AARoads Forum

(Disclaimer: If this needs to be moved elsewhere, let me know.)

I know this sounds like a post I wrote elsewhere, but I thought I'd give this a go.

Which eastern terminus of America's fifth-longest interstate highway looks better?

The current one (I-695 in Woodlawn.)

The former one (a park and ride lot near Baltimore.)

The one that was planned originally (I-95 in Baltimore.)

With that said, in 2014 the route was shortened only to the Beltway; if that's so, why hasn't MapQuest, Rand McNally, or Google (or any other atlas that I'm aware of) changed to reflect that? Please leave your ideas in the comments. Thanks!

I don't know what you mean by "looks the best", but in terms of pure aesthetics I'll take the flying stubs at I-95 over the ground-level park and ride. In terms of having a complete route, the same for obvious reasons.

The only freeway "teardowns" that I can generally countenance are the removal of freeway connector stubs that will never be used; the I-70 stubs at I-95 are a prime example of such.  I'd cast my vote for the I-695 interchange as the best of this particular "bad lot" (a quick trip to Fictional will indicate what I would consider a better I-70 "fate" -- a repurposing/west extension of the MD 32 corridor, with I-70 crossing/interchanging with I-95 and terminating at I-97; present route then I-170).

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 14, 2018, 02:12:24 AM
With that said, in 2014 the route was shortened only to the Beltway; if that's so, why hasn't MapQuest, Rand McNally, or Google (or any other atlas that I'm aware of) changed to reflect that?

Maryland's DOT got AASHTO approval in 2014 to truncate I-70 to I-695. But, as has been noted in other threads (including one similar to this one, which I can't find at the moment), there is some unclarity about whether the DOT has (yet) carried out the truncation.

Quote from: oscar on January 14, 2018, 09:14:58 AM

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 14, 2018, 02:12:24 AM
With that said, in 2014 the route was shortened only to the Beltway; if that's so, why hasn't MapQuest, Rand McNally, or Google (or any other atlas that I'm aware of) changed to reflect that?

Maryland's DOT got AASHTO approval in 2014 to truncate I-70 to I-695. But, as has been noted in other threads (including one similar to this one, which I can't find at the moment), there is some unclarity about whether the DOT has (yet) carried out the truncation.

According to the 2017 HLR for Baltimore County [1], I-70 has not been truncated by MDOT SHA.

[1] - http://www.roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/2016%20Baltimore_HLR_web.pdf

They haven't.  In no small part because part of the reason for the truncation was to use some of the ROW for the then-planned Red Line, which Governor Hogan subsequently cancelled when he came into office.

I would route I-70 sound along I-695 and have it end at I-95. It would give I-70 a proper ending at 2di, but don't a 2di have to end at another 2di, does it?

Quote from: Strider on January 16, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
I would route I-70 sound along I-695 and have it end at I-95. It would give I-70 a proper ending at 2di, but don't a 2di have to end at another 2di, does it?

Not every 2di has to end at another 2di. See the north end of I-79, both ends of I-97, the west end of I-10, the west end of I-26, the west end of I-96, the west end of I-72, the east end of I-78, and others.

Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2018, 08:02:54 PM

Quote from: Strider on January 16, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
I would route I-70 sound along I-695 and have it end at I-95. It would give I-70 a proper ending at 2di, but don't a 2di have to end at another 2di, does it?

Not every 2di has to end at another 2di. See the north end of I-79, both ends of I-97, the west end of I-10, the west end of I-26, the west end of I-96, the west end of I-72, the east end of I-78, and others.

Just saying, they could have routed it along the beltway, one way or another. I mean, could they have done anything differently in regards to planning, construction, etc?

I thought I-70 always ended at I-695. Eric Stuve had pictures from his roadtrip around 2002 or 2003 showing signage that confirmed that. As far as a know the little stub to the park and ride was never signed I-70 east from I-695 it's just it was planned to be part of I-70 before the section to I-95 was cancelled.

Quote from: dvferyance on January 16, 2018, 09:34:50 PM
I thought I-70 always ended at I-695. Eric Stuve had pictures from his roadtrip around 2002 or 2003 showing signage that confirmed that. As far as a know the little stub to the park and ride was never signed I-70 east from I-695 it's just it was planned to be part of I-70 before the section to I-95 was cancelled.

You're referring to this one.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3069827,-76.7808683,3a,18.3y,119.51h,91.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLUMOX5enikJT9jUrGwSCaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Quote from: abc2VE on January 16, 2018, 09:45:34 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on January 16, 2018, 09:34:50 PM
I thought I-70 always ended at I-695. Eric Stuve had pictures from his roadtrip around 2002 or 2003 showing signage that confirmed that. As far as a know the little stub to the park and ride was never signed I-70 east from I-695 it's just it was planned to be part of I-70 before the section to I-95 was cancelled.

You're referring to this one.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3069827,-76.7808683,3a,18.3y,119.51h,91.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLUMOX5enikJT9jUrGwSCaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Yep I know that sign has been there for at least 15 years.

Quote from: dvferyance on January 16, 2018, 09:46:41 PM

Quote from: abc2VE on January 16, 2018, 09:45:34 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on January 16, 2018, 09:34:50 PM
I thought I-70 always ended at I-695. Eric Stuve had pictures from his roadtrip around 2002 or 2003 showing signage that confirmed that. As far as a know the little stub to the park and ride was never signed I-70 east from I-695 it's just it was planned to be part of I-70 before the section to I-95 was cancelled.

You're referring to this one.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3069827,-76.7808683,3a,18.3y,119.51h,91.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLUMOX5enikJT9jUrGwSCaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Yep I know that sign has been there for at least 15 years.

And like only three years ago were the authorities there planning to make it official...

Quote from: dvferyance on January 16, 2018, 09:34:50 PM
I thought I-70 always ended at I-695. Eric Stuve had pictures from his roadtrip around 2002 or 2003 showing signage that confirmed that. As far as a know the little stub to the park and ride was never signed I-70 east from I-695 it's just it was planned to be part of I-70 before the section to I-95 was cancelled.

The Maryland Department of Transportation/State Highway Administration's Highway Location Reference (http://www.roads.maryland.gov/index.aspx?PageId=832), not signs on the highways, is canon on such things.

Looks pretty well signed to me (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3169777,-76.7448162,3a,60y,185.48h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSQ-0NvhCd-5TLbWuDRX98Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)...

