Projects That Even a Roadgeek Does Not Want

[Grzrd]

I'm a newbie, so apologies if this has been hashed out on an older thread (7 pages of GHT topics too much for me to go thru ...)

We are all road enthusiasts and love the thrill of riding "new" road after completion of a construction project, whether new terrain or upgrade.  However, have you ever read about a project and had an impulse to be against it?

I have surprised myself by having this reaction to the proposed Interstate 3 from Savannah to Knoxville.  Savannah thru Augusta to I-85 makes a lot of sense to me.  However, the "mountain" section from I-85 to Knoxville just does not sit well with me.  I think I-40, I-26 and I-77 collectively provide sufficient Interstate mountain corridors for Tenn./ western N.C. area.  [FULL DISCLOSURE - I grew up in foothills of NE Georgia and I suspect I may be getting in touch with my "inner NIMBY"  ].

Has anyone else had a similar reaction to a given project?

[agentsteel53]

any mention of the National Highway System can die in a fire.

[Brandon]

I-66, I-69, I-73, and I-74 come to my mind.

I-66 is a bit silly.  Just upgrade the parkways in Kentucky and use a number that fits such as I-56.
I-69 is too ambitious, IMHO.  Use a few numbers that fit the grid to an extent, and use a suplimentary shield for the CanAmMex Corridor.
I-73.  Why?  Ohio and Michigan don't seem to want it.  NC should use another number such as I-91 (south a la I-76, I-84, etc).
I-74.  Again, why?  Only NC is hot to trot to have it.

[RoadWarrior56]

I am sold on I-69.  It may be ambitious, but it would serve a need and fill out several missing links in the interstate grid.

As far as I-66,I-73 and I-74 in North Carolina are concerned, you are right, they are pointless and a waste of resources.

[J N Winkler]

This is a highly personal response, but if I am not going to be able to see the construction plans for it, I don't give a flying fuck if it gets built.

[agentsteel53]

another highly personal response but any signs that get put up with 1970 or newer specifications are damn near completely worthless to me.

[Grzrd]

This is a highly personal response, but if I am not going to be able to see the construction plans for it, I don't give a flying fuck if it gets built.

With that mild sentiment in mind, here is link to a map of possible I-3 "mountain" routes: http://www.stopi3.org/maps/images/Slide46_jpg.jpg 

I-3 is still very much just a distant concept & the map is closest thing I have seen to construction plans.

I assume you meant that you make up your mind much later in the process when you can assess "the devil in the details" and were speaking in general terms, not I-3. Nevertheless, I thought the group might enjoy the map.

[hbelkins]

My objection to I-3 is the number more than anything else. Totally out of place and even more wrongly placed and offensive than I-99.

A more pressing need in this area is completion of the US 64/US 74 corridor between Chattanooga and Asheville, which does not need to be built to full freeway standards.

[Grzrd]

A more pressing need in this area is completion of the US 64/US 74 corridor between Chattanooga and Asheville, which does not need to be built to full freeway standards.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100805/OPINION01/308050009/1006

Looks like more $$$ becoming available for Corridor K - US 64/ US 74:

"August 5, 2010

... North Carolina had a long-standing formula that mixed ARC money slated for the western 29 counties with the N.C. Department of Transportation's general budget. Money meant for mountain roads was going to pave Piedmont and Coastal projects as well.

Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe and the Senate's majority leader said it was one of the legislature's chief accomplishments during the short session in a year marked with budget shortfalls and hard decisions to change that formula. "This is huge for our region,"  Nesbitt told the AC-T editorial board this week.

That should mean $30 million annually focused specifically on highway needs in the mountains, in addition to the state highway funds allotted for the western counties.

Nesbitt said the funding could be used to improve the Corridor K series of highways – U.S. 64 and U.S. 74 – from Sylva to Bryson City, Andrews and Murphy over into Chattanooga, Tenn. Some portions of that road remain controversial in Graham County, where environmentalists worry about destruction of natural habitat while business leaders welcome potential economic benefits."

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I would not want I-35 extended farther up the north shore (current MN 61). Originally when the freeway was extended it was planned to extend all the way to the MN 61 expressway northeast of 60th Ave, but the project was cut off at 26th Ave E. I would not want the freeway extended any further, then, now, or ever.

[huskeroadgeek]

I don't care much for I-69, especially the piecemeal way in which it is coming together. It just doesn't make much sense to me to designate small stretches of road as I-69 when the whole project is a long ways from being finished. I just don't see the need for very many new long distance interstates at all. The only ones I really see the need for are some along already-existing roads that should be upgraded to interstate status such as CA 99 from I-5 to Sacramento and US 78 from Memphis to Birmingham.

[mgk920]

I'm a newbie, so apologies if this has been hashed out on an older thread (7 pages of GHT topics too much for me to go thru ...)

We are all road enthusiasts and love the thrill of riding "new" road after completion of a construction project, whether new terrain or upgrade.  However, have you ever read about a project and had an impulse to be against it?

