AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway  (Read 15101 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7031
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:20:50 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #50 on: October 29, 2019, 05:19:39 PM »

They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls.  Penny wise, pound foolish.
How about without tolling an interstate highway that has been toll-free since it's opening in the 60s - 80s?

I'd like to see it widened to 6-lanes thruout, but it needs to be done without tolls. The current project is a major step forward, there needs to be more phases to gradually open it to 6-lanes thruout by 2030 - 2035.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6783
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #51 on: October 29, 2019, 05:29:48 PM »

They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls.  Penny wise, pound foolish.
How about without tolling an interstate highway that has been toll-free since it's opening in the 60s - 80s?
I'd like to see it widened to 6-lanes thruout, but it needs to be done without tolls. The current project is a major step forward, there needs to be more phases to gradually open it to 6-lanes thruout by 2030 - 2035.
There is a tradeoff.  I am opposed to general tolling of Interstate highways that were built without tolling. 

But I am open to the idea of having a small number of Interstate highway "super corridors" being considered for a tolling that is only in support of expanding the highway with more lanes, and which would be detolled after the bonds have been paid off.

There is a traffic and economic benefit to having a highway project complete 20 to 40 years earlier than via conventional funding.

Given all the unfunded highway needs today and those coming in the near future, getting all of it done by 2030 to 2035 may be overly optimistic.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7031
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:20:50 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #52 on: October 29, 2019, 05:55:36 PM »

They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls.  Penny wise, pound foolish.
How about without tolling an interstate highway that has been toll-free since it's opening in the 60s - 80s?
I'd like to see it widened to 6-lanes thruout, but it needs to be done without tolls. The current project is a major step forward, there needs to be more phases to gradually open it to 6-lanes thruout by 2030 - 2035.
There is a tradeoff.  I am opposed to general tolling of Interstate highways that were built without tolling. 

But I am open to the idea of having a small number of Interstate highway "super corridors" being considered for a tolling that is only in support of expanding the highway with more lanes, and which would be detolled after the bonds have been paid off.

There is a traffic and economic benefit to having a highway project complete 20 to 40 years earlier than via conventional funding.

Given all the unfunded highway needs today and those coming in the near future, getting all of it done by 2030 to 2035 may be overly optimistic.
I'd generally agree, but I-81 could generally wait off another 10-15 years to find traditional funding if the current funding method proves successful. The major choke points are getting widened, and the rest of the corridor generally has no congestion issues except on peak weekends. The trucks are an issue, and while it's frustrating getting caught behind lines of them in both lanes, at least it's generally moving 65 - 70 mph. It's not something like I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond, or I-95 between DC and Richmond which are bottlenecks any day.

With the $151 million projected per year, plus the opportunity for bonds to pay for these projects and the additional tax revenue paying them off over decades, it could get done within 10-15 years.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6783
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #53 on: October 29, 2019, 06:33:50 PM »

Given all the unfunded highway needs today and those coming in the near future, getting all of it done by 2030 to 2035 may be overly optimistic.
I'd generally agree, but I-81 could generally wait off another 10-15 years to find traditional funding if the current funding method proves successful. The major choke points are getting widened, and the rest of the corridor generally has no congestion issues except on peak weekends. The trucks are an issue, and while it's frustrating getting caught behind lines of them in both lanes, at least it's generally moving 65 - 70 mph. It's not something like I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond, or I-95 between DC and Richmond which are bottlenecks any day.
My "20 Fri-Sun weekends per year" rule, it all definitely needs 6 lanes then.

With the $151 million projected per year, plus the opportunity for bonds to pay for these projects and the additional tax revenue paying them off over decades, it could get done within 10-15 years.
The $2.2 billion program was covered at the last CTB meeting, and due to engineering and permitting, it will be more like 2030 or beyond when they are completed, and even then it will take bond assistance to accelerate the work.  From CTB presentation --

Two scheduling options presented 
Existing revenue stream (pay-go) -- 48 out of 64 projects completed by 2028
Bonding/TIFIA option -- 60 out of 64 projects completed by 2028
 
The whole 325 miles could have been 6-laned by 2011.  That would mean that money would not have to be spent now to widen it, and given the high volumes the bonds may have been paid off by 2030 and the highway detolled.

Like I said there is a tradeoff, and a rather large one at that.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2142
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: October 13, 2021, 07:22:46 AM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #54 on: October 30, 2019, 09:06:55 AM »

Had the Interstate 10 toll bridge project gone forward, I wonder if the parallel US 90/98 roadway bridges would have been tolled as well (in order to discourage shunpiking)?

The Wallace Tunnel would have been tolled, but the causeway would remain free.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Alex

  • Webmaster
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4978
  • Location: Tampa, FL
  • Last Login: October 15, 2021, 11:14:34 PM
    • AARoads
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #55 on: October 30, 2019, 02:22:58 PM »

Froggie went to a meeting on the I-10 Mobile River Bridge proposal in 2001 and I did in 2003. Approaching the 20 year mark and nothing accomplished...

