Topic: AARoads Page Updates (Read 222539 times)

Alex · « **on:** January 19, 2009, 08:22:36 PM »

I just posted 19 of Justin's photos of U.S. 90 eastbound along the Rodriguez Freeway in San Antonio

https://www.aaroads.com/texas/us-090eh_tx.html

Next up are photos Justin took of Interstate 410 and U.S. 281.

John · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2009, 09:34:26 PM »

Hmmm, I've been finishing up my aaroads tour of all the 2di interstates, so maybe I'll do all the 3dis, in which case, I-410 sounds great to me.

Alex · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2009, 10:45:42 PM »

I also published Matt's Interstate 5 update for northbound between Eugene and Clackamas County yesterday.

http://www.westcoastroads.com/oregon/i-005nd_or.html

US71 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2009, 09:27:00 AM »

A minor correction to the AR I-30 guide:

* US 82 is never part of I-30, though there is a trailblazer at Exit 2.

Alex · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:20:19 AM »

Quote from: US71 on January 20, 2009, 09:27:00 AM

A minor correction to the AR I-30 guide:

* US 82 is never part of I-30, though there is a trailblazer at Exit 2.

Adjusted so its correct, thanks.

Alex · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2009, 07:56:50 PM »

Just added two more batches of photos Justin sent me:
Texas 358 eastbound - added and replaced pics
Texas 361 - created short page.

WillWeaverRVA · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2009, 07:57:53 PM »

If you want, I can send you various photos from Virginia, including VA 288, VA 150, VA 895, and other routes.

Alex · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2009, 08:00:03 PM »

I have 2005 Virginia photos of VA 288 southbound, VA 895 eb, and VA 150 (I think) sitting in the queue. The problem is finding time to write captions and edit the images.

deathtopumpkins · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:44:38 PM »

VA-895's the Pocahontas Parkway, right? I don't think I've ever managed to drive on it. Never been on any of the three toll roads in Richmond.

Alex · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:46:44 PM »

Yes, it has a very high-level bridge (James River) and a pricey toll to boot. I have an ADC atlas from 1985 that shows it proposed with Interstate 895 shields on it.

deathtopumpkins · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:53:05 PM »

Meh, $2.35's not that bad. And I just checked out that bridge on google earth. Nothing that notable about it except it's plainness and height...

And I see how it could be a 3di of I-95. I wonder why it never happened?

Alex · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:59:44 PM »

The toll was $2.00 in 2005

Seeing is believing on the bridge (and its stack with Interstate 95).

It was not made an Interstate because of its toll-based funding IIRC.

Photos taken 06/22/05.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:01:13 PM »

why can't this particular toll road be made an interstate? Many other toll roads are ...

shadowduck · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:21:37 PM »

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 11:01:13 PM

why can't this particular toll road be made an interstate? Many other toll roads are ...

Many were grandfathered in. Tolls cannot be collected on an interstate if federal funds were used to build it.
From the US DOT:
After extensive debate, Congress decided in 1956 to authorize the BPR to incorporate toll facilities in the Interstate System to ensure connectivity without added expense. Section 113(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 stated:

Upon a finding by the Secretary of Commerce that such action will promote the development of an integrated Interstate System, the Secretary is authorized to approve as part of the Interstate System any toll road, bridge, or tunnel, now or hereafter constructed, which meets the standards adopted for the improvement of projects located on the Interstate System, whenever such toll road, bridge, or tunnel is located on a route heretofore or hereafter designated as a part of the Interstate System: Provided, That no Federal-aid highway funds shall be expended for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any such toll road except to the extent hereafter permitted by law: Provided further, That no Federal-aid highway funds shall be expended for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any such toll bridge or tunnel except to the extent now or hereafter permitted by law. (source- http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm)

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:27:33 PM »

oh that makes sense... all those turnpikes are pretty old.

so how does Penna figure to start charging toll on I-80? Will they give up on getting federal funds for the maintenance?

Alex · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:38:25 PM »

Pennsylvania gave up on tolling I-80 because the fed law states that funds derived from tolls on an Interstate can only be used for the projects involving that Interstate. Based upon that, PennDOT gave up, because they wanted the tolls to go into their general fund. Its a crapshoot on enforcing the law, because Delaware uses the tolls garnered at Interstate 95 to supply the general fund, which is so wide ranging that is pays DMV workers salaries. The bonds on the Delaware Turnpike section were paid off by 1985 or so, so the tolls since then should be considered illegal.

I rant on Delaware so often on the blog about their carbon copy signs. This Interstate 95 topic and their now $4 toll equally drives me up the wall.

Snappyjack · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2009, 02:10:02 AM »

I have continuous rants about the Thruway that I will probably get into one night on here when I am bored enough. Tolls should have been gone 10 years ago, yet they're still here and ever rising. And nothing comes out of it.

deathtopumpkins · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2009, 04:15:36 AM »

I got that $2.35 figure from looking at it in street view on google earth, suprisingly.

Its probably just gone up since 2005.

And that was a very interesting bit of info about tolled interstates. I did not know that newly-built tolled roads could not be interstates. I guess it makes sense though.

Shadow Assassin · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2009, 08:06:05 AM »

Quote

It was not made an Interstate because of its toll-based funding IIRC.

... throw in the fact it's actually owned by an Australian company, there you have it.

Translink owns Pocahontas 895, and they are known for charging pretty high prices on tolls. The M2 here is tolled at $4.40 and rising.

Revive 755 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 28, 2009, 08:56:13 PM »

I wouldn't mind seeing an update/corrections to the NE 2 listing on the future interstate page. NE 2 also seems to be on a new alignment from the interchange with US 75 to a couple miles west of Dunbar. Other than the South Lincoln Beltway, the only other major improvement in the near future for the NE 2 corridor is a SPUI at the eastern intersection with US 75 (http://www.nebraskatransportation.org/projects/ne-city-southeast/index.htm).

In addition, the Lincoln beltway seems like another future interstate candidate given the design of the interchanges with US 77 and NE 2 (http://www.nebraskatransportation.org/projects/south-beltway/8-2007/july2007webimage1.djvu and http://www.nebraskatransportation.org/projects/south-beltway/8-2007/july2007webimage6.djvu). Otherwise, it seems NE 2 should be the main route at the interchange with the East Beltway.

EDIT:Now I see the thread where I should have posted this . . .

andy3175 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 29, 2009, 01:13:43 AM »

Hey Revive, which page do we profile Nebraska 2 and the Lincoln Beltway? Is that a high priority corridor page?

Thanks,
Andy

Revive 755 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 29, 2009, 10:27:36 PM »

On the future interstate page, second to bottom entry:
http://www.interstate-guide.com/future.html

flaroads · « **Reply #22 on:** February 02, 2009, 03:02:32 PM »

I have updated pages for Interstate 75 southbound in Kentucky here,here and here. Photography taken and contributed by Carter Buchanan.

Alex · « **Reply #23 on:** February 05, 2009, 02:01:24 AM »

Thanks to snappyjack for helping with captions, all of our Interstate 88 NY coverage is finally online.

Also updated today are new pages for Interstate 35W and Texas Toll 121 in the DFW area, with photos and captions from Justin.

Chris · « **Reply #24 on:** February 05, 2009, 03:29:06 AM »

Quote from: aaroads on February 05, 2009, 02:01:24 AM

Thanks to snappyjack for helping with captions, all of our Interstate 88 NY coverage is finally online.

Great, I enjoyed it, it's a nice scenic route.

News:

Author Topic: AARoads Page Updates (Read 222539 times)