Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Current (I-695 in Woodlawn)

19 (25.3%)

Former (Park and Ride near Baltimore)

7 (9.3%)

Planned (I-95 in Baltimore)

49 (65.3%)

Total Members Voted: 75

[BrianP]

On that note, let's steer the conversation back to the subject title, which was the East End of I-70 in Baltimore, Maryland (a.k.a. Exit 94: Security Blvd.).

When is that entire I-70/95/695 area likely to come due for major maintenance/re-engineering/bridge work?

In the fairly near future, if documents here are correct.

It states there:

9/23/2019 The I-695 at I-70 Advertisement will be in March 2020.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

[TheOneKEA]

Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

I have read some anecdotal reporting which suggests that the semidirectional connections from I-70 to both directions of the Beltway, and vice versa, will be retained but that the planned mainline and the remaining connections will either be outright deleted or will be replaced with much smaller, slower ramps. My personal belief is that the stack will be replaced with a partial clover stack.

[mrsman]

Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

I have read some anecdotal reporting which suggests that the semidirectional connections from I-70 to both directions of the Beltway, and vice versa, will be retained but that the planned mainline and the remaining connections will either be outright deleted or will be replaced with much smaller, slower ramps. My personal belief is that the stack will be replaced with a partial clover stack.

Something like that would be extremely helpful.  If there  are no realistic plans to extend I-70 east of 695, then redesign the interchange so that I-70 can better utilize 695.  Something akin to the 695/795 interchange.  Most importantly - two lane ramps from I-70 to I-695 north to alleviate the existing backups.

[Henry]

Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

I have read some anecdotal reporting which suggests that the semidirectional connections from I-70 to both directions of the Beltway, and vice versa, will be retained but that the planned mainline and the remaining connections will either be outright deleted or will be replaced with much smaller, slower ramps. My personal belief is that the stack will be replaced with a partial clover stack.

Something like that would be extremely helpful.  If there  are no realistic plans to extend I-70 east of 695, then redesign the interchange so that I-70 can better utilize 695.  Something akin to the 695/795 interchange.  Most importantly - two lane ramps from I-70 to I-695 north to alleviate the existing backups.

An even better example would be the I-83/I-695 interchange, which is intertwined with the MD 139 interchange. If the eastbound roadway is taken out, at least add new ramps that can facilitate movements between MD 122 and I-70. But I think part of it should be saved if the Red Line gets a second chance. Either way, the Park and Ride and MD 122 interchange need to go, with the latter becoming an at-grade intersection as was intended in the Red Line plans.

[froggie]

Most importantly - two lane ramps from I-70 to I-695 north to alleviate the existing backups.

Past plans I've seen included this.

[mrsman]

Does anyone think the Interstate 70/695 interchange will be downgraded somewhat? Since Interstate 70 ends at Security Blvd. (and has since the rest of 70 through Baltimore was canceled in the 1980's), I wouldn't be surprised if all ramps to-and-from the east leg of the interchange may be reconfigured to reflect the short legnth from 695 to Interstate 70's present eastern terminus.

I have read some anecdotal reporting which suggests that the semidirectional connections from I-70 to both directions of the Beltway, and vice versa, will be retained but that the planned mainline and the remaining connections will either be outright deleted or will be replaced with much smaller, slower ramps. My personal belief is that the stack will be replaced with a partial clover stack.

Something like that would be extremely helpful.  If there  are no realistic plans to extend I-70 east of 695, then redesign the interchange so that I-70 can better utilize 695.  Something akin to the 695/795 interchange.  Most importantly - two lane ramps from I-70 to I-695 north to alleviate the existing backups.

An even better example would be the I-83/I-695 interchange, which is intertwined with the MD 139 interchange. If the eastbound roadway is taken out, at least add new ramps that can facilitate movements between MD 122 and I-70. But I think part of it should be saved if the Red Line gets a second chance. Either way, the Park and Ride and MD 122 interchange need to go, with the latter becoming an at-grade intersection as was intended in the Red Line plans.

This is definitely something that should be considered.  And access to MD 122 doesn't just mean access to Social Security - it can mean access to the general area without needin to add to the traffic of 695.

Currently, it is difficult to use I-70 to reach Secuirty Square Mall and the area west of 695 as there are no exits between US 29 and I-695.  A well desigend rebuild of the area would provide better access..

[TheKnightoftheInterstate]

Voted Park and Ride because what a fun and bizarre ending for a cross-country Interstate but it is a blight that I-70 hasn't been extended to I-95. No excuses for that blemish.

Oh well, the NIMBYS, like the loudest baby bird, grabbed the worm.

[The Ghostbuster]

Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

[famartin]

Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

Its utterly useless, but probably not the cheapest thing to remove. I guess the question is whether its worth it...

BTW, while I'm sure you could view a lot of it on GSV, I also took a bunch of pics which I plonked in here...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interstate_170_(Maryland)

[DJStephens]

Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

Quite a lot to fill it or eliminate it.  Doesn't make sense to do so.  They didn't finish I-70.  Baltimore declined regardless.   

[Alps]

Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

Quite a lot to fill it or eliminate it.  Doesn't make sense to do so.  They didn't finish I-70.  Baltimore declined regardless.   

When it comes time to rebuild the bridges, guarantee they'll fill instead.

[mrsman]

Are there any plans for what to do about the built portion of the US 40/former Interstate 170 spur? Although I am not a proponent of freeway removal, perhaps I could live with this one being eliminated, since it probably doesn't do much to augment Baltimore's road network.

Quite a lot to fill it or eliminate it.  Doesn't make sense to do so.  They didn't finish I-70.  Baltimore declined regardless.   

When it comes time to rebuild the bridges, guarantee they'll fill instead.

There were plans to build a light rail along the ROW, but the project lost state funding as the governor was opposed.  (Baltimore Red Line)  I also thought the project was wasteful, mainly because it called for an E-W subway one-block away from the exising heavy rail subway line.  A far more sensible plan would have been to have the line run from Social Security, stop at the I-70 park and ride, run into Baltimore along the US 40 freeway corridor and then merge into the existing light rail line to Howard St.  The neighborhoods on the east side of town should have a separate light rail system that feeds into the Hopkins Hospital or Shot Tower subway stations (and then have people transfer to that to reach Downtown).  That being said, if the red line were funded to be built, that would spur new development along the US 40 corridor.

Here are one planner's ideas for the corridor:

https://baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com/2006/05/franklin-mulberry-plenty-of-room-for.html

https://baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-low-line.html


There were closures of the US 40 freeway a couple years ago to study the area in anticipation of the red line and to increase the parking area for the MARC commuter train station (at the west end of the freeway).  Traffic had to take the parallel Franklin and Mulberry one-way pairs.  No appreciable traffic increase because of this.  So, yes, if the US 40 freeway were removed, there would be no ill effects on local traffic, since Franklin and Mulberry (with well timed signals) can handle the load.  There is a good argument to remove the freeway even without the Red Line.

[jeffandnicole]

There were closures of the US 40 freeway a couple years ago to study the area in anticipation of the red line and to increase the parking area for the MARC commuter train station (at the west end of the freeway).  Traffic had to take the parallel Franklin and Mulberry one-way pairs.  No appreciable traffic increase because of this.  So, yes, if the US 40 freeway were removed, there would be no ill effects on local traffic, since Franklin and Mulberry (with well timed signals) can handle the load.  There is a good argument to remove the freeway even without the Red Line.

Being the red line was canceled in 2015, this "study" has to be more than a few years ago.

Also, was the study done to include peak periods of traffic during the week, or done at night, on the weekend, or in the summer when traffic is lighter?