Had Hurricane Ivan or Katrina wiped out portions of the Bayway, it would have been replaced (see I-10 across Escambia Bay in Pensacola and I-10 across Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans). Unfortunately that seems to be the only way something will be improved across Mobile Bay.

Until 2013, I drove across the Bayway routinely, and it already got to the point to where I would have to look at Google Maps for traffic before heading out. With the increasingly rapid development along the Eastern Shore and Baldwin County, having just four lanes between Mobile and Spanish Fort/Daphne will eventually make I-10 look just like I-275 across the Howard Frankland Bridge in Tampa (if it has not already). The Howard Frankland is guaranteed congested both morning and evening peak hours northbound. It also backs up on weekends at times as well. I-10 was generally not like that when I lived in Mobile, but congestion at the Wallace Tunnel eastbound became an issue from the mid 2000s onward.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 07:23:31 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #56 on: October 30, 2019, 02:33:23 PM »

A gas tax increase was just passed in Alabama. An increase in gas taxes within proximity of this project or corridor seem like a decent solution but I suspect are a non starter in Alabama. The government needs to come together on infrastructure reform and invest more money in our infrastructure. It is that simple and itís not at the same time.
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2142
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: October 13, 2021, 07:22:46 AM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #57 on: October 30, 2019, 02:38:21 PM »

A gas tax increase was just passed in Alabama. An increase in gas taxes within proximity of this project or corridor seem like a decent solution but I suspect are a non starter in Alabama. The government needs to come together on infrastructure reform and invest more money in our infrastructure. It is that simple and itís not at the same time.

The gas tax increase has been very unpopular across Alabama, and the sad thing is that the increase isn't going towards many big ticket projects. It is funding a few $20M+ projects here and there.

I honestly wished there was some way that the different municipalities along the I-10 corridor between Pensacola and New Orleans could come together and fund an I-10 Mobile River bridge and Bayway replacement. It is a project of regional importance.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

bdmoss88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 105
  • Location: Auburn, AL
  • Last Login: October 15, 2021, 08:36:34 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #58 on: January 15, 2020, 08:04:35 PM »

New proposal for the Mobile River Bridge surfaces. Doesn't replace the current bayway and has no exits to the bayway. No real details as far as tolls except that Wallace Tunnel wouldn't be tolled. We'll see how far this gets.

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2020/01/north-bay-express-surfaces-as-an-alternative-to-the-i-10-project.html
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 07:23:31 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #59 on: January 15, 2020, 10:40:59 PM »

I donít like that one either. They need to do the original project with no tolls.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11936
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:10:14 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #60 on: January 15, 2020, 10:52:24 PM »

Send them a couple billion and they might.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7031
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:20:50 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #61 on: January 15, 2020, 10:59:18 PM »

Wouldn't this new proposal still require a new crossing of the Bay?
Logged

bdmoss88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 105
  • Location: Auburn, AL
  • Last Login: October 15, 2021, 08:36:34 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #62 on: January 16, 2020, 07:15:14 AM »

It reads like it would be a third crossing in addition to the Causeway and current I-10.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7031
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:20:50 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2020, 12:40:22 PM »

It reads like it would be a third crossing in addition to the Causeway and current I-10.
So how does it end up costing -less-?
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12583
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 08:00:50 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2020, 01:08:34 PM »

It reads like it would be a third crossing in addition to the Causeway and current I-10.
So how does it end up costing -less-?
The old plan was to build a new, wider bridge and then demolish the existing one.  The new plan is to build a new, narrower (than the old plan) bridge, and then keep the existing one.  It also wouldn't have the intermediate exit.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 07:23:31 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2020, 04:08:31 PM »

The old was great except one thing: tolls. These new plans don't seem like they will do much to reduce traffic on I-10.
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2142
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: October 13, 2021, 07:22:46 AM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2020, 04:33:02 PM »

The old was great except one thing: tolls. These new plans don't seem like they will do much to reduce traffic on I-10.

It sounds like an express route from Daphne to Mobile to allow folks from the Eastern Shore to bypass I-10. It does little for through I-10 traffic.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 07:23:31 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2020, 05:53:06 PM »

The old was great except one thing: tolls. These new plans don't seem like they will do much to reduce traffic on I-10.

It sounds like an express route from Daphne to Mobile to allow folks from the Eastern Shore to bypass I-10. It does little for through I-10 traffic.
Right and it sounds like something that could be beneficial to Mobile but not a suitable alternative for the needs of I-10, the focus of this initiative. If such a project happens it should be completely separate from anything project aimed at easing traffic and modernizing I-10.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 07:23:31 PM
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11936
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:10:14 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2020, 12:08:22 PM »

The tolling debate in Alabama is endemic of the root cause of the issue:  people want new roads, but they don't want to pay for them.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7031
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:20:50 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2020, 09:06:20 PM »

The tolling debate in Alabama is endemic of the root cause of the issue:  people want new roads, but they don't want to pay for them.
I think they would rather stick with the existing toll-free bridge / tunnel rather than widening / replacing it with a toll.

