What are some highway alignments that were planned ago and have been unbuilt in the face of extreme resistance, but despite that, refuse to die? And while I'm at it, what are some of those that just might have a chance of being built?
Route 55 in NJ. Chances of being built: lower than slim. Chances of a news story talking about it every 2 years? Greater than 100%.
Long Island Sound crossing.
Chesapeake Bay northern and southern crossings in Maryland.
Seeming dead since the 1970s but they have been discussed in the new bridge studies in the last 15 years.
I occasionally hear something regarding CT-11, but I'm not sure if it's a zombie or merely dead.
CA 190 over the Sierras...just started a new thread about that specifically on Pacific Southwest.
Check out the IDOT project page. It's full of them . The last viable segments of the supplemental freeway system that dates from the 60s. Except for bypasses which are becoming unpopular in Illinois...its less opposition and more lack of funds and traffic that is the problem.US 20 34 50 51 and 67 and the state routes 29 336 and 127 are the routes.Not dead but with the exception of 67 none of them have had any work since their environmental documents were done so I wonder if those will have to be updated.
Local to me, there is a recurring idea of removing tolls and building local service interchanges on the Kansas Turnpike in southeast Wichita so it can form part of a circumferential freeway with I-235 and K-96. KTA has zero interest in the idea, and (AFAICT) no-one in state government has expressed openness to the idea of forcing them to implement it, but this part of Wichita is (with some justice) seen as very under-served in terms not just of transportation but also other public facilities like libraries.
I would think KTA would want more urban interchanges. ILSTHA has been adding them. They add marginal ones like Illinois 23 if a local government pays for part if it.
And then there's the northern Sacramento bypass, generally from the I-5/CA 99 interchange near the airport and extending northeast, skirting Lincoln to the south, Auburn to the north, and merging with I-80 near Applegate. Considered a reroute of the old CA 102 corridor to the south and formulated in the early '90's, extensive development in the Lincoln area has rendered the concept problematic regarding location (no formal route adoption has taken place). However, the new expressway southwest of Lincoln as access from CA 99 seems to be the focal point of renewed interest in this bypass. It'll probably be revisited anytime a media article about congestion on I-80 northeast of Sacramento crops up.
I-710 in CA?
Mike
The Intercounty Connector in Maryland. Was officially canceled decades ago due to vocal local opposition. Then rose from the dead and actually got built in spite of said vocal local opposition still being present.
US 7 from Norwalk to Danbury. Maybe if the NIMBY-snobs of Ridgefield and Wilton were to give way, it could get built.
The closest thing I know of in north TX would be Loop 9 in the Dallas area. It was supposed to be the next loop after I-635, but the original project was cancelled by the state many years ago. In the 1990s, it was partially revived as a tollroad, which is now the Bush Turnpike. There is still talk of completing the rest of the Loop 9 path, but between I-30 and I-20 east of Dallas would be either TX 190 or more of the Bush Turnpike. Now, officially, there are new plans (to the point of it being designated but not yet built) for a part of Loop 9 on a path south of Dallas from US 67 to past I-35E, I-45, and US 175 around to I-20 to meet the TX 190/Bush Turnpike project's path in southeastern Mesquite. The closest planned construction segment of Loop 9 would be the part from I-35E to I-45. Officials do see a need for some kind of highway along the south side to accomodate heavier truck traffic anticipated in the area due to a growing quantity of warehouse/distribution facilities and Dallas' planned "inland port" project.
http://www.loop9.org/
https://www.nbcdfw.com/traffic/stories/Loop-9-Along-Dallas-Ellis-County-Line-Closer-to-Reality-146914355.html
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/2013/06/loop-9-project-comes-back-to-life-with.html
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/dallas/041718.html
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/other/loop-9-from-i-35e-to-i-45/project-history
The crosstown expressway in Chicago. See the Midwest board for details.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 18, 2018, 03:12:50 PM
US 7 from Norwalk to Danbury. Maybe if the NIMBY-snobs of Ridgefield and Wilton were to give way, it could get built.
We could always call up the Air Force to send a B-52 to carpet bomb them. That should take care of the problem.
I-605 around Seattle, comes up every few years on the News.
Bridges across Puget Sound (to replace the ferries, and was the original intention of the state taking over the ferry system). Not a popular news item, but something that talkshow hosts, and people new to the area keep saying they want.
The Southern Crossing in the Bay Area, though the routing has changed from the 1960s proposals (a connector between the I-280/Cesar Chavez (Army) Street interchange and today's 980/880 junction) to a hypothetical 380-238 bridge.
Some form of southern/southeast Sacramento bypass route, originally proposed in some form as Route 148 (which ended up becoming the local arterial Cosumnes River Boulevard) and now as the Capital Southeast Connector.
More recent: the proposals to build a new American River bridge for what is now Business 80/unsigned Route 51 between midtown Sacramento and Cal Expo - ironically, the plan CalTrans had until 1979 for the I-80 realignment, when the city of Sacramento voted to cancel that and move all funds for that project into creating a light rail system.
The North Spokane Corridor has shifted east several times since the 1960s and was finally built beginning in 2009. Only took billions of dollars and many, many evictions to solve a problem that doesn't really exist (since Spokane has very little traffic compared to any city requiring a new freeway).
Quote from: Bruce on August 19, 2018, 02:39:59 AM
The North Spokane Corridor has shifted east several times since the 1960s and was finally built beginning in 2009. Only took billions of dollars and many, many evictions to solve a problem that doesn't really exist (since Spokane has very little traffic compared to any city requiring a new freeway).
This was going to be my reply.
I can only assume that the NSC was built in such a central location as to persuade as much traffic, from either direction along I-90, to use it going north. If the NSC dropped down to I-90 too far east or west from it's alignment north of the city, it wouldn't remove as much traffic from local streets as they want.
Weirdly, I don't think any of the other proposed freeways in WA have anywhere near the same level of resistance as the NSC, and even the NSC is only opposed by residents in the immediate vicinity (chiefly Hillyard and East Central).
