The official groundbreaking ceremony for the new 4.5 mile Fort Drum connector road, also known as future Interstate 781, took place today. Estimated completion is fall 2012.
Official story from WWNY-TV (with video) here (http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Ground-Broken-for-Fort-Drum-Connector-Road-99983119.html).
Hopefully the new highway will help ease traffic along NY342 and US11 between I-81 and the Fort Drum gate...
Is there a project map available for viewing online?
Dig around NYSDOT's website...the project webpage may still be online.
Here's (https://www.nysdot.gov/regional-offices/region7/projects/fort-drum-connector) the official project webpage from NYSDOT. Maps can be found by clicking on "Location", with clickable tags showing before-and-after renderings of the various areas.
It looks like the interchange with US11 will be a SPUI. Note the shield error in the rendering of the interchange!
From the maps on that site, it doesn't look like it would all that hard to further extend that highway to the northeast if/when that becomes attractive, making the part by US 11 and towards the base gate a tiny spur off of that.
Mike
Personally I'm wondering what the DOT will be doing with the I-81 interchange at NY 342. The loop for the I-781 interchange looks awfully close to it.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 05, 2010, 02:38:20 PM
From the maps on that site, it doesn't look like it would all that hard to further extend that highway to the northeast if/when that becomes attractive, making the part by US 11 and towards the base gate a tiny spur off of that.
I've been thinking the same thing...I wonder if I-781 could be a first overall phase of the proposed Interstate 98 corridor. It seems like it would be easy enough to integrate it into I-98...
Quote from: deanej on August 05, 2010, 02:57:17 PM
Personally I'm wondering what the DOT will be doing with the I-81 interchange at NY 342. The loop for the I-781 interchange looks awfully close to it.
I wouldn't be surprised if they just eventually demolish it. It's not like 342 will be needed as a connector route anymore (since most traffic exiting there is heading for 11 anyways)...the only reason I could think to keep it is for access to 37 towards Ogdensburg...but traffic for Ogdensburg is better off exiting at Alex Bay anyways and taking 12, or alternately by using 411 by Theresa.
Heck, even heading to Potsdam I sometimes exit off at Theresa anyways, since there's a nice, time-saving (and traffic-avoiding) shortcut that way. :D
Quote from: deanej on August 05, 2010, 02:57:17 PM
Personally I'm wondering what the DOT will be doing with the I-81 interchange at NY 342. The loop for the I-781 interchange looks awfully close to it.
Could add one more ramp from I-81 SB to I-781 WB, and then simply have the 342 ramp come off of that instead.
No need to remove the 342 interchange completely. Making it into a half interchange (NB off/SB on) would avoid any weaving issues..
Quote from: Duke87 on August 06, 2010, 06:51:06 AM
No need to remove the 342 interchange completely. Making it into a half interchange (NB off/SB on) would avoid any weaving issues..
Maybe it might be a bit exagerated and/or expensive, how about a C-D system between I-781 and NY-342?
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 06, 2010, 05:59:25 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 06, 2010, 06:51:06 AM
No need to remove the 342 interchange completely. Making it into a half interchange (NB off/SB on) would avoid any weaving issues..
Maybe it might be a bit exagerated and/or expensive, how about a C-D system between I-781 and NY-342?
That's what I was thinking as well.
[Fixed mangled quote. -S.]
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 06, 2010, 05:59:25 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 06, 2010, 06:51:06 AM
No need to remove the 342 interchange completely. Making it into a half interchange (NB off/SB on) would avoid any weaving issues..
Maybe it might be a bit exagerated and/or expensive, how about a C-D system between I-781 and NY-342?
I like Steve's solution for the I-81 southbound movements. The northbound side of the 342 could be reconfigured to parclo-style ramps in the SE quadrant, to buy a little more space along 81 to mitigate the weave.
I have to wonder if the SPUI at US11 will take out or otherwise affect the entrance to that crappy little suburbia-development...
In other news.... how `bout those street names inside the base, uh?
Quote from: yakra on August 17, 2010, 12:23:09 PM
I have to wonder if the SPUI at US11 will take out or otherwise affect the entrance to that crappy little suburbia-development...
collateral damage. :sombrero:
QuoteI like Steve's solution for the I-81 southbound movements. The northbound side of the 342 could be reconfigured to parclo-style ramps in the SE quadrant, to buy a little more space along 81 to mitigate the weave.
Agree with Steve's solution for southbound. For northbound, the project location map (https://www.nysdot.gov/regional-offices/region7/projects/fort-drum-connector/fort-drum-repository/FDC%20Project%20Location%20Map_Jan2010.pdf) suggests there'll be about 1/3 mile between the on-ramp from NY 342 and the off-ramp to I-781. While not ideal, constructing an auxiliary lane would at least make it acceptable.
QuoteI have to wonder if the SPUI at US11 will take out or otherwise affect the entrance to that crappy little suburbia-development...
It'll shift the entrance to the south.
