Starting a thread on Tucson highways and freeways, of which there are only 2 Interstate-grade freeways (I-10 and I-19). This article discusses the plans for Aviation Parkway (AZ 210) and the Sonoran Corridor in SE Tucson, but it also mentions the potential need for a crosstown freeway traveling from east to west across Tucson. Opinions in the article naturally extend in favor and opposition to considering such a route, which would be a $3B endeavor according to the article.
http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/28939827/traffic-troubles-does-tucson-need-a-crosstown-freeway
QuoteAs Tucson's population grows, what plans are in place for crosstown roads to cut down your commute? We've debated potential ideas for decades, and though past proposals for crosstown freeways, parkways, or even outer loops have failed, questions remain. As the city of Tucson expands east, how will our road system change with it? ...
Clearly the thought isn't new, so why don't we have an east to west route yet?
We saw a proposal for a crosstown parkway in 1984, as well as ideas for a loop around the city in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In these cases, it came down to a lack of money and designs were defeated at the ballot box.
According to the Arizona Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation Authority, it would cost more than $3 billion to build an actual crosstown freeway now. ...
tate Route 210, also known as Aviation Parkway, will eventually change for commuters. Currently, it spans from Golf Links Road west of South Swan Road on the east side to the eastern edge of downtown Tucson at East Broadway Boulevard.
ADOT is starting Phase 2 of a traffic study which includes expansion of the parkway. The parkway could eventually go all the way to I-10 on the west side, while the eastern extension has yet to be planned. ADOT officials say this would really make a difference for drivers.
"This would relieve a lot of traffic on I-10 that is heading to downtown Tucson," Krugel said. "Because they would have another option to get downtown by taking State Route 210, which would be a free-flowing highway."
They have money set aside now for the right of way fees, but no design or construction fees are designated, which means any kind of change here is still years away.
Plans are also in place for The Sonoran Corridor. Once built, this road will connect I-19 at Pima Mine Road to I-10 at Rita Road, easing congestion around Raytheon's facilities. It should cut about 20 minutes out of the southeast side commute, according to Pima County officials. ...
The Sonoran Corridor will also connect traffic from about 18 roads in the area with about 304,025 cars traveling on them, according to Raytheon and Pima Association of Governments.
"We're attempting to find ways to make sure we minimize congestion at the crossings, which is where the two come together," Pima County Director of Strategic Planning John Moffatt said. "As well as divert traffic and also make it easier to get to work."
Designs for this corridor are slightly further along and they should have it built in the next five to 10 years. The expected cost exceeds $600 million. The county will initially build this as a surface street, but Moffatt tells me they are ultimately looking at a four-lane highway design.
Funny to think that I see so many local/regional tax increases pass in California where congestion is Obvious with a capital O but a growing place like Tucson can't be bothered with building the needed infrastructure as well as paying the piper. It looks like all that can be done is to let things get so bad that the people scream for ice cream, then they'll be ready to pay. Those "pay me now or pay me later" commercials must not have resonated with the people who live in the only walled city in the US of A.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 11, 2015, 12:57:57 AM
Funny to think that I see so many local/regional tax increases pass in California where congestion is Obvious with a capital O but a growing place like Tucson can't be bothered with building the needed infrastructure as well as paying the piper. It looks like all that can be done is to let things get so bad that the people scream for ice cream, then they'll be ready to pay. Those "pay me now or pay me later" commercials must not have resonated with the people who live in the only walled city in the US of A.
Rick
Pima County did pass a 1/2 cent sales tax increase in 2006 to pay for transportation. It has funded hundreds of projects including widening of many roads, building of new interchanges on I-10, eliminating at-grade rail crossings, improving bus service, and the streetcar line that opened last year. But please, continue telling us about how they refuse to pay.
Quote from: dfwmapper on May 11, 2015, 03:33:41 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 11, 2015, 12:57:57 AM
Funny to think that I see so many local/regional tax increases pass in California where congestion is Obvious with a capital O but a growing place like Tucson can't be bothered with building the needed infrastructure as well as paying the piper. It looks like all that can be done is to let things get so bad that the people scream for ice cream, then they'll be ready to pay. Those "pay me now or pay me later" commercials must not have resonated with the people who live in the only walled city in the US of A.
Rick
Pima County did pass a 1/2 cent sales tax increase in 2006 to pay for transportation. It has funded hundreds of projects including widening of many roads, building of new interchanges on I-10, eliminating at-grade rail crossings, improving bus service, and the streetcar line that opened last year. But please, continue telling us about how they refuse to pay.
"We saw a proposal for a crosstown parkway in 1984, as well as ideas for a loop around the city in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In these cases, it came down to a lack of money and designs were defeated at the ballot box."
Satisfied?
Rick
Due to the fact that the I-710 proposal was shot down decades ago and Tucson's anti-freeway sentiment, I find it hard to believe that any freeway proposals have come about since then.
Tucson is very "anti-Phoenix", and they see freeways and loop systems is trying to turn Tucson into Phoenix. It's more of an arrogance problem, enhanced by the rivalry between ASU and Tucson Community College (aka U of A). I lived there for a time in the late 90's and have met people since then from Tucson, and they really despise Phoenix and anything associated with it.
Quote from: Sonic99 on May 13, 2015, 02:46:24 AM
Tucson is very "anti-Phoenix", and they see freeways and loop systems is trying to turn Tucson into Phoenix. It's more of an arrogance problem, enhanced by the rivalry between ASU and Tucson Community College (aka U of A). I lived there for a time in the late 90's and have met people since then from Tucson, and they really despise Phoenix and anything associated with it.
Thanks for explaining the rivalry aspects Sonic. Another one in the west exists in Idaho. You're either a Boise person or a rest of the state person is what I have heard. Tucson Community College...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 13, 2015, 10:23:48 AM
Quote from: Sonic99 on May 13, 2015, 02:46:24 AM
Tucson is very "anti-Phoenix", and they see freeways and loop systems is trying to turn Tucson into Phoenix. It's more of an arrogance problem, enhanced by the rivalry between ASU and Tucson Community College (aka U of A). I lived there for a time in the late 90's and have met people since then from Tucson, and they really despise Phoenix and anything associated with it.
Thanks for explaining the rivalry aspects Sonic. Another one in the west exists in Idaho. You're either a Boise person or a rest of the state person is what I have heard. Tucson Community College...LOL!
Rick
I had to laugh at that Tucson Community College statement! I'm told that Seattle and Spokane don't like each other either. And then there are the examples from the bigger states, such as Los Angeles-San Francisco and Dallas-Houston, which are there for more obvious reasons.
One thing that I wonder is that once logo signs are installed on the Tucson area freeways, I wonder if there will be heavy opposition. There hasn't been much opposition for them in Phoenix (most people that I spoke to in person support them), but I have this feeling that many Tucson area residents (and possibly the City of Tucson government) will be in opposition to them since they might think it clutters up their freeways. After all, Tucson often tries to do everything the opposite of Phoenix.
Tucson will demand the Parclo B4 if they get logo signs.
Tucson takes way too long just to widen existing roads. Forget about a new freeway or parkway. I would love to see the mentality change there, but I'll believe it when I see it.
There is one good thing going on there. Many of the interchanges on I-10 NW of Prince Road are due to be redone. Most will be new bridges over the freeway and parallel railroad tracks.
I lived in Tucson for two years (2010-2012) and commuted from Oracle and Hardy down to the university (roughly 6th and Euclid) during rush-hour three days a week. While the lack of a freeway was odd and people would whine about no freeway, traffic really wasn't that bad once you got used to it and figured out what streets to be on (1st to Orange Grove was much faster than taking Speedway to Oracle) and lane to be in and when. It might be worse going east, but coming from Oro Valley, I never saw any particular need for more road- it seemed like adding a freeway connection would be more for the sake of saying that there was a freeway than for any real reason. Having lived in places with congested freeways, I actually felt like having timed traffic lights was better and more efficient than sitting on a gridlocked freeway.
Quote from: corco on May 13, 2015, 11:52:23 PM
I lived in Tucson for two years (2010-2012) and commuted from Oracle and Hardy down to the university (roughly 6th and Euclid) during rush-hour three days a week. While the lack of a freeway was odd and people would whine about no freeway, traffic really wasn't that bad once you got used to it and figured out what streets to be on (1st to Orange Grove was much faster than taking Speedway to Oracle) and lane to be in and when. It might be worse going east, but coming from Oro Valley, I never saw any particular need for more road- it seemed like adding a freeway connection would be more for the sake of saying that there was a freeway than for any real reason. Having lived in places with congested freeways, I actually felt like having timed traffic lights was better and more efficient than sitting on a gridlocked freeway.
Yes, it does. Because instead of having everyone take the freeway, traffic is spread around many more arterials. For a city that is Tucson's size, it works very well.
Quote from: corco on May 13, 2015, 11:52:23 PM
I lived in Tucson for two years (2010-2012) and commuted from Oracle and Hardy down to the university (roughly 6th and Euclid) during rush-hour three days a week. While the lack of a freeway was odd and people would whine about no freeway, traffic really wasn't that bad once you got used to it and figured out what streets to be on (1st to Orange Grove was much faster than taking Speedway to Oracle) and lane to be in and when. It might be worse going east, but coming from Oro Valley, I never saw any particular need for more road- it seemed like adding a freeway connection would be more for the sake of saying that there was a freeway than for any real reason. Having lived in places with congested freeways, I actually felt like having timed traffic lights was better and more efficient than sitting on a gridlocked freeway.
Much of Tucson does have an efficient "gridiron" pattern, similar to Chicago and other cities, where streets are straight, run either N-S or E-W and major intersections were often placed exactly a mile apart. As for additional freeway in the Tucson metro area, wonder why ROW was not identified and preserved along Houghton Road on the far east side, for eventual upgrading to a piece of an beltway?
Seems ADOT didn't give up on the idea of Freeway upgrades for years.
http://azhighwaydata.com/resolutions/?syear=1927&eyear=2014&crc=3&rtnum=910&submit1=Submit
Apparently, Grant Road, Kolb Road and Valencia Road were part of a little known unsigned State Route 910 Loop. I say "were" considering all Route Logs published by ADOT in modern times don't show a SR 910 anywhere. Plus, the lack of maintenance on Grant Road speaks for itself.
There is a Unofficial Proposal for I-11 to create a bypass of Tucson.
Starting At I-8 West of Casa Grande, running West of I-10 South along a Kinney Road Alinement to Valencia Road then East on a Valencia Road to I-10 (With a Branch to Tucson International Airport)
Are those button copy signs on I-19 still there? Seems like ADOT has postponed any sign projects on that route. It'll be interesting to see what they install when a sign inevitably falls over or becomes unreadable.
Anyone know the status on that?
Yes they were. Traveled in that area - just south of the newer I-10 / I-19 interchange around the end of March. Kilometer signage as well - very faded. Wish it was not as hard as heck to post some pics on this site, would be neat to share. Btw there is still button copy on the Black Canyon freeway inside Phoenix city limits, also. A lot better than this modern crap, "clearview" that is.
According to this link, it looks like the current western end of SR 210 (Aviation Highway) would be extended with an at-grade intersection with Broadway Blvd:
http://downtownlinks.info/app/uploads/2014/04/BroadwayIntersection-ThroughMovements_8_2013.pdf
At least there are still plans for a true freeway segment at its east end, if/when it gets connected to I-10 in southeast Tucson.
Quote from: DJStephens on June 19, 2015, 04:40:55 AMWish it was not as hard as heck to post some pics on this site, would be neat to share.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 29, 2015, 12:54:51 AM
Here:
Post the link of the image. To do that, (on Chrome), right click on the image, and left click 'open image in new tab'. Then go to that tab, copy the link, and paste it in your post.
Example:
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/slik_sh00ter/I5South_zpsxmpxxnpt.png
Then, highlight the link, and click the "Image" button in the menu you see when you are typing a post. It is found below the 'bold' button and above the smilies.
Your link will have the image tags pasted around it. The first one at the beginning of the link, and the last one at the end.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FI5South_zpsxmpxxnpt.png&hash=71a8f96247d561e9e836b9abd6373bc841b6dfdf)
If the picture is on your computer, upload it to a photo sharing site such as imgur or photobucket. Then follow the instructions above.
There should be a thread on how to share pictures on here...
Quote from: SignGeek101 on June 22, 2015, 07:18:38 PM
There should be a thread on how to share pictures on here...
Yes, please see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9821.0 for a brief explanation on how to do it.
I wonder, will ADOT eventually expand its travel times program to the Tucson area? Starting this week in the Phoenix area, the travel times are now shown at all times (including weekends) except during overnight hours. I don't think Tucson is too small of a city, since NMDOT in Albuquerque (a similarly sized metro area) posts travel times on the DMS installed there.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/tucson/2418087-will-adot-bring-its-travel-times.html
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 30, 2015, 09:36:16 PM
I wonder, will ADOT eventually expand its travel times program to the Tucson area?
Hmm. Probably. Why not?