Regarding the sign Dave posted, I am of the viewpoint that SHA posted that to guide through/non-local traffic to the Baltimore Beltway so as to avoid their getting confused when they reached Cooks Ln and the park-and-ride at the end of 70.

Of course, had Governor Hogan not cancelled the Red Line, it would be a moot point because 70 was to be de-designated inside 695 and rebuilt to accommodate the rail line.

Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2018, 08:02:54 PM

Quote from: Strider on January 16, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
I would route I-70 sound along I-695 and have it end at I-95. It would give I-70 a proper ending at 2di, but don't a 2di have to end at another 2di, does it?

Not every 2di has to end at another 2di. See the north end of I-79, both ends of I-97, the west end of I-10, the west end of I-26, the west end of I-96, the west end of I-72, the east end of I-78, and others.

Such as the east end of I-55, the east end of I-66...

Current

It just seems obvious, without building it to I-95. The remainder to the park and ride is moved just to the east of the interchange, and has a roundabout style to it.

Found this discussion about I-70 in Baltimore. Thought it's worth a look.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/baltimore/2389720-should-i-70-extended-into-baltimore.html

Quote from: theroadwayone on February 16, 2018, 06:44:32 PM
Found this discussion about I-70 in Baltimore. Thought it's worth a look.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/baltimore/2389720-should-i-70-extended-into-baltimore.html

This thread sums up many of my thoughts on the incompletion of I-70. As Scott Kozel once stated on MTR, I have very mixed feelings about the cancellation of I-70 inside the city line. I really do wonder if Scott's musings about the resurgence of industrial and commercial business in West Baltimore that a link to I-70 would in fact come true if that link existed.

I also find the perspective written by Earl Swift in "The Big Roads"  to be pertinent to this discussion.

Quote from: TheOneKEA on February 16, 2018, 09:48:48 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on February 16, 2018, 06:44:32 PM
Found this discussion about I-70 in Baltimore. Thought it's worth a look.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/baltimore/2389720-should-i-70-extended-into-baltimore.html

This thread sums up many of my thoughts on the incompletion of I-70. As Scott Kozel once stated on MTR, I have very mixed feelings about the cancellation of I-70 inside the city line. I really do wonder if Scott's musings about the resurgence of industrial and commercial business in West Baltimore that a link to I-70 would in fact come true if that link existed.

I also find the perspective written by Earl Swift in "The Big Roads"  to be pertinent to this discussion.

Same here. If there's one thing to be learned from this, it's that no freeway, regardless of designation, deserves to end in a parking lot (except for anything thought up by FritzOwl.) Donate to Stop Freeway Termini in Parking Lots today.

Quote from: TheOneKEA on February 16, 2018, 09:48:48 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on February 16, 2018, 06:44:32 PM
Found this discussion about I-70 in Baltimore. Thought it's worth a look.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/baltimore/2389720-should-i-70-extended-into-baltimore.html

This thread sums up many of my thoughts on the incompletion of I-70. As Scott Kozel once stated on MTR, I have very mixed feelings about the cancellation of I-70 inside the city line. I really do wonder if Scott's musings about the resurgence of industrial and commercial business in West Baltimore that a link to I-70 would in fact come true if that link existed.

I also find the perspective written by Earl Swift in "The Big Roads"  to be pertinent to this discussion.

Found that - Big Roads by Earl Swift in a local used bookstore.  A fairly in depth sub-plot about the difficulties in getting Baltimore's expressways finished.   Frank Turner was quite in-stringent about routing I-70 through Rosemont, instead of looking at alternatives.    Rosemont was at the time - fifties/sixties, a well established Black community in West Baltimore.  Options existed to go around it, or skirt it to the south.  If one of those options had been pursued - I-70 would likely have gone all the way in to I-95 in the southern industrial area.   The delays enabled the opposition to gel and prevent a good part of the road to not be built - aside from the I-170 trench.  In hindsight - the area and neighborhoods decayed anyway, without much of the freeway.   

Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2018, 08:02:54 PM

Quote from: Strider on January 16, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
I would route I-70 sound along I-695 and have it end at I-95. It would give I-70 a proper ending at 2di, but don't a 2di have to end at another 2di, does it?

Not every 2di has to end at another 2di.

Please tell that to NCDOT (see useless I-87/I-440 overlap).

While I would've loved to see I-70 completed to I-95 as planned, in reality there's just no good path that can be taken without ruining the park first (or the neighborhoods immediately bordering it). As it is, the planners should've made more modifications to the route so that it would take out less parkland but leave the neighborhoods intact, which was damn near impossible even back then. However, I think it was a good call building I-170 below grade, because a viaduct would be even more damaging to the surrounding areas that were declining anyway.

Then again, I-95 was supposed to have gone completely through DC at one point, and look how that turned out. Exact same situation as I-70, but through far more built-up areas.

Personally, I'd like to see Interstate 70 be connected with the US 40 freeway via a tunnel (with a tunnel spur to Interstate 95, although I don't know how much of the park, and/or homes and businesses would have to be destroyed to make that a reality.

Quote from: LM117 on June 03, 2019, 10:28:20 AM

Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2018, 08:02:54 PM

Quote from: Strider on January 16, 2018, 07:55:36 PM
I would route I-70 sound along I-695 and have it end at I-95. It would give I-70 a proper ending at 2di, but don't a 2di have to end at another 2di, does it?

Not every 2di has to end at another 2di.

Please tell that to NCDOT (see useless I-87/I-440 overlap).

Mississippi decided to end I-22 at I-269, while North Carolina decided to extend I-87 along I-440 to meet I-40. Both decisions got their shares of cheers and boos on the Forum. Ultimately these decisions should turn on what's most helpful for motorists. In the Baltimore case, I'm not sure it would be helpful to extend I-70 in either direction along I-695.

I think I-70 should be extended southeast along 695 and 97 to Annapolis, then (granted, this part is purely hypothetical) go over the bridge and follow a new/upgraded 50 freeway to Ocean City.  At least, that's a fantasy of mine. It would eliminate 97, which is wasted on that short stretch of freeway, and make 70 a bit more useful.

I-95 could mostly be completed through DC thanks to the revamp of the 695/295 interchange.  All that would be needed would be a couple of higher powered ramps at the 95/495/BW Parkway interchange (and turning the parkway over to SHA, of course).  Not that I expect that to happen, but its another fantasy of mine.  I would still sign the beltway as being the way for thru traffic to go (Richmond/Baltimore control cities, with I-95 going inside the beltway signed exclusively for Washington). This would have the advantage of eliminating DC 295 and I-695 in DC, with I-395 relegated to the center leg.

