AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-Atlantic => Topic started by: Duke87 on May 30, 2014, 10:10:54 PM

Title: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Duke87 on May 30, 2014, 10:10:54 PM
This was submitted to the recent AASHTO committee: http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=1166

It sounds from the description like SHA intends to downgrade I-70 inside the beltway to a two-lane road, presumably with an intersection rather than an interchange at MD 122. But other than that document I can't locate any other details about this plan. Does anyone know anything?

Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: kj3400 on May 30, 2014, 10:40:44 PM
I believe the plan to downgrade I-70 has to do with the Baltimore Red Line being built in that right of way, but I'm not completely sure.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Revive 755 on May 30, 2014, 11:19:22 PM
^ Seems you are correct.
http://www.baltimoreredline.com/images/stories/redline_documents/open_houses/2012-06-06/display_boards/11_i70_proposed_alternative.pdf (http://www.baltimoreredline.com/images/stories/redline_documents/open_houses/2012-06-06/display_boards/11_i70_proposed_alternative.pdf)
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 30, 2014, 11:19:39 PM
If you read the document the ramps to MD 122 will be removed and the excess pavement will be revered to forest/meadows.  This is part of a road diet plan.  It appears that they are trying to slow the traffic down.  Sounds like a bunch of commie nonsense from a senseless administration.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: froggie on May 30, 2014, 11:27:09 PM
kj's correct...it's related to the Baltimore Red Line (http://www.baltimoreredline.com) project.  The AASHTO application includes a copy of the plan/profile from the Red Line Final EIS for the I-70 end area.  It shows the existing I-70 park-and-ride area being removed entirely, replaced by a new, larger park-and-ride lot south of the SSA access road and west of Ingleside Ave (where the WB on-ramp from Ingleside is located).  A Red Line station will be located at the park-and-ride.  It is also true that the existing I-70/Security Blvd interchange will be replaced by an at-grade intersection.  See below for details.

As for I-70, I grabbed the plans and profile PDFs for the Final EIS off the project website:

- From the AASHTO application, the roadway replacing I-70 will still be under SHA maintenance (anyone's guess what the route number would be) and will be named "Cooks Blvd".  I'll use this name below in explaining the changes.

- Cooks Blvd will more-or-less retain the existing I-70 configuration from I-695 to a point about 1/2 mile east of the Woodlawn Dr underpass...roughly even with where Virginia Pl is south of I-70.  At that location, an at-grade intersection with access to/from 70/695 will be built, connecting directly to the SSA access road (labeled "Parallel Rd" in the plans).  No access from the new connector to Cooks Blvd to/from the east is allowed.  In this area, the Red Line will be built parallel to and immediately north of the existing roadway.

- East of the new intersection to just west of the Ingleside Ave underpass, Cooks Blvd will be rebuilt as a 3-lane divided parkway...1 lane eastbound, 2 lanes westbound.  The parkway will be built along the existing eastbound lanes.  Through this section, the Red Line gradually transitions so that it occupies the existing westbound lanes by the time the new park-and-ride mentioned above is reached.

- The Ingleside Ave underpass is retained, with Cooks Blvd on the existing eastbound lanes and the Red Line on the existing westbound lanes.

- As mentioned above, the existing I-70 park-and-ride plus the ramps to/from MD 122/Security Blvd will be completely removed.

- Cooks Blvd will be built as a 2-lane parkway from the Ingleside Ave underpass to Security Blvd.  The extra westbound lane mentioned above comes from a direct ramp from the new park-and-ride to westbound Cooks Blvd.  There will be no direct access to the new park-and-ride from either Cooks Blvd or Ingleside Ave...drivers must use the SSA access road (named "Parallel Rd") to enter the new park-and-ride.

- The existing Security Blvd/Cooks Ln/Forest Park Ave intersection will be relocated slightly west and rebuilt as a standard 4-leg intersection to incorporate Cooks Blvd.  Cooks Blvd will tie directly into Cooks Ln, while Security Blvd will be rebuilt to tie directly into Forest Park Ave at the new intersection.

- The Red Line will descend into a tunnel in this area, entering the tunnel just northwest of the new intersection mentioned above.  The Red Line will then travel through a tunnel underneath Cooks Ln towards the southeast.

Hope this clears up any confusion.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2014, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 30, 2014, 10:10:54 PM
It sounds from the description like SHA intends to downgrade I-70 inside the beltway to a two-lane road, presumably with an intersection rather than an interchange at MD 122. But other than that document I can't locate any other details about this plan. Does anyone know anything?

