Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sprjus4]

They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls.  Penny wise, pound foolish.

How about without tolling an interstate highway that has been toll-free since it's opening in the 60s - 80s?

I'd like to see it widened to 6-lanes thruout, but it needs to be done without tolls. The current project is a major step forward, there needs to be more phases to gradually open it to 6-lanes thruout by 2030 - 2035.

[Beltway]

They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls.  Penny wise, pound foolish.

How about without tolling an interstate highway that has been toll-free since it's opening in the 60s - 80s?
I'd like to see it widened to 6-lanes thruout, but it needs to be done without tolls. The current project is a major step forward, there needs to be more phases to gradually open it to 6-lanes thruout by 2030 - 2035.

There is a tradeoff.  I am opposed to general tolling of Interstate highways that were built without tolling. 

But I am open to the idea of having a small number of Interstate highway "super corridors" being considered for a tolling that is only in support of expanding the highway with more lanes, and which would be detolled after the bonds have been paid off.

There is a traffic and economic benefit to having a highway project complete 20 to 40 years earlier than via conventional funding.

Given all the unfunded highway needs today and those coming in the near future, getting all of it done by 2030 to 2035 may be overly optimistic.

[sprjus4]

They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls.  Penny wise, pound foolish.

How about without tolling an interstate highway that has been toll-free since it's opening in the 60s - 80s?
I'd like to see it widened to 6-lanes thruout, but it needs to be done without tolls. The current project is a major step forward, there needs to be more phases to gradually open it to 6-lanes thruout by 2030 - 2035.

There is a tradeoff.  I am opposed to general tolling of Interstate highways that were built without tolling. 

But I am open to the idea of having a small number of Interstate highway "super corridors" being considered for a tolling that is only in support of expanding the highway with more lanes, and which would be detolled after the bonds have been paid off.

There is a traffic and economic benefit to having a highway project complete 20 to 40 years earlier than via conventional funding.

Given all the unfunded highway needs today and those coming in the near future, getting all of it done by 2030 to 2035 may be overly optimistic.

I'd generally agree, but I-81 could generally wait off another 10-15 years to find traditional funding if the current funding method proves successful. The major choke points are getting widened, and the rest of the corridor generally has no congestion issues except on peak weekends. The trucks are an issue, and while it's frustrating getting caught behind lines of them in both lanes, at least it's generally moving 65 - 70 mph. It's not something like I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond, or I-95 between DC and Richmond which are bottlenecks any day.

With the $151 million projected per year, plus the opportunity for bonds to pay for these projects and the additional tax revenue paying them off over decades, it could get done within 10-15 years.

[Beltway]

Given all the unfunded highway needs today and those coming in the near future, getting all of it done by 2030 to 2035 may be overly optimistic.

I'd generally agree, but I-81 could generally wait off another 10-15 years to find traditional funding if the current funding method proves successful. The major choke points are getting widened, and the rest of the corridor generally has no congestion issues except on peak weekends. The trucks are an issue, and while it's frustrating getting caught behind lines of them in both lanes, at least it's generally moving 65 - 70 mph. It's not something like I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond, or I-95 between DC and Richmond which are bottlenecks any day.

My "20 Fri-Sun weekends per year" rule, it all definitely needs 6 lanes then.

With the $151 million projected per year, plus the opportunity for bonds to pay for these projects and the additional tax revenue paying them off over decades, it could get done within 10-15 years.

The $2.2 billion program was covered at the last CTB meeting, and due to engineering and permitting, it will be more like 2030 or beyond when they are completed, and even then it will take bond assistance to accelerate the work.  From CTB presentation --

Two scheduling options presented 
Existing revenue stream (pay-go) -- 48 out of 64 projects completed by 2028
Bonding/TIFIA option -- 60 out of 64 projects completed by 2028
 
The whole 325 miles could have been 6-laned by 2011.  That would mean that money would not have to be spent now to widen it, and given the high volumes the bonds may have been paid off by 2030 and the highway detolled.

Like I said there is a tradeoff, and a rather large one at that.