Personally, this is getting into Fictional territory, but I wouldn't bring I-70 to Baltimore at all. I'd run it along I-76 to Philadelphia (and Atlantic City) with I-76 truncated to New Stanton. At the same time, I-68 would be extended to Baltimore, with the Breezewood stub becoming a 3di (say I-568). All x70's in Maryland become x68's.

As for the ending of what would become I-68, I'd run it around I-695 to meet I-95.

Park and Ride as a terminus for an Interstate? Yea...

Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 10, 2019, 10:45:11 PM
Personally, this is getting into Fictional territory, but I wouldn't bring I-70 to Baltimore at all. I'd run it along I-76 to Philadelphia (and Atlantic City) with I-76 truncated to New Stanton. At the same time, I-68 would be extended to Baltimore, with the Breezewood stub becoming a 3di (say I-568). All x70's in Maryland become x68's.

As for the ending of what would become I-68, I'd run it around I-695 to meet I-95.

Ah, I like your plan, as long as that incorporates my extension to Annapolis (theoretically Ocean City)

Quote from: famartin on June 10, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
I think I-70 should be extended southeast along 695 and 97 to Annapolis, then (granted, this part is purely hypothetical) go over the bridge and follow a new/upgraded 50 freeway to Ocean City.  At least, that's a fantasy of mine. It would eliminate 97, which is wasted on that short stretch of freeway, and make 70 a bit more useful.

I-95 could mostly be completed through DC thanks to the revamp of the 695/295 interchange.  All that would be needed would be a couple of higher powered ramps at the 95/495/BW Parkway interchange (and turning the parkway over to SHA, of course).  Not that I expect that to happen, but its another fantasy of mine.  I would still sign the beltway as being the way for thru traffic to go (Richmond/Baltimore control cities, with I-95 going inside the beltway signed exclusively for Washington). This would have the advantage of eliminating DC 295 and I-695 in DC, with I-395 relegated to the center leg.

Given that DC 295 already has a fair amount of through traffic due to GPS, I'm guessing making it I-95 would only encourage more people to go that way, even if signs directed traffic otherwise.  And, of course, I-95 would still be on the beltway for a short portion.

Quote from: vdeane on June 11, 2019, 09:09:05 PM

Quote from: famartin on June 10, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
I think I-70 should be extended southeast along 695 and 97 to Annapolis, then (granted, this part is purely hypothetical) go over the bridge and follow a new/upgraded 50 freeway to Ocean City.  At least, that's a fantasy of mine. It would eliminate 97, which is wasted on that short stretch of freeway, and make 70 a bit more useful.

I-95 could mostly be completed through DC thanks to the revamp of the 695/295 interchange.  All that would be needed would be a couple of higher powered ramps at the 95/495/BW Parkway interchange (and turning the parkway over to SHA, of course).  Not that I expect that to happen, but its another fantasy of mine.  I would still sign the beltway as being the way for thru traffic to go (Richmond/Baltimore control cities, with I-95 going inside the beltway signed exclusively for Washington). This would have the advantage of eliminating DC 295 and I-695 in DC, with I-395 relegated to the center leg.

Given that DC 295 already has a fair amount of through traffic due to GPS, I'm guessing making it I-95 would only encourage more people to go that way, even if signs directed traffic otherwise.  And, of course, I-95 would still be on the beltway for a short portion.

It would indeed still join the beltway for a short stretch, no easy way around it. But it would still, if nothing else, make navigating much easier by eliminating two unnecessary route numbers and truncating a third. Given that GPS issue of thru traffic going thru downtown, it probably matters not. I personally would just follow the fastest route no matter what.

It might be an option if the majority of DC were ever given back to Maryland; the rest of I-395 could become I-995 and that would solve the duplicated number problem if that were to happen.  But even if it were, I can't imagine non-roadgeeks wanting to do the work necessary just to eliminate some duplicated 3dis.

Quote from: famartin on June 11, 2019, 09:13:41 PM

Quote from: vdeane on June 11, 2019, 09:09:05 PM

Quote from: famartin on June 10, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
I think I-70 should be extended southeast along 695 and 97 to Annapolis, then (granted, this part is purely hypothetical) go over the bridge and follow a new/upgraded 50 freeway to Ocean City.  At least, that's a fantasy of mine. It would eliminate 97, which is wasted on that short stretch of freeway, and make 70 a bit more useful.

I-95 could mostly be completed through DC thanks to the revamp of the 695/295 interchange.  All that would be needed would be a couple of higher powered ramps at the 95/495/BW Parkway interchange (and turning the parkway over to SHA, of course).  Not that I expect that to happen, but its another fantasy of mine.  I would still sign the beltway as being the way for thru traffic to go (Richmond/Baltimore control cities, with I-95 going inside the beltway signed exclusively for Washington). This would have the advantage of eliminating DC 295 and I-695 in DC, with I-395 relegated to the center leg.

Given that DC 295 already has a fair amount of through traffic due to GPS, I'm guessing making it I-95 would only encourage more people to go that way, even if signs directed traffic otherwise.  And, of course, I-95 would still be on the beltway for a short portion.

It would indeed still join the beltway for a short stretch, no easy way around it. But it would still, if nothing else, make navigating much easier by eliminating two unnecessary route numbers and truncating a third. Given that GPS issue of thru traffic going thru downtown, it probably matters not. I personally would just follow the fastest route no matter what.

Of course there's a way around it, now that the ramps from 695 to 295 have been built. But Fictional Highways plz.

http://www.google.com/maps/@39.300332,-76.7122861,3a,19y,239.73h,88.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1imerBv7YhNx2xupgN7C1A!2e0!5s20120401T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Quote from: Alps on June 11, 2019, 09:48:16 PM

Quote from: famartin on June 11, 2019, 09:13:41 PM

Quote from: vdeane on June 11, 2019, 09:09:05 PM

Quote from: famartin on June 10, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
I think I-70 should be extended southeast along 695 and 97 to Annapolis, then (granted, this part is purely hypothetical) go over the bridge and follow a new/upgraded 50 freeway to Ocean City.  At least, that's a fantasy of mine. It would eliminate 97, which is wasted on that short stretch of freeway, and make 70 a bit more useful.

