Your State's Most Difficult Highway

Started by theroadwayone, September 01, 2018, 02:14:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

WillWeaverRVA

Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2018, 07:16:45 PM
The 9.6 mile segment of I-66 between I-495 and Rosslyn.

The original eight-lane I-66 proposal inside the Beltway was blocked due to citizen opposition and a decision by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation.  I-66 was downscaled by VDH&T to four lanes (2 each way), with HOV-4 rush hour restrictions (meaning that a vehicle must have at least 4 persons onboard to legally use the highway) in the peak direction (years later reduced to HOV-3, and then to HOV-2), and with no large trucks allowed at any time.  This was authorized by a new decision of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation.   Construction spanned from 1977 to 1982.

I'm not entirely sure anything in Virginia comes close to I-66 in terms of the number of hoops that had to be jumped through in order to get it built.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2


bzakharin

I-78 in NJ was delayed and rerouted due to both environmental considerations and local opposition, which in turn caused delays due to mountainous terrain. It was, however, eventually built (more or less). It was planned in 1958 as part of the original Interstate system, but opened only in 1989. Similarly I-287, planned around the same time, only opened in 1993, due to community opposition and having to be rerouted due to costs of the original routing.

Of course, I-95 is the longest delayed, but doesn't really count as its "completion" in NJ consists entirely of redesignating existing routes. The roads themselves were actually built pretty quickly.

Beltway

Quote from: Roadsguy on September 04, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
Hands down the Blue Route (Mid-County Expressway/I-476) in Pennsylvania. It was planned from the 1960s, but didn't get completed until 1992 after many legal battles and design compromises (such as only building it to four lanes south of PA 3).

The I-676 Vine Street Expressway is in close competition for that slot.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Mapmikey

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 04, 2018, 10:11:00 AM


I'm not entirely sure anything in Virginia comes close to I-66 in terms of the number of hoops that had to be jumped through in order to get it built.

Probably the next closest competitor to this would be I-664 which was approved in 1968 but there were numerous hoops surrounding whether to de-certify I-64 over HRBT in conjunction; I-664 mileage running out in the middle of the James River; VDOT eventually deciding to fund the balance themselves; finding a way to get FHWA to fund the rest after all; then the actual construction which ran from the late 70s until the final segment opened in 1992.

Looking at the question slightly differently, a contender could be the US 17 York River bridge, first authorized in 1932 but not built until 1952.  A bridge between Scotland-Jamestown was also authorized in 1932...still waiting on that one...

US71

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 01, 2018, 02:14:51 PM
Which highway in your state faced the hardest obstacles--political, financial, geographical, etc--but still got built regardless?

Rereading the OP, I'd have to say I-49 Alma to Fayetteville. It was proposed as far back as 1969, though on a different alignment, but it wasn't until the 1990's that it got built. The original contractor went bankrupt and there were also set backs  building the tunnel, plus the overall rugged terrain.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Beltway

Quote from: Mapmikey on September 04, 2018, 12:52:42 PM
Probably the next closest competitor to this would be I-664 which was approved in 1968 but there were numerous hoops surrounding whether to de-certify I-64 over HRBT in conjunction; I-664 mileage running out in the middle of the James River; VDOT eventually deciding to fund the balance themselves; finding a way to get FHWA to fund the rest after all; then the actual construction which ran from the late 70s until the final segment opened in 1992.

No opposition, though, and as expensive as it was it all got funding under 90/10 FHWA/state funding.

The Downtown Expressway would be #2 in Virginia, as it was challenged in federal courts by opposition groups, due to high levels of business and residential relocations, impact to canal artifacts, NEPA issues as that had just been enacted, and after the main expressway was cleared for construction, the two southerly elevated ramps with I-95 were held up for a time by opponents thru the permitting process where the U.S. Coast Guard needed to issue a permit to allow RMA to build 5 bridge piers in the channel of the truncated end of the old city canal, unused by marine traffic for over 30 years and largely silted in, with or without standing water based on the amount of recent rainfall, but still considered a navigable waterway by the Coast Guard.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

thenetwork

I know this will be debatable for OH,  but the one that was the hardest to get.done was the completion of the link for the Jennings Freeway (SR-176) in Cleveland.  The freeway was only built in the 60s from I-71 to Denison Avenue.  It could've been connected to I-77
In the 70s via the I-480 "stub" or to I-480 when it was finally finished  in 1987.  But it took until 1998-99 until the missing link was done, despite the ROW being acquired and mostly cleared since the 70s. 