It's really from the Maryland Transit Administration via MDOT and SHA, and yes, they want to put the Baltimore Red Line where the westbound lanes of I-70 are now. 

IMO, this is a big mistake.  Not because there is not room for the Red Line to go where I-70 is now (there is) but because the Red Line is supposed to serve one of the biggest employment centers in the Baltimore Region, the Social Security Administration. 

Putting the Red Line on the I-70 alignment puts it a very long way from much of the SSA campus buildings. If it were my call (and obviously it is not), I would run the Red Line down Md. 122, Security Boulevard, not in the footprint of I-70.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Revive 755 on May 30, 2014, 11:59:32 PM
The design shown on Sheet 7 of plans and profile from the FEIS (http://www.baltimoreredline.com/images/environmental_studies/feis/26%20Volume%202/7_Plans%20and%20Profiles_%20Part%20One_FEIS_Volume2.pdf) is certainly questionable.  There's really enough traffic to justify a double left from the new Cooks Boulevard to NB, yet not enough volume for two EB through lanes along Cooks Boulevard west of Security Boulevard?  And having a shared left-thru lane on NB Security Boulevard at Cooks Boulevard instead of a dedicated left turn lane?  Is someone trying to get sued when eventually there's a rear end crash or two?  Or does Maryland not believe in efficient traffic signal operations and wants to split phase the NB and SB movements?
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: froggie on May 31, 2014, 12:09:28 AM
QuotePutting the Red Line on the I-70 alignment puts it a very long way from much of the SSA campus buildings.

About 1000ft, versus ~400ft for a MD 122 routing.  Though none of the parking lots are on the MD 122 side, and the biggest lot is on the I-70 side, so it's a lot more even of a split for where the primary building entrances are.  Plus the SSA-related building in the NE corner of the 70/695 interchange is clearly closer to an I-70 Red Line alignment than a MD 122 alignment.

QuoteThere's really enough traffic to justify a double left from the new Cooks Boulevard to NB, yet not enough volume for two EB through lanes along Cooks Boulevard west of Security Boulevard?

Existing traffic is low enough to where you could single-lane the whole thing.  Traffic projections with the new access point suggest a lot of folks would make that double-left to access the SSA buildings given that it would be more-direct access between 70/695 and the SSA complex.

QuoteOr does Maryland not believe in efficient traffic signal operations and wants to split phase the NB and SB movements?

Maryland does a lot of split-phase in general.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 31, 2014, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 31, 2014, 12:09:28 AM
QuotePutting the Red Line on the I-70 alignment puts it a very long way from much of the SSA campus buildings.

About 1000ft, versus ~400ft for a MD 122 routing.  Though none of the parking lots are on the MD 122 side, and the biggest lot is on the I-70 side, so it's a lot more even of a split for where the primary building entrances are.  Plus the SSA-related building in the NE corner of the 70/695 interchange is clearly closer to an I-70 Red Line alignment than a MD 122 alignment.

Then there's the matter of the land that could (or maybe should) be developed or redeveloped along Md. 122 between the existing I-70 interchange and I-695.  One of the justifications I hear frequently is that rail transit will "induce" redeveopment and densification, yet that will likely not happen with the Red Line on the I-70 alignment. 
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: froggie on May 31, 2014, 12:40:29 AM
Commercial/retail zoned land is more likely for such redevelopment.  And plenty of it surrounds the two western Red Line stations (CMS and Security Square).
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 31, 2014, 09:50:22 PM
So do folks not commute down I-70 to the Park and Ride?  Was that an experiment that did not meet expectations?
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: froggie on May 31, 2014, 10:00:13 PM
They do.  But not to the extent that it needs to remain an Interstate east of I-695.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 31, 2014, 10:16:47 PM
So you are going to squeeze these folks from multi lanes down to two lines?
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: kj3400 on May 31, 2014, 10:48:39 PM
It really isn't that much traffic. I mean, when I used it on a regular basis, you'd see maybe 3 cars going in your direction.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Mapmikey on June 01, 2014, 10:27:26 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 31, 2014, 09:50:22 PM
So do folks not commute down I-70 to the Park and Ride?  Was that an experiment that did not meet expectations?

It appears that lot only has ~250 spaces and definitely did not require an interstate for its use.