I-95 could mostly be completed through DC thanks to the revamp of the 695/295 interchange.  All that would be needed would be a couple of higher powered ramps at the 95/495/BW Parkway interchange (and turning the parkway over to SHA, of course).  Not that I expect that to happen, but its another fantasy of mine.  I would still sign the beltway as being the way for thru traffic to go (Richmond/Baltimore control cities, with I-95 going inside the beltway signed exclusively for Washington). This would have the advantage of eliminating DC 295 and I-695 in DC, with I-395 relegated to the center leg.

Given that DC 295 already has a fair amount of through traffic due to GPS, I'm guessing making it I-95 would only encourage more people to go that way, even if signs directed traffic otherwise.  And, of course, I-95 would still be on the beltway for a short portion.

It would indeed still join the beltway for a short stretch, no easy way around it. But it would still, if nothing else, make navigating much easier by eliminating two unnecessary route numbers and truncating a third. Given that GPS issue of thru traffic going thru downtown, it probably matters not. I personally would just follow the fastest route no matter what.

Of course there's a way around it, now that the ramps from 695 to 295 have been built. But Fictional Highways plz.

Those ramps don't help you avoid the section north of the BW Parkway

This is somewhat related to I-70, but thanks to a new federal program, many urban freeways will be a thing of the past, such as the old I-170:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/08/14/federal-program-would-help-cities-tear-down-highways/

And here's a closer look at the Highway to Nowhere, its effect on the blighted areas and what the future holds for it:

http://baltimorefuture.blogspot.com/2007/02/i-170-scar-from-dark-past.html

Quote from: Henry on August 22, 2019, 10:09:36 AM
This is somewhat related to I-70, but thanks to a new federal program, many urban freeways will be a thing of the past, such as the old I-170:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/08/14/federal-program-would-help-cities-tear-down-highways/

Here's the actual bill (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116hr4101ih/pdf/BILLS-116hr4101ih.pdf) nested in the above-link.  Scroll down to SEC. 144 CONNECT COMMUNITIES PROGRAM.

Given the listed July 30, 2019 date of H.R. 4101, the current status (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4101) of such is that the bill was introduced in the House.  It hasn't been yet voted on for approval.  Such still needs to clear the Senate as well as the entire House before such is signed into law by the President.

Long story short; such is not a done-deal yet.

It won't be voted on this month. Congress is off until September 9.

It should have went through Baltimore and connect to I-95! If it did, it would be fun!

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 23, 2019, 01:27:18 AM
It should have went through Baltimore and connect to I-95! If it did, it would be fun!

Well, we'll never know that now, because of its truncation to I-695 and the partial destruction of I-170. I will reiterate that there really was no good alternative for its alignment as it would've headed directly through the park, no matter how much it was refined.

Quote from: famartin on June 10, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
I think I-70 should be extended southeast along 695 and 97 to Annapolis, then (granted, this part is purely hypothetical) go over the bridge and follow a new/upgraded 50 freeway to Ocean City.  At least, that's a fantasy of mine. It would eliminate 97, which is wasted on that short stretch of freeway, and make 70 a bit more useful.

Even better, I'd reroute I-83 to follow I-695 west around Baltimore and replace I-97 to Annapolis (existing I-83 'in' from I-695 to become I-183?).  The I-70/(83)/695 interchange should also be re-engineered from its obsolete 'stack' to a directional 'T' to provide a fitting and proper end for I-70.  Include whatever ramp braiding is needed to fully integrate this with I-95, too.

:nod:

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2019, 11:06:17 AM

Quote from: famartin on June 10, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
I think I-70 should be extended southeast along 695 and 97 to Annapolis, then (granted, this part is purely hypothetical) go over the bridge and follow a new/upgraded 50 freeway to Ocean City.  At least, that's a fantasy of mine. It would eliminate 97, which is wasted on that short stretch of freeway, and make 70 a bit more useful.

Even better, I'd reroute I-83 to follow I-695 west around Baltimore and replace I-97 to Annapolis (existing I-83 'in' from I-695 to become I-183?).  The I-70/(83)/695 interchange should also be re-engineered from its obsolete 'stack' to a directional 'T' to provide a fitting and proper end for I-70.  Include whatever ramp braiding is needed to fully integrate this with I-95, too.

:nod:

Mike

I actually dislike that idea because
A) 83 would have a weird loop westward
B) it doesn't leave the option of extension to OC

Though yes, the current 70/695 interchange is inadequate and needs replacement.

I wonder if, eventually, the Security Blvd. interchange might be downgraded into a signaled intersection? The existing interchange seems to take up a lot of right-of-way that the city or county might want to redevelop.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2019, 06:08:48 PM
I wonder if, eventually, the Security Blvd. interchange might be downgraded into a signaled intersection? The existing interchange seems to take up a lot of right-of-way that the city or county might want to redevelop.

Not until it's time to replace those overpasses.

Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2019, 02:10:47 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2019, 11:06:17 AM

Quote from: famartin on June 10, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
I think I-70 should be extended southeast along 695 and 97 to Annapolis, then (granted, this part is purely hypothetical) go over the bridge and follow a new/upgraded 50 freeway to Ocean City.  At least, that's a fantasy of mine. It would eliminate 97, which is wasted on that short stretch of freeway, and make 70 a bit more useful.

Even better, I'd reroute I-83 to follow I-695 west around Baltimore and replace I-97 to Annapolis (existing I-83 'in' from I-695 to become I-183?).  The I-70/(83)/695 interchange should also be re-engineered from its obsolete 'stack' to a directional 'T' to provide a fitting and proper end for I-70.  Include whatever ramp braiding is needed to fully integrate this with I-95, too.

:nod:

Mike

I actually dislike that idea because
A) 83 would have a weird loop westward
B) it doesn't leave the option of extension to OC

Though yes, the current 70/695 interchange is inadequate and needs replacement.

Well, the current route of I-83 has it dead-ending in the middle of downtown, and thanks to its own cancellation south and east of there, it will never connect to I-95 either. To me, the western loop around makes a lot more sense than trying to plow it straight through the city, what with the harbor and a few buildings standing in the way.

Speaking of I-95, it has that weird eastern loop around DC, but that was needed because its intended path through the city was cancelled, so I don't mind it being there at all. However, taking that path is four miles longer than I-495's solo route to the west (34 vs. 30).

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2019, 06:08:48 PM
I wonder if, eventually, the Security Blvd. interchange might be downgraded into a signaled intersection? The existing interchange seems to take up a lot of right-of-way that the city or county might want to redevelop.

IIRC, that was the plan in conjunction with the Red Line, which would also create a surface boulevard on top of I-70's planned alignment. Sure, the Red Line is dead for now, but I still think the boulevard should be built anyway.

