News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

Corridor 58/Theodore Roosevelt expressway

Started by Stephane Dumas, January 19, 2009, 07:51:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Stephane Dumas

techically it's more closer to the "rural expressway" definition then the "eastern expressway" term although it could be who knows, part of a northern extension of I-27, what do you think of the project of the Theodore Roosevelt expwy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_Expressway


agentsteel53

will the two I-27s be eventually connected? ;)

it would be a better use of the 27 number than the Texas one, which should be I-140 instead.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Alex

1970s Interstate expansion maps show I-27 extending southward not northward. Of course they also had an east-west interstate traveling the length of Kansas too...

agentsteel53

Quote from: aaroads on January 19, 2009, 08:19:27 PM
1970s Interstate expansion maps show I-27 extending southward not northward. Of course they also had an east-west interstate traveling the length of Kansas too...

I would love to see this map.  Do you have it in electronic form?

which corridor was the E-W Kansas interstate on?  US-36?  US-50?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Alex

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 19, 2009, 08:23:58 PM
Quote from: aaroads on January 19, 2009, 08:19:27 PM
1970s Interstate expansion maps show I-27 extending southward not northward. Of course they also had an east-west interstate traveling the length of Kansas too...

I would love to see this map.  Do you have it in electronic form?

which corridor was the E-W Kansas interstate on?  US-36?  US-50?

I have photocopies of this from my days culling the University of Delaware library with Cary (Andy may have these now). Here it is in electronic form: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/pics/map-isr-1970.jpg

agentsteel53

looks like US-56 would've been upgraded.

I can barely make out the numbers, alas.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

andy3175

My guess is that this expressway will be at-grade with four lanes ... traffic counts probably don't justify the interchanges except at major cross highways. The heartland expressway (corridor 14) is a good example of this kind of construction ... follow South Dakota 79 south from Rapid City and you'll see the nature of construction on a current road map. A gap exists in northern Nebraska, and then it connects with Nebraska 71.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

brad2971

"The heartland expressway (corridor 14) is a good example of this kind of construction ... follow South Dakota 79 south from Rapid City and you'll see the nature of construction on a current road map. A gap exists in northern Nebraska, and then it connects with Nebraska 71. "

This is where my pet peeve with the Heartland Expressway starts. It was obvious 12 years ago that Nebraska wasn't willing to four-lane any part of US385 from the South Dakota border to L-62A (the link to US26 and Scottsbluff/N-71). Nebraska simply saw (and continues to see, despite what Scottsbluff development folks tell you) that there was no real benefit to that sort of expansion while needs in other parts of the state outside Omaha went unfilled. NDOR continues to send this message by continually delaying the Kimball N-71 bypass (now delayed until at least 2013), but Scottsbluff (and Rapid City) refuse to listen. :banghead:

And as far as Colorado goes, CDOT merely sees its portion of the Heartland Expressway (SH 71 from I-80 to Limon) as but a line on a webpage. Not only is no funding going to the Heartland Expressway anytime soon, but the only work that is going on the connector expressway called "Ports-to-Plains" is merely rebuilding US287 in concrete from Limon to the OK border. And parts of THAT project are waiting for some of Uncle Barack's money to commence construction. :pan:

All this time, Wyoming indicated to South Dakota that if they'd merely route the Heartland Expressway up US18 through Hot Springs and Edgemont, they'd be more than willing to four-lane the rest of US18 up to Orin Jct @I-25. Granted, WYDOT would've done the construction on the cheap, like the four-laning of US26 west of Torrington (not to mention what New Mexico has done so far with US491), but it is highly likely the Heartland Expressway would be done by now had South Dakota merely listened to Wyoming. :angry:

leifvanderwall

#8
Some roads and freeways that are short in length have the potential of being extended and I-27 is a perfect example. I think I-27 can be extended as far south as Brownsville, TX and extended far north to Denver. It's funny the masterminds of the DOTs want to spend  millions and billions on extending I-69 and I-74 when highways such as I-27 should be extended and would have a bigger impact. I actually think an extension of I-27 would make a bigger impact than the I-73/74 and the NAFTA I-69.

coolio

I would say make the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway as an extension of I-25, as it would be very unlikely that I-27 be extended north any time soon

WichitaRoads

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 02:25:37 AM
looks like US-56 would've been upgraded.

I can barely make out the numbers, alas.


Since the thread has been recently exhumed from the mausoleum, I'll comment here, too...

It's not US 56 on the map, its US 54. Note how it arcs through Wichita. I do also see US 169 and US 69 upgraded, and a stetch of US 36 from St. Joe MO to US 81, itself upgraded all the way to I-80.

