News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Baltimore 10-D and 3-A Freeway Plans

Started by Henry, November 11, 2015, 12:17:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Henry

After reading about the 10-D and 3-A plans for the Baltimore metropolitan area, I decided to do some sketches of each system. First up is the 10-D of 1962. The red line represents the East-West Expressway, blue is the Southwest/Jones Falls Expressway, yellow is the Windlass Freeway, green is the original Beltway southeast route, and purple is the Patapsco Freeway, including its potential northern extension:


Next is the 3-A of 1969. The red line is I-70, which now follows the path to I-95, blue is I-83, yellow is I-170, purple is I-95, including the bridge alignment over Fort McHenry, green is I-395, and orange is the potential MD 10 extension.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!


kj3400

That first one is crazy inside the city. The second one is the one I know the best, except I was not aware of the MD 10 extension.
Call me Kenny/Kenneth. No, seriously.

froggie

Henry, what was your actual source for these?  They don't match what I've found in the past.  For example, the MD 10 extension north of the Beltway (which was proposed in the 1964 BMATS) has it tying into MD 2 where MD 2 is split onto Potee and Hanover Sts, instead of bridging separately over the Patapsco.

cpzilliacus

Most of this network was not especially useful from a transportation perspective, and the proposed routing of I-83 through Canton would have been immensely damaging to a neighborhood that has escaped the worst damage from urban decay, the War on Drugs and other criminal activity.

But there is IMO one exception - I-70.  That should have been completed, probably using design, engineering and construction methods that would have reduced impacts on Leakin Park.  In other words, it should not have looked like I-83 along the Jones Falls, especially south of North Avenue.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Henry

Quote from: froggie on November 12, 2015, 10:11:14 AM
For example, the MD 10 extension north of the Beltway (which was proposed in the 1964 BMATS) has it tying into MD 2 where MD 2 is split onto Potee and Hanover Sts, instead of bridging separately over the Patapsco.

Why end it there, when the Harbor Tunnel Thruway is nearby? I based these routes off the various descriptions found on Wikipedia. And I did not include I-795 inside the Beltway, which was likely planned in conjunction with the Metro Subway routing that follows the same path.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

kj3400

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2015, 10:19:17 AM
But there is IMO one exception - I-70.  That should have been completed, probably using design, engineering and construction methods that would have reduced impacts on Leakin Park.  In other words, it should not have looked like I-83 along the Jones Falls, especially south of North Avenue.
I feel like tunnels would have been the best plan. I don't know if it is, but that's the only option I think would work. A completed I-70 would take a lot of traffic off of the beltway's southwest section which gets predictably clogged every rush hour from, you guessed it, I-70 to I-95.
Call me Kenny/Kenneth. No, seriously.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Henry on November 12, 2015, 12:16:48 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 12, 2015, 10:11:14 AM
For example, the MD 10 extension north of the Beltway (which was proposed in the 1964 BMATS) has it tying into MD 2 where MD 2 is split onto Potee and Hanover Sts, instead of bridging separately over the Patapsco.

Why end it there, when the Harbor Tunnel Thruway is nearby?

At least in part because of the nature of I-895 (Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway).

The emphasis of this road has always been on through movements.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: kj3400 on November 12, 2015, 02:36:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2015, 10:19:17 AM
But there is IMO one exception - I-70.  That should have been completed, probably using design, engineering and construction methods that would have reduced impacts on Leakin Park.  In other words, it should not have looked like I-83 along the Jones Falls, especially south of North Avenue.
I feel like tunnels would have been the best plan. I don't know if it is, but that's the only option I think would work. A completed I-70 would take a lot of traffic off of the beltway's southwest section which gets predictably clogged every rush hour from, you guessed it, I-70 to I-95.

It might also have induced more economic development in a part of Baltimore City that could desperately use same.   
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

The thing that's always struck me about the Baltimore plans, and planning in New York under Robert Moses, is the way they wanted to bulldoze waterfront real estate (the Inner Harbor in Baltimore; many areas in New York, including but not limited to the Rockaways) for roads. Moses was known to dislike waterfront development. I find it somewhat mind-boggling for a city to want to waste potentially valuable tax-generating property in that manner.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

froggie

Quote from: HenryWhy end it there, when the Harbor Tunnel Thruway is nearby?

It didn't end there...it continued up to I-95.  But my point was that what was actually proposed did not match what you put on your map.

Another example:  what you have for 95 within Baltimore in the 10-D system doesn't quite match either.  It's roughly what was proposed in 1960, but was changed by the time the 10-D system was approved in 1962.

QuoteI based these routes off the various descriptions found on Wikipedia.

