Inspired by H.B's post about the KY 3 flyover near Inez, KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14635.msg2039305#msg2039305), what project in your state would you consider to be the least useful for the money spent on it?
As for Alabama, I would have to say the Northern Beltline that is starting to be built around Birmingham. While it aims for alleviating traffic in downtown and elsewhere, it does absolutely nothing for through I-65 traffic, and it really doesn't do much for I-22 to I-20 traffic, either, even with the proposed extension of the Northern Beltline to I-20 east. The only movement that it really would help would be I-65 North to I-20/59 South traffic, but that segment is currently scheduled to be built last.
The US-460 toll connector between Suffolk and Petersburg. Over a quarter of a billion spent without an inch of pavement laid.
Quote from: Thing 342 on February 03, 2015, 07:10:36 AM
The US-460 toll connector between Suffolk and Petersburg. Over a quarter of a billion spent without an inch of pavement laid.
Agreed completely.
If the poll were to be restricted to projects actually constructed, I'd probably go with the Route 895 Pocahontas Parkway toll road southeast of Richmond. By all reports, it's drastically underused compared to what was projected and it's become a serious financial burden. Its interchange with I-95 and the adjacent bridge over the James River are quite impressive (the bridge's height due to the nearby port being part of the reason the interchange is impressive), but they surely added to the project's cost.
There are others, but the first that comes into my mind here in Wisconsin is the US 151/WI 26 interchange on the northeast corner of Waupun, WI. It is a complex half interchange that is just north of WI 49 (the main interchange on the city's east edge), just southwest of the main US 151/WI 26 split (towards Oshkosh) and appears to me to serve no really useful purpose at all other than to maintain WI 26's pre-existing city street connectivity with US 151. WI 26 should be rerouted off of those streets and onto US 151 in the Waupun area and that interchange should have been a much cheaper simple straight-across street bridge.
http://goo.gl/maps/ZA3UL
Mike
Hmm, I'm tempted to say the US 206 bypass project, which has been a bunch of bullshit for New Jersey, but I feel like there are others that may have been a worse idea...
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2015, 09:13:01 AM
If the poll were to be restricted to projects actually constructed, I'd probably go with the Route 895 Pocahontas Parkway toll road southeast of Richmond. By all reports, it's drastically underused compared to what was projected and it's become a serious financial burden. Its interchange with I-95 and the adjacent bridge over the James River are quite impressive (the bridge's height due to the nearby port being part of the reason the interchange is impressive), but they surely added to the project's cost.
Agreed on all points. I think one of the intentions was to approve highway access to Richmond International Airport (RIC), which it did, but was it really needed? Based on traffic volumes on Va. 895, I would have to say no, since it already had decent access from I-64 and I-295.
Stated another way, Va. 895 was to improve E-W connectivity from areas south of Richmond (Chesterfield County) to the airport and to the I-295 corridor, which it has done, but apparently drivers do not feel the time savings are worth the toll.
On the other hand, the bonds issued to build the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel were in default for many years because of low traffic volumes. Traffic eventually rose enough to pay-off the bondholders and to justify twinning the entire crossing.
As for Maryland, perhaps the most-questionable highway improvement I have seen in the state is the almost-Super-2 type road between Westminster and Taneytown in Carroll County.
It is signed as Md. 140 these days, but used to be Md. 32.
Colorado: the EB I-70 to WB SH-58 flyover and EB SH-58 to WB I-70 ramp. Built only because Cabela's wanted to build nearby and wanted this built for better access. Of course, the Cabela's was never built. The reason I will never spend a penny at Cabela's.
Building a tunnel under Seattle. I support removing the current viaduct, but on the other side of I-90, there have been issues with tunnels under city centers.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 03, 2015, 11:39:18 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2015, 09:13:01 AM
If the poll were to be restricted to projects actually constructed, I'd probably go with the Route 895 Pocahontas Parkway toll road southeast of Richmond. By all reports, it's drastically underused compared to what was projected and it's become a serious financial burden. Its interchange with I-95 and the adjacent bridge over the James River are quite impressive (the bridge's height due to the nearby port being part of the reason the interchange is impressive), but they surely added to the project's cost.
Agreed on all points. I think one of the intentions was to approve highway access to Richmond International Airport (RIC), which it did, but was it really needed? Based on traffic volumes on Va. 895, I would have to say no, since it already had decent access from I-64 and I-295.
Stated another way, Va. 895 was to improve E-W connectivity from areas south of Richmond (Chesterfield County) to the airport and to the I-295 corridor, which it has done, but apparently drivers do not feel the time savings are worth the toll.
On the other hand, the bonds issued to build the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel were in default for many years because of low traffic volumes. Traffic eventually rose enough to pay-off the bondholders and to justify twinning the entire crossing.
I've used 895 when connecting from I-85 to I-95 north of Richmond and I wanted to cut over to I-295 to avoid downtown Richmond traffic, but after using it, I concluded I'd just as soon go the four miles SOUTH on I-95 to the southern end of I-295 and then follow said route all the way around. I don't remember which route was faster, but I do remember the I-295 route having less traffic than I-95 between Petersburg and the interchange with Route 895. Nowadays the 70-mph speed limit on I-295 versus the 60-mph limit on I-95 provides another reason to use that routing. The last time I made the trip up I-85 I believe the posted limits were 65 and 55, respectively.
Aside from serving the airport, 895 just doesn't seem like a road that offers any sort of important connection.
(The notion of going south on I-95 like that first occurred to me when I was moving my stuff north in the week before I graduated from Duke and I had so much stuff in the car I was having trouble using my mirrors. I realized it made more sense to detour south to I-295 than to risk going through downtown Richmond with obstructed visibility.)
I'm not sure what a current version of this would be for Texas, other than the new/recent convolutions for toll lanes, tolled HOVs/'managed' lanes/'express' lanes that have come along in recent years.
Honorable (?) mention:
Having a *third* south TX I-69 route, when 2 is more than enough.
As far as a plan yet to be built, but it will still be a huge waste:
the proposed 'Hourglass' project to connect the tolled Loop 49 in Tyler to a future outer loop in Longview, then a further future connection from all that to I-369 somewhere around or north of Marshall. **Dumb-dumber-dumbest**!! Loops in Tyler and Longview, OK, fine, but all those dumba$$$ extra connections (that are sure to be tolled, BTW) make _absolutely_ no sense. They act like there are no highways between Tyler and Longview now. Um, duhh, I-20 & TX 31?!?
Actually, I think the biggest waste in Kentucky is the second downtown Louisville bridge. I still say what should have been done is to ban through truck traffic off the JFK Bridge and try to divert as much other through traffic as possible to either the Sherman Minton or the soon-to-open East End bridge.
Although that flyover, to me, was very wasteful. I also think the plans to rebuild the KY 537 and KY 338 exits off I-71/I-75 in northern Kentucky as DDIs is a waste.
There's also a project to rebuild about 10 miles of KY 172 in Morgan County that makes little sense. The route is not a through corridor and basically serves only local traffic. The thought may be to make it a direct link from West Liberty to Paintsville.
Something else that's being considered that I think is a waste is replacing the at-grade intersection of US 23 and KY 3 at Louisa with a grade-separated interchange. Presumably it's because loaded coal trucks, descending the hill on northbound 23, have trouble stopping when the traffic light changes. Simple solution? Require all trucks to stop and check their brakes before descending the hill. There's plenty of room on the shoulder there for a place for trucks to stop.
The CRC project in OR/WA. Around $150 mil in studies was spent. Since so many levels of government and agencies were involved it was proved that the left hand cannot meet the right hand at considerable cost.
Rick
Can't think of any offhand in Vermont. Some would argue that the Circ (VT 289 and extensions) was a waste, especially the ongoing years of study...but what was built serves as a somewhat useful Essex Junction avoidance route as long as you aren't on or don't need VT 2A South.
Quote from: halork on February 03, 2015, 01:06:46 PM
Colorado: the EB I-70 to WB SH-58 flyover and EB SH-58 to WB I-70 ramp. Built only because Cabela's wanted to build nearby and wanted this built for better access. Of course, the Cabela's was never built. The reason I will never spend a penny at Cabela's.
I have heard
nothing nice about Cabela's or their "competing" chain, Bass Pro Shops, and I find their way of leaching off of local and state taxpayers to fund their stores to be odious.
I am not really interested in what they are selling anyway, and I am sure I could find what they sell someplace else if I did need something from either chain.
Speaking of I-70, there is a
massive Cabela's (is there any other kind?) in Ohio County, West Virginia hard by the freeway at Exit 10 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dallas+Pike,+Triadelphia,+WV+26059&ll=40.061684,-80.592656&spn=0.012974,0.022488&hnear=Dallas+Pike,+Triadelphia,+West+Virginia+26059&t=m&z=16) (County Route 65, Cabela Drive). No, I did not stop there, and no, I will not be stopping there in the future for any reason. The interchange looks to be pretty new, though I do not know if it was built to Cabela's specifications or not.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 03, 2015, 03:46:11 PM
Quote from: halork on February 03, 2015, 01:06:46 PM
Colorado: the EB I-70 to WB SH-58 flyover and EB SH-58 to WB I-70 ramp. Built only because Cabela's wanted to build nearby and wanted this built for better access. Of course, the Cabela's was never built. The reason I will never spend a penny at Cabela's.
I have heard nothing nice about Cabela's or their "competing" chain, Bass Pro Shops, and I find their way of leaching off of local and state taxpayers to fund their stores to be odious.
Exit 45 of I-83 in Harrisburg had been re-signed as "Bass Pro Drive" several years ago, and I knew that various governments contributed millions in incentives to attract both that store and the Cabela's off I-78 in Hamburg, but I didn't realize that these two companies were such chronic corporate welfare leeches.
http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2012/08/why-have-so-many-cities-and-towns-given-away-so-much-money-bass-pro-shops-and-cabelas/2906/#disqus_thread
The Poinciana Connector between US 17 & 92 at Loughman, FL to Poinciana is going to be a waste being tolled when completed.
Poinciana residents are still going use Poinciana Boulevard and FL 535 to access the community way out from the rest of reality in Central Florida, so this road is not going to deter any traffic from the other two roads being used.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 03, 2015, 06:54:39 PM
The Poinciana Connector between US 17 & 92 at Loughman, FL to Poinciana is going to be a waste being tolled when completed.
Poinciana residents are still going use Poinciana Boulevard and FL 535 to access the community way out from the rest of reality in Central Florida, so this road is not going to deter any traffic from the other two roads being used.
I don't necessarily support the project, but if it's connected to I-4 it should get a fair amount of use. What's being built will probably be used by many Disney workers who drive (there are several imperfect ways to get from CR 545 to Disney) or people going to 429 (via Sinclair Road). The placement of interchanges in the 532-545 area just sucks.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 03, 2015, 03:46:11 PM
Quote from: halork on February 03, 2015, 01:06:46 PM
Colorado: the EB I-70 to WB SH-58 flyover and EB SH-58 to WB I-70 ramp. Built only because Cabela's wanted to build nearby and wanted this built for better access. Of course, the Cabela's was never built. The reason I will never spend a penny at Cabela's.
I have heard nothing nice about Cabela's or their "competing" chain, Bass Pro Shops, and I find their way of leaching off of local and state taxpayers to fund their stores to be odious.
I am not really interested in what they are selling anyway, and I am sure I could find what they sell someplace else if I did need something from either chain.
Speaking of I-70, there is a massive Cabela's (is there any other kind?) in Ohio County, West Virginia hard by the freeway at Exit 10 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dallas+Pike,+Triadelphia,+WV+26059&ll=40.061684,-80.592656&spn=0.012974,0.022488&hnear=Dallas+Pike,+Triadelphia,+West+Virginia+26059&t=m&z=16) (County Route 65, Cabela Drive). No, I did not stop there, and no, I will not be stopping there in the future for any reason. The interchange looks to be pretty new, though I do not know if it was built to Cabela's specifications or not.