There are commuter lots in Virginia with way more spaces than that served by barely improved 2-lane secondary roads, some nowhere near anything multilane...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on June 01, 2014, 11:01:36 AM
From a OCD roadgeek point of view, we should be happy about this... Interstates end at interstates. At least in theory.


iPhone
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Scott5114 on June 01, 2014, 02:11:02 PM
Personally, I'll miss it. It's one of the more unique Interstate termini. I made a point to visit it on the way back from my trip to DC in 2007. My mother, who grew up near I-70 and is not really a roadgeek, was fascinated by the fact that this, of all places, was where I-70 began. (She also found Breezewood really interesting).
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Mr_Northside on June 01, 2014, 03:12:52 PM
For what it's worth.... from a practical / motorists perspective, Maryland has "said" that I-70 ends at I-695 with this sign for quite some time now....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.schuminweb.com%2Fjournal%2F2012%2Ffull-size%2Fi-70-park-and-ride-01.jpg&hash=b26cd36411d68662cd6115362bbd372567fd3d60)
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: 1995hoo on June 01, 2014, 04:50:55 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on June 01, 2014, 03:12:52 PM
For what it's worth.... from a practical / motorists perspective, Maryland has "said" that I-70 ends at I-695 with this sign for quite some time now....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.schuminweb.com%2Fjournal%2F2012%2Ffull-size%2Fi-70-park-and-ride-01.jpg&hash=b26cd36411d68662cd6115362bbd372567fd3d60)

In terms of guidance useful to most motorists, that's probably not unreasonable.

I'm now torn on whether to try to get up there in July to drive that little piece inside I-695 (the only part of I-70 in Maryland I've never driven) or whether to say "screw it" and wait for it to be crossed off for me!
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: vdeane on June 01, 2014, 07:19:44 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 31, 2014, 09:50:22 PM
So do folks not commute down I-70 to the Park and Ride?  Was that an experiment that did not meet expectations?
It's not that I-70 was extended to the Park and Ride as an experiment but rather that the Park and Ride was put I-70's stub after the remainder of the freeway was NIMBYed out of future plans.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: seicer on June 01, 2014, 09:15:26 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 30, 2014, 11:19:39 PM
If you read the document the ramps to MD 122 will be removed and the excess pavement will be revered to forest/meadows.  This is part of a road diet plan.  It appears that they are trying to slow the traffic down.  Sounds like a bunch of commie nonsense from a senseless administration.

We got a jackass comment of the month!

Really? This is Communist because it's removing a section of highway that will never be extended east - which would destroy countless neighborhoods via eminent domain (that's not capitalism) and is no longer justifiable due to its extreme cost?

All this is doing is removing an underused section of highway that sees little traffic. It drops from 97,173 west of the beltway to just 30,121 east of it - dipping to just 17,101 at the park-and-ride lot. The park-and-ride lot is being moved so that it can serve highway commuters who will be able to pick up the Red Line to downtown and other points.

Of course, a 23 member commission - all independent, began studies back in 2001. There were countless public meetings held - which you most likely did not attend any of, and those discussions about the removal or modification of just 1.5 miles of highway pavement that is in areas one lane already.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Alex on June 02, 2014, 09:38:05 AM
Well it surely means the end of this remaining sign relic. Get a photo while you can:

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland999/ingleside_av_eb_at_i-070_wb_01.jpg) (https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland999/ingleside_av_eb_at_i-070_wb_01.jpg)

Quote from: Mr_Northside on June 01, 2014, 03:12:52 PM
For what it's worth.... from a practical / motorists perspective, Maryland has "said" that I-70 ends at I-695 with this sign for quite some time now....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.schuminweb.com%2Fjournal%2F2012%2Ffull-size%2Fi-70-park-and-ride-01.jpg&hash=b26cd36411d68662cd6115362bbd372567fd3d60)

First noted that sign in 2000, so this truncation is a long time coming...
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Henry on June 02, 2014, 04:01:51 PM
Finally, something is being done about it! Too bad it had to come down to this, but that routing was just bad luck for the most part. I could see why they didn't want to trace the entire route of US 40 into the city because it runs through dense commercial and residential areas, but I never liked the fact that its proposed routing would have wiped out an entire city park, which, along with NIMBYism in the inner-city areas, caused its ultimate doom.

