Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[sprjus4]

I've had mine in hand all day. 

[NE2]

I've had mine in hand all day. 

OK then. Not going to kinkshame.

[Beltway]

The entire 17 miles of U.S. 17 in Chesapeake has limited-access. There's two breaks in the limited-access right of way for 2 private driveways, those of which can easily have a frontage road extension.
If the farm at the southern end is truly an issue, they can buy out the west side of it. Or, even if they did construct a bridge, it would be $5-10 million maximum. A narrow 1 lane grade-separation would not cost a lot of money. It's not like it'd be designed like a public roadway bridge.
4 interchanges would be needed - Scenic Pkwy, George Washington Hwy, Cornland Rd, and Ballahack Rd. Those would cost around $60-70 million to construct total.

Mr. Cartwright's farm has property on both sides of US-17, it was divided by the relocation project, and he has 3 at-grade intersections with breaks in the limited access right-of-way line, they provide him access across the highway as well as to the highway.  VDOT can expect some serious legal opposition if they try to take a major chunk out of his farm, plus serious acquisition expense, so I don't see that is being a feasible alternative.  With most farm equipment you can't accommodate that on a one-lane bridge, so figure a 2-lane bridge with gradual enough earthen roadway approaches so that heavy farm equipment can make it up the grade.

A location/EIS study and public hearings and city resident input would most likely result in at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange.

There are several ways to address the Cartwright Farm, the least expensive way that also gives him full access to his farm and full grade-separated access to US-17 at about the midpoint of his farm, would probably be to build a private paved service road for 3 miles (yeah, that is how big his farm is!) along the east side of the highway and to build a diamond interchange near Number Two Ditch and it would be for his private use.

A basic freeway interchange with a local road would be about $25 million in today's dollars, just for construction.   The overpass without interchange on level terrain would require earthen roadway approach to meet grade and this would be about $10 million in today's dollars, just for construction.

So that is 6 interchanges and 4 overpasses, or $190 million in today's dollars, just for construction.  Maybe 5 miles of 2-lane service road at $10 million total, now up to $200 million total.

Design engineering and construction engineering together are budgeted at 15% of construction costs, so $30 million for that in today's dollars.

Right-of-way costs would be dependent on the final design and the lands impacted, but for the above I don't think it would be less than $20 million.

So that is $250 million, in today's dollars (I keep repeating that phrase because in a state or local TIP it would be inflation-factored thru the various budget years).  That $250 million would be a good starting point at this time, naturally it would take preliminary engineering studies and design reviews to come up with a detailed estimate.

That $60-70 million is a way-lowballed figure generated for N.C. business advocacy group purposes.

This is a wasteful project and the money would be much better spent elsewhere.
.

[froggie]

^ Could probably just buy out his property on the west side of 17 and add that to the Dismal Swamp refuge...then just need to give him access off of Ballahack or Douglas...I'm not sure offhand where his property is.

But probably several years down the road (pun intended) before traffic along 17 there warrants controlled access...will depend on how much northern Camden County develops with Hampton Roads commuters.

[Beltway]

^ Could probably just buy out his property on the west side of 17 and add that to the Dismal Swamp refuge...then just need to give him access off of Ballahack or Douglas...I'm not sure offhand where his property is.
But probably several years down the road (pun intended) before traffic along 17 there warrants controlled access...will depend on how much northern Camden County develops with Hampton Roads commuters.

Google Maps Satellite View shows it pretty well ... that massive farm in the southwestern corner of the City of Chesapeake, approximately 3 miles square.  The portion west of US-17 is at or close to a square mile, so I doubt he would want to give it up, and it would be very expensive to acquire.

Actually he has a 4th access point to US-17, about 200 feet north of the NC/VA border, so that would need to be addressed as well and by VDOT and not NCDOT.  He had all those access points with the old highway, they were granted on the relocated highway, and if they were closed, unless he was given a paved service road along the eastern edge of US-17, he would see a serious loss of access, and that service road would consume more of his farm, and the southern end would need a grade separation to connect to the west side of US-17 and of course that is right up against the edge of the Dismal Swamp Canal.

I don't pretend to have a solution to the Cartwright Farm, just that it would take some tough negotiating between the owner and the state, and a major expense whatever the alternative.

[froggie]

If that's the location, I don't think access to that farm is as big of a deal as some may think.  An interchange at Ballahack would probably be built anyway...that'd connect both sides of 17.  And looking at satellite imagery, he has farm path access to all of his fields east of 17 off of both Ballahack and Ponderosa Rd on the NC side.  He would have to be reimbursed for losing direct access off 17, but he does have other already-existing access.

[Beltway]

If that's the location, I don't think access to that farm is as big of a deal as some may think.  An interchange at Ballahack would probably be built anyway...that'd connect both sides of 17.  And looking at satellite imagery, he has farm path access to all of his fields east of 17 off of both Ballahack and Ponderosa Rd on the NC side.  He would have to be reimbursed for losing direct access off 17, but he does have other already-existing access.

I don't believe that either Ballahack Road or Ponderosa Road connect to his farm, at least not directly, and he doesn't have much in the way of internal circulation other than the east-west Ditch roads which are dirt and not paved.  And of course the old 2-lane US-17 was permanently closed to motor vehicle traffic.

The fact that he got 4 breaks in the limited-access right-of-way line granted to him by the CTB, giving him at-grade private intersections, would indicate that special considerations were needed given the configuration and massive size of the farm; one or two access points were not enough.