Quote from: jakeroot on August 01, 2015, 03:04:38 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 30, 2015, 09:36:16 PM
I wonder, will ADOT eventually expand its travel times program to the Tucson area?
Hmm. Probably. Why not?
Well, almost everybody knows that most Tucson residents are opposed to building new freeways. Since there has to be an extensive ITS network available in order to display travel times, I wouldn't surprised if Tucson residents are also opposed to their taxpayer money being spent on improving the ITS network on Tucson area freeways. After all, Tucson is the anti-Phoenix.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 01, 2015, 04:21:23 PM
...I wouldn't surprised if Tucson residents are also opposed to their taxpayer money being spent on improving the ITS network on Tucson area freeways. After all, Tucson is the anti-Phoenix.
A small signs on the side of the road will not cause people to light pitchforks. Seriously, the cost is minimal, and no one knows what ITS stands for. Your creating a false sense of reality.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5471/18836997815_6b80f3854c_b.jpg)
Quote from: jakeroot on August 01, 2015, 06:53:43 PM
A small signs on the side of the road will not cause people to light pitchforks. Seriously, the cost is minimal, and no one knows what ITS stands for. Your creating a false sense of reality.
There is more than just the costs of the signs themselves. To measure travel times, there needs to be a network of in-road sensors and/or cameras, which adds to the costs. Most Tucson exits have at least CCTV cameras, however, I am not sure if they have in-road sensors.
BTW ADOT actually displays its travel times on its overhead dynamic message signs, rather than static signs with small LED panels like the one you posted.
It's not the amount of the cost of running/implementing ITS that is the problem. If Arizona is like a lot of other states, they're seeing funding for operations constrained, especially since the three-year rule for using CM/AQ funds for ITS operations is now fizzling out.
At least in NY, ITS and other operations have sort of become orphan children that are really only grudgingly being taken care of out of funds for capital projects since that is becoming the way to fund them.
So, if AZ is in a similar situation, I can see opposition internally causing ITS systems to resist expansion.
Honestly, it's technology that is clearly intended to be obsolete within 15-20 years (when everybody's phone and/or car will be able to provide them with this same information), so even if costs are low there's not too much sense in making it a priority.
Somehow I found myself looking at Tucson on Google Maps, and WOW, even for cities that a big and don't have many highways cutting through them, Tucson appears very disconnected! I'd have to imagine though that people there aren't clamoring for beltways because of the eminent domain that would come with it and because all of the services they need are where they live presently.
I think about it now however, and this is kind of how Buffalo works. As someone said, traffic is spread around the arterials more than the highways. At the same time, at least we have a semi beltway, arterials and wide roads.
Quote from: Buffaboy on October 31, 2015, 03:13:06 PM
Somehow I found myself looking at Tucson on Google Maps, and WOW, even for cities that a big and don't have many highways cutting through them, Tucson appears very disconnected! I'd have to imagine though that people there aren't clamoring for beltways because of the eminent domain that would come with it and because all of the services they need are where they live presently.
I think about it now however, and this is kind of how Buffalo works. As someone said, traffic is spread around the arterials more than the highways. At the same time, at least we have a semi beltway, arterials and wide roads.
The Tucson area relies mostly on its grid system of major roads to move people around. The best people in the area can hope for (at least for now) is to widen some of the major roads to 4-lane or 6-lane divided arterials. The county (Pima County) has been doing the bulk of that work in recent years.
Here's a link to the RTA, responsible for most of the big road projects in the Tucson/Pima County area recently:
http://www.rtamobility.com/
A grade-separated intersection recently was finished in Tucson: Kino Pkwy going over 22nd St.
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/tdot/announcement/kino-parkway-and-22nd-street
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF-DpG_EvKw
I read on wikipedia about possible extensions of the Aviation Highway (State Highway 210) being extended on both ends. The western extension had very strong opposition towards it. Are any extension plans for Aviation Highway now dead, or merely postponed?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 03, 2015, 04:40:41 PM
I read on wikipedia about possible extensions of the Aviation Highway (State Highway 210) being extended on both ends. The western extension had very strong opposition towards it. Are any extension plans for Aviation Highway now dead, or merely postponed?
Aviation Highway/AZ 210 may happen, but slowly. Some links are below for each potential project.
City of Tucson project (I-10 to Broadway Blvd)
http://downtownlinks.info/
ADOT project (Golf Links/Alvernon to I-10)
http://azdot.gov/projects/south-central/i-10-and-sr-210-feasibility-study
Now we know that the Sonoran Corridor is proposed as Arizona State Route 410 and is a Congressional High Priority Corridor:
http://www.yourwestvalley.com/nation_world/article_690c7cac-9adf-11e5-b5d8-a7c091752953.html
QuoteThe Sonoran Corridor will run along the planned State Route 410 in Pima County, connecting I-19 and I-10 by passing south of Tucson International Airport.
At 16 miles, the Sonoran Corridor is expected to shorten the average truck driving time by 20 minutes for shipments moving between Mexico and points to the east and provide an estimated $30,000 in total truck cost savings per day. It will enhance connections with other major interstate highways along with established routes and ports of entry to Mexico, Arizona's major partner for trade and commerce. These daily time savings add up to tremendous overall savings along these major trade corridors. The Sonoran Corridor will be located within a planned aerospace, defense and technology business and research park.
http://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/county-report-sonoran-corridor-would-have-b-impact/article_8e4a9e31-2799-52f6-87bc-f902f9cd4fa8.html
Link to Sonoran Corridor Study: http://tucson.com/sonoran-corridor-report/pdf_bab037ce-7d61-58cd-9a4e-cbc6537d1ff8.html
QuoteThe Pima County-commissioned report by Phoenix-based Applied Economics estimates a Sonoran Corridor bypass connecting the two interstates south of Tucson International Airport would eventually create a $32.2 billion annual impact to the regional economy. ...
County leaders have proposed construction of a 26-mile connection between I-10 and I-19 as a bypass primarily for northbound I-19 and westbound I-10 drivers, especially commercial vehicles.
The Sonoran Corridor would run roughly from Rita Road on the southeast side to about Pima Mine Road south of Tucson through areas with little existing development.
Huckelberry said bond funding would make up only a small fraction of the total cost of the corridor, which is estimated at more than $600 million. ...
The county's analysis says the possible business expansion associated with the Sonoran Corridor project among three main employment segments would directly and indirectly support as many 189,000 jobs.
As many as 104,000 people could work directly for tenant companies in the bypass corridor at build-out. Those workers would earn an estimated $5.2 billion, or $50,000 per worker, annually.
Huckelberry said the large figures show the possible impacts many years down the road, assuming the highway project gets completed and businesses relocate to the area.
That's a lot of assumptions, says Avra Valley resident Albert Lannon.
"It's based on assumptions, projections and what ifs," Lannon said. "I think it's pure speculation."
He's been a vocal opponent of the $816 million bond package before voters in November and has opposed plans for interstate expansions, including the proposed Interstate 11 plan through Avra Valley. ...
Real estate investor Don Diamond"˜s company – Diamond Ventures – has for many years owned a 3,000-acre section of undeveloped land southeast of the airport.
The company has a master-planned community proposal for the land called Swan Southlands.
Lannon said the proposed highway route would benefit the company.
"Dropping it south looks like a gift to Don Diamond," he said, noting the highway would run west from Rita Road then drop sharply south before turning west north of Pima Mine Road.
Huckelberry said the proposed alignment was not chosen to benefit any private landowners.
"It's a location that we've worked with the San Xavier district (of the Tohono O'odham Nation) to minimize the impacts," Huckleberry said.
A straight east-west connection starting at Rita Road would end up running through areas of archaeological significance to the tribe. A similar east-west alignment farther south would run through areas in the southeast known for widespread flooding.
Another article talked about a November 2015 ballot measure to fund multiple projects in Pima County, including the Sonoran Corridor/AZ 410. The following article talks about the need for a freeway connection to Tucson Intl Airport, Raytheon, the Port of Tucson, and University of Arizona Tech Park
http://tucson.com/news/opinion/steve-kozachik-give-voters-nd-crack-at-sonoran-corridor/article_ba304a36-10ab-5a04-bcd3-205e650756cc.html
QuoteOn Nov. 3, the voters said "no" to a package of 99 proposed Pima County bond projects. Some of them were "nice to haves" and others were key to our long-term economic development. The Sonoran Corridor falls into the latter category.
The Sonoran Corridor is the connection of I-10 and I-19, out by Raytheon and the Tucson International Airport. The county bond was our $30 million match to the full $600 million price tag that our federal delegation has included in the Federal Transportation package. The project is more than simply a convenience for the traveling public.
The completion of the corridor will be the catalyst for several very important economic generators. And it will preserve some of those that we already have in place. ...
The voters said "no" to all seven bond questions, valued at more than $800 million. The Sonoran Corridor was included in the $200 million road package. Many, including me, thought that if any of the questions were going to pass, roads would be the one. Unfortunately, we were wrong.
I believe the long-term impact of our turning down the corridor is too important to not pull out as a separate item, and this time do the educational work we failed to do in round one. In fairness, the way the bond package was presented, the voters never had the option to say "yes" to this critical project.
Arizona SR 410...interesting that the Tucson area and Pima County seem to always propose numbers that make some sense. Some of the state route numbers in the Phoenix area (not including the loops) seem to be pretty random.
Does the "no" vote mean SR 410 will not be constructed?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2015, 03:17:32 PM
Does the "no" vote mean SR 410 will not be constructed?
I'm thinking you're right... Damn it.
Quote from: 707 on January 06, 2016, 12:11:44 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2015, 03:17:32 PM
Does the "no" vote mean SR 410 will not be constructed?
I'm thinking you're right... Damn it.
Why are you online, 707? You should be out getting minted. ;-)
It looks like Tucson does in fact now have travel times on two signs. One of them on is on I-10 eastbound, which shows travel times to I-19/Valencia and I-10/Alvernon, while the other is on I-19 southbound displaying travel time to Valencia.
For a while, it seems there was a SR 110 in planning around 1998 which would have supplanted Grant Road and Kolb Road from I-10 exits 256 to 270. I have no idea if this would have been a freeway, but here it is nonetheless:
http://www.azdot.gov/docs/planning/98hwylogreport.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Other likely proposed freeways are mentioned as follows:
SR 489
SR 589
SR 810
SR 910
SR 982
SR 983
SR 989
From what I've gathered, only SR 989 ever existed and never was a freeway. It was a short state maintained "spur" which consisted of less than three miles of Tangerine Road west of SR 77 (old US 89/US 80), because of a large bridge over a wash the county wanted the state to maintain. I don't believe it was ever signed either.
I think almost everyone here knows about the never-was-built I-710. Though to some degree, it shows its original proposal with the new 22nd Street interchange they built on Kino Parkway. Not sure if anyone else knows, but for a while, they were planning on bulldozing through downtown to build an SR 210 freeway from Broadway to I-10. Instead, they've settled on the "Downtown Links" proposal after much protesting and compromising with Tucson locals.
I lived in Tucson for several years in the 2000's and would periodically see mentions of pipe-dream freeway proposals in the local paper. "Pipe-dream" because new construction of anything, let alone roads, is very difficult in Tucson because of the resistance to encroachment on environmentally sensitive areas. I recall, years ago, they had a map of freeway proposals, including one that ran along Sahuarita Road to create a mini loop from I-19 to I-10. The Interstate 11 proposals (http://tucson.com/business/local/tucson-may-see-another-interstate/article_826cbc8a-059d-5e30-b25e-613adc5e6a7d.html) also fueled the idea of putting a freeway down Sandario Road. That latter one was obviously just someone looking at that line on a map and saying "That looks like a good spot." It's unreasonable if you anything about the area and the people that live off of that road, especially in Picture Rocks.
Personally though, I always found it extremely easy to get around in Tucson even without freeways. The lights are timed really well, the roads are generally pretty clear (except for the bottlenecks close to Downtown, but those are slowly being improved upon) outside of rush hours, and it rarely took more than about 20 minutes to get anywhere. I found it a lot easier there than driving where we moved to (Bloomington, Indiana) or where we live now (Monterey, California). The only reason to use the freeways was if you lived in one of the suburban areas that were on the freeways, like Vail, Sahuarita or Marana. I would take Aviation sometimes to reach a band rehearsal space by the power plant when I lived Downtown, but would almost never find myself on I-10 except to leave town.
Tucson will never see another freeway. I would be very surprised if even the Downtown Links/Aviation extension finishes within the next 10 years. We still go down at least once per year to visit family, and I've seen the slow, limited progress. But improvements on other arterials, particularly Grant, has been promising. You also have to realize that, with a crosstown freeway, you're most logical direction is from west - around I-10 - to east, but where would it go in the east? Tanque Verde? Tucson is walled in by land that will never be developed, so growth is not going to occur directly east of town.
Just some thoughts.
