|
Install Gentoo posted:It'd be really nice to have protected bike paths following major freeways, especially since freeways generally must have gentle slopes and all. That's not necessarily true; freeways frequently go up to a 7% slope, which is very uncomfortable to walk (or bike) up. You don't notice the slope as much when you're driving. Moreover, freeways can have a moderate uphill slope for miles. What you really want is to build them alongside (or atop) railbeds. Your slopes are minimal in that case. A lot of abandoned tracks go right into downtown areas, whereas freeways typically only skirt them.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
 Hey look, weathering steel. They are installing a pedestrian/bicycle bridge near me. It will connect two previously disconnected trails. When I saw the span had been put in place, I decided to try to look up online when the approaches would be finished. All I could find was an article in the local paper saying that the bridge had been completed.  If you manage to get up onto the span, there is a 20-30 foot drop on either end.I'll second Cichlidae, railbeds make easy bike paths. The path on the north side of the canal is the former towpath, the south side, a former railbed. Both are nearly flat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
The downside to rail trails, especially in urban areas, is that you're sacrificing potential light/commuter rail right-of-way for a mixed use trail. Good for the local community, not as good for the region. And in most cases, you can't build both due to the ROW not being wide enough (or land acquisition costs being too high to make them wide enough). The city of St. Petersburg, Florida is lamenting something hardcore about not being able to run light rail down the Pinellas Trail corridor, as it makes the cost of a starter light rail system at least three times more expensive. Varance fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 15:09
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's not necessarily true; freeways frequently go up to a 7% slope, which is very uncomfortable to walk (or bike) up. You don't notice the slope as much when you're driving. Moreover, freeways can have a moderate uphill slope for miles. Yes but the places where the freeways go up to 7% slopes are often much higher on parallel non-freeway routes. I'm not talking about bike routes inside cities, I'm talking about building long distance intercity bike routes. Like something I could ride in protected from Boston to Washington DC, or Philadelphia to Chicago. Though they would also be useful for some kinds of commuting as well,from the suburbs around a city to either the city itself or bus/rail park and ride setups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's not necessarily true; freeways frequently go up to a 7% slope, which is very uncomfortable to walk (or bike) up. You don't notice the slope as much when you're driving. Moreover, freeways can have a moderate uphill slope for miles. You tend to see that a lot in Germany, at least around where I used to live. That said it was also a more rural area with quite a few field roads in any case. Annoyingly I can't really show off any examples since Streetview has been switched off for Germany.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Varance posted:The downside to rail trails, especially in urban areas, is that you're sacrificing potential light/commuter rail right-of-way for a mixed use trail. Good for the local community, not as good for the region. And in most cases, you can't build both due to the ROW not being wide enough (or land acquisition costs being too high to make them wide enough). Why can't they run track there? I know there's no precedent for converting trails back to rail in the US, but we're told with each project that we can always switch back later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Why can't they run track there? I know there's no precedent for converting trails back to rail in the US, but we're told with each project that we can always switch back later.  Anyway, this is the same cadre of politicians that are threatening to sue the City of Tampa if they even talk to the Tampa Bay Rays about a new stadium, despite the fact that The Trop is a depressing shithole that will force the team to move if they can't get a better/more centralized facility. They also refused to pay for maintenance upkeep of their half of the Friendship Trailbridge (a disused span of the Gandy Bridge/US92 over Tampa Bay), which is now closed and slated for demolition over safety concerns. A new trail is opening up across the Courtney Campbell Causeway (SR60) next year, but that's 15 miles away on the Pinellas side - made longer by the lack of bicycle accommodations over the Bayside Bridge. E: The expressways they propose are US A19 as an extension of I-375, Courtney Campbell as I-475, US 19 as I-575 and Bryan Dairy/Gandy as I-775. In other words, they want the county to be even more like Detroit, with all the wealth continuing to drain into Tampa and Sarasota. Varance fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Why can't they run track there? I know there's no precedent for converting trails back to rail in the US, but we're told with each project that we can always switch back later. Not true! http://www.centredaily.com/2012/05/22/3203995/railroad-company-gets-ok-to-reclaim.html#storylink=cpy It's very rare to occur, but just this May a railroad in Pennsylvania got the right to convert a rails-to-trails path back for railroad use. And most recent rails-to-trails projects include explict permission for a suitable railroad to reactivate service in the future, usually including requirements to keep neccesary infrastructure for later rail use functional. Such as not replacing any existing railroad bridges with bridges only suitable for carrying bikes and pedestrians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Varance posted:Anyway, this is the same cadre of politicians that are threatening to sue the City of Tampa if they even talk to the Tampa Bay Rays about a new stadium, despite the fact that The Trop is a depressing shithole that will force the team to move if they can't get a better/more centralized facility. I thought that stadiums generally weren't profitable for a city that pays for half of it, since it requires massive transit infrastructure, without really having those people actually spend money anywhere other than the stadium.