It's been already mentioned in one thread, but I'll just reinforce what was said there in this thread. Basically, MDT has devised the plan to stub the mainline of US 93, which is Main Street in Kalispell, MT. What I mean by "stub" is the idea that US 93 will be routed via the Kalispell Bypass, putting the existing roadway in a "BUSINESS" route status. They believe that by assigning the Kalispell Bypass as US 93 and Main Street as US 93 Business that it'd aleviate some issues plaguing the current roadway. As the new US 93 roadway along the bypass is phased in, it will meet up with the existing roadway north of the city and continue as normal onto Libby onward to the British Columbia, CAN border at Port of Roosville.
This report submitted by MDT gives a clear outline of what they intend to do with the bypass.
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/recovery/docs/grants/tiger_kalispell_app.pdf
Any idea of the timeline for completion? The schedule in the linked report projected it'd be done by now.
I'm going to ere on assumption that the bypass will be done by mid 2013. Too many right-of-way issues were needed to be addressed with homeowners near the projected construction area.
Here's why:
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/even_with_money_93_bypass_still_a_long_way_off/8646/
Senators Max Baucus and John Tester pushed for more money to pump into the US 93 Bypass project. A lot of homeowners thought it was a joke somewhat thinking that it'd never be done. There were a lot of issues causing a backlog of delays of the US 93 Bypass. Once the remaining portion is done, travelers will be able to flow through the bypass. Most of the initial work is done on the south side of the bypass. Planning of the north side of the bypass looks more complicated because MDT wants to start it from Bojangles (at 1319 US 2/West Idaho Street), route it up to Two Mile Drive, continue northbound until reaching mainline 93 at West Reserve Drive. The problem is that there are a shitload of neighborhoods that don't want the northern segment to go through there as projected. The question then becomes "How could the northern segment of the bypass meet the southern segment?" It's unknown. That's what MDT is trying to figure out.
Out of curiosity, where in that report does it say that old 93 will be designated 93 business? I'm trying to develop an accurate Montana route log right now, and the interpretation I get out of it is that the mainline will still be 93 and the bypass will be 93 Truck but if that's wrong I'd like to know.
Quote from: corco on December 20, 2012, 09:17:07 AM
Out of curiosity, where in that report does it say that old 93 will be designated 93 business? I'm trying to develop an accurate Montana route log right now, and the interpretation I get out of it is that the mainline will still be 93 and the bypass will be 93 Truck but if that's wrong I'd like to know.
Maybe the plan is to seek AASHTO approval to renumber the bypass and the existing route, as the bypass nears completion.
Even if mainline 93 stays as is, wouldn't AASHTO approval be needed to make the bypass US 93 Truck?
MDT currently doesn't have that set up, but I would imagine that after the bypass is done, that would be their next plan of attack to request approval by AASHTO to designate the current roadway as "BUSINESS" or "TRUCK" or whatever designation is more feasible. Personally, I think "BUSINESS" suits it better. "TRUCK" just doesn't feel right because a lot of truckers have had some nagging nuances about it as they go through Main Street. That's why the bypass is being configured so that truckers won't have that problem.
Right, "Truck" would be the Bypass and then the mainline would be for cars. The reason I thought it might be that is because that's what MDT did with 191 in Lewistown, and there aren't any business U.S. routes in the state to my knowledge.
If I were in charge, though, I'd do it your way.
Well, OK, I think you're probably right. I was going based on what appeared to be the case from studying route logs, but driving through Missoula this morning there's definitely a US-12 business and a US-93 business, so I guess it is possible.
A cursory drive through Montana indicates that my route log is going to require a hell of a lot of field verification- which is good since the intent is to drive the entire highway system.
http://www.kpax.com/news/kalispell-bypass-now-a-reality/ shows an all-text "US 93 ALTERNATE" guide sign. Anyone know if it's signed as anything else?