Sabino Canyon Road is being extended south of Tanque Verde Rd to tie in with Kolb Road north of Speedway:
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/projects/kolb-road-connection-sabino-canyon-road
I stayed in Tucson for four months last year and found this corner of town to be a mess. Traffic on Eastbound Tanque Verde waiting to turn north onto Sabino Canyon frequently backs up all the way to Grant Road, resulting in another queue on Grant Road stacking up almost all the way to Wilmot Road during rush hour.
This will be a very nice, welcome fix when Eastbound Grant no longer has to share Tanque Verde with Northbound Kolb to get to Sabino Canyon.
I'm also interested to see what studies have been done on extending Camp Lowell to Sabino Canyon. Especially now that River is tied into Alvernon; it appears the remainder of River Road likely won't be improved.
When we went back this past October, I went out to Sabino Canyon for a quick hike and rolled by this project site. I never get out to this area when we're in town, just because I have no reason to be out there. They've been talking about this since the RTA proposal vote, and it kept coming back up throughout the years in articles. I expected some progress, but it looked exactly the same as it did ten years ago. Since it's new ROW and creates a new wash crossing, the environmental impact is potentially a lot higher, so I understand them being careful with it, but I'm surprised the rich people who live up Sabino Canyon Road haven't thrown their weight around more on this and gotten it prioritized.
Quote from: roadiejay on January 31, 2016, 07:49:47 AM
I'm also interested to see what studies have been done on extending Camp Lowell to Sabino Canyon. Especially now that River is tied into Alvernon; it appears the remainder of River Road likely won't be improved.
Both the River Road improvements and the Camp Lowell extension are unfeasible because of who lives along them. They went through a good amount of hassle to get Camp Lowell to Swan in the first place (article (http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/2000/08/22/229120-controversial-fort-lowell-extension-opens-today/)).
Quote from: roadiejay on January 31, 2016, 07:49:47 AM
Sabino Canyon Road is being extended south of Tanque Verde Rd to tie in with Kolb Road north of Speedway:
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/projects/kolb-road-connection-sabino-canyon-road
I stayed in Tucson for four months last year and found this corner of town to be a mess. Traffic on Eastbound Tanque Verde waiting to turn north onto Sabino Canyon frequently backs up all the way to Grant Road, resulting in another queue on Grant Road stacking up almost all the way to Wilmot Road during rush hour.
This will be a very nice, welcome fix when Eastbound Grant no longer has to share Tanque Verde with Northbound Kolb to get to Sabino Canyon.
I'm also interested to see what studies have been done on extending Camp Lowell to Sabino Canyon. Especially now that River is tied into Alvernon; it appears the remainder of River Road likely won't be improved.
The Grant/Tanque Verde/Kolb intersection was proposed many years ago to be rebuilt as a grade-separated interchange. Of course, this being Tucson, it never happened. If there was ever a place that needed a leading left signal (or an extended left turn signal in one direction), it would be for traffic going from eastbound Grant to eastbound Tanque Verde.
Both the River Road improvements and the Camp Lowell extension are unfeasible because of who lives along them. They went through a good amount of hassle to get Camp Lowell to Swan in the first place (article (http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/2000/08/22/229120-controversial-fort-lowell-extension-opens-today/)).
[/quote]
Coatimundi- Thank you for sharing the article. It answers a longstanding question I had about why Fort Lowell turns into Camp Lowell while the "other fort lowell" continues on a different alignment.
Somehow I'm not surprised in the least by that... Rich people, expensive ROW, political pull... and looking more closely at the map it appears a "whatever lowell" extension would require bridges over both the pantano wash and the rillito river. Not to mention cutting through the middle of a neighborhood and possibly a golf course, making an extension very tricky.
Swbrotha-- I remember that proposal! IIRC, they were going to be called "Bantam intersections" and there were a few proposed locations in addition to Kolb and Tanque Verde. At least we still get to look at the dinosaur eating the stoplight today while we wait at it for a cycle or two. :)
FYI, logo signs should be going up on I-10 starting sometime next month. The first phase will include most exits from Tangerine Road in Marana to 22nd Street in Downtown Tucson, followed by 6th Avenue near Downtown Tucson to Wilmont Road in southeastern Tucson in April.
Interestingly, the Tangerine exit in Marana actually has a text sign without any logos with the word "CAMPING" in the center, along with a small sign at the ramp with the "Camping" tent symbol on it. I wonder if the campground at that exit (A Bar A RV Park) doesn't sign up for a logo sign, will those existing general service signs be retained? It is actually surprising logo signs were never installed in that part of Marana, since that exit is still way out in the boonies. If they do sign up for a logo sign, they could simply convert the existing text sign into a logo sign by covering the word "CAMPING" in the center of the sign with blueout, and rivet on a logo and a plaque with the word at the top of the sign.
No current timeline for I-19, since the engineering study hasn't been completed yet.
So, has anyone been to the Tucson area recently? I wonder if the logo signs have gone up, since the first phase of installation (I-10 west of I-19) was supposed to begin this month.
HOLY CRAP PARCLO B4 LOGO SIGNS
Quote from: roadiejay on February 03, 2016, 09:06:31 PM
Both the River Road improvements and the Camp Lowell extension are unfeasible because of who lives along them. They went through a good amount of hassle to get Camp Lowell to Swan in the first place (article (http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/2000/08/22/229120-controversial-fort-lowell-extension-opens-today/)).
Coatimundi- Thank you for sharing the article. It answers a longstanding question I had about why Fort Lowell turns into Camp Lowell while the "other fort lowell" continues on a different alignment.
Somehow I'm not surprised in the least by that... Rich people, expensive ROW, political pull... and looking more closely at the map it appears a "whatever lowell" extension would require bridges over both the pantano wash and the rillito river. Not to mention cutting through the middle of a neighborhood and possibly a golf course, making an extension very tricky.
Swbrotha-- I remember that proposal! IIRC, they were going to be called "Bantam intersections" and there were a few proposed locations in addition to Kolb and Tanque Verde. At least we still get to look at the dinosaur eating the stoplight today while we wait at it for a cycle or two. :)
[/quote]
I lived in Tucson for awhile years ago. I still visit once in a while. I've been frustrated for years in how anything transportation related drags on for years and years. Take for example, 22nd St, between I-10 and Kino Pkwy:
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/projects/22nd-street-i-10-kino-parkway-widening
"On hold" for eternity? Who knows.
I feel that the ADOT projects in Tucson and the Pima County projects get done at a somewhat faster pace than City of Tucson projects.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on March 31, 2016, 09:25:15 PM
I lived in Tucson for awhile years ago. I still visit once in a while. I've been frustrated for years in how anything transportation related drags on for years and years. Take for example, 22nd St, between I-10 and Kino Pkwy:
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/projects/22nd-street-i-10-kino-parkway-widening
"On hold" for eternity? Who knows.
When the RTA bill was proposed, the east-west arterial expansions were pitched sort of as a bundle and for whatever reason, in my mind, I recall them going Grant Road, Broadway, 22nd, in that order. I don't know why I have that in my mind, but that's the way projects have gone nonetheless. 22nd Street doesn't have priority, partly because traffic flows pretty well along it, there are a number of alternate routes and - getting back to classism - the wealthier people live north of 22nd and don't use it.
The Kino overpass project was at least completed, and I believe it was completed on schedule.
I think the thing with the 22nd Street widening, especially the section west of Kino, is that it brings up the old bitterness within the near south side, mostly Latino, communities, regarding projects that require demolition. No one in Tucson forgets anything, ever, regardless of how long ago it was. Unless it turned into a good thing, like the streetcar project (people complained
so much during that construction), and then it's never spoken of again.
Edit:
And I'll be back at the end of the month. We're driving from Phoenix and will probably go all the way to the Kino exit, so I'll be sure to scope out the logo signs. Maybe even get the wife to drive so I can snap some pictures.
Quote from: coatimundi on April 02, 2016, 04:08:51 PM
And I'll be back at the end of the month. We're driving from Phoenix and will probably go all the way to the Kino exit, so I'll be sure to scope out the logo signs. Maybe even get the wife to drive so I can snap some pictures.
The first scheduled phase of installation is on I-10 from Tangerine Road to I-19 , so I would think they would be there. However, I wonder if GCSLS will update their website by then.
Note that the Tangerine exit actually has Camping general service signs (text signs on the freeway mainline, and small signs with the tent symbol on the ramps), but no logos. I wonder if these will be replaced by logo signs assuming the campground at that exit decides to get a logo sign.
It seems the SR 210 eventual connection to I-10 is not off the table, but more awaiting future attention when other big projects are out of the way. But when it happens, Tucson will see its first new freeway since the early 1960s. It seems one of the three proposals turn Alvernon Way into the SR 210 freeway with a few interchanges before meeting up with I-10 at a flyover interchange as per ADOT files. The other two proposals show the SR 210 freeway skirting the south perimeter of Davis Monthan AFB, then displacing Swan to I-10. The last one does a similar action, but ends up taking a winding snake like path to Wilmot Road, then displacing Wilmot to I-10. I don't know if the rest of 210 between Alvernon and Broadway will be turned into a freeway.
https://www.azdot.gov/projects/south-central/i-10-and-sr-210-feasibility-study/documents
And the unusual interchange RTA built at Kino Parkway and 22nd Street between 2011 and 2015 seems to bring out a glimpse of Kino Parkway's "What Could Have Been" past as the unbuilt I-710. It isn't freeway standard though. There is a large lack of shoulders and high curbs, as well as Bicycle Paths that cross the exit/entrance ramps. No word either on if more interchanges will be built on Kino or if the interchange with SR 210 will become a flyover. I find it odd the RTA even built one interchange on the parkway.
Also, I think we're all familiar with Interstate 11. There's a good possibility of it being a separate freeway until reaching Avra Valley, before interchanging with I-10.
Then lastly, there's the Sonoran Corridor proposal which doesn't seem to go away or get built. Residents in Sahuarita are apparently asking the state to build it across El Toro Road. There's also talk about it being funded by federal dollars.
http://tucson.com/news/business/county-report-sonoran-corridor-would-have-b-impact/article_8e4a9e31-2799-52f6-87bc-f902f9cd4fa8.html
http://www.gvnews.com/news/town-asks-for-el-toro-rd-sahuarita-be-part-of/article_8c430bf0-f5d4-11e5-bea1-af26a76f70bc.html
So, does anyone have any updates on the Tucson area logo signs?
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 16, 2016, 10:41:28 AM
So, does anyone have any updates on the Tucson area logo signs?
No.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 16, 2016, 10:41:28 AM
So, does anyone have any updates on the Tucson area logo signs?
Actually, yes!
I only drove eastbound I-10, but they were definitely at the Grant Road exit but not at the Speedway exit in that direction. They looked very new. Del Taco and Waffle House were on there. I seem to remember them being at Ruthrauf as well. One for Jack in the Box and, I think, the Arco.
I know you had brought up the "CAMPING" sign at Cortaro - I remember that sign and always thought it was weird that it was in all caps - and I did not see a logo sign for the campground on the eastbound side though there was a logo sign at Cortaro.
Quote from: coatimundi on May 16, 2016, 01:08:27 PM
Actually, yes!
I only drove eastbound I-10, but they were definitely at the Grant Road exit but not at the Speedway exit in that direction. They looked very new. Del Taco and Waffle House were on there. I seem to remember them being at Ruthrauf as well. One for Jack in the Box and, I think, the Arco.
I know you had brought up the "CAMPING" sign at Cortaro - I remember that sign and always thought it was weird that it was in all caps - and I did not see a logo sign for the campground on the eastbound side though there was a logo sign at Cortaro.
Good to know. Were these signs in Clearview or FHWA?
Sorry, I don't recall. There's not a lot of text on them, obviously. I would lean towards Clearview, but I don't want to steer you wrong if it wasn't. I only say that because I recall them looking different than the typical logo signs.
Quote from: coatimundi on May 17, 2016, 11:43:34 AM
Sorry, I don't recall. There's not a lot of text on them, obviously. I would lean towards Clearview, but I don't want to steer you wrong if it wasn't. I only say that because I recall them looking different than the typical logo signs.
Phoenix is almost all Clearview, all with large exit tabs (even those with only one service type).
According to AZ511.gov It looks like ADOT in Tucson has extended the hours it displays travel times on its DMS to display them most of the day, which Phoenix has done since July 2015.
In addition, it also appears that ADOT has expanded the number of DMS in Tucson displaying travel times from two to five. New locations include one on I-10 eastbound west of Ajo displaying travel time to Valencia, one on I-10 westbound east of Valencia displaying travel times to I-19 and Miracle Mile, and one on I-19 northbound near Valencia displaying travel times to I-10 and Miracle Mile.
I was in Tucson over the weekend. The freeway construction areas of significance are at I-19/Ajo Way and I-10/Ina Road. It was nice to see that the SB I-19 on ramp from Ajo was built to be a braided ramp for the future, whenever ADOT reconstructs the SB exit to Irvington Rd. On I-10, all traffic is now going under the future Ina overpass, using the future EB lanes.
