I'm not talking about fantasy highways, I'm talking about roads that have seriously been proposed. I don't know if any of us will live to see I-49 completed, and I really don't expect us to see I-69 completed. We might see I-30 completed, however.
All the shit proposed by Robert Moses.
I-73 and 74.
I expect to see I-49 and I-69 completed within 30 years. I feel, however, that I-73 is basically dead north of Virginia, and I am doubtful I-66 will be finished in Kentucky.
I-73/74 was never seriously planned as an Interstate north of I-81.
Interstate 7/9
Quote from: Quillz on July 28, 2012, 12:21:17 AM
Interstate 7/9
Have these ever been seriously proposed?
Quote from: bugo on July 28, 2012, 12:47:10 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 28, 2012, 12:21:17 AM
Interstate 7/9
Have these ever been seriously proposed?
Depends if he's referring to the CA-99 corridor or the US-97 corridor. Even so, the only serious consideration was the designation of CA-99 as a High Priority Corridor.
As far as building them, if it's US-97, yes, I don't think the need is there and won't truly be for several decades. For CA-99, the route as freeway is already built, so the question is more whether it gets signed as an interstate. I'd put that at 50/50.
For something I truly don't think will get built (unfortunately), the I-710 gap.
1.) The northern leg of the Mon-Fayette Expressway (from SR 51 to I-376).
2.) The remainder of the Southern Beltway.
I can actually see I-11 getting built, but I'm going to say it won't in my lifetime. I'll also put the perennial Rye-Oyster Bay Tunnel (I-287) that gets legs every so often. Could add the Rooftop Highway (I-98).
A complete US 12 freeway/tollway between Madison, WI and IL 53?
Mike
Quote from: Steve on July 28, 2012, 01:13:21 AM
I can actually see I-11 getting built, but I'm going to say it won't in my lifetime. I'll also put the perennial Rye-Oyster Bay Tunnel (I-287) that gets legs every so often. Could add the Rooftop Highway (I-98).
Oh, I expect I-11 will be completed within the next 20-25 years. Just not as currently proposed. On the Nevada end, I suspect environmental concerns will force NDOT to utilize the current US93 footprint in Boulder City. On the Arizona side, too much of what is proposed for the Phoenix area end is subject to developer plans that likely won't see the light of day before 2030. Therefore, I suspect that some combination of the Sun Valley Parkway and SR85 will be used for I-11.
Other than that, I seriously doubt that the Heartland Expressway will go any further south than I-80 at Kimball, NE.
I-3 in Georgia (thankfully).
Quote from: bugo on July 28, 2012, 12:47:10 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 28, 2012, 12:21:17 AM
Interstate 7/9
Have these ever been seriously proposed?
Certainly. The folks in Fresno love to remind people that they are the largest city without an Interstate highway.
Just recently I drove CA-99 during daylight hours for the first time. From a roadgeek perspective, it's quite interesting, because it's obvious there has never been any master plan and it was upgraded in small chunks over the years. Some parts still have telegraph polls on one side and huge trees in the median. The freeway frequently swings around many of the 'bolted-on' exits. There's still left-side exits in places where it saved the cost of an overpass.
Caltrans' original estimates to bring all of this up to "Interstate grade" were frankly unobtainable. However, recently they accepted that waivers and provisional applications might allow them to put up the blue shields at minimal cost. My guess is that it will happen within the next 5 years.
On the other hand, I doubt CA-58 will ever be signed as I-40. There will always be a few at-grades not worth fixing.
Quote from: Steve on July 28, 2012, 01:13:21 AM
Could add the Rooftop Highway (I-98).
Especially since the funding to study it was reallocated to US 11 a few months ago.
Pretty much any loop-style bypass of Baton Rouge. Every time one is proposed, it just seems to wither on the vine before any serious effort can be put into seeing if it can be done.
I-289 in Vermont?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 28, 2012, 10:32:30 AM
I-289 in Vermont?
Mike
I predict at least one end of VT 289 will be done in my lifetime. I don't foresee any need to twin it, so no Interstate status.
CT 11. US 6 from Bolton to Willmantic. Or any further upgrades of US 7 in the state.
Quote from: BigRedDog on July 28, 2012, 01:13:06 AM
1.) The northern leg of the Mon-Fayette Expressway (from SR 51 to I-376).
Agreed.
Quote2.) The remainder of the Southern Beltway.
While I'm not betting on it getting done, I also wouldn't be surprised if the section from US-22 to I-79 gets built in the next couple of decades.
In the western half of PA, I'd also add (and this depends on a very loose definition of "planned") US-219 freeway sections north of Ebensburg to Bradford.... especially north of I-80 thru the Allegheny National Forest areas.
I'm also starting to have doubts as to whether I'll ever drive on a section of I-99 between I-80 & Williamsport. That project has been "deferred" for years now, and instead of talks about restarting it, PennDOT seems content to just spend money to simply "improve" intersections and such along US-220 there...
I respectfully disagree with the other contributors who have suggested the South Pasadena "missing gap" in California I-710 will never be closed. I think the current tunnel proposal checks too many boxes and will be progressed to construction in spite of the significant costs.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 28, 2012, 01:07:49 PM
I respectfully disagree with the other contributors who have suggested the South Pasadena "missing gap" in California I-710 will never be closed. I think the current tunnel proposal checks too many boxes and will be progressed to construction in spite of the significant costs.
I sure hope you are correct. The I-710 gap closure is badly needed, and could serve as a "proof of concept" (not that it has not been done elsewhere, because it has, including in Sweden and France) of building underground freeways without severe impacts on the communities above.
The North Beltline in Madison, WI
West Virginia currently has the following on the table which I do not believe we will ever see finished:
Corridor H (US 48): The parts not currently under construction will probably never be built. Treehuggers.
Coalfields Expressway (US 121): WV Turnpike at Beckley to Corridor B (US 23) and Corridor Q (US 460) at Grundy, VA. A road that serves little purpose. Probably never get past an end somewhere in Wyoming County.
East Beckley Bypass: I-64 SE of Beckley to US 19/Corridor L NE of Beckley to WV Turnpike N of Beckley. Might take 8 minutes off the current roads. Never be built.
King Coal Highway/Tolsia Highway (US 52): I-77 and Corridor Q (US 460) at Bluefield to a JCT with the afformentioned US 121 near Welch to US 119/Corridor G at Williamson to I-64 W of Huntington. Current parts are being built as a part of the strip mining in Mingo county. Runs out of the coal seam N and S of that. Might cut 20 minutes off current I-64 and 77 route. Never be near finished.
West Run Expressway: I 68 E of Morgantown to I-79 N of Morgantown, giving the tiny town a defacto beltway, similar to the Beckley project above. Serves no real purpose.
WV 10/80: Four lane project for WV 10 between US 119/Corridor G at Logan to Man and then WV 80 between Man and a JCT with the theoretical King Coal Highway at Gilbert. Man to outskirts of Logan finished or underconstruction. WV 80 part will never be built, and Logan gentry want traffic dumped onto its streets, so the last mile or so up to 119 won't be either.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 28, 2012, 12:59:52 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 28, 2012, 12:47:10 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 28, 2012, 12:21:17 AM
Interstate 7/9
Have these ever been seriously proposed?
Depends if he's referring to the CA-99 corridor or the US-97 corridor.
I think he meant Interstate 0.777777777777
My nominee: Kellogg. Wink wink, Winkler.
FL 429 (The Wekiva Parkway).
NJ 55.
I-49
I-73 and I-74
The PA Turnpike and I-95 connection (as they keep postponing the construction.)
Quote from: SP Cook on July 28, 2012, 02:36:52 PM
West Virginia currently has the following on the table which I do not believe we will ever see finished:
Corridor H (US 48): The parts not currently under construction will probably never be built. Treehuggers.
I don't know the details well enough to disagree with you (and you obviously know them very well - and I thank you for sharing them here), but the same was said of Maryland Route 200 not that many years ago (and the population of treehuggers and NIMBYs along its path and in the counties and cities near its path is probably a lot higher (in absolute terms)) than the number of persons opposed to Corridor H.
And Corridor H and Md. 200 had a common enemy in Peter H. Kostmayer, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives and an implacable foe of any and all new highways. He put that ideology to work when he was appointed by President Clinton as the Administrator of EPA Region III in Philadelphia, where he instructed his staff that their highest priority was to get as many proposed highways in the Region III states cancelled as possible.