[sprjus4]

A location/EIS study and public hearings and city resident input would most likely result in at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange.

Interchanges located at Scenic Pkwy, George Washington Hwy + connecting to Herring Ditch Rd (diamond interchange), Cornland Rd, and Ballahack Rd would be all that's needed. There wouldn't need to be any additional grade-separations. The loss of access at Glencoe St would be given at the Ballahack Rd interchange, Douglas Rd / Benefit Rd has easy access over to both Ballahack and Cornland Rd interchanges, Eaglet Pkwy would have access via George Washington Hwy interchange, and Grassfield Pkwy would have access via the existing Cedar Rd interchange. There's not really a possible way to construct an interchange at Grassfield Pkwy without some complex designs, and likely would not be warranted thanks to the new 4-lane service road they opened a few months ago paralleling US 17 between Cedar Rd and Grassfield Pkwy + Cahoon Pkwy provides access.

There are several ways to address the Cartwright Farm, the least expensive way that also gives him full access to his farm and full grade-separated access to US-17 at about the midpoint of his farm, would probably be to build a private paved service road for 3 miles (yeah, that is how big his farm is!) along the east side of the highway and to build a diamond interchange near Number Two Ditch and it would be for his private use.

The city plans on constructing an Eco-Tourism Park & Equestrian Center + a wildlife overpass on the entire site west of US 17, therefore eliminating the need for an overpass.

The city also plans on eventually constructing the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park on the southern mile of the tract, and would likely come with it's own interchange access. That would provide access to both the farm + the park.

The current plan below shows intersections at these locations, but these designs were completed before the I-87 designation came, so these would obviously be interchanges / served by frontage roads.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/supporting_docs/actions_council/2018/12-18-18/PPH-F.pdf
Page 60 (PDF Page 65) - Eco-Tourism Park & Equestrian Center concept
Page 66 (PDF Page 71) - Coastal Virginia Commerce Park concept

The farm tract is slowly going to get developed. There's not going to be "legal opposition", he supports the developments himself, because the city is going to buy land, and reimburse him.

A basic freeway interchange with a local road would be about $25 million in today's dollars, just for construction.   The overpass without interchange on level terrain would require earthen roadway approach to meet grade and this would be about $10 million in today's dollars, just for construction.

So that is 6 interchanges and 4 overpasses, or $190 million in today's dollars, just for construction.  Maybe 5 miles of 2-lane service road at $10 million total, now up to $200 million total. Design engineering and construction engineering together are budgeted at 15% of construction costs, so $30 million for that in today's dollars.

Right-of-way costs would be dependent on the final design and the lands impacted, but for the above I don't think it would be less than $20 million.

4 interchanges, no overpasses. The Coastal Virginia Commerce Park interchange (if that's a thing) would be apart of that package, not I-87. $100 million. Figure a couple miles of frontage roads, around $110 million. R/W + engineering, around $130 million.

Also, interchanges have been (recently) constructed for as low as $15 million. Some of the higher estimates come due to full property relocations, not currently on limited-access right of way either, swampy / forested land, etc. This is on farmland, and no properties would be taken. So your figure would slightly decrease. If you used $15 million per interchange, that's $60 million, plus frontage road, so $70 million. Factor R/W + engineering, around $80-90 million.

This is a wasteful project and the money would be much better spent elsewhere.

Like what, $300 million on a couple interchanges on US 58 that won't have any benefit whatsoever? $500 million for 8-lanes? $700 million for the adequate Bowers Hill interchange? This would at least provide a continuous freeway design down US 17 for 97 miles, along with another 100 on the existing US 64 interstate-grade freeway. It's also cheaper than all those other projects.

Let's wait until this actually gets further down the road (pun intended) and see what actually happens. Maybe this project won't get funded and built. Maybe it will. Nobody knows. I think we'd be wasting our time if we kept arguing whether it should be funded or not.

Either way, Chesapeake can develop projects over time that go with this end-goal, and over time do it themselves. Or, they can do one interchange at a time, not all at once, and get state-federal funding. US 74 between I-95 and Wilmington is a limited-access road with intersections. Over the course of around 20 years, they've been building interchanges one by one as they get funded. It's part of the I-74 corridor There's been no "one specific" project to fully upgrade it. US 17 can be done a similar way. Scenic Pkwy first, then George Washington Hwy (that area will start to develop soon), then the rural intersections, Ballahack and Cornland.

If that's the location, I don't think access to that farm is as big of a deal as some may think.  An interchange at Ballahack would probably be built anyway...that'd connect both sides of 17.  And looking at satellite imagery, he has farm path access to all of his fields east of 17 off of both Ballahack and Ponderosa Rd on the NC side.  He would have to be reimbursed for losing direct access off 17, but he does have other already-existing access.

NCDOT's conceptual designs for US 17 show a frontage road being constructed from South Mills all the way to the Virginia border. This could be extended if necessary, but I've mentioned above the city has plans to develop that site anyways, along with the other part of the tract split by US 17.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-feasibility-study/Documents/us-17-segment-10.pdf

[Beltway]

A location/EIS study and public hearings and city resident input would most likely result in at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange.

Interchanges located at Scenic Pkwy, George Washington Hwy + connecting to Herring Ditch Rd (diamond interchange), Cornland Rd, and Ballahack Rd would be all that's needed. There wouldn't need to be any additional grade-separations.

It is not for business advocacy groups to decide how to "pare down" the design to a minimum cost to present to the public to try to justify posting those red-white-and-blue trailblazers.

Starting point would be at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange.  It it ever gets an EIS/location study that could be debated, but only then.