Section of AZ 210 remains unused :-/ https://www.google.com/maps/place/451-401+E+Stevens+Ave,+Tucson,+AZ+85705/@32.2230655,-110.9651842,3a,44.2y,187.15h,82.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPo1lZTdEK29pMMmHT-Yuiw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x86d670e28e960207:0xc4c96818eebc960c?hl=en-US (https://www.google.com/maps/place/451-401+E+Stevens+Ave,+Tucson,+AZ+85705/@32.2230655,-110.9651842,3a,44.2y,187.15h,82.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPo1lZTdEK29pMMmHT-Yuiw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x86d670e28e960207:0xc4c96818eebc960c?hl=en-US)
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on February 07, 2018, 03:27:55 PM
Section of AZ 210 remains unused :-/ https://www.google.com/maps/place/451-401+E+Stevens+Ave,+Tucson,+AZ+85705/@32.2230655,-110.9651842,3a,44.2y,187.15h,82.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPo1lZTdEK29pMMmHT-Yuiw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x86d670e28e960207:0xc4c96818eebc960c?hl=en-US (https://www.google.com/maps/place/451-401+E+Stevens+Ave,+Tucson,+AZ+85705/@32.2230655,-110.9651842,3a,44.2y,187.15h,82.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPo1lZTdEK29pMMmHT-Yuiw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x86d670e28e960207:0xc4c96818eebc960c?hl=en-US)
By that, do you mean unbuilt?
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 05, 2018, 09:34:35 PM
I was in Tucson over the weekend. The freeway construction areas of significance are at I-19/Ajo Way and I-10/Ina Road. It was nice to see that the SB I-19 on ramp from Ajo was built to be a braided ramp for the future, whenever ADOT reconstructs the SB exit to Irvington Rd. On I-10, all traffic is now going under the future Ina overpass, using the future EB lanes.
The 10 corridor on the east side seems ancient compared to downtown, the 19 interchange, and the west side. When are they going to widen and improve it? Did drive through there yesterday and noticed the perpetual work at the Craycroft and Wilmot overpasses does not provide for at least an additional through lane in each direction. Believe four lanes in each direction with full shoulder on both sides is what's needed there. What's up with that?? Seems shortsighted.
Quote from: DJStephens on February 10, 2018, 10:43:53 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 05, 2018, 09:34:35 PM
I was in Tucson over the weekend. The freeway construction areas of significance are at I-19/Ajo Way and I-10/Ina Road. It was nice to see that the SB I-19 on ramp from Ajo was built to be a braided ramp for the future, whenever ADOT reconstructs the SB exit to Irvington Rd. On I-10, all traffic is now going under the future Ina overpass, using the future EB lanes.
The 10 corridor on the east side seems ancient compared to downtown, the 19 interchange, and the west side. When are they going to widen and improve it? Did drive through there yesterday and noticed the perpetual work at the Craycroft and Wilmot overpasses does not provide for at least an additional through lane in each direction. Believe four lanes in each direction with full shoulder on both sides is what's needed there. What's up with that?? Seems shortsighted.
The only plans I see in terms of I-10 east of the I-19 interchange are planned widenings to tie into a new I-10/AZ 210 interchange somewhere around Alvernon Way or a little east of there. There is info in the plans regarding the AZ 210 extension.
http://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-10-and-sr-210-feasibility-study/overview
This study comes up with some pretty grand improvements for I-10 between I-19 and SR 83. Much of it seems like a pipe dream at this point:
https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Transportation/Transportation%20Planning/Future%20Roadway%20Plans%20and%20Reports/I-10_SR%20210%20Feasibility%20Report%20(no%20appendix).pdf
Houghton will be getting a new interchange, though not to the specs recommended in this study. The study called for an urban diamond with three thru lanes in each direction and two left turn lanes. The new interchange will be a DDI, according to some other news sources.
Looks like the I-19/Ajo Way SPUI is now open (since March). Still work to be done to make Ajo Way 6 lanes in the immediate area.
I wish the city of Tucson would consider widening Speedway Blvd to 6 lanes between Stone Ave and Euclid Ave. The other east-west streets (Grant Rd, Broadway Blvd, 22nd St) all have widenings planned.
Downtown Links (connecting AZ 210/Aviation Highway to I-10 via St Mary's Rd) looks like it will be back to the drawing board. The bids were too expensive to move forward with construction anytime soon.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on May 03, 2018, 08:37:23 PM
Looks like the I-19/Ajo Way SPUI is now open (since March). Still work to be done to make Ajo Way 6 lanes in the immediate area.
I wish the city of Tucson would consider widening Speedway Blvd to 6 lanes between Stone Ave and Euclid Ave. The other east-west streets (Grant Rd, Broadway Blvd, 22nd St) all have widenings planned.
Downtown Links (connecting AZ 210/Aviation Highway to I-10 via St Mary's Rd) looks like it will be back to the drawing board. The bids were too expensive to move forward with construction anytime soon.
Widening Speedway from Stone to Euclid would require the demolition of dozens of homes and other businesses.
Judging from the glacial pace that widening Grant is going, even if they proposed to widen Speedway today it wouldn't be until the 2030s or 2040s when any work would even begin.
Have been to the Grant Road reconstruction as part of a new job (geotechnical) in the last month. The project limits (Phase II) are from just east of Park to just west of Stone. New curbing, and sidewalks are being installed currently. Subgrade work on the eastern end is nearing completion, with asphalt base course close to be installed. The work is continuing in a general fashion from west to east. The intersections (1st Ave, Stone) will feature "michigan lefts" where traffic desiring to turn left off Grant will need to continue along and then U turn to return back to the desired turn. This is visible a bit further west at Grant / Oracle, which am going to assume was part of Phase I. Seems crazy, but maybe the desire is to shorten light cycles at major intersections. And to avoid the need to widen up intersections in order to achieve double left turn lanes. From what have learned this current phase started sometime in 2016, so it has been at least two years of disruption in that area.
Pima County commissioners recently nixed $887 million (to be derived from a proposed sales tax) to pay to repair deteriorated county roadways. Most of which are in the poorer areas in the south side of Tucson. The proposed sales tax, was aimed at fixed existing roadways, not building any new ones apparently. Some similarity to the '85 Maricopa County sales tax issue seems evident here, although it is certainly far smaller in scope. Many of the south side arterials (Ajo, Irvington, Alvernon, etc. are beat up and feature large cracks from oxidized asphalt pavement cracking and splitting. Very few improvements on many of these roads appear to have been made, and to an observer, one could be in the late sixties in terms of roadway elements - pavement, curbing, and traffic signals and masts.
The media immediately blamed the two sitting Republicans, who apparently voted no. An re-attempt may be made, by revisiting the issue at the ballot box in November. If enough signatures can be acquired. Don't know how much one can do with that number $887 million, perhaps a diamond mill and overlay on all the worst arterials, along with minimal ADA improvements at intersections.
GCSLS finally updated the map on their website, and it looks like I-19 in Tucson now has logo signs installed at two exits (Valencia and Irvington), although the latter only has them in the northbound direction.
Fun fact: I-10 from SR 77 (then SR 84) to 6th Avenue in Tucson was one of the earliest planned freeways in Arizona and was originally constructed on the city's dime before the state took over. It appears at least $100,000 went into relocating the Santa Cruz River away from the route back as reported by the Arizona Daily Star in 1951. That and according to an official ADOT document, I-10 between 6th Avenue, Alvernon Way and Benson Highway was the first section of freeway in Arizona to be built using Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956/Interstate funds from the beginning of the project. Construction started in 1957 and was finished in the early 60s. Between 1958 and 1962, the segment from Present Day SR 77 and 6th Avenue was rebuilt to minimal Interstate standards and was first signed as I-10 shortly after work finished.
VS988
That would certainly explain why 10 east of downtown appears so old. Really need to rebuild this eastern Tucson section (MP 262 - 282) before spending anything on I-11 silliness south of Phoenix.
SR - 77 (Miracle Mile) west of I-10 appears to still have much of its' early sixties (or earlier) curbing and lightposts. The entire downtown section of I-10 was rebuilt in the early 00's, completely, adding a lane in each direction and improving exits and collector (frontage) roads.
I took a gander at some old aerials. It appears I-10 between Valencia and Benson wasnt finished until sometime between 1968 and 1970. 1967 photos show it still under construction. I got my years wrong. Thinking about it though, Im starting to doubt if the ADOT document was entirely right. 1957 to 1968 is an awful long time to spend building a freeway segment that short, especially for those times. On a side note, I've found from this research experience that conflicting resources make it hard to nail down the full history of early I-10 with each one saying a different thing. In the sense of "the kettle was blue" or "it was definitively positively red" at the same time. This discovery proves the THPF document on Miracle Mile was partially wrong. While SR 84A by 1962 was I-10, the eastern segment obviously wasn't finished yet.
VS988
The Benson Highway was "twinned" at that time. The EB lanes are the original two lane roadbed, and the WB lanes are the late sixties construction. This is apparent from MP 282 to 288 approximately.
I wonder if they twinned it originally planning on making I-10 or if it was just planned as a temporary measure the whole time?
VS988
Then, as now, it passes through ranch land. The preexisting Route 80 already had a four lane section (old Marsh Station Road exit 289). So they apparently just double barrelled the pre-existing two lane, and tied into the four lane section.
Quote from: DJStephens on September 21, 2018, 03:45:09 PM
Then, as now, it passes through ranch land. The preexisting Route 80 already had a four lane section (old Marsh Station Road exit 289). So they apparently just double barrelled the pre-existing two lane, and tied into the four lane section.
So Marsh Station Road was once four lane? Or are you referring to the section south of it that became I-10? Also my question was more along the lines of wondering if Benson Highway between Park and Valencia, which you said was four laned around the time of the Interstate highways being established was ever supposed to be I-10 or was just made to four lanes to tempirarily better handle traffic volumes while I-10 was being built?
By the way, I came across this scanned postcard of the Triple T Truck Stop at the I-10/Craycroft interchange. It was taken in the years before US 80 was removed and shows the only photo I've ever seen of a 1963 spec US 80 reassurance marker. Interesting to see the now long gone I-10/US 80 concurrency.
http://nostalgia.esmartkid.com/azroute80pc055.jpg
To clarify, meant that the US 80 Alignment at the Marsh Station road was a short pre-existing four lane section that was incorporated into the I-10 alignment. It used to dip rather sharply into a creek/wash (Cienega?) going under both the old RR tracks and the old Exit 289 overpass. This entire section, along with the RR straightening, was upgraded and done by FNF Construction 5 - 8 years ago.
Believe I-10 was simply placed atop the Benson Highway east of Valencia Road. So perhaps a good part of it's roadbed was used for either the EB or WB lanes between Valencia and the Sonoita Highway exit. Some old concrete bridge rails are visible, on 10, on both sides, in the wide median section between Houghton Road and Exit 279 (forgot name of road). This leads to confusion as to which carriage way was the original two lane highway in that area. Personally believe it was the WB lanes, in that area, as the EB lanes are straighter. Between Exits 279 and 281, the original Benson highway is actually to the N, and acts as a two way frontage.
Quote from: 707 on April 13, 2016, 02:50:46 AM
Then lastly, there's the Sonoran Corridor proposal which doesn't seem to go away or get built. Residents in Sahuarita are apparently asking the state to build it across El Toro Road. There's also talk about it being funded by federal dollars.
http://tucson.com/news/business/county-report-sonoran-corridor-would-have-b-impact/article_8e4a9e31-2799-52f6-87bc-f902f9cd4fa8.html
http://www.gvnews.com/news/town-asks-for-el-toro-rd-sahuarita-be-part-of/article_8c430bf0-f5d4-11e5-bea1-af26a76f70bc.html
An open house was recently held discussing three options between I10 and I19, down from ten. https://news.azpm.org/p/news-articles/2019/3/7/147457-proposed-sonoran-corridor-freeway-down-to-3-alternatives/
Interesting. All three proposals have a very defined "L" shape to them. Wonder why that is, versus a more "straight" shot.
Personally, would choose 8A.
a. Growth and development will continue to happen, whether one likes it or not.
b. Raw land should be cheaper farther out. Development will come.
c. Connecting to I-10 at Houghton Road should bury, once and for all, any talk or movement
towards a DDI at that interchange. There should be high speed directional interchanges at both
I-10 and I-19.
d. The facility should have an even numbered 3DI number. I-219 is the one would choose.
Quote from: splashflash on March 14, 2019, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: 707 on April 13, 2016, 02:50:46 AM
Then lastly, there's the Sonoran Corridor proposal which doesn't seem to go away or get built. Residents in Sahuarita are apparently asking the state to build it across El Toro Road. There's also talk about it being funded by federal dollars.
http://tucson.com/news/business/county-report-sonoran-corridor-would-have-b-impact/article_8e4a9e31-2799-52f6-87bc-f902f9cd4fa8.html
http://www.gvnews.com/news/town-asks-for-el-toro-rd-sahuarita-be-part-of/article_8c430bf0-f5d4-11e5-bea1-af26a76f70bc.html
An open house was recently held discussing three options between I10 and I19, down from ten. https://news.azpm.org/p/news-articles/2019/3/7/147457-proposed-sonoran-corridor-freeway-down-to-3-alternatives/
Back in 2016 the "Sonoran" corridor between I-10 and I-19 was afforded a place as HPC #83 in the FHWA compendium of such corridors; like all the others, it's eligible for federal funding -- but without any guarantee -- and still subject to the fiscal whims of Congress. Nevertheless, it
does have a level of national attention -- which needs to be followed through at the state and/or local level to actually be developed.