Still, it will be interesting what number the new Cooks Boulevard gets, if at all. I'd call it MD 666, but then there'd be the fear of sign theft, so if it were up to me, I'd just sign it as MD 970 and be done with it.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2014, 06:42:46 PM
Other Park and Rides on freeway ROW: I-95 north of DC, NY 440 south of... NY 440 (Richmond Pkwy.), former end of I-370 MD, and a partially built interchange along NJ 15. It's a big parking lot, and it's going to see most of its traffic during the AM and PM peaks. The AADT says about 9,000 vehicles each way into the Park and Ride - I would figure at least 5,000 of them during the three peak hours. Given that, I would rather see a 1/1/1 with reversible center lane than a fixed 2/1, though I understand what's going on here (PM traffic tends to leave around the same time, and you don't want to back them up into the Park and Ride lot should something happen).
The only other point I'll raise is - why demolish the existing bridges? Take out I-70 WB, but just run two-way traffic EB. You can use the existing ramps with some minor modifications to create intersections along MD 970 (that is the number I am making up) that will connect down to Security Blvd.

If it becomes 970, I want a cookie.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: ixnay on June 03, 2014, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 01, 2014, 02:11:02 PM
Personally, I'll miss it. It's one of the more unique Interstate termini.

I'll miss it too.  I used that stretch in 1994 when my employer sent me to the Baltimore area for training, putting me up at the Holiday Inn (now Best Western) near Security Square Mall.

ixnay
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: bugo on June 03, 2014, 05:18:09 PM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 01, 2014, 11:01:36 AM
From a OCD roadgeek point of view, we should be happy about this... Interstates end at interstates. At least in theory.

You say OCD, I say anal.  Tomato, tomato, potato, potato.

Besides, to the anal road geeker, aren't 2 digit interstates not supposed to end at 3 digit interstates? 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: June 05, 2014, 06:08:30 AM

This sucks.  Another fascinating part of our highway system is going to be lost.  They're burying another piece of history.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: froggie on June 03, 2014, 09:59:28 PM
Eye of the beholder.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on June 04, 2014, 03:28:50 AM

Quote from: bugo on June 03, 2014, 05:18:09 PM


Besides, to the anal road geeker, aren't 2 digit interstates not supposed to end at 3 digit interstates?

Bugo for the win


iPhone
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: kj3400 on June 04, 2014, 03:41:51 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 03, 2014, 05:20:18 PM
This sucks.  Another fascinating part of our highway system is going to be lost.  They're burying another piece of history.

What can you do? If it was up to me, I'd finish it. But apparently it's not a priority.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 11:17:17 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 03, 2014, 05:20:18 PM
This sucks.  Another fascinating part of our highway system is going to be lost.  They're burying another piece of history.

Honestly, i think it is a waste of federal funds to maintain what is more or less a driveway to a park and ride station. downgrade it, truncate I-70 to 695.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: TheOneKEA on June 04, 2014, 06:25:19 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 11:17:17 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 03, 2014, 05:20:18 PM
This sucks.  Another fascinating part of our highway system is going to be lost.  They're burying another piece of history.

Honestly, i think it is a waste of federal funds to maintain what is more or less a driveway to a park and ride station. downgrade it, truncate I-70 to 695.

And do what with the four-level stack?

My research suggests that it was the first four-level "Maltese cross" stack in Maryland, and it shows. It has no shoulders on the ramps, tighter curves than modern stacks, and the physical fabric is alarmingly decayed in places.

If these plans are in fact accepted and I-70 is truncated, I would expect that the existing stack would be replaced with either a modern stack, or a clover-stack that used loop ramps for the WB Blvd-695 Outer and 695 Outer-EB Blvd movements. In any case something will have to be done to it within the next 5 years, or else someone will start squawking about it becoming unsafe.

In general terms, I do have mixed feelings about this truncation. After reading The Big Roads by Earl Swift I understand very well how badly West Baltimore was affected by the attempts to build I-70, and I don't like the idea of the wholesale park demolition that would have been needed to build the highway. But West Baltimore is now as badly affected by the absence of I-70 as it was by its impending presence, and I agree with those who suggest that better road access, combined with better facilities at the MARC station and the Red Line, could make a difference.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 06:58:24 PM
Quote from: TheOneKEA on June 04, 2014, 06:25:19 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 11:17:17 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 03, 2014, 05:20:18 PM
This sucks.  Another fascinating part of our highway system is going to be lost.  They're burying another piece of history.

Honestly, i think it is a waste of federal funds to maintain what is more or less a driveway to a park and ride station. downgrade it, truncate I-70 to 695.