Quote from: Henry on August 25, 2019, 10:22:54 PM

Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2019, 02:10:47 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2019, 11:06:17 AM

Quote from: famartin on June 10, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
I think I-70 should be extended southeast along 695 and 97 to Annapolis, then (granted, this part is purely hypothetical) go over the bridge and follow a new/upgraded 50 freeway to Ocean City.  At least, that's a fantasy of mine. It would eliminate 97, which is wasted on that short stretch of freeway, and make 70 a bit more useful.

Even better, I'd reroute I-83 to follow I-695 west around Baltimore and replace I-97 to Annapolis (existing I-83 'in' from I-695 to become I-183?).  The I-70/(83)/695 interchange should also be re-engineered from its obsolete 'stack' to a directional 'T' to provide a fitting and proper end for I-70.  Include whatever ramp braiding is needed to fully integrate this with I-95, too.

:nod:

Mike

I actually dislike that idea because
A) 83 would have a weird loop westward
B) it doesn't leave the option of extension to OC

Though yes, the current 70/695 interchange is inadequate and needs replacement.

Well, the current route of I-83 has it dead-ending in the middle of downtown, and thanks to its own cancellation south and east of there, it will never connect to I-95 either. To me, the western loop around makes a lot more sense than trying to plow it straight through the city, what with the harbor and a few buildings standing in the way.

Speaking of I-95, it has that weird eastern loop around DC, but that was needed because its intended path through the city was cancelled, so I don't mind it being there at all. However, taking that path is four miles longer than I-495's solo route to the west (34 vs. 30).

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2019, 06:08:48 PM
I wonder if, eventually, the Security Blvd. interchange might be downgraded into a signaled intersection? The existing interchange seems to take up a lot of right-of-way that the city or county might want to redevelop.

IIRC, that was the plan in conjunction with the Red Line, which would also create a surface boulevard on top of I-70's planned alignment. Sure, the Red Line is dead for now, but I still think the boulevard should be built anyway.

For I-83, if we HAD to adjust its ending to something "more appropriate" without building more (though really, I think it could probably be done without major destruction of historical properties, but not without a whole lot of cash) would be to send it east along I-695 to end at I95.

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but another way to free up some route numbers and decrease driver confusion would be to send I-95 thru DC via 395/695/DC295/BW Parkway (obviously some relatively minor modifications would be required to DC 295 and the BW Parkway (shoulder widening), and ideally a fly-over ramp from the NB Parkway to the NB Beltway). This was hard before the major reconstruction of the I-295/DC 295/I-695 interchange, but now that its done, the remaining work seems minor by comparison. Of course, NPS would have to turn over the BW Parkway portion inside the Beltway...  Thanks to the reconstruction of the Springfield interchange, thru traffic would likely continue to use 495 to bypass downtown (much like it does around Wilmington).

The topside of the Beltway west of I-95 is likely a reason (and a good one) to keep thru traffic following the eastern side, but theoretically, either way works depending on traffic.  I'd guess that traffic usually favors the east side, though.  The biggest current deficiency for thru traffic following either direction on the beltway is the ramp from 495 EB to I-95 NB in College Park, which remains close to its original alignment.  Some improved geometry and an extra lane (plus full right shoulder) between MD 650 and I-95 would help here.

Quote from: famartin on August 25, 2019, 11:14:00 PM
For I-83, if we HAD to adjust its ending to something "more appropriate" without building more (though really, I think it could probably be done without major destruction of historical properties, but not without a whole lot of cash) would be to send it east along I-695 to end at I95.

That would create an unnecessary multiplex between I-83 and I-695 - plus then, what would you renumber the former I-83 south of I-695?  The oft-suggested I-183 doesn't work anymore since it won't connect with I-83 anymore.

I-83 is fine as it is.  Yes, it never connected with I-95 like was planned.  Doubt it will ever happen in the future.

Quote from: dlsterner on August 25, 2019, 11:25:59 PM

Quote from: famartin on August 25, 2019, 11:14:00 PM
For I-83, if we HAD to adjust its ending to something "more appropriate" without building more (though really, I think it could probably be done without major destruction of historical properties, but not without a whole lot of cash) would be to send it east along I-695 to end at I95.

That would create an unnecessary multiplex between I-83 and I-695 - plus then, what would you renumber the former I-83 south of I-695?  The oft-suggested I-183 doesn't work anymore since it won't connect with I-83 anymore.

I-83 is fine as it is.  Yes, it never connected with I-95 like was planned.  Doubt it will ever happen in the future.

I don't disagree with leaving 83 alone. Just playing devils advocate with his suggestion. Regarding your comment, you could A) live with it (not like there isn't already one) or decommission 695 over that stretch (and over my suggested 70 routing, creating a couple new I's (plenty of x70s and x83s available)

Another idea (since we're doing this anyway): swap 70 and 270, extend 83 down via 97 and extend 70 via 595 and 50

Quote from: famartin on August 25, 2019, 11:43:59 PM
Another idea (since we're doing this anyway): swap 70 and 270, extend 83 down via 97 and extend 70 via 595 and 50

I could only see 70 ending at the Capital Beltway, as that would follow the historical route of the Washington National Road, which connected with the extended National Road (which originally had its eastern terminus at Cumberland, hence the name "Cumberland Road" ) at Frederick (where 70 and 270 have their junction). How would extending 70 via 595 and 50 work? That's more or less 66 territory there (OTOH, extending 66 into West Virginia via 50 west of 81 may work, but it may also be more or less of a pipe dream), and please stop bringing up decommissioning 695 around Baltimore, as that is a pet peeve of mine and others on this forum. 83 could stand to be truncated to the Baltimore Beltway, however.

Quote from: famartin on August 25, 2019, 11:14:00 PM
I've mentioned it elsewhere, but another way to free up some route numbers and decrease driver confusion would be to send I-95 thru DC via 395/695/DC295/BW Parkway (obviously some relatively minor modifications considerable reconstruction would be required to DC 295 between East Capitol and 50.

FTFY.  In particular, the interchange at Braddock would effectively have to be blown up and redone from the sub-ground up at a level comparable to what was done on the 11th St Bridge project.

QuoteThe topside of the Beltway west of I-95 is likely a reason (and a good one) to keep thru traffic following the eastern side, but theoretically, either way works depending on traffic.

Both that and the Legion Bridge.  The Beltway through MoCo bogs down considerably more often (and for longer periods) than through PGC.