There is a controversy here in Huntsville over Cabela's. The adjacent property, allegedly, was bought by a former city councilman at a low price, but then the city of Huntsville bought the land for considerably more in order for CoH to build "improvements" such as landscape enhancements for the store.
Can't say much for Minnesota, although there was some complaining in the editorial sections of some newspapers about the MN 23 bypass in Paynesville, which features four interchanges and a flyover ramp to the MN 23 business route for a town of 2300 people. Some thought intersections (excepting an interchange at MN 4/55) would have been sufficient.
IMO, stronger arguments could be made for the 4-laning of MN 60 west of St. James or the US 52 Elk Run interchange...
At the time I thought that adding SB to WB and EB to NB ramps at the I-95 and TOLL FL 528 interchange was a waste. Considering that nearby FL 407 handled those movements quite well for decades previous, the ramps were not needed at first.
Now that FDOT added the Port St. John interchange between FL 528 and FL 407 the added ramps do have some merit.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 03, 2015, 03:46:11 PM
Speaking of I-70, there is a massive Cabela's (is there any other kind?) in Ohio County, West Virginia hard by the freeway at Exit 10 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dallas+Pike,+Triadelphia,+WV+26059&ll=40.061684,-80.592656&spn=0.012974,0.022488&hnear=Dallas+Pike,+Triadelphia,+West+Virginia+26059&t=m&z=16) (County Route 65, Cabela Drive). No, I did not stop there, and no, I will not be stopping there in the future for any reason. The interchange looks to be pretty new, though I do not know if it was built to Cabela's specifications or not.
I'm pretty sure that hill didn't look anything like that before they were there. I have no idea how much of the grading was paid for by the store. I would not like to have to pay for that much blasting and grading just to open a store. Some other examples I can think of that required massive ground work are the current Wal-Marts in Ashland KY and on US 60 in Huntingon WV. I lived next to the Huntington one and remember the blasting and grading taking a year. I liked the apartment's location before and didn't after.
Hartford-New Britain Busway. In a state with so many long-overdue road and rail projects stalled due to lack of funding or political will, the fact that they spent that much money to build that is appalling.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 03, 2015, 11:39:18 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 03, 2015, 09:13:01 AM
Route 895 Pocahontas Parkway toll road southeast of Richmond. By all reports, it's drastically underused compared to what was projected and it's become a serious financial burden.
I think one of the intentions was to approve highway access to Richmond International Airport (RIC), which it did, but was it really needed? Based on traffic volumes on Va. 895, I would have to say no, since it already had decent access from I-64 and I-295.
Stated another way, Va. 895 was to improve E-W connectivity from areas south of Richmond (Chesterfield County) to the airport and to the I-295 corridor, which it has done, but apparently drivers do not feel the time savings are worth the toll.
Indeed. When you build a toll road people will willingly stick to their old routes unless the savings in time and/or frustration are significant. VA 895 would be more useful if it were free. The levying of tolls massively cripples it because you're paying $3 to save 5 minutes over going through downtown. Meh.
A bit more time savings if there's traffic but Richmond doesn't suffer from a terrible amount of that even during rush hour.
I feel like the impact a toll has on people's willingness to use a road tends to be underestimated in traffic projections. Note how the ICC in Maryland has been suffering from similar lackluster usage. If you want a toll road to be successful you either need it to offer MASSIVE time savings over any alternatives, have it be the only way to get somewhere, or have all practical alternatives also be tolled. VA 895 is none of these three things.
Why all questions have to end with 'in your state'? That way I can't answer simply because I don't have a state to go with.
Anyway, I'm not answering for my country either, because if I start then I would never end :sombrero:.
Quote from: FritzOwl on January 21, 2015, 06:58:39 PM
My interstate plan for the California Delta region
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alphacrucisradio.org%2FDelta1.jpg&hash=1bada06805a409bfc45c54a268d56ba68e70ce33)
I-70 is my planned extension of I-70 in California
I-72 is part of my planned of I-72 into California
I-74 is my planned Carson City to San Francisco Interstate
I-76 is my western I-76 to
I-505 gets its long needed completion is a bypass road for travellers on I-5
I-701 replaces I-880 and CA-17 all the way down to my I-1 in Santa Cruz
I-570, I-670 and I-770 replace I-580, I-680 and I-780 respectively
I-774 is a long needed upgrade of "blood alley" to freeway.
I-776 replaces Columbus parkway
I-870 replaces CA-13 and also makes the remaining part of the highway freeway all the way to my I-74 (currently I-80/580) in Berkeley. Ashby Avenue is replaced with a freeway
I-872 replaces Vasco Road
I-907 is the Antioch to Auburn toll road proposed on one now defunct interstate highway page.
I-970 is a freeway that would run from Walnut Creek all the way to Ocean Beach in San Francisco, building one of four new bridges accross the bay in my plan
Fritzowl. :pan:
iPhone
The biggest waste of money in California has got to be the new SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. There is no argument that the bridge needed replacing after the 1989 Loma-Prieta Earthquake, but the cost was massively increased due to the locals desire to have a "showcase bridge". A couple of billion later, and the bridge has problems.
Let's see how much of a waste the Busway is when it opens on March 28th. I want to ride on it...but how many others will?
Maybe if the money was spent on rail, the commuter rail improvements between New Haven and Springfield, MA would be further along? It's going to be interesting once that project is done, since the new Busway uses some of the Amtrak ROW from the Newington Junction area to Hartford's Union Station.
Two fairly big wastes of money in the Philly area would be the Commodore Barry Bridge and the Betsy Ross Bridge. Both in theory should have higher traffic volumes, but due to not building the roads they connect to up to freeway standards (322 in NJ, never built PA90) the roads are underused. The Betsy Ross Bridge has lower traffic counts than the non limited access toll bridge to the north which charges less. I do use the Betsy Ross Bridge when i have to connect to I-95 as it is a quicker connection.
For a NJ freeway that I feel is a total waste of money, the NJ29 tunnel. It was a built that way due to local residents not wanting to view a freeway, but it went over budget. And due to the same local groups they could not build a direct connection as a freeway to the existing NJ29, they had to put in traffic lights, making the tunnel back up at times.
Oh yes and those towers that are supposed to look like Cable Stay Bridge towers on the long Lake Underhill Causeway on the Four oh Eight, are money that should have never been spent.
It was to create a gateway to Orlando from the east for travelers heading into O Town on FL 408, but it really does not do much for the road. Heck those ugly spires on the Conroy Road overpass (which I hate too) do more for aesthetics than these eyesores for a gateway into the city.
Then how about the FL 451 project taking away the bridges that carried the former FL 429 over FL 414 when the new FL 429 was built to Plymouth to align itself with the future Wekiva Parkway project? Those particular bridges were fairly new and constructed only a few years prior to their destruction.
Plus the elimination of the high speed connection between FL 408 E Bound and FL 417 N Bound using the old E-W Expressway grade, as well as its counterpart from FL 417 S Bound to FL 408 W Bound? Thus removing a totally freeway grade for a good distance all in favor a flyover ramps at another location.
I call all of these a total waste!
Quote from: Duke87 on February 04, 2015, 01:21:04 AM
....
I feel like the impact a toll has on people's willingness to use a road tends to be underestimated in traffic projections. Note how the ICC in Maryland has been suffering from similar lackluster usage. If you want a toll road to be successful you either need it to offer MASSIVE time savings over any alternatives, have it be the only way to get somewhere, or have all practical alternatives also be tolled. VA 895 is none of these three things.
No kidding. The resistance to paying any toll on the Beltway can be astonishing. In the video below from December 2013, traffic entering the express lanes in Tysons would have paid 90¢ to go to Maryland and maybe 30¢ to go to the Dulles Toll Road. I can kind of understand why some people might not think it's worth the toll to Maryland on a Saturday night since presumably they have no set deadline they need to meet and they'd still wind up back out with all the slow traffic–you're paying to jump the queue, in essence. But I don't understand sitting in that traffic to save 30¢ to the Dulles exit when it's so easy and fast to bypass it. (In our case, you hear me refer to a $2.85 toll, but we had come from the lanes' southern end and we did need to be somewhere by a specific time due to a dinner reservation.)
I have an easier time understanding some people's resistance to paying the rush-hour tolls, as those are usually a lot higher and can add up pretty quickly. I also certainly understand the rationale for avoiding certain obvious tolls that come across as a middle-finger gesture, such as the Delaware Turnpike toll or the northbound one south of the canal on Delaware Route 1 or the Exit 44 "Tourist Exit" toll on the Maine Turnpike. They're all
extremely easy to avoid without delaying yourself in any substantial way.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 04, 2015, 09:32:19 AM
Two fairly big wastes of money in the Philly area would be the Commodore Barry Bridge and the Betsy Ross Bridge. Both in theory should have higher traffic volumes, but due to not building the roads they connect to up to freeway standards (322 in NJ, never built PA90) the roads are underused. The Betsy Ross Bridge has lower traffic counts than the non limited access toll bridge to the north which charges less. I do use the Betsy Ross Bridge when i have to connect to I-95 as it is a quicker connection.
While such can be said for the Betsy Ross Bridge; I wouldn't completely say similar for the Commodore Barry Bridge; the latter replaced a ferry and the nearest bridges (Walt Whitman & the Delaware Memorial) are far enough away to justify the Barry Bridge's existence.
I'm almost certain that traffic counts for that bridge increased when I-476 was finally fully completed in the early 90s.
Granted, the Commodore Barry Bridge would probably see more traffic if US 322 were an expressway all the way to NJ 55. One has to wonder once the
missing moves are added to the I-76/295/NJ 42 interchange (mainly I-295 North to NJ 42 South) whether or not that might stimulate more traffic on the Barry Bridge.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 04, 2015, 10:29:33 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 04, 2015, 09:32:19 AM
Two fairly big wastes of money in the Philly area would be the Commodore Barry Bridge and the Betsy Ross Bridge. Both in theory should have higher traffic volumes, but due to not building the roads they connect to up to freeway standards (322 in NJ, never built PA90) the roads are underused. The Betsy Ross Bridge has lower traffic counts than the non limited access toll bridge to the north which charges less. I do use the Betsy Ross Bridge when i have to connect to I-95 as it is a quicker connection.
While such can be said for the Betsy Ross Bridge; I wouldn't completely say similar for the Commodore Barry Bridge; the latter replaced a ferry and the nearest bridges (Walt Whitman & the Delaware Memorial) are far enough away to justify the Barry Bridge's existence.
I'm almost certain that traffic counts for that bridge increased when I-476 was finally fully completed in the early 90s.
Granted, the Commodore Barry Bridge would probably see more traffic if US 322 were an expressway all the way to NJ 55. One has to wonder once the missing moves are added to the I-76/295/NJ 42 interchange (mainly I-295 North to NJ 42 South) whether or not that might stimulate more traffic on the Barry Bridge.
Maybe if the DRPA didn't keep raising the tolls, more people would use it. No doubt it's a faster ride than the Tacony, but for commuters, saving $3 a day is a big deal. I would bet the volume of traffic enjoying the free ride back to NJ is a bit heavier. (Also, since I don't drive it much, is the 45 mph limit a gigantic speed trap, or do they show a bit of leniency)?