And do what with the four-level stack?

My research suggests that it was the first four-level "Maltese cross" stack in Maryland, and it shows. It has no shoulders on the ramps, tighter curves than modern stacks, and the physical fabric is alarmingly decayed in places.

If these plans are in fact accepted and I-70 is truncated, I would expect that the existing stack would be replaced with either a modern stack, or a clover-stack that used loop ramps for the WB Blvd-695 Outer and 695 Outer-EB Blvd movements. In any case something will have to be done to it within the next 5 years, or else someone will start squawking about it becoming unsafe.

In general terms, I do have mixed feelings about this truncation. After reading The Big Roads by Earl Swift I understand very well how badly West Baltimore was affected by the attempts to build I-70, and I don't like the idea of the wholesale park demolition that would have been needed to build the highway. But West Baltimore is now as badly affected by the absence of I-70 as it was by its impending presence, and I agree with those who suggest that better road access, combined with better facilities at the MARC station and the Red Line, could make a difference.

I would keep as much as possible of the current stack. Only real change would be requiring all traffic to merge onto one roadway. I would have it taper off to two lanes past woodlawn drive, possibly making a few at grade intersections for local roads, with the red line using the current overpasses.

Honestly, I-70 ending at 695 instead of at the park and ride is not a big loss, most traffic will not even notice the missing mile or two of interstate. It is not as big of a change as 195/295/95 changing their routing between NJ and PA, having 195 extend over 295, and connecting to 95 in PA.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: froggie on June 04, 2014, 09:21:34 PM
Guys, in case you missed my comment from last week (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12524.msg303010#msg303010), the existing stack will remain and current I-70 will remain more or less in its current configuration west of a point about 1/2mi east of the Woodlawn Dr underpass.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: bob7374 on June 04, 2014, 09:59:37 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 06:58:24 PM
Honestly, I-70 ending at 695 instead of at the park and ride is not a big loss, most traffic will not even notice the missing mile or two of interstate. It is not as big of a change as 195/295/95 changing their routing between NJ and PA, having 195 extend over 295, and connecting to 95 in PA.
Has anyone, besides posters to this Forum, proposed extending I-70 south along I-695 so it ended at I-95? If only because it was supposed to originally.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Alex4897 on June 04, 2014, 10:11:52 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 04, 2014, 09:59:37 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 06:58:24 PM
Honestly, I-70 ending at 695 instead of at the park and ride is not a big loss, most traffic will not even notice the missing mile or two of interstate. It is not as big of a change as 195/295/95 changing their routing between NJ and PA, having 195 extend over 295, and connecting to 95 in PA.
Has anyone, besides posters to this Forum, proposed extending I-70 south along I-695 so it ended at I-95? If only because it was supposed to originally.
I was thinking this too, I figured it wasn't that big of a deal, more of a way to tidy things up.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 10:15:19 PM
Quote from: Alex4897 on June 04, 2014, 10:11:52 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 04, 2014, 09:59:37 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 06:58:24 PM
Honestly, I-70 ending at 695 instead of at the park and ride is not a big loss, most traffic will not even notice the missing mile or two of interstate. It is not as big of a change as 195/295/95 changing their routing between NJ and PA, having 195 extend over 295, and connecting to 95 in PA.
Has anyone, besides posters to this Forum, proposed extending I-70 south along I-695 so it ended at I-95? If only because it was supposed to originally.
I was thinking this too, I figured it wasn't that big of a deal, more of a way to tidy things up.

I was thinking that as well, but i came to the conclusion that extending it along 695 would be a useless project, would create more hassles since you would have to put up new signs and change all the stuff around, then figure out the exit numbers and miles, etc. Having it run along 695 is a good idea...but would just confuse people in the long run since suddenly 695 has a second route on it, I-70. But, if i were in charge, i would have it go beyond 95, have it go all the way to 97.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Alps on June 05, 2014, 12:26:40 AM
It's never a good idea to run through highways around established beltways, because people will call the beltway by its one number.
* I-95 Boston = Route 128
* I-95 Washington = 495
* I-40 Memphis = 240

* Exception: I-74 Indy = 74, even when on I-465

70 would have to replace 695, and as said herein, why bother with the expense and hassle?
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: SteveG1988 on June 05, 2014, 07:39:25 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2014, 12:26:40 AM
It's never a good idea to run through highways around established beltways, because people will call the beltway by its one number.
* I-95 Boston = Route 128
* I-95 Washington = 495
* I-40 Memphis = 240

* Exception: I-74 Indy = 74, even when on I-465

70 would have to replace 695, and as said herein, why bother with the expense and hassle?