Also, they do pay for them at the gas pump.

The tolling of the Downtown Tunnel in Norfolk / Portsmouth, VA that added no capacity and is heavily congested to this date was a major controversy that was nearly blocked, but ended up proceeding. People still feel the impacts and burden of that to this day, and there's still calls to eventually buy out the contract and remove the tolls. Only problem though is where are we going find $2.5 billion, especially with there's other pressing needs in the region. It would be nice and a relief, but certainly a low priority in the grand scheme of things.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6783
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2020, 09:38:48 PM »

I think they would rather stick with the existing toll-free bridge / tunnel rather than widening / replacing it with a toll.
IOW the Mobile crossing will not be expanded if they follow that policy.

The tolling of the Downtown Tunnel in Norfolk / Portsmouth, VA that added no capacity and is heavily congested to this date was a major controversy that was nearly blocked, but ended up proceeding.
Half truth.  It got major renovation and it helped fund the $1.1 billion Parallel Midtown Tunnel and $200 MLK Freeway Extension which added major capacity to the complex of tunnels between Portsmouth and Norfolk, provided alternatives in major incidents, and expanded bus transit options.

Actually 3 old tubes got major renovation in the ERT Tunnels Project.
 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 09:42:31 PM by Beltway »
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7031
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:20:50 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2020, 11:51:52 PM »

Quote
IOW the Mobile crossing will not be expanded if they follow that policy.
Which is what the locals who would be impacted the most directly want, and what will likely happen until funding can be found for a toll free replacement.

Quote
Half truth.  It got major renovation and it helped fund the $1.1 billion Parallel Midtown Tunnel and $200 MLK Freeway Extension which added major capacity to the complex of tunnels between Portsmouth and Norfolk, provided alternatives in major incidents, and expanded bus transit options.

Actually 3 old tubes got major renovation in the ERT Tunnels Project.
Except the Downtown Tunnel corridor is a bottleneck that is still heavily congested (it almost seems to get worse each year IMO) and really didnít see much or little relief and the tolls have placed a burden on many, notably on lower income people which is more prevalent in that general area, that just keep creeping up every year. Toll diversion increased, congestion on the I-64 and US-13 corridors saw a sudden increase once tolling started and remain bottlenecks today. The HO/T lane should help some, but it wonít eliminate the problem.

The project did have its benefits, mostly everywhere else except the Downtown Tunnel, but there were also many negative impacts that canít be ignored

You canít just add tolls to an existing roadway and expect it to have little impact on people, especially to locals. The Dominion Blvd expansion is another example, and while it has had less impacts overall, still has caused diversion, choking VA-168 Business and US-17 Business further.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 11:53:53 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6783
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2020, 07:48:43 AM »

Quote
It got major renovation and it helped fund the $1.1 billion Parallel Midtown Tunnel and $200 MLK Freeway Extension which added major capacity to the complex of tunnels between Portsmouth and Norfolk, provided alternatives in major incidents, and expanded bus transit options.
Actually 3 old tubes got major renovation in the ERT Tunnels Project.
Except the Downtown Tunnel corridor is a bottleneck that is still heavily congested (it almost seems to get worse each year IMO) and really didnít see much or little relief and the tolls have placed a burden on many, notably on lower income people which is more prevalent in that general area, that just keep creeping up every year. Toll diversion increased, congestion on the I-64 and US-13 corridors saw a sudden increase once tolling started and remain bottlenecks today. The HO/T lane should help some, but it wonít eliminate the problem.
The project did have its benefits, mostly everywhere else except the Downtown Tunnel, but there were also many negative impacts that canít be ignored
Do you want some crackers with that whine?  Volume on the Downtown Tunnel is about 88,000, down from over 100,000 before the new tunnel opened.  Major relief and alternate capacity now exists on the Midtown Tunnel.   Data doesn't support your claim about I-64.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, and this project was not financeable without tolls.  Actually there was a proposal in 2000 to build it for $600 million, but the locals said no tolls, and what happens but it is financed in 2012 when the cost has ballooned to $1.4 billion.  Blame the "no tolls" faction.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotť, 2002)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7031
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:20:50 PM
Re: I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2020, 08:18:05 AM »

2013 vs. 2018 Volumes -
Downtown Tunnel - 86,000 to 84,000
Midtown Tunnel - 36,000 to 28,000
I-64 between Great Bridge Blvd and US-17 Business - 83,000 to 93,000
US-13 between Canal Dr and Bainbridge Blvd - 17,000 to 35,000

Where did the traffic go?

Traffic volumes decreased on -both- tunnels and increased significantly on free routes.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 08:23:06 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

 


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.