues for "many decades" and anyone that can make a statement like that is full of baloney
What upgrades are programmed and planned for US-58 that would bring it closer to interstate standards over the next 10-15 years?
STIPs don't run for 10 or 15 years, the SYIP is for 6 years. The segment between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill is either in or nearly in the program.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2019, 11:18:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:06:42 PM
I-71 was built when rural Interstate highway construction cost $1 million per mile.
Rural construction in Texas is around $10 million per mile.
I don't believe that, not if you are referring to rural Interstate highway construction on new location.
$25 million at the very minimum is the going rate, usually higher.
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:23:44 PM
STIPs don't run for 10 or 15 years, the SYIP is for 6 years.
Long range plan. Upgrading US-58 between I-95 and Bowers Hill to interstate standards isn't in the long range plan. When it is, my support will turn to that project. Until then, I-87 is the only planned southern connection from Hampton Roads, vanity or not, that's what's planned, and that's what I'll support. Naturally, I do believe US-58 is the better routing, but Virginia hasn't done anything or talked about anything, so I-87 is the next best option. There's no direct route NC can upgrade within their borders that would have any benefit to them in the process. You could go NC-11 / US-13, though A) it barely serves anything unlike US-64 / US-17, and B) it would likely be all new terrain construction, way more expensive than upgrading US-64 / US-17.
Nothing so far for US-58 in Virginia.
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:23:44 PM
The segment between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill is either in or nearly in the program.
That would be a step, but so far it's only in the long range plan, and has a steep price tag for at least a decade away. It's not funded yet, and I wouldn't say it's nearly in the SYIP. There's no still environmental documentation or detailed design that's happened with that project yet, and nothing is currently funded. There was an EA underway, though funding was pulled.
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:23:44 PM
I don't believe that, not if you are referring to rural Interstate highway construction on new location.
I'm referring to upgrading existing roadway. A project would consist of constructing continuous one-way 2-lane frontage roads on either side, raising existing US-290 over cross roads over 2-3 miles and having turnarounds underneath and slip ramps from the mainline to the new frontage roads.
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:23:44 PM
$25 million at the very minimum is the going rate, usually higher.
TX-130 was constructed for about $25 million per mile. Construction is cheaper down south and out west, even as close as North Carolina actually it's roughly $20 - $30 million for new location, and as low as $10 - $15 million per mile for upgrading existing roadway.
This would explain the "low-balled" costs for "V"I-87 you've questioned - rural construction is just generally cheaper in NC, and have generally remained static for at least a decade. Virginia's costs interestingly have been sky-rocketing in comparison over the past decade it seems. A rural interchange in Virginia is $25 - $35 million, whereas you can see on built in North Carolina for as little as $7 million in some cases, even nowadays, on an interstate highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2019, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:23:44 PM
STIPs don't run for 10 or 15 years, the SYIP is for 6 years.
Long range plan. Upgrading US-58 between I-95 and Bowers Hill to interstate standards isn't in the long range plan.
What long range plan? Few states have any long range plan as in a funded planning tool.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2019, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:23:44 PM
I don't believe that, not if you are referring to rural Interstate highway construction on new location.
I'm referring to upgrading existing roadway. A project would consist of constructing continuous one-way 2-lane frontage roads on either side, raising existing US-290 over cross roads over 2-3 miles and having turnarounds underneath and slip ramps from the mainline to the new frontage roads.
I commented on how expensive several Texas Interstate upgrade projects were in the last year, that were announced on this newsgroup, like about $200 million for about 5 miles of highway. No major bridges, just what was in several interchange upgrades.
Texas has 29 million people now and some huge metro areas. That all tends to increase the cost of doing business.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2019, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:23:44 PM
$25 million at the very minimum is the going rate, usually higher.
TX-130 was constructed for about $25 million per mile.
Opened in segments in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2012. Costs have greatly increased since then every where.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2019, 11:41:06 PM
Construction is cheaper down south and out west, even as close as North Carolina actually it's roughly $20 - $30 million for new location, and as low as $10 - $15 million per mile for upgrading existing roadway.
Materials, labor and equipment are fairly consistent in cost in rural areas around the country.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2019, 11:41:06 PM
A rural interchange in Virginia is $25 - $35 million, whereas you can see on built in North Carolina for as little as $7 million in some cases, even nowadays, on an interstate highway.
$16 million for the Courtland interchange. That is fairly typical in this part of the country.
Quote from: Beltway on June 25, 2019, 12:22:03 AM
What long range plan? Few states have any long range plan as in a funded planning tool.
The 2045 LRTP is currently being developed... the 2040 LRTP is already completed.
The HRTPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee recommended the following projects that were "corridors that experience significant truck delay" and were not apart of the 2040 LRTP be evaluated for the 2045 LRTP, including I-87. US-58 was not on this list, though US-58 between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill was in the 2040 LRTP and will likely carry over to the 2045 LRTP. It does not mean I-87 will be apart of the 2045 LRTP, but it shows it's at least being evaluated and will be considered. It may well become one of high priority projects along with the High Rise Bridge expansion to 8-lanes, Third Crossing, US-58 connector, and Bowers Hill interchange, though that will all depend on how the HRTPO views I-87. If it's continued to be viewed as a "direct interstate link" to I-95 South, then it will likely have higher priority. If they see past the "vanity" part of it as you've made quite clear through dozens of posts, and that it will not divert key truck traffic, it may score lower and not be a "high priority" project, or even end up on the LRTP at all. We'll find out in the next year or so when it's officially completed.
- Bowers Hill Interchange
- I-64 Peninsula 29-mile segment between Richmond and HR MPAs
- I-87 (Dominion Blvd to Interstate standard)
- (CHES) Greenbrier Pkwy from Volvo Pkwy to Woodlake Dr
- (CHES/NOR) I-464 from Poindexter St to I-264
- (CHES/SUF) I-664 from I-64 & I-264 to College Dr
- (HAM) Mercury Blvd from Power Plant Pkwy to I-64
- (IW) Benns Church Blvd to ECL Smithfield (Rte 664) to Church St S
- (JCC/WMB) Route 199 from John Tyler Hwy to Jamestown Rd
- (NN) Oyster Point Rd from Jefferson Ave to I-64
- (NOR) 4th View St from I-64 to Ocean View Ave
- (NOR) Ballentine Blvd from I-264 to Virginia Beach Blvd
- (NOR) Boush St/Waterside Dr from St Pauls Blvd to Brambleton Ave
- (NOR) Chesapeake Blvd from I-64 to Little Creek Rd
- (NOR) Hampton Blvd from 21st St to Little Creek Rd
- (NOR) I-64 from I-564/Little Creek Rd to Military Hwy
- (NOR) Military Hwy from I-264 to Virginia Beach Blvd
- (NOR) Monticello Ave from St Pauls Blvd to Virginia Beach Blvd
- (NOR) Newtown Rd from I-264 to Virginia Beach cityline
- (NOR) St Pauls Blvd from I-264 Ramp/MacArthur Mall to Brambleton Ave
- (NOR) Tidewater Dr from City Hall Ave to Norview Ave
- (NOR) Virginia Beach Blvd from Monticello Aven to Azalea Garden Rd
- (NOR/VB) Northampton Blvd from Kempsville Rd to Diamond Springs Rd
- (PORT) Frederick Blvd from I-264 to Turnpike Rd
- (PORT/NOR) I-264/DTT/Berkley Bridge from Portsmouth Blvd to Brambleton Ave
- (SUF) Godwin Blvd from Suffolk Bypass to Kings Fork Rd
- (SUF/NN) I-664/MMMBT from College Dr to Chestnut Ave
- (VB) First Colonial Rd from Old Donation Pkwy to Greak Neck Rd
- (VB) Independence Blvd from Holland Rd to Columbus St
- (VB) Military Hwy from Providence Rd to Indian River Rd
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P4-Freight_Project_Prioritization_Survey.pdf
Quote from: Beltway on June 25, 2019, 12:22:03 AM
I commented on how expensive several Texas Interstate upgrade projects were in the last year, that were announced on this newsgroup, like about $200 million for about 5 miles of highway. No major bridges, just what was in several interchange upgrades.
