Ancillary uses of highway corridors

[jwolfer]

Lots of cell phone towers seem to be on ROW

[roadfro]

Does the space under an elevated highway count as ROW?

I would think so...

In that case, there are two examples in the Reno area:
1) There is an elevated viaduct section of US 395/I-580 at the Plumb Lane interchange near the Reno-Tahoe Airport. Between the split ramps and below the freeway, the Washoe County RTC has permanent buildings including offices and a bus garage.
2) There is an elevated section of I-80 in Sparks between the Rock Blvd and Pyramid Way/SR 445 interchanges. The Nugget casino has its hotel towers on one side with the showroom and smaller hotel rooms on the other, and these are connected by a good chunk of the casino floor. Unfortunately, due to this, this section of the interstate can never be widened, despite the potential need.

[hbelkins]

2) There is an elevated section of I-80 in Sparks between the Rock Blvd and Pyramid Way/SR 445 interchanges. The Nugget casino has its hotel towers on one side with the showroom and smaller hotel rooms on the other, and these are connected by a good chunk of the casino floor. Unfortunately, due to this, this section of the interstate can never be widened, despite the potential need.

Sure it can. Either build a parallel segment someplace else and convert that portion to one-way traffic, or use eminent domain and condemn the Nugget.

[kkt]

2) There is an elevated section of I-80 in Sparks between the Rock Blvd and Pyramid Way/SR 445 interchanges. The Nugget casino has its hotel towers on one side with the showroom and smaller hotel rooms on the other, and these are connected by a good chunk of the casino floor. Unfortunately, due to this, this section of the interstate can never be widened, despite the potential need.

Sure it can. Either build a parallel segment someplace else and convert that portion to one-way traffic, or use eminent domain and condemn the Nugget.

Either of those would be quite expensive.  There's no obvious alternative ROW through Sparks, the Nugget is a big hotel and has been there since the fifties, wouldn't surprise me if it was landmarked.  Best bet would be a beltway around Reno-Sparks, relieving the through traffic.  Or double deck I-80.

[roadfro]

2) There is an elevated section of I-80 in Sparks between the Rock Blvd and Pyramid Way/SR 445 interchanges. The Nugget casino has its hotel towers on one side with the showroom and smaller hotel rooms on the other, and these are connected by a good chunk of the casino floor. Unfortunately, due to this, this section of the interstate can never be widened, despite the potential need.

Sure it can. Either build a parallel segment someplace else and convert that portion to one-way traffic, or use eminent domain and condemn the Nugget.

Either of those would be quite expensive.  There's no obvious alternative ROW through Sparks, the Nugget is a big hotel and has been there since the fifties, wouldn't surprise me if it was landmarked.  Best bet would be a beltway around Reno-Sparks, relieving the through traffic.  Or double deck I-80.

Yeah, either of those is crazy expensive. As for alternate paths, there's an active Union Pacific RR line just to the south of the Nugget followed by Industrial uses, while to the north is Victorian Square (a festival space and city redevelopment area) and residential. There's no easy way around it. While I don't think the Nugget has any historic landmark standing (property has likely been expanded and modified too much), I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to make a condemnation case even under eminent domain. Double deck presents the same problem, because you have to go through the casino to replace/construct the columns necessary to support a double deck structure on I-80's present alignment.


I'm actually quite curious if NDOT has a contingency plan in place for this section. (There's the physical space between the two freeway directions for an additional lame each way, but things like HVAC systems and such on the casino roof are in the way.) If not for widening, then at least for the eventual replacement of the viaduct at the end of its useful service life.

[cl94]

2) There is an elevated section of I-80 in Sparks between the Rock Blvd and Pyramid Way/SR 445 interchanges. The Nugget casino has its hotel towers on one side with the showroom and smaller hotel rooms on the other, and these are connected by a good chunk of the casino floor. Unfortunately, due to this, this section of the interstate can never be widened, despite the potential need.

Sure it can. Either build a parallel segment someplace else and convert that portion to one-way traffic, or use eminent domain and condemn the Nugget.

Either of those would be quite expensive.  There's no obvious alternative ROW through Sparks, the Nugget is a big hotel and has been there since the fifties, wouldn't surprise me if it was landmarked.  Best bet would be a beltway around Reno-Sparks, relieving the through traffic.  Or double deck I-80.

Yeah, either of those is crazy expensive. As for alternate paths, there's an active Union Pacific RR line just to the south of the Nugget followed by Industrial uses, while to the north is Victorian Square (a festival space and city redevelopment area) and residential. There's no easy way around it. While I don't think the Nugget has any historic landmark standing (property has likely been expanded and modified too much), I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to make a condemnation case even under eminent domain. Double deck presents the same problem, because you have to go through the casino to replace/construct the columns necessary to support a double deck structure on I-80's present alignment.


I'm actually quite curious if NDOT has a contingency plan in place for this section. (There's the physical space between the two freeway directions for an additional lane each way, but things like HVAC systems and such on the casino roof are in the way.) If not for widening, then at least for the eventual replacement of the viaduct at the end of its useful service life.

Sure you could build over the tracks. Move a couple of tracks and you'd have room for supports. I wouldn't be shocked if NDOT put a rider stating that possible expansion of the viaduct and associated disruptions were conditions of building under the expressway.

[Rothman]

I know the fiber is there between exits 24 and 25 specifically.  My boss mentioned that as a reason why that section can never be widened; it would be too hard to deal with the cable.

Allowing a third party to use highway ROW in such a way to restrict future improvements to the highway is short-sighted and stupid.

<.<

>.>

Have to say that I'd like a confirmation the information from vdeane's boss regarding Thruway improvements.