Best example I can think of is Pennsylvania having to connect I-95 to the PA Turnpike because New Jersey didn't built its portion of I-95.
Others?
Quote from: hbelkins on July 26, 2018, 03:13:45 PM
Best example I can think of is Pennsylvania having to connect I-95 to the PA Turnpike because New Jersey didn't built its portion of I-95.
Blame Pennsylvania, for its failure from the outset to build a direct connection between I-95 and the Turnpike, as well as similar failures elsewhere such as most notoriously I-70 in Breezewood.
Not as egregious an example, but the US-12 freeway at the IL/WI state line is a similar issue. IL won't build the freeway, so the Wisconsin freeway just spills off onto a surface road via a pair of ramps.
Probably the most famous example in the DC metro area is when Virginia had to redesignate its portion of I-95 inside the beltway into I-395 since Maryland didn't construct its portion of I-95 south of the College Park interchange.
Another local example involves West Virginia. Recently, West Virginia upgraded WV-9 from Martinsburg to the VA State line into an expressway that many DC commuters from that area use. Virginia however(more specifically Loudoun County), did not want to upgrade their portion of Route 9 from the state line to VA-7(Leesburg) resulting into tons of traffic and accidents on the rural 2-lane road. In response to this problem, Virginia has been trying to persuade these WV commuters to instead take the 4-lane US-340 from Berryville to hook back up with WV-9. While there are still backups on VA-9, West Virginia is now planning to widen US-340, so perhaps the strategy is somewhat working.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 26, 2018, 03:43:18 PM
Probably the most famous example in the DC metro area is when Virginia had to redesignate its portion of I-95 inside the beltway into I-395 since Maryland didn't construct its portion of I-95 south of the College Park interchange.
More of the blame for that deserves to be directed at the municipal government of the District of Columbia,
not Maryland.
Ongoing example: Bella Vista Bypass (Missouri/Arkansas).
Historical example: I-35 continuation of the Kansas Turnpike (Kansas/Oklahoma).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2018, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 26, 2018, 03:43:18 PM
Probably the most famous example in the DC metro area is when Virginia had to redesignate its portion of I-95 inside the beltway into I-395 since Maryland didn't construct its portion of I-95 south of the College Park interchange.
More of the blame for that deserves to be directed at the municipal government of the District of Columbia, not Maryland.
True, although I'll still give D.C props for constructing at least part of their section.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 26, 2018, 03:45:58 PM
Ongoing example: Bella Vista Bypass (Missouri/Arkansas).
I don't know much about the bypass, but from what I can tell it looks like Arkansas is making the mess and Missouri will have to clean it up.
If the bypass is to become I-49, it's strange they didn't build it with four lanes. Or, perhaps that's partly why it's a mess! Because of the routing of existing US 71, the bypass will serve zero purpose unless it's completed. There's not even any northbound through roads between the end of the bypass and Missouri's I-49, much less roads that could handle interstate and truck traffic.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 03:38:09 PM
Not as egregious an example, but the US-12 freeway at the IL/WI state line is a similar issue. IL won't build the freeway, so the Wisconsin freeway just spills off onto a surface road via a pair of ramps.
But that's a mess that hasn't been cleaned up. So how does it fit here? If Wisconsin did something about the problem then it would fit.
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2018, 04:16:43 PMI don't know much about the bypass, but from what I can tell it looks like Arkansas is making the mess and Missouri will have to clean it up.
It does look like that on the ground, but I think most people familiar with the story might say the mess-making goes in the other direction. Arkansas was committed to building it while Missouri postponed construction and removed funding from its STIP a few years ago, putting Arkansas in the position of having to build an interim facility (two lanes expandable to four), while Missouri has built nothing except a ramp stub.
M-239, the "Cornfield Roadblock" that existed for many years until Indiana finally completed their section if I-94. Conspiracy theories abound.
I would argue Portland/Vancouver CRC, as Washington is wanting to move the ball forward again, but Oregon doesn't want a new freeway unless there is no other option. Some would make a good argument to the freeway system in general.
LG-TP260
New York has a mess as Chris Christie cancelled the ARC project that was to benefit the state.
NJ had issues with PA as for years I-78 ended up having the freeway terminate at Still Valley while they waited for PA to decide where to build their portion of I-78. It took until Spring of 1990 for I-78 to be completed from its west end to the Holland Tunnel.
Quote from: BrianP on July 26, 2018, 04:43:28 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 03:38:09 PM
Not as egregious an example, but the US-12 freeway at the IL/WI state line is a similar issue. IL won't build the freeway, so the Wisconsin freeway just spills off onto a surface road via a pair of ramps.
But that's a mess that hasn't been cleaned up. So how does it fit here? If Wisconsin did something about the problem then it would fit.
I looked at it as Wisconsin doing their share, and having to clean up Illinois's mess. Illinois made a mess by necessitating that US12 barf all its traffic onto the surface streets, from this perspective.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: BrianP on July 26, 2018, 04:43:28 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 03:38:09 PM
Not as egregious an example, but the US-12 freeway at the IL/WI state line is a similar issue. IL won't build the freeway, so the Wisconsin freeway just spills off onto a surface road via a pair of ramps.
But that's a mess that hasn't been cleaned up. So how does it fit here? If Wisconsin did something about the problem then it would fit.
I looked at it as Wisconsin doing their share, and having to clean up Illinois's mess. Illinois made a mess by necessitating that US12 barf all its traffic onto the surface streets, from this perspective.
But it's still a mess. There hasn't been any clean up done by Wisconsin. Otherwise the highway would continue on into IL. In the example the mess of an incomplete I-95 in NJ is being resolved by PA by rerouting I-95.
Say Wisconsin rerouted US 12 along WS 50 to I-94 and had US 12 enter IL on I-94. Then Wisconsin would clean up the mess by doing something at least for US 12. The dead end highway would still be there. But that essentially would be equivalent to the example.