Also, interchanges have been (recently) constructed for as low as $15 million.

Construction alone for a basic rural freeway interchange is more in the $20 to $25 million range, sometimes more.  A hungry contractor might bid it lower especially in down economic times, but those are the figures I would utilize.

This is a wasteful project and the money would be much better spent elsewhere.

Like what, $300 million on a couple interchanges on US 58 that won't have any benefit whatsoever? $500 million for 8-lanes? $700 million for the adequate Bowers Hill interchange?

Wildly exaggerated figures.   

Your list from the long-range plans last week would have been inflation-factored into the future years.

Here is what happens with my US-17 preliminary estimate which is in -today's- dollars, into what might be a realistic timespan to build it --

$250 million in 2020
Inflation-factored to 2030-2035 program funding
5% per year ------ $473 million
8% per year ------ $668 million
10% per year ----- $848 million

10% average per year cost inflation for heavy construction, is actually rather typical, and some years are worse.  So a properly programmed STIP or MPO long-range plan should IMHO utilize at least 8% per year in the out years on average, although on a plan with a 20-year horizon such as a 2040 plan, I would strongly recommend using 10% per year.

[Tomahawkin]

I like your thoughts. I suggested the same with IH81 to relieve truck and bypass traffic out of the Atlanta area. Since no perimeter is going to be built. There needs to be serious consideration in making another route through GA to keep bypass traffic out of Atlanta, especially on weekends...

[sprjus4]

It is not for business advocacy groups to decide how to "pare down" the design to a minimum cost to present to the public to try to justify posting those red-white-and-blue trailblazers.

Starting point would be at least 5 public road interchanges, and at least 4 overpass bridges with no interchange.  It it ever gets an EIS/location study that could be debated, but only then.

It's funny, because there are 7 public road at-grade intersections. Let's go through them -

• Grassfield Pkwy - Extremely expensive to construct interchange here, tight, urban braided ramps concept required, access is provided via new frontage road that opened a few months back from the Cedar Road interchange. This would not justify an interchange.
• Scenic Pkwy - An interchange would be located here
• George Washington Hwy - An interchange would be located here, connected to Herring Ditch Rd to create a single diamond interchange.
• Cornland Rd - An interchange would be located here
• Douglas Rd - Approx. 1 mile away from Cornland Rd interchange, located in a heavy swampy area, and it does not justify an interchange nor an overpass. There's nothing located on the west side. Road would dead end.
• Glencoe St - Approx. 1 mile away from Ballahack Rd interchange, is a minor residential street, and has one property on the west side. Access could be provided via the existing Dismal Swamp Canal Trail, which is a built up roadway For one residence, this access could be granted, and a low speed limit posted. It would not warrant the cost to construct an overpass when an adequate roadway exists, especially for one residence, not an entire neighborhood. About half of this section of trail is already used as a public roadway to the Boat Ramp, along with a private residential access, Speed Limit 15.
• Ballahack Rd - An interchange would be located here.

I'm scratching my head wondering where you get 5 interchanges, and 4 overpasses, that's 9 total grade separations, some with ramps. There's only 7 public road at-grade intersections. Where are your proposed interchanges and overpasses specifically? Does one empty into the Dismal Swamp Canal?

4 interchanges would adequately serve the corridor, and it's not "business advocacy groups trying to keep the price low", I came up with that looking through the route, have driven the route numerous of times, have used these access points numerous of times, have spoken to locals in the area about the interstate in the past... baloney? Those are the most justified access points, and I can't see where anymore would need to be located...

I suppose you'd say the same about North Carolina's $1 billion estimate. Should it be $5 billion? Those estimates were done via concepts drew up in a feasibility study, and an engineering cost estimate for each segment. Did business advocacy groups come up with all those estimates + design concepts & engineering estimates?

Construction alone for a basic rural freeway interchange is more in the $20 to $25 million range, sometimes more.  A hungry contractor might bid it lower especially in down economic times, but those are the figures I would utilize.

I find your estimates funny. On the U.S. 74 / 76 corridor near Hallsboro, NC, there's currently 1 interchange under construction, and another interchange + an overpass planned for construction in a few years on an existing limited-access at-grade highway.

• U.S. 74 / Hallsboro Road Interchange - Under Construction - https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/A-Columbus-County-Intersection-with-US-74-76-to-be-Improved.aspx - ($9.4 million)
• U.S. 74 / Chauncey Town Rd Interchange + U.S. 74 / Old Lake Rd Overpass - Construction in 2022 - https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-lake-waccamaw-interchange-at-US-74.aspx - ($13 million)

Also, U.S. 117, Future I-795. Two interchanges for $20 million - https://www.newsargus.com/news/u-s-overpass-to-be-open-by-november/article_ea1a6068-1b65-5a8a-8e02-2c566e2bcf34.html

I suppose those are baloney figures as well, even though one interchange, $9.4 million, is already under construction, two interchanges, $20 million, one already open, one opening this summer, and 1 interchange & 1 overpass for $13 million under contract?

Then again, two four-lane arterial highways adequately serve the corridors. I suppose these projects are not warranted.

Wildly exaggerated figures.   

Your list from the long-range plans last week would have been inflation-factored into the future years.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P7-2045_LRTP_Candidate_Projects.pdf

"Estimated Planning Level Project Cost, Current Year $ (in Millions)"

[Beltway]

Construction alone for a basic rural freeway interchange is more in the $20 to $25 million range, sometimes more.  A hungry contractor might bid it lower especially in down economic times, but those are the figures I would utilize.