Quote from: DJStephens on March 16, 2019, 10:08:18 AM
Interesting. All three proposals have a very defined "L" shape to them. Wonder why that is, versus a more "straight" shot.
Personally, would choose 8A.
a. Growth and development will continue to happen, whether one likes it or not.
b. Raw land should be cheaper farther out. Development will come.
c. Connecting to I-10 at Houghton Road should bury, once and for all, any talk or movement
towards a DDI at that interchange. There should be high speed directional interchanges at both
I-10 and I-19.
d. The facility should have an even numbered 3DI number. I-219 is the one would choose.
Agreed on all counts, although, given AZ's aversion to 3di's, I would see it as SR 219 or 410.
Quote from: Henry on March 20, 2019, 09:58:01 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 16, 2019, 10:08:18 AM
Interesting. All three proposals have a very defined "L" shape to them. Wonder why that is, versus a more "straight" shot.
Personally, would choose 8A.
a. Growth and development will continue to happen, whether one likes it or not.
b. Raw land should be cheaper farther out. Development will come.
c. Connecting to I-10 at Houghton Road should bury, once and for all, any talk or movement
towards a DDI at that interchange. There should be high speed directional interchanges at both
I-10 and I-19.
d. The facility should have an even numbered 3DI number. I-219 is the one would choose.
Agreed on all counts, although, given AZ's aversion to 3di's, I would see it as SR 219 or 410.
Pima County had an older map of the proposed Sonoran Corridor labeled as I-510. More recent references to the corridor use SR 410 as the number in planning.
https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Newsroom/Work%20Newsroom/1308%20August/130813%20Pima%20County%20supports%20study%20of%20interstate%20highway%20link.pdf
Quote from: splashflash on March 14, 2019, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: 707 on April 13, 2016, 02:50:46 AM
Then lastly, there's the Sonoran Corridor proposal which doesn't seem to go away or get built. Residents in Sahuarita are apparently asking the state to build it across El Toro Road. There's also talk about it being funded by federal dollars.
http://tucson.com/news/business/county-report-sonoran-corridor-would-have-b-impact/article_8e4a9e31-2799-52f6-87bc-f902f9cd4fa8.html
http://www.gvnews.com/news/town-asks-for-el-toro-rd-sahuarita-be-part-of/article_8c430bf0-f5d4-11e5-bea1-af26a76f70bc.html
An open house was recently held discussing three options between I10 and I19, down from ten. https://news.azpm.org/p/news-articles/2019/3/7/147457-proposed-sonoran-corridor-freeway-down-to-3-alternatives/
Any links to the other seven? Why were they dropped from consideration?
Quote from: DJStephens on March 22, 2019, 11:31:38 PM
Quote from: splashflash on March 14, 2019, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: 707 on April 13, 2016, 02:50:46 AM
Then lastly, there's the Sonoran Corridor proposal which doesn't seem to go away or get built. Residents in Sahuarita are apparently asking the state to build it across El Toro Road. There's also talk about it being funded by federal dollars.
http://tucson.com/news/business/county-report-sonoran-corridor-would-have-b-impact/article_8e4a9e31-2799-52f6-87bc-f902f9cd4fa8.html
http://www.gvnews.com/news/town-asks-for-el-toro-rd-sahuarita-be-part-of/article_8c430bf0-f5d4-11e5-bea1-af26a76f70bc.html
An open house was recently held discussing three options between I10 and I19, down from ten. https://news.azpm.org/p/news-articles/2019/3/7/147457-proposed-sonoran-corridor-freeway-down-to-3-alternatives/
Any links to the other seven? Why were they dropped from consideration?
https://www.azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/sonoran-corridor-tier-1-environmental-impact-statement/documents
Check out 3.8.2 of the corridor selection report.
In the Tucson area, the new I-10/Ina Rd interchange is complete. Next up to be redone is the I-10/Ruthrauff Rd interchange, which should begin later this summer or by the fall. I-19 is being widened between Irvington Rd and Ajo Way.
The only other active construction of significance is on surface streets. Just my personal belief, the Valencia Rd and Kolb Rd intersection could have been a nice grade-separated interchange, but that is not the case. When finished, there will be a combination of "Michigan lefts" and at-grade ramps onto the mainline roads.
The Arizona Daily Star reports today that ADOT has plans for a $1.2 billion project to massively widen I-10 (double to triple current capacity) east of the I-19 split
and build a freeway connection between I-10 and AZ 210.
https://tucson.com/news/local/road-runner-long-term-billion-project-would-connect-i-/article_95b134b1-1e63-51cd-a800-61841d9a5fa2.html
QuoteThe project would add up to two lanes in each direction from the I-10, I-19 interchange to Alvernon Way and up to four lanes in each direction on I-10 from Alvernon Way to Kolb Road. These improvements include addressing the corridor’s interchanges and bridges.
Alvernon Way would be designated State Route 210, known as Barraza-Aviation Parkway, along with an interchange that provides direct access from Palo Verde Road to Interstate 10 and an alternate route downtown, according to an environmental assessment from the Arizona Department of Transportation.
... Residents could expect the final touches on the project around 20 years from now.
ADOT project page: https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/interstate-10-and-state-route-210-study
(https://i.imgur.com/YLHV9Vj.jpg)
20 years??? Holy crap.
Believe it when it actually seems to be happening. That corridor (10 east of downtown) is absolutely antiquated. They have done some bridge deck replacements (Craycroft and Wilmot) but haven't even added bearing seats on the back walls for additional lanes? What the heck??
20 years is insane but perhaps they eventually expedite it. 7-12 years would be better to muster and understandable given the amount of projects Arizona needs to tackle. They should have widened this to at least six lanes a few years ago it seems.
Am guessing this corridor in Tucson has been "back burnered" either on purpose or through oversight. Given the scope and quality of work elsewhere (Phoenix) can't think of any other reason. Really can not understand why Wilmot and craycroft overpasses did not have widening done during the re decks.
Alvernon Road overpasses were replaced and widened - with a box beam design - guessing a long time ago - to the inside - but inside lanes have not been utilized.
ADOT doesn't have much money in the budget for expansion, and traffic volumes east of Kino don't particularly warrant expansion right now (AADT west of Kino is over 100k, but east is under 80k, and 100k is usually the point where going to 6 lanes is needed). Pima County's 1/2 cent tax for transportation is primarily going towards surface street improvements (more lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks), transit, and railroad grade separations, with little if any going towards freeways, other than replacing the interchanges on the west side to eliminate the railroad grade crossings.
Bumping this to mention a couple projects currently going on in Tucson.
I-10/Ruthrauff Rd interchange is being redone. Ruthrauff will go over I-10 and the parallel railroad tracks when this project is finished. Similar to other interchanges (Ina Rd, Prince Rd).
Downtown Links, after many, many, many years of planning and delays, is finally under construction. It will connect I-10/St Mary's Rd with AZ 210 and Broadway. Was once planned to be a freeway, but will be just another surface road skirting the northern part of downtown Tucson.
SM-G975U
Houghton Road/I-10 Interchange UpdateQuote
The concrete work on the bridge comes as the Arizona Department of Transportation reaches the halfway point of a $24.4 million project to rebuild the interchange.
While drivers have experienced several temporary ramp and lane shifts during the project, the concrete pour will allow drivers to see the bridge's final driving surface come into view.
This summer, traffic on Houghton Road will move from the existing two-lane bridge to the new six-lane structure. Motorists will cross I-10 in a temporary lane configuration for several months while crews demolish the old bridge and complete building new ramps on the east side of the interchange.
Read more here: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/crews-pour-concrete-deck-on-houghton-road-i-10-structure/52215
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 22, 2021, 08:14:17 PM
Houghton Road/I-10 Interchange Update
Quote
The concrete work on the bridge comes as the Arizona Department of Transportation reaches the halfway point of a $24.4 million project to rebuild the interchange.
While drivers have experienced several temporary ramp and lane shifts during the project, the concrete pour will allow drivers to see the bridge's final driving surface come into view.
This summer, traffic on Houghton Road will move from the existing two-lane bridge to the new six-lane structure. Motorists will cross I-10 in a temporary lane configuration for several months while crews demolish the old bridge and complete building new ramps on the east side of the interchange.
Read more here: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/crews-pour-concrete-deck-on-houghton-road-i-10-structure/52215
I've been watching this project on and off and it's nice to see it progressing.
As an aside, I see several maps that show Houghton Rd as SR 983, but I've never seen a sign indicating it as this. Is this an "unsigned" official route?
Quote from: machias on May 22, 2021, 10:28:52 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 22, 2021, 08:14:17 PM
Houghton Road/I-10 Interchange Update
Quote
The concrete work on the bridge comes as the Arizona Department of Transportation reaches the halfway point of a $24.4 million project to rebuild the interchange.
While drivers have experienced several temporary ramp and lane shifts during the project, the concrete pour will allow drivers to see the bridge's final driving surface come into view.
This summer, traffic on Houghton Road will move from the existing two-lane bridge to the new six-lane structure. Motorists will cross I-10 in a temporary lane configuration for several months while crews demolish the old bridge and complete building new ramps on the east side of the interchange.
Read more here: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/crews-pour-concrete-deck-on-houghton-road-i-10-structure/52215
I've been watching this project on and off and it's nice to see it progressing.
As an aside, I see several maps that show Houghton Rd as SR 983, but I've never seen a sign indicating it as this. Is this an "unsigned" official route?
There are a number of roads around Tucson like that, for example Tangerine Rd (SR-989) and Valencia Rd (SR-910). Annoyingly, Apple Maps treats them as if they are actually signed, but there are no signs in the field.
Quote from: DRMan on May 24, 2021, 12:20:04 PM
Quote from: machias on May 22, 2021, 10:28:52 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 22, 2021, 08:14:17 PM
Houghton Road/I-10 Interchange Update
Quote
The concrete work on the bridge comes as the Arizona Department of Transportation reaches the halfway point of a $24.4 million project to rebuild the interchange.
While drivers have experienced several temporary ramp and lane shifts during the project, the concrete pour will allow drivers to see the bridge's final driving surface come into view.
This summer, traffic on Houghton Road will move from the existing two-lane bridge to the new six-lane structure. Motorists will cross I-10 in a temporary lane configuration for several months while crews demolish the old bridge and complete building new ramps on the east side of the interchange.
Read more here: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/crews-pour-concrete-deck-on-houghton-road-i-10-structure/52215
I've been watching this project on and off and it's nice to see it progressing.
As an aside, I see several maps that show Houghton Rd as SR 983, but I've never seen a sign indicating it as this. Is this an "unsigned" official route?
There are a number of roads around Tucson like that, for example Tangerine Rd (SR-989) and Valencia Rd (SR-910). Annoyingly, Apple Maps treats them as if they are actually signed, but there are no signs in the field.
Tangerine (SR 989) is the only one of those that was acknowledged in the field. Not any 989 shield, but a mileage sign. Don't know if it's still there or not.
https://www.arizonaroads.com/arizona/az989.html
SM-G975U
The sign for Milepost 35 was there as of June 2018, when this Google Street View photo was taken. I'm not sure if ADOT maintains only the bridge or the entire road between the bridge and AZ 77. In any case, it is not signed as AZ 989 anywhere.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.42672,-110.9516145,3a,75y,259.15h,88.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5n9BWqdReVRBFPtyTEotbw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on May 24, 2021, 03:44:32 PM
The sign for Milepost 35 was there as of June 2018, when this Google Street View photo was taken. I'm not sure if ADOT maintains only the bridge or the entire road between the bridge and AZ 77. In any case, it is not signed as AZ 989 anywhere.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.42672,-110.9516145,3a,75y,259.15h,88.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5n9BWqdReVRBFPtyTEotbw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
As of today (5/24/21) there's a mile marker 35 in both directions.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210524/835f5e65819ffa77f4b3fc04120a1ef0.jpg)
SM-G975U
A key tell with AZ 989 is that the traffic signal at Innovation Park Dr. is an ADOT standard signal as opposed to the white painted Oro Valley signals.
Compare the signal at 1st Ave (Oro Valley) with the ones at Innovation Park Dr. and Oracle Rd. (ADOT).
Quote from: ztonyg on May 25, 2021, 01:34:51 AM
A key tell with AZ 989 is that the traffic signal at Innovation Park Dr. is an ADOT standard signal as opposed to the white painted Oro Valley signals.
Compare the signal at 1st Ave (Oro Valley) with the ones at Innovation Park Dr. and Oracle Rd. (ADOT).
