Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ElPanaChevere]

If they could build a link between Connecticut and Long Island, that'd be great. Nowadays, you'd have to travel west, preferably use the Whitestone, Throgs Neck, or Triboro Bridge (which are laden with heavy traffic as it is), and travel northeast-east again. It's not the bridge leads to an uninhabited place. Both places, southern Connecticut and Long Island, are very crowded places and a bridge/tunnel link between the two would reduce traffic loads and commute times. I think another option that I read about was that they might extend I-287 south-southwest and provide a link to Long Island (so that travelers going to Eastern Long Island from elsewhere wouldn't have to go through NYC).

[golden eagle]

If counting tunnels, what's the one that Chris Christie refused to have built?

[vdeane]

I believe the Amtrak tunnel under the Hudson that is technically still proposed and moving along.

[Jardine]

Haven't heard anything for several years about extending 16th street in Omaha Nebraska, north over the Missouri River, and then lining up with 130th street in Pottawatomie Co. and connecting with i-680 at the first interchange east of the Mormon Bridge.

The idea here is the bridge and connections would connect the Storz Expressway to I-680 (and I-29).

It would provide better access to Eppley Airfield from the north, and at last extend the North Expressway (albeit indirectly) to an interstate instead of dumping a  crush of traffic into the historic downtown Florence area via 30th street.

[froggie]

If counting tunnels, what's the one that Chris Christie refused to have built?

Was called Access to the Region's Core (or ARC). It was to have been a pair of NJTransit tunnels connecting to a new station adjacent to Penn Station, but the tracks would not have connected to anything else.  In theory, it would have preserved capacity on Amtrak's existing tunnels as NJTransit trains currently using the Amtrak tunnels would have been diverted.

The project Val is referring to is something different...called the Gateway Project.  It will, in effect, build two new Amtrak lines parallel to the existing lines.  A later phase will shift traffic to the new tunnels so that the existing Amtrak tunnels can be rehabilitated.  The end result will be 4 Amtrak tracks under the Hudson, all with through-running capability, instead of the existing 2.

[froggie]

On the subject of bridges...noticed I didn't mention these when the thread first started.

A 1963 Saint Paul thoroughfare plan proposed 3 new bridges across the Mississippi River that were never built:

- One would have directly connected E 34th St in Minneapolis to Summit Ave in St. Paul.

- A second bridge near downtown St. Paul would have connected to Plato Blvd on one side of the river and to Kellogg Blvd in the vicinity of the Xcel Center/Convention Center parking ramp on the downtown side.

- A third bridge was proposed near Pig's Eye that would have connected to a relocated Butler Ave in South St. Paul and to Lower Afton Rd at US 10/61 on the St. Paul side.

Not included on the 1963 map was a proposal that I've dated to the late 1960s that would have built a semi-direct river crossing connecting MN 62 to Shepard Rd in St. Paul.

[SteveG1988]

The Skylink Aerial Tram between Camden NJ and Philadelphia PA. Pier built on the PA side, foundation for a pier built on the NJ Side.







On the Camden side in aerial imagery you see the pier foundations, but nothing really got built.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-07-21-tram-trouble_x.htm

[GaryV]

I missed this the first time around, and since someone has revived it ....

There were several proposals to cross the Straits of Mackinac before the Mackinac Bridge was built:

In 1920, the Michigan state highway commissioner advocated construction of a floating tunnel across the Straits. At the invitation of the state legislature, C. E. Fowler of New York City put forth a plan for a long series of causeways and bridges across the straits from Cheboygan, 17 miles (27 km) southeast of Mackinaw City, to St. Ignace, using Bois Blanc, Round, and Mackinac islands as intermediate steps.

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Bridge )

[KEVIN_224]

Thanks for answering the Philadelphia question! I always wondered what that concrete was for!

[Jardine]

model of Ruck a Chucky Bridge.

I just love this one, too bad it's unbuilt.

[cl94]

If counting tunnels, what's the one that Chris Christie refused to have built?

Was called Access to the Region's Core (or ARC). It was to have been a pair of NJTransit tunnels connecting to a new station adjacent to Penn Station, but the tracks would not have connected to anything else.  In theory, it would have preserved capacity on Amtrak's existing tunnels as NJTransit trains currently using the Amtrak tunnels would have been diverted.

The project Val is referring to is something different...called the Gateway Project.  It will, in effect, build two new Amtrak lines parallel to the existing lines.  A later phase will shift traffic to the new tunnels so that the existing Amtrak tunnels can be rehabilitated.  The end result will be 4 Amtrak tracks under the Hudson, all with through-running capability, instead of the existing 2.

Correct. Part of the project would include converting the adjacent post office into an expanded Penn Station and 2 more tunnels under the East River (for a total of 6), in addition to added tracks east of Newark and a high-level bridge to replace a lift span. The North River Tunnels were severely damaged by Sandy, so building a new tunnel is the only way to repair them without greatly reducing capacity. Engineering is ongoing and the project is quite active, with the feds funding half of it and much of the rest coming from the Port Authority. Construction is expected to begin in 2019 with a planned 2024 opening. I'd be shocked if it wasn't built given the amount of support for it in both states.

ARC was a NJ Transit project that would have diverted most of their services, freeing the North River Tunnels for increased Amtrak service. In all, Gateway is actually a better project that is being lumped with the high-speed rail upgrades on the NEC to reduce travel times (and thus, theoretically, congestion on I-95).