I also wrote the following to H.B. Elkins in a previous version of this forum:
QuoteKostmayer also did his best to kill Maryland's InterCounty Connector project. At the time, Maryland DOT was in the early stages of preparing a draft environmental impact statement (which was destined to be spiked by then-Gov. Parris Glendening in 1999 for political reasons, after spending millions of dollars on that DEIS), and Kostmayer's EPA Region III staff made demands (in about 1993 or 1994) that certain possible alignments for the highway (including the one that had been on the planning maps since the 1950's, and where the completed highway now runs) should be excluded from any consideration, even before alternatives were analyzed. That's not how the environmental impact statement process, as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, is supposed to work.
QuoteSupposedly Region III had "serious concerns" about the self-reproducing brown trout population in the Paint Branch of the Anacostia River (never mind that the brown trout are not native to Maryland, but were introduced from Germany many years before - and as an alien species, get no protection under the Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws).
QuoteI also believe (but cannot prove) that Kostmayer held private meetings with opponents of both Corridor H and ICC to work out strategies for getting them cancelled. In the judicial branch, that's called ex-parte communication and is not allowed. Because EPA was working in a quasi-judicial role in reviewing environmental documents for both projects, I think it's high time that such meetings (with any advocate, pro- or con-) be held on-the record or forbidden entirely (ideally, advocates for or against a project under EPA review should be required to submit comments in writing and the comments should go on the public record for all interested parties to read).
Kostmayer was forced to resign from EPA in 1995 when his activities against Corridor H incurred the wrath of Senators Rockefeller and Byrd.
Quote from: brad2971 on July 28, 2012, 02:13:01 AM
Quote from: Steve on July 28, 2012, 01:13:21 AM
I can actually see I-11 getting built, but I'm going to say it won't in my lifetime.
Oh, I expect I-11 will be completed within the next 20-25 years. Just not as currently proposed. On the Nevada end, I suspect environmental concerns will force NDOT to utilize the current US93 footprint in Boulder City. On the Arizona side, too much of what is proposed for the Phoenix area end is subject to developer plans that likely won't see the light of day before 2030. Therefore, I suspect that some combination of the Sun Valley Parkway and SR85 will be used for I-11.
FHWA accepted the Final EIS and made a record of decision on NDOT's US 93 Boulder City Bypass several years ago. Phase 1 (the extension/realignment up to US 95 turnoff) is in the nearer planning horizon and should go to bid/construction in the next couple years. Phase 2 (the rest of it) is the part that the RTC is conducting a tolling feasibility study for, cause otherwise NDOT won't have the money to build it for many more years. So the Nevada portion of proposed I-11 is not too far fetched.
(I will still maintain that the Boulder City Bypass could have been well on its way to completion by now, had NDOT selected a through-town freeway alignment instead of caving to citizen pressure for the southern alternative... but that's my opinion.)
Quote from: mgk920 on July 28, 2012, 01:39:37 AM
A complete US 12 freeway/tollway between Madison, WI and IL 53?
Mike
I'll second this one, though I think Wisconsin will have to do something with the northern end of the current US 12 freeway north of I-43 since the two lane road after the freeway is rather bad. It would not surprise me either if Wisconsin 'cheats' on the northern/western termni and somehow requires the connection to Madison to be made via I-39/90 or I-94.
As for the section in Illinois, I really doubt anything will be built beyond the Richmond bypass and maybe the poorly designed IL 53 parkway.
EDIT: As for other candidates, excluding pre-1970's freeway plan proposals:
* The US 61 Hannibal bypass - due to MoDOT's funding issues and an unwillingness by locals (or some other group besides MoDOT) to start with a two lane facility.
* The IL 3 - IL 149 four lane corridor from the southern IL 3/IL 146 junction to Murphysboro
* The East Beltway for Lincoln, NE, as a freeway - I'm guessing this one either gets replaced by an upgraded arterial system or a somewhat access controlled divided highway.
* Not techinically a road, but I doubt anyone here will live to see the I-90/I-290/IL 53 cloverleaf get any of the loops replaced with turbine ramps or flyovers (barring a fatal crash or two that makes national headlines)
DC I-95 North Central Freeway and Northeast Freeway
IL I-494 Crosstown Expressway
NY I-78 Lower Manhattan Expressway
NY I-78 Bushwick Expressway
Bang. I-366. :bigass: :-D
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 28, 2012, 09:09:34 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 28, 2012, 01:39:37 AM
A complete US 12 freeway/tollway between Madison, WI and IL 53?
Mike
I'll second this one, though I think Wisconsin will have to do something with the northern end of the current US 12 freeway north of I-43 since the two lane road after the freeway is rather bad. It would not surprise me either if Wisconsin 'cheats' on the northern/western termni and somehow requires the connection to Madison to be made via I-39/90 or I-94.
As for the section in Illinois, I really doubt anything will be built beyond the Richmond bypass and maybe the poorly designed IL 53 parkway.
The original plan for US 12 (I-90?) was for it to connect to I-39/90 just south of Dane County 'B'. Check aerial images of the area to see exactly where.
Mike
The US 12 freeway actually stands some chance of being built in the next 60 or so years. By the time that road is getting its first re-surface, the much needed North Beltline in Madison will maybe just be entering the final EIS stage. :poke:
The Somerset Freeway. Never have I hated NIMBYS more
In Columbus: the Morse—Bethel Connector, and maybe the Ackerman—Zollinger Connector. The latter has potential for a cool nickname, what with connecting A to Z...
Any new freeway or expressway in the Delaware (Ohio) vicinity. Several are needed, a couple have been seriously proposed, and probably none will be built this century.
Interstate 1, anywhere.
I-98 for sure.
Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2012, 08:51:14 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on July 28, 2012, 02:13:01 AM
Quote from: Steve on July 28, 2012, 01:13:21 AM
I can actually see I-11 getting built, but I'm going to say it won't in my lifetime.
Oh, I expect I-11 will be completed within the next 20-25 years. Just not as currently proposed. On the Nevada end, I suspect environmental concerns will force NDOT to utilize the current US93 footprint in Boulder City. On the Arizona side, too much of what is proposed for the Phoenix area end is subject to developer plans that likely won't see the light of day before 2030. Therefore, I suspect that some combination of the Sun Valley Parkway and SR85 will be used for I-11.
FHWA accepted the Final EIS and made a record of decision on NDOT's US 93 Boulder City Bypass several years ago. Phase 1 (the extension/realignment up to US 95 turnoff) is in the nearer planning horizon and should go to bid/construction in the next couple years. Phase 2 (the rest of it) is the part that the RTC is conducting a tolling feasibility study for, cause otherwise NDOT won't have the money to build it for many more years. So the Nevada portion of proposed I-11 is not too far fetched.
(I will still maintain that the Boulder City Bypass could have been well on its way to completion by now, had NDOT selected a through-town freeway alignment instead of caving to citizen pressure for the southern alternative... but that's my opinion.)
Building the US 93 Bypass through town would probably cost less, and would shorten the length of US 93 wouldn't it?
:bigass:
Quote from: njroadhorse on July 29, 2012, 10:06:06 AM
The Somerset Freeway. Never have I hated NIMBYS more
At least some of the dynamics seem to be the same as the I-95 Center Leg and Northeast Freeway in D.C. and Maryland. In both cases, there was an "alternate" freeway available that the NIMBYs could point to (the N.J. Turnpike and the Capital Beltway).
In D.C., the Metrorail system was "advertised" as an alternative, though I what has happened in the decades since the 1970's has proven that incorrect. I don't know if opponents of the Somerset Freeway ever made claims that it could be "replaced" by a transit line.
It has never been clear to me how much opposition from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (if there was any) factored in to the decision to not build the Somerset Freeway. In a perfect world, the Somerset Freeway would have made a lot of sense as a "Trenton Spur" or "Somerset Spur" or "West Jersey Turnpike" (as Steve Anderson called it) of the New Jersey Turnpike.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 29, 2012, 11:58:58 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2012, 08:51:14 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on July 28, 2012, 02:13:01 AM
Oh, I expect I-11 will be completed within the next 20-25 years. Just not as currently proposed. On the Nevada end, I suspect environmental concerns will force NDOT to utilize the current US93 footprint in Boulder City. On the Arizona side, too much of what is proposed for the Phoenix area end is subject to developer plans that likely won't see the light of day before 2030. Therefore, I suspect that some combination of the Sun Valley Parkway and SR85 will be used for I-11.