The MD 32 freeway between MD 108 in Clarksville and I-70 in West Friendship. It's been planned for the past 20 years and has been built piecemeal over the past 10. It's been planned for so long that it's succumbed to attrition and is now being recast as a partial access-controlled divided highway.
The US 50 six-lane upgrade between Queenstown and the MD 404 intersection north of Wye Mills has been planned for the past 45 years and is no closer to fruition. Its companion project of the dualization of MD 404 between US 50 and the western end of the Denton, MD bypass finally got built.
The replacement of the intersection between MD 140 and MD 97 in Westminster is also an undead project that needs to be built.
11th street expressway in Eugene. Tecnically has been going from dead to alive, back to dead (current phase). Origionally it was going to be a freeway, then it was shifted north due to resistance, then back south but only an at grade expressway.
Portland Westside bypass (which recently is back alive, will be posting in Northwest about it soon)
Van Buren bridge replacement in Corvallis.
LG-TP260
Quote from: TheOneKEA on August 19, 2018, 01:37:45 PM
The US 50 six-lane upgrade between Queenstown and the MD 404 intersection north of Wye Mills has been planned for the past 45 years and is no closer to fruition.
Ditto for the interchanges at MD-404, MD-213 and at MD-18.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 18, 2018, 03:07:58 PM
The Intercounty Connector in Maryland. Was officially canceled decades ago due to vocal local opposition. Then rose from the dead and actually got built in spite of said vocal local opposition still being present.
I have been around for all of it. What helped to finally get it built were these facts:
- It had been studied in the 1980's, 1990's and again in the 2000's. By the time of the last study, much of the work had already been done and the 2000's Final Environmental Impact Statement contained a lot of content that was recycled from the 1990's version.
- The Maryland governor (Parris N. Glendening (D)) that "cancelled" the project in 1999 left office in 2002 as very unpopular, and in spite of his claims of "cancellation," It remained on the legally-binding master plans of the counties where it was proposed.
- Project opponents had promoted an "upgrade existing roads" alternative that would have had a lot of negative impact on neighborhoods that fronted on the roads to be upgraded. When Glendening "cancelled" the project, the advocates of this alternative conveniently disappeared and some of them actually opposed the upgrades of some of those roads. I don't think this was lost on state DOT planning and management staff.
- Several of the loudest elected opponents to the project were gone from office after 2002 - some by defeat for re-election, others by death.
- The governor that succeeded Glendening, Republican Bob Ehrlich, based a major part of his campaign on getting this highway built, and the Democrat that defeated him in 2006, Martin O'Malley, was also in favor of the project (much to the rage of remaining project opponents, who mistakenly thought that all Democrats were against the project). Local opposition remained, but at least in Maryland, it's not an especially good idea to try and stop a project favored by a sitting governor.
- The brown trout (related story here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201696.html) from 2005) in the Paint Branch tributary of the Anacostia River that had been cited repeatedly by activists and some federal regulators as reasons not to build the highway was determined to be an alien and non-native species in Maryland (it was introduced from Germany). Non-native species are not protected by federal environmental statutes and regulations. There were also claims of bog turtles (http://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Pages/plants_wildlife/herps/Testudines.aspx?TurtlesName=Bog%20Turtle) in the path of the highway, and the state spent millions looking for them, and did not find any, as well as assertions that the project was going to run through old-growth forest (false, as there is no old growth forest in Montgomery County, and the only old-growth forest in Prince George's County is the Belt Woods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_Woods) in far-away Upper Marlboro.
- Project opponents sued in federal court on several grounds, demanding that the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision be vacated and remanded to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The case came before Judge Alex Williams of the Greenbelt Division of the District of Maryland. Judge Williams was the elected States' Attorney for Prince George's County before being named to the bench, and spent a lot of his time stuck in Maryland traffic jams. He dismissed every count of the demand for a remand by project opponents, and his opinion stood-up, as opponents dropped their appeals (I have been told that the opponents were warned that they would likely lose on appeal to the 4th Circuit, and that the result of such a loss would be a legally-binding opinion that they might not like - and it would be binding in all of the 4th Circuit states from Maryland to South Carolina plus West Virginia (but not D.C.)).
Completing the northwest bypass of the Denver Metro Area, a.k.a. the (Northwest Parkway/C-/E-) 470 loop. Just when you think it is dead, some news outlet or group mentions another crusade to get it built, then the tree-hugging NIMBY's of the Boulder-Golden area mount an even louder voice to shoot any and all proposals down.
Interstate 3.
Dead for many years, but especially in East TN you will occasionally hear a story about it pop up despite the fact that it likely will never exist.
Woodhaven Road (PA63) extension in Philly to the Montgomery county line.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Woodhaven+Rd,+Philadelphia,+PA/@40.1230001,-75.0221306,4076m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c6b326f45522a5:0x6385f2bf2bbd0443!8m2!3d40.0916835!4d-74.9779193
The ROW is still there, but the community opposition is significant..
Quote from: mrcmc888 on August 19, 2018, 11:02:47 PM
Interstate 3.
Dead for many years, but especially in East TN you will occasionally hear a story about it pop up despite the fact that it likely will never exist.
This was a project put together by some folks in GA who had absolutely no idea about the terrain north of their state (particularly the US 129 "Tail of the Dragon" alignment) as well as the NIMBY factor in their own north territory. All they had were a couple of GRIP corridors along the east side of the state to string together, but anything farther north than I-85 was dead in the water. Several years later, the suggestion was made -- from the
other end -- to reinstate that corridor concept as a I-81 extension; again, rational thought prevailed and it went nowhere. As a side note, the "I-3" ridiculously-out-of-grid designation was promulgated during the post-9/11 bouts of raw patriotism to honor the 3rd Army Division based at Ft. Gordon near Augusta, which would be more or less along the corridor's route in that area.
In DC, tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway and extending I-395 in a tunnel to connect to the freeway portion of New York Ave (there's that one yahoo who insists it can be extended to the I-95/I-495 interchange using railroad and PEPCO rights-of-way, but he seems to be an army of one).
