AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-Atlantic => Topic started by: DevalDragon on March 18, 2012, 11:29:17 AM

Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: DevalDragon on March 18, 2012, 11:29:17 AM
Because I like driving thru the Wheeling Tunnel :-p

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 23, 2010, 12:49:54 AM
Because people are dumb and will stay on the mainline 35 route instead of taking a 3di advertised as a bypass. Why do people stay on I-70 through Wheeling, WV?
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: NE2 on March 18, 2012, 11:44:04 AM
And bumping threads, apparently.
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: bugo on March 19, 2012, 11:06:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 23, 2010, 12:49:54 AM
Because people are dumb and will stay on the mainline 35 route instead of taking a 3di advertised as a bypass. Why do people stay on I-70 through Wheeling, WV?

Because I wanted to see the tunnel.
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: Scott5114 on March 19, 2012, 10:27:44 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 19, 2012, 11:06:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 23, 2010, 12:49:54 AM
Because people are dumb and will stay on the mainline 35 route instead of taking a 3di advertised as a bypass. Why do people stay on I-70 through Wheeling, WV?

Because I wanted to see the tunnel.

Well, yeah, that's why I took I-70 through the tunnel the one time I was in Wheeling (and also to clinch the I-70 in WV mileage). But those aren't really valid reasons for most people.
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: bugo on March 19, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
They should really sign I-470 as I-70 and I-70 as Business I-70.
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2012, 11:45:24 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 19, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
They should really sign I-470 as I-70 and I-70 as Business I-70.

I disagree, because I feel that business interstates should have direct access to at least the theoretical possibility of actual businesses.

limited-access roads should not be "green interstates".
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: Takumi on March 19, 2012, 11:53:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2012, 11:45:24 PM
limited-access roads should not be "green interstates".

*coughpiedmonttriadcough*
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: bugo on March 20, 2012, 01:37:39 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2012, 11:45:24 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 19, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
They should really sign I-470 as I-70 and I-70 as Business I-70.

I disagree, because I feel that business interstates should have direct access to at least the theoretical possibility of actual businesses.

limited-access roads should not be "green interstates".

Call it I-870.  Whatever you want to call it.  The point was to get mainline I-70 traffic to take I-470.
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: NE2 on March 20, 2012, 01:56:08 AM
Older thread on I-470: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2509.0
Apparently I-470 has grade issues. So trucks should be encouraged to use I-70.

I suppose a valid question is why, with the US 250 freeway now built, the downtown ramps that necessitate I-70 being one lane are still there. Would it be reasonable to have traffic instead take US 250 to 16th Street?
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: texaskdog on March 20, 2012, 10:59:43 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2012, 11:45:24 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 19, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
They should really sign I-470 as I-70 and I-70 as Business I-70.

I disagree, because I feel that business interstates should have direct access to at least the theoretical possibility of actual businesses.

limited-access roads should not be "green interstates".

I think the mainline interstate should always avoid town, and the "1xx" should head into town.  Such as putting the thru I-94 traffic onto 694 and get it out of downtown.  Drivers who want to find downtown will find it.
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: rte66man on March 20, 2012, 11:26:38 AM
When did this thread get hijacked?

Last I checked, I 70 runs nowhere near Austin, TX.

rte66man
Title: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: bugo on March 20, 2012, 06:11:31 PM
Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2012, 11:26:38 AM
When did this thread get hijacked?

Last I checked, I 70 runs nowhere near Austin, TX.

Threads are going to drift.  That's the nature of the beast.  Some of the best discussions come out of thread drift.
Title: Re: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: Alps on March 20, 2012, 07:28:53 PM
You know, I didn't even notice I-470/70 wasn't the original topic...
Title: Re: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: hbelkins on March 22, 2012, 12:02:43 PM
And it somehow got moved into the Ohio Valley forum...
Title: Re: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: texaskdog on March 22, 2012, 01:13:44 PM
I thought we were talking about I-95 not being connected in New Jersey?
Title: Re: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: kphoger on March 22, 2012, 02:07:17 PM
And I thought it started out with the optimal speed limit for I-366 from Juneau to Ketchikan...
Title: Re: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: Henry on April 07, 2012, 09:25:52 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 19, 2012, 11:53:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2012, 11:45:24 PM
limited-access roads should not be "green interstates".

*coughpiedmonttriadcough*
And Sacramento too.

Quote from: texaskdog on March 20, 2012, 10:59:43 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2012, 11:45:24 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 19, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
They should really sign I-470 as I-70 and I-70 as Business I-70.

I disagree, because I feel that business interstates should have direct access to at least the theoretical possibility of actual businesses.

limited-access roads should not be "green interstates".

I think the mainline interstate should always avoid town, and the "1xx" should head into town.  Such as putting the thru I-94 traffic onto 694 and get it out of downtown.  Drivers who want to find downtown will find it.
While that may be true, the opposite is set up in most areas. Which is why, for example, I-85 goes through the middle of Atlanta, instead of around it, like I-285 does.

I think this discussion should be brought up in the Fictional Highways section, because AFAIK, WV wouldn't want to flip I-70 and I-470 around just for the sake of keeping through traffic out of Wheeling.
Title: Re: I-70/470 (Re: Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??)
Post by: texaskdog on April 09, 2012, 09:03:52 PM
Figure these days most cities would want to keep thru traffic away from their downtowns