It varies. The I-69 corridor seems to have success with cheap $10-$15 million per mile upgrades on the contrary. What specific highways are you referring to? If they're in the Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas/Fort-Worth metros, that would explain why. And if they're toll projects, I wouldn't expect less.
Quote from: Beltway on June 25, 2019, 12:22:03 AM
Opened in segments in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2012. Costs have greatly increased since then every where.
The 13-mile US-64 Asheboro Bypass cost $356 million
($27 million per mile) and is currently under construction.
The 18.5-mile US-74 Shelby Bypass cost $284 million
($15 million per mile) and is currently under construction.
The 9.4-mile I-73 segment between I-840 and US-220 north of Greensboro cost $176 million
($19 million per mile) and opened in 2017.
The 10-mile US-70 Havelock Bypass cost $221 million
($22 million per mile) and begins construction late this year or early next year.
The 8-mile I-140 completion in Wilmington cost $204 million
($26 million per mile) and opened in 2017. This project also constructed two 2-lane 1.5 mile bridges over the Cape Fear River.
The 20-mile US-70 Goldsboro Bypass cost $235 million
($12 million per mile) and opened phases between 2011 and 2016.
I could continue, though I think these examples are enough to show construction costs have still been kept down in North Carolina, even on current rural freeway construction projects. And these projects were all or are being built to interstate standards, and some of them are part of future interstates or were built as an interstate highway segment.
This will likely continue to show as I-42, I-795, and I-87 are built through eastern NC over the 1-2 decades, and other rural freeway segments are continuing to be build.
Quote from: Beltway on June 25, 2019, 12:22:03 AM
$16 million for the Courtland interchange. That is fairly typical in this part of the country.
Yet when I used $15 million as a base cost of an interchange on US-17, you claimed it was way low-balled just to make a "vanity" interstate cheaper and should be $25 - $30 million?
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 24, 2019, 02:17:24 PM
There isn't a basis to claim those examples are irrelevant. If anything, they aren't superlative enough; Austin to Houston is needed to a greater extent than any of those except arguably I-71.
I-71 was built when rural Interstate highway construction cost $1 million per mile. The segment between Cincinnati and Columbus would not be built today if it did not already exist.
I know, but the point has nothing to do with whether it exists. The point is that you can't argue that it's not needed.
Quote from: webny99 on June 25, 2019, 11:21:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 24, 2019, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 24, 2019, 02:17:24 PM
There isn't a basis to claim those examples are irrelevant. If anything, they aren't superlative enough; Austin to Houston is needed to a greater extent than any of those except arguably I-71.
I-71 was built when rural Interstate highway construction cost $1 million per mile. The segment between Cincinnati and Columbus would not be built today if it did not already exist.
I know, but the point has nothing to do with whether it exists. The point is that you can't argue that it's not needed.
I never "argued that it's not needed", just that it would not be built in today's environment.
There would be ways to address the traffic needs, such as widening projects on I-70, I-675 and I-75.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 25, 2019, 01:01:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 25, 2019, 12:22:03 AM
What long range plan? Few states have any long range plan as in a funded planning tool.
The 2045 LRTP is currently being developed... the 2040 LRTP is already completed.
HRTPO includes very little (the eastern end) of Southampton County and none of Greensville County.
A US-58 freeway between Bowers Hill and I-95 would be a VDOT project and initiated by them, because much of the length is not in HRTPO's area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 25, 2019, 01:01:15 AM
US-58 was not on this list, though US-58 between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill was in the 2040 LRTP and will likely carry over to the 2045 LRTP.
Again, that is HRTPO's plan, and VDOT is participating in those projects, and would involve making the expressway part of US-58 into a freeway and would add capacity to the Bowers Hill Interchange.
The soon-to-be-awarded 6-lane widening and access management of 4 miles of US-58 west of the Suffolk Bypass is not a -freeway- (sorry roadgeeks) but it will provide a welcome improvement of that segment.
Don't assume that a new project has to "bubble up" in a long range plan for 20 or 25 years before it can get into a TIP. It could go into EIS/location studies fairly soon if VDOT wanted to initiate that.
The VTrans2040 Plan for the Corridors of Statewide Significance, Southside Corridor (US-58) mentions those projects. That is the long range plan for VDOT, and from what it says there really isn't a demand for a continuous freeway west of Suffolk. While 14,000 AADT and 20% trucks sounds in the ballpark, the existing highway is high enough in design, and traffic growth is slow enough, that there isn't any real impetus to pursue that at this time (sorry roadgeeks).
There is no mention of anything in N.C. being used to supplement that corridor; since the Virginia state government has no control or power over road projects in N.C., then there would be no logical reason for them to consider something that might or might not exist in 2045 as having any influence over this COSS.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 25, 2019, 01:01:15 AM
(list of HRTPO long-range projects)
That shows how much demand there is in the area for highway expansion in that area. Given the magnitude of bridge construction needed including the number of major bridges, if a constant-dollar unit cost figure was computed for each pay item in the engineer's estimates of the projects, you would wind up with at least double and perhaps triple the total cost as compared to an equivalent population metro in N.C.
There is no data in NCDOT's history that would provide any estimate as to their cost for a 4,000 to 8,000 foot long underwater tunnel under a major shipping channel. Virginia has had 8 such projects and has 2 under construction.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 25, 2019, 01:01:15 AM
(list of N.C. projects varying between $15 and $27 million per mile)
That is a wide variation and due to national and local economic conditions the contractors can bid much lower than average when they really need the work.
I have quoted the $4 million per mile on the US-17 relocation in Chesapeake as a good example of this. It was completed in 2005 and it could easily have been bid at twice or more that in a different economy.
The Triangle Expressway is little more than a rural freeway with 3 lanes each way and involves no major bridges.
-- 19 miles built at $1.1 billion or $58 million per mile, completed in 2012.
-- 30 miles planned at $2.3 billion or $77 million per mile (the Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension)
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 25, 2019, 01:01:15 AM
I think these examples are enough to show construction costs have still been kept down in North Carolina,
Construction costs are not "kept down" or "not kept down", they are what they are. It is a matter of local and regional unit costs for labor, raw materials, finished materials, and equipment; and the historical results of engineer's estimates for projects being bidded on by contractors and then seeing what the market demands.
What about the route between Hampton Roads and Philadelphia? Each has an incorporated population of about 1.6 million. The shortest route involves US-13, US-113, and DE-1 through the Delmarva Peninsula. This route is also the fastest (unless Richmond, DC, and Baltimore have virtually no traffic).
Quote from: adwerkema on July 04, 2019, 04:49:46 PM
What about the route between Hampton Roads and Philadelphia? Each has an incorporated population of about 1.6 million. The shortest route involves US-13, US-113, and DE-1 through the Delmarva Peninsula. This route is also the fastest (unless Richmond, DC, and Baltimore have virtually no traffic).
You might find these interesting:
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf)
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/SJR184ReportforVDOTwebsite.pdf (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/SJR184ReportforVDOTwebsite.pdf)
Quote from: adwerkema on July 04, 2019, 04:49:46 PM
This route is also the fastest (unless Richmond, DC, and Baltimore have virtually no traffic).
Even at midnight, I-64 to I-95 is 35 minutes slower.
I plan on trying it eventually though, just to see what I'm "missing out" on by taking US-13, US-113, and DE-1.
Richmond isn't a big issue on traffic though, thanks to I-295. Baltimore isn't too much an issue - it's mostly the mess that is I-95 through Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland, though mostly Northern Virginia.
And I'm not going to pay $37 for a HO/T trip (this was the toll the other day between Stafford and I-495).
The only thing about US-13 and US-113 that gets annoying is the continuous 55 mph speed limit, but other than that, still better considering there's no good interstate alternative, and it's traffic-free. Once on DE-1 though, back up to 65 mph and cruising at interstate speeds.