Some select additional non-Interstate (in addition to CA 190) routes that were never built but are still on the books in California:
CA 276: For whatever reason Mineral King Road still has a proposed routing as CA 276 despite Sequoia National Park expanding and killing any chance of a ski resort.
CA 178: The proposed routing over the Panamint Range is still active.
CA 65: The gap in the two CA 65 segments is still has an adopted route.
CA 152: 152 east of CA 99 still has an adopted routing to the unbuilt CA 65.
CA 180: The unbuilt segment to CA 25 is still on the books...and was likely signed as 180 prior to 1940.
CA 130: Still has a planned routing over the Diablos despite relinquishments in San Jose.
CA 211: The Lost Coast planned alignment of CA 1 still shows up on State Highway maps.
CA 169: The gap in the two segments of 169 still shows up as a planned route.
As far as I know CA 48 and 122 are still considered active unbuilt projects. It takes a lot for a project to disappear off California it seems, the list above is the tip of the iceberg.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 06:14:20 PM
In DC, tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway and extending I-395 in a tunnel to connect to the freeway portion of New York Ave (there's that one yahoo who insists it can be extended to the I-95/I-495 interchange using railroad and PEPCO rights-of-way, but he seems to be an army of one).
In the unlikely (though not impossible) event that happens, would the I-95 designation on the beltway change or what?
The Illiana.
Quote from: sparker on August 20, 2018, 02:50:55 PM
Quote from: mrcmc888 on August 19, 2018, 11:02:47 PM
Interstate 3.
Dead for many years, but especially in East TN you will occasionally hear a story about it pop up despite the fact that it likely will never exist.
This was a project put together by some folks in GA who had absolutely no idea about the terrain north of their state (particularly the US 129 "Tail of the Dragon" alignment) as well as the NIMBY factor in their own north territory. All they had were a couple of GRIP corridors along the east side of the state to string together, but anything farther north than I-85 was dead in the water. Several years later, the suggestion was made -- from the other end -- to reinstate that corridor concept as a I-81 extension; again, rational thought prevailed and it went nowhere. As a side note, the "I-3" ridiculously-out-of-grid designation was promulgated during the post-9/11 bouts of raw patriotism to honor the 3rd Army Division based at Ft. Gordon near Augusta, which would be more or less along the corridor's route in that area.
I seriously think that should the road somehow get built, it will likely get a different designation, as I-3 no doubt belongs to some SF-LA route in CA. Then again, we have so much out-of-grid routes ([cough cough] I-69) that I wouldn't be surprised.
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 20, 2018, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 06:14:20 PM
In DC, tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway and extending I-395 in a tunnel to connect to the freeway portion of New York Ave (there's that one yahoo who insists it can be extended to the I-95/I-495 interchange using railroad and PEPCO rights-of-way, but he seems to be an army of one).
In the unlikely (though not impossible) event that happens, would the I-95 designation on the beltway change or what?
One would hope, since that was the original plan for I-95, and it wouldn't make sense to call the entire route I-395. If they did change that route to I-95, I don't know if it would make more sense to leave current-day I-695 as is or change it to I-395 (the route would run from I-95 in DC to I-295 in Maryland).
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 07:34:38 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 20, 2018, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 06:14:20 PM
In DC, tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway and extending I-395 in a tunnel to connect to the freeway portion of New York Ave (there's that one yahoo who insists it can be extended to the I-95/I-495 interchange using railroad and PEPCO rights-of-way, but he seems to be an army of one).
In the unlikely (though not impossible) event that happens, would the I-95 designation on the beltway change or what?
One would hope, since that was the original plan for I-95, and it wouldn't make sense to call the entire route I-395. If they did change that route to I-95, I don't know if it would make more sense to leave current-day I-695 as is or change it to I-395 (the route would run from I-95 in DC to I-295 in Maryland).
Someone suggested on another post that if there were to be such a road, I-95 would have to say on the beltway to keep long-haul traffic out of DC. But still, good idea.
Of the plans below, I think they might be occasionally dusted off, but someone correct me if they're too far gone.
In Columbus, OH, the Morse-Bethel Connector. This is a gap in the street grid that would require a new bridge across a river. Only problem is, it would also cut through a residential area, probably taking a row of houses with it.
In the DC area, there's the "Techway", or a bridge over the Potomac that would connect the "technology corridors" between Gaithersburg, MD and Sterling, VA (possibly joining two different State Route 28s). This would help relieve traffic on the overburdened American Legion Bridge on the Capital Beltway (I-495).
On the MD side, there are occasionally plans to improve US-301 between US-50 and the Nice Bridge, or at the very least build a bypass around Waldorf.
Both of the latter two might be considered part of an "outer-outer-beltway" plan for the area. Sometimes I'll hear about a "Western Bypass" or I-95 relief route, but I don't think there's anything half-serious there.
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 20, 2018, 07:43:14 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 07:34:38 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 20, 2018, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 06:14:20 PM
In DC, tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway and extending I-395 in a tunnel to connect to the freeway portion of New York Ave (there's that one yahoo who insists it can be extended to the I-95/I-495 interchange using railroad and PEPCO rights-of-way, but he seems to be an army of one).
In the unlikely (though not impossible) event that happens, would the I-95 designation on the beltway change or what?
One would hope, since that was the original plan for I-95, and it wouldn't make sense to call the entire route I-395. If they did change that route to I-95, I don't know if it would make more sense to leave current-day I-695 as is or change it to I-395 (the route would run from I-95 in DC to I-295 in Maryland).
Someone suggested on another post that if there were to be such a road, I-95 would have to say on the beltway to keep long-haul traffic out of DC. But still, good idea.
I think really good signage would do the trick. Just ask Wilmington, DE.
Quote from: 1 on August 18, 2018, 06:39:31 AM
Long Island Sound crossing.
What's interesting is that I was thinking of it as I was writing the OP. The crossing was meant to go from the I-287/I-95 interchange in Rye to NY 135. There's pictures of the stub north end of NY 135; I think the reason they didn't take a page from Maryland's book and turn it into a park-and-ride is because someone out there's still holding on hope the Long Island Sound crossing might get built. Who knows, maybe someday the technology will be there to build it.