Let's move back into nonfiction, plz

Quote from: famartin on August 25, 2019, 11:14:00 PM
I've mentioned it elsewhere, but another way to free up some route numbers and decrease driver confusion would be to send I-95 thru DC via 395/695/DC295/BW Parkway (obviously some relatively minor modifications considerable reconstruction would be required to DC 295 between East Capitol and 50.

That was the original plan.

^ No it wasn't.  The "original plan" was for I-95 to follow the "Northeast Freeway", basically extending the 3rd St tunnel parallel to New York Ave to near today's Amtrak yards, then north along the B&O corridor (today's CSX tracks and Metrorail Red Line) to at least Fort Totten.  There were two options going northeastward from Fort Totten to the I-95/Beltway interchange.

Due to opposition from the Northeast Freeway plan (especially in Takoma Park), an alternative was considered that would have utilized the then-proposed "New York Industrial Freeway" (basically parallel to New York Ave all the way to the BW Pkwy), then turn north along an upgrade of the BW Pkwy to the Beltway.  But this was also dropped.

At no point was I-95 ever proposed or considered along what is now DC 295.

Considering how deep 95 penetrated Washington, it was a major blunder it was not finished.  Obviously it should have been trenched, and or cut and covered as much as possible.   

Quote from: DJStephens on September 15, 2019, 01:14:23 AM
Considering how deep 95 penetrated Washington, it was a major blunder it was not finished.  Obviously it should have been trenched, and or cut and covered as much as possible.

While I think 95 could have and should have been completed, the ultimate design they were going to follow was going to be grossly underpowered, in the end. At least as far as a mainline 2-di interstate.  Philly and Baltimore, for all their faults, at least built I-95 correctly in that they are 3-4 lanes with good geometry throughout.  Imagine I-95 snaking through DC going from the SW Freeway into the 3rd Street Tunnel, the way I-395 does now!  It probably wouldn't have worked well. 

Quote from: famartin on September 15, 2019, 01:33:42 AM
While I think 95 could have and should have been completed, the ultimate design they were going to follow was going to be grossly underpowered, in the end. At least as far as a mainline 2-di interstate.  Philly and Baltimore, for all their faults, at least built I-95 correctly in that they are 3-4 lanes with good geometry throughout.  Imagine I-95 snaking through DC going from the SW Freeway into the 3rd Street Tunnel, the way I-395 does now!  It probably wouldn't have worked well. 

I-95 in D.C. would have effectively been at least 4 lanes each way.

Those 2 lane ramps would have been augmented by the whole Inner Loop concept, which would have included a I-295 east loop providing additional capacity to the I-95 route.

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 12:13:58 AM

Quote from: famartin on September 15, 2019, 01:33:42 AM
While I think 95 could have and should have been completed, the ultimate design they were going to follow was going to be grossly underpowered, in the end. At least as far as a mainline 2-di interstate.  Philly and Baltimore, for all their faults, at least built I-95 correctly in that they are 3-4 lanes with good geometry throughout.  Imagine I-95 snaking through DC going from the SW Freeway into the 3rd Street Tunnel, the way I-395 does now!  It probably wouldn't have worked well. 

I-95 in D.C. would have effectively been at least 4 lanes each way.

Those 2 lane ramps would have been augmented by the whole Inner Loop concept, which would have included a I-295 east loop providing additional capacity to the I-95 route.

Overturning rigs at the 3rdStTun//SE/SWFwy connection would've been a fortnightly event.

ixnay

Quote from: kevinb1994 on August 26, 2019, 06:17:57 AM
[P]lease stop bringing up decommissioning 695 around Baltimore, as that is a pet peeve of mine and others on this forum.

Probably a pet peeve of (the recently retired from WTOP) Bob Marbourg too, if he vists this site, who sometimes called the Baltimore Beltway "the real 695". 

If there is a road numbering that says "Baltimore", it's Interstate 695 as applied to that city's beltway.  IMO.

ixnay

Quote from: ixnay on September 17, 2019, 05:07:30 PM

Quote from: kevinb1994 on August 26, 2019, 06:17:57 AM
[P]lease stop bringing up decommissioning 695 around Baltimore, as that is a pet peeve of mine and others on this forum.

Probably a pet peeve of (the recently retired from WTOP) Bob Marbourg too, if he vists this site, who sometimes called the Baltimore Beltway "the real 695". 

If there is a road numbering that says "Baltimore", it's Interstate 695 as applied to that city's beltway.  IMO.

I agree.  Maryland's I-695 is a real Beltway, and is easily the longest (by far) of the I-695's at about 51 centerline miles.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 17, 2019, 10:04:24 PM
Maryland's I-695 is a real Beltway, and is easily the longest (by far) of the I-695's at about 51 centerline miles.

Just three --

Interstate 695 (District of Columbia), a partially built connector in Washington, D.C.
Interstate 695 (Maryland), a beltway around Baltimore, Maryland
Interstate 695 (New York), a short connector in Bronx County, New York

I assume Interstate 695's current sequential exits will remain the same for all time. Given the beltway is 51 miles long, and the exits go from 1-44, that's probably why they left the Baltimore Beltways exit numbers untouched while the rest of the state is mileage-based.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 18, 2019, 02:11:47 PM
I assume Interstate 695's current sequential exits will remain the same for all time. Given the beltway is 51 miles long, and the exits go from 1-44, that's probably why they left the Baltimore Beltways exit numbers untouched while the rest of the state is mileage-based.

Plus, most of the exits on the northern side of the Beltway match the mile markers, so that might be another good reason to leave them as they are.

Quote from: ixnay on September 17, 2019, 05:07:30 PMProbably a pet peeve of (the recently retired from WTOP) Bob Marbourg too, if he vists this site, who sometimes called the Baltimore Beltway "the real 695". 
ixnay

He has a point, as the DC version of I-695 was unsigned for many years until the 11th Street Bridges and the major overhaul of the I-295/DC 295 interchange occurred.

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 11:29:28 PM
Just three --

Interstate 695 (District of Columbia), a partially built connector in Washington, D.C.
Interstate 695 (Maryland), a beltway around Baltimore, Maryland
Interstate 695 (New York), a short connector in Bronx County, New York

And there are lots of cancelled I-695s, the most notable examples including a downtown loop in Boston, a connector/loop in Philadelphia, and another connector off the north end of the Somerset Freeway in suburban NJ.

Quote from: DJStephens on June 02, 2019, 01:21:58 PM
The delays enabled the opposition to gel and prevent a good part of the road to not be built - aside from the I-170 trench.  In hindsight - the area and neighborhoods decayed anyway, without much of the freeway.   

