Should I-70 be extended into Baltimore?

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by 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.

No worries.. urban highways were the projects de jour back in the 1960s and 1970s and used as urban renewal efforts. The demolition of the westside also sent displaced residents into NW Baltimore.. which was heavily jewish. Racial changes is not necessarily bad.. but when its done in a wave instead of organically as happened in Park Heights.. you can see the consequences.

I think back when the highway under Fells was being contemplated.. you had two issues.. One, the cost to go under was extremely high and Two, the neighborhood was blue collar white.. which at the time, was more organized and had much political clout to include our current Senator Babs Mikulski along with others like Nancy Pelosi.. who was the daughter of Mayor D'Alesandro... There was way more political clout and organization that what you had in West Baltimore which had been deemed a "slum".

If you google 'Vine Street Expressway' or I-676 in Philadelphia. This is what my thoughts are for MLK.. Both are very similiar and serve a similar function to get traffic around the CBD with minimal interuptions to surface traffic and very few exits.. It would have been a better way to connect I-83 with I-95 via I-395 which would allow traffic not bound for downtown to bypass it for I-95 or the stadiums. It could also be could also be decked over with parks/greenspace plazas that would better connect downtown with the Westside...

[bus man]

Originally Posted by JMBX

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.

Why? What would be the point? Why focus on that one area when there are plenty of other blighted areas that DON'T have a freeway running under them, and could be targeted for improvement first? And even if you did fill in the highway trench, you've still got the U.S. 40 traffic heading into downtown. What would you do with it? Personally, I think that making the highway below-grade (as they did) is the least-intrusive means they could have used. Certainly, if I lived there, I'd rather open my front door to a ditch (i.e. the Highway to Nowhere) than a six-lane arterial roadway at surface level.

One can certainly debate whether or not the Highway to Nowhere should have been built. But it was. Like it or not, it's there. The question now becomes, what to do with it? And what to do with the two-mile "spur" of I-70 east of the Beltway? If you really do believe that the best thing to do with the Highway to Nowhere is fill it in, so be it. But I would not agree.

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by bus man

Why? What would be the point? Why focus on that one area when there are plenty of other blighted areas that DON'T have a freeway running under them, and could be targeted for improvement first? And even if you did fill in the highway trench, you've still got the U.S. 40 traffic heading into downtown. What would you do with it? Personally, I think that making the highway below-grade (as they did) is the least-intrusive means they could have used. Certainly, if I lived there, I'd rather open my front door to a ditch (i.e. the Highway to Nowhere) than a six-lane arterial roadway at surface level.

One can certainly debate whether or not the Highway to Nowhere should have been built. But it was. Like it or not, it's there. The question now becomes, what to do with it? And what to do with the two-mile "spur" of I-70 east of the Beltway? If you really do believe that the best thing to do with the Highway to Nowhere is fill it in, so be it. But I would not agree.

If the Red Line as we know it is revamped/scuttled.. I would like to see them build the first leg from West Baltimore MARC via the Highway to No Where down to Howard Street on the surface.. Once it gets to Howard Street, it should run down the existing tracks to Pratt Street the on out Pratt Street, on the surface, on whatever route they decide, through East Baltimore...If the build it beyond West Baltimore.. it could follow the same route as the current Red Line.. but on the surface on out to Woodlawn. I know on the surface is not ideal.. but it would save $$$. I was told that the current Red Line train sets would not run on the current light rail tracks.. That is a mistake. Why do we want to have train sets that are exclusively for use on separate lines? The only exception should be the Metro Subway for obvious reasons.. They should use the same "train sets" as the use on the current light rail line though with the most up to date technology. If they decide to build elevated platforms they can get train sets specially made like the MARC cars which have four sets of doors on each end of the cars. One set for high platforms the other for low platforms.. The operator can open the appropriate door depending on what type of station its in...They should use this type of train set primarily on the Red Line.. but that wouldnt preclude them for using them on the existing light rail route if need be, but that would be the exception rather than the rule....

Also, I would like for them to extend the "Yellow Line" AKA (Camden Penn Shuttle) through Penn Station and down under the JFX to Pratt Street.. You would in effect have a Light Rail Version of the Chicago Loop and a variety of light rail train movements could be made as trains circle the downtown area. Any additional savings by not having the light rail under ground could fund the extension of the Metro Subway from JHU to the Northeast Corridor up Broadway and an East Baltimore MARC Station.

[bus man]

Originally Posted by Woodlands

If the Red Line as we know it is revamped/scuttled.. I would like to see them build the first leg from West Baltimore MARC via the Highway to No Where down to Howard Street on the surface.. Once it gets to Howard Street, it should run down the existing tracks to Pratt Street the on out Pratt Street, on the surface, on whatever route they decide, through East Baltimore

If you look back to the history of the earliest subways (New York, London, Paris, etc.), the main reason that they were built underground was to avoid the horrible congestion of the surface street network. Well, here we are 100 years later and there's still plenty of congestion on the surface streets. Building the light rail line on the surface was a mistake; penny-wise but pound-foolish. You get what you pay for, and what we've gotten is a slower, less-reliable rail line than we could have had. (Just compare the speed and reliability of the light rail with the Metro Subway to see what I mean.) I'm glad to see that they've learned their lesson (at least in part) and are proposing to put the Red Line in a tunnel through downtown and some other areas.

Actually, the same argument can be used for roads as well. All else being equal, a grade-separated highway (such as I-70) will have a better traffic flow than a surface street with cross streets and traffic lights. The reason that the various interstates have traffic congestion is not that there are cross streets (because, obviously, there aren't any) but because there are simply too many vehicles trying to fit onto the roadway at the same time.

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by bus man

If you look back to the history of the earliest subways (New York, London, Paris, etc.), the main reason that they were built underground was to avoid the horrible congestion of the surface street network. Well, here we are 100 years later and there's still plenty of congestion on the surface streets. Building the light rail line on the surface was a mistake; penny-wise but pound-foolish. You get what you pay for, and what we've gotten is a slower, less-reliable rail line than we could have had. (Just compare the speed and reliability of the light rail with the Metro Subway to see what I mean.) I'm glad to see that they've learned their lesson (at least in part) and are proposing to put the Red Line in a tunnel through downtown and some other areas.

Actually, the same argument can be used for roads as well. All else being equal, a grade-separated highway (such as I-70) will have a better traffic flow than a surface street with cross streets and traffic lights. The reason that the various interstates have traffic congestion is not that there are cross streets (because, obviously, there aren't any) but because there are simply too many vehicles trying to fit onto the roadway at the same time.

I get what you are saying.. but I have seen light rail in places like Dallas, Houston and even places like Buffalo and Cleveland that run in traffic. It is less than ideal but Baltimore doesnt seem to have the density or the ridership to justify the cost of putting it underground..Maybe the road congestion would force more people to ride it