AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is now open! See this thread for more information.

Author Topic: Vermont  (Read 189209 times)

jcroyer80

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 27
  • Location: Burlington, VT
  • Last Login: November 17, 2022, 04:22:48 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #575 on: June 22, 2022, 09:16:49 AM »

Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12793
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 11:28:31 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Vermont
« Reply #576 on: August 26, 2022, 10:55:42 PM »

Per the project website, the first of two contracts to build Vermont's first DDI was awarded earlier this week.  As mentioned upthread (this has been in development for years), the project will convert I-89 Exit 16 (US 2/US 7/Colchester) into a DDI and also includes improvements at nearby intersections along US 2/7.  The first contract involves utility work and retaining wall construction.  The bulk of the road work is planned for the second contract to be awarded later.  Project completion is expected in 2025.
Logged

dkblake

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 160
  • Location: MA -> NY -> OH -> NY -> VT
  • Last Login: November 13, 2022, 10:02:05 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #577 on: November 03, 2022, 08:46:37 PM »

Signage question- anyone know when the Essex town boundary signs are going to be converted to specify Essex Junction or Essex Town, and when Essex Town/Essex Junction boundary signage is going to be posted? (I'm also curious if the signs will say Essex Junction or Essex City.) I drive through Essex/Essex Junction a fair bit and have been looking out for them but haven't seen them yet.
Logged
2dis clinched: 8, 17, 69(original), 71, 72, 78, 81, 84(E), 86(E), 88(E), 89, 91, 93, 97

Mob-rule: http://www.mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/dblake.gif

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12793
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 11:28:31 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Vermont
« Reply #578 on: November 03, 2022, 10:50:52 PM »

^ As I understand it, the city's name is Essex Junction, so I would hazard a bet that's what the signs will say.
Logged

dkblake

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 160
  • Location: MA -> NY -> OH -> NY -> VT
  • Last Login: November 13, 2022, 10:02:05 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #579 on: November 04, 2022, 07:26:16 PM »

It is, but there are some governmental things that use "Essex City"- if I'm not mistaken, people from Essex Junction on the primary ballots this year had their home location listed as Essex City. I assume the signs will say Essex Junction, but that's why I'm curious if they'll use Essex City when the signs get erected.
Logged
2dis clinched: 8, 17, 69(original), 71, 72, 78, 81, 84(E), 86(E), 88(E), 89, 91, 93, 97

Mob-rule: http://www.mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/dblake.gif

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14779
  • Limon should not be a control city

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Needham/Amherst
  • Last Login: September 05, 2023, 12:05:45 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #580 on: February 20, 2023, 04:30:36 AM »

Can someone tell me more about the US 4 freeway? I've always wondered what it's purpose is. I looked it up and apparently it's part of a larger, cancelled project but IDK. Does it get enough traffic to justify it's upgrades? Seems like it just connects Rutland with nothing really, and it dead ends US 20 in Wisconsin style at the state line.
Logged
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

BlueOutback7

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2369
  • I will get all 50 states eventually

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 08:48:46 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #581 on: February 20, 2023, 08:51:39 AM »

Can someone tell me more about the US 4 freeway? I've always wondered what it's purpose is. I looked it up and apparently it's part of a larger, cancelled project but IDK. Does it get enough traffic to justify it's upgrades? Seems like it just connects Rutland with nothing really, and it dead ends US 20 in Wisconsin style at the state line.

It helps people get from upstate New York to Central Vermont quicker, which probably helped with traffic on the 2 lane roads. I actually wonder if this was in anticipation of a potential ďI-92Ē across Northern New England.
Logged
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12793
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 11:28:31 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Vermont
« Reply #582 on: February 20, 2023, 09:05:41 AM »

^ It predates the "I-92" concept, which was studied in depth (but not with the actual 92 number) across Northern New England in the early 1970s.  Though it stands to mention that the state of Vermont did want an Interstate along the corridor as early as 1945.

In the 1960s, Rutland and the nearby skiing/tourism spots (namely Killington) were growing faster than expected...this is in no small part why the US 4 freeway was built.  New York didn't agree, which is why the freeway ends as it does near the state line.
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 08:18:21 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #583 on: February 20, 2023, 04:40:00 PM »

The few times I've taken US 4 in NY between the VT line and the Northway, there really isn't much between those two points to slow up traffic... outside of probably Whitehall itself and the light at Glens Falls.  In between those points its pretty much a 55 MPH road (with some exceptions).  The section in Vermont passes through Fair Haven, Castleton, and Center Rutland which are more "built up" and prone to more 30-40 mph speeds than in NY. 