Quote from: sparker on August 20, 2018, 02:50:55 PM
Quote from: mrcmc888 on August 19, 2018, 11:02:47 PM
Interstate 3.
Dead for many years, but especially in East TN you will occasionally hear a story about it pop up despite the fact that it likely will never exist.
This was a project put together by some folks in GA who had absolutely no idea about the terrain north of their state (particularly the US 129 "Tail of the Dragon" alignment) as well as the NIMBY factor in their own north territory. All they had were a couple of GRIP corridors along the east side of the state to string together, but anything farther north than I-85 was dead in the water. Several years later, the suggestion was made -- from the other end -- to reinstate that corridor concept as a I-81 extension; again, rational thought prevailed and it went nowhere. As a side note, the "I-3" ridiculously-out-of-grid designation was promulgated during the post-9/11 bouts of raw patriotism to honor the 3rd Army Division based at Ft. Gordon near Augusta, which would be more or less along the corridor's route in that area.
Probably not enough traffic to warrant most of it either
The US 219 freeway has been floating between dead and alive for decades. I'm not sure how to classify it at the moment.
Same for I-86; it's quite an ongoing subject as to whether it will ever be completed (but there are other threads for that :))
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 20, 2018, 09:12:09 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 18, 2018, 06:39:31 AM
Long Island Sound crossing.
What's interesting is that I was thinking of it as I was writing the OP. The crossing was meant to go from the I-287/I-95 interchange in Rye to NY 135. There's pictures of the stub north end of NY 135; I think the reason they didn't take a page from Maryland's book and turn it into a park-and-ride is because someone out there's still holding on hope the Long Island Sound crossing might get built. Who knows, maybe someday the technology will be there to build it.
I thought the LIE was intended to be extended to cross the Sound, and that's why it has a "temporary" end in Riverhead.
^ Riverhead was the initially intended terminus of the LIE. State Legislature authorized an extension to Mattituck in 1969, before the construction to Riverhead was completed. There were proposals floating around to extend it across the Sound to Rhode Island, but not much happened with those proposals...the serious Sound crossing proposals were always further west, whether Oyster Bay-Rye or something connecting mid-Sound to Connecticut.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 06:14:20 PM
In DC, tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway and extending I-395 in a tunnel to connect to the freeway portion of New York Ave (there's that one yahoo who insists it can be extended to the I-95/I-495 interchange using railroad and PEPCO rights-of-way, but he seems to be an army of one).
The only way I'd be for this is if I-66 were also extended east to meet I-395. Of course, they'd have to to build a tunnel under the city, but that would be a worthwhile undertaking.
Quote from: Henry on August 21, 2018, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 06:14:20 PM
In DC, tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway and extending I-395 in a tunnel to connect to the freeway portion of New York Ave (there's that one yahoo who insists it can be extended to the I-95/I-495 interchange using railroad and PEPCO rights-of-way, but he seems to be an army of one).
The only way I'd be for this is if I-66 were also extended east to meet I-395. Of course, they'd have to to build a tunnel under the city, but that would be a worthwhile undertaking.
That was the last plan for 66, to run to 395 in a tunnel under E Street. There's a funny-looking support column at the Farragut North Metro station that was intended to support an on- or-off ramp to 66, meaning there was an entrance or exit planned for somewhere in the vicinity of Connecticut and L NW.
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2018, 08:38:03 AM
^ Riverhead was the initially intended terminus of the LIE. State Legislature authorized an extension to Mattituck in 1969, before the construction to Riverhead was completed. There were proposals floating around to extend it across the Sound to Rhode Island, but not much happened with those proposals...the serious Sound crossing proposals were always further west, whether Oyster Bay-Rye or something connecting mid-Sound to Connecticut.
CT/RI-78 was one propoesed RI-NY crossing.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ct78.html
More complete list of proposed crossings here.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/licrossing.html
I think there was a rai-ferry crossing at one point between LI and Stonington, Conn.
US 219 recently had some unexpected life due to possible EIS development, but I am uncertain where it goes from there.
I-86: I would be surprised if Hale Eddy to Hancock is done in the next decade.
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2018, 08:38:03 AM
^ Riverhead was the initially intended terminus of the LIE. State Legislature authorized an extension to Mattituck in 1969, before the construction to Riverhead was completed. There were proposals floating around to extend it across the Sound to Rhode Island, but not much happened with those proposals...the serious Sound crossing proposals were always further west, whether Oyster Bay-Rye or something connecting mid-Sound to Connecticut.
How 'buildable' is the Riverhead bypass and the rest the route to Mattituck?
Mike
There's days, probably not very. There's quite a bit of development, including apartments (and/or condos?) and golf courses in the way.
I-990 (NY) will be extended if traffic conditions necessitate it.
MA 57 will be extended if traffic conditions necessitate it.
I-84 to Providence could still technically happen because ConnDOT owns a buttload of its ROW.
I-291 still has its expansion ROW still intact for the most part. If the NIMBYs would only back off...
CT 25 has its ROW still cleared north of Trumbull and could be considered since traffic gets nasty there during rush hour.
I-66 in Kentucky.
North of the Ohio River, I-73
Runner up, 4 laning US 30 east of Canton to Oh 11
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 21, 2018, 11:00:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on August 21, 2018, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 06:14:20 PM
In DC, tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway and extending I-395 in a tunnel to connect to the freeway portion of New York Ave (there's that one yahoo who insists it can be extended to the I-95/I-495 interchange using railroad and PEPCO rights-of-way, but he seems to be an army of one).
The only way I'd be for this is if I-66 were also extended east to meet I-395. Of course, they'd have to to build a tunnel under the city, but that would be a worthwhile undertaking.
That was the last plan for 66, to run to 395 in a tunnel under E K Street.
FTFY
QuoteThere's a funny-looking support column at the Farragut North Metro station that was intended to support an on- or-off ramp to 66, meaning there was an entrance or exit planned for somewhere in the vicinity of Connecticut and L NW.