If the I-64 and I-95 routing was closer in and only 5-10 minutes slower, and a bypass existed around DC / Baltimore, I'd probably use that despite the additional mileage / time. But 35 minutes - 2 hours slower isn't worth it on an average trip - unless I purposely wanted to go that way for a specific reason.
If at least Virginia would raise the rural stretches of US-13 to 60 mph, and maybe Maryland with US-113 and US-13, it would be slightly better.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 20, 2019, 10:02:28 PM
Fresno is going to be high on the list with since the primary freeway is CA 99. But Sacramento comes to mind primarily since it is also on CA 99.
Fresno-San Jose has no direct Interstate connection. In addition to the fact that both cities have only a tangential connection to the I-system, the shortest distance on numbered highway is almost twice as long as the air distance. No one has even credibly proposed any route or combination of routes that would connect the two of them on the I-system (outside of the "Fictional Highways" forum). At the moment, in order to get to avoid traffic controls, one must travel nearly 2.5 times the air distance.
Fresno-Las Vegas is a shorter distance than Las Vegas-Phoenix and has no direct I-system connection. Although there are proposals for an I-system upgrade of CASR-99 to I-7 or I-9 and an upgrade of CASR-58 to I-40, at the moment, you can't get from Fresno to Las Vegas stoplight free without adding about an hour to your route.
Phoenix and New York are the largest in the country actually, unless you back track. The gap is north of Phoenix.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 05:19:06 PM
And I'm not going to pay $37 for a HO/T trip (this was the [I-95 HOT] toll the other day between Stafford and I-495).
The 15 trips I have taken in the last 6 months have averaged $18 rounded, and those mostly in or near peak hours. The very highest was $27 rounded and in peak afternoon hours, and I don't use the HOT lanes in low hours and there were no low tolls in that group, the lowest was $13 rounded. I download transaction spreadsheet data from EZPassVA and keep the records, so this is derived from actual customer data.
There were at least 2 trips on the edge of peak hours where the VMS times were good enough that I stayed in the general purpose lanes and paid $0 toll. These of course don't appear on the spreadsheet at all!
You don't have to use the lanes for the entire distance. If I got "tired" of paying for the full distance I could ride the GP lanes about halfway up and then enter the HOT lanes going north, and going south enter the HOT lanes and then exit to the GP lanes about halfway down.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 05:19:06 PM
The only thing about US-13 and US-113 that gets annoying is the continuous 55 mph speed limit, but other than that, still better considering there's no good interstate alternative, and it's traffic-free. Once on DE-1 though, back up to 65 mph and cruising at interstate speeds.
This was influenced by a major transportation barrier, the Chesapeake Bay, and if not for a 17-mile ocean strait crossing, we wouldn't be talking about a more direct Interstate highway route than I-64 and I-95 between Norfolk and Philadelphia.
It will take a ton of money to build out the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel to a full 4-lane facility throughout. The original facility cost $200 million in 1964, the parallel trestle cost $197 million in 1999, the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project is under construction at $756 million, and the Parallel Chesapeake Channel Tunnel Project is unfunded and could be as far out as 2035, but is similar enough to the current project that the cost in 2018 dollars would be about the same. AADT is 8,800 with 9% large trucks.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 07:09:40 PM
Phoenix and New York are the largest in the country actually, unless you back track. The gap is north of Phoenix.
What is the issue there?
I-17 to I-40 to I-44 to I-70 to I-76 to I-81 to I-78
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 21, 2019, 01:01:46 PM
Currently, Transurban reports the toll for the I-95 Express Lanes between Springfield and Garrisonville Rd is $27.20 and there's no major incidents currently occurring. A little while ago, it was $25. I'll report if it gets higher.
(https://i.ibb.co/v1RJTGm/Transurban2720-Toll.png)
Like I said, $20 - $30.
A quick check at 511virginia.org reports the same number adding up the prices on the overhead sign.
Updates:
Update @ 2:30pm - Toll at $30.00 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 2:50pm - Toll at $31.10 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 3:00pm - Toll at $31.95 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 3:10pm - Toll at $31.55 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 3:35pm - Toll at $32.60 - Typical conditions / no major incidents
Update @ 4:40pm - Toll at $33.35 - Typical conditions / no major incidents (A quick check now shows I-495 at $18.10, making an entire I-95/I-495 trip $51.45)
(https://i.ibb.co/GtkWYsp/Transurban3335-Toll.png)
This was from Friday, June 21 - a typical Friday with no major incidents. I recorded the HO/T toll from I-495 to Stafford. These are the usual prices I see when I check, and see when driving through the area.
Note the highest price also included a check on I-495, which showed an entire trip on the system at 4:40pm on a regular, non eventful Friday was $51.45.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 07:22:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 07:09:40 PM
Phoenix and New York are the largest in the country actually, unless you back track. The gap is north of Phoenix.
What is the issue there?
I-17 to I-40 to I-44 to I-70 to I-76 to I-81 to I-78
Slightly out of the way... 50 miles additional, 15 minutes slower... could work though.
It's similar to the Phoenix to San Diego example... an all interstate trip is roughly 50 additional miles to back track to I-10.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 07:23:56 PM
This was from Friday, June 21 - a typical Friday with no major incidents. I recorded the HO/T toll from I-495 to Stafford. These are the usual prices I see when I check, and see when driving through the area.
You just never stop chumming the waters, do you?
Heading south on a Friday afternoon in the summer would see much higher rates than the average weekday in a year.
I provided a real world example of a long distance traveler making a lot of I-95 trips for such a person, and mostly in and around peak hours. If you want, I will do that for 2018 as well.
The 15 trips I have taken in the last 6 months have averaged $18 rounded, and those mostly in or near peak hours.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 07:39:41 PM
Heading south on a Friday afternoon in the summer would see much higher rates than the average weekday in a year.
I've traveled I-95 on Friday afternoons in the summer, and I barely notice a difference in traffic volumes and congestion. It's horrible any time of the year. I notice similar toll rates in non-summer times of the year too.
I'll do the same recording during non-summer months, and see. Until that time comes and I can do that recording... this is what I'm seeing of the Express Lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 07:49:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 07:39:41 PM
Heading south on a Friday afternoon in the summer would see much higher rates than the average weekday in a year.
I've traveled I-95 on Friday afternoons in the summer, and I barely notice a difference in traffic volumes and congestion. It's horrible any time of the year. I notice similar toll rates in non-summer times of the year too.
I'll do the same recording during non-summer months, and see. Until that time comes and I can do that recording... this is what I'm seeing of the Express Lanes.
So you have driven the route hundreds of times in the last year? Or you spend hours and hours sitting at your computer running apps? That is what you make it sound like.
I posted my experience as an intermittent long distance user, and that matches the discussion about traveling between Norfolk and Philadelphia, where I entered the discussion.
A regular commuter would have a very different experience and higher average tolls if they traveled in normal rush hours. Of course one poster on this forum has cited what he pays using both systems every day, very expensive, but he said that it is an "absolute no brainer" economically given the amount of additional time he gets and the job efficiencies he gets, and that he is not affluent.
An intermittent long distance user could have opportunities modify their trip somewhat to avoid the highest peak hours, and I do that. I try to avoid the center of rush hour if possible, and avoid Fridays if possible.
Any long distance traveler thru the Baltimore and Washington areas is being shortsighted if they don't make at least some effort to avoid the very highest peaks.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 09:35:39 PM
So you have driven the route hundreds of times in the last year? Or you spend hours and hours sitting at your computer running apps? That is what you make it sound like.
Not hundreds of times, but I go up to North Virginia every few months, or a few times per month, it all depends on the situation.
When I go, it's usually to visit people I know that live up there, and those are people who use I-95 at least 1-3 times per week. I get my knowledge from my own experiences, watching pricing on Transurban's website, and from their experiences living there and driving the corridor frequently.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 09:35:39 PM
traveling between Norfolk and Philadelphia, where I entered the discussion.