Its the same with US 11 across the "rooftop" in NY where an interstate has been talked about for awhile.  Is one really needed?  Probably not, as its 55 MPH most of the way, slowing down in the handful of towns along the way.  The road is pretty straight with multiple opportunities for passing.  (Though I think an interstate in that area is meant more to spur economic development than to relieve congestion). 

Back to Rt 4, it would be nice if it looped around Rutland to rejoin Woodstock Rd on the "edge of development" just as you start climbing up to Killington, and in NY, if there was a bypass around Glens Falls or a more direct connection with the Northway.  In a perfect world, it would be a freeway from the NY/VT line all the way to the Northway, but its not, so we have to deal with what we have, for now.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4386
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #584 on: February 20, 2023, 08:13:02 PM »

Any eastern extension of the US 4 freeway would not only require the demolition of the Diamond Run Mall but would also run through Aitken State and Rutland City Forests (which would make any route unconstructable). Also, what is the terrain like in the forementioned forests like? Would they be a barrier to theoretically constructing a US 4 eastward freeway (or any roadway) extension? Also, it seems like getting a US 4 westward freeway extension to Interstate 87 would be quite difficult to construct (which is probably why it doesn't exist). Forests and mountains are probably also the reason why the US 7 expressway ends in East Dorset, and doesn't continue past Rutland.
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 08:18:21 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #585 on: February 20, 2023, 08:43:00 PM »

Actually, with US 7, the valley is pretty wide up to Dorset.  The only major town center along the way is Wallingford (and S. Wallingford), but outside of that, you very well could have fit in a 4-lane.  Which brings up the question, what was the reasoning behind a 4-lane expressway from Rutland south to Wallingford?  There isn't much traffic once you get south of VT 103, definitely not enough to warrant 4 lanes.  How did this section get 4 lanes, while the section from N Bennington to Manchester stay a "Super 2"?
Logged

BlueOutback7

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2369
  • I will get all 50 states eventually

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 08:48:46 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #586 on: February 20, 2023, 09:04:19 PM »

Any eastern extension of the US 4 freeway would not only require the demolition of the Diamond Run Mall but would also run through Aitken State and Rutland City Forests (which would make any route unconstructable). Also, what is the terrain like in the forementioned forests like? Would they be a barrier to theoretically constructing a US 4 eastward freeway (or any roadway) extension? Also, it seems like getting a US 4 westward freeway extension to Interstate 87 would be quite difficult to construct (which is probably why it doesn't exist). Forests and mountains are probably also the reason why the US 7 expressway ends in East Dorset, and doesn't continue past Rutland.

Actually, the Diamond Run Mall closed down a few years ago, so it could theoretically be demolished, but the aforementioned environmental costs are exactly why it hasnít and wonít be extended not to mention VTrans doesnít have that kind of money.
Logged
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14070
  • Age: 32
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 09:53:54 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Vermont
« Reply #587 on: February 20, 2023, 09:25:01 PM »

The few times I've taken US 4 in NY between the VT line and the Northway, there really isn't much between those two points to slow up traffic... outside of probably Whitehall itself and the light at Glens Falls.  In between those points its pretty much a 55 MPH road (with some exceptions).  The section in Vermont passes through Fair Haven, Castleton, and Center Rutland which are more "built up" and prone to more 30-40 mph speeds than in NY. 

Its the same with US 11 across the "rooftop" in NY where an interstate has been talked about for awhile.  Is one really needed?  Probably not, as its 55 MPH most of the way, slowing down in the handful of towns along the way.  The road is pretty straight with multiple opportunities for passing.  (Though I think an interstate in that area is meant more to spur economic development than to relieve congestion). 

Back to Rt 4, it would be nice if it looped around Rutland to rejoin Woodstock Rd on the "edge of development" just as you start climbing up to Killington, and in NY, if there was a bypass around Glens Falls or a more direct connection with the Northway.  In a perfect world, it would be a freeway from the NY/VT line all the way to the Northway, but its not, so we have to deal with what we have, for now.
Have you ever driven on the US 4/NY 149 corridor, especially during tourist season?  Fort Ann backs up to the point where it routinely takes several light cycles to get through, as does the whole strip where NY 149 overlaps US 9 near exit 20.  The rest of the corridor is characterized by long lines of cars traveling at the pace of the slowest driver.