In the DeLew Cather study of the "K Street Tunnel" (as it was called), there were no ramps planned in the vicinity of Connecticut Ave. The only ramps to/from the K Street Tunnel that were proposed were at Pennsylvania (to/from the east) and at Massachusetts (to/from the west).
The funny looking column you saw is likely for one of two things: either part of the originally planned pedestrian connection between Farragut North and Farragut West (which was partially built but not finished), or part of the originally-built-but-currently-unused track connection between the Red Line at Farragut North and the Orange/Blue near McPherson.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 21, 2018, 07:59:20 PM
I-990 (NY) will be extended if traffic conditions necessitate it.
MA 57 will be extended if traffic conditions necessitate it.
I-84 to Providence could still technically happen because ConnDOT owns a buttload of its ROW.
I-291 still has its expansion ROW still intact for the most part. If the NIMBYs would only back off...
CT 25 has its ROW still cleared north of Trumbull and could be considered since traffic gets nasty there during rush hour.
Given the conditions, I-990 and MA 57 may never be extended.
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2018, 10:24:03 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 21, 2018, 11:00:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on August 21, 2018, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 20, 2018, 06:14:20 PM
In DC, tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway and extending I-395 in a tunnel to connect to the freeway portion of New York Ave (there's that one yahoo who insists it can be extended to the I-95/I-495 interchange using railroad and PEPCO rights-of-way, but he seems to be an army of one).
The only way I'd be for this is if I-66 were also extended east to meet I-395. Of course, they'd have to to build a tunnel under the city, but that would be a worthwhile undertaking.
That was the last plan for 66, to run to 395 in a tunnel under E K Street.
FTFY
QuoteThere's a funny-looking support column at the Farragut North Metro station that was intended to support an on- or-off ramp to 66, meaning there was an entrance or exit planned for somewhere in the vicinity of Connecticut and L NW.
In the DeLew Cather study of the "K Street Tunnel" (as it was called), there were no ramps planned in the vicinity of Connecticut Ave. The only ramps to/from the K Street Tunnel that were proposed were at Pennsylvania (to/from the east) and at Massachusetts (to/from the west).
The funny looking column you saw is likely for one of two things: either part of the originally planned pedestrian connection between Farragut North and Farragut West (which was partially built but not finished), or part of the originally-built-but-currently-unused track connection between the Red Line at Farragut North and the Orange/Blue near McPherson.
Regarding the column, I cannot find a single reference to it being for a ramp other than an unsubstantiated statement on Wikipedia. I think the author of the statement meant that it was intended to support the K Street Tunnel, which would have run above the Metro station. The support column in question is too far north to be for either the non-revenue track connecting the Orange/Blue/Silver and Red Lines or the intended pedestrian concourse between Farragut West and Farragut North.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2018, 06:17:37 AM
Route 55 in NJ. Chances of being built: lower than slim. Chances of a news story talking about it every 2 years? Greater than 100%.
Similar could be said regarding the proposed upgrade of US 322 to an expressway between US 130 & NJ 55 as well.
L.A.'s northern "Metropolitan Bypass", functionally killed about 25 years ago, seems to be making at least a partial comeback via the "E-220/High Desert" corridor. The historic plan, essentially a straight-lining of CA 138 from I-5 to I-15 would be pointless today given the increase in both population and congestion in the "Inland Empire" eastern reaches of metro L.A., so it's being reconfigured as a conduit from CA 14 to I-15 so traffic to I-15 north (and by extension I-40 east) with origins or destination in the western part of L.A. metro has an alternate path to get out of town. Some have projected an extension around the eastern flank of the San Bernardino Mountains to I-10 in the Coachella Valley; inhospitable terrain may render such an addition too costly to be practical.
The Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway in the Phoenix area is under construction right now. Before that, most of the last 30+ years it was approved, then deleted, then brought back, then in limbo for years.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 18, 2018, 03:12:50 PM
US 7 from Norwalk to Danbury. Maybe if the NIMBY-snobs of Ridgefield and Wilton were to give way, it could get built.
Having grown up in Wilton, it will never happen at this point. The topography of the area doesn't lend itself well to highway construction...I've walked the ROW before and it traverses multiple hillsides, ledges, cliffs, streams, a few ponds and many town and state-owned roads. The high price-tag of construction in a state that 1) has no money and 2) seems to hate large-scale infrastructure projects, I just don't ever see it happening.
What should happen is an extension of the connector north from Grist Mill to the junction of 7/33 in Wilton. From there, upgrade the road to 4 lanes with dedicated left turn lanes at signalized intersections all the way to the junction with 35 in Ridgefield.
It blows my mind that the DOT comes in and widens, yet does not fully upgrade the road with appropriate turn lanes and decent sized shoulders. Seems to be a consistent theme in this state - redo something only to redo it again soon because it was inadequate.
Quote from: sparker on August 22, 2018, 11:56:39 AM
L.A.'s northern "Metropolitan Bypass", functionally killed about 25 years ago, seems to be making at least a partial comeback via the "E-220/High Desert" corridor. The historic plan, essentially a straight-lining of CA 138 from I-5 to I-15 would be pointless today given the increase in both population and congestion in the "Inland Empire" eastern reaches of metro L.A., so it's being reconfigured as a conduit from CA 14 to I-15 so traffic to I-15 north (and by extension I-40 east) with origins or destination in the western part of L.A. metro has an alternate path to get out of town. Some have projected an extension around the eastern flank of the San Bernardino Mountains to I-10 in the Coachella Valley; inhospitable terrain may render such an addition too costly to be practical.
I've brought this up on two other threads, but someone once had the idea of taking CA 125 as far north as I-10 in Banning. If we could take it even further north, to link with the High Desert Corridor, then long-haul traffic would have a way of getting to the border without going through the largest urban centers in SoCal.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 21, 2018, 09:56:05 PM
North of the Ohio River, I-73
Runner up, 4 laning US 30 east of Canton to Oh 11
I-73 would have to end in Ohio somewhere. Michigan doesn't want any part of it.