Quote from: froggie on August 17, 2010, 02:26:12 PM
QuoteI like Steve's solution for the I-81 southbound movements. The northbound side of the 342 could be reconfigured to parclo-style ramps in the SE quadrant, to buy a little more space along 81 to mitigate the weave.
Agree with Steve's solution for southbound. For northbound, the project location map (https://www.nysdot.gov/regional-offices/region7/projects/fort-drum-connector/fort-drum-repository/FDC%20Project%20Location%20Map_Jan2010.pdf) suggests there'll be about 1/3 mile between the on-ramp from NY 342 and the off-ramp to I-781. While not ideal, constructing an auxiliary lane would at least make it acceptable.
To be an annoying traffic engineer, it may be acceptable without the aux lane. Then you have a merge followed by a diverge, and yes they're close to each other (the influence areas would overlap), but 1/3 of a mile should be sufficient for the decel and accel lanes without meeting each other. You'd have to analyze the merge and diverge and see if they work - the analysis method would account for the proximity of the ramps and assign extra traffic to the right lane. For that matter, it's conceivable, though unlikely, that a two-lane section would work acceptably (merge/diverge) whereas a three-lane section would not (weave).
I was under the impression FHWA preferred auxiliary lanes when the distance between the merge and diverge was less than 1/2 mile.
Quote from: froggie on August 17, 2010, 09:48:15 PM
I was under the impression FHWA preferred auxiliary lanes when the distance between the merge and diverge was less than 1/2 mile.
Entirely possible - may also depend on traffic volumes, and I have no answer for that (you'd want to consider peak periods, because the base may draw a lot of traffic at certain times and none at others). Plenty of considerations, but I think if factors are favorable, you may be able to argue your way out of an auxiliary lane - again, it's unlikely but still possible that it won't work as well as a plain merge/diverge.
It's definitely possible to not have one - eastbound on I-90, the distance between the ramps for exits 36 and 37 is under half a mile and they don't have an auxiliary lane; there's a very short gap between exit 36's acceleration lane and exit 37's deceleration lane.
That's also the Thruway and not a 90%-FHWA-funded Interstate...
So interstates only have to follow interstate standards if 90% funded by the FHWA? If that's the case, why don't we instantly designate non-standard interstates on the condition that they don't get those funds?
Quote from: deanej on August 20, 2010, 04:50:57 PM
So interstates only have to follow interstate standards if 90% funded by the FHWA?
Doesn't Wyoming's I-180 have that funding setup as well, yet resembles interstate standards in no way, shape, or form?
Remember, the legacy toll roads (i.e. the Thruway) were grandfathered in...and there is no outright requirement for the toll roads to completely conform with FHWA standards. Though for the sake of consistency, there is definitely a desire for them to do so.
They didn't even require them to comply when upgrades were done etc? If not, they should at least extend the same courtesy to freeways that existed at the time the interstates were constructed but are only now being designated (such as NY 17).
Here's a couple of photos on US 11:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_6zDqXUkKvc0/TXrWxN92fNI/AAAAAAAAHbI/oQXyMqjIIzE/s640/100_5019.JPG)
View of where the future interchange will be
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_6zDqXUkKvc0/TXrWxgpIzwI/AAAAAAAAHbM/iyDiheA0spY/s640/100_5020.JPG)
Close-up of stuff by Fort Drum
Backtracking to the interchange problem, I feel that the C/D roads are the best way to correct this slight problem on I-81, but looking at it, would it be excessive to add a ramp to go from I-781 to NY 342?
Got another picture, this time on I-81 north:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_6zDqXUkKvc0/TYa5zu8JJ5I/AAAAAAAAHgM/lZlMq3Z7rX4/s640/100_5060.JPG)
Are there any actual "Future I-781" shields yet, or is the freeway being built on totally new alignment?
If and when they build I-98, will it use part of I-781, and if so, where will it branch off that road?
Quote from: Quillz on April 09, 2011, 07:02:46 AM
Are there any actual "Future I-781" shields yet, or is the freeway being built on totally new alignment?
New road. I-98 would likely be farther north, but it's so pipe-dream that there's no telling whether it could use 781.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 09, 2011, 08:50:04 AM
Quote from: Quillz on April 09, 2011, 07:02:46 AM
Are there any actual "Future I-781" shields yet, or is the freeway being built on totally new alignment?
New road. I-98 would likely be farther north, but it's so pipe-dream that there's no telling whether it could use 781.
Just as I had suspected!
QuoteAre there any actual "Future I-781" shields yet, or is the freeway being built on totally new alignment?
Except for the entrance to Fort Drum itself, it's all new alignment.
This is the first Interstate I can think of in quite some time to be built on a completely brand new alignment.
Offhand, I can think of 5 other segments done within the past 10 years, 3 of them in the Greensboro, NC area. The other two are I-485 around Charlotte, NC and the I-355 IL extension.