MA is cleaning up some of CT and RI's mess by handling people who use I-84 to I-90 to MA/RI 146 to get from Hartford to Providence (of course, they're being reimbursed somewhat in the tolls collected). If I-84 had been built as planned, no one would use this as the all-freeway route between the 2 cities.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 26, 2018, 04:44:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2018, 04:16:43 PMI don't know much about the bypass, but from what I can tell it looks like Arkansas is making the mess and Missouri will have to clean it up.
It does look like that on the ground, but I think most people familiar with the story might say the mess-making goes in the other direction. Arkansas was committed to building it while Missouri postponed construction and removed funding from its STIP a few years ago, putting Arkansas in the position of having to build an interim facility (two lanes expandable to four), while Missouri has built nothing except a ramp stub.
I think I actually just happened upon Missouri's stub ramp while browsing Street View in the area.
I get the impression, from news articles and other sources, that there are few Missourians that see the need for the facility, while there's been an understandably much stronger push from Arkansas.
I still wonder why Arkansas didn't just build four lanes from the outset; a full freeway would make the gap much more glaring, hopefully prompting (or perhaps embarassing) Missouri into taking action.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 26, 2018, 06:37:25 PM
MA is cleaning up some of CT and RI's mess by handling people who use I-84 to I-90 to MA/RI 146 to get from Hartford to Providence (of course, they're being reimbursed somewhat in the tolls collected). If I-84 had been built as planned, no one would use this as the all-freeway route between the 2 cities.
People use that route? That would be plan C or D for me.
A. I-84 to US-44 to CT/RI-101 to US 6.
B CT-2 to I-395 to US-6
C (scenic route) I-84 to US-44
E I-84 to I-384 to US-6
Does this count?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fericgartner.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fks_turnpike.jpg&hash=d1fc23b3331829b0736ddba3b137b3165646cd01)
Quote from: BrianP on July 26, 2018, 06:28:14 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: BrianP on July 26, 2018, 04:43:28 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 03:38:09 PM
Not as egregious an example, but the US-12 freeway at the IL/WI state line is a similar issue. IL won't build the freeway, so the Wisconsin freeway just spills off onto a surface road via a pair of ramps.
But that's a mess that hasn't been cleaned up. So how does it fit here? If Wisconsin did something about the problem then it would fit.
I looked at it as Wisconsin doing their share, and having to clean up Illinois's mess. Illinois made a mess by necessitating that US12 barf all its traffic onto the surface streets, from this perspective.
But it's still a mess. There hasn't been any clean up done by Wisconsin. Otherwise the highway would continue on into IL. In the example the mess of an incomplete I-95 in NJ is being resolved by PA by rerouting I-95.
Say Wisconsin rerouted US 12 along WS 50 to I-94 and had US 12 enter IL on I-94. Then Wisconsin would clean up the mess by doing something at least for US 12. The dead end highway would still be there. But that essentially would be equivalent to the example.
There was at least a study for a partial fix of the mess on the Illinois side. This would have been a bypass of Richmond for US 12, but wetland issues seem to have killed it.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2018, 10:35:07 PM
Does this count?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fericgartner.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fks_turnpike.jpg&hash=d1fc23b3331829b0736ddba3b137b3165646cd01)
That thought occurred to me when I first saw this thread. I've read reports of Petersburg, Ohio being flooded with traffic when the Pennsylvania Turnpike's western extension opened up to the PA/OH border, coming to "an abrupt halt in a farmer's field" until Ohio built its turnpike.
Then I wondered: Has any state ever unilaterally built a highway up to the state line, thereby basically "forcing" the neighboring state to build a highway it otherwise would not have (or in a location it otherwise would not have)?
Quote from: hbelkins on July 26, 2018, 03:13:45 PM
Best example I can think of is Pennsylvania having to connect I-95 to the PA Turnpike because New Jersey didn't built its portion of I-95.
How about Delaware and New Jersey having to build the Northeast Corridor freeway bypass of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in the first place? New Jersey Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge.
No other state and major metro area got this kind of a benefit.
When TN declined to participate in the development of I-22, MS stepped in and expedited the development of their portion of I-269 in order to provide a legitimate outlet for the new trunk route. Ironically, the present configuration that shunts I-22 traffic north on I-269 into TN actually places more traffic on both sections of TN 385 -- the E-W section connecting I-269 and I-240 as well as the N-S section recently co-signed with I-269. Until the section of I-269 heading west to I-55/69 is opened (hopefully later this year), the path of least resistance for dispersal (and the corresponding collection) of I-22 traffic continues to use TN-maintained facilities.
I-520 around Augusta: Until SC built its portion, GA had a section that ended well before crossing the Savannah River, where the state border also was. The number was appropriate back then, but is not so much now.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 26, 2018, 03:13:45 PM
Best example I can think of is Pennsylvania having to connect I-95 to the PA Turnpike because New Jersey didn't built its portion of I-95.
NJ's had to clean up PA's mess on other occasions, such as when I-76 (then known as I-80S) in NJ went thru Camden and across the Ben Franklin Bridge. Because PA didn't get their portion of I-76 thru the city constructed, NJ changed their route designation to take I-76 across the Walt Whitman and connected it with what PennDOT did build. (Eventually the old I-76 became I-676)
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2018, 12:24:38 AM
How about Delaware and New Jersey having to build the Northeast Corridor freeway bypass of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in the first place? New Jersey Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge.
No other state and major metro area got this kind of a benefit.
The NJ Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge (US 40) were built before there was even an interstate system to speak of. NJ was basically relieving the traffic off of US 1 in NJ. It wasn't really intended to bypass Philly.
I-295 in Delaware simply connected US 40 with their portion of I-95.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2018, 10:16:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2018, 12:24:38 AM
How about Delaware and New Jersey having to build the Northeast Corridor freeway bypass of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in the first place? New Jersey Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge.