I find your estimates funny. On the U.S. 74 / 76 corridor near Hallsboro, NC, there's currently 1 interchange under construction, and another interchange + an overpass planned for construction in a few years on an existing limited-access at-grade highway.

N.C. is not Virginia. 

The Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange is $20 million for construction.
The Interstate 81 Exit 14 Interchange Improvements is $30 million for construction.
The Route 29 at Route 666, Culpeper County interchange was $19 million for construction.
The I-95 bridge and interchange improvements at Lewistown Road, Hanover, was $29 million for construction.

OK, let's say my $250 million estimate is reduced to $175 million.

Here is what happens with US-17 which is in -today's- dollars, into what might be a realistic timespan to build it --

$175 million in 2020
Inflation-factored to 2030-2035 program funding
5% per year ------ $331 million
8% per year ------ $468 million
10% per year ----- $594 million

10% average per year cost inflation for heavy construction, is actually rather typical, and some years are worse.  So a properly programmed STIP or MPO long-range plan should IMHO utilize at least 8% per year in the out years on average, although on a plan with a 20-year horizon such as a 2040 plan, I would strongly recommend using 10% per year.

I suppose you'd say the same about North Carolina's $1 billion estimate. Should it be $5 billion? Those estimates were done via concepts drew up in a feasibility study, and an engineering cost estimate for each segment.

They used current costs, with no inflation factoring.  Try laying out a segmental build schedule of 2025 to 2040 and see what happens to that figure, it would triple or quadruple (and no I am not going to do the work this time, you can get the idea from the relative figures above).
 

[sprjus4]

N.C. is not Virginia.

The Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange is $20 million for construction.
The Interstate 81 Exit 14 Interchange Improvements is $30 million for construction.
The Route 29 at Route 666, Culpeper County interchange was $19 million for construction.
The I-95 bridge and interchange improvements at Lewistown Road, Hanover, was $29 million for construction.

Those interchanges were more complicated designs. They involved road widening, signalized improvements, etc. On US 17, a more complicated build with 4-lanes, traffic signals, etc. would be required at George Washington Hwy and Scenic Pkwy, but the Ballahack Rd and Cornland interchanges would be built on farmland, and require very simple designs, two lanes of traffic, etc.

So maybe around $40-50 million total for G.W. Hwy and Scenic Pkwy, and $25-30 million for Ballahack and Cornland. Throw in additional $30 million for other improvements, maybe around $95-110 million.

If Chesapeake were to build these projects themselves, they could also use cheaper building methods, similar to the extremely low-cost interchanges in North Carolina. It may not meet VDOT's standard for new interchange construction, however it would still meet interstate standards, the NC examples I listed are on Future I-795 and Future I-74, and could work. If they want I-87 that badly, they could go for the cheapest options and build designs.

$175 million in 2020
Inflation-factored to 2030-2035 program funding
5% per year ------ $331 million
8% per year ------ $468 million
10% per year ----- $594 million

10% average per year cost inflation for heavy construction, is actually rather typical, and some years are worse.  So a properly programmed STIP or MPO long-range plan should IMHO utilize at least 8% per year in the out years on average, although on a plan with a 20-year horizon such as a 2040 plan, I would strongly recommend using 10% per year.

That price is more reasonable in that build year, if compared to other ones. If you consider the fact that area might be more developed, and if Camden County builds their neighborhoods and proposed developments south of the border, more traffic would be using US 17. Throw in the megasite as well, there's more. It could be justified, if they continue looking at the fact it's an interstate between Norfolk and Raleigh and "direct" connection to I-95, and not see through the additional mileage. That's currently how it seems. They wouldn't even be considering the project now if they were concerned with additional mileage, I've not seen anything citing the additional mileage from HRTPO, only "an interstate linking to I-95 South" which is desired by officials and some people in the area.

They used current costs, with no inflation factoring.  Try laying out a segmental build schedule of 2025 to 2040 and see what happens to that figure, it would triple or quadruple (and no I am not going to do the work this time, you can get the idea from the relative figures above).

I know it does not factor inflation. In the past though, you've mentioned it would be way higher in today's estimates.

[Beltway]

N.C. is not Virginia.
The Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange is $20 million for construction.
The Interstate 81 Exit 14 Interchange Improvements is $30 million for construction.
The Route 29 at Route 666, Culpeper County interchange was $19 million for construction.
The I-95 bridge and interchange improvements at Lewistown Road, Hanover, was $29 million for construction.

Those interchanges were more complicated designs. They involved road widening, signalized improvements, etc. On US 17, a more complicated build with 4-lanes, traffic signals, etc. would be required at George Washington Hwy and Scenic Pkwy, but the Ballahack Rd and Cornland interchanges would be built on farmland, and require very simple designs, two lanes of traffic, etc.

Not really, Warrenton and Culpeper in particular are quite similar, an existing 4-lane highway, a connecting road, four ramps and an overpass bridge.

At least it is not like Maryland where I have noticed ever since the 1970s that a similar Maryland project will cost twice that of the Virginia project.  The new US-15 Frederick Bypass interchange at Monocacy Blvd. is costing $50 million for construction and $71 million total.
https://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=FR5715110
Maryland is an -expensive- place to build heavy construction projects.

So maybe around $40-50 million total for G.W. Hwy and Scenic Pkwy, and $25-30 million for Ballahack and Cornland. Throw in additional $30 million for other improvements, maybe around $95-110 million.

