AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 1 
 on: Today at 12:34:20 PM 
Started by Brandon - Last post by GCrites80s
Spinning an anchor store off from the malls wouldn't have helped in most cases in the past. It might help inline stores in a lot of cases (mall gets slow, also control over hours is a common concern) but it doesn't help anchors since they have their own entrance and the mall was letting them stay there basically for free. If they go standalone they have to build a building, buy land or pay a mountain of rent to someone who isn't going to give them a good guy deal like the malls did. Especially in areas with difficult terrain where you have to blast out a mountain to build.

 2 
 on: Today at 12:33:20 PM 
Started by Flint1979 - Last post by SectorZ
Do they need to be human-made landmarks?

If not, then I'll submit, pre-2003, the Old Man of the Mt. in Franconia NH on I-93.

If so, then I think the Zakim Bridge also on I-93 in Boston works.

 3 
 on: Today at 12:33:09 PM 
Started by Brandon - Last post by 3467
I wonder if Lake will revive their 120 plan.
A quick look at the Trii County plan seems to show we are back at no build so nothing more than the projects in the no build map. Most of those will happen but nothing on 12. That and an arterial alternate were in this study.
Lake may luck out with more remote work. And losers population growth.

 4 
 on: Today at 12:32:05 PM 
Started by TheBox - Last post by sparker
Some news, that probably doesn't change much
https://www.conchovalleyhomepage.com/top-news/san-angelo-mayor-and-tom-green-county-judge-on-i-27-ports-to-plains-committee/

Well, that adds two likely San Angelo "boosters" to the advisory committee.  As the city that'll likely receive more in the way of benefits than any other on the corridor, it's a way to increase the chances of (a) reasonably timely development and (b) that development being Interstate grade -- or close to it -- in the initial stages rather than a protracted multi-phase approach.  Also, that increases the chances that both the Big Spring/east and Midland/west legs of the split corridor north of San Angelo will be included in those initial stages, since both areas have a vested interest as evidenced by their "I-14-to-M/O" push, the westernmost leg of which would be subsumed by the P2P efforts.

Hopefully those mostly boondoggle interstate moneywasters aren't started for decades.  Lubbock to S.A./Austin/Killeen only need improvements, not billions in freeway upgrades.

Add a couple of overpasses on the far south outskirts of Lubbock, Tahoka and Lamesa bypasses, and either a few overpasses in Midland or a bypass connector to 250.  349/176 interchange is sufficient for demand.  Interchange improvements and an overpass or two on 158 leaving Midland.  Bypasses of Garden City, Sterling City, San Angelo, Eden, and Menard (the Big Spring segments are already upgraded enough), and upgrade to expressway the remaining 2-lane segments between Eden and Junction.  Eventually upgrade to expressway Eden-Lampasas, Menard-Horseshoe Bay, and Junction-Mason.

Again, we'd be much better off creating a designation that equates Expressways to Interstates.  Save a lot of money from waste.

Wow!  For someone who wants to save bucks, that's a pretty long laundry list of improvements!  This sounds more like a "midwest expressway" format (like the Avenue of the Saints in MO/IA) -- but that's not the aim of the local backers, who are pushing for a full-fledged Interstate corridor.  A further indication regarding that position has come out of Amarillo:
https://www.myhighplains.com/news/local-news/i-27-advisory-committee-to-work-with-txdot-on-expanding-ports-to-plains-corridor/
One proclamation from the above source came from Amarillo city manager Jared Miller about the west side of Loop 335 being the pathway for the I-27 extension north from that city; something previously hinted at via plans for a direct connector to the SW corner of the loop from I-27 south of the current junction.  What will happen to current I-27 north to I-40 has yet TBD (3di?, reversion to US 60/87?).  Guess that will remain unresolved until loop development actually takes place.







 5 
 on: Today at 12:28:47 PM 
Started by bwana39 - Last post by hobsini2
Frankly, the non interstate controlled access highways should be designated on maps like the interstates since there is a big enough difference in the design of the marker shield. Most maps do a good job with this. Google maps however does not. A change in color on their maps would be nice to distinguish freeways and tollways from a regular divided road.

 6 
 on: Today at 12:26:11 PM 
Started by OCGuy81 - Last post by OCGuy81
Are we going by miles, or percentage of overall length?  If the first, then I-45 is a reasonable candidate just because it's so short.  I count 53 miles of overlap there:  25 with US 90 + 28 with US 287.

I was thinking of excluding the short ones (30 and 45) but we can go by overall percentage.

 7 
 on: Today at 12:19:50 PM 
Started by Flint1979 - Last post by ctkatz
I can't believe this hasn't come up yet.

florence y'all

 8 
 on: Today at 12:17:08 PM 
Started by OCGuy81 - Last post by cabiness42
I-65 has surprisingly little:

AL 10Tr 2.4 miles
US 80/AL 8 1.1 miles
US 82/AL 6 10.7 miles
AL 14 2.3 miles
US 31/AL 3 3.0 miles
AL 69 4.0 miles
US 31 6.8 miles
I-40 3.0 miles
I-24 2.0 miles
KY 61 0.2 miles
I-70 1.5 miles

That's a total of 37.0 out of 887.3 miles, or 4.17%

 9 
 on: Today at 12:17:04 PM 
Started by 1 - Last post by US71
US 6


 10 
 on: Today at 12:15:49 PM 
Started by mass_citizen - Last post by ari-s-drives
Beverly Hills has some interesting Historic 66 signs on CA2.


Click image to view location on Google Maps street view.


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.