Interstate 526 around James Island and Johns Island in Charleston. The Mark Clark has been cancelled and uncancelled 3 times in the last 25 years. Lots of NIMBYs and the road has changed from being a four-lane interstate to a parkway back to an interstate. About half of the community supports it to no end, the other half vehemently opposes it.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 25, 2018, 10:36:30 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 21, 2018, 09:56:05 PM
North of the Ohio River, I-73
Runner up, 4 laning US 30 east of Canton to Oh 11
I-73 would have to end in Ohio somewhere. Michigan doesn't want any part of it.
Ohio really does not want I-73 either.
Here in Cincinnati, a dead 60+ year project has risen like a phoenix. At one time there was supposed to be a Queen City Expressway going west from the Western Hills viaduct along Queen City Avenue (where it was supposed to end, I am not sure). Apparently, there is some semblance of that long dormant plan as construction began earlier this year at building a mile long expressway from the western end of the Western Hills viaduct. From what I have seen, this highway will be in a trench between Queen City Ave (WB Queen City) and Westwood Ave (EB Queen City). The latest googlemaps shows buildings razed between the two streets.
Quote from: robby2161 on August 25, 2018, 09:38:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 18, 2018, 03:12:50 PM
US 7 from Norwalk to Danbury. Maybe if the NIMBY-snobs of Ridgefield and Wilton were to give way, it could get built.
Welcomer, fellow Nutmegger!
Having grown up in Wilton, it will never happen at this point. The topography of the area doesn't lend itself well to highway construction...I've walked the ROW before and it traverses multiple hillsides, ledges, cliffs, streams, a few ponds and many town and state-owned roads. The high price-tag of construction in a state that 1) has no money and 2) seems to hate large-scale infrastructure projects, I just don't ever see it happening.
What should happen is an extension of the connector north from Grist Mill to the junction of 7/33 in Wilton. From there, upgrade the road to 4 lanes with dedicated left turn lanes at signalized intersections all the way to the junction with 35 in Ridgefield.
It blows my mind that the DOT comes in and widens, yet does not fully upgrade the road with appropriate turn lanes and decent sized shoulders. Seems to be a consistent theme in this state - redo something only to redo it again soon because it was inadequate.
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2018, 10:24:03 PM
The funny looking column you saw is likely for one of two things: either part of the originally planned pedestrian connection between Farragut North and Farragut West (which was partially built but not finished), or part of the originally-built-but-currently-unused track connection between the Red Line at Farragut North and the Orange/Blue near McPherson.
I disagree regarding the tunnel connection between the Red Line at Farragut North and the Orange/Blue/Silver Lines near McPherson Square.
While it has never been used for trains in revenue service, that connecting track gets a decent amount of use by trains out of service (signed NO PASSENGERS). I have seen several over the years go from the Red Line to the Orange/Blue Silver (but not the other direction for some reason). The train stops on the Shady Grove side of the Farragut North platform, and then the train leaves that platform headed the "wrong way" into the connecting track (which diverges just south of Farragut North from the track headed to Shady Grove) and is visible from the south end of the platform.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2018, 09:07:40 AM
I disagree regarding the tunnel connection between the Red Line at Farragut North and the Orange/Blue/Silver Lines near McPherson Square.
While it has never been used for trains in revenue service, that connecting track gets a decent amount of use by trains out of service (signed NO PASSENGERS).
My recollection was that it never was intended for revenue service, that it was designed to provide service access between the main yard at Brentwood (which is on the Red Line) to the rest of the system.
The last section of Spanish A-22. After many years of delays caused by disputes over its exact route and then budget cuts, construction finally started yesterday.
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 25, 2018, 09:59:50 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 22, 2018, 11:56:39 AM
L.A.'s northern "Metropolitan Bypass", functionally killed about 25 years ago, seems to be making at least a partial comeback via the "E-220/High Desert" corridor. The historic plan, essentially a straight-lining of CA 138 from I-5 to I-15 would be pointless today given the increase in both population and congestion in the "Inland Empire" eastern reaches of metro L.A., so it's being reconfigured as a conduit from CA 14 to I-15 so traffic to I-15 north (and by extension I-40 east) with origins or destination in the western part of L.A. metro has an alternate path to get out of town. Some have projected an extension around the eastern flank of the San Bernardino Mountains to I-10 in the Coachella Valley; inhospitable terrain may render such an addition too costly to be practical.
I've brought this up on two other threads, but someone once had the idea of taking CA 125 as far north as I-10 in Banning. If we could take it even further north, to link with the High Desert Corridor, then long-haul traffic would have a way of getting to the border without going through the largest urban centers in SoCal.
The northern CA 125 project is one that's more
dead than
undead at this point; the real-estate crash of 2007-2011 largely was responsible for this -- and other -- regional projects being deleted or at least "back-burnered" But the concept of taking it past I-10 into the High Desert has two major obstacles in its way: the San Jacinto and the San Gorgonio mountain ranges (the latter an eastern but even higher extension of the San Bernardino mountain complex). One, the other, or perhaps both would need to be tunneled under to achieve any measure of efficiency. The farthest conceptual extension of CA 125 had it skirting Palomar Mountain to the west, slicing through Temecula (I'm sure the winery owners east of town would turn NIMBY in the blink of an eye when & if confronted by a freeway through their midst!), and essentially replacing CA 79 north to Beaumont. However, it has always had NIMBY issues south of there, from Poway north through the valley east of Escondido (with similar issues to Temecula). When rapid and outsized growth along the I-15/215 corridors was considered inevitable, the CA 125 extension was considered a viable addition; these days, not so much. Between the huge fire of 2003 and the housing downturn five years later, spending billions on a mountain-hopping corridor isn't a particularly attractive concept.
Quote from: Beltway on August 29, 2018, 09:39:58 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2018, 09:07:40 AM
I disagree regarding the tunnel connection between the Red Line at Farragut North and the Orange/Blue/Silver Lines near McPherson Square.
While it has never been used for trains in revenue service, that connecting track gets a decent amount of use by trains out of service (signed NO PASSENGERS).