No other state and major metro area got this kind of a benefit.
The NJ Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge (US 40) were built before there was even an interstate system to speak of. NJ was basically relieving the traffic off of US 1 in NJ. It wasn't really intended to bypass Philly.
But it most certainly did provide a freeway bypass of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, long before any freeway route existed in Pennsylvania in that corridor, and any planner could see the obvious fact that it would provide such a bypass, taking traffic from Delaware to New Jersey and bypassing that major metro.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 26, 2018, 06:37:25 PM
MA is cleaning up some of CT and RI's mess by handling people who use I-84 to I-90 to MA/RI 146 to get from Hartford to Providence (of course, they're being reimbursed somewhat in the tolls collected). If I-84 had been built as planned, no one would use this as the all-freeway route between the 2 cities.
And really it all started with RI cancelling their portion of I-84, and has also left CT cleaning up the mess... Spot improvements to US-6 on the Bolton-Columbia stretch and to a lesser extent on the Windham-Killingly stretch that wouldn't have been needed had the parallel freeway been built. Not to mention the economy in Willimantic that greatly suffers from having no highways into town. I have no doubt my property taxes would be lower if we had a freeway coming into Windham to help diversify it's tax base.
Have they fixed up downtown Willimantic? I drove through there yesterday and it looked more lively than I ever recall seeing it.
Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 07:47:39 PM
Have they fixed up downtown Willimantic? I drove through there yesterday and it looked more lively than I ever recall seeing it.
It's had it's upswings and downswings over the last few years. At the moment there is quite a bit going on downtown. Main ST was repaved 2 years ago and most of the sidewalk along it replaced last year. The town just built a bandshell on Jillson Square (the town green by the Thread City Crossing) and there's plans to build a new senior center where the movie theater used to be. But, there's still a lot of buildings empty and in disrepair, and many of the small businesses that open close as quickly as they came.
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2018, 11:49:05 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2018, 10:16:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2018, 12:24:38 AM
How about Delaware and New Jersey having to build the Northeast Corridor freeway bypass of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in the first place? New Jersey Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge.
No other state and major metro area got this kind of a benefit.
The NJ Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge (US 40) were built before there was even an interstate system to speak of. NJ was basically relieving the traffic off of US 1 in NJ. It wasn't really intended to bypass Philly.
But it most certainly did provide a freeway bypass of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, long before any freeway route existed in Pennsylvania in that corridor, and any planner could see the obvious fact that it would provide such a bypass, taking traffic from Delaware to New Jersey and bypassing that major metro.
Wish more of the interstate system were built this way. 2di roads criss-crossing the country heading in the general direction of the major cities, but never quite reaching into the area. Use 3di spur connectors to make the connections to the city you want to reach.
The closest other examples that I can think of is I-12's bypass of New Orleans and pittsburgh, where I-79 and I-76 are not within the city and don't generally slow down during commute hours.
^^^^^^
Apparently that concept, utilized with the original Autobahns and also copied by Europe's "A" system of limited-access highways, was what Eisenhower had in mind when promoting the authorizing Interstate legislation; the "Yellow Book", which delineated the results of that legislation, was in no small part influenced by state and local political and economic needs -- hence the desire to route trunks through urban centers to (potentially) enhance the prospects of those areas (particularly in the face of the increased "suburbanization" in the '50's). In hindsight, the Euro configuration might well have been a better approach -- but 60 years ago it couldn't have been "sold" in that day's political climate; the Yellow Book approach was at the time necessary to insure the legislation's passage.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 26, 2018, 05:52:26 PM
I would argue Portland/Vancouver CRC, as Washington is wanting to move the ball forward again, but Oregon doesn't want a new freeway unless there is no other option. Some would make a good argument to the freeway system in general.
Historical example: Vancouver threatening to sue Portland and ODOT while activists were trying to kill 95th Ave through Portland after the Mt Hood's demise.
Quote from: sparker on September 07, 2018, 04:34:44 PM
^^^^^^
Apparently that concept, utilized with the original Autobahns and also copied by Europe's "A" system of limited-access highways, was what Eisenhower had in mind when promoting the authorizing Interstate legislation; the "Yellow Book", which delineated the results of that legislation, was in no small part influenced by state and local political and economic needs -- hence the desire to route trunks through urban centers to (potentially) enhance the prospects of those areas (particularly in the face of the increased "suburbanization" in the '50's). In hindsight, the Euro configuration might well have been a better approach -- but 60 years ago it couldn't have been "sold" in that day's political climate; the Yellow Book approach was at the time necessary to insure the legislation's passage.
I found digitized versions of the Yellow Book and looked at the cities I'm most familiar with. I was surprised to see in Hartford that the E-W highway was mostly south of the city. But that seems like it was an outlier. Legend has it that it was rerouted downtown so everyone had to drive by G. Fox; the city's biggest department store.
Quote from: jon daly on September 07, 2018, 09:58:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 07, 2018, 04:34:44 PM
^^^^^^
Apparently that concept, utilized with the original Autobahns and also copied by Europe's "A" system of limited-access highways, was what Eisenhower had in mind when promoting the authorizing Interstate legislation; the "Yellow Book", which delineated the results of that legislation, was in no small part influenced by state and local political and economic needs -- hence the desire to route trunks through urban centers to (potentially) enhance the prospects of those areas (particularly in the face of the increased "suburbanization" in the '50's). In hindsight, the Euro configuration might well have been a better approach -- but 60 years ago it couldn't have been "sold" in that day's political climate; the Yellow Book approach was at the time necessary to insure the legislation's passage.
I found digitized versions of the Yellow Book and looked at the cities I'm most familiar with. I was surprised to see in Hartford that the E-W highway was mostly south of the city. But that seems like it was an outlier. Legend has it that it was rerouted downtown so everyone had to drive by G. Fox; the city's biggest department store.