A trip between Norfolk and Philadelphia uses US-13, US-113, and DE-1. I-95 isn't involved in that, except on the very northern end. The $14 toll on the CBBT is far more worth it than $20-$30 on the HO/T lanes. And it's not even freeway and -I'm- saying that.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 09:35:39 PM
Of course one poster on this forum has cited what he pays using both systems every day, very expensive, but he said that it is an "absolute no brainer" economically given the amount of additional time he gets and the job efficiencies he gets, and that he is not affluent.
If you figure $60 per day, 5 days a week, and for 45 weeks out of the year - that's $13,500 per year on HO/T tolls.
That's -a lot- of money dedicated towards tolls, something I would never do
(I don't even use it at all), nor would 99% of the people in the HO/T lanes.
That's certainly not someone poor if they're spending that much money on tolls when free options exist.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 09:35:39 PM
An intermittent long distance user could have opportunities modify their trip somewhat to avoid the highest peak hours, and I do that. I try to avoid the center of rush hour if possible, and avoid Fridays if possible.
I try to, but it's not always that easy.
I've used the lanes before during rush hour, and it's nice, but I only use them if I'm carpooling.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 09:47:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 09:35:39 PM
So you have driven the route hundreds of times in the last year? Or you spend hours and hours sitting at your computer running apps? That is what you make it sound like.
Not hundreds of times, but I go up to North Virginia every few months, or a few times per month, it all depends on the situation.
When I go, it's usually to visit people I know that live up there, and those are people who use I-95 at least 1-3 times per week. I get my knowledge from my own experiences, watching pricing on Transurban's website, and from their experiences living there and driving the corridor frequently.
15 times in 6 months? I posted my experience on I-95, ranging $13 to $27 and an average of $18, mostly in and around peak hours. Twice $0 because the GP lanes were free flowing, that would bring that average down.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 09:47:00 PM
The $14 toll on the CBBT is far more worth it than $20-$30 on the HO/T lanes.
It is not "$20-$30", stop posting propaganda.
In many off-peak times you wouldn't pay anything because the VMS would show full speed travel times all the way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 09:47:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 09:35:39 PM
Of course one poster on this forum has cited what he pays using both systems every day, very expensive, but he said that it is an "absolute no brainer" economically given the amount of additional time he gets and the job efficiencies he gets, and that he is not affluent.
If you figure $60 per day, 5 days a week, and for 45 weeks out of the year - that's $13,500 per year on HO/T tolls.
That's -a lot- of money dedicated towards tolls, something I would never do (I don't even use it at all), nor would 99% of the people in the HO/T lanes.
That's certainly not someone poor if they're spending that much money on tolls when free options exist.
So what if it is the difference between having a 110K job or a 60K job? Before you smirk keep in mind those salaries are not high for the Washington area, and you have multitudes of people willing to take a deal like that.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 10:09:01 PM
It is not "$20-$30", stop posting propaganda.
For the stretch between Stafford and I-495, it is at least $20 most of the time.
Already refuted many times.
And saying $20 is being nice. My research from June 21 indicates it was up to $33.35 one-way, and I'll continue to research outside of summer months to see the toll then.
Sorry to ruin your love-affair with Transurban, VDOT, and HO/T lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 10:09:01 PM
Twice $0 because the GP lanes were free flowing, that would bring that average down.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 10:09:01 PM
In many off-peak times you wouldn't pay anything because the VMS would show full speed travel times all the way.
If you don't use the HO/T lanes - that doesn't go into an average toll rate for the HO/T lanes.
The HO/T lanes are a seperate facility from the mainline GP lanes and don't mix together. You're either on one or the other. If you're averaging tolls for the HO/T lanes, every trip needs to come from the HO/T lanes. And if you're averaging rush hour tolls, all the toll data you average needs to be from rush hour, not two times you didn't even use the facility, and times that were outside of rush hour.
Stop trying to sugar coat your data to make the "average" toll look cheaper.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 10:13:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 10:09:01 PM
It is not "$20-$30", stop posting propaganda.
For the stretch between Stafford and I-495, it is at least $20 most of the time.
Already refuted many times.
My experience on I-95, ranging $13 (rounded) to $27 and an average of $18, mostly in and around peak hours. Twice $0 because the GP lanes were free flowing, that would bring that average down.
Entry Date and Time Plaza Facility Toll Paid
3/29/2019 7:56:12 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -12.30
4/1/2019 3:50:11 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -25.15
4/12/2019 8:25:02 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -14.90
4/23/2019 9:12:33 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -23.85
4/23/2019 7:01:53 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -14.65
5/2/2019 7:23:04 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -15.60
5/2/2019 9:22:00 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -18.85
5/14/2019 4:38:14 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -27.50
5/14/2019 9:02:51 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -22.80
5/28/2019 8:57:00 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -23.05
5/28/2019 7:20:12 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -13.80
6/6/2019 7:17:48 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -15.70
6/11/2019 9:07:12 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -18.90
6/21/2019 8:14:08 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -16.50
In 2018, purely long distance trips --
3/23/2018 8:42:35 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -14.75
5/2/2018 2:23:20 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -9.95
6/22/2018 8:42:09 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -14.30
6/25/2018 2:54:08 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -14.50
9/21/2018 8:17:49 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -14.75
9/24/2018 2:58:25 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -15.25
10/23/2018 10:41:04 AM 95 EXPRESS LANES -8.10
10/24/2018 3:41:38 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -20.80
11/22/2018 1:17:50 PM 95 EXPRESS LANES -9.25
You can't take a simple average here. 3 PM to 5 PM is more expensive than the entire morning.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 05:19:06 PM
Quote from: adwerkema on July 04, 2019, 04:49:46 PM
This route is also the fastest (unless Richmond, DC, and Baltimore have virtually no traffic).
Even at midnight, I-64 to I-95 is 35 minutes slower.
I plan on trying it eventually though, just to see what I'm "missing out" on by taking US-13, US-113, and DE-1.
Richmond isn't a big issue on traffic though, thanks to I-295. Baltimore isn't too much an issue - it's mostly the mess that is I-95 through Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland, though mostly Northern Virginia.
And I'm not going to pay $37 for a HO/T trip (this was the toll the other day between Stafford and I-495).
The only thing about US-13 and US-113 that gets annoying is the continuous 55 mph speed limit, but other than that, still better considering there's no good interstate alternative, and it's traffic-free. Once on DE-1 though, back up to 65 mph and cruising at interstate speeds.
If the I-64 and I-95 routing was closer in and only 5-10 minutes slower, and a bypass existed around DC / Baltimore, I'd probably use that despite the additional mileage / time. But 35 minutes - 2 hours slower isn't worth it on an average trip - unless I purposely wanted to go that way for a specific reason.
If at least Virginia would raise the rural stretches of US-13 to 60 mph, and maybe Maryland with US-113 and US-13, it would be slightly better.
I'd argue for 65 mph on the rural sections of those highways. Also, the DE-1 tollway should be 70 mph easily (probably the only highway in Delaware where such is warranted).
Quote from: 1 on July 04, 2019, 10:29:52 PM
You can't take a simple average here. 3 PM to 5 PM is more expensive than the entire morning.
This isn't meant to be scientific, I am merely showing the activity of one long-distance traveler, the tolls paid, and stating that these prices are worth it for me.
Another person would have different experiences.
I entered this discussion when someone posted "$37" as somehow being what I-95 HOT lanes would cost for someone traveling between Norfolk and Philadelphia. GARBAGE!
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 10:36:09 PM
I entered this discussion when someone posted "$37" as somehow being what I-95 HOT lanes would cost for someone traveling between Norfolk and Philadelphia. GARBAGE!
During afternoon peak hours, $20 - $30 is the average toll, and yesterday it was $37 for the entire duration. A day that a lot of long-distance trips would be happening, before July 4th - a day a lot of long-distance traffic would be presented the opportunity to pay that much to bypass the traffic.
My scenario would have been 100% factual for yesterday, and maybe over exaggerated for another afternoon rush hour, but not by much.
Sorry to ruin your love-affair with Transurban, VDOT, and HO/T lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 10:36:09 PM
GARBAGE!
You're way too defensive about these projects, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way by opposition to such projects. Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.