FHWA accepted the Final EIS and made a record of decision on NDOT's US 93 Boulder City Bypass several years ago. Phase 1 (the extension/realignment up to US 95 turnoff) is in the nearer planning horizon and should go to bid/construction in the next couple years. Phase 2 (the rest of it) is the part that the RTC is conducting a tolling feasibility study for, cause otherwise NDOT won't have the money to build it for many more years. So the Nevada portion of proposed I-11 is not too far fetched.
(I will still maintain that the Boulder City Bypass could have been well on its way to completion by now, had NDOT selected a through-town freeway alignment instead of caving to citizen pressure for the southern alternative... but that's my opinion.)
Building the US 93 Bypass through town would probably cost less, and would shorten the length of US 93 wouldn't it?
The length wouldn't have been shortened by too much, but it definitely would have cost less to construct.
I don't think another bridge between Maryland and Virginia will happen for a long time, due to development in both states.
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2012, 02:37:56 PM
My nominee: Kellogg. Wink wink, Winkler.
I would say the idea of Kellogg becoming part of I-66 seems unlikely, and I think J N Winkler already commented on the prospects of I-66 in the other "K" state. As for Kellogg itself, that depends on how you define "finished."
Quote from: mjb2002 on July 29, 2012, 10:58:20 AM
Interstate 1, anywhere.
In that case, turning dirt roads into freeways, an interstate to Yellowstone, I-5 to Alaska and Canada and Mexico assimilating into the US would be highly unlikely. Also the removal of I-80 west of Hammond, IN in favor of a transcontinental I-76 is a daft idea.
I-26 through Virginia and Kentucky.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 29, 2012, 05:16:04 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 28, 2012, 02:37:56 PM
My nominee: Kellogg. Wink wink, Winkler.
I would say the idea of Kellogg becoming part of I-66 seems unlikely, and I think J N Winkler already commented on the prospects of I-66 in the other "K" state. As for Kellogg itself, that depends on how you define "finished."
Old joke (winking back): when the sun goes nova, Kellogg will have to be finished in the dark.
Seriously, though, Kellogg is all but finished in terms of the original plan developed in the 1980's, which was to have a full freeway from one end of the city to the other. At that time there was essentially no development west of Maize Road or east of the Turnpike interchange, and Kellogg is now a full freeway all the way between those two points with the lone exception of traffic lights at Cypress and Webb, which will go away when the Turnpike interchange and Webb intersection are re-done.
The real problem with Kellogg these days is that housing and retail development has leapfrogged the lengths that have been upgraded to full freeway. The current plan is now for Kellogg to be upgraded to full freeway all the way from Maize Road west at least to the starting point of the planned Northwest Wichita Bypass (and, I would hope, all the way to the start of the existing US 54 freeway from Garden Plain to Pretty Prairie). I am not sure about the east side, but it would have to be upgraded to full freeway all the way to the east side of Augusta in order to be development-proof.
In Wichita a recent controversy about slab foundations (laid too thin on poorly drained soil in one subdivision) exposed how powerful the house-building lobby is and how thoroughly it is wired into city government. This means that new subdivisions go up on the periphery while Wichita's population stays essentially flat and neighborhoods closer in, without the visibility and political connections to attract publicly subsidized revitalization efforts, are left to decline gradually with high vacancy rates, dilapidation of commercial properties, etc. (For example, West Street between 13th Street and the Kellogg SPUI is a shadow of its former self, and the old Twin Lakes shopping center, which used to house a dining club and several high-end clothing stores, has now gone so far downhill that the driver's license bureau and ComCare function as anchor stores.)
This means that planning control is unlikely to obviate the need for further Kellogg upgrades and so Kellogg will never be finished until it coalesces into the existing freeways in western Sedgwick and eastern Butler counties. Aside from the Turnpike/Webb, funding for further upgrades has not been identified, and you can bet construction will lag housing development.
The Newberg-Dundee Bypass in Oregon (Oregon 99W), however at the current rate of progress the "Columbia River Crossing" (replacement of the Interstate Bridge/I-5 between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA) might be up there too.
Most of my nominations have already been mentioned. (I-3, I-73/74, I-66, the WV projects S.P. mentioned, etc.)
I would add:
Bluegrass Parkway extension to I-64.
London-to-Ashland corridor (KY 30, KY 11, KY 715 to the Mountain Parkway, then picking up KY 7 north of West Liberty to Grayson). Portions of the route are already done, and a handful of additions are currently under study or in various stages of planning. However, I think a number of these segments that are even under study now will never be built, not to mention portions of KY 7 that aren't even on the radar screen now.
I-75 to US 27 connector south of Lexington.
Harlan to Hazard connector.
Four-lane KY 15 from Mountain Parkway to Hazard.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 29, 2012, 09:03:16 PM
I-26 through Virginia and Kentucky.
This has never been seriously considered by anyone official. It's just a "fictional highways" pipe dream and is totally not needed. The existing four-lane US 23 works just fine to serve this corridor.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 29, 2012, 09:27:47 PM
The Newberg-Dundee Bypass in Oregon (Oregon 99W), however at the current rate of progress the "Columbia River Crossing" (replacement of the Interstate Bridge/I-5 between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA) might be up there too.
They're already tearing down houses in the ROW for the bypass in Newberg, so I think it will eventually get built. It just seems like it will never get done!
But I'm starting to agree with you on the CRC . . . .
In Colorado: Some 470 northwest Denver bypass completing the loop.
In Utah: As was mentioned on a thread about a year ago, a proposal to connect/extend I-17 from Flagstaff, through Moab to I-70 then up towards Salt Lake City.
Quote from: xonhulu on July 29, 2012, 11:28:29 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 29, 2012, 09:27:47 PM
The Newberg-Dundee Bypass in Oregon (Oregon 99W), however at the current rate of progress the "Columbia River Crossing" (replacement of the Interstate Bridge/I-5 between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA) might be up there too.
They're already tearing down houses in the ROW for the bypass in Newberg, so I think it will eventually get built. It just seems like it will never get done!
But I'm starting to agree with you on the CRC . . . .
I'm hoping the CRC DOESN'T get built myself. The project deserves to die for the planners failing to account for and outright ignoring the Coast Guard and commercial river traffic that require the Interstate Bridge to be raised to its full 178' clearance in favor of coddling the Pearson Air Field -- which doesn't have problems with the current Interstate Bridge as is!
Speaking of I-5, though... here's one I don't think I'll see fixed anytime soon: The Eastbank Freeway bottleneck.
QuoteSpeaking of I-5, though... here's one I don't think I'll see fixed anytime soon: The Eastbank Freeway bottleneck.
After several trips to Portland, I think it'd be nice to see the CRC complete. I-5 is such a vital corridor that not making this change is only going to lead to increased bottlenecks daily in North Portland. I'd say the afternoon traffic on that stretch is some of the worst I've seen, and that's coming from a resident of southern California! :biggrin:
On that note....will Oregon ever make a freeway that has more than 3 lanes in each direction? I know there are a few places where extra lanes are added for an interchange, but will there ever be any long stretches of 8 lane freeways? Will I-5 in the Terwilliger curves always be substandard? Will I-5 in Portland narrow down to 2 lanes by the Rose Garden always? I think even with a population swell, the freeways will remain unchanged.
In southeastern PA:
US 202 as a continuous limited-access highway from the DE state line to the NJ state line.
West Philadelphia Expressway
Cobbs Creek & Crosstown (South St.) Expressway (I-695)
Lansdowne Expressway
Woodhaven Expressway Extension (PA 63)
Manayunk Expressway
US 1 as a continuous limited-access highway between Kennett Square and Media
A wider replacement bridge for the Burlington-Bristol Bridge
Further west, US 30 upgraded to a limited-access highway between Lancaster (PA 462) and Coatesville (Between Bus 30 merge and PA 10)
PA 41 between US 1 and US 30
In Massachusetts:
A highway connector linking MA 128 (just east of I-95) to Salem
A highway connector linking the above-Salem Connector to Vinnin Square (Salem/Swampscott/Marblehead line)
Northeast Expressway extension between Revere & Peabody (the originally-planned I-95)
US 1 between MA 60 in Revere to I-95 North (beyond I-95/MA 128 interchange) in Peabody upgraded to a limited-access highway
Southwest Expressway extension between Canton & Boston (also the originally-planned I-95)
The Inner Belt (originally-planned I-695)
A direct highway link between I-90 (Mass Pike) and the Worcester Regional Airport.