Also:  Need an interchange at Grassfield Parkway, at Eaglet Parkway, an overpass for Douglas Road, an overpass for Glencoe Street, and at least an overpass at the major farm road just north of the state line, maybe ramps as well.  I question the severing of W Road and the lack of an overpass connecting it on either side of US-17.

Keeping the old US-17 open as a secondary road would have been a real help in providing local access, and with the low traffic it would be fine for bicycles and pedestrians as well.  But the City of Chesapeake strongly supported the permanent closure of nearly all of the road to motor vehicles.

For P.E., R/W, C.E. and Construction, overall it still would be $175 million or more, maybe as high as the earlier $250 million estimate.

If Chesapeake were to build these projects themselves, they could also use cheaper building methods, similar to the extremely low-cost interchanges in North Carolina. It may not meet VDOT's standard for new interchange construction, however it would still meet interstate standards, the NC examples I listed are on Future I-795 and Future I-74, and could work. If they want I-87 that badly, they could go for the cheapest options and build designs.

If they are building them that cheaply and they are well below VDOT standard for new interchange construction, I don't see how they could meet current Interstate highway standards.  If the Tar Heel State is indeed building Interstate projects on the cheap, then I want nothing to do with that in Virginia and I will oppose that.

The whole concept of an Interstate highway is to meet the standards of the highest level highway system.

$175 million in 2020
Inflation-factored to 2030-2035 program funding
5% per year ------ $331 million
8% per year ------ $468 million
10% per year ----- $594 million

That price is more reasonable in that build year, if compared to other ones. If you consider the fact that area might be more developed, and if Camden County builds their neighborhoods and proposed developments south of the border, more traffic would be using US 17. Throw in the megasite as well, there's more. It could be justified, if they continue looking at the fact it's an interstate between Norfolk and Raleigh and "direct" connection to I-95, and not see through the additional mileage.

It is not.  There is a substantial double penalty in both time and distance, compared to the current route.

I reviewed my website article on the US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake, written in 2006, and I see that the design speed is 100 kph or 62 mph, I recall that I derived that from a review of the final design plans at that time.  There are substantial amounts of horizontal curvature on the highway that was a result of avoiding environmentally sensitive areas as much as possible.

Dominion Blvd. and I-464 are built to no higher geometric standards.  Therefore there won't be a speed limit higher than 60 mph on those Virginia highways.  This impacts (reduces) the whole idea of 70 mph speed limits providing improved travel times.

That's currently how it seems. They wouldn't even be considering the project now if they were concerned with additional mileage, I've not seen anything citing the additional mileage from HRTPO, only "an interstate linking to I-95 South" which is desired by officials and some people in the area.

It is not even on the radar yet with HRTPO as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.

I intend to contact them and VDOT and find out what they are thinking, and if it is flawed or wrong, to educate them on the FActs.

They used current costs, with no inflation factoring.  Try laying out a segmental build schedule of 2025 to 2040 and see what happens to that figure, it would triple or quadruple (and no I am not going to do the work this time, you can get the idea from the relative figures above).

I know it does not factor inflation. In the past though, you've mentioned it would be way higher in today's estimates.

I think it is disingenuous for news services and business groups to cite a $1.2 billion estimate figure that is current dollars, on a project that would have a long term buildout program like that.  On the face of it, it sounds like the final cost in 2040 (or whatever).

[sprjus4]

Not really, Warrenton and Culpeper in particular are quite similar, an existing 4-lane highway, a connecting road, four ramps and an overpass bridge.

The Culpeper Interchange required widening about .7 miles of road to 4-lanes, and had an urban design. Interchanges at Scenic Pkwy and George Washington Hwy will be like this (around $40 million total using this cost estimate), though the rural designs (2 lane overpass, 2 lane road, basic single lane ramps, no sidewalks, no signals, no R/W relocations, etc.) at Ballahack Rd and Cornland Rd will be significantly cheaper. 4-lane bridges, 3 lane ramps, widening a roadway costs more than basic ramps and a simple 2-lane bridge.

http://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Projects/Culpeper/asset_upload_file133_53290.pdf

The Warrenton intersection currently has 4-lanes, though the interchange is a complex design. Of course it has a higher cost. It will be like a design of a rural interchange when complete, but it's a complicated build, it involves relocating the roadway, complex designs, etc.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/WarrentonSI/d77384_exhibitCIM_FinalDesign.pdf

At least it is not like Maryland where I have noticed ever since the 1970s that a similar Maryland project will cost twice that of the Virginia project.  The new US-15 Frederick Bypass interchange at Monocacy Blvd. is costing $50 million for construction and $71 million total.
https://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=FR5715110
Maryland is an -expensive- place to build heavy construction projects.

Costs get higher as you go north. Look at D.C. Projects are significantly more expensive up there then let's say down south.

Also:  Need an interchange at Grassfield Parkway, at Eaglet Parkway, an overpass for Douglas Road, an overpass for Glencoe Street, and at least an overpass at the major farm road just north of the state line, maybe ramps as well.  I question the severing of W Road and the lack of an overpass connecting it on either side of US-17.