G. Fox was more to blame for the lack of a direct ramp between I-84 EB and I-91 NB.
Quote from: GaryV on July 26, 2018, 05:03:40 PM
M-239, the "Cornfield Roadblock" that existed for many years until Indiana finally completed their section if I-94. Conspiracy theories abound.
I've never heard of this. Do you have a link or any other information about it?
Nexus 5X
Quote from: bugo on September 08, 2018, 05:14:58 AM
Quote from: GaryV on July 26, 2018, 05:03:40 PM
M-239, the "Cornfield Roadblock" that existed for many years until Indiana finally completed their section if I-94. Conspiracy theories abound.
I've never heard of this. Do you have a link or any other information about it?
Nexus 5X
Bessert does: http://michiganhighways.org/listings/MichHwys230-249.html
Quote from: Rothman on September 07, 2018, 11:52:00 PM
Quote from: jon daly on September 07, 2018, 09:58:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 07, 2018, 04:34:44 PM
^^^^^^
Apparently that concept, utilized with the original Autobahns and also copied by Europe's "A" system of limited-access highways, was what Eisenhower had in mind when promoting the authorizing Interstate legislation; the "Yellow Book", which delineated the results of that legislation, was in no small part influenced by state and local political and economic needs -- hence the desire to route trunks through urban centers to (potentially) enhance the prospects of those areas (particularly in the face of the increased "suburbanization" in the '50's). In hindsight, the Euro configuration might well have been a better approach -- but 60 years ago it couldn't have been "sold" in that day's political climate; the Yellow Book approach was at the time necessary to insure the legislation's passage.
I found digitized versions of the Yellow Book and looked at the cities I'm most familiar with. I was surprised to see in Hartford that the E-W highway was mostly south of the city. But that seems like it was an outlier. Legend has it that it was rerouted downtown so everyone had to drive by G. Fox; the city's biggest department store.
G. Fox was more to blame for the lack of a direct ramp between I-84 EB and I-91 NB.
Ahhh. That makes more sense. Despite having Monday off, it's been a long week for me and brainfry kicked last night.
Quote from: bugo on September 08, 2018, 05:14:58 AM
Quote from: GaryV on July 26, 2018, 05:03:40 PM
M-239, the "Cornfield Roadblock" that existed for many years until Indiana finally completed their section if I-94. Conspiracy theories abound.
I've never heard of this. Do you have a link or any other information about it?
Nexus 5X
I've heard of that before. Actually though Indiana completed their eastern section of I-94 only after Michigan was done with their section of I-94.
Don't forget Nevada taxpayers chipping in to widen I-15 between Victorville and Barstow on the way to Vegas.
Quote from: BrianP on July 26, 2018, 06:28:14 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: BrianP on July 26, 2018, 04:43:28 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 03:38:09 PM
Not as egregious an example, but the US-12 freeway at the IL/WI state line is a similar issue. IL won't build the freeway, so the Wisconsin freeway just spills off onto a surface road via a pair of ramps.
But that's a mess that hasn't been cleaned up. So how does it fit here? If Wisconsin did something about the problem then it would fit.
I looked at it as Wisconsin doing their share, and having to clean up Illinois's mess. Illinois made a mess by necessitating that US12 barf all its traffic onto the surface streets, from this perspective.
But it's still a mess. There hasn't been any clean up done by Wisconsin. Otherwise the highway would continue on into IL. In the example the mess of an incomplete I-95 in NJ is being resolved by PA by rerouting I-95.
Say Wisconsin rerouted US 12 along WS 50 to I-94 and had US 12 enter IL on I-94. Then Wisconsin would clean up the mess by doing something at least for US 12. The dead end highway would still be there. But that essentially would be equivalent to the example.
Wisconsin expedited the four-laning of WI 50 in large part to get commuter traffic from Walworth County to Chicago after being frustrated by the lack of progress by Illinois on US 12. It was planned to be four lane eventually, but the fact that it was upgraded from US 12 to I-94 shows why it was needed then.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 10, 2018, 02:17:19 AM
Don't forget Nevada taxpayers chipping in to widen I-15 between Victorville and Barstow on the way to Vegas.
I'm fairly certain that money didn't come directly from Nevada taxpayers, but rather it was either a diversion of a portion of Nevada's federal highway funding or a contribution from the Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority (whose primary income sources are hotel room taxes and operating profits from the Las Vegas Convention Center).
Quote from: roadfro on September 16, 2018, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 10, 2018, 02:17:19 AM
Don't forget Nevada taxpayers chipping in to widen I-15 between Victorville and Barstow on the way to Vegas.
I'm fairly certain that money didn't come directly from Nevada taxpayers, but rather it was either a diversion of a portion of Nevada's federal highway funding or a contribution from the Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority (whose primary income sources are hotel room taxes and operating profits from the Las Vegas Convention Center).
Originally, the
entire CA length of I-15 from the end of the 4+4 Cajon Pass segment in Hesperia to the state line was to be expanded with the assistance of this funding source; but Caltrans chose to start from the
south end of the authorized segment. By the time the Victorville-Barstow segment was complete, the 2007-2011 recession was starting and LV-sourced revenues were significantly lower than in previous years, with the result that the funding was suspended until the revenue stream had normalized. The upshot was that CA got an improved I-15 as far north as the I-40 split in Barstow, which was of course beneficial to cross-country commercial traffic -- while LV traffic north of that point still travels on the same 4-lane (with truck climbing lanes on the Halloran/"Baker Hill" and Mountain Pass summits) facility that has been in place since the late '60's. Whether the comprehensive 6-laning project will resume at any point is anybody's guess; somehow I imagine NDOT is none too pleased with Caltrans' priorities.