I have surprised myself by having this reaction to the proposed Interstate 3 from Savannah to Knoxville.  Savannah thru Augusta to I-85 makes a lot of sense to me.  However, the "mountain" section from I-85 to Knoxville just does not sit well with me.  I think I-40, I-26 and I-77 collectively provide sufficient Interstate mountain corridors for Tenn./ western N.C. area.  [FULL DISCLOSURE - I grew up in foothills of NE Georgia and I suspect I may be getting in touch with my "inner NIMBY"  ].

Has anyone else had a similar reaction to a given project?

Any such a project would require a LOT of expensive long tunneling and viaduct bridging, much like what is seen on some of those Alpine and other mountain motorways in Europe.  OTOH, it would allow the current road through that area (the 'Dragon's Tail' section of US 129, which I have driven ) to be downgraded and converted into an NPS parkway, perhaps to be added to the Blue Ridge and/or Foothills Parkways.

As for the numbering - as I have stated before, I am not at all 'AR' regarding these things and due to a severe geographic imbalance in the availability of 'proper' I-route numbers, will not oppose this one.  I will also not oppose 'out of sequence' numbers if they are logical continuations of already existing routes.

Mike

[J N Winkler]

To be honest, I don't think an I-3 in the mountains would be so bad provided it were designed with thoroughgoing application of the advice contained here:

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13935523M/Trassierung_und_Gestaltung_von_Strassen_und_Autobahnen.

[Grzrd]

To be honest, I don't think an I-3 in the mountains would be so bad provided it were designed with thoroughgoing application of the advice contained here:

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13935523M/Trassierung_und_Gestaltung_von_Strassen_und_Autobahnen.

As long as the application allows the cars to run on time ... 

[bugo]

Riverside Freeway in Tulsa.

[Michael in Philly]

Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built.  We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan....  Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.

[agentsteel53]

Speaking as a confirmed city person, I am heartily thankful that certain urban freeways proposed in the 60s or earlier were never built.  We would have lost South Street here in Philadelphia, swaths of Manhattan....  Although I can't think of anything I'd like to see torn down.

don't forget the Inner Beltway (I-695) in Boston, that would've basically torn out half of Cambridge.

[wandering drive]

If I were alive back then, I probably would have shunned plowing Rondo Street in St. Paul for I-94, but the freeway is indispensable now.
In the present day, every time I call my mom who lives in southern Minneapolis, she complains about yet another overpass/ramp closure on I-35W that forces her to the side streets to get downtown.  Everything they're doing to that stretch between MN-62 and downtown Minneapolis seem to cater to those who come from the far southern suburbs at the expense those who live in the city proper.

[froggie]

Not entirely the case.  I grew up in south Minneapolis off 60th and found 35W to be quite useful in heading into downtown or points further north.  There's also the little matter that, without this project, traffic would continue to divert onto local streets (Portland and Nicollet in particular for Minneapolis), and they wouldn't have gotten a shiny new transit center in the median at 46th.

[xonhulu]

With that mild sentiment in mind, here is link to a map of possible I-3 "mountain" routes: http://www.stopi3.org/maps/images/Slide46_jpg.jpg 

That map isn't really narrowing the posibilities very much.  I'm half surprised they didn't consider a routing through Smoky Mountains NP!

[6a]

Two of the cities I've lived in, Atlanta and Columbus, have had pipe dreams about an outer-outerbelt in the past.  Atlanta's ended up being cut back, then cancelled and in Columbus it was just editorial page talk, as far as I know.  Atlanta's planned path wouldn't really solve anything, given the area's growth, and let's face it, how many more interstates does Ohio need?

[TheStranger]

I've read that one theory as to why Toronto has only one north-south freeway through town was the overambitious nature of the province in planning multiple corridors through there...

I feel like the proposals for 480 along the waterfront and 80 west of Market Street served to prevent anything more important and useful in SF (280/1, 101) from ever being finished.

[Revive 755]

Two of the cities I've lived in, Atlanta and Columbus, have had pipe dreams about an outer-outerbelt in the past.  Atlanta's ended up being cut back, then cancelled and in Columbus it was just editorial page talk, as far as I know.  Atlanta's planned path wouldn't really solve anything, given the area's growth, and let's face it, how many more interstates does Ohio need?

Three:  One for an east-west route from Cincinnati to Parkersburg, an I-76 extension westward, and something connecting to the US 22 freeway that heads towards Pittsburgh 

As for the original topic:  The Truck Only Lanes for I-44 in Missouri, and the I-70 Corridor of the Future Truck Lanes (KC to Wheeling).  If these would be modified so there would be corresponding car-only lanes (a 2x2x2x2 setup with the truck lanes on the outside, all ramps between the car and truck lanes?) I'd be much more willing to consider them.

[Scott5114]

I oppose I-3 solely because of the number. If they called it something sensible I wouldn't have any objection to it!

[74/171FAN]

I know this kinda goes with I-73 but I really hope the SMART Road is never finished because I'm not sure the cost of gett ing it through I-81 is supposed to be and even though US 460 has some traffic it's not to where a connection from I-81 to Blacksburg needs to be built.