For Colorado, I would say the westernmost stretch of I-76 in Denver (West of I-25).  Prior to that nearly all the traffic from the east and north had to go through the I-70/I-25 "Mousetrap" to reach points west along I-70. 

Sadly, the missing link of I-76 was underbuilt and badly needs a 3rd lane in each direction, along with I-270, as the I-70 viaduct replacement nightmare has started. 

cpzilliacus

#32
Quote from: TheOneKEA on September 02, 2018, 07:35:20 AM
There are at least three such highways in MD:

- MD 200, the Intercounty Connector. cpzillacus and Beltway could each post novel-length treatises about the political and financial mayhem that preceded the eventual start of construction of the ICC, and the environmental compromises which increased the financial difficulties and reduced the utility of the corridor.

You left one out in the same county as above - I-495 on the north edge of Chevy Chase between the I-270/MD-355 (Rockville Pike) interchange (Exits 34 and 35) and and MD-97 (Georgia Avenue) (Exit 31).

This was planned starting not long after the Interstate Act was signed in 1956 (and there had been planning work as far back as the 1940's), and may have been the first section of the Capital Beltway open to traffic by 1959 or 1960, between Exits 34 and 35 and present-day MD-185 Connecticut Avenue (Exit 33). It was originally built to parkway standards but follows the same alignment that's there today.  It closed after being open for a year or two and was reconstructed into a 6 lane freeway.

There was no National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), no Section 4(F) (limits construction of federal-aid transportation projects in parklands) and no Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (limits wetland impacts) then. 

Had Section 4(F) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act been in effect when this was being designed, it might have had to follow a very different path through neighborhoods with much more community impact than it did in Montgomery County (most of it runs on land that was part of Maryland's section of Rock Creek Park).

All of these provisions in federal law were used to object to MD-200 (ICC) decades later.

But the solid citizens of Chevy Chase had another weapon - Congress.  Several members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate lived near the proposed routing of the Circumferential Highway as it was called then (and did not represent Maryland), but still did the bidding of the many wealthy persons in Chevy Chase that were opposed to its construction.   

Then, as now, the opponents had one obstacle that they  could not overcome - Gov. J. Millard Tawes (D), probably the governor that opened more freeway-class roads in the state than any other governor.   In general, projects that  a Maryland governor wants are likely to get approved and built, even when there is loud and frantic opposition.
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.

roadman

Quote from: WR of USA on September 01, 2018, 08:51:04 PM
For Massachusetts, it was certainly I-93 through downtown Boston. The big dig is estimated to cost over 20 Billion dollars, filled with numerous cost overruns and tunnel leakage problems. It needed to be built regardless of costs and geological difficulties, it’s a critical corridor for the Boston area.
With respect, rebuilding the existing elevated highway - minus certain exit and entrance ramps - would have accomplished the same purpose for far less money and fewer daily operational and maintenance requirements.  With the exception of the Ted Williams Tunnel, which could and should have been constructed on its own merits, the Big Dig was a glorified urban beautification project disguised as a highway improvement.  And for those who don't agree with me, consider this:  Old elevated Central Artery:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.  New underground O'Neill Tunnel:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.  Plus worse visibility due to constraints of tunnel ceiling.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

Flint1979

The Central Artery was an eyesore to say the least. Be happy that thing is gone.