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Not true! http://www.centredaily.com/2012/05/22/3203995/railroad-company-gets-ok-to-reclaim.html#storylink=cpy That is encouraging news. I'd be very much against rails-to-trails if it were irreversible. Has anyone seen Amtrak's latest high-speed rail plan for New England? Connecticut is whining about it because the highest-speed trains don't stop in Hartford, but I really like the plan. It's next to impossible to refit the New Haven Line for high-speed operation, so blazing a new trail through rural Connecticut is a much better idea. I don't think they'll be able to afford the land in Danbury or Waterbury, though, and they'll definitely need a new river crossing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
I don't see why the highest speed trains couldn't stop in Hartford, all the plans I've seen have indicated Hartford as a stop on that proposed line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
There's also so called "rails with trails" facilities where an existing right of way 2 or more tracks wide, where only one track (or two tracks if three tracks wide etc) is in use anyway, and the remaining right of way is cleared for a trail use, with proper separation between the running line and the recreational path. Which is sometimes just building the trail a bit away, and other times includes full fences and such. http://railswithtrails.com/ covers some of them. And there's a specific process for rails to trails stuff with the explicit guarantee that the right of way can be returned to rail use in the future called "railbanking" http://www.railstotrails.org/ourWork/advocacy/policyAndFunding/railbanking.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
Since I haven't seen a post like this in awhile and they were my favorite; how would you improve this junction? This is the 24/27 split in Chattanooga TN. I drive through it every now and then when I go to visit family and this end of 27 always feels like a bit of a mess in general. Switching onto 27 dumps you on the left lane of traffic and if memory serves me right the bridge in the split is not up to standard either. A little further up north just past the bridge over the river they're doing some major work to expand capacity and upgrade the road from 2 to 3 lanes each direction and level out the hills and curves. I'm pretty sure they plan to go all the way down to the split but I have no clue if they plan to do anything with it itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:I don't see why the highest speed trains couldn't stop in Hartford, all the plans I've seen have indicated Hartford as a stop on that proposed line. Only the lower tiers will stop in Hartford. "Amtrak's long-term proposal to build a staggeringly expensive rail line along an entirely new route diagonally across Connecticut has caught the attention of top state officials. And not in a good way. Amtrak's 30-year "NextGen High-Speed Rail Alignment" would send Boston-to-Washington express trains hurtling at 220 mph through Connecticut without stopping anywhere in the state. Its second-tier express service would offer just three Connecticut stops: Hartford, Waterbury and Danbury." http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-trains-0820-20120819,0,6066094.story Install Gentoo posted:There's also so called "rails with trails" facilities where an existing right of way 2 or more tracks wide, where only one track (or two tracks if three tracks wide etc) is in use anyway, and the remaining right of way is cleared for a trail use, with proper separation between the running line and the recreational path. Which is sometimes just building the trail a bit away, and other times includes full fences and such. I am familiar with those. From what I've seen in webinars, the Feds don't provide any good guidance for rails-with-trails, and rail owners around here are loath to lease out their land. Opals25 posted:Since I haven't seen a post like this in awhile and they were my favorite; how would you improve this junction? Hey, logically speaking, somebody's gotta get dumped in the left lane. You're right, though, the lane continuity is a little off. The ramp from I-24 EB to 27 NB should come in on the right, not on the left. As for the bridge, I-24's curvature on the overpass looks very tight. At least the lane balance is right. Edit:  This smooths out the curves, keeps route continuity, and the bridges should be easy to construct without interfering with existing traffic too much. It also flattens the vertical profile of I-24. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Only the lower tiers will stop in Hartford.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Only the lower tiers will stop in Hartford. Those normal express trains should still be a lot faster than a trip on the Acela, though. I think having bullet BOS/NY/PHI/DC trains are a smart idea, though I don't think a stop in Hartford would be too detrimental to that train's timing. I imagine there'll be an occasional Capital service (BOS/PVD/HFD/NYP/Trenton/PHI/DC) with reduced stops compared to the complete service listed on that map. kefkafloyd fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I thought that stadiums generally weren't profitable for a city that pays for half of it, since it requires massive transit infrastructure, without really having those people actually spend money anywhere other than the stadium. Ownership of the Rays and Lightning have already bought all the land they need for a stadium in Downtown Tampa, right next to the Forum, with plans for BRT/LRT corridors to both facilities (the first of which, the MetroRapid BRT Green line from USF to Downtown, is already under construction). kefkafloyd posted:Those normal express trains should still be a lot faster than a trip on the Acela, though. I think having bullet BOS/NY/PHI/DC trains are a smart idea, though I don't think a stop in Hartford would be too detrimental to that train's timing. Varance fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