The 295/42 missing moves are enjoying the same timeframe as the 95/PA Turnpike missing moves. NJDOT doesn't appear to be in much of a rush to get them done, and have continually pushed back the timeframe of construction. This is now a $150 million project - just for these ramps. In 2013, the project was scheduled for funding starting in FY16. In 2014, all but $4 million was pushed to FY17. The fact that they kept a very small bit of funding in FY16 is considered progress in my book.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 10:46:28 AMMaybe if the DRPA didn't keep raising the tolls, more people would use it. No doubt it's a faster ride than the Tacony, but for commuters, saving $3 a day is a big deal. I would bet the volume of traffic enjoying the free ride back to NJ is a bit heavier. (Also, since I don't drive it much, is the 45 mph limit a gigantic speed trap, or do they show a bit of leniency)?
Had the DRPA not spent toll money for non-transportation related projects (something they did for
at least 10 to 15 years); the tolls would probably
still be at $4 or even $3 with
no revenue shortfall for maintenance projects.
As far as the 45 limit is concerned; such
is the maximum speed limit for
all DRPA bridges. Had the Tacony/Pulaski Expressway been built, could the DRPA raised the speed limit on the Betsy to 50 or 55? Who knows?
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 04, 2015, 09:32:19 AM
For a NJ freeway that I feel is a total waste of money, the NJ29 tunnel. It was a built that way due to local residents not wanting to view a freeway, but it went over budget. And due to the same local groups they could not build a direct connection as a freeway to the existing NJ29, they had to put in traffic lights, making the tunnel back up at times.
I don't think this was a waste of money. It allowed Trenton to regain a bit of it's pride (the 'HISTORIC TRENTON' on the tunnel as you enter the city), while also providing a connection from I-195, as well as I-295 and the South Jersey area. The traffic isn't that bad, and the signal timing is pretty good for Cass and Warren Streets. It allows a lot of workers in the city to bypass the residential sections and immediately access the downtown area (where most of the offices are clustered).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 10:46:28 AM
The 295/42 missing moves are enjoying the same timeframe as the 95/PA Turnpike missing moves. NJDOT doesn't appear to be in much of a rush to get them done, and have continually pushed back the timeframe of construction. This is now a $150 million project - just for these ramps. In 2013, the project was scheduled for funding starting in FY16. In 2014, all but $4 million was pushed to FY17. The fact that they kept a very small bit of funding in FY16 is considered progress in my book.
Really? When I went down to Camden last year it looked like they were moving at a decent pace. It seems like a lot of road projects in New Jersey that aren't related to the Turnpike Authority have serious timeframe issues (206 bypass........). What about the project to improve the US 46 / NJ 3 merge? Has that even been started, or is it still in finalizing stages of preparation?
All Texas toll roads. They are overpriced and few drive on them.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 04, 2015, 11:02:14 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 10:46:28 AM
The 295/42 missing moves are enjoying the same timeframe as the 95/PA Turnpike missing moves. NJDOT doesn't appear to be in much of a rush to get them done, and have continually pushed back the timeframe of construction. This is now a $150 million project - just for these ramps. In 2013, the project was scheduled for funding starting in FY16. In 2014, all but $4 million was pushed to FY17. The fact that they kept a very small bit of funding in FY16 is considered progress in my book.
Really? When I went down to Camden last year it looked like they were moving at a decent pace.
The construction you're seeing is part of the
straightening of I-295 project in that area (aka
Goodbye Al-Jo Curve). The missing moves, IIRC was originally part of the overall 295 project; has either been moved to either a later phase, add-alternate or a separate project. Jeffandnicole can confirm/clarify/correct.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 04, 2015, 11:02:14 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 04, 2015, 09:32:19 AM
For a NJ freeway that I feel is a total waste of money, the NJ29 tunnel. It was a built that way due to local residents not wanting to view a freeway, but it went over budget. And due to the same local groups they could not build a direct connection as a freeway to the existing NJ29, they had to put in traffic lights, making the tunnel back up at times.
I don't think this was a waste of money. It allowed Trenton to regain a bit of it's pride (the 'HISTORIC TRENTON' on the tunnel as you enter the city), while also providing a connection from I-195, as well as I-295 and the South Jersey area. The traffic isn't that bad, and the signal timing is pretty good for Cass and Warren Streets. It allows a lot of workers in the city to bypass the residential sections and immediately access the downtown area (where most of the offices are clustered).
Come by during rush hour in the morning, when 29 is routinely backed up from 295 all the way to Cass Street. In the afternoon, traffic congests as well getting thru those lights again. Generally speaking, employees start their day between 7:30 and 9:30am, so there's already a large window of staggered work shifts.
It definitely has improved access for South Jersey residents getting to Trenton, compared first to no Rt. 29/129 in the area whatsoever, then with motorists having to narrow down to 1 lane thru the missing area of 29 which was 1 lane each way on Lumberton Ave. However, the project could have been done at a much lower cost by removing the tunnel portion of it, and just making it a 4 lane highway. The roof of the tunnel was supposed to be so residents could avoid looking at the tunnel and have a nice landscaped area, except the tunnel had to be built higher than originally anticipated, so many of those residents look at a wall unless they're on the top floor of their house.
Having said all of that, the walk on top of the tunnel provides a nice history of the city. Definitely worth someone's time to walk it. But for the tens of millions of $$, we could've done without it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 04, 2015, 11:16:04 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 04, 2015, 11:02:14 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2015, 10:46:28 AM
The 295/42 missing moves are enjoying the same timeframe as the 95/PA Turnpike missing moves. NJDOT doesn't appear to be in much of a rush to get them done, and have continually pushed back the timeframe of construction. This is now a $150 million project - just for these ramps. In 2013, the project was scheduled for funding starting in FY16. In 2014, all but $4 million was pushed to FY17. The fact that they kept a very small bit of funding in FY16 is considered progress in my book.
Really? When I went down to Camden last year it looked like they were moving at a decent pace.
The construction you're seeing is part of the straightening of I-295 project in that area (aka Goodbye Al-Jo Curve). The missing moves, IIRC was originally part of the overall 295 project; has either been moved to either a later phase, add-alternate or a separate project. Jeffandnicole can confirm/clarify/correct.
I don't believe the missing moves were ever part of the main interchange project. I do recall that the missing moves were originally scheduled to be built before construction commenced on the main interchange project. Since 295 North to 42 South traffic had to go thru the existing interchange twice (same is true from 42 North to 295 South), both NJDOT & the Feds figured the missing moves would relieve the interchange of that additional traffic. NJDOT determined the overall percent of traffic going thru the interchange twice was relatively small, and the Feds agreed, so that issue went away.
Even then, the missing move ramps were to be built first anyway, but then a developer wanting to build a large scale development on top of a capped landfill in Bellmawr (which was to include a Bass Pro Shop & indoor arena) threw his 20 pound wrench into things, wanting easier highway access to his proposed development. Bellmawr and NJDOT held off on the project again to allow the developer time to present his point. But then something happened, which caught the developer off guard. Apparently, when businesses valued in the billions of dollars want to look for a new location, one of the turnoffs is a large, massive, construction project which will potentially keep customers away from their business. If the timeline of the highway and development was the same, everything would be cool. When the timeline for the main 295 interchange project would be several years after the development's planned opening, cool it is not. Thus, the developer lost his leverage when his potential businesses wouldn't commit to the development.
Now, it's just a waiting game with funding and such. And other 20 pound wrenches, of course.
During the meetings and public presentations, the most the missing moves got mentioned was a small line where the ramps are proposed to go. They were never discussed otherwise, unless someone brought them up (which did happen often).
While we want to think that everyone in NJDOT knows about everything NJDOT does, the reality is more like any typical office setting. I have my job to do. The guy in the office next to mind has his job to do. I don't know much if anything what he does, and he doesn't know what I do.
Thus, most people working on the main 295 interchange have nothing to do with the missing moves. And if they do have any knowledge of it, they aren't permitted to publicly talk about it.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 04, 2015, 09:35:59 AM
Then how about the FL 451 project taking away the bridges that carried the former FL 429 over FL 414 when the new FL 429 was built to Plymouth to align itself with the future Wekiva Parkway project? Those particular bridges were fairly new and constructed only a few years prior to their destruction.
Plus the elimination of the high speed connection between FL 408 E Bound and FL 417 N Bound using the old E-W Expressway grade, as well as its counterpart from FL 417 S Bound to FL 408 W Bound? Thus removing a totally freeway grade for a good distance all in favor a flyover ramps at another location.
I call all of these a total waste!
Does anyone know why they removed the high-speed ramps from FL 408 E to FL 417 N? That seems like a huge backpedal, not to mention millions spent to REMOVE a good freeway connection.
Weaving between that and 50, for one. The current ramps are still pretty high speed.
In Georgia, too many of the GRIP corridors: nearly-deserted four lane highways across the trackless wastes of rural Georgia.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 04, 2015, 11:02:44 AM
All Texas toll roads. They are overpriced and few drive on them.
Agreed. Some of the newer ones also seem too far away from the areas they supposedly serve in order to be meeting the needs they're supposed to be meeting: Toll 45, Toll 49, Toll 130, and Toll 255 in particular.
Quote from: Tom958 on February 05, 2015, 06:15:08 AM
In Georgia, too many of the GRIP corridors: nearly-deserted four lane highways across the trackless wastes of rural Georgia.
On the same vein, I would have to say that four-laning US 64 across southern Tennessee is also a waste. It doesn't get a lot of traffic, and it isn't built to have really great bypasses of the towns. Some of the towns (like Lawrenceburg) will have US 64 bypass the town with an interchange at US 43, but Fayetteville has a setup to where you have to turn to get onto the bypass. If it was truly built to bypass all of the towns, then it would be a great alternative to US 72 between Memphis and Chattanooga.
WV's biggest waste is the triangle of roads formed by US 50 (Corridor D), I-79 and I-77 between Parkersburg, Charleston and Clarksburg.
50, 80 miles of construction, runs though the middle of nowhere, an area not amenable to development and thus, 40 years in, still undeveloped. 79, 120 miles of construction, likewise travels though areas without economic potential.
Eliminate either 77 or 79 and you only add 20 miles of travel between Clarksburg and Parkersburg. 100 or 120 miles of construction to save only 20 miles, is a waste. Do what the original Turnpike wanted to do, which is a single road, slightly to the east of the where 77 ended up, with a branch off to Clarksburg and billions would have been saved.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but...
The vast majority of the WIS 26-to-freeway upgrades, while fun'ish to track, are realistically an unnecessary waste of state money. Once the I-39/90 upgrade is done, most of that stretch (outside of the Water, Fort, and Jeff bypasses) will most likely be at less then full freeway needed levels of AADT.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 05, 2015, 01:25:42 PM
WV's biggest waste is the triangle of roads formed by US 50 (Corridor D), I-79 and I-77 between Parkersburg, Charleston and Clarksburg.
50, 80 miles of construction, runs though the middle of nowhere, an area not amenable to development and thus, 40 years in, still undeveloped. 79, 120 miles of construction, likewise travels though areas without economic potential.
Eliminate either 77 or 79 and you only add 20 miles of travel between Clarksburg and Parkersburg. 100 or 120 miles of construction to save only 20 miles, is a waste. Do what the original Turnpike wanted to do, which is a single road, slightly to the east of the where 77 ended up, with a branch off to Clarksburg and billions would have been saved.
I don't think the terrain that I-77, 79 and US 50 travel through help matters either. I've driven I-77 from Charleston to the Ravenwood Bridge and it is just as mountainous as the Turnpike. I rode across US 50 when I was younger, but I don't remember it very well.
I-77, I-79 and US 50 are great if you're traveling through West Virginia, but if I were a businessman, I don't think I'd want to set up shop in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. (I love the scenery of WV though.)
I've traveled 79 a lot more than I have 77, but there is very little of note between the the Elkview and Flatwoods exits on 79. Then it's 30 more miles to Weston. At least Ripley's there to kinda serve as a halfway point between Charleston and Parkersburg on 77.
