US40 (I-170) original signage

[Mergingtraffic]

Is the original signage for the US40 freeway stub still there?  It's like a time vault.

[froggie]

Signage at the far western end has probably come down by now due to a reconstruction project that was just starting when the Baltimore meet was held a few years ago.  Might still be the sign with the "I-170" shield imprint on MLK Drive...

[Alex]

The only one removed as part of the demolition project was the sign bridge along side Mulberry Street ahead of U.S. 1 south (Monroe Street).

[Henry]

While this is slightly off-topic, if I-595 had been completed under the revised 1981 plan (after it was determined that I-70 would not pass the city line), there definitely would've been signs for the route, and I'm suspecting that it would be marked north/south, as it was to bend southwest along the railroad tracks, and then double back southeast to meet I-95 at the big interchange that was never built out.

[Alex]

While this is slightly off-topic, if I-595 had been completed under the revised 1981 plan (after it was determined that I-70 would not pass the city line), there definitely would've been signs for the route, and I'm suspecting that it would be marked north/south, as it was to bend southwest along the railroad tracks, and then double back southeast to meet I-95 at the big interchange that was never built out.

[cpzilliacus]

While this is slightly off-topic, if I-595 had been completed under the revised 1981 plan (after it was determined that I-70 would not pass the city line), there definitely would've been signs for the route, and I'm suspecting that it would be marked north/south, as it was to bend southwest along the railroad tracks, and then double back southeast to meet I-95 at the big interchange that was never built out.

In a perfect (perhaps fantasy) world, the western part of I-70 through Leakin Park in Baltimore City would have constructed under the park as a pair of bored tunnels using tunnel boring machines (though I am  not certain if TBM technology had been perfected in the 1970's when the Baltimore  freeway wars were going on).

[Alps]

While this is slightly off-topic, if I-595 had been completed under the revised 1981 plan (after it was determined that I-70 would not pass the city line), there definitely would've been signs for the route, and I'm suspecting that it would be marked north/south, as it was to bend southwest along the railroad tracks, and then double back southeast to meet I-95 at the big interchange that was never built out.

In a perfect (perhaps fantasy) world, the western part of I-70 through Leakin Park in Baltimore City would have constructed under the park as a pair of bored tunnels using tunnel boring machines (though I am  not certain if TBM technology had been perfected in the 1970's when the Baltimore  freeway wars were going on).

Definitely fantasy. No one was gonna pay for that.

[Mergingtraffic]

It's a shame they did the demolition project.  But I have to ask why?  Do they plan on putting something there?  If not, then why waste the money to tear it down if it isn't affecting anybody.

[iwishiwascanadian]

It's a shame they did the demolition project.  But I have to ask why?  Do they plan on putting something there?  If not, then why waste the money to tear it down if it isn't affecting anybody.

There are plans to redevelop the area with the coming Red Line project (Light Rail connecting Security Square in Baltimore County to Hopkins Bayview on the Eastside).  Also, parking for the West Baltimore MARC station needed to be expanded and the highway to nowhere was in the way. 

[cpzilliacus]

Definitely fantasy. No one was gonna pay for that.

Somebody (mostly federal taxpayers) funded the Big Dig in Boston. 

And yes, the cost overruns were massive.

[froggie]

Somebody (mostly federal taxpayers) funded the Big Dig in Boston. 

And yes, the cost overruns were massive.

IIRC, the Federal legislation put a cap on how much Federal taxpayers would kick in...cost overruns were thus pushed onto the state and local entities.

[hbelkins]

OK, this may be a dumb question, but is "I-170" really I-170?

It's still marked in the 2013 Rand McNally as I-170.

I need to know so I will know whether I will need to drive it or not when I clinch all of Maryland's interstates in a couple of weeks.

(I plan to get I-97, I-195 and the portion of I-695 that I don't already have when I am in the state for a wedding.)

[NE2]

It's not I-170. Fuck the Rand.

[Alps]

OK, this may be a dumb question, but is "I-170" really I-170?

It's still marked in the 2013 Rand McNally as I-170.

