Thoughts? Seems to me that the current setup does a great job of keeping people out of the city.

Even I-83 and I-95 seem to shoot "through" the city. Most other cities I've been to (a lot) look like they do a better job of bringing people in, rather than hustling them past.

^^i feel that i'm a positive person, but THIS connection will never happen. too costly.

^^^^Umm... looks like a history lesson is in order...83 was planned to go through(and destroy) Fells Point and Canton....95 was going to be a big ugly bridge over Fort McHenry or Federal Hill and 70 was going to cut through Leakin Park and go downtown and connect to 95. All this was to move suburbanites in and out of downtown easier in the pre-exurb days.Community opposition blocked these plans and Canton, Fells Pt,Harbor East,Locust Pt and Federal Hill are now some of the most valuable residential areas in the city. Other cities did such a great job they have had to spend billions to reverse such messes as 95 on the Delaware in Philly or the "Big Dig" in Boston (which still leave much to be desired.) Had these plans gone through Baltimore would be Newark now.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt-3A-I95-I70-I170-m.jpg
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt-3A-I95-I83-m.jpg

they were all supposed to connect, but residents who would have their homes torn down naturally opposed it. I-70 was supposed to continue eastward to Downtown and I-83, where the two would connect and then connect with I-95. The part of the expressways that were never built would've ripped up much of Little Italy and Fell's Point.

All the details that anybody needs to know are posted on http://www.roadstothefuture.com/main.html . In the intervening years the future became the past. One side effect of this aborted plan is that one of the leaders of the anti-road group was Barbara Mikulski before her days in the Senate.

^^^^Umm... looks like a history lesson is in order...83 was planned to go through(and destroy) Fells Point and Canton....95 was going to be a big ugly bridge over Fort McHenry or Federal Hill and 70 was going to cut through Leakin Park and go downtown and connect to 95. All this was to move suburbanites in and out of downtown easier in the pre-exurb days.Community opposition blocked these plans and Canton, Fells Pt,Harbor East,Locust Pt and Federal Hill are now some of the most valuable residential areas in the city. Other cities did such a great job they have had to spend billions to reverse such messes as 95 on the Delaware in Philly or the "Big Dig" in Boston (which still leave much to be desired.) Had these plans gone through Baltimore would be Newark now.
wow!! thanks for the history lesson, baltosteve!! never knew about these plans.:okay:

it looks like I-170's original plans was to go right through edmondson village. am i right?

^^i feel that i'm a positive person, but THIS connection will never happen. too costly.

...plus...it is not needed. I-395 works perfectly well bringing in traffic from I-95, and I-83 (the JFX) is working fine with it's terminus in Inner Harbor East. There's no point in bringing through traffic (not headed to Baltimore) into the downtown area. That's what the Beltway is for...or it can use I-95.

I'm as glad as the next man that our waterfront neighborhoods weren't torn up to make way for that silly looking interstate exchange over the harbor, but it is pretty stupid that you have to go through downtown to get from the JFX to 395 and 95.

There should be a dedicated artery. At the very least, DOT could begin a thru streets marketing campaign. Kinda like what NYC DOT does in Manhattan. President, Pratt, Lombard and Fayette are all terrible in the evening.

Thoughts? Seems to me that the current setup does a great job of keeping people out of the city.

Even I-83 and I-95 seem to shoot "through" the city. Most other cities I've been to (a lot) look like they do a better job of bringing people in, rather than hustling them past.

Boston's and Philly's waterfronts were ruined by the types of highways activists like Mikulski stopped or forced to re-route. Boston just spent more than $15 billion to remedy that mistake ... but they'll never get the great old 19th c. granite warehouses and other mercantile buildings back.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting to revive old plans. It just seems like a connection between I-95 and I-83 would be very beneficial, as would a connection between I-70 and downtown (at least).

While I recognize that the beltway serves this purpose to some degree, it pushes people around the city, rather than bringing them in. I'd rather have more through traffic in the city, if it gives the city better exposure.

I certainly don't think the answer is to uproot historic neighborhoods. A connection between I-83 and I-95 (or I-395) could happen somewhere along the MLK corridor. If I-70 were completed (maybe reroute around the parks -- not sure how easily this would be achieved) it could connect in that same MLK area. This could move some of the traffic westward, foster a bit of local development, and bring people into (and through) the city, rather than keeping them out and around it.

Boston's and Philly's waterfronts were ruined by the types of highways activists like Mikulski stopped or forced to re-route. Boston just spent more than $15 billion to remedy that mistake ... but they'll never get the great old 19th c. granite warehouses and other mercantile buildings back.

Granted, but connecting these three highways doesn't mean demolishing historic neighborhoods any more than it means plowing through M&T Bank Stadium. Any new plans could be informed by new realities and lessons learned from other cities.

I would be in favor of changing the way MLK links up to 83, because it's pretty confusing as it is right now. I'm not sure how they could do that. But perhaps whatever changes they made could be accompanied by adding the mechanisms on Howard St to let the light rail preempt traffic, since that is around where the train starts its run down Howard.