As for US 50, I've only driven it three times (twice eastbound and once westbound). Last time I drove it was about 18 months ago. I didn't remember it being as crooked as it is, but it's certainly desolate. Seems like there may have been one fast food place (a McDonald's) at West Union, but there's sure not much else.
Not my state, but what about the PA Turnpike's two projects: The Mon-Fayette Expressway, and the Southern Beltway?
The completed section of the Mon-Fayette north of Uniontown sees some use, but IMHO not really enough to justify its cost over improving some of the existing roads. (Not that I don't enjoy the free-flow between US-40 and I-70) South of Uniontown, the road pretty much parallels I-79; it would have been way more useful to have continued southeast instead to meet up with I-68 at a point 40-50 miles east of where it does now, making it a useful alternate route for the overcrowded PA Turnpike mainline (hey, they'd be getting tolls anyway.) Ironically, the section of the Mon-Fayette that would be the most practical, from PA-51 to the Parkway East, will probably never be built.
As for the Southern Beltway, I wonder how much usage the only completed section -- that stub between Parkway West and US-22 -- gets. Although I can't say for certain how justified the rest of the Southern Beltway is, I do seem to recall that east-west travel in the area can be kind of slow due all the hills in the region.
The Mon-Fayette Expressway and the South Beltway aren't what I would consider high-priority highway projects, but there is at least a little bit of justification for them. The road network in Pittsburgh's southern suburbs and the Monongahela River Valley is piss poor, and I'm putting that mildly. It shouldn't take 45 minutes to get from McKeesport to Canonsburg in normal traffic conditions, but it does because there's literally no direct east/west connection between Pittsburgh and I-70. And the Monongahela River Valley is served primarily by two-lane back roads, which aren't conducive to redeveloping old industrial sites. Construction of the South Beltway is justified for three reasons:
1. It gives the Monongahela River Valley better connections to the regional highway system.
2. It connects the Monongahela River Valley to Pittsburgh International Airport, and also to an emerging employment hub at Southpointe.
3. It improves east/west mobility across Pittsburgh's southern suburbs.
As for the Mon-Fayette Expressway, I support building the segment to Monroeville, but oppose building the segment into the city of Pittsburgh. The segment to Monroeville needs to end at the Pennsylvania Turnpike, though, not I-376. Extend the northern terminus north to the Turnpike somewhere between the Allegheny Valley and Monroeville interchanges, and that'll give Pittsburgh a three-quarters beltway incorporating a segment of the Turnpike, with the only missing link being between Pittsburgh International Airport and Cranberry. This will make the Monongahela River Valley more accessible from the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and improve north/south traffic flow in the valley itself. There's no need to build into the city of Pittsburgh, though, because the lower valley is ripe for redevelopment, and the path of the highway passes through a lot of real estate that developers have plans for.
If you want to talk about wasting money in the Pittsburgh area, the "improvements" coming to the Parkway West qualify, because they're about to spend $72M adding capacity near the I-79 interchange but still not improving it to modern Interstate standards. They plan to add a fourth lane in each direction there, but they're going to eliminate the exterior shoulders to do so. Why even bother? I'd rather they not spend the money if they're not going to do it right. PennDOT District 11 needs to grow some balls and upgrade the Parkway West properly to modern standards. :banghead:
Ohio 32 east of Batavia. Running a four-lane across the entire state has done little for economic development. I think a Gold Star opened up in Seaman.
The bypass of Burlington, WI, was a big waste of money in my opinion. Very little thru traffic going from one side of Burlington to the other. It has expensive jughandle interchanges at little county roads but the major junctions are at-grade with traffic signals.
I'm sure there are some who would consider the I-41 promotion to be low on the reward for the money spent on new signs, but I am cool with it.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 05, 2015, 07:29:05 PM
It has expensive jughandle interchanges at little county roads but the major junctions are at-grade with traffic signals.
Folded diamonds, not jughandles.
In Michigan? Arguably, the current Zilwaukee Bridge. It was built because of the massive backups caused by the existing drawbridge - it was raised 984 times in 1978. But as soon as the new bridge was proposed, GM largely stopped using ships to bring in steel, and shipping traffic fell. In 2011, the Saginaw River saw 138 passages - that's less than 0.4 ships per day. You could have argued for a more sophisticated system to redirect traffic onto I-675 when a ship is coming, closing the river to shipping altogether, or compromising and building a lower clearance bridge that lets some, but not all, vessels through.
M-6 received some protests for being totally unnecessary, in part because "Holland to Lansing is not a major corridor." However, it has done wonders for local traffic, and it came in way ahead of schedule and under budget, so ha! :)
Other contenders:
- The enormously overbuilt interchange between I-696 and Mound Rd, which is probably one of the ten highest capacity interchanges in the state. Mound Rd was supposed to become a freeway as a relocated M-53, but it never happened.
- MDOT taking over and reconstructing the Davison Freeway (M-8) instead of converting it back to surface street. Not like it's ever going to reach I-96 or I-94.
- M-231. While not expensive per se, it is supposed to eventually serve as a much needed bypass of US 31 between Holland and Grand Haven, which is still not a freeway. However, right now there is only funding to built the northern half of it, and only as a super-2 expressway, which helps about five people. There are so many projects that deserve to get built ahead of this. It's gonna be Michigan's I-180.
- The proposal to eliminate I-375, which unlike M-8, is definitely needed.
- The proposal to build a second Portage Lake bridge in the Keweenaw Peninsula, connecting Chassell to Jacobsville. Bridge to Nowhere, indeed.
But the original Mackinac Bridge proposal, starting in Cheboygan and hopping over several islands on its way to St. Ignace, is hilarious.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 04, 2015, 09:17:31 AM
The biggest waste of money in California has got to be the new SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. There is no argument that the bridge needed replacing after the 1989 Loma-Prieta Earthquake, but the cost was massively increased due to the locals desire to have a "showcase bridge". A couple of billion later, and the bridge has problems.
I'd say the massive cost increases for the Bay Bridge were due more to contractor errors and insufficient quality control practices, not as much the design of the bridge itself.
I'd say for Nevada, the biggest waste of money in recent memory is I-15's F-Street Underpass in Las Vegas. [Discussed briefly in this Pacific Southwest thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14304.0).]
Background: As I-15 was built through a historically black neighborhood in the 60's, residents cried foul to the freeway segregating them from downtown. A few streets in this area got underpasses as a result. As NDOT recently widened I-15, they closed F-Street (supposedly without notifying the neighborhood, but that claim is dubious). People cried foul again saying the state was cutting them off from downtown (despite two existing underpasses within walking distance still providing access). State legislature intervenes and passes a bill ordering NDOT to reopen F Street, which ended up costing something like $26 million (estimated $56 million when bill was passed--recession helped this one!). The kicker: F Street is a 2-lane residential street that probably sees less than 200 vehicles a day.
Granted, the new underpass is a beautiful piece of work with artwork paying homage and tribute to the Historic Westside neighborhood. But the cost/benefit factor on this was not enough to justify the expense.
I would wager that many southern Nevadans would consider the I-580 extension (from SR 431 in south Reno to old US 395 just north of Carson City) in northern Nevada as the biggest waste of money and completely unnecessary. Granted, that project currently stands as the most expensive in NDOT history (~$550 million). This was in part due to the decision to build in mountainous terrain and in geothermal activity areas which necessitated several bridges (including the long/tall Galena Creek Bridge), and also construction problems with the first bridge subcontractor. However, the project was necessary since old route had way too much traffic and too many accidents for what is really a rural route.
People up north will probably think the same thing of the future Boulder City Bypass, as the selected routing for that is driving up the construction cost significantly as well.
Quote from: GCrites80s on February 05, 2015, 06:53:03 PM
Ohio 32 east of Batavia. Running a four-lane across the entire state has done little for economic development. I think a Gold Star opened up in Seaman.
First mention of an Appalachian Development Corridor I've seen. I figured SPUI would have chimed in with "Corridor H!" by now.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 05, 2015, 10:14:06 PM
First mention of an Appalachian Development Corridor I've seen.
Actually Sippy Kook mentioned Corridor D in WV.
I-73/74
</thread>
The largest waste of highway funding in recent years in IL is probably IL-336 between Quincy and Macomb since it's lightly used for a 4-lane and the money spent on it should have gone to upgrading US 67.
OH 32's problem is that it just ends at the Cincy Beltway, which there is still farm land inside the Beltway on the east side of the metro area. They need to build an expressway from the JCT of 32 to US 50.
H is hardly a waste.
For CT, I can't think of any highway projects that are of themselves grandiose and actually getting built. Most of the money seems to go into maintenance, little fixups and a few big in-place projects.
The Q-bridge project in New Haven may be expensive, but you can't argue that it's unnecessary.
I do wish so much spending wasn't happening for the following:
* fixing past mistakes. Yes, hindsight etc. etc.; but while the rest of you would use your time machines to kill Hitler, I would crash engineering meetings in the 1940s, '50s and '60s saying "No! Don't do that! We're just going to have to spend billions later fixing that!" Specifically: elevated I-91 along river in Hartford (ugly and under-capacity); left exit at 2/17 (could have fixed that in 1964 when CT 2 was extended); I-84/CT 8 interchange; most other left exits
* major rebuilds without adding capacity. Example: Moses Wheeler Bridge, I-95, $300 million rebuild, no additional lanes. On CT 2 in say, Bozrah, adding 2 lanes for a bridge might be silly. But everyone wishes 95 could be widened without costing something like $1010.
* improvements that become ironic in greater context. There's a nice new directional ramp from I-95 to CT 34 in New Haven. Cost $100M. But 34 is getting torn up. Maybe there's a cheaper way to dump traffic into the middle of downtown.
* general Nutmeg meterological hostility. Everything freezes and rusts and salts up and washes away because the weather sucks. Can't avoid maintenance, though. (Edit: CT did, but shouldn't have)
Quote from: US81 on February 05, 2015, 06:33:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 04, 2015, 11:02:44 AM
All Texas toll roads. They are overpriced and few drive on them.
Agreed. Some of the newer ones also seem too far away from the areas they supposedly serve in order to be meeting the needs they're supposed to be meeting: Toll 45, Toll 49, Toll 130, and Toll 255 in particular.
I just used TX-130 for the first time in June, from Georgetown to Seguin, and it totally rocked. It served our needs perfectly well, avoiding Austin and the worst half of San Antonio traffic on the way south towards Laredo. The only problem, IMO, is that it doesn't go nearly far enough
north: what we really need is a bypass that goes all the way up to Sanger! That, and the fact that I had to do pay-by-mail, at which point TxTag found a bunch of tolls I'd never been billed for from my CCTR day pass account (due to changing vehicles and license plates on the account every year), but that's more or less my own fault.
Seriously, though... We didn't see a whole lot of traffic on the highway, but a sufficient amount to make me think it wasn't a total waste of money. For such a fancy-schmancy highway with an 85-mph speed limit, you might think they'd have done a better of job of smoothing out the dips and bumps, but I know the soil in that part of the state isn't the easiest to work with.
BUT–and this is a big but for me–Fort Worth traffic has now actually made me swear off I-35 in Texas entirely. For this year's México trip, I intend to take US-277 all the way from I-44 to Del Rio; 85-mph speed limit or not, it simply doesn't make up for the headache of Fort Worth traffic jams/accidents/construction/crap.