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2018, 08:34:59 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 26, 2018, 04:44:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2018, 04:16:43 PMI don't know much about the bypass, but from what I can tell it looks like Arkansas is making the mess and Missouri will have to clean it up.
It does look like that on the ground, but I think most people familiar with the story might say the mess-making goes in the other direction. Arkansas was committed to building it while Missouri postponed construction and removed funding from its STIP a few years ago, putting Arkansas in the position of having to build an interim facility (two lanes expandable to four), while Missouri has built nothing except a ramp stub.
I think I actually just happened upon Missouri's stub ramp while browsing Street View in the area.
I get the impression, from news articles and other sources, that there are few Missourians that see the need for the facility, while there's been an understandably much stronger push from Arkansas.
I still wonder why Arkansas didn't just build four lanes from the outset; a full freeway would make the gap much more glaring, hopefully prompting (or perhaps embarassing) Missouri into taking action.
Arkansas for the most part is a pay-as-you-go state, which, given that it's almost always close to the bottom on wealth, means that progress has always been rather slow on projects here and tend to get done piecemeal as funds permit. It has kept Arkansas from becoming the fiscal mess that other states have gotten themselves into, but has resulted in some slow progress on major projects in the past. What has changed in the last couple of decades has been a couple of voter-approved bond issues where fractional cent sales tax increases have been enacted to retire the bonds, with sunset provisions on those taxes. It has worked rather well in a poor state like Arkansas where we have actually taxed ourselves in return for getting to specify where that tax money went to, and an official retirement of that tax. Rarely happens anywhere else, but it has resulted in some rather dramatic improvements to the Interstate system over the last couple of decades compared to where it was in the 90's.
What happened with the Bella Vista Bypass is that Missouri had the money to go to the state line when they were doing the grade separations on US-71 to have it promoted to I-49, but given the development around Bella Vista, everything south of the stub had to be new terrain through limestone hills. Arkansas didn't have the money allocated at that time to meet them at the line, so they improved US-71 down to Bella Vista instead and left the stub. Then they moved their money to other needs around the state. Arkansas 2-3 years later got funding firmed up to at least get a Super-2 facility to the state line, which would still be a dramatic improvement over 9 stoplights in Bella Vista. The Connecting Arkansas Program has enabled a lot of road construction in NorthWest Arkansas to finally catch up with the growth, so this corner of the state is finally getting some attention after decades of neglect from the powers in Little Rock. The Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers metropolitan area has rapidly grown to almost Top-100 now, so it's bleeding into the bordering counties along the federal highways now. Lot's of folks in McDonald County, Missouri work for Wal-Mart/Tyson/JB Hunt and it makes rush hour in Bella Vista, which was originally a quiet little retirement village, very congested in rush hour.
Arkansas is now working on the other 2 lanes along where they have almost completed the Super-2, which is 3 miles shy of the border, so that embarrassing gap is getting pushed onto Missouri now. And now it's Missouri who can't come up with any money and is having to rely on Arkansas putting in requests for federal grants on their behalf, although Missouri's residents working in NWA and thru I-49 traffic are the ones that are really the most in need for the bypass in the first place.
I noticed that McDonald County's population hasn't exploded like the Arkansas counties have. Is that merely a function of the poor transportation system, or are there real economic advantages to living in Arkansas vs. Missouri?
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 09, 2018, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 08, 2018, 05:14:58 AM
Quote from: GaryV on July 26, 2018, 05:03:40 PM
M-239, the "Cornfield Roadblock" that existed for many years until Indiana finally completed their section if I-94. Conspiracy theories abound.
I've never heard of this. Do you have a link or any other information about it?
I've heard of that before. Actually though Indiana completed their eastern section of I-94 only after Michigan was done with their section of I-94.
Well after Michigan completed I-94 in the early 1960s. It took Indiana until 1972 to finally complete I-94 from Burns Harbor (Toll Road) to the state line.
Quote from: Road Hog on September 28, 2018, 09:10:56 AM
I noticed that McDonald County's population hasn't exploded like the Arkansas counties have. Is that merely a function of the poor transportation system, or are there real economic advantages to living in Arkansas vs. Missouri?
McDonald County was pretty depressed last I saw (about nine years ago, don't hold me to it) Terrain can be a factor. There's also a few canoe streams of significance for the area in and around Noel. I've seen jaw dropping poverty near there (makes you want to just question everything; including your own issues.) Oklahoma is right next door as is Arkansas, so people want to head there.
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 31, 2018, 09:35:13 AM
Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 07:47:39 PM
Have they fixed up downtown Willimantic? I drove through there yesterday and it looked more lively than I ever recall seeing it.
It's had it's upswings and downswings over the last few years. At the moment there is quite a bit going on downtown. Main ST was repaved 2 years ago and most of the sidewalk along it replaced last year. The town just built a bandshell on Jillson Square (the town green by the Thread City Crossing) and there's plans to build a new senior center where the movie theater used to be. But, there's still a lot of buildings empty and in disrepair, and many of the small businesses that open close as quickly as they came.
Oddly I kind of miss Willimantic. I went to ECSU so I spent 4 years there and my time there was a little biased (since I met most of my present-day friends at ECSU), but it was the first "city" I lived in and it kind of formed a lot of my habits today.
But anyway, to answer the question, at least when I was there last about 2 years ago, Willimantic was still pretty depressed, unfortunately.
(also, why did I choose to respond to a question asked several months ago? oh right...I'm an idiot :-D )
^ I got my BA in Econ there back in '98.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
Back in the very early '70's, when it became clear that IDOT (at the request of the Daley administration in Chicago) would not accede to the original plans to replace I-94 through downtown Chicago with an extension of I-57 (via truncation of the former route at Milwaukee), WIDOT had a choice of a relatively broad pool of odd-numbered Interstate designations to use for the Milwaukee-Green Bay corridor authorized in the '68 Interstate expansion legislation; with US 51, 53, 61 and 63 existing within the state, any odd number in the 40's was still available back then. A more regionally logical choice would have been 47 or 49; but WIDOT selected 43, as it was a short state route easily renumbered. Of course, that had the effect of shifting the upper Midwest grid eastward, eventually resulting in the later ('84) corridor along US 51 being designated as the next lowest available odd number, 39 -- making the upper Midwest grid a total mismatch in regards to the N-S Interstate designations further south (I-49's north terminus is some 300 miles west of I-39's south terminus).