As I already noted, what you posted is not necessarily correct or what was planned.  I'd also be wary of Wikipedia descriptions unless there's a separate source listed that one could verify with.

abefroman329

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2015, 04:01:03 PM
The thing that's always struck me about the Baltimore plans, and planning in New York under Robert Moses, is the way they wanted to bulldoze waterfront real estate (the Inner Harbor in Baltimore; many areas in New York, including but not limited to the Rockaways) for roads. Moses was known to dislike waterfront development. I find it somewhat mind-boggling for a city to want to waste potentially valuable tax-generating property in that manner.

Waterfront real estate has really only been valuable/desirable for the last 30 years or so.  It used to be where you put everything that you wanted to be out of sight.

TheOneKEA

Quote from: kj3400 on November 12, 2015, 02:36:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2015, 10:19:17 AM
But there is IMO one exception - I-70.  That should have been completed, probably using design, engineering and construction methods that would have reduced impacts on Leakin Park.  In other words, it should not have looked like I-83 along the Jones Falls, especially south of North Avenue.
I feel like tunnels would have been the best plan. I don't know if it is, but that's the only option I think would work. A completed I-70 would take a lot of traffic off of the beltway's southwest section which gets predictably clogged every rush hour from, you guessed it, I-70 to I-95.

The topography of the area would make tunneling outside of Leakin Park very difficult. The original 1969 plans show a tunnel in the park formed by cut and cover; if a bored tunnel was built to minimize parkland disturbances it would be much, much longer.

If you're going to build a tunnel of any type for a major freeway in the city, in my opinion you'd be better off using that tunnel to extend I-83 under the eastern harbor and link it to I-95. Tunneling I-70 would still bring lots of opposition due to environmental damage, but tunneling I-83 would potentially be perceived as an opportunity for environmental cleanup.

Still, if I had to choose I would definitely finish I-70, even if the link to I-95 was left out. It would have a gigantic effect on West Baltimore.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: TheOneKEA on November 13, 2015, 07:59:51 PM
The topography of the area would make tunneling outside of Leakin Park very difficult. The original 1969 plans show a tunnel in the park formed by cut and cover; if a bored tunnel was built to minimize parkland disturbances it would be much, much longer.

I do not dispute that - a tunnel boring machine (TBM) would have had to be launched some distance west of the Baltimore City/Baltimore County border in order to get deep enough on a reasonably gentle grade.  Note that know nothing about the geology of the land there, but at least in theory, a TBM would work.

Quote from: TheOneKEA on November 13, 2015, 07:59:51 PM
If you're going to build a tunnel of any type for a major freeway in the city, in my opinion you'd be better off using that tunnel to extend I-83 under the eastern harbor and link it to I-95. Tunneling I-70 would still bring lots of opposition due to environmental damage, but tunneling I-83 would potentially be perceived as an opportunity for environmental cleanup.

I do not believe there is much transportation benefit to completing I-83.  Baltimore City does not want I-83 (the Jones Falls Expressway) used as a truck access route to the city's intermodal facilities, which would be the primary reason to build it, and it is not really well-designed for tractor-trailers anyway.

Quote from: TheOneKEA on November 13, 2015, 07:59:51 PM
Still, if I had to choose I would definitely finish I-70, even if the link to I-95 was left out. It would have a gigantic effect on West Baltimore.

I-70 would have made West Baltimore more attractive to industrial and commercial uses that were once common there, dating back to the earliest days of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in the 1820's.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo


Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2015, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2015, 04:01:03 PM
The thing that's always struck me about the Baltimore plans, and planning in New York under Robert Moses, is the way they wanted to bulldoze waterfront real estate (the Inner Harbor in Baltimore; many areas in New York, including but not limited to the Rockaways) for roads. Moses was known to dislike waterfront development. I find it somewhat mind-boggling for a city to want to waste potentially valuable tax-generating property in that manner.

Waterfront real estate has really only been valuable/desirable for the last 30 years or so.  It used to be where you put everything that you wanted to be out of sight.

That doesn't make that sort of outlook any less incomprehensible. Utterly absurd way of thinking.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

mrsman

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2015, 08:43:04 PM

Quote from: abefroman329 on November 13, 2015, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2015, 04:01:03 PM
The thing that's always struck me about the Baltimore plans, and planning in New York under Robert Moses, is the way they wanted to bulldoze waterfront real estate (the Inner Harbor in Baltimore; many areas in New York, including but not limited to the Rockaways) for roads. Moses was known to dislike waterfront development. I find it somewhat mind-boggling for a city to want to waste potentially valuable tax-generating property in that manner.

Waterfront real estate has really only been valuable/desirable for the last 30 years or so.  It used to be where you put everything that you wanted to be out of sight.

That doesn't make that sort of outlook any less incomprehensible. Utterly absurd way of thinking.

What probably makes more sense is that the waterfront areas had more industry and building highways there would make it easier for truck access.    Look at all the places that have riverside railroad tracks. 