As for TX-255, that toll road made perfect sense before Texas went and built the commercial crossing at Loop-20 instead. Before that, TX-255 was supposed to connect to the new forthcoming bypass around Nuevo Laredo, and commercial traffic would be encouraged to use that route around the city to and from México. Instead, the state changed its mind and put the commercial crossing at Loop-20, México understandably built its bypass to connect to that point rather than TX-255, and the CCTR went bankrupt because (go figure!) truckers found little use for it. TX-255 is still a perfectly acceptable bypass around the Laredos, connecting to the Mexican bypass by way of highway 2 (I've used it six times in each direction), but it is certainly underutilized compared to what it was meant to be. If they would bring back and expand the cross-border trucking program, then TX-255 might see more use, depending on how busy the Loop-20 crossing gets for truckers; but, as it is now, all long-distance cross-border cargo has to be unloaded at a trailer lot, shuttled by a drayage driver across the border, then picked up by another truck on the other side. Those lots are located closer in to the city, so most trucks see no need to swing too far out around the city.
Quote from: kphoger on February 06, 2015, 05:19:35 PM
As for TX-255, that toll road made perfect sense before Texas went and built the commercial crossing at Loop-20 instead. Before that, TX-255 was supposed to connect to the new forthcoming bypass around Nuevo Laredo, and commercial traffic would be encouraged to use that route around the city to and from México. Instead, the state changed its mind and put the commercial crossing at Loop-20, México understandably built its bypass to connect to that point rather than TX-255, and the CCTR went bankrupt because (go figure!) truckers found little use for it. TX-255 is still a perfectly acceptable bypass around the Laredos, connecting to the Mexican bypass by way of highway 2 (I've used it six times in each direction), but it is certainly underutilized compared to what it was meant to be.
I suppose the spur from NL 1 to the bridge also qualifies, unless going to Monterrey via Anáhuac is actually reasonable.
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2015, 05:44:00 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 06, 2015, 05:19:35 PM
As for TX-255, that toll road made perfect sense before Texas went and built the commercial crossing at Loop-20 instead. Before that, TX-255 was supposed to connect to the new forthcoming bypass around Nuevo Laredo, and commercial traffic would be encouraged to use that route around the city to and from México. Instead, the state changed its mind and put the commercial crossing at Loop-20, México understandably built its bypass to connect to that point rather than TX-255, and the CCTR went bankrupt because (go figure!) truckers found little use for it. TX-255 is still a perfectly acceptable bypass around the Laredos, connecting to the Mexican bypass by way of highway 2 (I've used it six times in each direction), but it is certainly underutilized compared to what it was meant to be.
I suppose the spur from NL 1 to the bridge also qualifies, unless going to Monterrey via Anáhuac is actually reasonable.
Qualifies for what? A waste of money? Do you know when that spur was constructed (Wikipedia says 1994, which was well before the bypass was being built)?
At any rate, going to Monterrey via Anáhuac on NL-1 is not a reasonable alternative to taking 85. Some people do it, but I've read people from the area stating online that they have no idea why anyone would think that route was better. By paying tolls, Fed-85 is four lanes all the way, and the free alternative is a better highway than NL-1. Using that spur
to near the Colombia crossing leaves a driver really no choice but to go through Anáhuac; some mapping sites used to show the route connecting all the way to Fed-85, but that didn't match reality and the mapping sites seem to have caught on.
Quote from: kphoger on February 06, 2015, 06:07:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2015, 05:44:00 PM
I suppose the spur from NL 1 to the bridge also qualifies, unless going to Monterrey via Anáhuac is actually reasonable.
Qualifies for what? A waste of money?
Yes; it's essentially the Mexican equivalent of 255 but without connectivity to federal highways.
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2015, 07:42:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 06, 2015, 06:07:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2015, 05:44:00 PM
I suppose the spur from NL 1 to the bridge also qualifies, unless going to Monterrey via Anáhuac is actually reasonable.
Qualifies for what? A waste of money?
Yes; it's essentially the Mexican equivalent of 255 but without connectivity to federal highways.
I'm not familiar with the history of what we're calling Spur NL-1 (SCT numbering actually considers this to be the "mainline" of NL-1, whereas the portion to Nuevo Laredo is considered the spur). For all I know, that road has been there for ages, and has has simply existed as the road from Monterrey to Colombia–forgetting for a moment that Colombia is a planned community founded in the early 90s. All that is to say, it might be that the road from the Huisachito junction to Colombia might not have been a "waste of money", and the road from that junction to Nuevo Laredo–which actually runs through two different states–might qualify for the "best use of funds" thread.
The TX 255 toll road is already confusing. On the Camino-Colombia website it acts like you have to have a day pass or TxTag to drive the road. The real question is that if you drive on the Camino-Colombia Toll Road without a a day pass or txtag will they just send you a $3.99 toll + the $1.15 pbm fee? I've been trying to figure out this question for the last forever and have never gotten a clear answer on it. If I can drive on it without a day pass that's what I'm going to do.
^^ I got a day-pass as soon as they took out the toll booths, having only used it once when it was still an option to pay cash. The only answer I can provide is only sort of an answer, because I do have a day pass account. Allow me to detail my history with TX-255. Here goes...
2009 - Used TX-255 SB and NB - Our van alone - paid cash
between 2009 and 2010 - Toll booths removed, cash no longer an option
2010 - I set up a day pass account, including our van and our friend's dad's Honda
2010 - Used TX-255 SB and NB - Our van plus his Honda
2011 - I changed my account info, removing the Honda and adding our friend's pickup, also changing our license plate number
2011 - Used TX-255 NB only, having arrived at Colombia via Mines Road on the southbound portion - Our van plus his pickup
2012 - I changed my account info, removing the pickup and adding our youth pastor's SUV, also changing our address
2012 - Used TX-255 SB and NB - Our van plus his SUV
2013 - Used TX-255 SB and NB - Our van only
2014 - I changed my account info, removing the SUV and adding our friend's pickup back on
2014 - Used Pay-by-Mail lanes on TX-130 SB only (Georgetown to Seguin), then TX-255 SB and NB - our van plus his pickup
As you can see, I milked the Camino Colombia Day Pass for all it's worth. Now for the pertinent part:
Shortly after returning to Wichita in 2014, I received the bill for having used the Pay-by-Mail lanes on TX-130. This is what I expected. What came as a surprise is that there were also charges for TX-255 dating clear back to 2010, and I believe they were for more than just our own van but the other vehicles as well. Apparently–either through my fault or TxTag's (my account history, admittedly, was very confusing)–at various points, TxTag had the wrong license plate(s) on file for my account. Since TxTag and its associate collections agencies do not have access to Kansas DMV information, they could not determine an address to send any of those bills to; so they just held on to them until I unwittingly straightened it all out last year. If I'm not mistaken, my friend never got a bill in the mail for using TX-130 last year, but I can't remember if his charges were on my bill or not. It seems to me that, every so often, TxTag saw one of out vehicles drive under the TX-255 gantry, found no account matching the license plate number, then held the charges until that license plate number suddently matched account a few years later.
What have I learned from this experience?
(1) It is possible to receive a bill in the mail for using TX-255.
(2) TxTag lumps charges from TX-255 and other toll roads together on a statement.
What I still don't know for sure:
Assuming TxTag has access to your address from the DMV, will they still send you a bill for TX-255 even if you have no account? This is only an issue if you live in Texas or a state whose DMV has an agreement with TxTag. If you live in a different state (no agreement), then it is widely reported you will never receive a bill. I do suspect, however, that those unpaid tolls would show up if ever you decided to open an account of any sort with TxTag.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 05, 2015, 01:25:42 PM
WV's biggest waste is the triangle of roads formed by US 50 (Corridor D), I-79 and I-77 between Parkersburg, Charleston and Clarksburg.
50, 80 miles of construction, runs though the middle of nowhere, an area not amenable to development and thus, 40 years in, still undeveloped. 79, 120 miles of construction, likewise travels though areas without economic potential.
Eliminate either 77 or 79 and you only add 20 miles of travel between Clarksburg and Parkersburg. 100 or 120 miles of construction to save only 20 miles, is a waste. Do what the original Turnpike wanted to do, which is a single road, slightly to the east of the where 77 ended up, with a branch off to Clarksburg and billions would have been saved.
The section that could be removed with the least amount of impact, the 57 miles of I-79 between Charleston and US 19, carries more than 10,000 VPD on its least traveled stretches. I-79 saves drivers heading between Charleston and points north of Clarksburg 27 miles. I-79 and US 19 save 73 miles for people heading between Beckley and Clarksburg versus a I-77/US 50 routing.
I could see an argument that US 19 should have received the Interstate designation south of Sutton with I-79 to Charleston built as an ARC corridor instead, but the routings as-built make plenty of sense when you look at connecting population centers.
On I-83, PennDOT did a top-to-bottom reconstruction between York (just north of exit 22, Business I-83) and I-76 (Exit 39, Pennsylvania Turnpike) in the 1990's.
The overpasses were mostly replaced (those that were too low were rebuilt to Interstate standards), the pavement got a full-depth replacement, the signs were replaced, but nothing was done to remediate the substandard interchange geometrics (example at Pa. 392, Exit 33 here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.144764,-76.814868&hl=en&sll=38.804821,-77.236966&sspn=3.450062,5.916138&t=h&z=17)).
Perhaps I-64 could have used I-79 to Sutton and then cut over to Staunton, but it's doubtful that this would have saved any construction, and it'd probably be a more difficult mountain crossing.
Now there is a good argument to be made that the 1961 extension of I-79 from Washington, PA to Charleston was pork that primarily benefited West Virginia, since it only cut the distance by 9 miles over 70-77. However, the more recent creation of I-68 has made I-79 more important to non-West Virginians (as has Corridor L, which saves 43 miles over going via Charleston).
In Illinois, IiDiOT never wastes money on actual road construction projects because they don't have any money for actual road construction projects. Instead, they waste money on studies for roads and upgrades that are NOT needed, while completely ignoring roads and upgrades that ARE needed.
Quote from: kphoger on February 07, 2015, 02:33:03 PM
^^ I got a day-pass as soon as they took out the toll booths, having only used it once when it was still an option to pay cash. The only answer I can provide is only sort of an answer, because I do have a day pass account. Allow me to detail my history with TX-255. Here goes...
2009 - Used TX-255 SB and NB - Our van alone - paid cash
between 2009 and 2010 - Toll booths removed, cash no longer an option
2010 - I set up a day pass account, including our van and our friend's dad's Honda
2010 - Used TX-255 SB and NB - Our van plus his Honda
2011 - I changed my account info, removing the Honda and adding our friend's pickup, also changing our license plate number
2011 - Used TX-255 NB only, having arrived at Colombia via Mines Road on the southbound portion - Our van plus his pickup
2012 - I changed my account info, removing the pickup and adding our youth pastor's SUV, also changing our address
2012 - Used TX-255 SB and NB - Our van plus his SUV
2013 - Used TX-255 SB and NB - Our van only
2014 - I changed my account info, removing the SUV and adding our friend's pickup back on
2014 - Used Pay-by-Mail lanes on TX-130 SB only (Georgetown to Seguin), then TX-255 SB and NB - our van plus his pickup
As you can see, I milked the Camino Colombia Day Pass for all it's worth. Now for the pertinent part:
Shortly after returning to Wichita in 2014, I received the bill for having used the Pay-by-Mail lanes on TX-130. This is what I expected. What came as a surprise is that there were also charges for TX-255 dating clear back to 2010, and I believe they were for more than just our own van but the other vehicles as well. Apparently–either through my fault or TxTag's (my account history, admittedly, was very confusing)–at various points, TxTag had the wrong license plate(s) on file for my account. Since TxTag and its associate collections agencies do not have access to Kansas DMV information, they could not determine an address to send any of those bills to; so they just held on to them until I unwittingly straightened it all out last year. If I'm not mistaken, my friend never got a bill in the mail for using TX-130 last year, but I can't remember if his charges were on my bill or not. It seems to me that, every so often, TxTag saw one of out vehicles drive under the TX-255 gantry, found no account matching the license plate number, then held the charges until that license plate number suddently matched account a few years later.
What have I learned from this experience?
(1) It is possible to receive a bill in the mail for using TX-255.