Much like the never-built Cross Brooklyn Expressway and Williamsburg Expressway in Brooklyn, which is further proof that the alleged connection between highway improvements and neighborhood decline is strictly bogus.

BTW. if ending it at the originally planned terminus wouldn't be an option, I'd settle for the formerly proposed I-170 to the Baltimore Travel Plaza at Exit 57. And yes overlap I-83 with it too.

Quote from: Henry on September 19, 2019, 10:28:10 AM

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 11:29:28 PM
Just three --
Interstate 695 (District of Columbia), a partially built connector in Washington, D.C.
Interstate 695 (Maryland), a beltway around Baltimore, Maryland
Interstate 695 (New York), a short connector in Bronx County, New York

And there are lots of cancelled I-695s, the most notable examples including a downtown loop in Boston, a connector/loop in Philadelphia, and another connector off the north end of the Somerset Freeway in suburban NJ.

Those are the only canceled I-695 routes.

One that I hope gets added is the VA-288 western and southern Richmond beltway which is built to Interstate standards.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 19, 2019, 02:03:04 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on June 02, 2019, 01:21:58 PM
The delays enabled the opposition to gel and prevent a good part of the road to not be built - aside from the I-170 trench.  In hindsight - the area and neighborhoods decayed anyway, without much of the freeway.   

Much like the never-built Cross Brooklyn Expressway and Williamsburg Expressway in Brooklyn, which is further proof that the alleged connection between highway improvements and neighborhood decline is strictly bogus.

BTW. if ending it at the originally planned terminus wouldn't be an option, I'd settle for the formerly proposed I-170 to the Baltimore Travel Plaza at Exit 57. And yes overlap I-83 with it too.

It's not strictly bogus. Just because other neighborhoods have declined without freeways doesn't mean there's no correlation.

Quote from: Alps on September 20, 2019, 12:37:23 AM

Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 19, 2019, 02:03:04 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on June 02, 2019, 01:21:58 PM
The delays enabled the opposition to gel and prevent a good part of the road to not be built - aside from the I-170 trench.  In hindsight - the area and neighborhoods decayed anyway, without much of the freeway.   

Much like the never-built Cross Brooklyn Expressway and Williamsburg Expressway in Brooklyn, which is further proof that the alleged connection between highway improvements and neighborhood decline is strictly bogus.

BTW. if ending it at the originally planned terminus wouldn't be an option, I'd settle for the formerly proposed I-170 to the Baltimore Travel Plaza at Exit 57. And yes overlap I-83 with it too.

It's not strictly bogus. Just because other neighborhoods have declined without freeways doesn't mean there's no correlation.

Actually, it's not only that, but the fact that others haven't declined with them.

Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 12:00:31 AM
One that I hope gets added is the VA-288 western and southern Richmond beltway which is built to Interstate standards.

Just curious... has VDOT submitted any official request to AASHTO / FHWA to add it to the interstate highway system?

That definitely could be a candidate for an interstate highway if VDOT were to pursue an addition to the system.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 20, 2019, 10:17:19 PM

Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 12:00:31 AM
One that I hope gets added is the VA-288 western and southern Richmond beltway which is built to Interstate standards.

Just curious... has VDOT submitted any official request to AASHTO / FHWA to add it to the interstate highway system?

Nope.  That was one of the ones that I provided detailed recommendations to them about 2 years ago, and they at least at that point said 'no'.

I doubt VA-288 will ever become an Interstate, although I am fully aware that portions of it were to be part of an Interstate 295 beltway around Richmond. Perhaps they could give the exits on VA-288 numbers, although that probably won't happen either.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 23, 2019, 01:15:22 PM
I doubt VA-288 will ever become an Interstate, although I am fully aware that portions of it were to be part of an Interstate 295 beltway around Richmond. Perhaps they could give the exits on VA-288 numbers, although that probably won't happen either.

I agree at minimum exit numbers should be provided. And another thing - raise the speed limit to 70 mph.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 23, 2019, 01:15:22 PM
I doubt VA-288 will ever become an Interstate, although I am fully aware that portions of it were to be part of an Interstate 295 beltway around Richmond. Perhaps they could give the exits on VA-288 numbers, although that probably won't happen either.

The road really needs exit numbers.

On that note, let's steer the conversation back to the subject title, which was the East End of I-70 in Baltimore, Maryland (a.k.a. Exit 94: Security Blvd.).

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 26, 2019, 04:21:33 PM
On that note, let's steer the conversation back to the subject title, which was the East End of I-70 in Baltimore, Maryland (a.k.a. Exit 94: Security Blvd.).

When is that entire I-70/95/695 area likely to come due for major maintenance/re-engineering/bridge work?

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on November 02, 2019, 12:54:56 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 26, 2019, 04:21:33 PM
On that note, let's steer the conversation back to the subject title, which was the East End of I-70 in Baltimore, Maryland (a.k.a. Exit 94: Security Blvd.).

When is that entire I-70/95/695 area likely to come due for major maintenance/re-engineering/bridge work?

In the fairly near future, if documents here (http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectDocuments.aspx?projectno=BA006223#) are correct.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2019, 02:21:39 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on November 02, 2019, 12:54:56 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 26, 2019, 04:21:33 PM
On that note, let's steer the conversation back to the subject title, which was the East End of I-70 in Baltimore, Maryland (a.k.a. Exit 94: Security Blvd.).

When is that entire I-70/95/695 area likely to come due for major maintenance/re-engineering/bridge work?

In the fairly near future, if documents here (http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectDocuments.aspx?projectno=BA006223#) are correct.

It states there:

Quote9/23/2019 The I-695 at I-70 Advertisement will be in March 2020.

Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 08, 2019, 06:41:31 PM
Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

I have read some anecdotal reporting which suggests that the semidirectional connections from I-70 to both directions of the Beltway, and vice versa, will be retained but that the planned mainline and the remaining connections will either be outright deleted or will be replaced with much smaller, slower ramps. My personal belief is that the stack will be replaced with a partial clover stack.

Quote from: TheOneKEA on November 10, 2019, 08:54:26 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 08, 2019, 06:41:31 PM
Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

I have read some anecdotal reporting which suggests that the semidirectional connections from I-70 to both directions of the Beltway, and vice versa, will be retained but that the planned mainline and the remaining connections will either be outright deleted or will be replaced with much smaller, slower ramps. My personal belief is that the stack will be replaced with a partial clover stack.