A connector highway linking MA 25 and MA 3 just north of Cape Cod
The so-called Boston Bypass (BB circa late 80s) that would have paralleled the Southeast Expressway (I-93)
US 3 south of I-95 built or upgraded to a limited-access highway
MA 2 freeway extended from the Alewife Station (Cambridge/Arlington) to either I-93 or I-90 (Mass Pike)
MA 146 completely upgraded to a limited-access highway
In Rhode Island:
The Burma Road corridor along the Aquidneck Island (Portsmouth/Middletown/Newport) upgraded to an expressway (RI 24 extension/originally-planned I-895)
A parallel span to the Mount Hope Bridge (RI 114 - part of orginal I-895 plan)
RI 138 freeway extended west of US 1 cloverleaf (part of I-895 plan)
US 6 freeway extended west of I-295 (old I-84 planned extension)
RI 146 completely upgraded to a limited-access highway
You do realize the OP said roads that are seriously proposed, right? The majority of those Massachusetts roads you mentioned were either canceled decades ago for good or I, for one, have never even seen proposed anywhere before.
Quote from: xonhulu on July 29, 2012, 11:28:29 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 29, 2012, 09:27:47 PM
The Newberg-Dundee Bypass in Oregon (Oregon 99W), however at the current rate of progress the "Columbia River Crossing" (replacement of the Interstate Bridge/I-5 between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA) might be up there too.
They're already tearing down houses in the ROW for the bypass in Newberg, so I think it will eventually get built. It just seems like it will never get done!
But I'm starting to agree with you on the CRC . . . .
Wouldn't one large earthquake take care of the Interstate Bridge and hasten the construction of the CRC? Of course, if Portland were to experience a large earthquake, the loss of the Interstate Bridge would probably be the least of your worries... :-(
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 30, 2012, 01:04:03 PM
You do realize the OP said roads that are seriously proposed, right? The majority of those Massachusetts roads you mentioned were either canceled decades ago for good or I, for one, have never even seen proposed anywhere before.
The only Massachusetts road upgrade on PHILBOS' list that to my knowledge has not been officially cancelled is the US 1 Revere Route 60 to Lynnfield I-95 upgrade. However, it is unlikely that the original plan to depress the mainline US 1 in a trench, with cantilevered service roads to provide business access, will ever happen. There is a plan afoot to widen the MA 60 to MA 99 section to three lanes each way, but that is apparently contingent on a private development going in at the old Saugus quarry site.
Much of the remaining embankment (the part that didn't collapse in the mid-1970s) that would have carried I-95 (Northeast Expressway) across the Lynn-Saugus Marsh has since been removed - the sand was "re-planted" onto Revere Beach in the 1990s.
Also, the "Boston Bypass" (B.B.) was never an official design sanctioned by either MassHighway or the City of Boston, or any local government group. Rather, the idea, which calls for a long bypass causeway crossing Boston Harbor and part of Massachusetts Bay, had been proposed by a North End resident who objected to the Big Dig.
As for other planned MA improvements that are unlikely to see the light of day, I nominate these two:
I-95 (MA 128)/I-93 Woburn interchange conversion to directional flyover ramps - extensive local opposition.
I-95 (MA 128)Reading to Peabody widening to four lanes each way - funding issues, some local opposition and recent sound wall installations.
deathtopumpkins, I only listed those cancelled projects because the long-cancelled Somerset County Expressway (original I-95) in NJ was mentioned without rebuke.
And since someone (not sure in jest or not) mentioned the PA Turnpike/I-95 interchange; I would also add upgrades to the other I-95 (MA 128)/I-93 (US 1) interchange (to full fly-over ramps) in Canton.
You forgot the Pulaski Highway!! :-)
[freeway connecting I-95/Betsy Ross Br. to US-1 Roosevelt Blvd.]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In southeastern PA:
US 202 as a continuous limited-access highway from the DE state line to the NJ state line.
West Philadelphia Expressway
Cobbs Creek & Crosstown (South St.) Expressway (I-695)
Lansdowne Expressway
Woodhaven Expressway Extension (PA 63)
Manayunk Expressway
US 1 as a continuous limited-access highway between Kennett Square and Media
A wider replacement bridge for the Burlington-Bristol Bridge
Further west, US 30 upgraded to a limited-access highway between Lancaster (PA 462) and Coatesville (Between Bus 30 merge and PA 10)
PA 41 between US 1 and US 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
US-31 in Berrien and Ottawa counties
US-127 completely upgraded to freeway between St. Johns and Ithaca
The Jackson-Toledo corridor
US-131 south of Kalamazoo
Is it just me or do NIMBYs prefer traffic jams on existing roads and do not realize that the road(s) they are blocking may actually HELP them?
the US 7 freeway between Norwalk and Danbury and beyond
How about many of the NJ Roads like US 206 and NJ 31 that need widening in many areas. Then US 9 south of Lakewood is in dyer need of widening that will never happen.
I'm starting to wonder if we'll see the Gilcrease Expressway/Turnpike in Tulsa completed. Also, I doubt the Tisdale will be extended to Skiatook. The Riverside Freeway is dead which is good. I'm pro-freeway 99% of the time, and the Riverside Freeway would help me get downtown faster, but it would have been too damaging to the area.
The Foothills Parkway around the north side of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
It's safe to say that any I-17 northern extension to I-15 in Utah isn't going to happen for a long time, regardless of what side of Lake Powell it stays on. Maybe it's a possibility, but that's a ways off. I'll probably be on my deathbed by the time it happens.
Also, any east-west Interstate* from I-15 to I-17, should 17 go through eastern Utah, might not happen in my lifetime--and I'm one of the younger people on these boards!
The most likely case that rural southern Utah/northern Arizona (east of Hurricane, UT) gets any freeway (Interstate or otherwise) is an east extension of the Southern Parkway (UT-7) that acts as an east-west spur to I-15, but there's not much need for it.
*Some on these boards call it I-48, locals refer to it as I-66.
Houston, Texas highways:
--Completed loop of the Grand Parkway. It took them almost 30 years to complete Beltway 8.
--SH249 from Spring Cypress to FM1774.
--SH288 "express lanes/toll lanes".
--Completed Gulf Freeway(started in the 40s, still under construction).
--"Katy freeway" treatment of North freeway. Added 5 total lanes and its still congested, what other room is left?
CT:
--Merritt Parkway to US7 interchange.
--"Super 7" from Norwalk to Danbury
--ANY double deck, tunnel, bridge in the sound extension of I-95 in Fairfield county.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2012, 05:54:12 PM
The Foothills Parkway around the north side of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
You're probably right. Somehow I find that more depressing than any of the urban highways mentioned so far.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on July 30, 2012, 10:08:55 AM
QuoteSpeaking of I-5, though... here's one I don't think I'll see fixed anytime soon: The Eastbank Freeway bottleneck.
After several trips to Portland, I think it'd be nice to see the CRC complete. I-5 is such a vital corridor that not making this change is only going to lead to increased bottlenecks daily in North Portland. I'd say the afternoon traffic on that stretch is some of the worst I've seen, and that's coming from a resident of southern California! :biggrin:
The main bottleneck -- Delta Park -- has been eliminated. The bridge itself isn't much of an issue (until the span goes up...), but that doesn't happen too terribly often because it is an Interstate. This leaves two bottlenecks on I-5: Salmon Creek/Hazel Dell to I-205 (and WSDOT is actively working on eliminating it) and the Eastbank Freeway. ODOT wants to fix this, but has no timeline in place.
The CRC is simply a boondoggle that doesn't serve the needs of all the parties (notably, the Coast Guard and several manufactures that need the Interstate Bridge's clearance of 170'). Kill the project and fix the Eastbank. Build another Columbia River bridge, between Camas and Troutdale, for example.
QuoteOn that note....will Oregon ever make a freeway that has more than 3 lanes in each direction? I know there are a few places where extra lanes are added for an interchange, but will there ever be any long stretches of 8 lane freeways? Will I-5 in the Terwilliger curves always be substandard? Will I-5 in Portland narrow down to 2 lanes by the Rose Garden always? I think even with a population swell, the freeways will remain unchanged.
Don't count on long continuous 8 lane stretches in Oregon. It's unlikely they'll every be needed, either.
Realigning the Curves is on ODOT's long-term to-do list, as is the Eastbank Freeway. Just don't hold your breath.
Quote from: xonhulu on July 29, 2012, 11:28:29 PMThey're already tearing down houses in the ROW for the bypass in Newberg, so I think it will eventually get built. It just seems like it will never get done!