Oddly enough, all of these routes in part (54, 169, 36) or in toto (69, 81) have been upgraded to some level of freeway standard. In many places, it would require either some more bypasses or upgrades akin to US 71 in MO to make I-49 possible.

I wonder if some of the points on that map were to just generally upgrade regular US routes, without necessarily gaining an "I" desgination.

I would love to know which numbers were being ballied about, though... the map appears too blurry.

ICTRds

J N Winkler

Quote from: WichitaRoads on September 11, 2013, 01:08:18 PMIt's not US 56 on the map, its US 54. Note how it arcs through Wichita.

What the map shows is a variant of the Southern Kansas Corridor that has been planned since the 1970's at least.  The US 54 freeway that currently exists between Pretty Prairie and Garden Plain (in eastern Kingman and far western Sedgwick Counties), whose first and longest part was originally built circa 1968, and which was reconstructed circa 2003, is the result of an earlier effort to develop this corridor.

Under Miller's secretaryship, KDOT pushed this corridor a bit more, but in general has been taking a more diversified approach instead of promoting Interstate-quality construction along just the US 54 corridor all the way to Oklahoma.  US 54 is getting attention up to the US 400 split near Mullinville (freeway bypass of Cunningham open for about a year and a half now; expressway relocation near the Byron Walker wildlife refuge currently under construction; plans on the shelf for a freeway relocation through Greensburg and a freeway-standard northern bypass of Kingman), but there has been considerable investment in the US 400 and US 50 corridors through Dodge City and Garden City as well.  US 54 has a recently-built short length of freeway between the Oklahoma state line and the southern outskirts of Liberal.

QuoteI do also see US 169 and US 69 upgraded, and a stetch of US 36 from St. Joe MO to US 81, itself upgraded all the way to I-80.

Oddly enough, all of these routes in part (54, 169, 36) or in toto (69, 81) have been upgraded to some level of freeway standard. In many places, it would require either some more bypasses or upgrades akin to US 71 in MO to make I-49 possible.

These routes are all part of the 1970's-era Kansas freeway and expressway system.  The 1970's "Interstate requests" map Alex posted a link to indicates that Kansas sought to have them funded as Interstates, probably by having them added to the system as Howard-Cramer mileage.  This was a futile hope since the nationwide ceiling on such mileage was 200 as of 1968, raised to 500 in 1973, and the aggregate mileage of the Kansas requests alone is well over the 1973 limit.

An alternative plan, which was explored in the early 1970's, was to develop an Eastern Kansas Turnpike in the US 69 corridor.  This was abandoned when Missouri started developing US 71 into a free expressway that would have stolen traffic from a tolled US 69.  The final result was the construction of long lengths of Super Two freeway in the US 69 and US 169 corridors, which were upgraded to full four-lane freeway under Carlson and Miller (all the way to Fort Scott in the case of US 69, and past Spring Hill as an extended bypass in the case of US 169).

I do find it a little surprising that US 75 is not included on the requests map because it followed a similar pattern of Super Two development in the 1970's followed by expansion to full freeway in the 1990's.  Milestones, if memory serves, mentions tentative 1970's plans to develop US 75 into a freeway or expressway corridor from Topeka to Tulsa.

QuoteI wonder if some of the points on that map were to just generally upgrade regular US routes, without necessarily gaining an "I" designation.

I think that is the case.  I believe a more fine-grained analysis of the map would show some diversity in strategies various state DOTs followed to get a share of the Howard-Cramer pie.  Kansas seems to have followed a door-in-the-face approach:  demand much in hopes of getting at least a little in the final settlement.  In contradistinction, Missouri--which had presumably been pushing the US 36, US 71, and US 54 corridors at the same time--seems to have been pursuing a foot-in-the-door approach:  make carefully calibrated requests in hopes of getting almost everything asked for.

QuoteI would love to know which numbers were being ballied about, though... the map appears too blurry.

I wouldn't expect numbers to be talked about at the request stage since, at that time, there was no precedent of I-99 or, more broadly, new Interstates or new additions to the system being promoted by route number (as we have seen now not just with I-99 but also with I-3, I-9, I-69, I-66, etc.).
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

WichitaRoads

#12
J N,

If there is anyone who could sum all of that up, it is certainly you! Thanks for the details! As for US 54 currently, I was surprised when I drove it the other day (same day as the bad accident near Cairo between Cunningham and Pratt) to note that, while I was driving on the new future westbound lanes, that it was an expressway set up with intersections, and not freeway. I was under the impression it would all be freeway.