(2) TxTag lumps charges from TX-255 and other toll roads together on a statement.
What I still don't know for sure:
Assuming TxTag has access to your address from the DMV, will they still send you a bill for TX-255 even if you have no account? This is only an issue if you live in Texas or a state whose DMV has an agreement with TxTag. If you live in a different state (no agreement), then it is widely reported you will never receive a bill. I do suspect, however, that those unpaid tolls would show up if ever you decided to open an account of any sort with TxTag.
I'll probably end up just getting a day pass, so I don't have to worry about whether or not they send me a bill in the mail. If I was to take it twice I would just have to pay $7.98 right? The transponder doesn't cost anything extra does it?
I fully agree on all points!
I have long thought the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority's sole mission is to build more and more roads in order to justify its existence. We'll see if the Central Florida Expressway Authority is any better. I suspect it won't be.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 04, 2015, 09:35:59 AM
Oh yes and those towers that are supposed to look like Cable Stay Bridge towers on the long Lake Underhill Causeway on the Four oh Eight, are money that should have never been spent.
It was to create a gateway to Orlando from the east for travelers heading into O Town on FL 408, but it really does not do much for the road. Heck those ugly spires on the Conroy Road overpass (which I hate too) do more for aesthetics than these eyesores for a gateway into the city.
Then how about the FL 451 project taking away the bridges that carried the former FL 429 over FL 414 when the new FL 429 was built to Plymouth to align itself with the future Wekiva Parkway project? Those particular bridges were fairly new and constructed only a few years prior to their destruction.
Plus the elimination of the high speed connection between FL 408 E Bound and FL 417 N Bound using the old E-W Expressway grade, as well as its counterpart from FL 417 S Bound to FL 408 W Bound? Thus removing a totally freeway grade for a good distance all in favor a flyover ramps at another location.
I call all of these a total waste!
Quote from: SP Cook on February 06, 2015, 07:19:03 AM
OH 32's problem is that it just ends at the Cincy Beltway, which there is still farm land inside the Beltway on the east side of the metro area. They need to build an expressway from the JCT of 32 to US 50.
What I find odd is that OH 32 got the ARC corridor treatment while US 50, sorta parallel (certainly as much a potential through route between Cincinnati and Parkersburg), was left as a 2 lane road. What gives with that?
Quote from: Duke87 on February 09, 2015, 12:16:50 AM
What I find odd is that OH 32 got the ARC corridor treatment while US 50, sorta parallel (certainly as much a potential through route between Cincinnati and Parkersburg), was left as a 2 lane road. What gives with that?
No different from US 22-62, not US 42, getting the Interstate between Cinci and Columbus. Someone made the decision that a partly-new corridor between Cinci and Albany would be more feasible, or better serve political donors, or whatever.
What gets me is that Corridors D and H do not line up. I know H was originally planned via Petersburg, but a route along US 50 from Bridgeport to Mount Storm would add only 10 miles to the Charleston-DC distance. But I guess Corridor D traffic bound for DC can use I-68.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 09, 2015, 12:16:50 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 06, 2015, 07:19:03 AM
OH 32's problem is that it just ends at the Cincy Beltway, which there is still farm land inside the Beltway on the east side of the metro area. They need to build an expressway from the JCT of 32 to US 50.
What I find odd is that OH 32 got the ARC corridor treatment while US 50, sorta parallel (certainly as much a potential through route between Cincinnati and Parkersburg), was left as a 2 lane road. What gives with that?
That is going to ruin me being able to clinch US 50 in Ohio on my way back from Scranton. Since I need to cover more ground in a short amount of time, it looks like OH 32 will be my route.
Probably not the biggest waste, but the PTC is building a large toll plaza (and lengthened two bridges more than they otherwise would be for it) on the Turnpike in Bensalem as part of the I-95/PA Turnpike project. While it's necessary now, it'll be completely useless with the planned conversion to all-electronic tolling.
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:24:53 AM
That is going to ruin me being able to clinch US 50 in Ohio on my way back from Scranton. Since I need to cover more ground in a short amount of time, it looks like OH 32 will be my route.
US 50 is not that bad of a route, although you can't make the same time on it that you can on OH 32. What parts do you lack on 50?
I'd driven 50 between Chillicothe and Corridor D several years ago; on my way back from one of the midwest meets a few years ago (I think Dubuque) I drove 50 from Lawrenceburg, Ind. to Chillicothe to finish the clinch. I made decent time on a damp Sunday afternoon.
Quote from: US 41 on February 08, 2015, 06:54:11 PM
I'll probably end up just getting a day pass, so I don't have to worry about whether or not they send me a bill in the mail. If I was to take it twice I would just have to pay $7.98 right? The transponder doesn't cost anything extra does it?
I'm confused by your question. The reason a person would get a Camino Colombia day pass is that he
doesn't have or want a TxTag. So... if you're planning to get a day pass, then there's no transponder. You just prepay money into an account, the camera reads your license plate, and money is taken out of your account. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2015, 10:59:21 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:24:53 AM
That is going to ruin me being able to clinch US 50 in Ohio on my way back from Scranton. Since I need to cover more ground in a short amount of time, it looks like OH 32 will be my route.
US 50 is not that bad of a route, although you can't make the same time on it that you can on OH 32. What parts do you lack on 50?
I'd driven 50 between Chillicothe and Corridor D several years ago; on my way back from one of the midwest meets a few years ago (I think Dubuque) I drove 50 from Lawrenceburg, Ind. to Chillicothe to finish the clinch. I made decent time on a damp Sunday afternoon.
I've driven US 50 between Chillicothe and SR 32 a couple times. Aside from going through McArthur, you shouldn't have much trouble maintaining 55mph. FWIW, when the 2-lane bypass east of Londonderry was built, the state actually bought 4-lanes worth of right of way although I'm sure it'll never be used.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2015, 10:59:21 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:24:53 AM
That is going to ruin me being able to clinch US 50 in Ohio on my way back from Scranton. Since I need to cover more ground in a short amount of time, it looks like OH 32 will be my route.
US 50 is not that bad of a route, although you can't make the same time on it that you can on OH 32. What parts do you lack on 50?
I'd driven 50 between Chillicothe and Corridor D several years ago; on my way back from one of the midwest meets a few years ago (I think Dubuque) I drove 50 from Lawrenceburg, Ind. to Chillicothe to finish the clinch. I made decent time on a damp Sunday afternoon.
I have just recently started my quest to clinch US 50. I clinched a good bit of it in Indiana last month (between Loogootee, IN and Dillsboro, IN). On my trip back, I will be clinching it between Clarksburg, WV and where it splits off from OH 32 at Athens, OH. If I have time, I will try and get all of it in the Cincy metro on my way back, but I am not sure I will have the time, especially with my plan to take US 27 south of Cincy to clinch three counties I am missing in Kentucky.
EDIT: Changed Dillsboro, OH to Dillsboro, IN.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 09, 2015, 10:28:06 AM
Probably not the biggest waste, but the PTC is building a large toll plaza (and lengthened two bridges more than they otherwise would be for it) on the Turnpike in Bensalem as part of the I-95/PA Turnpike project. While it's necessary now, it'll be completely useless with the planned conversion to all-electronic tolling.
Seriously? I think you just won the thread; given the relative completion dates for the first phase of the interchange and the conversion to AET, the PTC is going to have to demolish those booths before they would even be opened in the first place. Talk about a waste of money!
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 01:34:15 PM
I have just recently started my quest to clinch US 50. I clinched a good bit of it in Indiana last month (between Loogootee, IN and Dillsboro, IN). On my trip back, I will be clinching it between Clarksburg, WV and where it splits off from OH 32 at Athens, OH. If I have time, I will try and get all of it in the Cincy metro on my way back, but I am not sure I will have the time, especially with my plan to take US 27 south of Cincy to clinch three counties I am missing in Kentucky.
US 27 south of Cincinnati is a pretty easy drive as well. Once you get out of the built-up area, you can make good time except in the towns (Falmouth, Cynthiana and the southern part of Paris). Cynthiana has the state's newest roundabout (speaking of wastes of money) where US 27 and US 62 intersect on the south side of town.
I miss the primitive rest areas on US-50 between Cincy and Chillicothe.
For Illinois, I'd have to say the Amstutz Expressway through downtown Waukegan. There was little point to the freeway, it really serves a minimal purpose, and it only serves to further cut off downtown Waukegan from the lakefront. As it currently exists, it's good for a movie set.
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2015, 12:59:25 PM
For Illinois, I'd have to say the Amstutz Expressway through downtown Waukegan. There was little point to the freeway, it really serves a minimal purpose, and it only serves to further cut off downtown Waukegan from the lakefront. As it currently exists, it's good for a movie set.
And was used as such in
The Blues Brothers, right?
Anyways, the Amstutz was planned to be part of a much more extensive network of highways in eastern Lake County and extending into Wisconsin.
Mike
As badly needed as it is, the Alaskan Way tunnel has become a huge pain in the ass, and Bertha may be part of the problem there.
Quote from: vdeane on February 09, 2015, 03:05:44 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 09, 2015, 10:28:06 AM
Probably not the biggest waste, but the PTC is building a large toll plaza (and lengthened two bridges more than they otherwise would be for it) on the Turnpike in Bensalem as part of the I-95/PA Turnpike project. While it's necessary now, it'll be completely useless with the planned conversion to all-electronic tolling.
Seriously? I think you just won the thread; given the relative completion dates for the first phase of the interchange and the conversion to AET, the PTC is going to have to demolish those booths before they would even be opened in the first place. Talk about a waste of money!
Nah. The interchange will be completed in 2013; on time and under budget, well ahead of the AET conversion. In fact, if there's any delays, no doubt they'll incorporate the future possibilities into the project.
Heck, the way that project is going, pavement and bridges won't be necessary. Flying cars will rule the sky.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2015, 02:52:03 PMHeck, the way that project is going, pavement and bridges won't be necessary. Flying cars will rule the sky.
Wasn't that supposed to happen
this year per
Back to the Future 2? :sombrero:
Back on topic, the Dunn Memorial Bridge (Bridge to Nowhere) in Albany and its short expressway continuation. Greatly overbuilt in anticipation of a freeway connection and host to several structural problems, including a set of girders slipping off their support in 2005.
Wouldn't necessarily build a low-level bridge, but a 4-lane bridge that blends better on the Rensselaer end wouldn't hurt.
I-73/74
For all of the money poured into these two highways, NC could've probably already made US 74 a freeway between Asheville and Wilmington. There's a reason why no other state has bothered to build their portions of these highways.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 04, 2015, 09:35:59 AM
Oh yes and those towers that are supposed to look like Cable Stay Bridge towers on the long Lake Underhill Causeway on the Four oh Eight, are money that should have never been spent.
It was to create a gateway to Orlando from the east for travelers heading into O Town on FL 408, but it really does not do much for the road. Heck those ugly spires on the Conroy Road overpass (which I hate too) do more for aesthetics than these eyesores for a gateway into the city.
Then how about the FL 451 project taking away the bridges that carried the former FL 429 over FL 414 when the new FL 429 was built to Plymouth to align itself with the future Wekiva Parkway project? Those particular bridges were fairly new and constructed only a few years prior to their destruction.
Plus the elimination of the high speed connection between FL 408 E Bound and FL 417 N Bound using the old E-W Expressway grade, as well as its counterpart from FL 417 S Bound to FL 408 W Bound? Thus removing a totally freeway grade for a good distance all in favor a flyover ramps at another location.
I call all of these a total waste!
And if you notice when you take the loop ramp from the 417 to the 408 westbound and pass under the 417 you see what looks like the beginning of a future set of ramps that will be high-speed flyovers to the 408 westbound...except how in the hell are you going to build it when you'd have to reconstruct the interchange AGAIN to use it?