[kkt]

The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795

or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795

That proposal has evolved.  More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380.  The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge.  The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.

[mrsman]

The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795

or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795

That proposal has evolved.  More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380.  The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge.  The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.

What is the comparison cost between putting up this bridge vs. widening the San Mateo Bridge.  In my mind, it would be most useful to widen existing bridges than to put up this new bridge.

[kkt]

The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795

or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795

That proposal has evolved.  More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380.  The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge.  The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.

What is the comparison cost between putting up this bridge vs. widening the San Mateo Bridge.  In my mind, it would be most useful to widen existing bridges than to put up this new bridge.

The San Mateo Bridge widening project in 2002 cost $189 million at the time.  That project built a new 3-lane bridge and converted the old 4-lane, no shoulders bridge into a 3-lane bridge with shoulders.  Adjusting the $189 million for today's construction costs is left as an exercise.

[Rothman]

The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795

or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795

That proposal has evolved.  More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380.  The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge.  The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.

What is the comparison cost between putting up this bridge vs. widening the San Mateo Bridge.  In my mind, it would be most useful to widen existing bridges than to put up this new bridge.

The San Mateo Bridge widening project in 2002 cost $189 million at the time.  That project built a new 3-lane bridge and converted the old 4-lane, no shoulders bridge into a 3-lane bridge with shoulders.  Adjusting the $189 million for today's construction costs is left as an exercise.

Seems remarkably cheap in any matter.

[kkt]

The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795

or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795

That proposal has evolved.  More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380.  The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge.  The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.

What is the comparison cost between putting up this bridge vs. widening the San Mateo Bridge.  In my mind, it would be most useful to widen existing bridges than to put up this new bridge.

The San Mateo Bridge widening project in 2002 cost $189 million at the time.  That project built a new 3-lane bridge and converted the old 4-lane, no shoulders bridge into a 3-lane bridge with shoulders.  Adjusting the $189 million for today's construction costs is left as an exercise.

Seems remarkably cheap in any matter.

Yes, it does.  I'm not sure that adding additional lanes would be as cheap though.  There may be ROW acquisition costs if it were to be widened again.

[Pete from Boston]

Does anyone remember the little yellow "BACK THE BOSTON BYPASS" signs on telephone poles around Massachusetts in the 1990s?

I can't believe this proposal gained enough tenacity to lodge itself in Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Zarrilli#Boston_Bypass

In any case, proposed a lot by one man, never built.

[Buffaboy]

The "New Peace Bridge," in Buffalo. It was cancelled partly due to the effects it could have on migratory birds, but I just think they couldn't come up with the money in the first place.

A long time ago I saved the articles in the Buffalo News that had the designs and proposals on them, but I don't know where they are now.

[kkt]

The "New Peace Bridge," in Buffalo. It was cancelled partly due to the effects it could have on migratory birds, but I just think they couldn't come up with the money in the first place.

A long time ago I saved the articles in the Buffalo News that had the designs and proposals on them, but I don't know where they are now.

Very pretty!

[Buffaboy]

The "New Peace Bridge," in Buffalo. It was cancelled partly due to the effects it could have on migratory birds, but I just think they couldn't come up with the money in the first place.

A long time ago I saved the articles in the Buffalo News that had the designs and proposals on them, but I don't know where they are now.

Very pretty!

Yes, it is a shame it wasn't constructed.

[Bruce]

The "Southern Crossing" has been proposed almost since the Bay Bridge first opened. Most plans had originating from US-101 along the Cesar Chavez Street (nee Army Street) corridor, either crossing to Alameda:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4235799354/in/set-72157622139053795

or Bay Farm Island, by the Oakland Airport:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231789143/in/set-72157622139053795

That proposal has evolved.  More recently it's been studied as a crossing farther south, connecting I-238 to I-380.  The advantage to crossing there is that 238 and 380 provide feeder routes farther inland than 880 and 101, so 880 and 101 wouldn't get as congested with traffic to and from the bridge.  The disadvantages are that it crosses the bay at its widest and most expensive point, that airplanes to and from both SFO and OAK would restrict the height of the bridge, there's still a couple of miles of housing and business subdivisions and wetlands it would have to pass through on the eastern side, and of course tremendous expense - estimated at $8 billion back in 2002 and who knows how much more now.

A proposal for the second Transbay Tube (for BART) would place it roughly in the same area, crossing over to Alameda:

[kkt]

A proposal for the second Transbay Tube (for BART) would place it roughly in the same area, crossing over to Alameda:

When is that concept from?  At some stages, they've talked about combining a road bridge with another BART tube.

[Bruce]

A proposal for the second Transbay Tube (for BART) would place it roughly in the same area, crossing over to Alameda:

When is that concept from?  At some stages, they've talked about combining a road bridge with another BART tube.

December 2014.

[kkt]

Hm.  Sort of a surprising route.  I would have thought they'd just add extra tracks from the Oakland Y to S.F.  The upper deck of the Market St. subway was originally designed for BART, they could build another subway for the Muni Light Rail, say down Mission St., and then use the upper deck for BART.

They should also not make a big expansion of BART's unique rail technology.  The track gauge used nowhere else except India makes every bit of track and every time they want to buy new cars cost much more.  The Richmond District should get rail, but it should be light rail like the rest of S.F., and Alameda if rail service is built there.

[roadman]

When the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel was being proposed, Robert Moses pushed for a suspension bridge instead:

http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/brooklyn-battery/

Robert Moses once described a tunnel as "a tiled vehicular bathroom."