• Grassfield Pkwy - I've mentioned several times there's already a 4-lane frontage road between Cedar Rd and Grassfield Pkwy that provides this access, along with the 4-lane Cahoon Pkwy. The complicated design of an interchange here + easily accessible alternate routes would not warrant it.
• Eaglet Parkway - I'd say about 5 cars per day use this intersection. Where would an interchange here go or lead to? An interchange at George Washington Hwy about 1/2 mile away would provide access. An interchange at Eaglet Pkwy would be completely useless, even if there was unlimited money.
• Douglas Rd - Again, an overpass to where? The swamp? There's nothing on the west side of US 17. About 1 car per day or less even use this stretch of Douglas Rd. Even with unlimited money, this would be useless.
• Glencoe St - About maybe 3 cars per day use this. There's one property on the west side of U.S. 17, and the existing trail would be fine for that one property. Does not warrant an overpass, and residents on the east side can use the Ballahack Rd interchange about 1 mile away.
• West Road - This intersection was permanently severed 10 years ago with the construction of Scenic Pkwy, which provides adequate access. Once an interchange is built at Scenic Pkwy, it will continue to provide access. There's no justification or warranting reason to construct an overpass.
• Farm Road(?) - Again, the city has development plans for this area, and no interchange or overpass would be warranted for simply the farm. If development came, an interchange would be apart of the package for the development, not the I-87 upgrade. A minor frontage road extension from NC's proposal might be warranted IF the city does not develop this tract, but there's absolutely no justification for an entire interchange. NCDOT is proposing about 5 miles of frontage road up to the state line, where drivers would have to head all the way down to the Rest Area interchange to access US 17 / I-87. VDOT or Chesapeake would not waste the amount of money required to please this one property owner. It would be significantly cheaper to compensate for access lost. There wouldn't be an "legal" action, and if there was, there's no way VDOT / Chesapeake is in the wrong. Right-of-way and eminent domain has always been a thing in highway construction, and just because this guy owns a lot of land does mean mean he gets $10+ million for his own private interchange.
  
  I highly doubt this would even be considered in design, studies, etc.

Keeping the old US-17 open as a secondary road would have been a real help in providing local access, and with the low traffic it would be fine for bicycles and pedestrians as well.  But the City of Chesapeake strongly supported the permanent closure of nearly all of the road to motor vehicles.

Correct. If they were to ever turn old US-17 into a full trail, that would involve purchasing the properties along the road and demolishing them. They would not build a private overpass when an adequate road exists, or if they converted it to a full trail, it would still be extremely cheaper to purchase the property than an overpass.

If they are building them that cheaply and they are well below VDOT standard for new interchange construction, I don't see how they could meet current Interstate highway standards.  If the Tar Heel State is indeed building Interstate projects on the cheap, then I want nothing to do with that in Virginia and I will oppose that.

The whole concept of an Interstate highway is to meet the standards of the highest level highway system.

Correct. The interchanges built do meet interstate highway standards, or they would not be apart of the interstate system. If Chesapeake builds interchanges in this concept, and is ready to request for I-87 designation, the roadway would meet full interstate highway standards, and would be eligible.

North Carolina doesn't get special exceptions, they must meet interstate standards as well.

I reviewed my website article on the US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake, written in 2006, and I see that the design speed is 100 kph or 62 mph, I recall that I derived that from a review of the final design plans at that time.  There are substantial amounts of horizontal curvature on the highway that was a result of avoiding environmentally sensitive areas as much as possible.

Dominion Blvd. and I-464 are built to no higher geometric standards.  Therefore there won't be a speed limit higher than 60 mph on those Virginia highways.  This impacts (reduces) the whole idea of 70 mph speed limits providing improved travel times.

US-17 Relocation can easily handle 70 MPH, I know it's breaking the existing limit, but I've driven it that fast in the past, and it's just perfectly safe. In fact, most drivers do around this speed, because it's designed so well.  A speed study could be done once it's build to interstate standards to determine it can have a higher speed.

And I don't mean I was doing 65 or 70 MPH struggling to stay on the road, being reckless, etc., it was a comfortable speed, the curves were gradual, easy to maintain, and it feels like a posted 70 MPH interstate-highway already were there's no intersections. It still stuns me it's posted at 55 MPH.

Dominion Blvd was built to a design speed of 60 MPH, and can easily handle 65 MPH, again, I've done it safely before, as do most drivers.

Call me a speedaholic as you will, but just about everyone that drives that road will tell you it can easily handle 70 MPH. There's no tight curves that make you have to slow down. All the curves are gradual, have a safe design, etc. If anything, the speed limit 55 is dangerous in itself, because studies have shown when you post a speed limit well below the actual safe speed, it causes safety issues. If you try 55 MPH on that road, you will almost guaranteeably get passed, tailgated, etc. by a group of people doing 65 - 70 MPH. This applies to the Chesapeake Expressway / Rt 168 as well.

Just because it has "design speed" doesn't mean it can handle faster. They could build a 5 mile straight away road, with a 60 MPH design speed. That could easily be beaten and re-evaluated. The US-64 widening proposed in North Carolina (though not funded) would have over 10 miles of 4-lane divided straight away roadway with almost no intersections, 1 or 2 driveways, and a 55 MPH speed limit. Is that the highest it can "safely" handle, when they're building the roadway at the same geometric design as they build 70 MPH freeways?

It is not even on the radar yet with HRTPO as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.

I intend to contact them and VDOT and find out what they are thinking, and if it is flawed or wrong, to educate them on the FActs.

The desire is for a southerly interstate connection. From VDOT's standpoint, what seems like the cheapest option to accomplish this goal, to get it off their plate? Upgrading 70 miles of non-limited-access highway to interstate (US 58), or upgrading 13 miles of fully limited-access roadway to interstate?

If there was a care about the mileage, then the projects wouldn't have even been discussed or talked about. I see them advancing further with this in 5-10 years. The end goal is to connect Hampton Roads with I-95 via interstate-grade roadway, and the cheapest and most simplest way to accomplish this would be US-17.