The upshot is that in this case WI not only didn't "clean up" the mess that IL started but compounded the problem by taking a short-sighted and self-interested approach by designating I-43 back in '74.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 02:24:46 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.
If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number. I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.
Plus we wouldn't have a useless overlap with between I-41 and I-94.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2018, 10:16:18 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 26, 2018, 03:13:45 PM
Best example I can think of is Pennsylvania having to connect I-95 to the PA Turnpike because New Jersey didn't built its portion of I-95.
NJ's had to clean up PA's mess on other occasions, such as when I-76 (then known as I-80S) in NJ went thru Camden and across the Ben Franklin Bridge. Because PA didn't get their portion of I-76 thru the city constructed, NJ changed their route designation to take I-76 across the Walt Whitman and connected it with what PennDOT did build. (Eventually the old I-76 became I-676)
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2018, 12:24:38 AM
How about Delaware and New Jersey having to build the Northeast Corridor freeway bypass of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in the first place? New Jersey Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge.
No other state and major metro area got this kind of a benefit.
The NJ Turnpike and Delaware Memorial Bridge (US 40) were built before there was even an interstate system to speak of. NJ was basically relieving the traffic off of US 1 in NJ. It wasn't really intended to bypass Philly.
I-295 in Delaware simply connected US 40 with their portion of I-95.
Now US202 on the other hand... PA really dropped the ball with section 900 not being done to connect New Hope and Doylestown. NJ has a freeway going over a toll bridge and having to loop back to a congested 2 lane road because PA never had the appetite for the Piedmont Expressway. That would have formed a nice bypass for traffic away from the I-95 and I-78 corridors which today would likely have been upgraded further by NJ. (Also assuming section 700 of 202 also was completed with a freeway connection to PA-309)
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
How is I-65 IDOT's problem?
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 18, 2018, 09:13:47 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 02:24:46 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.
If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number. I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.
The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.
Quote from: tribar on October 18, 2018, 01:16:22 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
How is I-65 IDOT's problem?
* crickets *
Quote from: tribar on October 18, 2018, 01:16:22 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
How is I-65 IDOT's problem?
I-65 ends in Indiana. I don't see how Illinois would be involved with I-65.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 04:58:57 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 18, 2018, 09:13:47 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 02:24:46 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.
If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number. I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.
The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.
In what way? What other major N-S corridor west of there would you put 35 on so as to give it a different x5 number?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 04:07:05 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 04:58:57 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 18, 2018, 09:13:47 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 02:24:46 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.
If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number. I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.
The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.
In what way? What other major N-S corridor west of there would you put 35 on so as to give it a different x5 number?
It's the fact that I-35 pushes so far east when you go north from Wichita. You also have I-45 and I-49 in the South that are west of I-39, I-41, and I-43 in the Midwest.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 19, 2018, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: tribar on October 18, 2018, 01:16:22 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
How is I-65 IDOT's problem?
I-65 ends in Indiana. I don't see how Illinois would be involved with I-65.
IDOT is not at present.
But if IDOT was not willing to extend I-55 or I-57 to Wisconsin, I have a good feeling they certainly would not want to extend I-65 thru Chicagoland in IL to Wisconsin. InDOT would also had to be in on it, but pushing it a few more miles over the Indiana Toll Road would not be a huge signage undertaking
Hence, we end up with I-41 and I-43, when the Northern Termini of I-55, I-57, and I-65 are not far removed from the WI border
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 19, 2018, 04:28:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 04:07:05 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 04:58:57 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 18, 2018, 09:13:47 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 02:24:46 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.
If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number. I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.
The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.
In what way? What other major N-S corridor west of there would you put 35 on so as to give it a different x5 number?
It's the fact that I-35 pushes so far east when you go north from Wichita. You also have I-45 and I-49 in the South that are west of I-39, I-41, and I-43 in the Midwest.
Theoretically, I-35 could have simply replaced I-29, with the portion of I-35 north of KC becoming I-45 -- if Houston interests had not lobbied to be on a I-x5 back circa 1956-57; the current I-45 could have easily been I-39. That would have made the overall Midwest grid considerably more workable. The problem was that during the publicity push regarding the system back in the mid-'50's the concept of routes ending in "0" or "5" being singled out -- and "oversold" -- as
primary numbers in relation to the other trunk routes resulted in cities competing for -- and subsequently complaining about -- places directly on those "primary" routes. This led to such configurations as I-80S serving Philadelphia and I-80N doing likewise for Portland, OR (both have obviously been "corrected" since). That
ad hoc dual-ranking system contributed to a sizeable number of grid issues that were only partially resolved by the late-70's push to eliminate suffixed numbers.
Quote from: sparker on October 19, 2018, 06:16:42 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 19, 2018, 04:28:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 04:07:05 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 04:58:57 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 18, 2018, 09:13:47 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 18, 2018, 02:24:46 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2018, 06:49:42 PM
How about Wisconsin designating I-41 and I-43, because Illinois/IDOT did not want to play nice, designating any of I-55, I-57, and/or I-65 North of their current ends in or near Chicago
I don't know if that is cleaning up a mess or creating one...
I don't think it matters all that much that Illinois did not want to extend the designations north to Wisconsin, since we eventually got the interstates built anyway and we found new numbers to use instead. I think it worked out well in the end.
