News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

I-25 Albuquerque Rebuild

Started by abqtraveler, August 11, 2021, 08:43:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

MattHanson939

#50
Quote
 
    This entire stretch of 25, S of Indian School, to S of Gibson, should have been done at roughly the same time as the "big I" project.  It has been over 20 YEARS since that was completed.   Depressed, straightened, and main lanes decked over in the Central/Lead/Coal environs.  10 lane cross section, at the bottom of the trench. 
 

Do you envision I-25 through downtown Albuquerque being replaced with a below-grade highway or elevated albeit widened to ten lanes? I ask because in recent years, I-40 in Oklahoma City and I-70 in Denver were realigned.  I-40 used to run right through downtown OKK, but in 2012 it was realigned just south of the city center (the original alignment is now a city street).  And just recently, I-70 now runs below grade near downtown Denver when it used to be elevated above several surface streets (the original 1950s elevated viaduct was torn down as part of the project).

But yeah, I do agree with you that I-25 in downtown ABQ should've been rebuilt around the same time as the Big-I.



DJStephens

#51
Was simply stating, that is what should have been pursued, either in conjunction with the '00-'02 big I project, or immediately afterwards.   Essentially continuing the I-25 cross - section, that was rebuilt under Indian School Rd, southwards, in a depressed alignment.   It would have been "decked" over, in the Lomas to Lead/Coal segment.   This would have allowed "green space", Park space, parking, or other uses atop the cover.   Yes am aware there would be "excess" fill, but the importance of doing this right, trumps that, imho.   Money should have been borrowed, the state fuel tax raised (which I support if the agency was shaken up) or bonds issued.  The bungling, and failure, to pursue this, then, and the subsequent spending of a Billion on "niche projects" illustrates the incompetence of the agency.   

abqtraveler

#52
Quote from: DJStephens on February 11, 2023, 11:07:05 AM
Was simply stating, that is what should have been pursued, either in conjunction with the '00-'02 big I project, or immediately afterwards.   Essentially continuing the I-25 cross - section, that was rebuilt under Indian School Rd, southwards, in a depressed alignment.   It would have been "decked" over, in the Lomas to Lead/Coal segment.   This would have allowed "green space", Park space, parking, or other uses atop the cover.   Yes am aware there would be "excess" fill, but the importance of doing this right, trumps that, imho.   Money should have been borrowed, the state fuel tax raised (which I support if the agency was shaken up) or bonds issued.  The bungling, and failure, to pursue this, then, and the subsequent spending of a Billion on "niche projects" illustrates the incompetence of the agency.
As you may or may not know, New Mexico is a "pay as you go state" when it comes to highway projects, with the caveat that general rule only applies for the portion paid for by NMDOT. For many highway projects, local jurisdictions often contribute a portion of the funding. Localities don't have the same restriction on borrowing as the state, and I've seen on multiple occasions where the City of Albuquerque or Bernalillo County will put a bond measure on the ballot for the voters to approve or disapprove the local government taking out bonds to fund its portion of the project. That was the case with the I-25/Paseo Del Norte project years ago, where the City of Albuquerque asked to voters for $50 million in bonds to cover the city's portion of the bill, which the voters overwhelmingly approved.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Rothman

Pay as you go...except federal funding is mostly by reimbursement.  I'd be half-surprised if they did not stretch the rules of "pay as you go" accordingly.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Scott5114

Quote from: abqtraveler on February 12, 2023, 12:18:31 PM
the local government taking out bongs

We finally have an explanation for New Mexico signage practices.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

abqtraveler

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 12, 2023, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 12, 2023, 12:18:31 PM
the local government taking out bongs

We finally have an explanation for New Mexico signage practices.
Sorry...fat fingers got the best of me again!
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

MattHanson939

#56
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 30, 2021, 01:03:55 AM

There have been cable barriers installed in a FEW places.  I-10 and I-25, in the las Cruces area, both feature a very narrow median, that was just gravel for decades, have had alternating single cable barriers installed.   Both the 10 and 25 ROW's have plenty of room on the outside of the mainlines, have no idea why they didn't build the las Cruces interstates in the first place with more mainline separation.   There is close to a 300' to '350 wide ROW for 25 N-S through the city, it could have been reconstructed, in stages, with a wider median and greater horizontal clearances as the original interchanges were rebuilt.  Along with conversion to ONE way frontage.   Nope - foresight, planning, what's that??   
A double cable barrier was retroactively installed on the four lane "quasi" semi-expressway US 70 segment E of 25 in more recent times.  Have to wonder, wouldn't it been about the same expense, to go with the double faced CBR in the median, instead of a fragile single or double cable barrier??  Both the 25 and US 70 cable barriers have had numerous hits, and likely full conversion to concrete double faced CBR should have been pursued, instead of constant maintenance of the cable barriers.   Regardless, if the cable barriers have at least saved one life, am in support of them.   

I-25 also has cable barriers on the stretch between Albuquerque and Santa Fe (except for the part near Santa Fe where tracks for the Rail Runner Express commuter train run in the median).  I think I-40 could use some barrier along the rural stretches in NM because of the heavy truck traffic, especially in areas where the median is less than 50 feet wide.

abqtraveler

It looks like NMDOT is finally starting to think about addressing the dreaded S-Curve on I-25 between Central Avenue and Gibson Boulevard in Albuquerque. 