HOT lanes are an efficient way to guarantee free-flowing conditions in major metropolitan areas, and should be pursued by all of the major metropolitan areas in the US on congested corridors.
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 10:23:19 PM
My experience on I-95, ranging $13 (rounded) to $27 and an average of $18, mostly in and around peak hours. Twice $0 because the GP lanes were free flowing, that would bring that average down.
<snip>
Did some math and calculated the average toll per hourly period. This assumes all of the toll trips you posted where from the entire duration from I-495 to the southern end in Stafford and not cut short anywhere.
- Avg Toll 7-8 am - $12.30
- Avg Toll 8-9 am - $16.38
- Avg Toll 9-10 am - $21.46
- Avg Toll 10-11 am - $8.10
- Avg Toll 11-12 am - N/A
- Avg Toll 12-1 pm - N/A
- Avg Toll 1-2 pm - $9.25
- Avg Toll 2-3 pm - $13.23
- Avg Toll 3-4 pm - $22.98
- Avg Toll 4-5 pm - $22.80
- Avg Toll 5-6 pm - N/A
- Avg Toll 6-7 pm - N/A
- Avg Toll 7-8 pm - $15.75
All you did was prove my point. Tolls are $20 - $30 during peak hours.
It'd be nice if Transurban provided a historic toll calculator like VDOT does for the I-64 HO/T lanes. I can go back to any date and time and see what the toll was for then.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 04, 2019, 11:14:26 PM
HOT lanes are an efficient way to guarantee free-flowing conditions in major metropolitan areas, and should be pursued by all of the major metropolitan areas in the US on congested corridors.
A) Not with tax-payer dollars which is what's happening in Hampton Roads - private funds only should be used - agree with that aspect of the I-95 / I-495 HO/T lanes.
B) The needs of the general purpose lanes should not be ignored as well. I-95 still needs a general purpose expansion to 4-lanes each way.
C) No compensation should be given to Transurban if general purpose projects are put forward, like GP lane widening - this is something VDOT and legislators in Richmond agreed to which further hinders any GP lane widening.
I'll support HO/T lanes to an extent. The concept is okay if done properly and in a method like I indicated above. They should act as a private toll road in the median that don't interfere or hinder any GP projects, which is what these are doing. VDOT has already shot down a local request from SmartScale to widen I-95 to 8 GP lanes due to the fact that compensation would be required to Transurban.
And for the record, HO/T lanes should only be used if the corridor in question is 6-8 lanes. Don't put HO/T lanes on a rural 4-lane freeway design in a major metropolitan area and call that a solution when a GP expansion to 6-8 lanes first could solve the issues equally. This is what's happening on the HRBT and I-64 High Rise corridor in Hampton Roads.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 11:23:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 04, 2019, 10:23:19 PM
My experience on I-95, ranging $13 (rounded) to $27 and an average of $18, mostly in and around peak hours. Twice $0 because the GP lanes were free flowing, that would bring that average down.
Did some math and calculated the average toll per hourly period. This assumes all of the toll trips you posted where from the entire duration from I-495 to the southern end in Stafford and not cut short anywhere.
[....]
All you did was prove my point. Tolls are $20 - $30 during peak hours.
You keep moving the goal posts. Three different quotes from previous statements of yours:
QuoteQuoteThis route is also the fastest (unless Richmond, DC, and Baltimore have virtually no traffic).
And I'm not going to pay $37 for a HO/T trip
QuoteThe $14 toll on the CBBT is far more worth it than $20-$30 on the HO/T lanes.
QuoteFor the stretch between Stafford and I-495, it is at least $20 most of the time.
None of them (including in their context) mention "peak hours", and only the last restricts it to anything less than 24/7/365.
The point being that for one long distance traveler over a year and a half my tolls have not averaged nearly what you claim.
The vast majority of hours in a 24 hour day are not "peak hours", and you shouldn't suggest that a traveler will pay peak period tolls whenever they travel.
Of course I could also suggest that a shark shouldn't eat chum, but I don't think that would have much influence.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 07:09:40 PM
Phoenix and New York are the largest in the country actually, unless you back track. The gap is north of Phoenix.
There are plenty of all-interstate routes.
If the fastest route isn't all-interstate, what are the major cities that flank the non-freeway segment?
In this case, the gap is between Phoenix and Holbrook, and the next major city in that direction is Albuquerque. So Phoenix > Albuquerque would be the nominee for the thread. You don't just skip over major cities, much less 3/4 of the country. This has been a recurring issue in this thread; I don't get what's so complicated about the concept of looking specifically at the area where the missing freeway is.
Usually traffic conditions this afternoon.
(https://i.ibb.co/g6q5jcy/95-Express-Lanes.png)
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 03:09:18 PM
Usually traffic conditions this afternoon.
(https://i.ibb.co/g6q5jcy/95-Express-Lanes.png)
You aren't forced to take them at a Friday afternoon peak.
Heavy commuter local traffic SB, and lots of inter-state traffic heading SB out of Washington area for the weekend.
My last trip --
Monday, July 8
95 NB VA-610 to I-495 $14.90 enter 8:49 am
95 SB I-495 to VA-610 $6.90 enter 8:40 pm
Fresno, CA and Greenville, NC have no interstate connection.
I was recently surprised to see that driving from Buffalo to NYC means you either (a) drive 40+ miles of two-lane US-20-Alt in order to reach I-390, or else (b) drive 25 miles out of the way through Syracuse.
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2019, 04:03:04 PM
I was recently surprised to see that driving from Buffalo to NYC means you either (a) drive 40+ miles of two-lane US-20-Alt in order to reach I-390, or else (b) drive 25 miles out of the way through Syracuse.
You can also use NY 63 to cut the corner.
Trucks are banned from US 20A in Warsaw, so Thruway Exit 48A (NY 77) to US 20 to NY 63 to to NY 36 to I-390 Exit 6 is a very popular truck route.
But yeah, with all my grumblings and fictional proposals, I'm glad to see it being noticed! Buffalo to Washington is one worse, but that's not something a single state can fix..
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2019, 04:03:04 PM
I was recently surprised to see that driving from Buffalo to NYC means you either (a) drive 40+ miles of two-lane US-20-Alt in order to reach I-390, or else (b) drive 25 miles out of the way through Syracuse.
When I ran the directions, the Syracuse one was the transit routing. Interestingly, taking US 20A is only 4 minutes shorter than going through Syracuse (which is itself 5 minutes shorter than NY 63).
Fun fact: the removal of I-81 in Syracuse will make that route 10 minutes longer.
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2019, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2019, 04:03:04 PM
I was recently surprised to see that driving from Buffalo to NYC means you either (a) drive 40+ miles of two-lane US-20-Alt in order to reach I-390, or else (b) drive 25 miles out of the way through Syracuse.
Fun fact: the removal of I-81 in Syracuse will make that route 10 minutes longer.
Should it be demolished or have a new tunnel go under it to have more development? Freeways that are too close to downtown is terrible.
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2019, 08:28:03 PM
Fun fact: the removal of I-81 in Syracuse will make that route 10 minutes longer.
This might sound like an absurd thing to say, but I could see removal of the viaduct significantly increasing traffic on I-390 and I-86, thus improving the struggling economies of the Southern Tier.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 08:29:28 PM
Should it be demolished or have a new tunnel go under it to have more development? Freeways that are too close to downtown is terrible.
What's wrong with a new viaduct, and what's so terrible about freeways close to downtown? That's where the highest concentration of commuters work, after all.
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2019, 08:28:03 PM
Fun fact: the removal of I-81 in Syracuse will make that route 10 minutes longer.
This might sound like an absurd thing to say, but I could see removal of the viaduct significantly increasing traffic on I-390 and I-86, thus improving the struggling economies of the Southern Tier.
Yeah, that's pretty absurd. I don't see much economic benefit or even traffic diverting to such an extreme just because a small segment of I-81 in Syracuse doesn't exist any longer to that extreme.
Keep in mind I-86 was already supposed to help out the Southern Tier. That alleged benefit (even if you go with a smaller number than the few billion the exaggerated official study claimed) hasn't been realized as of yet.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Bakersfield to Fresno does not have an interstate connection but it's via CA-99. The I-7/I-9 discussions have been around for sometime though.