They tore down houses for the Mount Hood Expressway, too. :-)
Today they are nicely landscaped parking lots popular for "For Sale" cars, drug dealers, prostitutes, TriMet park-and-ride lots, and sometimes for kids to ride their skateboards in.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 31, 2012, 12:11:06 AMfix the Eastbank
I bet the CRC will be done before the Eastbank. The City of Portland would rather eliminate the freeway between the Marquam Bridge (and tear down that bridge) and I-84 and turn it into another Waterfront Park, and force I-5 traffic onto what is now I-405.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 31, 2012, 12:33:13 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on July 29, 2012, 11:28:29 PMThey're already tearing down houses in the ROW for the bypass in Newberg, so I think it will eventually get built. It just seems like it will never get done!
They tore down houses for the Mount Hood Expressway, too. :-)
Today they are nicely landscaped parking lots popular for "For Sale" cars, drug dealers, prostitutes, TriMet park-and-ride lots, and sometimes for kids to ride their skateboards in.
I'm aware of only five properties that got razed for the Mt Hood Freeway -- three became Piccolo Park between SE 27th and 28th Aves where SE Ivon St would exist if it were a through street; the other two (somewhere between SE 39th and 50th Aves near SE Clinton St) became a community garden.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on July 31, 2012, 12:47:35 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 31, 2012, 12:11:06 AMfix the Eastbank
I bet the CRC will be done before the Eastbank. The City of Portland would rather eliminate the freeway between the Marquam Bridge (and tear down that bridge) and I-84 and turn it into another Waterfront Park, and force I-5 traffic onto what is now I-405.
That was under Mayor Vera Katz. Neither Mayor Tom Potter nor Mayor Sam Adams have made any real position regarding the Eastbank, and the group commissioned to study the I-5/405 Loop concluded that it was too vital for the city's economy to tear down, but it's current form was woefully inadequate. Their recommendation and preferred alternative was to reroute I-5 into a tunnel under the Willamette and the Inner Southeast Industrial District at around SE 7th-8th Aves -- roughly where Robert Moses had recommended the Inner Portland Loop back in '43. This also would have meant tunneling the Stadium Freeway out to SW Park Ave (SW 8th), and likely the Baldock Freeway to the southern point of the Ross Island Interchange at the northbound Exit 299A. The Marquam Bridge itself would be retained for local traffic (and presumably, bikes and pedestrians would have one of the two decks to themselves).
Another alternative included turning the loop into the world's largest traffic circle.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 31, 2012, 06:30:44 AM
I'm aware of only five properties that got razed for the Mt Hood Freeway -- three became Piccolo Park between SE 27th and 28th Aves where SE Ivon St would exist if it were a through street; the other two (somewhere between SE 39th and 50th Aves near SE Clinton St) became a community garden.
What about where those parking lots are, from Foster out towards 82nd? On the south side of Powell?
Quote from: ftballfan on July 30, 2012, 03:41:49 PM
Is it just me or do NIMBYs prefer traffic jams on existing roads and do not realize that the road(s) they are blocking may actually HELP them?
Most anti-highway NIMBYs (and elected officials that pander to them) show up at public meetings and hearings regarding highway projects the same way that everyone else does - driving a single-occupant vehicle. A few will make a show of car-pooling to the event, but most do not.
The "reasoning" they seem to use involves the following:
(1)
Other people can take mass transit (and funding for the highway project in question should be diverted to transit);
(2)
Other people can live in "transit-oriented" neighborhoods (but don't build any apartments in my backyard);
(3) The proposed project is "destructive" and other (usually unspecified) roads can carry the load or be upgraded (though the same people or groups are likely to show up to protest proposals to upgrade arterial roads);
(4) The same persons and groups will also (on occasion) cravenly oppose transit projects and demand that they be relocated away from their homes; and
(5) "Induced" demand for highway capacity (in other words, the proposed highway project will "make traffic worse") is a favorite argument.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on August 01, 2012, 03:44:09 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 31, 2012, 06:30:44 AM
I'm aware of only five properties that got razed for the Mt Hood Freeway -- three became Piccolo Park between SE 27th and 28th Aves where SE Ivon St would exist if it were a through street; the other two (somewhere between SE 39th and 50th Aves near SE Clinton St) became a community garden.
What about where those parking lots are, from Foster out towards 82nd? On the south side of Powell?
Mmm, forgot about those.
For those unfamiliar with the Mt Hood Freeway's (I-80N/US 26) routing, it began at the Marquam Bridge's (I-5) transition from the two-deck structure to the Eastbank Freeway in a set up similar to the I-405/US 30 interchange at the Fremont Bridge's southwestern end, ran southeast to SE Ivon St (one block south of SE Division St) at SE 12th Ave, with an interchange at OR 99E, then east to about SE 45th Ave, southeast to SE Powell Blvd (and would have run in a similar setup to I-35W/I-94 in Minneapolis with the proposed Laurelhurst Freeway, a routing for I-205), then east along Powell to what became I-205. This would have been an 8-lane freeway, complete with bus lanes, and would have disrupted the neighborhood fabrics. I agree with the post above that NIMBYs are counterproductive to a fault, but this is one case where they were right (though not their 'it will be obsolete already when it gets built argument) (and I'll even agree that projects like Manhattan's Midtown Expressway (I-495) and most of San Francisco's proposals would have harmed more than helped).
While I find traffic along Division to be particularly annoying during rush hour -- it's a fairly narrow two lane artery out to SE 60th Ave -- and SE Powell Blvd is fairly congested out to SE 39th Ave, the neighborhood's grid makes it easy to skirt by the traffic. The Mt Hood Freeway would have disrupted this.
That said, it may behoove ODOT and Portland to seriously looking at building the freeway, Big Dig style, and put it underground, preserving the neighborhood and street grids.
I-85 extended to I-20/59.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2012, 04:05:09 PMMost anti-highway NIMBYs (and elected officials that pander to them) show up at public meetings and hearings regarding highway projects the same way that everyone else does - driving a single-occupant vehicle. A few will make a show of car-pooling to the event, but most do not.
Reminds me of a "high capacity transit" meeting I went to some time ago, whereas I rode a bus to the meeting, most of the meeting facilitators from the transit agency and the MPO...drove. The library's parking lot was a sea of "Exempt" license plated vehicles, many of which were sport utility vehicles.
One of the facilitators had the gall to tell me that the only purpose of a bus was to feed rail...then I pointed out the main bus line (line, not system) through our town served more towns and cities than our entire light rail system (multiple lines).
710 Extension: Been hearing about various studies/proposals for years. I don't think its going to happen.
East LA Interchange Modernization: Extra lanes and carpool lane interchanges would surely bring it up to 21st century standards
Albuquerque Beltway
Quote from: sp_redelectric on August 02, 2012, 12:21:06 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2012, 04:05:09 PMMost anti-highway NIMBYs (and elected officials that pander to them) show up at public meetings and hearings regarding highway projects the same way that everyone else does - driving a single-occupant vehicle. A few will make a show of car-pooling to the event, but most do not.
Reminds me of a "high capacity transit" meeting I went to some time ago, whereas I rode a bus to the meeting, most of the meeting facilitators from the transit agency and the MPO...drove. The library's parking lot was a sea of "Exempt" license plated vehicles, many of which were sport utility vehicles.
Promoters of passenger rail transit will frequently make claims that one rail line can carry as much traffic as a 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 14-lane freeway (you pick the one you like best), even though such claims are usually questionable - at best.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on August 02, 2012, 12:21:06 AM
One of the facilitators had the gall to tell me that the only purpose of a bus was to feed rail...then I pointed out the main bus line (line, not system) through our town served more towns and cities than our entire light rail system (multiple lines).
For many railfans and rail promoters,
that is the
only use of a transit bus (never mind that forced transfers from bus to rail make the trip slower and less-convenient).
But there's also a cynical side of this. Rail transit is an
expensive form of transportation (to build, maintain and operate), and those cynics see rail as a way to consume transportation dollars that might otherwise be spent to maintain or improve the highway network.
Ralifans are generally more open-minded about other modes than your average roadgeek. Hell, above we see a roadgeek referencing the old lie that roads pay for themselves.
The limiting factor on all of these projects is financing. Unless that issue changes, most of these new projects will never see the light of day.
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 08:21:07 AM
Ralifans are generally more open-minded about other modes than your average roadgeek. Hell, above we see a roadgeek referencing the old lie that roads pay for themselves.