Another indication is that when Oro Valley recently resealed their part of Tangerine, they stopped just west of La Canada Dr. Mile marker 34 is just east of La Canada, so that matches up pretty well. It's interesting that there's an OV signal at Rancho Vistoso/First and Tangerine because the road is ADOT-owned.
https://apps.azdot.gov/WebTeam/ROW/Plans/SR_989/SR_989_Index.pdf
As of last week, Ruthrauff Rd is open to traffic over I-10. The ramp connections are still closed till later this year.
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/ruthrauff-road-opens-over-i-10-project-nears-completion
The Houghton Rd interchange with I-10 is now functioning as a DDI, albeit with the temporary lights and a lot of cones.
ADOT has picked a route for the Sonoran Corridor to connect I-10 and I-19
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-selects-final-sonoran-corridor-route-pima-county
They picked one of the "L" shaped corridors. Two giant Dog Legs.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 05:07:00 PM
ADOT has picked a route for the Sonoran Corridor to connect I-10 and I-19
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-selects-final-sonoran-corridor-route-pima-county
I'll be shocked if The City of Tucson and/or the Pima County Board of Supervisors ever approves this. Tucson is almost violently anti-freeway, and has been at least since the I-710 debacle of the mid-'70s.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 07, 2021, 09:46:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 05:07:00 PM
ADOT has picked a route for the Sonoran Corridor to connect I-10 and I-19
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-selects-final-sonoran-corridor-route-pima-county
I'll be shocked if The City of Tucson and/or the Pima County Board of Supervisors ever approves this. Tucson is almost violently anti-freeway, and has been at least since the I-710 debacle of the mid-'70s.
I bet they change their tune. This is pretty far south I don't see why Tucson would have a problem and would likely welcome it. More growth and tax dollars.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 07, 2021, 09:46:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 05:07:00 PM
ADOT has picked a route for the Sonoran Corridor to connect I-10 and I-19
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-selects-final-sonoran-corridor-route-pima-county
I'll be shocked if The City of Tucson and/or the Pima County Board of Supervisors ever approves this. Tucson is almost violently anti-freeway, and has been at least since the I-710 debacle of the mid-'70s.
They are building Downtown Links
But Downtown Links isn't a freeway.
The Sonoran Corridor would be a nice connection between the airport, the Port of Tucson (rail), and the freeway system. It makes a lot of sense, and it is well away from the main population areas. But I'm not sure it will ever happen in my lifetime, given this area's history with freeways.
Quote from: DRMan on November 08, 2021, 11:09:30 AM
But Downtown Links isn't a freeway.
The Sonoran Corridor would be a nice connection between the airport, the Port of Tucson (rail), and the freeway system. It makes a lot of sense, and it is well away from the main population areas. But I'm not sure it will ever happen in my lifetime, given this area's history with freeways.
It's a wide urban boulevard being sliced through downtown requiring major eminent domain. And it may not be a freeway now, but I think they could elevate some of the lanes in the future.
Pardon me but what road is this?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2021, 02:25:55 PM
Pardon me but what road is this?
I'm pretty new to the Tucson area, but my understanding is that Downtown Links is a project that will connect I-10 to SR 210, as well as improve drainage and grade crossings with the Union Pacific tracks. It's been the works since the 1980s, when ADOT proposed a freeway extension to SR 210 that would have directly connected it to I-10. The city of Tucson took the project over in 1989.
The project that's under construction is a 30 mph, 4-lane urban street.
More information here: downtownlinks.info (http://downtownlinks.info)
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 07, 2021, 09:46:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 05:07:00 PM
ADOT has picked a route for the Sonoran Corridor to connect I-10 and I-19
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-selects-final-sonoran-corridor-route-pima-county
I'll be shocked if The City of Tucson and/or the Pima County Board of Supervisors ever approves this. Tucson is almost violently anti-freeway, and has been at least since the I-710 debacle of the mid-'70s.
Am guessing? the dog legs are to swing it closer to the Airport. Not sure if I would refer to 710 as a "debacle" it was a spur that should have been built. The Kino Pkwy grade separation at 22nd St partially fulfilled the long dead spur. The complex arrangement at I-10 where Irvington goes under and Kino goes over, is a funky arrangement. Have to wonder how 710 would have connected to 10 there.
Quote from: DJStephens on November 12, 2021, 09:18:18 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 07, 2021, 09:46:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 05:07:00 PM
ADOT has picked a route for the Sonoran Corridor to connect I-10 and I-19
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-selects-final-sonoran-corridor-route-pima-county
I'll be shocked if The City of Tucson and/or the Pima County Board of Supervisors ever approves this. Tucson is almost violently anti-freeway, and has been at least since the I-710 debacle of the mid-'70s.
Am guessing? the dog legs are to swing it closer to the Airport. Not sure if I would refer to 710 as a "debacle" it was a spur that should have been built. The Kino Pkwy grade separation at 22nd St partially fulfilled the long dead spur. The complex arrangement at I-10 where Irvington goes under and Kino goes over, is a funky arrangement. Have to wonder how 710 would have connected to 10 there.
I think you meant Ajo Way where it meets Kino Pkwy and I-10.
Speaking of which, there's some plans to improve I-10 east of I-19, including extending SR 210 to reach I-10 around Alvernon Way. Some plans of improvements are below:
https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2021/05/H7825plot_I-10_WestEnd.pdf
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/interstate-10-and-state-route-210-study
DDI project at Houghton and I-10 is reported complete according to this article:
https://www.thetrucker.com/trucking-news/the-nation/arizona-completes-rebuild-of-i-10-houghton-road-interchange
On our last trip through the area in November, the on-ramps and bridge were completed. Finishing touches were being made and traffic was coned down to two lanes over the new bridge with temporary signals in operation.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 08, 2021, 12:39:14 PM
Quote from: DRMan on November 08, 2021, 11:09:30 AM
But Downtown Links isn't a freeway.
The Sonoran Corridor would be a nice connection between the airport, the Port of Tucson (rail), and the freeway system. It makes a lot of sense, and it is well away from the main population areas. But I'm not sure it will ever happen in my lifetime, given this area's history with freeways.
It's a wide urban boulevard being sliced through downtown requiring major eminent domain. And it may not be a freeway now, but I think they could elevate some of the lanes in the future.
Links is certainly a shell of the 210/I-10 connection once envisioned by ADOT, and the design looks like a complete charlie foxtrot as far as traffic signal spacing and sight lines are concerned. In due time the handful of crappy buildings the city has managed to save by shoehorning in the surface street may eventually lose their "historic value" and be torn down to make way for a beefier connection to the interstate. Frankly it's been needed since ever since Tucson put in the trolley and put Congress and Broadway downtown on road diets a while back.
Frankly any hope of a freeway in the city proper north of Golf Links road is probably a lost cause A loop freeway along houghton/ina/skyline would either involve tearing down a bunch of rich people's homes, or routing along the washes. Fat chance of either.
Suburbs, however, are a different story. I'll have to dig up the link but there's plans for 4-5 lanes each direction on I-10 between the eastern 210 link (It's supposed to tie in near the current Craycroft TI) and AZ 83. I can see Sahuarita, Vail, Corona De Tucson and other future growth corridors on the south and east end of the metro being very supportive of freeways as they tend to lean a little more right, politically.
Drove through Tucson last Saturday and took the Houghton road exit specifically to check on the progress. Based on what I saw exiting west to go north, the new DDI interchange is 100% complete and operational.
The city of Tucson flew a drone over part of the Downtown Links project. Video from 9/21/22 is below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr5Wg30MqiU
What are they doing at Broadway? The alignment doesn't seem to line up with the planning documents online, which also show a realigned Aviation Pkwy.
Obviously I'm assuming that they decided against an overpass using the existing terrain elements from the original AZ 210 ideas, but it would have been nice for 210 to have a more unobstructed path towards meeting I-10.
The only thing I was noticing in the flyovers was that, on the south side of Broadway, it didn't seem like any work was occurring. As though they were going to leave that side of the intersection alone, and design the northern side so that through traffic had to make an odd curve. Since it was originally designed as a SPUI. But it could simply be that they haven't started work over there yet. The planning documents online from six ish years ago suggested the elimination of the SPUI design in favor of a regular arterial with a median being built in the median of the existing split part of Aviation Pkwy (where the SPUI would have gone).
Drove down Broadway in Tucson last weekend and saw the completed widened stretch of Broadway between Country Club and Euclid. It appears the city went to great lengths to minimize the amount of homes and businesses they had to tear down, as the road weaves quite a bit. In some spots, the median is rather narrow.
Downtown Links is also well underway. From the looks of it they aren't going to redo the half SPUI ramps at Barraza-Aviation Parkway; the extension ties in to their current alignment and narrows down to a normal street width.
Just saw a link to story regarding the possible partial opening of Downtown Links sometime in 2023:
https://www.kgun9.com/operation-safe-roads/downtown-tucson-bypass-almost-ready?_amp=true
Downtown Link is now open from Broadway to 6th. But the 6th St grade separation at the railroad tracks is still over a year away from completion.
Opened Friday:
https://twitter.com/Tucson_DTM/status/1626671453667209216
Here's a vid of the new section from a week ago. LOL at the 30 mph speed limit.
https://twitter.com/Tucson_DTM/status/1624205336767766528
The comments sure support the stereotype of hardcore bike riders being perpetually angry, insufferable, self-centered jerks.
Is the new section signed as an extended AZ 210?
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on February 20, 2023, 02:16:11 AM
The comments sure support the stereotype of hardcore bike riders being perpetually angry, insufferable, self-centered jerks.
The Portlandia skit exists for a reason :-D
I am very happy this little bypass is finally open. I need to navigate from north of downtown to the Aviation highway several times a week. Now, rather than taking Euclid/1st ave by the U of A (which is always quite busy), I can finally sneak past all that to get to Stone Ave instead. It might only be saving me 3 or 4 minutes, but it's less hectic right now. And for the bicyclists, I'm gonna still watch out for you even if you're angry!
Quote from: kwellada on February 20, 2023, 01:38:08 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on February 20, 2023, 02:16:11 AM
The comments sure support the stereotype of hardcore bike riders being perpetually angry, insufferable, self-centered jerks.
The Portlandia skit exists for a reason :-D
I am very happy this little bypass is finally open. I need to navigate from north of downtown to the Aviation highway several times a week. Now, rather than taking Euclid/1st ave by the U of A (which is always quite busy), I can finally sneak past all that to get to Stone Ave instead. It might only be saving me 3 or 4 minutes, but it's less hectic right now. And for the bicyclists, I'm gonna still watch out for you even if you're angry!
My only complaint about this is the pedestrian crossing at the end. I feel that they should've included a pedestrian tunnel or bridge instead.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 20, 2023, 07:01:19 AM
Is the new section signed as an extended AZ 210?
This project was funded by Pima County and managed by the City of Tucson without any involvement from ADOT. So I doubt it - it's not a state highway.
I'm not a bicyclist, but I can see why they are concerned. Yes, the road is signed for 30 mph, but the design is more like a main artery, most of which are signed for 45 and see speeds of 50+.
I'm still pretty new around here, and I don't understand what they are trying to accomplish with Downtown Links. If they wanted a city street, they should have designed it as such. If they wanted a connector between AZ 210 to I-10, they should have actually connected the two roads (even the final product will not connect to I-10 but will dump traffic on St. Marys Rd.) and, if necessary, built the bike path elsewhere.
I know new freeways are a no-no in Tucson, but I'd be curious to hear about how we arrived at this design.
Quote from: DRMan on February 21, 2023, 08:47:13 AM
I know new freeways are a no-no in Tucson, but I'd be curious to hear about how we arrived at this design.
Here's one major reason: The proposed I-710 from the mid 1970s.
(https://www.arizonaroads.com/pics/i710interchange.jpg)
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on February 21, 2023, 10:23:00 AM
Quote from: DRMan on February 21, 2023, 08:47:13 AM
I know new freeways are a no-no in Tucson, but I'd be curious to hear about how we arrived at this design.
Here's one major reason: The proposed I-710 from the mid 1970s.
(https://www.arizonaroads.com/pics/i710interchange.jpg)
Ouch. Where would that interchange have been built?
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 20, 2023, 07:01:19 AM
Is the new section signed as an extended AZ 210?
I think the intersection at Broadway is at Mile 2, so maybe someday it may be signed as AZ 210, but it's all local money right now. At the other end you can definitely tell where ADOT maintenance hands off to the City of Tucson or Pima County (I don't know which). The signs go to crap and the pavement is just a suggestion of blacktop over kitty litter.
Quote from: DRMan on February 21, 2023, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on February 21, 2023, 10:23:00 AM
Quote from: DRMan on February 21, 2023, 08:47:13 AM
I know new freeways are a no-no in Tucson, but I'd be curious to hear about how we arrived at this design.
Here's one major reason: The proposed I-710 from the mid 1970s.
(https://www.arizonaroads.com/pics/i710interchange.jpg)
Ouch. Where would that interchange have been built?