My recollection was that it never was intended for revenue service, that it was designed to provide service access between the main yard at Brentwood (which is on the Red Line) to the rest of the system.
It wasn't and it never saw revenue service. Trains need to move between the Red Line and the rest of the system, and that was/is its only purpose.
I believe I once read that the connecting track between the Red and Green Lines at Fort Totten saw revenue service before the section of the Green Line between Fort Totten and Mount Vernon Square was complete. Trains would travel between Greenbelt and Fort Totten on the Green Line and then turn south on the Red Line.
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 29, 2018, 02:40:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 29, 2018, 09:39:58 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2018, 09:07:40 AM
I disagree regarding the tunnel connection between the Red Line at Farragut North and the Orange/Blue/Silver Lines near McPherson Square.
While it has never been used for trains in revenue service, that connecting track gets a decent amount of use by trains out of service (signed NO PASSENGERS).
My recollection was that it never was intended for revenue service, that it was designed to provide service access between the main yard at Brentwood (which is on the Red Line) to the rest of the system.
It wasn't and it never saw revenue service. Trains need to move between the Red Line and the rest of the system, and that was/is its only purpose.
I believe I once read that the connecting track between the Red and Green Lines at Fort Totten saw revenue service before the section of the Green Line between Fort Totten and Mount Vernon Square was complete. Trains would travel between Greenbelt and Fort Totten on the Green Line and then turn south on the Red Line.
Read? Shoot, I lived through that. :D
Quote from: Rothman on August 29, 2018, 03:15:12 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on August 29, 2018, 02:40:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 29, 2018, 09:39:58 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2018, 09:07:40 AM
I disagree regarding the tunnel connection between the Red Line at Farragut North and the Orange/Blue/Silver Lines near McPherson Square.
While it has never been used for trains in revenue service, that connecting track gets a decent amount of use by trains out of service (signed NO PASSENGERS).
My recollection was that it never was intended for revenue service, that it was designed to provide service access between the main yard at Brentwood (which is on the Red Line) to the rest of the system.
It wasn't and it never saw revenue service. Trains need to move between the Red Line and the rest of the system, and that was/is its only purpose.
I believe I once read that the connecting track between the Red and Green Lines at Fort Totten saw revenue service before the section of the Green Line between Fort Totten and Mount Vernon Square was complete. Trains would travel between Greenbelt and Fort Totten on the Green Line and then turn south on the Red Line.
Read? Shoot, I lived through that. :D
Ah, so it actually happened. Interesting.
Twin Cities:
Ayd Mill Road (originally called the Short Line Road) in St. Paul. Planned as a four-lane parkway connector between 35E and 94. NIMBYs eventually killed it beyond Selby Avenue, where it still ends today. Road itself generally sat in mothballs until it got proper access to/from 35E in the 2000s. St. Paul has again kicked the tires on finishing it to I-94 in recent years.
Portions of CA 152 between US 101 and CA 99 have been declared, as far as upgrades are concerned, functionally dead on numerous occasions only to rise from the grave in a different form. Between Gilroy and the 152/156 junction (aka Casa de Fruta) the concept has been stymied by both fiscal and environmental issues, the latter due to the wetlands directly south of the current winding route along the base of the foothills -- and the cost of a facility bypassing that area to the south. But lo and behold, it looks like the concept may be resurrected as an adjunct to another needed upgrade -- that of CA 25 between US 101 and the fastest-growing exurb in the area, Hollister. The current area plans (actually split between Caltrans D4 and D5, since the project spans both Santa Clara and San Benito counties) call for a new 4-lane expressway directly east of the current CA 25 alignment, which will be retained for local access. Whereas previous plans for CA 152 in the area were functionally behind a "paywall" (i.e., dependent upon tolling of the unbuilt segment); by utilizing the northernmost 3-4 miles of CA 25 as part of the CA 152 alignment before turning east toward Casa de Fruta (which would effectively circumvent the wetlands), the total independent 152 mileage can be considerably reduced (actually, some plan options take 152 even further down 25, cutting it over to 156, which it would partially subsume, about 5 miles north of the present 25/156 junction, keeping the new alignment not only very short but also away from any over-the-hill construction immediately west of 152/156 (but at the cost of acquiring farmland). Right now the various alignments are being studied; a decision should be forthcoming by 2021 at the latest as to just where 152 will diverge from 25.
After the "shallow arc" CA 152/33 freeway bypass around Los Banos' south side was dropped for environmental reasons in the 1990's (although there are ghost stubs remaining east of town), the bypass was relocated to the north side on another "arc" alignment, but one with more pronounced curvature -- and only one interchange (at CA 165) for cost containment. But that project has yet to make it into the "finals" of any statewide STIP since the northern arc was announced some 20 years ago. East of I-5, CA 152, always a major agricultural corridor to the Bay Area, seems to have fallen into limbo re upgrades (not unlike other Valley arteries) -- there's wide local agreement that the corridor needs work, but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears at the state level. Except for Los Banos, it's been twinned since the early '70's (although the older alignment, which toggles between EB and WB lanes, is an unimproved 2-lane segment featuring farm & ranch access every few hundred yards); that seems to be enough for Caltrans at this time -- like with the Los Banos bypass freeway, even bringing the eastern section of CA 152 up to expressway standards doesn't have much in the way of support from above.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 21, 2018, 07:59:20 PM
I-84 to Providence could still technically happen because ConnDOT owns a buttload of its ROW.
Well, at least to US-6 at the state line (via CT-695)... there's still that pesky reservoir in RI. :-P
Another one in Tennessee is the extension of I-140 to US-321 in Maryville. Currently the road ends at TN-33, and was planned to continue but then the state ran out of money in the late 90s so it was never built.
The area has grown up rapidly in the last few years with a lot of brand new wealthy housing, so I can't see it making it to 321 at this point. Maybe to US-411, but if it goes any farther it's getting NIMBY'd into oblivion.