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/nmdot-seeks-public-input-on-rebuilding-problematic-s-curve-on-i-25/
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

DJStephens

#58
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 16, 2023, 08:32:14 AM
It looks like NMDOT is finally starting to think about addressing the dreaded S-Curve on I-25 between Central Avenue and Gibson Boulevard in Albuquerque. 
https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/nmdot-seeks-public-input-on-rebuilding-problematic-s-curve-on-i-25/
Viewing the KKOB aerial photo, it is glaringly obvious the road needs to be straightened, and moved E in the Curve area.   Moving it away from residential properties to the W.   Yes the APS facilities need to be relocated, from the current site, and then the current structures demolished.  The cemetery to the E needs to be relocated and possibly "merged" into the cemetery on the W side.   By shifting the entire 25 eastward, in the Stadium Blvd interchange area, more open space is created to the W side of the highway.   More space for an enlarged cemetery.   There is precedence for exhumation and reburial.  The entire section - N of Lomas to Gibson needs to be trenched, straightened, and widened.   A significant length of 25 could be decked over, from Lomas, to just N of Stadium.  So obvious.   

Bobby5280

If they can do a widening and straightening project on that portion of I-25 it really needs to include inner and outer shoulders that are actually compliant with modern Interstate standards. The shoulders on the current CanAm highway really suck.

abqtraveler

Quote from: DJStephens on December 02, 2023, 12:35:59 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 16, 2023, 08:32:14 AM
It looks like NMDOT is finally starting to think about addressing the dreaded S-Curve on I-25 between Central Avenue and Gibson Boulevard in Albuquerque. 
https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/nmdot-seeks-public-input-on-rebuilding-problematic-s-curve-on-i-25/
Viewing the KKOB aerial photo, it is glaringly obvious the road needs to be straightened, and moved E in the Curve area.   Moving it away from residential properties to the W.   Yes the APS facilities need to be relocated, from the current site, and then the current structures demolished.  The cemetery to the E needs to be relocated and possibly "merged" into the cemetery on the W side.   By shifting the entire 25 eastward, in the Stadium Blvd interchange area, more open space is created to the W side of the highway.   More space for an enlarged cemetery.   There is precedence for exhumation and reburial.  The entire section - N of Lomas to Gibson needs to be trenched, straightened, and widened.   A significant length of 25 could be decked over, from Lomas, to just N of Stadium.  So obvious.
I don't think Albuquerque Public Schools would object to relocating its maintenance complex, provided that someone other than APS is paying the bill for that. While it's technically possible to relocate one of the cemeteries adjacent to the highway near the Gibson interchange, you can sure expect a fight from relatives/descendants of those buried there.  Finally, there's the South Diversion Channel that runs parallel to the freeway between Caesar Chavez and Gibson.

Perhaps a silver lining, the Motel 6 at the I-25 and Caesar Chavez, which has been a hotbed for criminal activity and drug trafficking, would likely be demolished as part of such a project.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

DJStephens

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2023, 08:52:51 PM
If they can do a widening and straightening project on that portion of I-25 it really needs to include inner and outer shoulders that are actually compliant with modern Interstate standards. The shoulders on the current CanAm highway really suck.
There are still mostly in their late fifties state.  A kind of low mountable curb, just outside the white stripe, and a narrow raised asphalt shoulder to the guardrail.  Appears barely eight feet wide.  There are little to no shoulders, inside or outside, on the elevated section just W of Presbyterian Hospital.  Antiquated.   

abqtraveler

Quote from: DJStephens on December 06, 2023, 10:07:52 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2023, 08:52:51 PM
If they can do a widening and straightening project on that portion of I-25 it really needs to include inner and outer shoulders that are actually compliant with modern Interstate standards. The shoulders on the current CanAm highway really suck.
There are still mostly in their late fifties state.  A kind of low mountable curb, just outside the white stripe, and a narrow raised asphalt shoulder to the guardrail.  Appears barely eight feet wide.  There are little to no shoulders, inside or outside, on the elevated section just W of Presbyterian Hospital.  Antiquated.
The stretch of I-25 through the S-curve between Central and Gibson is definitely pre-interstate or very early interstate-era design and doesn't meet modern standards. Looking at historicaerials.com, that stretch was built some time between 1959 and 1967. A section of I-25 between Central and the Big-I was under construction by 1959, as was the first two lanes of the freeway from Menaul Boulevard northward.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

abqtraveler

The reconstruction of I-25 between the Big-I and Jefferson, including reconfiguring the interchanges at Comanche and Montgomery will kick off in July. After the Montgomery/Comanche interchanges are done, NMDOT will shift to reconstructing the interchange at Gibson Blvd, starting in 2027.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/which-i-25-exits-expect-to-see-construction-start-in-july/
https://www.i25gibson.com/schedule
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

abqtraveler

Groundbreaking for the I-25 Montgomery/Comanche reconstruction project will be on Tuesday July 16th. This project will reconstruct and widen I-25 from the Comanche interchange to the Montgomery Interchange. The $268 million project will be completed in Spring 2027, and will include new bridges and reconfigured ramps at Comanche and Montgomery Boulevards. Also, the project will add Texas-style U-turns for the frontage roads at Montgomery and Comanche, and 4 continuous travel lanes with auxiliary lanes on the I-25 mainline.

Will go by the project site periodically to get pictures to show progress.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/i-25-improvements-between-comanche-and-montgomery-to-begin-next-month/article_77ee8012-3e23-11ef-a0af-f31b94989b2b.html
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201



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