From Arizona Roads...
(https://arizonaroads.com/pics/urban1971tucson.jpg)
Complicated by the presence of the Southern Pacific RR main line. Most likely that is why the I-10 alignment is shifted so much in the diorama. Virtually almost nothing on I-10, in this I-710 interchange area, has changed since it's original construction. Apart from covering the original concrete with asphalt. All the original elements are still there. The bridges, the shoulders, the ramps, even the truss gantries and light poles. The original signage is gone, replaced by less than optimum clearview. There was a pair of bridges built over Alvernon Way, with an unused inner lane, in each direction. And there was the downtown rehabiliation of I-10 E of I-19, believe in the nineties.
Yep, Tucson is lacking in freeway mileage. It should have had more, including the 710 spur to the University and downtown. In addition a I-610 partial belt could have been done, circa 1970, by preserving ROW along the foothills in the north, along Houghton in the east, and arcing over to 19 in the south. Would not have pursued anything to the west or south of 10, north of the 19 interchange. ADOT did do a fairly decent rebuild of the 10/19 interchange. They do have a fairly good gridiron in the east, which has "saved" their asses, to a point.
Tucsonans can complain till the end of time, as far as the Downtown Links is concerned. I've driven it a couple times. It could have been so much better.
I was also on Tangerine last week. There's a milepost 34 in both directions in the Oro Valley area. How long have those mileposts been there?
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on March 25, 2023, 09:57:48 PM
Tucsonans can complain till the end of time, as far as the Downtown Links is concerned. I've driven it a couple times. It could have been so much better.
I was also on Tangerine last week. There's a milepost 34 in both directions in the Oro Valley area. How long have those mileposts been there?
Yeah, I guess Downtown Links will help some but it could have been so much better. And I guess there's been quite a few accidents already at the intersection with Broadway.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on March 25, 2023, 09:57:48 PM
I was also on Tangerine last week. There's a milepost 34 in both directions in the Oro Valley area. How long have those mileposts been there?
The part of Tangerine Rd where that milepost is located is unsigned AZ 989. I believe it's only ADOT-maintained west of AZ 77, over the Big Wash bridge, for about a mile and a half. I think there's a Milepost 35 posted as well.
AZ 989/Tangerine Rd was proposed about 20 years ago as part of a system of freeways for the Tucson area. However, mentioning Tucson and freeways in the same sentence is a major local no-no, other than those that have already been built.
Does anyone know the history around some of the overhead signing practices in the city of Tucson? There's some poorly designed overhead signs at the Golf Links Rd and Alvernon Rd interchange with AZ SR 210/Aviation Highway. At first I thought it was something the city or county did (in regards to abbreviations), but looking back at historical views on Google Street View, it looks like the newish signs using "NB" (for northbound) are just poor copies of what was there before, in what seems to be ADOT button copy. With the excellent ADOT signing practices throughout the state, I find it hard to believe they would put these signs up back in the day. Anyone know the history?
2017
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1906748,-110.9073196,3a,75y,233.32h,88.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svi5B8rfhTj0iO0-w7tlxwQ!2e0!5s20170501T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Today
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1906977,-110.9073305,3a,75y,233.32h,88.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfO7yHjRGOjDwlF5V3Vg11Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The AZ SR 210 marker has been added in the last year or so. A very small improvement.
Quote from: machias on April 30, 2023, 07:06:17 PM
Does anyone know the history around some of the overhead signing practices in the city of Tucson? There's some poorly designed overhead signs at the Golf Links Rd and Alvernon Rd interchange with AZ SR 210/Aviation Highway. At first I thought it was something the city or county did (in regards to abbreviations), but looking back at historical views on Google Street View, it looks like the newish signs using "NB" (for northbound) are just poor copies of what was there before, in what seems to be ADOT button copy. With the excellent ADOT signing practices throughout the state, I find it hard to believe they would put these signs up back in the day. Anyone know the history?
2017
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1906748,-110.9073196,3a,75y,233.32h,88.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svi5B8rfhTj0iO0-w7tlxwQ!2e0!5s20170501T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Today
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1906977,-110.9073305,3a,75y,233.32h,88.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfO7yHjRGOjDwlF5V3Vg11Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The AZ SR 210 marker has been added in the last year or so. A very small improvement.
Not sure about the history, but Tanque Verde Rd also has some funky looking signage at the Wrightstown Rd intersection.
https://goo.gl/maps/cf3az8bbkf3gVuiRA
https://goo.gl/maps/wwZQDA9y2gybWKjg7
Again, the old signs looked better (but aging) but they went away in late 2016/early 2017 based on Street View:
https://goo.gl/maps/tpAmFwnVZULg9Fr18
https://goo.gl/maps/r9UM6PY6LvD5xaDB9
Quote from: machias on February 21, 2023, 09:34:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 20, 2023, 07:01:19 AM
Is the new section signed as an extended AZ 210?
I think the intersection at Broadway is at Mile 2, so maybe someday it may be signed as AZ 210, but it's all local money right now. At the other end you can definitely tell where ADOT maintenance hands off to the City of Tucson or Pima County (I don't know which). The signs go to crap and the pavement is just a suggestion of blacktop over kitty litter.
Frankly, now that the connection between Downtown Links and SR 210 is finished, ADOT should just offer to give SR 210 to Tucson and put their Tucson freeway chapter into the history books where they belong. Tucson has amply demonstrated that their traffic gets along just fine, thankyouverymuch, without those extra freeways beyond I-10 and I-19.
ADOT added the Kino Parkway TI, the Country Club TI, and the I10/Alvernon/Future SR 210 Interchange to their Tentative Five-Year Program. If the board approves this on June 16th, we should see some improvements in the next 5 years.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-programming/tentative-five-year-program
I find it hilarious how Tucson is so anti-freeway, yet most people I've talked to in Tucson have complained and ranted to me how there should be freeways because they hate the traffic. Can't say I pity them, they're bringing it on themselves and made their own bed. It's their own choice. They voted and decided on no freeways.
I would think most issues in Tucson could be fixed through individual intersection modifications, such as an extra lane in places.
My worry with building more freeways in Tucson would be changes to the fabric of the city; changes in property values, changes in zoning, traffic pattern changes, unused capacity in some places and insufficient capacity in others, not to mention immense amounts of land expropriation. It would take a long time to iron everything out, and I'm just not sure it would be worth it.
If I'm honest, I think people in Tucson need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture: taking more than one cycle to get through a light does not mean traffic is bad, or that a freeway is needed. And in fact, I think credit needs to be given to the Tucson DOT for the work they do on the arterial network; few cities in the US have as high of a capacity arterial network as Tucson.
Can a local (I'm not one) actually point to a specific road that should/could be replaced by a freeway?
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2023, 02:45:48 AM
I would think most issues in Tucson could be fixed through individual intersection modifications, such as an extra lane in places.
My worry with building more freeways in Tucson would be changes to the fabric of the city; changes in property values, changes in zoning, traffic pattern changes, unused capacity in some places and insufficient capacity in others, not to mention immense amounts of land expropriation. It would take a long time to iron everything out, and I'm just not sure it would be worth it.
If I'm honest, I think people in Tucson need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture: taking more than one cycle to get through a light does not mean traffic is bad, or that a freeway is needed. And in fact, I think credit needs to be given to the Tucson DOT for the work they do on the arterial network; few cities in the US have as high of a capacity arterial network as Tucson.
Can a local (I'm not one) actually point to a specific road that should/could be replaced by a freeway?
I've lived in Tucson for over two years, and comparatively speaking, traffic is not bad here. There are a few projects that need to be finished, for example there's a gap in the widening of Houghton Rd. along the east side of the city that would fix things in that area a lot. The city maintained portion of SR 210 Aviation Hwy desperately needs repair. Irvington Rd. east of Davis-Monthan AFB needs widening as well. The city and Pima County have both made some interesting design choices in some intersections that you don't really see elsewhere (Valencia and Kolb come to mind), but overall traffic moves well for a city this size.
I've noticed two things that contribute to "bad traffic": protected left turns are at the end of a signal cycle within the city limits, with flashing yellow arrows preceding them. There are many intersections where it's double left turn lanes in each direction and the sight lines for a confident turn with the flashing yellow are not always there. As an almost civil engineer that didn't finish his degree, I'm surprised at some of the choices for flashing yellow double-left turn lanes. And secondly, speed limits in parts of the city that are basically open desert or 3 or 4 lane in each direction arterials are set artificially low. The new stretch of the Houghton Rd arterial south of I-10 is a prime example: the speed limit is posted at 45 MPH. Once you come to the end of the arterial and join the older two lane roadway, the speed limit increases. There are many places where the speed limits seem low or even arbitrary, and this creates the effect of drivers ignoring all speed limits.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2023, 02:45:48 AM
I would think most issues in Tucson could be fixed through individual intersection modifications, such as an extra lane in places.
My worry with building more freeways in Tucson would be changes to the fabric of the city; changes in property values, changes in zoning, traffic pattern changes, unused capacity in some places and insufficient capacity in others, not to mention immense amounts of land expropriation. It would take a long time to iron everything out, and I'm just not sure it would be worth it.
If I'm honest, I think people in Tucson need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture: taking more than one cycle to get through a light does not mean traffic is bad, or that a freeway is needed. And in fact, I think credit needs to be given to the Tucson DOT for the work they do on the arterial network; few cities in the US have as high of a capacity arterial network as Tucson.
Can a local (I'm not one) actually point to a specific road that should/could be replaced by a freeway?
I lived in Tucson for 6 years and have lived in Phoenix for 22. Tucson has the best arterial network in the state hands down. Phoenix's arterial network is awful (especially in the city of Phoenix which looks like they hired kindergarten traffic engineers compared to Tucson). The freeway network in Phoenix is such a necessity because the arterial network is/was horrible. There are some exceptions. Hayden Rd in Scottsdale flows like a Tucson arterial (although has far fewer access points). The same with Shea Blvd east of Loop 101 (also in Scottsdale). But most of the major arterials in Scottsdale / Phoenix / Tempe / Mesa / Chandler / Gilbert / Glendale / Peoria / etc. are a maze of streets widening and narrowing at municipal boundaries, traffic signals that aren't really phased / timed / coordinated, and overall traffic doesn't move well on them.
I've been in the Tucson area for almost three years now, and I agree that the arterial network generally works very well. It would be great to have a little more consistency in things like permissive left turns.
I can't imagine how different the community would be with a freeway network. I'd take Tucson over Phoenix any day.
Quote from: ztonyg on May 16, 2023, 10:00:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2023, 02:45:48 AM
I would think most issues in Tucson could be fixed through individual intersection modifications, such as an extra lane in places.
My worry with building more freeways in Tucson would be changes to the fabric of the city; changes in property values, changes in zoning, traffic pattern changes, unused capacity in some places and insufficient capacity in others, not to mention immense amounts of land expropriation. It would take a long time to iron everything out, and I'm just not sure it would be worth it.
If I'm honest, I think people in Tucson need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture: taking more than one cycle to get through a light does not mean traffic is bad, or that a freeway is needed. And in fact, I think credit needs to be given to the Tucson DOT for the work they do on the arterial network; few cities in the US have as high of a capacity arterial network as Tucson.
Can a local (I'm not one) actually point to a specific road that should/could be replaced by a freeway?
I lived in Tucson for 6 years and have lived in Phoenix for 22. Tucson has the best arterial network in the state hands down. Phoenix's arterial network is awful (especially in the city of Phoenix which looks like they hired kindergarten traffic engineers compared to Tucson). The freeway network in Phoenix is such a necessity because the arterial network is/was horrible. There are some exceptions. Hayden Rd in Scottsdale flows like a Tucson arterial (although has far fewer access points). The same with Shea Blvd east of Loop 101 (also in Scottsdale). But most of the major arterials in Scottsdale / Phoenix / Tempe / Mesa / Chandler / Gilbert / Glendale / Peoria / etc. are a maze of streets widening and narrowing at municipal boundaries, traffic signals that aren't really phased / timed / coordinated, and overall traffic doesn't move well on them.
I lived in Scottsdale in the early 90's, before Loop 101 was anything more than the Price Freeway on the East side of the valley, and the 51 ended at 32nd St just beyond the Dreamy Draw. I remember well what a nightmare it was to get from anywhere near downtown Phoenix or the West Valley to our place which was near Scottsdale Rd. and Chaparral. Drives that would take 30-45 minutes in those days can now be accomplished in 15-20.
Quote from: machias on May 10, 2023, 12:50:53 AM
I've lived in Tucson for over two years, and comparatively speaking, traffic is not bad here. There are a few projects that need to be finished, for example there's a gap in the widening of Houghton Rd. along the east side of the city that would fix things in that area a lot. The city maintained portion of SR 210 Aviation Hwy desperately needs repair. Irvington Rd. east of Davis-Monthan AFB needs widening as well. The city and Pima County have both made some interesting design choices in some intersections that you don't really see elsewhere (Valencia and Kolb come to mind), but overall traffic moves well for a city this size.