I need to know so I will know whether I will need to drive it or not when I clinch all of Maryland's interstates in a couple of weeks.

(I plan to get I-97, I-195 and the portion of I-695 that I don't already have when I am in the state for a wedding.)

I'm going to pretend it's still I-170 just so that you get to drive it.

[froggie]

OK, this may be a dumb question, but is "I-170" really I-170?

Not that hard to look up.  But in short, no, just as SPUI said.

[cpzilliacus]

OK, this may be a dumb question, but is "I-170" really I-170?

Not that hard to look up.  But in short, no, just as SPUI said.

Annoyingly, SHA does not normally publish a Highway Location Reference volume for Baltimore City (possibly because it maintains exactly nothing in the city, though  MdTA maintains quite a lot).

But the Baltimore County traffic count map includes the city, and I-170 is not listed there. 

[froggie]

There's the SHA grid map series.  There's also the FHWA Interstate Log and Route Finder list.  And hordes of official mapping applications.  Unofficial websites too (thinking mainly Wikipedia, the MDRoads website, and Clinched Highway Mapping here).

[Laura]

I-170 was decommissioned in 1989, although Rand McNally has erroneously tried to resurrect it over the past few years.

On a random note, had the southern portion of I-70 in the city been built and designated I-595, would the 170 designation have remained, or would it have been absorbed into 595?

[Alps]

I-170 was decommissioned in 1989, although Rand McNally has erroneously tried to resurrect it over the past few years.

On a random note, had the southern portion of I-70 in the city been built and designated I-595, would the 170 designation have remained, or would it have been absorbed into 595?

595.

[NE2]

from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm

[kj3400]

I find it interesting that even after I-70 was cancelled at this point, they were still prepared to go ahead with I-83. Or is that map of the bits they weren't going to do? It's confusing, as it's black and white.

[NE2]

I find it interesting that even after I-70 was cancelled at this point, they were still prepared to go ahead with I-83. Or is that map of the bits they weren't going to do? It's confusing, as it's black and white.

It's in the text:

Stage One

On July 28, 1981, Governor Harry Hughes and Mayor William D. Schaefer submitted a joint request by the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore for the withdrawal of a portion of I-70 inside the Baltimore Beltway from the Interstate System.

On September 3, 1981, Federal Highway Administrator R. A. Barnhart and Urban Mass Transportation Administrator Arthur E. Teele approved the withdrawal under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4). The withdrawn segment extended for 3.3 miles from Security Boulevard to I-170 and would have impacted Leaken Park. The portion of I-70 from the I-695 Baltimore Beltway to Security Boulevard was already constructed at the time of this withdrawal and remains on the System as I-70.

As a result of this withdrawal, an unbuilt section of I-70 from I-170 to I-95 remained on the Interstate System. This section, along with I-170, were eventually renumbered as I-595, and in Stage Two were also withdrawn from the Interstate System.

Stage Two

On July 22, 1983, Governor Hughes and Mayor Schaefer submitted a joint request by the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore for the withdrawal of all of I-595 and a portion of I-83 from the Interstate System.

On September 29, 1983, Federal Highway Administrator R. A. Barnhart and Urban Mass Transportation Acting Administrator G. Kent Woodman approved the withdrawal under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4).

I-595 had been established following the Stage One withdrawal described above and consisted of (1) 2.22 miles that was formerly I-70 between I-170 and I-95 and (2) all of former I-170 (3.35 miles in length). The 2.22 mile segment was withdrawn under 103(e)(4) and the I-170 section which had been completed and open to traffic for a number of years was deleted from the System under 103(f).

The withdrawn portion of I-83 was 3.35 miles long and extended from its southern terminus at I-95 to Fayette Street near downtown Baltimore.

[froggie]

As I recall from Kozel's website, while opposition is largely what killed I-70, I-83 died because of cost.  Even with 90% Federal funding, the local share was too much for the city to afford.

[KillerTux]

Late 1970s

[NE2]

Sweet. And inconsistent (is it US 40/I-170 west or US 40 west to I-170?)