Please tell us what percentage of operating costs to run and (partially) maintain rail transit service in the United States is collected from fare-paying patrons.
Then please tell us what percentage of capital costs to build and maintain rail transit service in the United States is collected from fare-paying patrons.
Please tell us what percentage of operating costs to run and (partially) maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Then please tell us what percentage of capital costs to build and maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 10:32:19 AM
Please tell us what percentage of operating costs to run and (partially) maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Then please tell us what percentage of capital costs to build and maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
At least here in Wisconsin, it's 100%. I pay it every time I refuel the car and renew its plates.
Mike
US 12 bypass of Sauk City, WI.
US 2/53 bypass of Superior, WI
A solution to the development and resultant traffic signals along US 53/63 at Trego, WI. Pretty much defeated the purpose of having a freeway/ expressway.
Anything WI needs from IL to help improve the roads connecting those two states...
Quote from: mgk920 on August 02, 2012, 10:48:55 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 10:32:19 AM
Please tell us what percentage of operating costs to run and (partially) maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Then please tell us what percentage of capital costs to build and maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
At least here in Wisconsin, it's 100%. I pay it every time I refuel the car and renew its plates.
Nope. Nowhere near 100%, unless you use bagger math.
While it's different to find an unbiased source (of course all the public transit advocates are going to cite lower figures than highway advocates), a quick little bit of research I did out of my own curiosity revealed that roads pay for about 50% of their cost through gas tax, etc.
In fact, one source even proposed that we've spent $600,000,000,000 (that's right, six hundred billion) more on roads than we've taken in through taxes and fees in the past 60 years.
Transit is fine for dense cities like New York, but it will never work in a sprawled out city like Kansas City or Tulsa. They would have to have thousands of buses for the system to be usable. There is no place to build train tracks, so rail is out of the question.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 02, 2012, 12:04:05 PM
While it's different to find an unbiased source (of course all the public transit advocates are going to cite lower figures than highway advocates), a quick little bit of research I did out of my own curiosity revealed that roads pay for about 50% of their cost through gas tax, etc.
In fact, one source even proposed that we've spent $600,000,000,000 (that's right, six hundred billion) more on roads than we've taken in through taxes and fees in the past 60 years.
I question if that's based on the gas tax only, because fact is, there are only two sources of revenue for roads: taxes/user fees, and borrowing.
Quote from: Steve on August 02, 2012, 10:17:00 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 02, 2012, 12:04:05 PM
While it's different to find an unbiased source (of course all the public transit advocates are going to cite lower figures than highway advocates), a quick little bit of research I did out of my own curiosity revealed that roads pay for about 50% of their cost through gas tax, etc.
In fact, one source even proposed that we've spent $600,000,000,000 (that's right, six hundred billion) more on roads than we've taken in through taxes and fees in the past 60 years.
I question if that's based on the gas tax only, because fact is, there are only two sources of revenue for roads: taxes/user fees, and borrowing.
The source specifically claimed it was both the gas tax and user fees, but like I said, it's hard to find an accurate source.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 02, 2012, 12:04:05 PM
$600,000,000,000 (that's right, six hundred billion)
that's not that big a number. twice that, and you still only get about ten years of empire building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 02, 2012, 10:18:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 02, 2012, 10:17:00 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 02, 2012, 12:04:05 PM
While it's different to find an unbiased source (of course all the public transit advocates are going to cite lower figures than highway advocates), a quick little bit of research I did out of my own curiosity revealed that roads pay for about 50% of their cost through gas tax, etc.
In fact, one source even proposed that we've spent $600,000,000,000 (that's right, six hundred billion) more on roads than we've taken in through taxes and fees in the past 60 years.
I question if that's based on the gas tax only, because fact is, there are only two sources of revenue for roads: taxes/user fees, and borrowing.
The source specifically claimed it was both the gas tax and user fees, but like I said, it's hard to find an accurate source.
There are other taxes that flow into roads. Pet projects can draw from a lot of different pots.
Since Texas loves its highways and freeways. I would venture to guess most money is from borrowing since this state's ever upward debt is due to the Infinite City Sprawls or ICS, like Houston and it's Metro Area are doing. Like being 65 miles out from downtown Houston and still consider is Metro Area. Public rails will not work, and the bus system is more than useless. Since the buses don't go into the burbs due to an odd NIMBYs that feel that brings in crime. So, one may need to drive 20 to 30 miles to the nearest bus stop to get on a bus to go into downtown.
I know that the state still gets money for I-xx and I-xxx roads, but that money isn't like 1958. It explains why they want to make an I-14 or I-510 on US290 and I know why they are gun ho about building and labeling I-69 ASAP. Not to mention the state highway projects like SH99, the Cosby freeway, and toll projects that will "pay for themselves" like Toll-49, but for a state screaming about being financially responsible, where is the money coming from for all this building?
Speaking of rails, I think this thread has been de-railed. :meh:
Quote from: BigRedDog on August 03, 2012, 12:44:49 AM
Speaking of rails, I think this thread has been de-railed. :meh:
I'll get this thread back on track:
1. I don't think Tennessee Route 840's northern arc will ever get built. The road planners really wanted this built, and numerous studies were conducted, but now the state has the northern arc on hold. If ever built, 840 would be 186 miles long.
2. I-335 in Minneapolis will never be built.
3. New Jersey says that I-95 will no longer have that infamous gap and now be a full interstate in 2017. I'll believe it only when I see it.
Happy Roadgeeking,
NYYPhil777 ;-)
The off and on Raleigh-Norfolk freeway proposal. US 219 from Salamanca, NY to Springville, NY. I-72 across Missouri (interstate grade).
Quote from: bugo on August 02, 2012, 12:29:06 PM
Transit is fine for dense cities like New York, but it will never work in a sprawled out city like Kansas City or Tulsa. They would have to have thousands of buses for the system to be usable. There is no place to build train tracks, so rail is out of the question.
Ditto that with Los Angeles/the San Fernando Valley/ Ventura County/ Orange County/ Inland Empire, with the region being characterized by large amounts of urban sprawl. I'd really like the frequency of MetroLink to be much more frequent and a possible merger of the LACMTA Subway with MetroLink to form a hybrid rapid-transit system for whole the LA area, somewhat similar to the capabilities of BART. This idea could be considered for large metro areas in the West such as the Bay Area, PDX, Seattle, SLC, Phoenix, Albuquerque, DFW, San Antonio and Houston, which (except for the Bay area) are lacking a proper rapid-transit network.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/08/07/27762/what-happened-710-freeway-extension-project-los-an/
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 10:32:19 AM
Please tell us what percentage of operating costs to run and (partially) maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Then please tell us what percentage of capital costs to build and maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Umm, 100%. The gas tax is a toll.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 08, 2012, 06:57:56 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 10:32:19 AM
Please tell us what percentage of operating costs to run and (partially) maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Then please tell us what percentage of capital costs to build and maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Umm, 100%. The gas tax is a toll.
That's BS and you know it.
I've seen figures saying that tolls/taxes cover about 52% the cost of maintaining/building the highway system, the rest coming out of general revenue.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-07/gas-tax-not-enough-to-fund-roads/53228510/1
A complete beltway of Hartford would be nice. The only portions ever built were:
1 - I-291 between Windsor and Manchester (opened in 1994).
2 - CT Route 9 from I-91 in Cromwell west to the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15) in Berlin, then north from downtown New Britain through Newington and Farmington (completed in stages between 1989-90 and then in 1991-92).
There's been talk about extending CT Route 9 northward through West Hartford to maybe Bloomfield. Too bad there's a few nasty reservoirs in the way. :(
Quote from: pctech on August 08, 2012, 02:04:37 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-07/gas-tax-not-enough-to-fund-roads/53228510/1
There's a picture of Obama so it must be a lie.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 08, 2012, 02:05:11 PM
A complete beltway of Hartford would be nice. The only portions ever built were:
1 - I-291 between Windsor and Manchester
2 - CT Route 9 in portions of Cromwell, Berlin, New Britain and Farmington.
There's been talk about extending CT Route 9 northward through West Hartford to maybe Bloomfield. Too bad there's a few nasty reservoirs in the way. :(
CT-218 in north Hartford looks like it was built where I-291 would have gone.
Quote from: Revive 755 link=topic=7338.msg164446#msg164446
* The IL 3 - IL 149 four lane corridor from the southern IL 3/IL 146 junction to Murphysboro
Is this one really necessary anyway?? Doesn't the climbing lane suffice just fine?