I can't really think of a way to accomplish the I-70 extension without destroying things, which is the opposite of what we're trying to do on the west side, so I don't think it's a great idea.

<snip>I certainly don't think the answer is to uproot historic neighborhoods. A connection between I-83 and I-95 (or I-395) could happen somewhere along the MLK corridor. If I-70 were completed (maybe reroute around the parks -- not sure how easily this would be achieved) it could connect in that same MLK area. This could move some of the traffic westward, foster a bit of local development, and bring people into (and through) the city, rather than keeping them out and around it.

I'm with you on this in principle. Howev-ah, assuming the money was available, the I-70 connection is still a tough nut. Run it north of the park and solid neighborhoods (http://www.livebaltimore.com/ID=3444/TYPE=1630/Neighborhood_Map_June_2005.pdf) like Dickeyville, Franklintown, and Wakefield take it on the chin first; go south and West Hills, Hunting Ridge, Westgate or Ten Hills get nailed. As does, potentially, the soon-to-be-rebuilt Uplands community.

The 83-95 connection could possibly be improved by making Fleet and Aliceanna a one-way pair from President to Boston (which is being discussed as part of running the Red Line though as an at-grade streetcar-type operation). Alternatively, improving the connections between the Maryland Avenue exit of 83 and 95 (via improvements to the links between Charles, Oliver and Mt. Royal, and Chase/Cathedral and MLK at Howard Street) might help.

I certainly don't think the answer is to uproot historic neighborhoods. A connection between I-83 and I-95 (or I-395) could happen somewhere along the MLK corridor. If I-70 were completed (maybe reroute around the parks -- not sure how easily this would be achieved) it could connect in that same MLK area. This could move some of the traffic westward, foster a bit of local development, and bring people into (and through) the city, rather than keeping them out and around it.

In theory, I would support I-70 to downtown. It would bring more people downtown and would not be a through route so it isn't just people passing through.

Saying that, it will never happen. To not destroy most of Edmundson village, I-70 would have to go through Leakin Park (as per the orginal plan), that simply will not happen as the Federal Govt. will not supply $1 to a road that destroys a park since 1968.

I really don't think that I-83 to I-95 was every a really needed road. I-395 serves this function well. I would be in favor of a better connection between MLK north and I-83, perhaps in conjunction with the state center re-do.

I would also (and I am probably alone here) favor finishing a connection between I-95 and the old I-170 (rt 40) as an alternate entrance to downtown, if I-395 ever becomes overwhelmed.

Additionally the State has already traded in its approved fed funds for the uncompleted 70, 170, and 83 for other highway project. The feds will not grant funds for items that were already traded (Denver tried this).

After the city's expressway plans were scrapped (good riddance) we were supposed to get a metro instead, I think. Too bad all we got was the one line, hardly a suitable alternative. It was originally supposed to turn south after downtown and go to BWI, along the current light rail route. And the interstates were just built in the 'burbs instead, thus making Baltimore sort of the black hole around which the metropolitan area revolves...

As for connecting 70 to downtown in a responsible way, I don't think it's impossible. I like Gerard Neily's (http://baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com/2007/02/leakin-park.html) idea - Connecting Franklintown road to 70, making it a parkway, and connecting it to Hilton Parkway. Traffic could bypass southwest Baltimore entirely, and from the end of the bypass it's just a short hop to the ditch. Built in concert with the red line mobility between downtown and the western suburbs would be greatly improved and Edmondson could actually become something resembling a city street.

As for 83-95, I like the idea of building a connector in the MLK corridor. Maybe a small elevated expressway could serve as a bypass, an extension of 395, and connect with the ditch along the way. Neighborhoods on both sides could eventually be stitched together, since the moat that is MLK would be gone (I'm not sure how close together people want west Baltimore and downtown at this point..).

deleted

I would also (and I am probably alone here) favor finishing a connection between I-95 and the old I-170 (rt 40) as an alternate entrance to downtown, if I-395 ever becomes overwhelmed.

Interesting. Too bad the state demo-ed the supports for the ramps for that connection several years ago. Gerry Neily has some interesting ideas for the old 170 in his Baltimore Innerspace (http://baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html) blog.

Interesting. Too bad the state demo-ed the supports for the ramps for that connection several years ago. Gerry Neily has some interesting ideas for the old 170 in his Baltimore Innerspace blog.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_yr4jQ27eK1g/RvsdErYknnI/AAAAAAAAAVc/sFKumMC3WjA/s1600-h/Franklin-Mulberry+Looking+West+from+MLK.jpg

Thats really nothing as long as they still own the land. Saying that I don't expect it to every happen.

I am definitely opposed to eliminating 170 for 2 reasons. 1. It is the obvious place for the red line. 2. It gets 45k cars a day in traffic. We don't need that amount transferred elsewhere.

edit. I had assumed Neily was for filling in 170, now that I read his blog I stand corrected.