Something like that would be extremely helpful.  If there  are no realistic plans to extend I-70 east of 695, then redesign the interchange so that I-70 can better utilize 695.  Something akin to the 695/795 interchange.  Most importantly - two lane ramps from I-70 to I-695 north to alleviate the existing backups.

Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2019, 03:54:28 PM

Quote from: TheOneKEA on November 10, 2019, 08:54:26 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 08, 2019, 06:41:31 PM
Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

I have read some anecdotal reporting which suggests that the semidirectional connections from I-70 to both directions of the Beltway, and vice versa, will be retained but that the planned mainline and the remaining connections will either be outright deleted or will be replaced with much smaller, slower ramps. My personal belief is that the stack will be replaced with a partial clover stack.

Something like that would be extremely helpful.  If there  are no realistic plans to extend I-70 east of 695, then redesign the interchange so that I-70 can better utilize 695.  Something akin to the 695/795 interchange.  Most importantly - two lane ramps from I-70 to I-695 north to alleviate the existing backups.

An even better example would be the I-83/I-695 interchange, which is intertwined with the MD 139 interchange. If the eastbound roadway is taken out, at least add new ramps that can facilitate movements between MD 122 and I-70. But I think part of it should be saved if the Red Line gets a second chance. Either way, the Park and Ride and MD 122 interchange need to go, with the latter becoming an at-grade intersection as was intended in the Red Line plans.

Quote from: mrsmanMost importantly - two lane ramps from I-70 to I-695 north to alleviate the existing backups.

Past plans I've seen included this.

Quote from: Henry on November 11, 2019, 09:47:58 AM

Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2019, 03:54:28 PM

Quote from: TheOneKEA on November 10, 2019, 08:54:26 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 08, 2019, 06:41:31 PM
Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

I have read some anecdotal reporting which suggests that the semidirectional connections from I-70 to both directions of the Beltway, and vice versa, will be retained but that the planned mainline and the remaining connections will either be outright deleted or will be replaced with much smaller, slower ramps. My personal belief is that the stack will be replaced with a partial clover stack.

Something like that would be extremely helpful.  If there  are no realistic plans to extend I-70 east of 695, then redesign the interchange so that I-70 can better utilize 695.  Something akin to the 695/795 interchange.  Most importantly - two lane ramps from I-70 to I-695 north to alleviate the existing backups.

An even better example would be the I-83/I-695 interchange, which is intertwined with the MD 139 interchange. If the eastbound roadway is taken out, at least add new ramps that can facilitate movements between MD 122 and I-70. But I think part of it should be saved if the Red Line gets a second chance. Either way, the Park and Ride and MD 122 interchange need to go, with the latter becoming an at-grade intersection as was intended in the Red Line plans.

This is definitely something that should be considered.  And access to MD 122 doesn't just mean access to Social Security - it can mean access to the general area without needin to add to the traffic of 695.

Currently, it is difficult to use I-70 to reach Secuirty Square Mall and the area west of 695 as there are no exits between US 29 and I-695.  A well desigend rebuild of the area would provide better access..

Voted Park and Ride because what a fun and bizarre ending for a cross-country Interstate but it is a blight that I-70 hasn't been extended to I-95. No excuses for that blemish.

Oh well, the NIMBYS, like the loudest baby bird, grabbed the worm.

Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 01, 2020, 04:45:31 PM
Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

Its utterly useless, but probably not the cheapest thing to remove. I guess the question is whether its worth it...

BTW, while I'm sure you could view a lot of it on GSV, I also took a bunch of pics which I plonked in here...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interstate_170_(Maryland) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interstate_170_(Maryland))

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 01, 2020, 04:45:31 PM
Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

Quite a lot to fill it or eliminate it.  Doesn't make sense to do so.  They didn't finish I-70.  Baltimore declined regardless.   

Quote from: DJStephens on October 01, 2020, 10:14:18 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 01, 2020, 04:45:31 PM
Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

Quite a lot to fill it or eliminate it.  Doesn't make sense to do so.  They didn't finish I-70.  Baltimore declined regardless.   

When it comes time to rebuild the bridges, guarantee they'll fill instead.

Quote from: Alps on October 02, 2020, 12:35:48 AM

Quote from: DJStephens on October 01, 2020, 10:14:18 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 01, 2020, 04:45:31 PM
Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

Quite a lot to fill it or eliminate it.  Doesn't make sense to do so.  They didn't finish I-70.  Baltimore declined regardless.   

When it comes time to rebuild the bridges, guarantee they'll fill instead.

There were plans to build a light rail along the ROW, but the project lost state funding as the governor was opposed.  (Baltimore Red Line)  I also thought the project was wasteful, mainly because it called for an E-W subway one-block away from the exising heavy rail subway line.  A far more sensible plan would have been to have the line run from Social Security, stop at the I-70 park and ride, run into Baltimore along the US 40 freeway corridor and then merge into the existing light rail line to Howard St.  The neighborhoods on the east side of town should have a separate light rail system that feeds into the Hopkins Hospital or Shot Tower subway stations (and then have people transfer to that to reach Downtown).  That being said, if the red line were funded to be built, that would spur new development along the US 40 corridor.

Here are one planner's ideas for the corridor:

https://baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com/2006/05/franklin-mulberry-plenty-of-room-for.html

https://baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-low-line.html


There were closures of the US 40 freeway a couple years ago to study the area in anticipation of the red line and to increase the parking area for the MARC commuter train station (at the west end of the freeway).  Traffic had to take the parallel Franklin and Mulberry one-way pairs.  No appreciable traffic increase because of this.  So, yes, if the US 40 freeway were removed, there would be no ill effects on local traffic, since Franklin and Mulberry (with well timed signals) can handle the load.  There is a good argument to remove the freeway even without the Red Line.

Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2020, 06:59:00 AM
There were closures of the US 40 freeway a couple years ago to study the area in anticipation of the red line and to increase the parking area for the MARC commuter train station (at the west end of the freeway).  Traffic had to take the parallel Franklin and Mulberry one-way pairs.  No appreciable traffic increase because of this.  So, yes, if the US 40 freeway were removed, there would be no ill effects on local traffic, since Franklin and Mulberry (with well timed signals) can handle the load.  There is a good argument to remove the freeway even without the Red Line.

Being the red line was canceled in 2015, this "study" has to be more than a few years ago.

Also, was the study done to include peak periods of traffic during the week, or done at night, on the weekend, or in the summer when traffic is lighter?