However, it isn't hard to upgrade expressway to freeway, I just thought it was going to be that way anyway... dig the latrine while you have the shovel, not when you have to [bleep].

ICTRds

J N Winkler

Quote from: WichitaRoads on September 11, 2013, 03:40:18 PMIf there is anyonw who could some all of that up, it is certainly you! Thanks for the details! As for US 54 currently, I was surprised when I drove it the other day (same day as the bad accident near Cairo between Cunningham and Pratt) to note that, while I was driving on the new future westbound lanes, that it was an expressway set up with intersections, and not freeway. I was under the impression it would all be freeway.

Thank you for the kind words.

In regard to the Byron Walker Wildlife Area length of US 54, I had a look in my files for documentation on this project and failed to find any evidence that it was planned to open as a freeway in the first instance.  The oldest thing I have is a partial copy of the preliminary plans, which shows the upgradable expressway configuration that is currently being built.

The interesting thing is that while there are several intersections where frontage roads flare away from US 54 to leave room for future interchange ramps, the plans show a ghost outline for a future interchange at only one of these locations.

This file (previously linked to in a thread dealing with T-Works project selection) suggests that the original plan for this length of US 54 was addition of passing lanes, not four-laning:

http://www.ksdot.org/t-works/documents/SCLISTFinal.pdf

QuoteHowever, it isn't hard to upgrade expressway to freeway, I just thought it was going to be that way anyway... dig the latrine while you have the shovel, not when you have to [bleep].

From the standpoint of system continuity, it does make sense to have this length of US 54 be freeway when the adjoining segments on either side (Cunningham bypass to the west, Kingman bypass to the east) will be freeway.  But I can understand why KDOT went for an upgradable expressway for the initial construction.  The jam covers more of the bread the thinner it is spread, and the main problem with this length of US 54 is passing-related accidents (which are fixed by a divided cross-section whether the improvement is freeway or not) rather than side-impact crashes.

Also, the fate of the Kingman bypass is an open question.  I believe it is currently unfunded and it is not included in any of the T-Works project lists for US 54.  The last I heard, which was more than three years ago, KDOT had failed to secure TIGER funding for it.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

WichitaRoads

#14
I remember looking a while back at plans and I thought it had been freeway designed through there. However, I could be and probably am wrong here. Which ghosted interchange is shown? I'd be curious to know... I can think of the Penalosa turn-off right away. As for doing this over passing lanes, I am quite grateful they chose this instead! I drove US 400 today east from ICT enroute (loooooong way) to Leavenworth, and thought how much I wish they'd have built 4 divided over passing lanes. The traffic seems heavy whenever I use it.

As I use 54 often, even expressway format will be a huge improvement! Passing lanes, and a higher speed will be much appreicated... I guess I get stuck on freeways because I dream of the possibilty of making it an Interstate some day.

One more thing: I've lost the link to the historical highway lettings... do you still have it?

ICTRds

J N Winkler

Quote from: WichitaRoads on September 12, 2013, 03:19:50 PMI remember looking a while back at plans and I thought it had been freeway designed through there. However, I could be and probably am wrong here. Which ghosted interchange is shown? I'd be curious to know... I can think of the Penalosa turn-off right away. As for doing this over passing lanes, I am quite grateful they chose this instead! I drove US 400 today east from ICT enroute (loooooong way) to Leavenworth, and thought how much I wish they'd have built 4 divided over passing lanes. The traffic seems heavy whenever I use it.

The Penalosa turnoff is NW 110th Avenue in Kingman County and the plans I have don't show a ghost interchange there.  The ghost diamond that is shown is at NW 70th Avenue, just east of the Kingman State Fishing Lake.

To the west of Cunningham, where KDOT is also redeveloping US 54 as an upgradable expressway, the plans show another ghost interchange (also the only one in the set I examined, though frontage roads flare out at other intersections) at NE 100th Avenue in Pratt, which is very near Cairo.

I speculate that KDOT has included these ghost interchanges in the plans sets because they are both at locations where additional right-of-way could be more than usually difficult to acquire for future freeway upgrades, which makes it especially advantageous for KDOT to define the future footprint (including future construction limits) of interchanges at these locations.

QuoteAs I use 54 often, even expressway format will be a huge improvement! Passing lanes, and a higher speed will be much appreciated... I guess I get stuck on freeways because I dream of the possibilty of making it an Interstate some day.

It will certainly be nice to have continuous passing opportunity all the way from Augusta to Greensburg--US 54 carries heavy truck traffic and I can remember some hair-raising overtaking maneuvers west of Kingman.