Rothman

Quote from: roadman on September 05, 2018, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: WR of USA on September 01, 2018, 08:51:04 PM
For Massachusetts, it was certainly I-93 through downtown Boston. The big dig is estimated to cost over 20 Billion dollars, filled with numerous cost overruns and tunnel leakage problems. It needed to be built regardless of costs and geological difficulties, it’s a critical corridor for the Boston area.
With respect, rebuilding the existing elevated highway - minus certain exit and entrance ramps - would have accomplished the same purpose for far less money and fewer daily operational and maintenance requirements.  With the exception of the Ted Williams Tunnel, which could and should have been constructed on its own merits, the Big Dig was a glorified urban beautification project disguised as a highway improvement.  And for those who don't agree with me, consider this:  Old elevated Central Artery:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.  New underground O'Neill Tunnel:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.  Plus worse visibility due to constraints of tunnel ceiling.
I disagree.  Traffic flows better through the Big Dig than it ever did on the Artery.  Replacing the Artery would have been idiotic, for those of us that remember it.

That said, signage in the tunnel needs drastic visibility improvements.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Flint1979

Quote from: Rothman on September 05, 2018, 01:40:17 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 05, 2018, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: WR of USA on September 01, 2018, 08:51:04 PM
For Massachusetts, it was certainly I-93 through downtown Boston. The big dig is estimated to cost over 20 Billion dollars, filled with numerous cost overruns and tunnel leakage problems. It needed to be built regardless of costs and geological difficulties, it's a critical corridor for the Boston area.
With respect, rebuilding the existing elevated highway - minus certain exit and entrance ramps - would have accomplished the same purpose for far less money and fewer daily operational and maintenance requirements.  With the exception of the Ted Williams Tunnel, which could and should have been constructed on its own merits, the Big Dig was a glorified urban beautification project disguised as a highway improvement.  And for those who don't agree with me, consider this:  Old elevated Central Artery:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.  New underground O'Neill Tunnel:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.  Plus worse visibility due to constraints of tunnel ceiling.
I disagree.  Traffic flows better through the Big Dig than it ever did on the Artery.  Replacing the Artery would have been idiotic, for those of us that remember it.

That said, signage in the tunnel needs drastic visibility improvements.
The Artery was so obsolete by the time it was replaced. I can't imagine anyone wanting that highway rebuilt and it traveled right through downtown Boston making it look like Boston's second Green Monster.

roadman

Quote from: Rothman on September 05, 2018, 01:40:17 PM
That said, signage in the tunnel needs drastic visibility improvements.

Unfortunately, that is not practical.  The overall panel heights are limited by the tunnel ceiling (unless you think the clearance should be reduced to accommodate larger signs - which means that most trucks could no longer use it).  In fact, as panels are replaced due to damage from bouncing trucks, the heights have been reduced by half a foot to minimize the potential for similar damage in the future.  So many of the current signs are less legible than the signs that were in place when the tunnel was first opened to traffic.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

SD Mapman

For SD it'd probably be US 16A on the Iron Mountain Road section (S of Keystone). That's not the greatest terrain, and it doesn't really serve any point.
The traveler sees what he sees, the tourist sees what he has come to see. - G.K. Chesterton

DJ Particle

Quote from: roadman on September 05, 2018, 11:28:41 AM
Old elevated Central Artery:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.  New underground O'Neill Tunnel:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.

The tunnel has utility accel/decel lanes.  The old artery did not.  That makes a lot of difference.

DJ Particle

#40
Another one in MN was the rerouting of MN-55 between Hennepin CSAH 46 and MN-62.  The bridge over Lake Street was built and sat unused for about 2 years while they waited for clearance to build the expressway down south.  Local Native groups protested saying it disturbed ancient burial grounds, and there was a wetlands scare surrounding the interchange area near Fort Snelling (and the fact that water pooled...DEEP... under the bridge during construction didn't help).

Some years earlier, the last (at the time) quarter mile of MN-62 from 46th Ave to MN-55 used to reduce to a 2-lane road, and take 2 sharp turns before ending at a signal with MN-55.  This was because environmentalists hoped to protect what they thought was "untouched prairie"...later they were reminded that it can't be "untouched" because the Fort had been on that property for over 100 years!  Needless to say, they straightened and double-barreled that stretch soon after.

tckma

Let's see... states I've lived in...