Quote from: ftballfan on August 08, 2012, 03:38:42 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 08, 2012, 02:05:11 PM
A complete beltway of Hartford would be nice. The only portions ever built were:
1 - I-291 between Windsor and Manchester
2 - CT Route 9 in portions of Cromwell, Berlin, New Britain and Farmington.
There's been talk about extending CT Route 9 northward through West Hartford to maybe Bloomfield. Too bad there's a few nasty reservoirs in the way. :(
CT-218 in north Hartford looks like it was built where I-291 would have gone.
Other way around, I-291 would have roughly followed 218.
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 07:06:28 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 08, 2012, 06:57:56 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 10:32:19 AM
Please tell us what percentage of operating costs to run and (partially) maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Then please tell us what percentage of capital costs to build and maintain roads in the United States is collected from toll-paying patrons.
Umm, 100%. The gas tax is a toll.
That's BS and you know it.
What makes you say that? In Kentucky, at least, 100 percent of gas tax revenues go into the Road Fund. No General Fund dollars go into KYTC's operations.
And we all know that KYTC maintains every road in the state.
^^^ SMH
Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2012, 10:05:01 PM
What makes you say that? In Kentucky, at least, 100 percent of gas tax revenues go into the Road Fund. No General Fund dollars go into KYTC's operations.
What makes the individual say that, in this thread and 100s of other, here and on MTR, is a desire to be argumenative. You and I know, and could easily post academic level links to, the well accepted fact that the state and federal fuel taxes fund highways (and, BTW, transit) in the USA. In my state, as yours, and virtually all, 100% of highway opperations are funded by fuel taxes, and that is standard throughout the country.
However, we are dealing with a person who wants to engage in a reasonable and thoughtful discussion of issues. We are dealing with a person who (on 100s of websites and newsgroups on all manner of subjects) wants to do the internet equilivant of yelling "NOT" really loudly, and actually thinks that is a comeback. A person who wants to spew conspiricy theory level irrationality and call it thought.
^^^ SMH
Anyway...
-The rest of I-99: north of 80 and south of the Turnpike
-The Goat Path Expressway in Lancaster
-Maybe the rest of Woodhaven Road in northeast Philly. Maybe.
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 08:06:51 AM
^^^ SMH
SMH?
That's a new acronym on me. Do you have any reasoned thought to go with whatever you are saying?
:hmmm:
Mike
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2012, 10:03:46 AM
-The rest of I-99: north of 80 and south of the Turnpike
I don't believe there are any plans to extend I-99 south of the Turnpike (I-70/76). Are there? Is so, I'm assuming that it would essentially upgrade the existing US 220 corridor down to I-68 in MD.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2012, 10:03:46 AM
-The Goat Path Expressway in Lancaster
If you mean Lancaster
County, as opposed to just the city; are you referring to the proposed PA 23 Expressway that would extend beyond (northeast of) US 30? Near Leola, along PA 772, one can see ghost ramps and underpasses for the unbuilt expressway.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2012, 10:03:46 AM
-Maybe the rest of Woodhaven Road in northeast Philly. Maybe.
I already mentioned that one in an earlier post.
Could we get an explanation of what SMH means, please?
SMH = Shaking My Head. Not that I use it myself.
I second the mention of Tennessee (Interstate?) 840's northern half. It looks like the terrain is too rough for it to be built, nor do I see any real justification for it.
Not only that, but the southern arc of TN 840 is just now set to be complete this year, more than a good decade from the first construction.
The Goat Path Expressway (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/harrisburg_meet.html), as many of the other road projects cited in this thread, falls into the category of dead/cancelled projects. I thought the intent of this thread was for roads that remain planned but with outrageous time tables.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 09, 2012, 10:12:29 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 08:06:51 AM
^^^ SMH
SMH?
That's a new acronym on me. Do you have any reasoned thought to go with whatever you are saying?
:hmmm:
Mike
It's an initialism.
Another link about revenue woes for road building.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-03/states-motorist-taxes/55367022/1
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on August 09, 2012, 12:28:41 PM
SMH = Shaking My Head. Not that I use it myself.
I second the mention of Tennessee (Interstate?) 840's northern half. It looks like the terrain is too rough for it to be built, nor do I see any real justification for it.
Not only that, but the southern arc of TN 840 is just now set to be complete this year, more than a good decade from the first construction.
The northern half's projcted corridor area is full of beautiful terrain, and is a place that would be ruined should Tenn-840 North ever get built. I would not want to see a significant part of Middle Tennessee be destroyed by a highway project that locals around Nashville claim will make them look like another Atlanta.
As much as I love new freeways and ideas for them, I can't say I advocate Tenn-840 North. So it's probably a good thing TennDOT has the northern arc on hold.
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 07:25:30 AM
And we all know that KYTC maintains every road in the state.
Counties and cities get gas tax revenue for their roads through KYTC. There's a rural and municipal roads program that allocates funding to local governments based on population and road mileage.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 09, 2012, 10:12:29 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 08:06:51 AM
^^^ SMH
SMH?
That's a new acronym on me. Do you have any reasoned thought to go with whatever you are saying?
:hmmm:
Mike
As others have stated, it means "Shaking My Head." That particular poster uses it because he/she/it is a (insults originally typed but deleted by author), and in response to me using it on the thread where someone else suggested that cities should annex suburbs because suburb dwellers
leach leech off cities and derive all the benefits without paying for them. If you'll notice, lately his sig is always in response to something I've posted.
Quote from: Alex on August 09, 2012, 12:52:11 PM
The Goat Path Expressway (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/harrisburg_meet.html), as many of the other road projects cited in this thread, falls into the category of dead/cancelled projects.
Thanks for the info. regarding the Goat Path Expressway.
Quote from: Alex on August 09, 2012, 12:52:11 PM
I thought the intent of this thread was for roads that remain planned but with outrageous time tables.
The OP did
not specify such.
If that indeed was his intent (remember, not all of us are mind-readers here nor personally know the OP); he should have stated such.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2012, 10:03:46 AM
Anyway...
-The rest of I-99: north of 80 and south of the Turnpike
Actually, it's almost done north of Williamsport (just waiting on a segment under construction in NY). Too bad PennDOT won't sign both segments while waiting on the US 220 upgrades between I-80 and Williamsport (what's really shameful is that not many upgrades are needed; PennDOT just so happens to be taking this project less seriously than the PTC takes the I-95 interchange).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 09, 2012, 12:14:24 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2012, 10:03:46 AM
-The rest of I-99: north of 80 and south of the Turnpike
I don't believe there are any plans to extend I-99 south of the Turnpike (I-70/76). Are there? Is so, I'm assuming that it would essentially upgrade the existing US 220 corridor down to I-68 in MD.
At one time it was indeed proposed to go to I-68, though it never left the "this might be something to look into" stage.
I second the I-85 western extension (http://www.i85extension.com/) from Montgomery to Cuba, AL at I-20/59.
I also don't think the Tuscaloosa Eastern Bypass (http://aldotapps.dot.state.al.us/TEB/TEBhome.html) will be finished either, at least not in its current form.
The Birmingham Northern Beltline (http://aldotapps.dot.state.al.us/BNB/) would be another one that I doubt I will ever see completely built.
The Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta highway isn't gonna happen, either. The city of Huntsville is still planning for it, but I just don't think Mississippi will play ball and Georgia has enough to worry about in Atlanta.
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 10, 2012, 01:13:36 PM
The Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta highway isn't gonna happen, either ... Georgia has enough to worry about in Atlanta.
Agreed, plus the Alabama state line to I-75 section of the M-H-A highway has been viewed by the anti-Northern Arc activists as a back-door "first step" for the Northern Arc and any serious attempt to build it would be vigorously contested.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 10, 2012, 01:22:53 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 10, 2012, 01:13:36 PM
The Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta highway isn't gonna happen, either ... Georgia has enough to worry about in Atlanta.
Agreed, plus the Alabama state line to I-75 section of the M-H-A highway has been viewed by the anti-Northern Arc activists as a back-door "first step" for the Northern Arc and any serious attempt to build it would be vigorously contested.
I could possibly see that being built, which may at least give the project more attention in Alabama. Currently only the northern part of the state feels it is a priority. I really don't think Mississippi is interested, however.