grover posted:If it keeps people from the alternative - driving through Connecticut without stopping - isn't that a good thing? Yes, and I said as much. The Courant whines about everything, but I think it's the best concept for HSR in the Northeast I've seen yet. kefkafloyd posted:Those normal express trains should still be a lot faster than a trip on the Acela, though. I think having bullet BOS/NY/PHI/DC trains are a smart idea, though I don't think a stop in Hartford would be too detrimental to that train's timing. Yup. It's not worth running HSR if the stops are too frequent. Hartford only has 120,000 people, and Providence has 180,000, vs. 4 million for Boston and 8 million for NYC. They're not even in the same league. kefkafloyd posted:I imagine there'll be a Capital service (BOS/PVD/HFD/NYP/Trenton/PHI/DC) with reduced stops compared to the complete service listed on that map. Exactly. Same as other train line, just faster: a local and an express.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
How much more of a challenge is building a bridge when big cargo ships have to be able to pass under it? My city has its eastern district on a peninsula across the harbor, and there's no bridge so you have to go all the way around and it takes loving forever to go between those two parts of town. A bridge would be great, but it's one of the busiest ports in Korea so it'd have to be able to accommodate giant freighters going beneath. Obviously the bridge has to be taller but I don't know what real difference it makes in designing and building the thing. The spot in question: http://goo.gl/maps/dYmkv Going from, say, Dal-dong to Bangeo-dong takes an hour or so as it is, but a straight shot across the harbor is only like three miles. Switch it to satellite and you can see the ship issue. That complex covering the entire right side of the river is Hyundai's major car factory and the left side is a gigantic oil refinery so as you can imagine, lots of ship traffic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:How much more of a challenge is building a bridge when big cargo ships have to be able to pass under it? My city has its eastern district on a peninsula across the harbor, and there's no bridge so you have to go all the way around and it takes loving forever to go between those two parts of town. A bridge would be great, but it's one of the busiest ports in Korea so it'd have to be able to accommodate giant freighters going beneath. Obviously the bridge has to be taller but I don't know what real difference it makes in designing and building the thing. Where shipping is a concern, tunnels are typically a better option, provided the ground is stable enough to support their construction. Building bridges over shipping channels is tricky, because ships are always getting bigger. Seems most large bridges these days provide about 60 meters clearance, though I don't know how futureproof that would be. A ferry might be a better bet (at least in the short term).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Since we're talking about bridges over shipping lanes, this is a pretty impressive means of fixing a bridge thats already in the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Opals25 posted:Since we're talking about bridges over shipping lanes, this is a pretty impressive means of fixing a bridge thats already in the way. That is extremely impressive. All the youtube commenters say "why not just lower the water?" but isn't that area too wide to effectively build locks? Also, a system of locks would probably have a lower throughput than raising the bridge. I'm guessing the PA has determined the extra cost of raising the bridge is worth the increase in throughput.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'll post some plans once I get around to putting all of those signs in CAD. Basically, we're taking out Route 1o bridge over 322, realigning the Old Turnpike/10 intersection, widen the Old Turnpike/322 intersection, remove the little Norton Street ramp, make a signal between 10 and 322, and put turning lanes everywhere. Magic! Any chance you are done with those plans and can post them? My dad drives through there every day so he is really curious how its going to change and screw up his commute to work  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
Mooecow posted:Any chance you are done with those plans and can post them? My dad drives through there every day so he is really curious how its going to change and screw up his commute to work Here is a cropped version. I'll see if I can get a full one tomorrow. Basically, everything should end up working better than it does now.  (North is up)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Yes but the places where the freeways go up to 7% slopes are often much higher on parallel non-freeway routes. How about this? Of course, you'd have to be suicidal in my opinion. (Not only is it ON the freeway with no separation, there's a parking lane there too so you get to dodge opening doors, too!)