I agree US 58 should be the direct connection, but clearly with the I-87 proposal, North Carolina constructing 90% of it, and VDOT only building and funding 10%, it sounds like a win-win for Hampton Roads and VDOT to lean towards US-17. It might not be the "most direct", however travel times would be at most 5 minutes slower, and most people would desire an interstate over an arterial highway, except maybe the big-rigs because of mileage. There's significant (12,000 AADT) US-58 traffic that's passenger vehicle and would divert to the new interstate routing due to preference. Mileage isn't a big factor for passenger vehicles, especially on a long-haul drive.

It would give HR & VDOT the desired southerly interstate connection.

[sparker]

This thread is turning into something reminiscent of the Borg-McEnroe volleys of the '80's -- back & forth with no "knockout" return.  A lot of fun, however; carry on!

[Beltway]

Not really, Warrenton and Culpeper in particular are quite similar, an existing 4-lane highway, a connecting road, four ramps and an overpass bridge.

The Culpeper Interchange required widening about .7 miles of road to 4-lanes, and had an urban design. Interchanges at Scenic Pkwy and George Washington Hwy will be like this (around $40 million total using this cost estimate), though the rural designs (2 lane overpass, 2 lane road, basic single lane ramps, no sidewalks, no signals, no R/W relocations, etc.) at Ballahack Rd and Cornland Rd will be significantly cheaper. 4-lane bridges, 3 lane ramps, widening a roadway costs more than basic ramps and a simple 2-lane bridge.

Your "back of the envelope engineering" is really getting tiresome.

Also:  Need an interchange at Grassfield Parkway, at Eaglet Parkway, an overpass for Douglas Road, an overpass for Glencoe Street, and at least an overpass at the major farm road just north of the state line, maybe ramps as well.  I question the severing of W Road and the lack of an overpass connecting it on either side of US-17.

Grassfield Pkwy - I've mentioned several times there's already a 4-lane frontage road between Cedar Rd and Grassfield Pkwy that provides this access, along with the 4-lane Cahoon Pkwy. The complicated design of an interchange here + easily accessible alternate routes would not warrant it.

US-17 and Grassfield Parkway is a busy intersection, and you can't just close it and expect the traffic to use other very busy routes such as Cahoon Parkway and Cedar Road, without causing severe congestion, especially problematic for US-17 southerly traffic.

Elevate US-17 over Grassfield Parkway on embankment with retaining walls, bridge and urban ramps.  Expensive.

Eaglet Parkway - I'd say about 5 cars per day use this intersection. Where would an interchange here go or lead to? An interchange at George Washington Hwy about 1/2 mile away would provide access. An interchange at Eaglet Pkwy would be completely useless, even if there was unlimited money.

It accesses at least 20 homes and connects them to US-17 and their other roads do not connect to US-17.  It connects to and across US-17.  You can't take that access away from them.

Douglas Rd - Again, an overpass to where? The swamp? There's nothing on the west side of US 17. About 1 car per day or less even use this stretch of Douglas Rd. Even with unlimited money, this would be useless.

Stop with this "about 1 (or 3) car per day" pseudo engineering!!

There is plenty of developable land on the west side of US-17, and the land owner might want to subdivide and build 20 or 30 homes there, maybe a lot more.  You can't just cut off access to this land.

The Route 895 project severed a local road with about the same impacts.  The local people complained so much that several years after Route 895 was open, VDOT awarded another project to reconnect the road via embankment and overpass bridge.

I find it disturbing seeing all your suggestions to pare down the design of any project to upgrade US-17 to freeway standards, to build an Interstate highway "on the cheap" and cutting off local access points which would surely arouse major local opposition.

Glencoe St - About maybe 3 cars per day use this. There's one property on the west side of U.S. 17, and the existing trail would be fine for that one property. Does not warrant an overpass, and residents on the east side can use the Ballahack Rd interchange about 1 mile away.

The city closed old US-17 to motor vehicle traffic, not to be used for residential access.

See my previous comment about future development of homes, you can't just cut off access to this land.  Just because there is not much development now doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future on the west side of US-17.

The whole concept of an Interstate highway is to meet the standards of the highest level highway system.

North Carolina doesn't get special exceptions, they must meet interstate standards as well.

From what you have cited in some instances, they -are- getting special exceptions.  They wouldn't be the only state, look at PA with highways like the Schuylkill Expressway, and the PA Turnpike NE Extension (posted Interstate as recently as 1996).

I reviewed my website article on the US-17 Relocation in City of Chesapeake, written in 2006, and I see that the design speed is 100 kph or 62 mph, I recall that I derived that from a review of the final design plans at that time.  There are substantial amounts of horizontal curvature on the highway that was a result of avoiding environmentally sensitive areas as much as possible.

US-17 Relocation can easily handle 70 MPH, I know it's breaking the existing limit, but I've driven it that fast in the past, and it's just perfectly safe. In fact, most drivers do around this speed, because it's designed so well.  A speed study could be done once it's build to interstate standards to determine it can have a higher speed.

VDOT (or nearly any DOT) is not going to post a speed limit that is higher than the design speed.  Period.

Just because it has "design speed" doesn't mean it can handle faster.

Yep, I have seen posters like you all over the Internet, saying that the speeds that they like to travel at are "perfectly safe".  I wouldn't ride with them in their car ... that gives an image of the level of trust that I would have in their driving.

It is not even on the radar yet with HRTPO as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.