If IL extended I-55 or 57 north to Wisconsin, I-39 wouldn't have such a bizarrely low number. I always thought US51 should be the US highway carrying an interstate designation with the same number, not US41.
The interstate grid is already messed up by I-35 anyway. There isn't really much room to avoid weird designations unless we renumber the entire grid in the central tier of states.
In what way? What other major N-S corridor west of there would you put 35 on so as to give it a different x5 number?
It's the fact that I-35 pushes so far east when you go north from Wichita. You also have I-45 and I-49 in the South that are west of I-39, I-41, and I-43 in the Midwest.
Theoretically, I-35 could have simply replaced I-29, with the portion of I-35 north of KC becoming I-45 -- if Houston interests had not lobbied to be on a I-x5 back circa 1956-57; the current I-45 could have easily been I-39. That would have made the overall Midwest grid considerably more workable. The problem was that during the publicity push regarding the system back in the mid-'50's the concept of routes ending in "0" or "5" being singled out -- and "oversold" -- as primary numbers in relation to the other trunk routes resulted in cities competing for -- and subsequently complaining about -- places directly on those "primary" routes. This led to such configurations as I-80S serving Philadelphia and I-80N doing likewise for Portland, OR (both have obviously been "corrected" since). That ad hoc dual-ranking system contributed to a sizeable number of grid issues that were only partially resolved by the late-70's push to eliminate suffixed numbers.
I wonder if we can fix the grid numbering system now?
^^^^^^^^
Unless the entire network in the Midwest is comprehensively reworked, designation-wise, all that can be done is to muddle through with numbers that are decidedly not "grid-perfect" (like I-47 or I-51 for the AOS) but "sort of" fit into the general pattern. Just remember that we roadgeeks tend to be a bit more anal about such things than the average traveler.
Forget it, Jake....it's just Wisconsin! (apologies to screenwriter Robert Towne)
I-41 should have been a 3di anyway.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 20, 2018, 04:28:57 PM
I-41 should have been a 3di anyway.
I-41 should have been US-41 anyway.
Quote from: GaryV on October 20, 2018, 07:39:00 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 20, 2018, 04:28:57 PM
I-41 should have been a 3di anyway.
I-41 should have been US-41 anyway.
No and no. I-41 is fine the way it is, as a 2di.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 21, 2018, 04:22:19 PM
No and no. I-41 is fine the way it is, as a 2di.
It ends in an overlap with I-94. That is by definition not fine.
Quote from: vdeane on October 21, 2018, 06:20:46 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 21, 2018, 04:22:19 PM
No and no. I-41 is fine the way it is, as a 2di.
It ends in an overlap with I-94. That is by definition not fine.
Then it can be shortened. It was planned to end where US 41 splits off from I-94 in Illinois, and I'm perfectly fine with that, but if you have a problem with it then I would suggest ending it where it merges at the I-43/I-894 interchange and eliminating I-894. I wasn't trying to argue over where it should end, however. I still think I-41 should at least exist between Milwaukee and Green Bay.
Quote from: CapeCodder on October 17, 2018, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on September 28, 2018, 09:10:56 AM
I noticed that McDonald County's population hasn't exploded like the Arkansas counties have. Is that merely a function of the poor transportation system, or are there real economic advantages to living in Arkansas vs. Missouri?
McDonald County was pretty depressed last I saw (about nine years ago, don't hold me to it) Terrain can be a factor. There's also a few canoe streams of significance for the area in and around Noel. I've seen jaw dropping poverty near there (makes you want to just question everything; including your own issues.) Oklahoma is right next door as is Arkansas, so people want to head there.
Terrain is assuredly a factor, plus McDonald County for the most part is pretty much just canoe floating enterprises until you get north of Pineville. Wal-Mart has put a remote data center up there at Jane, which pretty much has grown into Bella Vista at this point. The Bella Vista Bypass will ultimately likely head straight south once another 2 lanes of I-49 get added on and saturated in the metropolitan area of NWA. The current 6 laning projects should be wrapped up in 2020, right about the time another 2 lanes will be needed given the current growth rate of the area. There was a study back in 2011 about the feasibility for a Western Beltway to bypass the development along I-49, and it pretty much connects up to the Bella Vista Bypass where it bends back east.
Quote from: Chris19001 on October 18, 2018, 12:52:05 PMNow US202 on the other hand... PA really dropped the ball with section 900 not being done to connect New Hope and Doylestown. NJ has a freeway going over a toll bridge and having to loop back to a congested 2 lane road because PA never had the appetite for the Piedmont Expressway.
NIMBYs along that corridor was what killed that expressway. As a matter of fact, the very reason why the US 202 Parkway between Doylestown & Montgomeryville came to be rather than the originally-planned expressway, was due to then-Gov. Rendell siding with the NIMBYs that resided
north of that corridor. Those that lived
along the corridor actually
wanted the expressway. The northern NIMBYs' fear was that if that the existing Doylestown Bypass was extended to the south as an expressway; an northern extension would've been more inevitable.
Quote from: Chris19001 on October 18, 2018, 12:52:05 PMThat would have formed a nice bypass for traffic away from the I-95 and I-78 corridors which today would likely have been upgraded further by NJ. (Also assuming section 700 of 202 also was completed with a freeway connection to PA-309)
Had the 202 corridor in PA been an all-expressway corridor; it would've acted as an outer bypass for the Greater Philadelphia area similar to I-287 with respect to the Metropolitan NYC area and I-495 with respect to the Greater Boston area.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 25, 2018, 09:33:05 AM
Had the 202 corridor in PA been an all-expressway corridor; it would've acted as an outer bypass for the Greater Philadelphia area similar to I-287 with respect to the Metropolitan NYC area and I-495 with respect to the Greater Boston area.
New Jersey would have had to build a freeway US-202 between the New Hope bridge and I-287, in order for that to happen.
Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2018, 12:48:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 25, 2018, 09:33:05 AM
Had the 202 corridor in PA been an all-expressway corridor; it would've acted as an outer bypass for the Greater Philadelphia area similar to I-287 with respect to the Metropolitan NYC area and I-495 with respect to the Greater Boston area.
New Jersey would have had to build a freeway US-202 between the New Hope bridge and I-287, in order for that to happen.
At least US-202 in New Jersey (up to I-287, never been north of there on 202) flows a lot better than US-202 in Pennsylvania, in my experience.
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 25, 2018, 12:57:16 PM
At least US-202 in New Jersey (up to I-287, never been north of there on 202) flows a lot better than US-202 in Pennsylvania, in my experience.
It is a 4-lane divided highway with at least some access management.
The portions in question in PA have 2 lanes and no access management.
Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2018, 01:40:37 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 25, 2018, 12:57:16 PM
At least US-202 in New Jersey (up to I-287, never been north of there on 202) flows a lot better than US-202 in Pennsylvania, in my experience.
It is a 4-lane divided highway with at least some access management.
The portions in question in PA have 2 lanes and no access management.
I'm well aware, driven both roads plenty of times and US-202 in PA is absolutely infuriating to drive (I did Norristown-Doylestown every day for a month). A 40 MPH speed limit is not suited for through traffic (especially when the lights are timed to reduce the flow of traffic).
Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2018, 01:40:37 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 25, 2018, 12:57:16 PM
At least US-202 in New Jersey (up to I-287, never been north of there on 202) flows a lot better than US-202 in Pennsylvania, in my experience.
It is a 4-lane divided highway with at least some access management.
The portions in question in PA have 2 lanes and no access management.
Bear in mind there is a nice freeway in NJ for the first several miles of 202 until Ringoes... I do not think it would have been difficult at the time to extend it further towards Somerville if PA had done much of anything on its side. Its now pretty much a lost cause with the sprawl that developed from the pharma corridor after Flemington.
The PA side is just a joke though. New Hope to Lehaska is jammed most any day of the year for the Peddlers Village center..
Quote from: MikieTimT on September 25, 2018, 09:31:18 AM
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2018, 08:34:59 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 26, 2018, 04:44:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2018, 04:16:43 PMI don't know much about the bypass, but from what I can tell it looks like Arkansas is making the mess and Missouri will have to clean it up.
It does look like that on the ground, but I think most people familiar with the story might say the mess-making goes in the other direction. Arkansas was committed to building it while Missouri postponed construction and removed funding from its STIP a few years ago, putting Arkansas in the position of having to build an interim facility (two lanes expandable to four), while Missouri has built nothing except a ramp stub.
I think I actually just happened upon Missouri's stub ramp while browsing Street View in the area.
I get the impression, from news articles and other sources, that there are few Missourians that see the need for the facility, while there's been an understandably much stronger push from Arkansas.
I still wonder why Arkansas didn't just build four lanes from the outset; a full freeway would make the gap much more glaring, hopefully prompting (or perhaps embarassing) Missouri into taking action.
Arkansas for the most part is a pay-as-you-go state, which, given that it's almost always close to the bottom on wealth, means that progress has always been rather slow on projects here and tend to get done piecemeal as funds permit. It has kept Arkansas from becoming the fiscal mess that other states have gotten themselves into, but has resulted in some slow progress on major projects in the past. What has changed in the last couple of decades has been a couple of voter-approved bond issues where fractional cent sales tax increases have been enacted to retire the bonds, with sunset provisions on those taxes. It has worked rather well in a poor state like Arkansas where we have actually taxed ourselves in return for getting to specify where that tax money went to, and an official retirement of that tax. Rarely happens anywhere else, but it has resulted in some rather dramatic improvements to the Interstate system over the last couple of decades compared to where it was in the 90's.
What happened with the Bella Vista Bypass is that Missouri had the money to go to the state line when they were doing the grade separations on US-71 to have it promoted to I-49, but given the development around Bella Vista, everything south of the stub had to be new terrain through limestone hills. Arkansas didn't have the money allocated at that time to meet them at the line, so they improved US-71 down to Bella Vista instead and left the stub. Then they moved their money to other needs around the state. Arkansas 2-3 years later got funding firmed up to at least get a Super-2 facility to the state line, which would still be a dramatic improvement over 9 stoplights in Bella Vista. The Connecting Arkansas Program has enabled a lot of road construction in NorthWest Arkansas to finally catch up with the growth, so this corner of the state is finally getting some attention after decades of neglect from the powers in Little Rock. The Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers metropolitan area has rapidly grown to almost Top-100 now, so it's bleeding into the bordering counties along the federal highways now. Lot's of folks in McDonald County, Missouri work for Wal-Mart/Tyson/JB Hunt and it makes rush hour in Bella Vista, which was originally a quiet little retirement village, very congested in rush hour.
Arkansas is now working on the other 2 lanes along where they have almost completed the Super-2, which is 3 miles shy of the border, so that embarrassing gap is getting pushed onto Missouri now. And now it's Missouri who can't come up with any money and is having to rely on Arkansas putting in requests for federal grants on their behalf, although Missouri's residents working in NWA and thru I-49 traffic are the ones that are really the most in need for the bypass in the first place.
Any now, since Missouri voters rejected their awkwardly proposed gas tax increase on the ballot, any light at the end of the tunnel for this stretch to get finished just became a little dimmer. Maybe some bipartisan infrastructure proposals from the incoming Congress, which will struggle to accomplish anything over the next 2 years.
In the meantime, Arkansas is moving dirt on the other 2 lanes. The current Super-2 road is at least a speedy way to get to clinics in Gravette and western Bella Vista from the south and has a surprising amount of traffic already to not have a major northern termination point. Most everyone exits/enters at the northern AR-72 exit, so Gravette and the west side of Bella Vista seem to have discovered it.