Quote from: amroad17 on August 26, 2018, 12:52:20 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 25, 2018, 10:36:30 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 21, 2018, 09:56:05 PM
North of the Ohio River, I-73
Runner up, 4 laning US 30 east of Canton to Oh 11
I-73 would have to end in Ohio somewhere. Michigan doesn't want any part of it.
Ohio really does not want I-73 either.
Here in Cincinnati, a dead 60+ year project has risen like a phoenix. At one time there was supposed to be a Queen City Expressway going west from the Western Hills viaduct along Queen City Avenue (where it was supposed to end, I am not sure). Apparently, there is some semblance of that long dormant plan as construction began earlier this year at building a mile long expressway from the western end of the Western Hills viaduct. From what I have seen, this highway will be in a trench between Queen City Ave (WB Queen City) and Westwood Ave (EB Queen City). The latest googlemaps shows buildings razed between the two streets.
The I-74 extension has the exact same fate as I-73: it is not wanted by the states north of where it currently exists (VA, WV and OH).
I will believe it when I see that new Cincinnati expressway actually get built.
Quote from: amroad17 on August 26, 2018, 12:52:20 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 25, 2018, 10:36:30 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 21, 2018, 09:56:05 PM
North of the Ohio River, I-73
Runner up, 4 laning US 30 east of Canton to Oh 11
I-73 would have to end in Ohio somewhere. Michigan doesn't want any part of it.
Ohio really does not want I-73 either.
Here in Cincinnati, a dead 60+ year project has risen like a phoenix. At one time there was supposed to be a Queen City Expressway going west from the Western Hills viaduct along Queen City Avenue (where it was supposed to end, I am not sure). Apparently, there is some semblance of that long dormant plan as construction began earlier this year at building a mile long expressway from the western end of the Western Hills viaduct. From what I have seen, this highway will be in a trench between Queen City Ave (WB Queen City) and Westwood Ave (EB Queen City). The latest googlemaps shows buildings razed between the two streets.
The Queen City project is primarily a sewer & flood control project, called the Lick Run Project, whose by-product will be a "boulevard" of sorts. More information is here
http://projectgroundwork.org/projects/lowermillcreek/sustainable/lickrun/alternative/vcs.htm and here
http://www.projectgroundwork.org/lickrun/
This is one of the reasons the sewer/water rates in Hamilton County are so high...
Quote from: Henry on September 13, 2018, 11:58:33 AM
The I-74 extension has the exact same fate as I-73: it is not wanted by the states north of where it currently exists (VA, WV and OH).
I will believe it when I see that new Cincinnati expressway actually get built.
WV had interest at one time, but only if they could have the coal mining company leave the roadbed behind for their paving crews to work with. FHWA said no, so WV said no to I-74 and is building the road to corridor standards instead. VA doesn't actually have anything to do but erect signage, but without WV it is pointless for them to do so. OH was and is completely uninterested... whether WV building their section could have coaxed them to eventually do something is another question.
Quote from: vdeane on September 13, 2018, 07:37:49 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 13, 2018, 11:58:33 AM
The I-74 extension has the exact same fate as I-73: it is not wanted by the states north of where it currently exists (VA, WV and OH).
I will believe it when I see that new Cincinnati expressway actually get built.
WV had interest at one time, but only if they could have the coal mining company leave the roadbed behind for their paving crews to work with. FHWA said no, so WV said no to I-74 and is building the road to corridor standards instead. VA doesn't actually have anything to do but erect signage, but without WV it is pointless for them to do so. OH was and is completely uninterested... whether WV building their section could have coaxed them to eventually do something is another question.
Obviously the only part of the 73/74 corridor that gained Ohio's interest was the now almost finished Portsmouth bypass. If the northern end of that facility were to be extended west across the Scioto valley parallel to OH 348 & OH 73 (and eventually merging with OH 32 west toward Cincinnati) it would mimic the original proposed path for I-74; I-73 would have diverged northward at or near the US 23 junction near Lucasville. But it's now a strictly local server; the cancellation of the Kalama bridge project back about 2002 meant that a continuous Interstate-grade corridor from WV into OH was no longer on the table, which simply underscored the WV downgrade. But at least OH was able to wring
something of value out of all the original corridor plans.
Quote from: vdeane on September 13, 2018, 07:37:49 PM
WV had interest at one time, but only if they could have the coal mining company leave the roadbed behind for their paving crews to work with. FHWA said no, so WV said no to I-74 and is building the road to corridor standards instead.
Don't think it was FHWA that said no, but instead a West Virginia court. SP Cook would know the details.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on August 19, 2018, 01:37:45 PM
The MD 32 freeway between MD 108 in Clarksville and I-70 in West Friendship. It's been planned for the past 20 years and has been built piecemeal over the past 10. It's been planned for so long that it's succumbed to attrition and is now being recast as a partial access-controlled divided highway.
The US 50 six-lane upgrade between Queenstown and the MD 404 intersection north of Wye Mills has been planned for the past 45 years and is no closer to fruition. Its companion project of the dualization of MD 404 between US 50 and the western end of the Denton, MD bypass finally got built.
The replacement of the intersection between MD 140 and MD 97 in Westminster is also an undead project that needs to be built.
I live in Westminster (although, a transplant). What is the 140/97 intersection upgrade you speak of?
Quote from: lcwoods529 on October 31, 2018, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: TheOneKEA on August 19, 2018, 01:37:45 PM
The replacement of the intersection between MD 140 and MD 97 in Westminster is also an undead project that needs to be built.
I live in Westminster (although, a transplant). What is the 140/97 intersection upgrade you speak of?
Probably part of this:
http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=CL702116
Quote from: davewiecking on October 31, 2018, 11:36:06 AM
Quote from: lcwoods529 on October 31, 2018, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: TheOneKEA on August 19, 2018, 01:37:45 PM
The replacement of the intersection between MD 140 and MD 97 in Westminster is also an undead project that needs to be built.
I live in Westminster (although, a transplant). What is the 140/97 intersection upgrade you speak of?
Probably part of this:
http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=CL702116
Yes, that's the project I was thinking about. It is very necessary and should have been built a long time ago.