MARYLAND:  Without question, MD-200, the Intercounty Connector.  Pretty sure they were fighting about building that one since the early 1970s.  The road serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever as built.  I think it would be far more useful/used if it were, as originally intended -- connected to a to-be-built additional Potomac River crossing and connected to the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286, née VA-7100).

VIRGINIA: I don't know.  The Lexus Lanes on I-495?  But that happened after I moved to Maryland.

MASSACHUSETTS:Probably much of the originally-planned freeway network around Boston, OR The Big Dig.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Not sure if this was statewide, but when I lived in Nashua in 2001-02, a lot of local folks cursed and swore when I asked about why the Nashua Circumferential Highway exists as nothing more than a bridge from Nashua to the Hudson Wal-Mart (seriously), and when I posited that the exit number sequence skip from 8 to 10 on the Everett Turnpike was for the connection on the other end of the semicircle (to be exit 9).  Back then my roadgeek tendencies would only occasionally emerge in public. ;)

NEW YORK:At least in the area where I grew up, the connection from the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway to the never-built Bayville to Rye Bridge.  Said bridge would have been constructed right over a large portion of the school district where I went to elementary school and high school.

froggie

Quote from: DJ ParticleSome years earlier, the last (at the time) quarter mile of MN-62 from 46th Ave to MN-55 used to reduce to a 2-lane road, and take 2 sharp turns before ending at a signal with MN-55.  This was because environmentalists hoped to protect what they thought was "untouched prairie"...later they were reminded that it can't be "untouched" because the Fort had been on that property for over 100 years!  Needless to say, they straightened and double-barreled that stretch soon after.

The stretch of prairie grass in question was outside the Fort grounds.  It was, and still is, just north of where the on-ramp from 55/Minnehaha merges onto westbound 62.  It's behind the fenced off area there, though a few trees have grown on the grounds in the meantime.

Super Mateo

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 01, 2018, 09:08:16 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 01, 2018, 02:14:51 PM
Which highway in your state faced the hardest obstacles--political, financial, geographical, etc--but still got built regardless?
In IL:

The I-355 South Extension from I-55 to I-80 faced environmental and political issues, but did eventually get built, about a decade after it was pretty much ready to go

Those Flyover Ramp supports sat at the I-55 and I-355 interchange median for years, unused. But now, they carry the ramps and the additional I-355 mainline over I-55 in Bolingbrook

The leg of the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway/Now IL 390 Tollway from I-290 to the O'Hare Western Boundry finally got built. Who knows if the leg to Elgin, west of Lake Street is ever built...

I-355 got struck down by a judge in 1997.

Chris19001

New York has to have the Cross-Bronx somewhere high on the list.  While it didn't have the political opposition as many others, its engineering was none-the-less impressive and all but impossible to imagine being done today.

skluth

Quote from: Beltway on September 04, 2018, 06:35:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 04, 2018, 12:52:42 PM
Probably the next closest competitor to this would be I-664 which was approved in 1968 but there were numerous hoops surrounding whether to de-certify I-64 over HRBT in conjunction; I-664 mileage running out in the middle of the James River; VDOT eventually deciding to fund the balance themselves; finding a way to get FHWA to fund the rest after all; then the actual construction which ran from the late 70s until the final segment opened in 1992.

No opposition, though, and as expensive as it was it all got funding under 90/10 FHWA/state funding.

The Downtown Expressway would be #2 in Virginia, as it was challenged in federal courts by opposition groups, due to high levels of business and residential relocations, impact to canal artifacts, NEPA issues as that had just been enacted, and after the main expressway was cleared for construction, the two southerly elevated ramps with I-95 were held up for a time by opponents thru the permitting process where the U.S. Coast Guard needed to issue a permit to allow RMA to build 5 bridge piers in the channel of the truncated end of the old city canal, unused by marine traffic for over 30 years and largely silted in, with or without standing water based on the amount of recent rainfall, but still considered a navigable waterway by the Coast Guard.

