Maine

[vdeane]

I hope this project doesn't get killed. It is sorely needed. Lose the chance now and we may lose it forever.

Not to mention that if it is killed, then exit 45 will have been downgraded for nothing.

[froggie]

I hope this project doesn't get killed. It is sorely needed. Lose the chance now and we may lose it forever.

Not to mention that if it is killed, then exit 45 will have been downgraded for nothing.

I disagree with that claim.  Old Exit 45 had a lot of substandard features plus bridges that needed to be replaced.  And the traffic volumes on the connector don't exactly scream "must be freeway".

[vdeane]

I hope this project doesn't get killed. It is sorely needed. Lose the chance now and we may lose it forever.

Not to mention that if it is killed, then exit 45 will have been downgraded for nothing.

I disagree with that claim.  Old Exit 45 had a lot of substandard features plus bridges that needed to be replaced.  And the traffic volumes on the connector don't exactly scream "must be freeway".

What was deficient about the trumpet?  The old bridge seems to have had room with reconfigured drainage, although it might have needed replacement regardless due to condition.  Still, a replacement would not in and of itself precluded a trumpet; the only thing that's mutually exclusive with the trumpet is the Gorham Bypass, which as we've seen, might not even be built.

Is there actually a proposal for freeway removal here?  Because if not, then you have two freeways intersecting with a diamond (ugh).  And if so, then the missing movements at exit 44 should be added, so that those movements could have remained all-freeway.  While I agree the freeway network of South Portland is overbuilt, I don't see a good way to simplify it without taking out a lot of development.

[kernals12]

Parts of Route 1 and I-95 will be getting cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) technology that will broadcast information about weather, congestion, accidents, and height and weight restrictions to motorists, either directly to their cars or through a smartphone app.

Allowing cars to talk each other like this makes possible way more exciting stuff in the future, like platooning, and will be very important for autonomous cars.

[SectorZ]

Parts of Route 1 and I-95 will be getting cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) technology that will broadcast information about weather, congestion, accidents, and height and weight restrictions to motorists, either directly to their cars or through a smartphone app.

Allowing cars to talk each other like this makes possible way more exciting stuff in the future, like platooning, and will be very important for autonomous cars.

I like Platoon. You know the lead singer of Living Colour was in that movie?

[vdeane]

Parts of Route 1 and I-95 will be getting cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) technology that will broadcast information about weather, congestion, accidents, and height and weight restrictions to motorists, either directly to their cars or through a smartphone app.

Allowing cars to talk each other like this makes possible way more exciting stuff in the future, like platooning, and will be very important for autonomous cars.

Why would anyone want to travel in a platoon?  When I'm driving, I want to set my own speed, not have it be chosen for me by the vehicle in front.  I also want to be able to see the road, not have the scenery blocked by another car's bumper.  In rain and winter it just means more spray/grime on your car.  And then there's the effects on roadway photos/video...

Are you even a roadgeek?  Because you sure do seem to like to take all the fun out of the hobby.

[kernals12]

Parts of Route 1 and I-95 will be getting cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) technology that will broadcast information about weather, congestion, accidents, and height and weight restrictions to motorists, either directly to their cars or through a smartphone app.

Allowing cars to talk each other like this makes possible way more exciting stuff in the future, like platooning, and will be very important for autonomous cars.

Why would anyone want to travel in a platoon?  When I'm driving, I want to set my own speed, not have it be chosen for me by the vehicle in front.  I also want to be able to see the road, not have the scenery blocked by another car's bumper.  In rain and winter it just means more spray/grime on your car.  And then there's the effects on roadway photos/video...

Are you even a roadgeek?  Because you sure do seem to like to take all the fun out of the hobby.

What I don't like is traffic jams, and platooning, multiplying the capacity of roads at least 2 fold, possibly 6 fold, solves those.

[yakra]

Skowhegan bypass alternatives from 2003:
Preliminary Study Corridors
Environmental Assessment Corridors
Alternative E3A
Alternative E3B
Alternative E3E


Piscataqua River Bridge:
Interstate Route 95 : Location and Economic Study : Portsmouth, New Hampshire-Kittery, Maine (Summary Report) shows slight variations on the big Portsmouth & Kittery interchanges, several alternate bridge structures, and 3 alternatives for connecting the ends of the NH & ME turnpikes. Of these, one involved twinning the US1 bypass, the other paralleling it and using a lift bridge. Holy crap am I glad that didn't happen. It wouldn't be much of an Interstate, would it?

[yakra]

Wiscasset Bypass (RIP)

Wiscasset Route 1 Corridor Study : Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, October 2007
Page 54 shows the last alternatives under consideration. Subsequent pages have interchange diagrams & first-person street-level renderings.
Alternatives Analysis Matrix starts at page 192, with maps of all alternatives considered, followed by tables of which alternatives were eliminated at each stage of analysis & why.
Wiscasset Route 1 Corridor Study : Phase II Alternatives Analysis Supplement : Response to Request for Further Information From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has some hi-res detailed interchange diagrams starting at page 43.

need coastal interstate from Brunswick to Ellsworth

Roadgeek?