Quote from: bing101 on July 29, 2019, 10:33:30 AM
Bakersfield to Fresno does not have an interstate connection but it's via CA-99. The I-7/I-9 discussions have been around for sometime though.
CA-99 seems like a similar situation to I-41, where a direct connection between two larger cities (Milwaukee to Green Bay for I-41 and Sacramento to LA for CA-99) ended up bypassing smaller cities, and then a freeway connecting those smaller cities was later considered for an Interstate. I'm in favor of I-7 for the corridor.
Who cares if Buffalo-DC has an inefficient routing? There's no demand for an improved routing that way, for that long of a stretch. Last I checked, there's not much of anything in central NY State, northern PA, etc. Lots of money for little gain.
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2019, 09:58:53 AM
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2019, 08:28:03 PM
Fun fact: the removal of I-81 in Syracuse will make that route 10 minutes longer.
This might sound like an absurd thing to say, but I could see removal of the viaduct significantly increasing traffic on I-390 and I-86, thus improving the struggling economies of the Southern Tier.
Yeah, that's pretty absurd. I don't see much economic benefit or even traffic diverting to such an extreme just because a small segment of I-81 in Syracuse doesn't exist any longer to that extreme.
Keep in mind I-86 was already supposed to help out the Southern Tier. That alleged benefit (even if you go with a smaller number than the few billion the exaggerated official study claimed) hasn't been realized as of yet.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Is it extreme? As of right now, going from Rochester/Buffalo to Binghamton and south via Syracuse is 12 minutes shorter than taking I-390. Once I-81 is gone, that shortens to 2-3 minutes. Add to that the lower traffic levels and not having to pay a toll, and I can see some people switching, especially if I-481 starts feeling tight.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 29, 2019, 11:34:28 AM
Who cares if Buffalo-DC has an inefficient routing? There's no demand for an improved routing that way, for that long of a stretch. Last I checked, there's not much of anything in central NY State, northern PA, etc. Lots of money for little gain.
Umm.. a few things.
-CSVT wouldn't be happening if there was no long-distance demand in the region.
-It's not just Buffalo. Around 1/3 of Canada's total population must pass through Buffalo to get to the East Coast, thus they are affected as well.
-Just because there are no major population centers, doesn't mean there's "nothing". There are plenty of tourist attractions, including but not limited to Kinzua Bridge, the Allegany's, Letchworth, the Finger Lakes. There is certainly more demand for Buffalo>DC than there is for most rural western interstates, and there is plenty of demand with more localized start and endpoints as well.
Quote from: vdeane on July 29, 2019, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2019, 09:58:53 AM
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2019, 08:28:03 PM
Fun fact: the removal of I-81 in Syracuse will make that route 10 minutes longer.
This might sound like an absurd thing to say, but I could see removal of the viaduct significantly increasing traffic on I-390 and I-86, thus improving the struggling economies of the Southern Tier.
Yeah, that's pretty absurd. I don't see much economic benefit or even traffic diverting to such an extreme just because a small segment of I-81 in Syracuse doesn't exist any longer to that extreme.
Keep in mind I-86 was already supposed to help out the Southern Tier. That alleged benefit (even if you go with a smaller number than the few billion the exaggerated official study claimed) hasn't been realized as of yet.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Is it extreme? As of right now, going from Rochester/Buffalo to Binghamton and south via Syracuse is 12 minutes shorter than taking I-390. Once I-81 is gone, that shortens to 2-3 minutes. Add to that the lower traffic levels and not having to pay a toll, and I can see some people switching, especially if I-481 starts feeling tight.
That pretty much sums up my thoughts. Especially for Buffalo, there is
already a lot of mileage savings by taking US 20A to I-390, so it will become a no-brainer, while becoming close to a true toss-up for Rochester (instead of Thruway to I-81 being the obvious choice).
It will not surprise me at all if the alternate routes to Binghamton start seeing significantly more traffic once I-81 is gone. All traffic from WNY heading to destinations roughly between New Haven, CT, and Wilmington, DE, must pass through Binghamton, and I-390 to I-86 is likely to become the easiest and most cost effective way to get there, while encountering the least truck traffic and urban-area related slowdowns. That's a large number of trips that are going to be affected. My suspicion is that navigation apps are also going to start recommending the I-390 to I-86 route, even from Rochester.
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 29, 2019, 11:34:28 AM
Who cares if Buffalo-DC has an inefficient routing? There's no demand for an improved routing that way, for that long of a stretch. Last I checked, there's not much of anything in central NY State, northern PA, etc. Lots of money for little gain.
Umm.. a few things.
-CSVT wouldn't be happening if there was no long-distance demand in the region.
LOL yes it would. It's federal pork for a distressed area. Get a hold of reality.
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 02:26:33 PM
-It's not just Buffalo. Around 1/3 of Canada's total population must pass through Buffalo to get to the East Coast, thus they are affected as well.
Yes, because so many people are eager to drive from Toronto to DC...
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 02:26:33 PM
-Just because there are no major population centers, doesn't mean there's "nothing". There are plenty of tourist attractions, including but not limited to Kinzua Bridge, the Allegany's, Letchworth, the Finger Lakes. There is certainly more demand for Buffalo>DC than there is for most rural western interstates, and there is plenty of demand with more localized start and endpoints as well.
Clearly those places have been able to take off as tourist destinations with the existing infrastructure. So what's the issue? For local demand, surely state and US highways are sufficent, no?
A quick look at the AADT shows about 8,000 - 11,000 AADT at least on New York's portion of US-219. For a long distance route, that certainly warrants at least 4-lanes. US-58 across Southern Virginia has been mostly widened to 4-lanes with town bypasses since the 80s and it only carries 3,000 - 5,000 AADT for most of its distance west of I-85. I'd recommend extending the existing US-219 Southern Expwy south to at least I-86, and eventually to I-99 through collaboration with Pennsylvania. Or at least widening the road to a 4-lane divided highway at minimum.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 29, 2019, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 29, 2019, 11:34:28 AM
Who cares if Buffalo-DC has an inefficient routing? There's no demand for an improved routing that way, for that long of a stretch. Last I checked, there's not much of anything in central NY State, northern PA, etc. Lots of money for little gain.
Umm.. a few things.
-CSVT wouldn't be happening if there was no long-distance demand in the region.
LOL yes it would. It's federal pork for a distressed area. Get a hold of reality.
Let me get this straight: you think they're building a brand new 12-mile freeway to serve a few dozen local cars going from Selinsgrove to Northumberland, and you're telling me to get a hold of reality? :paranoid: :confused:
Unless proven otherwise, that stretch of US 15 through Shamokin Dam has
the highest truck percentage on a surface street in the nation. In addition, Google Maps preferred routing between the following cities uses the aforementioned section of US 15:
Toronto, ON and Baltimore
Toronto, ON and Harrisburg
Hamilton, ON and Baltimore
Hamilton, ON and Harrisburg
London, ON and Baltimore
London, ON and Harrisburg
Rochester and Baltimore
Rochester and Harrisburg
Buffalo and Baltimore
Buffalo and Harrisburg
Williamsport and Baltimore
Williamsport and Harrisburg
I could start including smaller cities, and the list would increase in length at an exponential rate, but you get the idea. In addition, the traffic conditions at any given time, can vary by enough for that route to also be the best route to Washington DC, from all of those places.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 29, 2019, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 02:26:33 PM
-It's not just Buffalo. Around 1/3 of Canada's total population must pass through Buffalo to get to the East Coast, thus they are affected as well.
Yes, because so many people are eager to drive from Toronto to DC...
They're doing it regardless, but the only reason they're not doing it eagerly, is because of how terrible the trip is using US 219.
And to be clear, we're talking about Canada's
largest city, and the
capital city of the US.
We're not talking about Billings to Missoula, or Lincoln, NE to Cheyenne, WY, or any other random combination of two small or mid-size cities, most of which already have interstate connections to one another. Demand and population are not lacking here.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 29, 2019, 02:49:52 PM
LOL yes it would. It's federal pork for a distressed area. Get a hold of reality.