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Where shipping is a concern, tunnels are typically a better option, provided the ground is stable enough to support their construction. Fun Fact: the Sunshine Skyway belongs to three separate counties. Pinellas County (St Petersburg) takes care of the Intracoastal Waterway bridge, Hillsborough County (Tampa) pays for the northern half including the famous cable-stayed portion of the main span, while Manatee County (Bradenton) pays for the south end. All of the other major bay crossings are a 50/50 split between Pinellas and Hillsborough. Varance fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:How about this? Of course, you'd have to be suicidal in my opinion. (Not only is it ON the freeway with no separation, there's a parking lane there too so you get to dodge opening doors, too!) I hate to split hairs, but it's my job to do so: that's an expressway, not a freeway. It has at-grade intersections and on-street parking, both of which are examples of partial access control. At least that bike lane is a bit safer than the one on I-76, where you just ride in the shoulder atop rumble strips. Varance posted:The Sunshine Skyway Bridge over Tampa Bay, Florida, with 193ft of vertical clearance (58.8m), is not tall or wide enough for the current generation of cruise ships and container ships - anything taller than a mid-sized Carnival cruise ship or wider than a Forrestal-class carrier will not fit. We're either going to have to build an artificial large ship port in Hillsborough County waters near the North rest stop (one of the proposals we've used to get the Rays over to Tampa, without success) or replace the Skyway with a new bridge 20 years earlier than planned. The Newport Bridge was built in 1969 and has 63m clearance and a 490m span, about the same as the Oresund bridge (2000). The Storbaelt bridge (1998) has 3 times the span with the same clearance, but it's a fixed link and includes a tunnel section. Vasco da Gama (1998) has 45m clearance and a 450m span. I can't find many other open-water bridges with clearance heights on Wikipedia, but that's a good selection of what you'll need for typical 21st century traffic. (Newport is right next to a huge navy base, so it's tall for its time). For a bit of perspective, the span length of the Storbaelt means it can accommodate 21 Nimitz-class supercarriers abreast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yes, and I said as much. The Courant whines about everything, but I think it's the best concept for HSR in the Northeast I've seen yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The Newport Bridge was built in 1969 and has 63m clearance and a 490m span, about the same as the Oresund bridge (2000). The Storbaelt bridge (1998) has 3 times the span with the same clearance, but it's a fixed link and includes a tunnel section. Vasco da Gama (1998) has 45m clearance and a 450m span. In the Sunshine Skyway's case, it's not big enough for New Panamax cargo ships coming across the Panama Canal or NCL/Disney cruise ships. Tampa is a far superior home port to Port Everglades or Port Canaveral for Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean cruises, plus we've got some of the best road and freight rail links heading up the east coast (plenty of cement-paved freeways with minimal grade and a direct rail mainline to CSX JAX). Until we address the Skyway issue, Tampa Bay is at a huge economic disadvantage. Speaking of Port of Tampa, we're in the process of dropping half a billion on a flying spaghetti monster, directly linking Port of Tampa with I-4 and the Selmon Expressway (which previously weren't linked due to running parallel to each other). It's also constructed in such a way that protects I-4's reserved high-speed rail corridor and has accomodations on the I-4 end for an elevated direct link between the Selmon and I-275, bypassing I-4 altogether. Once that project's done, replacing I-275 from downtown to the Howard Frankin bridge is top priority, followed by the Howard Franklin (I-275) and Gandy (US 92) northbound spans over the bay, then the Skyway.  Edit: The project before that was rebuilding the interchanges outside Tampa International Airport. Previously a clusterfuck of weaving, it's now a very convenient omni-directional interchange that can send you anywhere in the Bay Area, built next to the main north-south runway. SR60 connects with I-275 and the Courtney Campbell, going toward Downtown Tampa/St Petersburg and Downtown Clearwater, respectively. Veteran's/Suncoast Expressway heads through the majority of the suburbs to the north, while Spruce Street leads directly to Raymond James Stadium (only 5 blocks away, which is why the NFL loves having the Super Bowl in Tampa).  Edit2: The thing that sucks about having all these nice, non-clusterfuck roads is that we can't sell people on the need for public transportation. We've got plans upon plans for building a comprehensive multi-modal network, but nobody wants to hear it because the roads are too convenient. Varance fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:That is extremely impressive. http://www.panynj.gov/about/pdf/Bayonne-Bridge-Air-Draft-Analysis.pdf The options were raise the bridge, build a new bridge, or two tunnel options. Lowering the water and adding locks isn't really discussed. Probably too expensive plus it would require re-dredging to an even deeper level plus who knows that the water table is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