Also, the Goldenrod Extension to Heintzelman Boulevard...gee, you think that was a bright idea when I can use SR 15 or 436 to avoid the toll booth? Duh.
Big Bertha and the unenforced variable speed signs in WA.
iPhone
Interstate 269. Yeah Yeah, DeVoLpMeNt but most of its exits are unnecessary.
But I think the cake goes to Galleria Parkway and Parkway E in Madison. It is a really nice parkway, but there's like nothing on it, or nothing parkway worthy anyway.
Indiana: the Cline Avenue Bridge (both the original and the current bridge)
As long as this was just bumped:
In Michigan, current is the upcoming project to fill the US-31 freeway gap in Berrien County. Comparing what's going to be built (not what maybe we wanted built in 2003) to the current "temporary" connection along Napier Avenue will knock off maybe two minutes of travel time for an AADT count of about 11,000 -- more than carried on a rural trunkline but in my opinion not enough to justify the expense at this point.
Next would be the north-south M-5 "Haggerty Connector" between I-96/I-275/I-696 and Pontiac Trail in Novi and Commerce Township. I agree the road should have been built, but it was overbuilt: Four lanes in each direction, plus a completely unnecessary C/D setup at 12 Mile Road that added unneccesary lanes and two overpass bridges.
Quote from: getemngo on February 05, 2015, 09:00:24 PM
In Michigan? Arguably, the current Zilwaukee Bridge. It was built because of the massive backups caused by the existing drawbridge - it was raised 984 times in 1978. But as soon as the new bridge was proposed, GM largely stopped using ships to bring in steel, and shipping traffic fell. In 2011, the Saginaw River saw 138 passages - that's less than 0.4 ships per day. You could have argued for a more sophisticated system to redirect traffic onto I-675 when a ship is coming, closing the river to shipping altogether, or compromising and building a lower clearance bridge that lets some, but not all, vessels through.
M-6 received some protests for being totally unnecessary, in part because "Holland to Lansing is not a major corridor." However, it has done wonders for local traffic, and it came in way ahead of schedule and under budget, so ha! :)
Other contenders:
- The enormously overbuilt interchange between I-696 and Mound Rd, which is probably one of the ten highest capacity interchanges in the state. Mound Rd was supposed to become a freeway as a relocated M-53, but it never happened.
- MDOT taking over and reconstructing the Davison Freeway (M-8) instead of converting it back to surface street. Not like it's ever going to reach I-96 or I-94.
- M-231. While not expensive per se, it is supposed to eventually serve as a much needed bypass of US 31 between Holland and Grand Haven, which is still not a freeway. However, right now there is only funding to built the northern half of it, and only as a super-2 expressway, which helps about five people. There are so many projects that deserve to get built ahead of this. It's gonna be Michigan's I-180.
- The proposal to eliminate I-375, which unlike M-8, is definitely needed.
- The proposal to build a second Portage Lake bridge in the Keweenaw Peninsula, connecting Chassell to Jacobsville. Bridge to Nowhere, indeed.
But the original Mackinac Bridge proposal, starting in Cheboygan and hopping over several islands on its way to St. Ignace, is hilarious.
Now that M-231 has been open for a few years, it is somewhat useful when the Grand Haven drawbridge is stuck (which has happened a few times since M-231 was opened). It's also useful for traffic from Muskegon and points north to the GVSU area (and vice versa). If M-231 existed when I was a student at GVSU, I would've used it every time I went home instead of 68th Ave
Quote from: mgk920 on February 03, 2015, 11:17:39 AM
There are others, but the first that comes into my mind here in Wisconsin is the US 151/WI 26 interchange on the northeast corner of Waupun, WI. It is a complex half interchange that is just north of WI 49 (the main interchange on the city's east edge), just southwest of the main US 151/WI 26 split (towards Oshkosh) and appears to me to serve no really useful purpose at all other than to maintain WI 26's pre-existing city street connectivity with US 151. WI 26 should be rerouted off of those streets and onto US 151 in the Waupun area and that interchange should have been a much cheaper simple straight-across street bridge.
http://goo.gl/maps/ZA3UL
Mike
Agreed. A simple diamond or half interchange, similar to the one for BUS-151 southwest of Waupun, would have worked fine.
SR 12 between Nashville, TN and Ashland City, TN.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 10:38:08 AM
SR 12 between Nashville, TN and Ashland City, TN.
Speaking of Tennessee roads, I was surprised when I noticed that TN 52 was four-lane divided in eastern Clay County when I drove that last year.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on February 04, 2015, 09:32:19 AM
Two fairly big wastes of money in the Philly area would be the Commodore Barry Bridge and the Betsy Ross Bridge. Both in theory should have higher traffic volumes, but due to not building the roads they connect to up to freeway standards (322 in NJ, never built PA90) the roads are underused. The Betsy Ross Bridge has lower traffic counts than the non limited access toll bridge to the north which charges less. I do use the Betsy Ross Bridge when i have to connect to I-95 as it is a quicker connection.
http://95revive.com/project-areas/bsr-bri-betsy-ross-bridge-thru-bridge-street/
I think the Betsy Ross connection on the Philly side is elevating on the "waste of money" listing with the latest attempts to tie it into Adams Avenue. It has ramps galore where a simple extension of the travel lanes over Aramingo probably would have been far simpler and gives the possibility of further expansion north/west at some point. (but then it could rise on the list again if they tear down the ramps being constructed now..)
The new I-65 exit in Bullitt County.
130 tollroad in Texas was built way too far out to be useful.
Anyone in Michigan think I-75 in the UP is unnecessary? Divided highway would have been more than enough. Probably goes for a lot of border interestates.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:49:10 PM
Anyone in Michigan think I-75 in the UP is unnecessary? Divided highway would have been more than enough. Probably goes for a lot of border interestates.
A 4 lane divided highway is enough for a lot of other interstate sections too. Some I can think off are I-80 in Nevada, I-70 in Utah, and I-10 in Texas between I-20 and San Antonio.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:49:10 PM
Anyone in Michigan think I-75 in the UP is unnecessary? Divided highway would have been more than enough. Probably goes for a lot of border interestates.
It's overkill but it's an Interstate. It has to connect to Canada somehow and there are no other border crossings anywhere nearby.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 09:01:53 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:49:10 PM
Anyone in Michigan think I-75 in the UP is unnecessary? Divided highway would have been more than enough. Probably goes for a lot of border interestates.
It's overkill but it's an Interstate. It has to connect to Canada somehow and there are no other border crossings anywhere nearby.
I-35 stops short, so I-75 can. Unlike I-15 (Calgary) and I-29 (Winnipeg), there is no major city north of the border, and unlike I-81, I-87, I-91, and I-95, none of the ones mentioned above continue as a freeway on the Canadian side. Canada's just a bit behind on I-89.
I'd argue that I-81 doesn't continue as a freeway either, though with ON 401 so close it's really more of a Breezewood. ON 137 north of customs is two lane road more than not.
The other examples (including I-5, which you didn't mention) actually all have an at-grade immediately north of the border. That seems to happen more often than not; only the I-190, QEW, and I-94 crossings lack that feature (although that might flip when A-35 and the Gordie Howe Bridge are finished) - and until recently, the Peace Bridge had an at-grade on the US side!
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 09:01:53 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:49:10 PM
Anyone in Michigan think I-75 in the UP is unnecessary? Divided highway would have been more than enough. Probably goes for a lot of border interestates.
It's overkill but it's an Interstate. It has to connect to Canada somehow and there are no other border crossings anywhere nearby.
I-35 stops short, so I-75 can. Unlike I-15 (Calgary) and I-29 (Winnipeg), there is no major city north of the border, and unlike I-81, I-87, I-91, and I-95, none of the ones mentioned above continue as a freeway on the Canadian side. Canada's just a bit behind on I-89.
Had I-75 ended before the border crossing, where would be a good place to end it? I'm thinking just south of Mackinaw City at US 31 and have US 31 go through the bridge and UP to Sault Ste Marie as either a 2 lane or 4 lane divided past the bridge. Another option is with US 127 south of Grayling and have US 127 continue to Sault Ste Marie.
Six-laned I-65 throughout KY. Four lanes was sufficient notwithstanding Jefferson County.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 27, 2021, 07:09:28 PM
Indiana: the Cline Avenue Bridge (both the original and the current bridge)
The original bridge apparently didn't spend enough money as it failed. The new bridge wasn't built with state money so nobody cares if it was wasted or not.
Something low profile that most people won't notice is that about 6-7 years ago, most of the bridges on I-65 between Henryville and Columbus got rebuilt, but not big enough to accommodate the eventual third lane of travel in each direction. So now as parts of that segment get upgraded, the bridges have to be rebuilt again less than 10 years later.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 04, 2021, 07:44:42 AM
Six-laned I-65 throughout KY. Four lanes was sufficient notwithstanding Jefferson County.
I-65 looks similar in AADT to I-75: 35-40k AADT with 25-30% trucks south of Louisville and Lexington. I thought I-65 would be a bit higher, as it take in I-71 traffic south of Louisville to points like Memphis and TX in addition to I-65 traffic in Indiana.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 04, 2021, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 04, 2021, 07:44:42 AM
Six-laned I-65 throughout KY. Four lanes was sufficient notwithstanding Jefferson County.
I-65 looks similar in AADT to I-75: 35-40k AADT with 25-30% trucks south of Louisville and Lexington. I thought I-65 would be a bit higher, as it take in I-71 traffic south of Louisville to points like Memphis and TX in addition to I-65 traffic in Indiana.
I-65 needs to be 6 lanes from Spring Hill, TN, to the Wabash River. I have never been on any other rural interstate (than I-65 or I-75) where I can expect my speed to fluctuate from 60-85 every 5 miles or so.
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 09:01:53 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:49:10 PM
Anyone in Michigan think I-75 in the UP is unnecessary? Divided highway would have been more than enough. Probably goes for a lot of border interestates.
It's overkill but it's an Interstate. It has to connect to Canada somehow and there are no other border crossings anywhere nearby.
I-35 stops short, so I-75 can. Unlike I-15 (Calgary) and I-29 (Winnipeg), there is no major city north of the border, and unlike I-81, I-87, I-91, and I-95, none of the ones mentioned above continue as a freeway on the Canadian side. Canada's just a bit behind on I-89.
So where would I-75 end otherwise? I-35 ends about 150 miles from the border, I-75's stretch through the U.P. is only about 60 miles.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 03, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2021, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 03, 2021, 09:01:53 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 03, 2021, 06:49:10 PM
Anyone in Michigan think I-75 in the UP is unnecessary? Divided highway would have been more than enough. Probably goes for a lot of border interestates.
It's overkill but it's an Interstate. It has to connect to Canada somehow and there are no other border crossings anywhere nearby.
I-35 stops short, so I-75 can. Unlike I-15 (Calgary) and I-29 (Winnipeg), there is no major city north of the border, and unlike I-81, I-87, I-91, and I-95, none of the ones mentioned above continue as a freeway on the Canadian side. Canada's just a bit behind on I-89.
Had I-75 ended before the border crossing, where would be a good place to end it? I'm thinking just south of Mackinaw City at US 31 and have US 31 go through the bridge and UP to Sault Ste Marie as either a 2 lane or 4 lane divided past the bridge. Another option is with US 127 south of Grayling and have US 127 continue to Sault Ste Marie.
It originally would have been US-27 up until about 20 years ago. US-25 should have taken US-127's route and end in Grayling.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 04, 2021, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 04, 2021, 07:44:42 AM
Six-laned I-65 throughout KY. Four lanes was sufficient notwithstanding Jefferson County.