It's entirely signed as all text US 93 Alternate, never with a shield. No reassurance shields along the route. It's well signed in text as 93 alternate from the approaches, including both S-503 junctions:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fmt%2Fus2%2F556to93byp%2F5.jpg&hash=31cb780b9c855a1926f5be6eb75d9eacdabdb58a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fmt%2F503%2F2to93byp%2F2.jpg&hash=632738326c24ffc34af55b7de8cc639808dc4927)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fmt%2F503%2F93bypto93byp%2F3.jpg&hash=8f51b313a0c34bb58aae9e62abea1057caf1c779)
The only other signage on the approaches besides text US-93 Alternate is text US-2 west, from US-93 north.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fmt%2F93%2F82to93byp%2F2.jpg&hash=857130a63f97b715e1ac635a41acb866a7fb44c1)
The northern portion of the 93 Bypass that hasn't opened yet officially (part of S-548, at the moment) is also signed in text as US 93 Alternate.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fmt%2F93%2F2to548%2F6.jpg&hash=ef3b63166428f8d11ba9f4e910d8fe32cc043841)
Mmmmm. Ooookay. At least it conveys which one's mainline US 93 and which one's the bypass, though I do like the shields better.
Bumping this to note that, indeed, the entire highway is now open ... and is still signed only as "US 93 Alternate." Most of the road is on Street View for your enjoyment, although the car inexplicably missed a small section in the middle. Some other observations:
- From the north end of Kalispell southward to US 2, it's a four-lane limited-access freeway with full grade separation and access control ... but only a narrow paved median with double-double yellow lines (sort of similar to how parts of I-90 used to be).
- The exits are numbered! (?) But they're numbered according to the miles of S-548, not US 93. So, the first exit heading south is Exit 7.
- The signs for Exit 4 spell out "US 2" with no route shield:
https://goo.gl/maps/FZdrURiVnqaDoTR57
- South of US 2, it continues as four lanes to the next junction at Four Mile Road, but there it goes into a roundabout and narrows to one lane each way after that, and stays that way to the south junction with US 93, which (like the northbound end) is controlled by a traffic signal. There is no free flow to or from Alt 93 in either direction.
- Speed limit is 60mph throughout.
Dang. When I visited Glacier in the early 1990s, Kalispell didn't seem to warrant a bypass back then.
Has any thought been made to routing US 2 out of town and along this bypass (and Reserve Drive)? And are there any plans to upgrade the southern portion from arterial to full freeway?
I was up there in summer 2017, and I'm fairly sure the whole thing was open at the time (though I could be wrong). From what I recall on that trip, signage was poor and did not communicate that "Alternate 93" was simply a Kalispell bypass, so we just drove through town on 93. In fact, as corco's fourth picture above illustrates, through traffic is explicitly told to stay on mainline 93...even though the bypass would almost certainly be faster.
I'm not a fan of the roundabouts on the south half. In my opinion they ruin the expressway character of the road, and probably make it harder to upgrade in the future should traffic ever warrant it. Normally I don't pay attention to the "crash prone modern roundabout" discussions that happen on here, but building roundabouts on a 60mph road seems like asking for trouble.
Quote from: US 89 on June 19, 2019, 05:11:39 PM
I was up there in summer 2017, and I'm fairly sure the whole thing was open at the time (though I could be wrong). From what I recall on that trip, signage was poor and did not communicate that "Alternate 93" was simply a Kalispell bypass, so we just drove through town on 93. In fact, as corco's fourth picture above illustrates, through traffic is explicitly told to stay on mainline 93...even though the bypass would almost certainly be faster.
I'm not a fan of the roundabouts on the south half. In my opinion they ruin the expressway character of the road, and probably make it harder to upgrade in the future should traffic ever warrant it. Normally I don't pay attention to the "crash prone modern roundabout" discussions that happen on here, but building roundabouts on a 60mph road seems like asking for trouble.
I normally don't follow this region, but I checked this thread because I wasn't aware there was a Kalispell bypass. It's recent enough that the northern half isn't on Google Maps imagery.
I'm commenting because those are some of the worst roundabouts I've seen. I normally like roundabouts, but you are correct in those roundabouts are just asking for trouble.