[codyg1985]

Had the Interstate 10 toll bridge project gone forward, I wonder if the parallel US 90/98 roadway bridges would have been tolled as well (in order to discourage shunpiking)?

The Wallace Tunnel would have been tolled, but the causeway would remain free.

[Alex]

Froggie went to a meeting on the I-10 Mobile River Bridge proposal in 2001 and I did in 2003. Approaching the 20 year mark and nothing accomplished...

Had Hurricane Ivan or Katrina wiped out portions of the Bayway, it would have been replaced (see I-10 across Escambia Bay in Pensacola and I-10 across Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans). Unfortunately that seems to be the only way something will be improved across Mobile Bay.

Until 2013, I drove across the Bayway routinely, and it already got to the point to where I would have to look at Google Maps for traffic before heading out. With the increasingly rapid development along the Eastern Shore and Baldwin County, having just four lanes between Mobile and Spanish Fort/Daphne will eventually make I-10 look just like I-275 across the Howard Frankland Bridge in Tampa (if it has not already). The Howard Frankland is guaranteed congested both morning and evening peak hours northbound. It also backs up on weekends at times as well. I-10 was generally not like that when I lived in Mobile, but congestion at the Wallace Tunnel eastbound became an issue from the mid 2000s onward.

[Plutonic Panda]

A gas tax increase was just passed in Alabama. An increase in gas taxes within proximity of this project or corridor seem like a decent solution but I suspect are a non starter in Alabama. The government needs to come together on infrastructure reform and invest more money in our infrastructure. It is that simple and it’s not at the same time.

[codyg1985]

A gas tax increase was just passed in Alabama. An increase in gas taxes within proximity of this project or corridor seem like a decent solution but I suspect are a non starter in Alabama. The government needs to come together on infrastructure reform and invest more money in our infrastructure. It is that simple and it’s not at the same time.

The gas tax increase has been very unpopular across Alabama, and the sad thing is that the increase isn't going towards many big ticket projects. It is funding a few $20M+ projects here and there.

I honestly wished there was some way that the different municipalities along the I-10 corridor between Pensacola and New Orleans could come together and fund an I-10 Mobile River bridge and Bayway replacement. It is a project of regional importance.

[bdmoss88]

New proposal for the Mobile River Bridge surfaces. Doesn't replace the current bayway and has no exits to the bayway. No real details as far as tolls except that Wallace Tunnel wouldn't be tolled. We'll see how far this gets.

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2020/01/north-bay-express-surfaces-as-an-alternative-to-the-i-10-project.html

[Plutonic Panda]

I don’t like that one either. They need to do the original project with no tolls.

[froggie]

Send them a couple billion and they might.

[sprjus4]

Wouldn't this new proposal still require a new crossing of the Bay?

[bdmoss88]

It reads like it would be a third crossing in addition to the Causeway and current I-10.

[sprjus4]

It reads like it would be a third crossing in addition to the Causeway and current I-10.

So how does it end up costing -less-?

[vdeane]

It reads like it would be a third crossing in addition to the Causeway and current I-10.

So how does it end up costing -less-?

The old plan was to build a new, wider bridge and then demolish the existing one.  The new plan is to build a new, narrower (than the old plan) bridge, and then keep the existing one.  It also wouldn't have the intermediate exit.

[Plutonic Panda]

The old was great except one thing: tolls. These new plans don't seem like they will do much to reduce traffic on I-10.

[codyg1985]

The old was great except one thing: tolls. These new plans don't seem like they will do much to reduce traffic on I-10.

It sounds like an express route from Daphne to Mobile to allow folks from the Eastern Shore to bypass I-10. It does little for through I-10 traffic.

[Plutonic Panda]

The old was great except one thing: tolls. These new plans don't seem like they will do much to reduce traffic on I-10.

It sounds like an express route from Daphne to Mobile to allow folks from the Eastern Shore to bypass I-10. It does little for through I-10 traffic.

Right and it sounds like something that could be beneficial to Mobile but not a suitable alternative for the needs of I-10, the focus of this initiative. If such a project happens it should be completely separate from anything project aimed at easing traffic and modernizing I-10.