Interesting that you mention US 11... I used to think that road was bad (to be fair, it's not fun when people are arriving/leaving the area colleges), but it's nothing compared to the major corridors connecting NY to VT.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1131
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 03:46:39 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #588 on: March 13, 2023, 04:08:54 PM »

Any eastern extension of the US 4 freeway would not only require the demolition of the Diamond Run Mall but would also run through Aitken State and Rutland City Forests (which would make any route unconstructable). Also, what is the terrain like in the forementioned forests like? Would they be a barrier to theoretically constructing a US 4 eastward freeway (or any roadway) extension? Also, it seems like getting a US 4 westward freeway extension to Interstate 87 would be quite difficult to construct (which is probably why it doesn't exist). Forests and mountains are probably also the reason why the US 7 expressway ends in East Dorset, and doesn't continue past Rutland.

Actually, the Diamond Run Mall closed down a few years ago, so it could theoretically be demolished, but the aforementioned environmental costs are exactly why it hasnít and wonít be extended not to mention VTrans doesnít have that kind of money.
There are not really any feasible options to build a freeway for US-4 across the Green Mountains without spending a huge amount of money and causing a lot of environmental damage. Tunneling through the Green Mountains would have less impact on the environment, but the shear cost of a 20-30 mile long tunnel would be cost prohibitive.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

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

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15204
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 07:27:11 AM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #589 on: March 22, 2023, 04:42:16 PM »

https://goo.gl/maps/hq2ur5LCQbuWcZCcA
Vermonts answer to signing milebased exit numbers. Just have the sequential exit numbers and mile based numbers both coexist.

Real cheesy I must say.

 :bigass:
Any eastern extension of the US 4 freeway would not only require the demolition of the Diamond Run Mall but would also run through Aitken State and Rutland City Forests (which would make any route unconstructable). Also, what is the terrain like in the forementioned forests like? Would they be a barrier to theoretically constructing a US 4 eastward freeway (or any roadway) extension? Also, it seems like getting a US 4 westward freeway extension to Interstate 87 would be quite difficult to construct (which is probably why it doesn't exist). Forests and mountains are probably also the reason why the US 7 expressway ends in East Dorset, and doesn't continue past Rutland.

Actually, the Diamond Run Mall closed down a few years ago, so it could theoretically be demolished, but the aforementioned environmental costs are exactly why it hasnít and wonít be extended not to mention VTrans doesnít have that kind  of money.
There are not really any feasible options to build a freeway for US-4 across the Green Mountains without spending a huge amount of money and causing a lot of environmental damage. Tunneling through the Green Mountains would have less impact on the environment, but the shear cost of a 20-30 mile long tunnel would be cost prohibitive.

MMM would have loved that last suggestion. :sombrero:
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4386
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #590 on: March 22, 2023, 09:19:05 PM »

We'll have to wait until the next sign replacement project for mileage-based exit numbers to be implemented, which has been projected to occur sometime between 2030 and 2035. As an alternative, they could do what New Hampshire's governor is doing and constantly refuse funding for a mileage-based exit conversion. Of course, Scott's and Sununu's successors could be just as opposed to mileage-based exits as they are, and then we'll be back to square one on the matter.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12793
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 11:28:31 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Vermont
« Reply #591 on: March 23, 2023, 11:17:51 AM »

Discussed several times ad nauseum upthread.  Starting to beat a dead horse at this point.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4386
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #592 on: March 23, 2023, 12:11:22 PM »

Sorry. This is the last time I will mention it. I promise.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12793
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 11:28:31 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Vermont
« Reply #593 on: March 24, 2023, 12:22:44 AM »

^ Was referring more to roadman's bringing it back up.  From what I've read, you're not wrong on the 2030 date.  There's a member of one of the Facebook groups who has done consulting for VTrans who has repeatedly mentioned 2030 as the year Vermont will fully convert over.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15204
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 07:27:11 AM
Re: Vermont
« Reply #594 on: March 26, 2023, 05:15:25 PM »

All I stated was my opinion on it. Not to lecture VTrans on their being odd, is like telling NJ to stop full serve gas.

I do think itís cheesy and if itís that, itís that.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12793
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: September 25, 2023, 11:28:31 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Vermont
« Reply #595 on: July 26, 2023, 09:32:56 PM »

Local news media reporting that parts of the Champlain Parkway may be open to traffic by the end of the year.
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.