News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Undead Road Plans

Started by theroadwayone, August 18, 2018, 03:26:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hot Rod Hootenanny

North of the Ohio River, I-73
Runner up, 4 laning US 30 east of Canton to Oh 11
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above


froggie

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.

Rothman



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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

abefroman329

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.

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

sparker

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. 

Roadwarriors79

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.

robby2161

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.

theroadwayone

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.

Flint1979

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.

Sctvhound

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.

amroad17

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.
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

jon daly

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.

cpzilliacus

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.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

CNGL-Leudimin

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.
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

sparker

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. 

abefroman329

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.

Rothman

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
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

abefroman329

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.

TheHighwayMan3561

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.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

sparker

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.   

DJ Particle

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

mrcmc888

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.

Henry

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.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!



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