I-65 looks similar in AADT to I-75: 35-40k AADT with 25-30% trucks south of Louisville and Lexington. I thought I-65 would be a bit higher, as it take in I-71 traffic south of Louisville to points like Memphis and TX in addition to I-65 traffic in Indiana.
I always thought I-75 was the busiest route in the state for truck traffic, but was shocked several years ago to learn that I-65 had a substantial advantage.
I really don't see the need for our newest interstate in Texas, IH 14. The planned routing is so windy and misses all the major cities that one would think an east west route through texas would be built for in the first place.
Also, the Ih 45 reroute plan has an insane price tag and will take YEARS
I'm glad the CRC got mentioned back on page 1, because I was going to mention the US 20 reroute between Toledo and Philamouth.
Can't think of one in PA. PennDOT doesn't spend money.
Quote from: achilles765 on March 06, 2021, 12:28:03 AM
I really don't see the need for our newest interstate in Texas, IH 14. The planned routing is so windy and misses all the major cities that one would think an east west route through texas would be built for in the first place.
Also, the Ih 45 reroute plan has an insane price tag and will take YEARS
I-45 is getting re-routed? It accomplishes its specified job well enough already the way I see it...
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 07, 2021, 06:13:24 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on March 06, 2021, 12:28:03 AM
I really don't see the need for our newest interstate in Texas, IH 14. The planned routing is so windy and misses all the major cities that one would think an east west route through texas would be built for in the first place.
Also, the Ih 45 reroute plan has an insane price tag and will take YEARS
I-45 is getting re-routed? It accomplishes its specified job well enough already the way I see it...
I believe they are planning on rerouting I-45 off the Pierce Elevated and onto I-10/I-69 around downtown Houston. I believe that's what
achilles765 is talking about.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on March 07, 2021, 05:35:53 PM
Can't think of one in PA. PennDOT doesn't spend money.
So PennDOT's largest waste of money is not spending any of it? Or do they not get enough money from the state itself?
Quote from: getemngo on February 05, 2015, 09:00:24 PM
In Michigan?
<snip>
- MDOT taking over and reconstructing the Davison Freeway (M-8) instead of converting it back to surface street. Not like it's ever going to reach I-96 or I-94.
A surface street was MDOT's original plan. The political brouhaha that ensued resulted in reconstructing the freeway. And while the freeway will never extend on either end, what's there gets quite a bit of use as a connector between M-10 and I-75.
Quote from: getemngo on February 05, 2015, 09:00:24 PM
- The proposal to eliminate I-375, which unlike M-8, is definitely needed.
Six years after your post, I-375 is very much in need of complete reconstruction. So pay to replace it or pay to remove it. I question the need for a freeway; I generally see very little traffic using it.
In Ontario, I'd say it's the Highway 407 East project. The Highway 407 East project was an eastern extension to Highway 407 ETR, except that this time it's owned by the government. It also included the new toll freeways of Highway 412 and Highway 418. The government tolls are cheaper than the ETR's, and the toll structure is also less convoluted.
However, almost nobody uses them, since they are rural freeways that are tolled 29 cents/km during peak hours for light vehicles.
You can tell the usage of the freeways on Google Streetview:
Highway 407 near Brooklin, Ontario:
(https://i.imgur.com/0bPGZTe.png)
Highway 412 near Rossland Road:
(https://i.imgur.com/RXan3RE.png)
Compare this to Highway 35/115, which parallels Highway 418 but is 12 km to the east, this is a Right-in-right-out expressway and it has more traffic.
(https://i.imgur.com/ggKhAwN.png)
If these freeways were free to use, I think there'd be a lot more traffic and it'll be a lot more useful to local residents. However, since it gets so little traffic, I'd say that they're a big waste of money. How are they supposed to pay off the bonds with tolls if so few people drive on it?
^^ So what you up there is shunpiking.
I-73 as a whole in the NC/VA has bothered me.
North of Greensboro, it's a lot of money to completely upgrade US220 to freeway status, when a divided highway would be more fitting to the traffic and much cheaper.
South of Rockingham, take I 74 south to Myrtle instead of the weird Almost-Wilmington Elbow. Route a new I-36/38 to Charlotte if you really need an interstate there.
I really can't think of any for Maryland. In my lifetime, both the MD 43 extension to Middle River and MD 200 have served practical purposes, and the I-95 Express Toll Lanes and MD 404 widening have accommodated increased traffic.
Quote from: Big John on March 21, 2021, 10:18:13 PM
^^ So what you up there is shunpiking.
Depends. Shunpiking is taking a longer, higher mileage, more time, convoluted route to avoid paying a toll. Some people want to term any route that avoids a toll a shunpike, even when the toll-free routing is the most sensible anyway.
Also...if someone is used to a specific route, and another one opens up, they may not necessarily be shunpiking, but rather just feel comfortable taking the old route. I've seen that even when new, toll-free alternatives open up.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2021, 09:22:25 AM
Shunpiking is taking a longer, higher mileage, more time, convoluted route to avoid paying a toll.
I don't necessarily think a shunpike has to be
all of those. Taking more time is the main one - there are plenty of routes I'd consider shunpiking that are shorter mileage-wise than their tolled counterparts.
Here's a PA example (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Irwin,+PA+15642/Bedford/@40.1394493,-79.6619652,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8834dd26145b2203:0xec61adf728b86f64!2m2!1d-79.7011549!2d40.3245138!1m5!1m1!1s0x89ca525c4633bb23:0xecc6177784f5df0c!2m2!1d-78.5039069!2d40.0186921!3e0!5m1!1e1).
And a Western NY example (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Canandaigua,+NY/Cheektowaga,+NY/@42.9355244,-78.3461727,9.5z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d124c905668793:0xa7106fec3b31ae69!2m2!1d-77.2816984!2d42.887535!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d30c9f9c3ba78b:0x19de2cf5e45e6032!2m2!1d-78.7542892!2d42.9071477!3e0!5m1!1e1).
Quote from: epzik8 on March 22, 2021, 09:05:19 AM
I really can't think of any for Maryland. In my lifetime, both the MD 43 extension to Middle River and MD 200 have served practical purposes, and the I-95 Express Toll Lanes and MD 404 widening have accommodated increased traffic.
But, have those 95 ETLs lived up to expectations? I tried hard to locate some info about their actual vs. expected revenues. Best I could find was actual revenues, using page 24 of this PDF (Report page 2-9): https://mdta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/Files/Financial_Forecast/FY2021%20T%26R%20Forecast%20Update%20Systemwide%20Final%20Report%20v3_FINAL.pdf . It shows in 2019, about $14 Million was derived from the 95 ETLs, and had been increasing by about 5% - 6% each of the previous 2 years. (2020 was lower, for obvious reasons).
One link to a revenue forecast I found is inactive (http://www.i-95expresstolllanes.com/linked_files/I-95_Master_Plan/I-95_MasterPlan.pdf#page=23) and there doesn't seem to be much else out there. Even newspaper sites, that at one point were supposed to be the source of investigation to determine if the government is acting on the public's best interest, is noticeably silent about the issue.
So, $14 million per year is better than $0 per year, but since the toll lanes incurred additional costs for ramps, signage, tolling equipment, barriers from the non-tolled lanes, wider and longer wider bridges, traffic lights, etc, all of those extra costs need to be added up to determine if the project was truly a success. If a similar expansion with 5 or 6 lanes on a single roadway could've been done for $500 million vs. this dual roadway plan for $1.1 Billion, that would mean the toll lanes need to raise $600 million in revenue to be successful (plus bond interest). Remember...the original plan were for the ETLs to be longer, and incorporate a full interchange with 695 too...and the actual costs to build the smaller project were higher than the original plan. The prospect of variable tolls based on traffic flow was reduced to fixed tolling rates at specific times of day.
I would chalk this up to one of MD's largest wastes of money, because the project went well over budget and the revenue sources were greatly reduced.
Quote from: webny99 on March 22, 2021, 09:42:54 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2021, 09:22:25 AM
Shunpiking is taking a longer, higher mileage, more time, convoluted route to avoid paying a toll.
I don't necessarily think a shunpike has to be all of those. Taking more time is the main one - there are plenty of routes I'd consider shunpiking that are shorter mileage-wise than their tolled counterparts. Here's a PA example (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Irwin,+PA+15642/Bedford/@40.1394493,-79.6619652,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8834dd26145b2203:0xec61adf728b86f64!2m2!1d-79.7011549!2d40.3245138!1m5!1m1!1s0x89ca525c4633bb23:0xecc6177784f5df0c!2m2!1d-78.5039069!2d40.0186921!3e0!5m1!1e1). And a Western NY example (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Canandaigua,+NY/Cheektowaga,+NY/@42.9355244,-78.3461727,9.5z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d124c905668793:0xa7106fec3b31ae69!2m2!1d-77.2816984!2d42.887535!1m5!1m1!1s0x89d30c9f9c3ba78b:0x19de2cf5e45e6032!2m2!1d-78.7542892!2d42.9071477!3e0!5m1!1e1).
No doubt...and it will highly depend on one's actual starting and ending point and circumstances. Using the PA Turnpike example, the cheapest toll would be $9.90. The non-tolled route saves 8 miles, which is roughly a dollar's worth of gas, but adds 20 minutes.
Is that a shunpike? Tough to say. If you solely look at time, then yes. If you look at the full picture, it's less so. If I'm running late for an important event, I would say take the Turnpike. If I figure I have extra time available, I'll save the money.
But what about the frequently shunpiked Delaware I-95 tolls? If I'm coming from Newark and going to Harve de Grace, conventional wisdom may say to get to I-95 in Delaware and head South. Or, I could take 279 from DE into Maryland. It's roughly 1/4 mile shorter, I'm only driving about 2 minutes longer, and I'm saving $4. I'm not really shunpiking at that point, because it's really the most obvious route to take, even if it's not the absolute fastest route.
The Road Diet Test in Lakeland, Florida for FL 37 into Downtown from Dixieland.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2021, 10:15:17 AM
Quote from: epzik8 on March 22, 2021, 09:05:19 AM
I really can't think of any for Maryland. In my lifetime, both the MD 43 extension to Middle River and MD 200 have served practical purposes, and the I-95 Express Toll Lanes and MD 404 widening have accommodated increased traffic.
But, have those 95 ETLs lived up to expectations?
...
I would chalk this up to one of MD's largest wastes of money, because the project went well over budget and the revenue sources were greatly reduced.
I've always held the view on the overall JFK Highway master plan that it won't really be worth it until fully built out - but of course, that's a long ways off (if ever).
It's somewhat ironic that direct ramps from I-695 to the ETL's was a budget casualty, because having those connections would lead to much higher utilization (read: $$$) of the current segment. For someone like me who always gets onto I-95 from I-695 (because of where I live), the ETL's currently have zero utility.
We'll see what happens when the northbound-only (for now) extension opens to exit 77 - it'll be helpful on weekdays since commuter traffic drops off past Bel Air, but on weekends it might make the existing bottleneck at exit 77 worse than it already is.
Not my state, but I would suspect that the biggest waste of money for roads to those in Pennsylvania is the toll for driving the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
:no:
Mike
I'm going to get a lot of flack over this one, particularly from Rochesterians, but in Minnesota, the US 52 bypass expansion in Rochester was way overbuilt in the 2000s. As one who was Commuting in Rochester daily, the highway was never at capacity when it was 4 lanes. Rochester will tell you differently. However, the Level of Service has never reached a level seen on most Twin Cities freeways. This was a payback to political/Mayo Clinic machinery. To this day, four lanes would be sufficient. Granted, some interchanges needed improvements, and still do (55th Street, 19th Street). The money should have been used elsewhere.
We underspend, not overspend
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2021, 11:21:45 AM
The Road Diet Test in Lakeland, Florida for FL 37 into Downtown from Dixieland.
I've been on it recently and it looks like it had to have been done very recently