MDOT, FHWA, the Wiscasset Transportation Committee and the Midcoast Bypass Task Force preferred option N2a, but

We were very disturbed by the ACE's choice of N8c, the long bridge over the harbor, as the one that they could approve since they find it to be the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).

By 2010-11-30, a bald eagle's nest was found right where the selected alignment touched down on Davis Island (Q&A). The LEDPA was no longer the LEDPA; the DOT would have to resubmit another alternative for ACE consideration. The Midcoast Bypass Task Force in an "emergency meeting" on 2010-12-15 voted 9-5 (with 1 abstention) to move forward to identify a buildable route rather than terminate the project.
Why might five members of a Bypass task force vote against a bypass? In November, the Wiscasset Transportation committee voted not to support town funding of further bypass studies but agreed to support several interim non-bypass traffic measures advocated by the organization Route One Alternative Decisions (ROAD).
Maybe town leaders were growing wary of continuing to spend limited town funds on a project dragging on interminably with no end in sight?
Whatever the case, trouble was brewing.
In a 2010-12-06 letter to the Task Force, Kat Beaudoin, MDOT's Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning Chief, warned: "The Department is under transition, the leadership of this agency has not been named at this time. It is important that we brief the leadership and new administration before we proceed" (underline in original).
A couple weeks after the "emergency" Task Force meeting on 2010-12-31, the Newcastle Board of Selectmen agreed 5-0 "to sign a letter stating their firm opposition to any alternate to the recently abandoned N8c" -- effectively, to any bypass whatsoever -- despite none of the last alternatives under consideration even entering the town at all. IMO, their specious reasoning contradicts reality on several fronts for the sake of being stick-in-the-mud Yankees who never have to see anything change ever. In a word, stupid.
Finally, on 2011-08-01, MDOT announced they were throwing in the towel, citing the project's cost as money the state just doesn't have and probably will not have at any point in the future, the "long-term financial forecast for transportation funding", flat federal transportation funding, etc.

"We realize that the bypass has impacted people who own property along the proposed routes, clouding them in uncertainty, unable to sell their property if they wanted to," said [MDOT Commissioner David] Bernhardt, "By this action I am taking today, our hope is that the uncertainty is now gone, and they can move forward with their plans for their property."

A bit of finality in his words there.
As those who'd still advocate for an I-95 extension might argue, never is a long time.
The economy can improve. Funds can become available. OK, so there are no more earmarks; what about grants?
Build the ROW up too much and the opportunity may be gone. Northern Gorham Bypass, anyone?

"Adding more miles to our transportation system in this current fiscal environment doesn't make financial sense," said Bernhardt, "Our responsibility going forward is to manage our existing infrastructure within our existing budget."

Yet they pressed forward with the 395/9 connector. Adjust $124M for inflation and that's $89M $92M in 2011.
Wonder how much the Wiscasset Bypass's $100M estimate would be adjusted downward by not having to build a mile-ass-long bridge.

Side rant: As Kat Beaudoin warned, maybe the LePage administration taking office in 2011 had something to do with this. He typified the Cheapskate Yankee character, refusing to build anything anywhere ever because it would cost more than five bucks. He vetoed a bill to authorize the Gorham Connector on the grounds that it'd be a toll road. Oh Noes. We can't have a road paid for by those who voluntarily use it, now can we? As opposed to an MDOT road which'd be even worse because taxes. Everybody pays for it whether they want to or not.
Thankfully, the legislature overrode his veto.
Meanwhile, LePage backed Cianbro's proposal to study building an east-west toll highway. Apparently toll roads are fine after all as long as a private corporation gets to construct and operate them. That 100% tracks for that guy.

*Sigh...*
14 years later, I wonder if that eagle's still living there.

[vdeane]

So... any idea why Google Maps refuses to route the southbound direction on this piece of US 1?  New England 511 isn't showing any closures, but Google is acting like it's one-way.  Even dragging the route just causes a U turn or a loop.

[pderocco]

Dunno. It's also odd that Google is showing almost no traffic in that general area, while most of US-1 has traffic reports.

[vdeane]

Dunno. It's also odd that Google is showing almost no traffic in that general area, while most of US-1 has traffic reports.

I think I've seen traffic on that big (I recall looking to see if any part of it was marked closed and didn't see anything weird), did the rest of US 1 show traffic when you looked?  When I looked after you posted that there wasn't much traffic showing on US 1 anywhere past Millbridge except around Calais, but Google often loses data on less-traveled roads in the evening and at night since there's too little traffic for it to determine anything.

[pderocco]

When I looked, there was traffic from Mibridge all the way down, and from Machias up a ways. But I guess that late in the evening, most traffic is local, so that's normal.