I'd be extremely surprised if it was even possible to build locks and the requisite accompanying facilities in that area. The Kill Van Kull does not seem suited to such a thing, it's only three miles long and fairly wide, and in some places it's been dredged so much that they've hit rock and had to do underwater blasting to get even more depth out of it. You'd almost have an easier time blasting through a brand new canal path between Newark Bay and Upper New York Bay, right across Bayonne itself and requiring building new and high bridges and relocating thousands of people, than building a lock system under the Bayonne bridge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I'm still not clear where this easy right of way between Waterbury and Hartford is coming from, unless the route swings out very wide. There isn't an easy one; there'll be some big eminent domain buyouts. They'll make it work into Union Station and then it'll probably cut through Southington. There's also the comedy option of south through Newington and head west through Meriden. Good luck with that. quote:Here is the study: Thanks, that was a great read. I agree that locks were a non-starter idea. Just seemed like a really brain-dead idea but I guess it must have been done elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Here is the study: Why would a new bridge keep the arch? Sorry if it's explained in the video's audio--I watched it on mute because I'm at the office. Didn't see it in the PDF either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I hate to split hairs, but it's my job to do so: that's an expressway, not a freeway. It has at-grade intersections and on-street parking, both of which are examples of partial access control. For about a mile. The 101 is freeway up until the onramp just prior to that, then they slap up an "END FREEWAY" sign (but you have to bike on the freeway prior to that) and the parking/terrible intersections at La Conchita happen, and then there's a "BEGIN FREEWAY" sign again (at which point the bike lane continues another mile or so to the next exit). Whether portions of the bike lane are technically on a "freeway" or not doesn't matter much to the bicyclist who has an SUV trying to insert itself into his rectum at 85 MPH.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:For about a mile. The 101 is freeway up until the onramp just prior to that, then they slap up an "END FREEWAY" sign (but you have to bike on the freeway prior to that) and the parking/terrible intersections at La Conchita happen, and then there's a "BEGIN FREEWAY" sign again (at which point the bike lane continues another mile or so to the next exit). Whether portions of the bike lane are technically on a "freeway" or not doesn't matter much to the bicyclist who has an SUV trying to insert itself into his rectum at 85 MPH. As someone who's driven this section of the US-101, I can verify that the expressway portions are driven like a freeway and just feel like rural freeways that haven't been brought up to code.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Here is the worst one of these I've ever seen. It's merging onto I-95 northbound, south of Philly. It doesn't even look at bad, except that the lane you're merging into immediately turns into the off-ramp lane for I-476! So you've got all the northbound traffic trying to get right into the same lane that everyone's trying to merge into, which means that merging traffic comes to a complete standstill, and you're left sitting there at a dead stop trying to merge into 70+ mph traffic. And yeah, god help you if you actually know how to merge, because it's a guarantee that the guy right in front of you won't and he can be relied on to slam on his brakes while you're trying to check your blind spot. This is an example of one of those times where the state sticks up 'Merge area' signs and pretends like that fixes the problem, instead of describing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Why would a new bridge keep the arch? Sorry if it's explained in the video's audio--I watched it on mute because I'm at the office. Didn't see it in the PDF either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Varance posted:St. Petersburg politicians don't have the backbone to do what's right for the greater good, mainly due to Pinellas having equal amounts of blue and red voters. They've brought it up a few times, but instantly cave whenever someone brings up opposition. Tea Party members are already campaigning against Light Rail in its planning phase, because they'd rather see the entire county covered in toll expressways to replace funding provided by the $0.01 road improvement sales tax. Replacing/covering the Pinellas Trail with Light Rail would just add fuel to their bonfire. I'm really glad I don't live in Pinellas County anymore. On the other hand, I moved back to the Chicago area 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Why would a new bridge keep the arch? Sorry if it's explained in the video's audio--I watched it on mute because I'm at the office. Didn't see it in the PDF either. It's historic, looks cool, and in itself would not block shipping. With no road deck at all it has plenty of clearance for ships. Plus it would cost more and take more time to demolish the whole thing, instead of just removing the road deck and approaches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
Mandalay posted:As someone who's driven this section of the US-101, I can verify that the expressway portions are driven like a freeway and just feel like rural freeways that haven't been brought up to code. I'm really surprised they left the onramps/intersections at La Conchita and Mussel Shoals to cross the highway like that for so long. The current work CalTrans is doing to add another lane also includes closing off the La Conchita and Mussel Shoals crossings (you'll only be able to get on/off 101 North from La Conchita and on/off 101 South from Mussel Shoals). Unfortunately for the residents there, CalTrans decided not to spend an extra $12 million to build a frontage road and tunnel connecting La Conchita and Mussel Shoals, which would have given each side access to the other's on/offramp. Edit: Looks like they're also cutting out the parking on the highway and constructing a pedestrian underpass from La Conchita (they'll be getting a lot more people parking on their streets I guess) and they're moving the bike lane off the highway, too. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 22:01
|
|