I lived in Portsmouth for a few years. I'd put the second tube of the Midtown Tunnel into this discussion. It had been debated for years before I got there in 2003 and only finally was competed in 2016.

skluth

I've lived over 50 of my 62 years in either Wisconsin (until I was 31 with some gaps) or Missouri (1987 to early 2018 except 2003-07).

Wisconsin - I/WI-794, the Harbor Bridge and Lake Parkway.

Missouri - MO-364, Page Avenue extension. Though if either ever gets built, the Bella Vista bypass (fairly likely) or making US-71 through KC fully limited access (very unlikely).

Beltway

Quote from: skluth on September 06, 2018, 12:58:09 PM
I lived in Portsmouth for a few years. I'd put the second tube of the Midtown Tunnel into this discussion. It had been debated for years before I got there in 2003 and only finally was competed in 2016.

The eventual need for a parallel Midtown Tunnel had been recognized since about 1980.  Expanding the Midtown Tunnel was a second priority to expanding the Downtown Tunnel, though, and that was completed for the tunnel in 1987 and for the Berkley Bridge and approaches in 1991.

An EIS/location study was completed and approved by FHWA in 1996, and it included the Pinners Point Interchange (Port Norfolk Connector) and the Parallel Midtown Tunnel.

A project was ready to go for the parallel Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway Extension in 2000, but the cost and toll opposition prevented it from moving forward.  The cost was about $600 million back then and by the time that the current project was started in 2012 it was $1.4 billion for construction, and was completed in 2016, and both tunnels were tolled to help pay for the project.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

ipeters61

Quote from: DJ Particle on September 06, 2018, 07:31:27 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 05, 2018, 11:28:41 AM
Old elevated Central Artery:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.  New underground O'Neill Tunnel:  3 through lanes northbound, 3 through lanes southbound.

The tunnel has utility accel/decel lanes.  The old artery did not.  That makes a lot of difference.
I also was thinking that the tunnel had far fewer exits and entrances than the Central Artery (granted, I didn't live during the Artery days, but I've seen videos of it).  Just look at I-84 in Hartford for a still-standing example of why too many exits and entrances are a bad idea.  I can recall many times where I dreaded entering I-84 from Sigourney Street.  I have no idea how my father managed to do it every day.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on my posts on the AARoads Forum are my own and do not represent official positions of my employer.
Instagram | Clinched Map

skluth

Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2018, 01:25:01 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 06, 2018, 12:58:09 PM
I lived in Portsmouth for a few years. I'd put the second tube of the Midtown Tunnel into this discussion. It had been debated for years before I got there in 2003 and only finally was competed in 2016.

The eventual need for a parallel Midtown Tunnel had been recognized since about 1980.  Expanding the Midtown Tunnel was a second priority to expanding the Downtown Tunnel, though, and that was completed for the tunnel in 1987 and for the Berkley Bridge and approaches in 1991.

An EIS/location study was completed and approved by FHWA in 1996, and it included the Pinners Point Interchange (Port Norfolk Connector) and the Parallel Midtown Tunnel.

A project was ready to go for the parallel Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway Extension in 2000, but the cost and toll opposition prevented it from moving forward.  The cost was about $600 million back then and by the time that the current project was started in 2012 it was $1.4 billion for construction, and was completed in 2016, and both tunnels were tolled to help pay for the project.

Thanks for the background. I know my neighbors in Shea Terrace had given up on the second tube ever being built and were steadfastly opposed to a toll. Pinners Point was completed while I was there and thought to be something to help people getting to the Navy bases quicker at the expense of views for Point Norfolk residents. (Though they were also happy all those cars were no longer whizzing down Mt Vernon.) Personally, I would have been fine with tolls even though I had a back access to the tunnel through the east end of Point Norfolk which made my morning commute relatively simple. I'm glad the tunnel was finally built along with completing the MLK Freeway.



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.