I've noticed two things that contribute to "bad traffic": protected left turns are at the end of a signal cycle within the city limits, with flashing yellow arrows preceding them. There are many intersections where it's double left turn lanes in each direction and the sight lines for a confident turn with the flashing yellow are not always there. As an almost civil engineer that didn't finish his degree, I'm surprised at some of the choices for flashing yellow double-left turn lanes. And secondly, speed limits in parts of the city that are basically open desert or 3 or 4 lane in each direction arterials are set artificially low. The new stretch of the Houghton Rd arterial south of I-10 is a prime example: the speed limit is posted at 45 MPH. Once you come to the end of the arterial and join the older two lane roadway, the speed limit increases. There are many places where the speed limits seem low or even arbitrary, and this creates the effect of drivers ignoring all speed limits.
I would also advocate for finishing the arterial routes that have not been widened, where it's wide on either side of a particular stretch. Needless bottlenecks are, well, needless bottlenecks. The unusual intersections, such as Valencia and Kolb, or Grand and Euclid, definitely deserve some commendation for innovation. Although I have to wonder if the extra amount of ROW required makes it worth it more than just once in a blue moon.
In terms of the signal operations, this is actually where Tucson is known for their creativity. They were one of the first to widely implement double left turns, and remain one of just a handful of cities that implemented permissive phasing even with double left turns. There have been quite a few studies early-on that showed a very small increase in accidents, if any at most intersections, but an impressive increase in capacity. I believe this policy (implemented sometime during the 1980s) is when the city started practicing lagging left turns as well. The city also experimented with a
small gore area (https://goo.gl/maps/zM3gfeZtvQpKRDg6A) between the through lanes and double left turn lanes; this changes the left turn design from negative offset to either no offset or positive offset, improving visibility for left turning traffic dramatically. Both of these innovations are what made Tucson's intersections more successful than typical intersections in other cities IMO.
I know Tucson, in the last ten years, has started to change how their signals operate, with time-of-day phasing and flashing yellow arrows rather than 5-section "yield on green" type signals. Switching to
lagging left turns EDIT: flashing yellow arrows technically eliminated one of the more annoying aspects of lagging green arrows
with shared signal faces, which is that both directions have green arrows simultaneous with one another, regardless if it's necessary. We have this issue in Japan (complete with permissive double turns) where our green arrows are always at the end, and it's not always great for roads with uneven traffic flows. Thing is, I don't know if Tucson actually changed their signals to allow for "offset" green arrow phasing (where the green arrows come on at different times). If they haven't, I could see that being a smart change. I would also like to see wider implementation of left turn waiting boxes, other than just a couple spots along Speedway at the UA Campus.
Edit: massive brain-fart in the last paragraph. WTF... :-D
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2023, 02:45:48 AM
Can a local (I'm not one) actually point to a specific road that should/could be replaced by a freeway?
Houghton Road. Should have been part of a "greater picture" 5/8 circumferential. Would have placed a far greater powered interchange @Exit 275 on I-10 than a ridiculous DDI. Stack, Turbine, etc. Growth will continue. People will continue to move there. Vehicle trips will continue to increase.
Quote from: DJStephens on May 20, 2023, 05:15:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2023, 02:45:48 AM
Can a local (I'm not one) actually point to a specific road that should/could be replaced by a freeway?
Houghton Road. Should have been part of a "greater picture" 5/8 circumferential. Would have placed a far greater powered interchange @Exit 275 on I-10 than a ridiculous DDI. Stack, Turbine, etc. Growth will continue. People will continue to move there. Vehicle trips will continue to increase.
Thanks for the input.
I checked the AADT numbers, per the Pima County website. Seems like Houghton is busiest right near the 10 freeway, though I'm not seeing traffic counts much above 22,000. So, not really freeway counts just yet, though certainly well within reasonable for the current (mostly) six-lane expressway. But the counts are higher than ten years ago (ever so slightly), and development patterns being what they are, I don't see any reason to think they won't continue to rise.
So, I could see a freeway out that way. There seems to be a lot of ROW where one could be built, which certainly separates Houghton from, say, Speedway, or Campbell.
I'm really impressed with the way construction is being handled along I-10 around the Sunset Rd and Orange Grove Rd interchanges. Traffic in both directions is shunted onto the frontage roads, maintaining 3 lanes in each directions, and a zone speed limit of 55.
More information here
https://azdot.gov/projects/southcentral-district-projects/i-10-reconstruction-between-ruthrauff-and-ina-roads
Wondering when/if the state plans to reconstruct the Cortaro TI. Building retaining walls and shoehorning extra lanes between the pillars and abutments was a creative solution, but always felt like a temporary fix; one that has been in place 15+ years.
Quote from: JKRhodes on July 15, 2023, 12:33:49 AM
Wondering when/if the state plans to reconstruct the Cortaro TI. Building retaining walls and shoehorning extra lanes between the pillars and abutments was a creative solution, but always felt like a temporary fix; one that has been in place 15+ years.
A recent version of the Town of Marana's podcast touched on this. Bottom line is, ADOT has completed a study of the area but the main priorities are the current I-10 Ruthrauff to Ina project and the part of I-10 east of I-19 (the oldest part of I-10 in AZ).
This episode is worth a listen - the ADOT rep covers all of this in some detail as well as the basics of how projects are planned and the role of RTA. Search for "Real Talk with the Town of Marana" in Spotify or your favorite podcast platform -- it's episode #28.
Quote from: DRMan on July 18, 2023, 02:10:22 PM
Quote from: JKRhodes on July 15, 2023, 12:33:49 AM
Wondering when/if the state plans to reconstruct the Cortaro TI. Building retaining walls and shoehorning extra lanes between the pillars and abutments was a creative solution, but always felt like a temporary fix; one that has been in place 15+ years.
A recent version of the Town of Marana's podcast touched on this. Bottom line is, ADOT has completed a study of the area but the main priorities are the current I-10 Ruthrauff to Ina project and the part of I-10 east of I-19 (the oldest part of I-10 in AZ).
This episode is worth a listen - the ADOT rep covers all of this in some detail as well as the basics of how projects are planned and the role of RTA. Search for "Real Talk with the Town of Marana" in Spotify or your favorite podcast platform -- it's episode #28.
Hearing them discuss Cortaro I sense I'm not alone in thinking it's a goofy intersection :-D . Glad a solution is in the pipeline even if it's not funded or scheduled just yet.
One of the first news releases from ADOT that I read when I first became a roadgeek 20+ years ago had to do with constructing 40 ft frontage roads in the tucson area and eventually placing traffic on them while mainline I-10 was widened.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010622030723/http://www.dot.state.az.us/news/nrel580.htm
Got on at Ina eastbound several weeks ago and first thought was "Wow, it's really happening."
I like that the detour is flanked by curbs instead of jersey barriers. feels like less of a cattle chute, easier to escape the travel lanes to safety in the event of a breakdown.
Quote from: JKRhodes on July 19, 2023, 10:12:58 AM
Quote from: DRMan on July 18, 2023, 02:10:22 PM
Quote from: JKRhodes on July 15, 2023, 12:33:49 AM
Wondering when/if the state plans to reconstruct the Cortaro TI. Building retaining walls and shoehorning extra lanes between the pillars and abutments was a creative solution, but always felt like a temporary fix; one that has been in place 15+ years.
A recent version of the Town of Marana's podcast touched on this. Bottom line is, ADOT has completed a study of the area but the main priorities are the current I-10 Ruthrauff to Ina project and the part of I-10 east of I-19 (the oldest part of I-10 in AZ).
This episode is worth a listen - the ADOT rep covers all of this in some detail as well as the basics of how projects are planned and the role of RTA. Search for "Real Talk with the Town of Marana" in Spotify or your favorite podcast platform -- it's episode #28.
Hearing them discuss Cortaro I sense I'm not alone in thinking it's a goofy intersection :-D . Glad a solution is in the pipeline even if it's not funded or scheduled just yet.
One of the first news releases from ADOT that I read when I first became a roadgeek 20+ years ago had to do with constructing 40 ft frontage roads in the tucson area and eventually placing traffic on them while mainline I-10 was widened.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010622030723/http://www.dot.state.az.us/news/nrel580.htm
Got on at Ina eastbound several weeks ago and first thought was "Wow, it's really happening."
I like that the detour is flanked by curbs instead of jersey barriers. feels like less of a cattle chute, easier to escape the travel lanes to safety in the event of a breakdown.
Agreed, they've done a good job keeping traffic flowing through there and the forethought to build the frontage roads that way is really paying off. But that dropoff to the old quarry on the eastbound side, protected by only a chain link fence, seems to call for some more protection.
Quote
Agreed, they've done a good job keeping traffic flowing through there and the forethought to build the frontage roads that way is really paying off. But that dropoff to the old quarry on the eastbound side, protected by only a chain link fence, seems to call for some more protection.
Interested to see how OGR is tied in to the quarry after it's revised to a surface street overpass. Initial thought is a steep inclined approach is not favorable for fully loaded trucks.
It seems that the Sonoran Corridor freeway project in the Tucson area has progressed from Tier 1 to Tier 2 Environmental Impact Study recently and has been assigned a route number - State Route 410. The selected proposal corridor has also been narrowed down from 2000 ft. to a proposed 400 ft. freeway alignment. SR 410 would be an alternative eastern connection between I-19 and I-10 and also potentially serve Tucson's airport. The study is currently expected to be completed in 2026.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/sonoran-corridor-sr-410-study/sonoran-corridor-sr-410-tier-2-environmental-impact-study-and-design-concept-report (https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/sonoran-corridor-sr-410-study/sonoran-corridor-sr-410-tier-2-environmental-impact-study-and-design-concept-report)
I would expect this proposed AZ 410 to be constructed similar to the AZ 210 parkway, since Tucson doesn't construct freeways.
Quote from: JKRhodes on July 19, 2023, 10:12:58 AMQuote from: DRMan on July 18, 2023, 02:10:22 PMQuote from: JKRhodes on July 15, 2023, 12:33:49 AMWondering when/if the state plans to reconstruct the Cortaro TI. Building retaining walls and shoehorning extra lanes between the pillars and abutments was a creative solution, but always felt like a temporary fix; one that has been in place 15+ years.
A recent version of the Town of Marana's podcast touched on this. Bottom line is, ADOT has completed a study of the area but the main priorities are the current I-10 Ruthrauff to Ina project and the part of I-10 east of I-19 (the oldest part of I-10 in AZ). This episode is worth a listen - the ADOT rep covers all of this in some detail as well as the basics of how projects are planned and the role of RTA. Search for "Real Talk with the Town of Marana" in Spotify or your favorite podcast platform -- it's episode #28.
Hearing them discuss Cortaro I sense I'm not alone in thinking it's a goofy intersection :-D . Glad a solution is in the pipeline even if it's not funded or scheduled just yet.
One of the first news releases from ADOT that I read when I first became a roadgeek 20+ years ago had to do with constructing 40 ft frontage roads in the tucson area and eventually placing traffic on them while mainline I-10 was widened.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010622030723/http://www.dot.state.az.us/news/nrel580.htm
Got on at Ina eastbound several weeks ago and first thought was "Wow, it's really happening."
I like that the detour is flanked by curbs instead of jersey barriers. feels like less of a cattle chute, easier to escape the travel lanes to safety in the event of a breakdown.
There were frontage roads on I-10, on the western fringes of Tucson, before any of the reconstructions started. Some of them were two way (similar to rural texas) and some were one lane one way.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 01, 2024, 09:46:45 PMI would expect this proposed AZ 410 to be constructed similar to the AZ 210 parkway, since Tucson doesn't construct freeways.
The word "freeway alignment" is used on the document. It still has that wonky L shape though, am guessing that's their route of least resistance, not the best alignment.
I was aware it said "freeway alignment" on the website, I'm just skeptical that the new road would be constructed as a freeway, given that Tuscon is one of the most anti-freeway cities in the country. Is this new AZ 410 route even needed? It goes through a lot of empty land, and the wonky alignment suggests it would follow a very convoluted route. Perhaps they should expand existing El Toro Rd., S. Alvernon Rd., and E. Old Vail Rd. to four lanes (while also filling in the portions of those roads that have not been constructed yet).
Yes am aware of "kooky" politics in the Tucson metro. Their grid network, in much of the city, saves their asses, to a certain degree. Much like the NE gridiron has saved a bulk of Albuquerque's ass. Speedway, 22nd, etc, all are straight, wide, and divided in places, and carry a lot of traffic. Traffic that in many other locales that would be on a limited access facility. The east side of Tucson will continue to infill, and load current tiny two lane arterials on it's far east side. Am guessing the L shape of this proposal is to provide access to the airport, rather than to provide access for the developing E side of the city. Frankly would have tried to build a limited access spur to the airport, from either 10 or 19, and have this "connector" or state route 410 go in a continous arc, farther to the E and S. This proposal should have an Interstate sheild, as well. But again, am sure Tucson's "planning" is considerably worse than the rest of the state's is.