The US 54/US 400 corridor has long been discussed in these boards as a sort of western I-66.  While I am skeptical that there will ever be the funding for this level of development east of Wichita, my personal priority list includes comprehensive grade separation on the increasingly stoplight-infested length between Wichita and Goddard.

P.S.  In regard to the Kingman bypass, a Google search turned up this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/morning_call/2012/09/bypass-around-kingman-emerges-in-kdot.html

I don't know how to interpret this in light of KDOT's recent comments (at a transportation summit held in Emporia about a week ago) that localities need to contribute more to planned projects if they expect to see them built.  $90 million (estimated cost of the bypass) is really rather a lot for a town of 3,000 to lift.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

TheStranger

Apparently, this corridor is now being considered as part of I-27, according to a news piece I just saw posted in a roadgeek facebook group:

https://www.kfyrtv.com/2024/06/13/new-interstate-run-through-north-dakota/

However, not sure if this is genuinely going to be part of that, or simply a cross-reference to how the Ports to Plains project does bring up the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway corridor:
https://portstoplains.com/about-us/

The Wikipedia page on the expressway does not have any source links newer than 2008.

The expressway's own website does not mention I-27 at all in its news updates:
https://www.trexpressway.com/NewsEventList
Chris Sampang

The Ghostbuster

Interstate 27 has as much of a chance being built along this corridor as I have at being crowned King of England. Outside of a possible expansion to four lanes, I don't see much else happening to this corridor any time soon if ever.

Bobby5280

It's going to be difficult enough as it is just getting US-287 turned into a regular 4-lane highway from the OK border to Limon, CO. I think all the future sections I-27 in Texas would get built before anything starts happening in Colorado.


TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2024, 10:55:23 AMInterstate 27 has as much of a chance being built along this corridor as I have at being crowned King of England. Outside of a possible expansion to four lanes, I don't see much else happening to this corridor any time soon if ever.

The idea of US 85 becoming a freeway between I-94 and Williston doesn't seem too far fetched dependent on how long the oil boom lasts, or how it evolves in the coming decades.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

JREwing78

As a mechanism to receive funding to extend the 4-lane sections or otherwise improve the existing N-S highways, and as a way to label the route to encourage more use, I don't see the harm in pushing for a "future" I-27 designation on which to base those decisions. But it's not 1957, and there's no massive chunk of infrastructure funding available to build this route out as an Interstate coming anytime soon. Routes with far more merit to be Interstate highways struggle to get the funding needed.

I-69 has basically been an Indiana and Texas priority, funded in large part on their own. Kentucky just happened to have suitable existing routes to slap the label on. Tennessee and Arkansas are slow-walking it forward as funding permits. I-69 has far more potential for economic impact than a straight-shot highway linking North Dakota to Texas.

splashflash

Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 14, 2024, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2024, 10:55:23 AMInterstate 27 has as much of a chance being built along this corridor as I have at being crowned King of England. Outside of a possible expansion to four lanes, I don't see much else happening to this corridor any time soon if ever.

The idea of US 85 becoming a freeway between I-94 and Williston doesn't seem too far fetched dependent on how long the oil boom lasts, or how it evolves in the coming decades.

The work on converting the road to 4 lane is well underway but not 4 lane divided, rather 4 lanes with a paved median.
https://www.trexpressway.com/usrfiles/TREMap.jpg

Molandfreak

This is just some journalist either unintentionally conflating two different topics or intentionally lying to generate clicks. No need to over analyze it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

WestDakota

Quote from: Molandfreak on June 15, 2024, 02:18:04 AMThis is just some journalist either unintentionally conflating two different topics or intentionally lying to generate clicks. No need to over analyze it.

A TV news reporter isn't going to be enough of a roadgeek to make up this story without the information being given to him.  There is a quote from ND rep Kelly Armstrong in the story, I would guess there was a press release from him that started it.  Others are correct in that there is no recent press release from the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway website or the Ports to Plains Corridor site to back any of it up.  So I'd put this on Kelly Armstrong, who is now running for Governor, on releasing this.  Probably for political reasons.

Bobby5280

Quote from: splashflashThe work on converting the road to 4 lane is well underway but not 4 lane divided, rather 4 lanes with a paved median.

That's not necessarily a deal breaker for a possible future upgrade to Interstate quality. I-44 South of Lawton looks like a 5-lane street; it just has a cable barrier installed in the concrete median.

The key things needed for any potential freeway upgrade: the main lanes need to have grading and curve geometry good enough for Interstate standards. The harder requirement: there has to be enough available space at intersections to build on/off ramps. If efforts aren't good enough at preserving ROW any future Interstate upgrade would be very difficult due to buildings and other stuff that have to be bought and removed.



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.