Should I-70 be extended into Baltimore? (Woodlawn, Mayo: construction, organic, cost of)

[feck]

I-70 feeds into I-695. The Beltway.
I-695 feeds into I-83 and you are
downtown bound. That is all the
civil engineers want to hear. Why
potentially destroy a vastly under-
utilized park like Leakin Park?
I have seen pictures from 100 years
ago of families walking, biking, and
having picnics there. Why don't see much
of that these days?
People are afraid the boogieman might get them?
(Actually, you feel more tension walking through
there than other parks).

[bus man]

Yes, the Vine Street Expwy. is how I would envision any I-70 extension to be built. A highway that runs below grade (i.e. in a trench below street level) is far less disruptive to its surroundings than is one that is at-grade (surface level) or elevated.

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by feck

I-70 feeds into I-695. The Beltway.
I-695 feeds into I-83 and you are
downtown bound. That is all the
civil engineers want to hear. Why
potentially destroy a vastly under-
utilized park like Leakin Park?
I have seen pictures from 100 years
ago of families walking, biking, and
having picnics there. Why don't see much
of that these days?
People are afraid the boogieman might get them?
(Actually, you feel more tension walking through
there than other parks).

In the words of SRB..."I get it" in terms of not wanting to destroy a 100 year old park that is vastly under utilized...though one has to wonder if it could have been decked over and now serve as the right of way for our proposed RED LINE.. which may have been a concept back then even if the route wasnt chosen.

Sometimes I feel that the City (not highway engineers in this case) uses the whole greenspace argument as an excuse to do no maintenance .. not LOW maintenance.. NO maintenance.. I have called them about limbing up trees that will only fall into the street when it snows or trimming around a streetlight that stays on because it sensor is blocked by leaves..or cutting a weeded lot.. They have said.. and I quote that they dont want to disturb the City's Tree Canopy and some of these lots reduce heat islands in the City.. HUH? No one is asking for an urban forest be trimmed or weeded lot be cut to the standards of an HOA in Howard County.. but for fear of hurting the tree canopy? That sounds absurd.....

[Joke Insurance]

Some illustrations on what it could have looked like

I-70 to I-95


I-70 through Leakin Park


I-95/I-70 interchange


I-95/I-70/I-170


Highways through the Inner Harbor #1


Highways through the Inner Harbor #2

[Woodlands]

Thanks Joke Insurance....that is exactly what should have happened...in terms of Hilton Parkway ,I-70, and MLK.. The other stuff about going under Canton or building a highway along Pratt.. I would not support.. but being able to go downtown on 70, MLK, and to 95 would have been great.

I mean they did 80 percent of the project along with most if not all of the heavy lifting in terms of relocation..but to say "save the park" after thousands of people had been relocated and their homes destroyed seems a little azz backwards from a social and environmental standpoint. I find it hard to believe if the Hilton, I-70 and MLK to 95 portion of this project had been done.. it could have changed some of the commuting patterns in and around the City.. for the better

[santafe400]

I can't imagine the shock of out of town folks (prior to GPS) who thought they were going into Baltimore, only to find out that I-70 left them off in a non-descript suburban part of Baltimore City/County with no easy way into downtown.

Also, I can't be the only one who finds that 2 miles stretch of I-70 just past the beltway to be a tad creepy, considering it is mostly desolate, and seems to serve little purpose.

[Patz0709]

You're right, all that extra asphalt and no traffic on it, few lane markings. Maybe they should rename that stretch Apocalypse Avenue.

[JMBX]

Originally Posted by Woodlands

Thanks Joke Insurance....that is exactly what should have happened...in terms of Hilton Parkway ,I-70, and MLK.. The other stuff about going under Canton or building a highway along Pratt.. I would not support.. but being able to go downtown on 70, MLK, and to 95 would have been great.

Yeah, of course, it would have been great to build all the highways that destroyed poorer neighborhoods that you never visit, but good thing they didn't build that one through the rich white neighborhood.

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by JMBX

Yeah, of course, it would have been great to build all the highways that destroyed poorer neighborhoods that you never visit, but good thing they didn't build that one through the rich white neighborhood.

JMBX you need to go back to the beginning of this thread and read it before you comment... If you had you would learn that I suggested that they should have started at the end of I-70 and work their way through Leakin Park.. few if any homes would have been damaged.. and if they ran out of money they could have ended the highway at Hilton Parkway... THAT DIDNT HAPPEN.. they started downtown at MLK and worked their way west towards the suburbs.. I would have rather them do it between the Beltway and Hilton Parkway which could have been run south into I-95 and also divert traffic on to North Ave, Mulberry and Franklin bound for downtown...... BUT SINCE THEY DID TEAR OUT ALL THOSE AFRICAN AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOODS.. WHY NOT COMPLETE THE HIGHWAY? To tear out out of those homes and to relocate all of those families only to stop the highway because environmentalist wanted to save trees instead of peoples homes just added insult to injury....Seems like you would have gone in the reverse order.. take it through the government owned park and then think about the need to go through the residential neighborhoods.......As to your point.. I live in Baltimore.. frequent all parts of town.. read any of my post in this forum and you will learn as much.....

[JMBX]

You're right, I was being unnecessarily and ignorantly aggressive, I had just finished going through some of the nauseating racist threads about the "ghettos" in the DC suburbs and wasn't being rational. That being said, I do find it amusing how everyone thinks the Fells Point Expressway would be so horrible but are much more willing to contemplate similar highways through the Westside (to be more specific, more highways through the Westside). Agreed, 70 through Leakin would be relatively harmless, but I wouldn't build it past Hilton and to be honest I would say any new urban highway construction, no matter how few people are displaced, should be avoided unless absolutely necessary (which i dont think 70/170 is). Even with the Highway to Nowehere already there, I'd simply demolish that and rebuild the Mulberry and Franklin blocks rather than connect it to 70. And are you saying MLK should have been a limited-access highway? because that would be just as bad as the Highway to Nowehere, although admittedly the current situation there is already pretty bad.