I misphrased what i wanted to say.

"if i were in charge" i should have added "if i were in charge and instructed to link I-70 to a mainline interstate"

I see nothing wrong with how it stands now, I-70 has always ended at I-695, just make it official. What i think has people butt hurt about it is the mass transit use of the right of way. "tear out an interstate to just give people a rail line"

Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 05, 2014, 08:44:30 AM
Do people around DC say "495," or is it just "the Beltway"?
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: 1995hoo on June 05, 2014, 08:48:50 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 05, 2014, 08:44:30 AM
Do people around DC say "495," or is it just "the Beltway"?

It's varied over the years. When I was a little kid, it was always just "495," and some people, including WTOP traffic reporter Bob Marbourg, continue to use that reference. "The Beltway" became more common when the numbering was split and my observation these days is that more people use that reference.

If I'm giving directions, I usually just say "the Beltway" if the person is local, but if the person is from out of the area I'll give the route numbers instead (so that I don't have to remember whether a given sign says "Capital Beltway") and I'll mention the dual-signing of I-95/I-495 (since we live off that portion).
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 06, 2014, 12:03:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 05, 2014, 08:44:30 AM
Do people around DC say "495," or is it just "the Beltway"?

495 and "Beltway" are synonymous. 

This dates back to the days before I-95 between Third Street, N.W. and New York Avenue in D.C. and College Park was cancelled, and I-95 was routed around the south and east parts of the Beltway. 

Initially, the 495 signs were removed, but local elected officials demanded that they be reinstalled, and they were.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: mrsman on June 08, 2014, 04:55:02 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 02, 2014, 04:01:51 PM
Finally, something is being done about it! Too bad it had to come down to this, but that routing was just bad luck for the most part. I could see why they didn't want to trace the entire route of US 40 into the city because it runs through dense commercial and residential areas, but I never liked the fact that its proposed routing would have wiped out an entire city park, which, along with NIMBYism in the inner-city areas, caused its ultimate doom.

Still, it will be interesting what number the new Cooks Boulevard gets, if at all. I'd call it MD 666, but then there'd be the fear of sign theft, so if it were up to me, I'd just sign it as MD 970 and be done with it.

This is a good idea.  Basically, as it exists right now, the best way to connect from I-70 to I-95 is via I-695.  And the control cities at the junction show this:  Towson-New York I-695 to I-95 north or Glen Burnie-Baltimore I-695 to I-95 south.

For access to Downtown Baltimore, generally the best way is I-695 south to I-95 north.  But if the beltway is busy, there are a lot of folks who currently follow a routing from I-70 to Cooks Lane to Edmunson Avenue (US 40).  Thanks to the ex-I-170 freeway, there's about a 2 mile section where traffic lights are skipped.  It would be nice if the routing along Cooks between US 40 and I-70 were a state highway to ease the navigation.

At least with the new plans if you're coming down I-70 you don't need to turn to get to Cooks, and apparently the new routing will only add a handful of lights.  You will no longer have to turn down Ingleside or around the Park and Ride to make this connection.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: mgk920 on June 10, 2014, 11:11:17 AM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 04, 2014, 03:28:50 AM

Quote from: bugo on June 03, 2014, 05:18:09 PM


Besides, to the anal road geeker, aren't 2 digit interstates not supposed to end at 3 digit interstates?

Bugo for the win


iPhone

OTOH, if I-83 is ever rerouted to follow I-695 (west) to replace I-97 to . . . .

:hmmm:

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: thenetwork on June 10, 2014, 11:53:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2014, 12:26:40 AM
It's never a good idea to run through highways around established beltways, because people will call the beltway by its one number.
* I-95 Boston = Route 128
* I-95 Washington = 495
* I-40 Memphis = 240

* Exception: I-74 Indy = 74, even when on I-465

70 would have to replace 695, and as said herein, why bother with the expense and hassle?

It's been a while since I have listened to traffic reports in Detroit...Don't most people there refer to the I-96 stretch along I-275 as just I-96 and not I-275?


Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 10:15:19 PM
Quote from: Alex4897 on June 04, 2014, 10:11:52 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 04, 2014, 09:59:37 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 06:58:24 PM
Honestly, I-70 ending at 695 instead of at the park and ride is not a big loss, most traffic will not even notice the missing mile or two of interstate. It is not as big of a change as 195/295/95 changing their routing between NJ and PA, having 195 extend over 295, and connecting to 95 in PA.
Has anyone, besides posters to this Forum, proposed extending I-70 south along I-695 so it ended at I-95? If only because it was supposed to originally.
I was thinking this too, I figured it wasn't that big of a deal, more of a way to tidy things up.

I was thinking that as well, but i came to the conclusion that extending it along 695 would be a useless project, would create more hassles since you would have to put up new signs and change all the stuff around, then figure out the exit numbers and miles, etc. Having it run along 695 is a good idea...but would just confuse people in the long run since suddenly 695 has a second route on it, I-70. But, if i were in charge, i would have it go beyond 95, have it go all the way to 97.

I like your idea of extending I-70 along I-695 and replacing I-97 (to US-50/US-301).  It frees up an interstate number and provides a single route number for those traveling from far Western Maryland to to Annapolis, far Eastern Maryland & Delaware.  Plus I-70 would, of sorts, be a complete bypass route of both Baltimore & DC proper.

The downside of extending I-70 to Annapolis is renumbering all the exits along I-695 and what was I-97, but all-in-all, it would provide less confusion for the non-local, through traffic.

Quote from: mgk920 on June 10, 2014, 11:11:17 AM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 04, 2014, 03:28:50 AM

Quote from: bugo on June 03, 2014, 05:18:09 PM


Besides, to the anal road geeker, aren't 2 digit interstates not supposed to end at 3 digit interstates?

Bugo for the win


iPhone

OTOH, if I-83 is ever rerouted to follow I-695 (west) to replace I-97 to . . . .


Another decent idea...Just run I-83 along the western bypass to I-70, then multiplex it to I-95.  The old alignment of I-83 would be I-183 (a logical spur route "dead ending" downtown).
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Henry on June 10, 2014, 02:37:33 PM
Of all the ideas for fixing the Baltimore Interstates, I like the I-83 reroute the best. That way, I-70 would end at a 2di, like it should have in the first place, and I-83 would intersect with I-95, albeit eight miles southwest of where it was once proposed to.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 10, 2014, 03:02:35 PM
So what killed I-70 the NIMBY's or the econuts?
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 10, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
Rotten idea. I still say I-70 and I-83 should go straight to I-95.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Strider on June 10, 2014, 05:21:08 PM
They should have multiplex I-70 with I-695 and have it end at I-95 either south or north of Baltimore. I don't understand why they didn't do that... but hey.. there are some 2dis that end at 3dis.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: froggie on June 10, 2014, 09:47:45 PM
QuoteSo what killed I-70 the NIMBY's or the econuts?

Both, plus a lack of money to fund the city's share (which is also what killed I-83).

QuoteRotten idea. I still say I-70 and I-83 should go straight to I-95.

That ship has sailed.  It's over.

QuoteThey should have multiplex I-70 with I-695 and have it end at I-95 either south or north of Baltimore. I don't understand why they didn't do that... but hey.. there are some 2dis that end at 3dis.

Plenty of precedent:  I-4, original (non-extended) I-69, I-76 (E), I-87, I-88 (W)...
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: bugo on June 10, 2014, 09:54:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 10, 2014, 09:47:45 PM
QuoteSo what killed I-70 the NIMBY's or the econuts?
Both, plus a lack of money to fund the city's share (which is also what killed I-83).
QuoteRotten idea. I still say I-70 and I-83 should go straight to I-95.
That ship has sailed.  It's over.

Things change.  Folks die.  New residents move in.  Demographics change.  Never say never.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: froggie on June 10, 2014, 10:08:06 PM
By that point, roads may well be obsolete.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Duke87 on June 10, 2014, 11:11:37 PM
Road? Where we're going we don't need roads!

Though I doubt we'll be there next year. :)
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 11, 2014, 09:50:18 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 10, 2014, 10:08:06 PM
By that point, roads may well be obsolete.

The electric street railway technology proposed for the Red Line in Baltimore has been obsolete for many years.  It is being revived thanks to very generous subsidies from Maryland highway users.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 11, 2014, 11:31:11 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 10, 2014, 03:02:35 PM
So what killed I-70 the NIMBY's or the econuts?