Quote from: deanej on August 10, 2012, 12:14:29 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2012, 10:03:46 AM
-The rest of I-99: north of 80 and south of the Turnpike
Actually, it's almost done north of Williamsport (just waiting on a segment under construction in NY). Too bad PennDOT won't sign both segments while waiting on the US 220 upgrades between I-80 and Williamsport (what's really shameful is that not many upgrades are needed
While I certainly wouldn't bet money on it, once NY is done with what they have to do, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Williamsport-Painted Post gets signed as I-99 not too long after. Even if PennDOT
would be content to wait years (decades?) leaving it as just US-15, New York might push to get the I-99 shields up rather quickly.
Obviously, I have NO inside information to base that on, but most of the press releases / articles I've read out of NY in the last couple of years (on the current work, and the I-86 interchange project before that) touted them as bringing I-99 to New York. If PennDOT had a firm, reasonable timetable for I-80 <-> Williamsport, waiting would be one thing. But it's languishing in a state of "deferred" limbo might just lead them to not wait at all. And based on the signings of I-86, New York has no problem with disconnected interstates.
Some motivation from NY, and possibly some PA State Lawmakers from that northern part of the state, might just convince PennDOT to sign it as I-99.
Wasn't a piece of the Rome Bypass portion of this MHA highway recently built?
Quote from: NE2 on August 10, 2012, 01:56:29 PM
Wasn't a piece of the Rome Bypass portion of this MHA highway recently built?
I don't know if it's part of the MHA, but part of it is built, and other than U-turns in the median, it appears to be built to interstate standards (at least the east-west portion of it) for if more of the road is ever built. Here is a Bing Maps link: http://binged.it/O92uWH
Quote from: deanej on August 10, 2012, 12:14:29 PM
At one time it was indeed proposed to go to I-68, though it never left the "this might be something to look into" stage.
Actually, what happened was Pennsylvania diverted the ARC money that was to be used for the upgrade of US 220 to I-99 between Bedford and the state line, and used it for a portion of US 322 (I think between I-80 and Port Matilda).
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 10, 2012, 01:54:03 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 10, 2012, 12:14:29 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2012, 10:03:46 AM
-The rest of I-99: north of 80 and south of the Turnpike
Actually, it's almost done north of Williamsport (just waiting on a segment under construction in NY). Too bad PennDOT won't sign both segments while waiting on the US 220 upgrades between I-80 and Williamsport (what's really shameful is that not many upgrades are needed
While I certainly wouldn't bet money on it, once NY is done with what they have to do, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Williamsport-Painted Post gets signed as I-99 not too long after. Even if PennDOT would be content to wait years (decades?) leaving it as just US-15, New York might push to get the I-99 shields up rather quickly.
Obviously, I have NO inside information to base that on, but most of the press releases / articles I've read out of NY in the last couple of years (on the current work, and the I-86 interchange project before that) touted them as bringing I-99 to New York. If PennDOT had a firm, reasonable timetable for I-80 <-> Williamsport, waiting would be one thing. But it's languishing in a state of "deferred" limbo might just lead them to not wait at all. And based on the signings of I-86, New York has no problem with disconnected interstates.
Some motivation from NY, and possibly some PA State Lawmakers from that northern part of the state, might just convince PennDOT to sign it as I-99.
Funny thing about that eastern I-86 segment in Binghamton... it's barely signed and not in the route log. I suspect NYSDOT got it designated only because region 9 jumped the gun and erected a couple guide signs with I-86 shields on I-81 north and they were tired of covering the shields. I wouldn't be surprised if region 8 does the same thing in a few years with its covered-up shields.
NYSDOT also doesn't like leaving multiplexes like PennDOT does; region 6 in particular decommissioned a bit of NY 15 to remove the pointless I-390/I-86 multiplexes, and is in the process of removing NY 17 signs from I-86. NYSDOT has expressed a desire to decommission US 15 to Williamsport, but PennDOT doesn't want to, and AASHTO won't allow US 15 to end at the state line.
The Darien Gap in the Pan American Highway?
:hmmm:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 14, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
The Darien Gap in the Pan American Highway?
:hmmm:
Mike
I wouldn't totally count this one out. It has quite a bit of support.
Senator Keating Blvd, which is supposed to run between Clinton Ave and Winton Rd along I-590 and is still in the town plan. NYSDOT plans assume it will be done by 2040. It doesn't look like the town has any present motivation to get it done ever.
I definitely agree on I-73 and 74. There is roughly an ice cube's chance in Hell that either of those will go further north or west than the Carolinas.
Quote from: oldblue910 on October 19, 2012, 09:19:01 AM
I definitely agree on I-73 and 74. There is roughly an ice cube's chance in Hell that either of those will go further north or west than the Carolinas.
I would say I-81 at Roanoke, VA and the VA Line for I-74.
Agree on I-73, I-74, and I-66 [Kentucky used to have "future I-66" lines on its state map, but has recently removed them.]
To add a new one, I also doubt we will see the Makenzie Highway extension (http://www.dot.gov.nt.ca/_live/documents/content/MVH%20Overview%20Map.pdf)
There was also a proposal for a "Heartland Parkway" along KY 55 roughly half-way between I-65 and I-75, but I don't know if was seriously considered enough to be rightly included in this category. Same with I-175 between Chattanooga and Lexington.
I-66 was dead before it even started. I knew that thing would roll over. I think an extension of I-30 into KY would be built centuries before I-66 would even get funding.
6 Pages of Roads we won't see in our lifetime, and not once has the King of Them All has been mentioned:
<drum roll>
The I-70 "Breezewood Bypass". :bigass:
That would be an interchange none of us will live to see built.
The moon elevator.
The portion of the First Coast Outer Beltway(SR 23) from SR 21 to I-95 south of Jacksonville FL. The portion from I-10 to SR 21 is partially built and has construction but I dont think the toll revenues will meet expectations especially with a new bridge over the St Johns River at Green Cove Springs
I have two to add, both on US 29 in Virginia:
The Western Bypass (Charlottesville)
The Southern Extension of the Lynchburg/Madison Heights Bypass
There has been a revival of studies surrounding the Western Bypass, but I'm not holding my breath. I really hope that eventually maybe they'll be able to bypass the god-awful northern Charlottesville shopping strip. I feel like every time I drive on it, there's another traffic light and another mall being built.
As for the Lynchburg one, I don't think the demand is there. Sure, the wrong-way concurrency multiplex of US 29-460-501 (north-east-south and south-west-north) gets uncomfortably crowded, but with recent fixes to upgrade the developed section New-Jersey style (no left turns, jughandles, business access on one side of road), I don't know if the southern expressway is necessary. Plus, it would be a shot in the foot for Lynchburg economically (since thru traffic would be completely diverted from the city a couple of miles east) at its current size. At least now, all traffic is routed through the southern edge of the city (near all the typical chain restaurants and stores).
United States Route 0
As well as US 100. :no:
We have US 400, so I wouldn't be so sure...
we will probably never see another US Route V, unless Missouri screws up again.
Quote from: deanej on October 26, 2012, 10:05:58 AM
We have US 400, so I wouldn't be so sure...
Why did AASHTO approve a US 400? :-D
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 26, 2012, 11:21:25 AM
we will probably never see another US Route V, unless Missouri screws up again.
What...?
The western end of I-22...because of all the flip-flopping that's been going on in the Memphis area.
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2012, 11:15:34 AM
The moon elevator.
That will be completed around the same time as the trans-Siberian/Alaskan bridge/railway/tunnel
Quote from: deanej on October 26, 2012, 10:05:58 AM
We have US 400, so I wouldn't be so sure...
US-100 will be a spur route of US-400–probably longer than US-400 itself.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2012, 12:27:23 PM
What...?
I have a photo somewhere of a state secondary route V shield in a US shape.
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: deanej on October 26, 2012, 10:05:58 AM
We have US 400, so I wouldn't be so sure...
US-100 will be a spur route of US-400–probably longer than US-400 itself.
Of course. That is, after all, how US route spurs work... even with the original 1926 system!
A proposed loop interstate around Jackson that the transportation commissioner wanted to see built. The only time he commented on it was in a Clarion-Ledger interview in 2004. Also, the proposed Jackson-to-Gulfport interstate.
Quote from: deanej on October 27, 2012, 11:38:58 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: deanej on October 26, 2012, 10:05:58 AM
We have US 400, so I wouldn't be so sure...
US-100 will be a spur route of US-400–probably longer than US-400 itself.
Of course. That is, after all, how US route spurs work... even with the original 1926 system!
Whatever happened to US 200 and US 300? (sort of an inside joke there)