That project would go a long way to fill in the gap in the freeway network that exists on US-15 between Harrisburg and I-180, and link US-15 thru traffic including a significant amount of heavy truck traffic directly to I-180 without having to traverse through at least 3 towns. It's a vital project and it's not "federal pork for a distressed area", it's closing a gap on for the US-15 corridor.
I'm not that familiar with the corridor or that area but it's pretty easy to see the importance of the project.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 29, 2019, 02:49:52 PM
LOL yes it would. It's federal pork for a distressed area. Get a hold of reality.
I can tell you've never been there. That part of US 11/15 is VERY congested due to a combination of the local retail and tons of thru traffic.
In any case, the inability to get from anywhere in NY west of I-81 (and nearby parts of Ontario) to/from anywhere in the mid-Atlantic area of the country on an all-freeway route is very annoying. Fortunately, I don't have that problem in the Capital District.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 29, 2019, 11:34:28 AM
Who cares if Buffalo-DC has an inefficient routing? There's no demand for an improved routing that way, for that long of a stretch. Last I checked, there's not much of anything in central NY State, northern PA, etc. Lots of money for little gain.
I make that trip 3 times per year, and at least it should be improved to where there are no sections that are less than 4 lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on July 29, 2019, 10:34:22 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 29, 2019, 11:34:28 AM
Who cares if Buffalo-DC has an inefficient routing? There's no demand for an improved routing that way, for that long of a stretch. Last I checked, there's not much of anything in central NY State, northern PA, etc. Lots of money for little gain.
I make that trip 3 times per year, and at least it should be improved to where there are no sections that are less than 4 lanes.
Once the CSTV is completed, an all four-lane / mostly freeway connection would exist via I-90, I-390, US-15, and I-83.
It's slightly longer, but that's probably the best you're going to get. Unless they find a huge stash of money to expand 100+ miles of two-lane road into four-lane, I can't see US-219 getting expanded.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 29, 2019, 10:54:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 29, 2019, 10:34:22 PM
I make that trip 3 times per year, and at least it should be improved to where there are no sections that are less than 4 lanes.
Once the CSTV is completed, an all four-lane / mostly freeway connection would exist via I-90, I-390, US-15, and I-83.
It's slightly longer, but that's probably the best you're going to get.
I-390 to I-90, is not "slightly longer", it is a enough longer that it is not competitive with the 2-lane US-20A. Large trucks have to take it because they are banned on US-20A.
Besides, the US-15 route thru that Shamokin Dam area is already 4 lanes, and it connects to I-80 which connects to I-180.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 12:18:35 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 29, 2019, 10:54:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 29, 2019, 10:34:22 PM
I make that trip 3 times per year, and at least it should be improved to where there are no sections that are less than 4 lanes.
Once the CSTV is completed, an all four-lane / mostly freeway connection would exist via I-90, I-390, US-15, and I-83.
It's slightly longer, but that's probably the best you're going to get.
I-390 to I-90, is not "slightly longer", it is a enough longer that it is not competitive with the 2-lane US-20A. Large trucks have to take it because they are banned on US-20A.
Agreed that I-390 to I-90 is not a good option for cars, US 20A is much better. But trucks do not have to take I-390 to I-90, and very few of them do, as noted upthread:
Quote from: webny99 on July 28, 2019, 04:51:28 PM
You can also use NY 63 to cut the corner.
Trucks are banned from US 20A in Warsaw, so Thruway Exit 48A (NY 77) to US 20 to NY 63 to to NY 36 to I-390 Exit 6 is a very popular truck route.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 12:18:35 AM
Besides, the US-15 route thru that Shamokin Dam area is already 4 lanes, and it connects to I-80 which connects to I-180.
The problem there isn't too few lanes. It's too many traffic lights and too much local commercial activity for a corridor with that much truck and long distance traffic.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 12:18:35 AM
I-390 to I-90, is not "slightly longer", it is a enough longer that it is not competitive with the 2-lane US-20A. Large trucks have to take it because they are banned on US-20A.
For the 4-lane discussion above, I was thinking you were referring to the US-219 to I-99 option, not the I-90 vs. US-20A to I-390 to US-15 option.
As for the US-20A to I-390 routing, if NYSDOT were to ever improve that routing, I'd say the best answer would be instead of widening 50 miles of US-20A to four-lanes, construct a 20 mile freeway routing parallel to NY-63 between Batavia and I-390 northeast of Mt. Morris. The distance would be ~3-4 miles additional to take the freeway routing over US-20A, and would cut out that out-of-way bend currently needed to follow I-90 to I-390.
It'd be 30 miles of less construction, and unless it's determined widening 50 miles of 2-lane non-limited-access road to 4-lanes is cheaper than constructing 20 miles of new location freeway, I'd say it's the better option.
It could be toll financed if necessary, but preferably not. The only toll on that route would be for driving 30 miles of the Thruway.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 12:18:35 AM
Besides, the US-15 route thru that Shamokin Dam area is already 4 lanes, and it connects to I-80 which connects to I-180.
Once the CSTV is completed, if a uniform 65 mph speed limit is utilized, the connector would shave off 10-15 minutes from the existing routing, and link you directly to I-180 / NY-147 freeway 8 miles south of I-80 without having to take US-15 all the way up to cut over. It may already be four-lanes, but it's heavily urbanized, lots of traffic signals, etc. as webny99 mentioned above.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 12:10:50 PM
As for the US-20A to I-390 routing, if NYSDOT were to ever improve that routing, I'd say the best answer would be instead of widening 50 miles of US-20A to four-lanes, construct a 20 mile freeway routing parallel to NY-63 between Batavia and I-390 northeast of Mt. Morris. The distance would be ~3-4 miles additional to take the freeway routing over US-20A, and would cut out that out-of-way bend currently needed to follow I-90 to I-390.
It'd be 30 miles of less construction, and unless it's determined widening 50 miles of 2-lane non-limited-access road to 4-lanes is cheaper than constructing 20 miles of new location freeway, I'd say it's the better option.
It could be toll financed if necessary, but preferrably not. The only toll on that route would be for driving 30 miles of the Thruway.
I have proposed some variant of this in the fictional board on multiple occasions. The difference isn't quite that stark. A new freeway parallel to NY 63 would be about 30 miles in length. A new freeway parallel to US 20A is another option, preferably an extension of NY 400. That would be about 41 miles of new construction, as NY 400 already protrudes several miles east from Buffalo.
Neither are terrible options. Anything along NY 63 would have to be effective in bypassing Batavia, and anything along US 20A would have to be effective in bypassing Warsaw, so pick your poison, as they say.
If NY 63 was the bypass route of choice, widening the Thruway from there to Buffalo would be an absolute must.
Quote from: webny99 on July 30, 2019, 11:49:24 AM
Agreed that I-390 to I-90 is not a good option for cars, US 20A is much better. But trucks do not have to take I-390 to I-90, and very few of them do, as noted upthread:
Quote from: webny99 on July 28, 2019, 04:51:28 PM
You can also use NY 63 to cut the corner.
Trucks are banned from US 20A in Warsaw, so Thruway Exit 48A (NY 77) to US 20 to NY 63 to to NY 36 to I-390 Exit 6 is a very popular truck route.
NY-63 goes thru towns, and the city of Batavia, and for cars is not competitive with US-20A.
Quote from: webny99 on July 30, 2019, 11:49:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 12:18:35 AM
Besides, the US-15 route thru that Shamokin Dam area is already 4 lanes, and it connects to I-80 which connects to I-180.
The problem there isn't too few lanes. It's too many traffic lights and too much local commercial activity for a corridor with that much truck and long distance traffic.
Agree with all, but CSVT will not bypass a 2-lane US-15 routing as implied by another poster.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
Agree with all, but CSVT will not bypass a 2-lane US-15 routing as implied by another poster.
Well technically, the Google preferred routing of taking US-11 across the Susquehanna River to connect with PA-147 has two-lane portions that would bypassed by the CSVT.