They ran out of politically weak people to displace.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Henry on June 11, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 11, 2014, 11:31:11 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 10, 2014, 03:02:35 PM
So what killed I-70 the NIMBY's or the econuts?

They ran out of politically weak people to displace.
First the NIMBY's in the inner-city areas, and the econuts who kept the parks from being destroyed. Trying to finish the I-170 freeway was already a lost cause when the environmentalists won the battle.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 11, 2014, 04:44:26 PM
Some could probably stand to win now if part of a neighborhood was to be plowed.  However, I hate the use of eminent domain as well.  It is a catch twenty-two.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: skluth on June 12, 2014, 05:47:04 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on June 10, 2014, 11:53:23 AM

Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 10:15:19 PM
Quote from: Alex4897 on June 04, 2014, 10:11:52 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 04, 2014, 09:59:37 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 04, 2014, 06:58:24 PM
Honestly, I-70 ending at 695 instead of at the park and ride is not a big loss, most traffic will not even notice the missing mile or two of interstate. It is not as big of a change as 195/295/95 changing their routing between NJ and PA, having 195 extend over 295, and connecting to 95 in PA.
Has anyone, besides posters to this Forum, proposed extending I-70 south along I-695 so it ended at I-95? If only because it was supposed to originally.
I was thinking this too, I figured it wasn't that big of a deal, more of a way to tidy things up.

I was thinking that as well, but i came to the conclusion that extending it along 695 would be a useless project, would create more hassles since you would have to put up new signs and change all the stuff around, then figure out the exit numbers and miles, etc. Having it run along 695 is a good idea...but would just confuse people in the long run since suddenly 695 has a second route on it, I-70. But, if i were in charge, i would have it go beyond 95, have it go all the way to 97.

I like your idea of extending I-70 along I-695 and replacing I-97 (to US-50/US-301).  It frees up an interstate number and provides a single route number for those traveling from far Western Maryland to to Annapolis, far Eastern Maryland & Delaware.  Plus I-70 would, of sorts, be a complete bypass route of both Baltimore & DC proper.

The downside of extending I-70 to Annapolis is renumbering all the exits along I-695 and what was I-97, but all-in-all, it would provide less confusion for the non-local, through traffic.

Quote from: mgk920 on June 10, 2014, 11:11:17 AM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on June 04, 2014, 03:28:50 AM

Quote from: bugo on June 03, 2014, 05:18:09 PM


Besides, to the anal road geeker, aren't 2 digit interstates not supposed to end at 3 digit interstates?

Bugo for the win


iPhone

OTOH, if I-83 is ever rerouted to follow I-695 (west) to replace I-97 to . . . .


Another decent idea...Just run I-83 along the western bypass to I-70, then multiplex it to I-95.  The old alignment of I-83 would be I-183 (a logical spur route "dead ending" downtown).

If the freeway portion of MD 32 could be extended to I 70 (maybe west of the Howard County Fairgrounds), I 70 could be rerouted along MD 32 to I 97 and then replace I 97 to Annapolis. It could eventually be extended across Chesapeake Bay to Dover. The old I 70 could be renamed I 170 since it is no longer being used in the city and it wouldn't matter where it ended.

I'd rather run I-83 down the east side of Baltimore via 695, 95, and 895 and then down 97 to the newly aligned I-70 (eliminating 97 in the process).
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Alps on June 12, 2014, 09:42:03 PM
Can we try to stop venturing into Fictional Highways territory?
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 12, 2014, 10:45:39 PM

Quote from: Alps on June 12, 2014, 09:42:03 PM
Can we try to stop venturing into Fictional Highways territory?

That's precisely where this part of I-70 is headed.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: Duke87 on June 12, 2014, 11:58:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 12, 2014, 10:45:39 PM

Quote from: Alps on June 12, 2014, 09:42:03 PM
Can we try to stop venturing into Fictional Highways territory?

That's precisely where this part of I-70 is headed.

I thought that part of I-70 headed to the little known suburb of Local Traffic.
Title: Re: Truncation of I-70
Post by: kj3400 on June 13, 2014, 01:11:41 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 12, 2014, 11:58:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 12, 2014, 10:45:39 PM

Quote from: Alps on June 12, 2014, 09:42:03 PM
Can we try to stop venturing into Fictional Highways territory?

That's precisely where this part of I-70 is headed.

I thought that part of I-70 headed to the little known suburb of Local Traffic.

Actually it's heading to the small town of Security Blvd Park & Ride.