Quote from: Quillz on April 11, 2011, 06:33:01 AM
This is the first Interstate I can think of in quite some time to be built on a completely brand new alignment.
Are you talking about an entire interstate, or segments thereof? Because if you are not talking about a completely new built-from-scratch entire interstate, I would submit I-26 north of Asheville in North Carolina.
When was I-26 built? And yes, I was referring to an Interstate where every single mile of it is built atop brand new alignment. I remember I-70 in Utah was like this, as it didn't parallel any major US Route.
I-26 opened in 2003, so that's one more within the past 10 years. Yes, it had a parallel US route, but it was on new alignment and not on top of the old US route (at least north of where US 19 splits off).
Quote from: Quillz on April 11, 2011, 11:31:46 PM
When was I-26 built? And yes, I was referring to an Interstate where every single mile of it is built atop brand new alignment. I remember I-70 in Utah was like this, as it didn't parallel any major US Route.
I-781 does parallel other routes (NY 342); it's just on a new right-of-way.
there are very few interstates that don't parallel older routes. I-80 in Pennsylvania comes to mind.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 12, 2011, 01:02:18 PM
there are very few interstates that don't parallel older routes. I-80 in Pennsylvania comes to mind.
I-781 bypasses a congested, inconvenient section of US 11.
Also, I-70 blazed a new path through virgin territory across a large part of central Utah.
Mike
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 12, 2011, 01:02:18 PM
there are very few interstates that don't parallel older routes. I-80 in Pennsylvania comes to mind.
US 62, US 322, US 220, US 11, US 611 - a little indirect in places, but no farther from I-80 than I-5 and old US 99.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 12, 2011, 01:20:05 PM
Also, I-70 blazed a new path through virgin territory across a large part of central Utah.
It more or less replaced SR-10; you just had to cut north to Price before I-70 was built.
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2011, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 12, 2011, 01:02:18 PM
there are very few interstates that don't parallel older routes. I-80 in Pennsylvania comes to mind.
US 62, US 322, US 220, US 11, US 611 - a little indirect in places, but no farther from I-80 than I-5 and old US 99.
apart from 322 (and an argument can be made for 62), none of those routes are intended to be east-west. it's a coincidental sequence of parallels, with gaps in between. this as opposed to US-99, which diverges only south of Stockton. Elsewhere, it keeps coming back. Even 322 ends up diverging, though it does have a long segment where I-80 parallels it.
the Westside Freeway (I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and approximately Stockton) is also an example of an interstate built on entirely new alignment. it was never intended to replace US-99, but rather to complement it.
If you're looking at overall direction, you might as well include I-75 in the Upper Peninsula, which replaced US 2.
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2011, 02:06:32 PM
If you're looking at overall direction, you might as well include I-75 in the Upper Peninsula, which replaced US 2.
yes, but it parallels it closely with the intent of following it. I-80 has a significantly long gap between 611 and 11, again between 11 and 220, yet once more between 220 and 322, then once more between 322 and 62. at some of those points it follows alignments approximated by various short state highways, but between US-15 and Carroll (between 11 and 220) there is a substantial gap where the only road nearby is a forest service route. I'd driven that road before, thinking it had to be an old alignment of
something - it was not.
I-80 connects sufficiently tenuously to sufficiently many independent and diverging US routes that it can be reasonably considered its own alignment.
same with I-5 between Stockton and Wheeler Ridge. At times it approximates CA-33, but for most of the distance (especially around the south end) it's a good 5-10 miles away, and I don't think was ever intended as an upgrade to 33 as much as just a brand new freeway through rural areas where local traffic would not interfere with its intended use as a long-haul truck route. I-80 matches that description exactly.
I'm really regretting not having my camera with me in the front seat yesterday. New posts for signs are up on I-81 in both directions. I-81 itself is down to one lane in the area with all-new pavement. The bridge for I-781 has been installed and ramps are currently under construction.
Quote from: deanej on August 24, 2011, 09:55:43 AM
I'm really regretting not having my camera with me in the front seat yesterday. New posts for signs are up on I-81 in both directions. I-81 itself is down to one lane in the area with all-new pavement. The bridge for I-781 has been installed and ramps are currently under construction.
Guess you'll have to come to the meet.
Already was planning on it, but I don't believe we head that far north on I-81 (nor was I planning on going by there either; my trips to/from the meet are my change to clinch state highways in the area).
Quote from: deanej on August 25, 2011, 10:59:00 AM
Already was planning on it, but I don't believe we head that far north on I-81 (nor was I planning on going by there either; my trips to/from the meet are my change to clinch state highways in the area).
I thought the purpose of the meet was, in part, to see new I-781 construction.
The purpose of the meet is to see I-781 construction. The I-81 interchange construction with future I-781 seems to be best viewed from a nearby overpass, at least for the purposes of a road meet.
Construction Moving Along On Fort Drum Connector (http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Construction-Moving-Along-On-Fort-Drum-Connector-129290808.html)
Completion still targeted for August.