Plus, as many streets would not be needed to cross over the water, there would be fewer interchanges needed in such areas.


D-Dey65

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2015, 04:01:03 PM
The thing that's always struck me about the Baltimore plans, and planning in New York under Robert Moses, is the way they wanted to bulldoze waterfront real estate (the Inner Harbor in Baltimore; many areas in New York, including but not limited to the Rockaways) for roads. Moses was known to dislike waterfront development. I find it somewhat mind-boggling for a city to want to waste potentially valuable tax-generating property in that manner.
Moses also felt the development along places like Long Beach was more of a threat to the barrier islands than Ocean Parkway, the Shore Front Parkway, etcetera.

Either way, I still like the 3-A of 1969 much better, although I'm not sure how I feel about MD-10 going to I-95. Whether you have a bridge or tunnel, you'd more than likely have to add a toll, which isn't so great unless you go north on Route 10 and south to I-95. North on MD-10 and north on I-95 would mean you'd have to pay for two different crossings too soon.

NE2

This does not appear to be the "10-D" plan, which was apparently only inside Baltimore city limits: http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_10D_System.html
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

ixnay

Quote from: Henry on November 12, 2015, 12:16:48 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 12, 2015, 10:11:14 AM
For example, the MD 10 extension north of the Beltway (which was proposed in the 1964 BMATS) has it tying into MD 2 where MD 2 is split onto Potee and Hanover Sts, instead of bridging separately over the Patapsco.

Why end it there, when the Harbor Tunnel Thruway is nearby? I based these routes off the various descriptions found on Wikipedia. And I did not include I-795 inside the Beltway, which was likely planned in conjunction with the Metro Subway routing that follows the same path.


Imagine tens of thousands of vehicles pouring onto Wabash Ave. from 795 every morning...

ixnay
The Washington/Baltimore/Arlington CSA has two Key Bridges, a Minnesota Avenue, and a Mannasota Avenue.

Henry

Quote from: ixnay on November 15, 2015, 06:45:19 PM

Imagine tens of thousands of vehicles pouring onto Wabash Ave. from 795 every morning...

ixnay
Which is exactly why it looks that way (albeit an empty boulevard thanks to the cancelled part of I-795), similar to President Street in relation to I-83. But thankfully, the Metro gets along just fine without the planned corridor.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

ARMOURERERIC

I think freeways were proposed along waterfronts in the late 1950's with the intent of getting an excuse to demolish what would have been empty and delapitated building at government expense.  I saw a photo expose of the Alaska Way Viaduct.  The viaduct was actually way more attractive than what it replaced.

The Ghostbuster

Which plan do you think would have reduced congestion the most? Theoretically, of course.

Alps

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2015, 03:49:11 PM
Which plan do you think would have reduced congestion the most? Theoretically, of course.
Most of 3-A is favorable, but the one element of 10-D that would possibly be the most helpful is linking I-83 to I-95 west of downtown (the four-way I-70 interchange). There's too much pressure on the tunnels, and taking 83 to the southeast from its current terminus doesn't serve much traffic (I'm sure that factored into delaying it until it was canceled). However, I like the 3-A idea of taking I-170 into downtown and bringing 70 into 95 south of there, allowing some separation of through and local traffic.

triplemultiplex

Refresh my memory; was it ever considered to route I-83 west of downtown via what is today MLK and I-395?

Looking at the city today, it seems like the path of least resistance to connect 83 to 95.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

froggie

Quote from: AlpsMost of 3-A is favorable, but the one element of 10-D that would possibly be the most helpful is linking I-83 to I-95 west of downtown (the four-way I-70 interchange).

It should be noted that there was only a VERY BRIEF time period (before 10-D) where a "four way interchange" was considered, and it wasn't on the west side of downtown either...it was to be next to the Inner Harbor in the southeast corner of downtown.

Quote from: triplemultiplexRefresh my memory; was it ever considered to route I-83 west of downtown via what is today MLK and I-395?

No.  A connector was proposed for some time in the 1960s along that general corridor, though.

QuoteLooking at the city today, it seems like the path of least resistance to connect 83 to 95.

It may SEEM that way, until one looks at the topography, density, and underground tunnels involved...

cpzilliacus

Quote from: froggie on November 19, 2015, 09:14:51 PM
It may SEEM that way, until one looks at the topography, density, and underground tunnels involved...

Agree with Adam. It would have worked reasonably well to get as far as the northern terminus of Martin Luther King Boulevard. 

But from there to the Jones Falls Expressway, it would have been a hugely expensive mess (including trying to deal with the Howard Street railroad tunnel used by CSX) and destructive of something that Baltimore badly needs more of - a reasonably healthy neighborhood.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.



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.