Taking US-11 across to PA-147 is 4 minutes faster, and 3 miles less than taking US-15 all the way.
And I also noted in my post it would extend the freeway, which is true.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
NY-63 goes thru towns, and the city of Batavia, and for cars is not competitive with US-20A.
Technically if you're coming from the northern side of Buffalo, I-90 to NY-63 is 2 minutes faster and the recommended route on Google and Waze. From the southern side, it's US-20A.
And to be fair, US-20A goes through Warsaw, Varysburg, and Mt. Morris. NY-63 goes through Batavia, Pavilion, and Greigsville. Both routings goes through towns.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 01:27:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
Agree with all, but CSVT will not bypass a 2-lane US-15 routing as implied by another poster.
Well technically, the Google preferred routing of taking US-11 across the Susquehanna River to connect with PA-147 has two-lane portions that would bypassed by the CSVT.
Taking US-11 across to PA-147 is 4 minutes faster, and 3 miles less than taking US-15 all the way.
Must be due to a traffic incident that temporarily changing the routing. That route thru Northumberland is slow and congested, and Google has never shown me that routing.
US-15 to I-80 is nothing to write home about, but as a 4-lane highway is better than 2 lanes thru that borough.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 01:27:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
NY-63 goes thru towns, and the city of Batavia, and for cars is not competitive with US-20A.
Technically if you're coming from the northern side of Buffalo, I-90 to NY-63 is 2 minutes faster and the recommended route on Google and Waze. From the southern side, it's US-20A.
And to be fair, US-20A goes through Warsaw, Varysburg, and Mt. Morris. NY-63 goes through Batavia, Pavilion, and Greigsville. Both routings goes through towns.
I don't go to the northern side of Buffalo. Batavia is much larger than those US-20A towns.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:35:17 PM
That route thru Northumberland is slow and congested, and Google has never shown me that routing.
You bypass Northumberland on US-15 but then still have to go through Winfield and Linntown, and while I'm not familiar with either routing, Linnfield appears to be larger than Northumberland and also has a university. Google is showing me red areas on the traffic map around the signals, where it's all green through Northumberland.
But I suppose either routing would be just as efficient, depending on preference. There's barely any difference in travel time / mileage. Once the CSTV is completed though, it'll be a no brainer to take that.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:37:45 PM
I don't go to the northern side of Buffalo.
Well then US-20A would be the preferred route for your situation. My comment was countering your claim that the northern routing is not competitive to US-20A, when indeed it is for half of the Buffalo traffic. For southern Buffalo traffic, it's not competitive, I agree with that.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 01:27:59 PM
Well technically, the Google preferred routing of taking US-11 across the Susquehanna River to connect with PA-147 has two-lane portions that would bypassed by the CSVT.
I'm assuming you mean to get to I-180 rather than for the whole corridor, because when I do the latter, Google defaults to using US 15 the whole way because it's 1 minute and 10 miles shorter. In fact, it doesn't even present I-180 as one of the alternates. I can't even get it to use I-180 for Williamsport to destinations in the east along I-80, or even if I put a point onto PA 147... looks like Google prefers to avoid I-180 like the plague!
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 01:43:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:35:17 PM
That route thru Northumberland is slow and congested, and Google has never shown me that routing.
You bypass Northumberland on US-15 but then still have to go through Winfield and Linntown, and while I'm not familiar with either routing, Linnfield appears to be larger than Northumberland and also has a university. Google is showing me red areas on the traffic map around the signals, where it's all green through Northumberland.
But I suppose either routing would be just as efficient, depending on preference. There's barely any difference in travel time / mileage. Once the CSTV is completed though, it'll be a no brainer to take that.
I have driven the corridor at least 30 times in the last 10 years. Those villages along US-15 are minor compared to the borough of Northumberland.
You rely way too much on computer tools. The reality on the ground is that the borough of Northumberland is far less preferable.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 01:43:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:37:45 PM
I don't go to the northern side of Buffalo.
Well then US-20A would be the preferred route for your situation. My comment was countering your claim that the northern routing is not competitive to US-20A, when indeed it is for half of the Buffalo traffic. For southern Buffalo traffic, it's not competitive, I agree with that.
When I go to central Buffalo my choice is the same, US-20A to the NY-400 freeway. The northern routing also deals with a tollroad, and that junction with I-90 and I-290 can get rather congested, and the southern route avoids that.
Quote from: vdeane on July 30, 2019, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 01:27:59 PM
Well technically, the Google preferred routing of taking US-11 across the Susquehanna River to connect with PA-147 has two-lane portions that would bypassed by the CSVT.
I'm assuming you mean to get to I-180 rather than for the whole corridor, because when I do the latter, Google defaults to using US 15 the whole way because it's 1 minute and 10 miles shorter. In fact, it doesn't even present I-180 as one of the alternates. I can't even get it to use I-180 for Williamsport to destinations in the east along I-80, or even if I put a point onto PA 147... looks like Google prefers to avoid I-180 like the plague!
Weird... it does the same for me on a long distance routing.
Doing custom routing, it says I-180 is 3 minutes slower. Still, I'd likely use it given that it's 4-lane 65 mph freeway over 2-4 lane arterial that passes through South Williamsport. Even if I took US-15 up to I-80, I'd still cut over at that point to I-180.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:51:46 PM
When I go to central Buffalo my choice is the same, US-20A to the NY-400 freeway. The northern routing also deals with a tollroad, and that junction with I-90 and I-290 can get rather congested, and the southern route avoids that.
Central Buffalo is not northern Buffalo. If you're coming south on I-290, the recommended Google route is to take I-90 to NY-63. Not everybody coming into / out of Buffalo is familiar with the area as you are, they're going to follow Google, Waze, or their GPS and take the route it says, in this case from the I-290 northern corridor which is I-90 to NY-63.
So the northern routing is competitive to the southern routing if it's recommended. It may not be the preferred by the locals and someone like you who's familiar with the area, but that doesn't mean it's not competitive for all car traffic like you claimed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:51:46 PM
When I go to central Buffalo my choice is the same, US-20A to the NY-400 freeway. The northern routing also deals with a tollroad, and that junction with I-90 and I-290 can get rather congested, and the southern route avoids that.
Central Buffalo is not northern Buffalo. If you're coming south on I-290, the recommended Google route is to take I-90 to NY-63. Not everybody coming into / out of Buffalo is familiar with the area as you are, they're going to follow Google, Waze, or their GPS and take the route it says, in this case from the I-290 northern corridor which is I-90 to NY-63.
From Corning NY to downtown Buffalo, Google uses I-86, I-390, NY-36, CR-64, US-20A, NY-400, I-90 and I-190.
Doesn't go anywhere near I-290 or the Thruway east of I-290.
Quote from: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 02:10:00 PM
downtown Buffalo
Central Buffalo is not northern Buffalo.A routing between the Brighton / Tonawanda areas and Corning recommends I-390 to NY-63 to I-90.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 02:11:08 PM
Brighton
.. more commonly known as Amherst. :-P
The Brighton that comes to mind is a Rochester suburb. I had to look it up to see if there was a Brighton near Buffalo, and was surprised to see it does exist (more of a neighborhood though)!
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2019, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 08:29:28 PM
Should it be demolished or have a new tunnel go under it to have more development? Freeways that are too close to downtown is terrible.
What's wrong with a new viaduct, and what's so terrible about freeways close to downtown? That's where the highest concentration of commuters work, after all.
It's guzzling up land unnecessary and it makes a lot of noise? Tunnels solve that problem.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 31, 2019, 12:54:24 AM
Quote from: webny99 on July 29, 2019, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2019, 08:28:03 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 08:29:28 PM
Should it be demolished or have a new tunnel go under it to have more development? Freeways that are too close to downtown is terrible.
What's wrong with a new viaduct, and what's so terrible about freeways close to downtown? That's where the highest concentration of commuters work, after all.
It's guzzling up land unnecessary and it makes a lot of noise? Tunnels solve that problem.
Those also guzzle up lots of money.