The desire is for a southerly interstate connection.

By the Tar Heel State.

It is not even on the radar yet with VDOT or HRTPO or HRTAC as far as being on any TIP or CLRP or ULRP.

From VDOT's standpoint, what seems like the cheapest option to accomplish this goal, to get it off their plate? Upgrading 70 miles of non-limited-access highway to interstate (US 58), or upgrading 13 miles of fully limited-access roadway to interstate?

It won't "get it off their plate", as US-58 and I-95 will remain the preferred connection no matter what happens with Vanity Interstate VI-87.  There will be major improvements on both I-95 and US-58 during the next 20 years.

There is a substantial double penalty in both time and distance, compared to the current route.

Norfolk I-264/I-464 Berkley Bridge <--> Nash Community College (1/2 mile west of I-95/US-64)

US-64/I-95/US-58/I-264
135 mi  2:12 hr 

US-64/US-17/I-464
157 mi  2:33 hr
+16.3 %  +15.9%
 

[sprjus4]

It accesses at least 20 homes and connects them to US-17 and their other roads do not connect to US-17.  It connects to and across US-17.  You can't take that access away from them.

The homes there would have just as easy access to a George Washington Hwy interchange. I drive down US-17 all the time, and I've never seen traffic out of that point. It's always at George Washington Hwy.

Stop with this "about 1 (or 3) car per day" pseudo engineering!!

There is plenty of developable land on the west side of US-17, and the land owner might want to subdivide and build 20 or 30 homes there, maybe a lot more.  You can't just cut off access to this land.

When was protected wetlands & swamp developable land? Also, the city does not permit that type of development this far south, only rural developments. The interests are farther north. Either way, the farm tract on the east side can still access the Cornland Rd interchange via existing roads. It's not "cut off".

I find it disturbing seeing all your suggestions to pare down the design of any project to upgrade US-17 to freeway standards, to build an Interstate highway "on the cheap" and cutting off local access points which would surely arouse major local opposition.

I find it disturbing you want to construct interchanges at every access point. It's not to "build an interstate on the cheap", it's constructing major interchanges where traffic warrants. The points I've suggested to cut off do not impede any of this.

See my previous comment about future development of homes, you can't just cut off access to this land.  Just because there is not much development now doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future on the west side of US-17.

Again, where's this development going to go?

From what you have cited in some instances, they -are- getting special exceptions.  They wouldn't be the only state, look at PA with highways like the Schuylkill Expressway, and the PA Turnpike NE Extension (posted Interstate as recently as 1996).

They've always built interchanges they way they have. There's no special exceptions. They do meet full interstate standards.

VDOT (or nearly any DOT) is not going to post a speed limit that is higher than the design speed.  Period.

Yep, I have seen posters like you all over the Internet, saying that the speeds that they like to travel at are "perfectly safe".  I wouldn't ride with them in their car … that gives an image of the level of trust that I would have in their driving.

The roadway has a design speed of 60 MPH because it's an at-grade roadway. Once it's upgraded to full interstate standards, the gentle curves and wide clearsides will easily up that design speed to 70 or 75 MPH. It would have to be re-evaluated of course. North Carolina's sections have design speeds of 60 MPH, but would be increased to a design speed of 75 MPH with the upgrade project. Many sections won't get curve realignments because they are already safe enough to drive that fast.

Plenty of roadways throughout Virginia and other states were previously posted 55 - 60 MPH, but once upgraded to interstate highway standards, were increased to 70 MPH. Speed studies -have- and -will- be conducted. If the curvature of the roadway is determined to be gentle enough to handle a higher speed (which they can), and at-grade intersections are removed, a higher design speed would be updated.

A very recent example - Indiana Route 37 north of Bloomington. Was posted 55 MPH, has significant curvature, etc. Finishing in November, interchanges were built, frontage roads constructed, etc. and the road become Interstate 69. The speed limit was then updated to 70 MPH because it was determined safe to do so. The curvature still exists, the general design of the older road still exists, but it was given an updated design speed. Same would happen to US 17.

There is a substantial double penalty in both time and distance, compared to the current route.

Norfolk I-264/I-464 Berkley Bridge <--> Nash Community College (1/2 mile west of I-95/US-64)

US-64/I-95/US-58/I-264
135 mi  2:12 hr 

US-64/US-17/I-464
157 mi  2:33 hr
+16.3 %  +15.9%

Using current travel times & 55 MPH speed limits, yes. If you throw in an average speed of 70 MPH, using the formula, distance / speed, 157 / 70, that equals out to 2.24, or 2 hours and 14 minutes. 2 minutes slower than US 58.

There's no "double penalty", I wouldn't consider 2 minutes that, and if one drove 75 MPH most of that, which is a majority of drivers, would outrun US 58. If not that, a few red lights on US 58 add the 2 minutes, and I-87 beats it time wise. The “major improvements” along US 58 would not remove the traffic signals, simply would relieve congestion, which most of the time is not an issue that causes backups.

You act like the speed limits will not be increased along US 17, yet they will be increased by 15 MPH for 80 miles, and likely at least 10 miles into Virginia. Chesapeake is already considering raising that stretch to 60 MPH, and as I mentioned above, speed studies could increase that to 65 MPH or even 70 MPH once I-87.

[froggie]

Might just be cheaper to buy out those few homes and acres of farmland on the west side of 17.  Then you wouldn't have to worry about providing access west of 17 except at locations where interchanges are already logical (like Ballahack).

speed studies could increase that to 65 MPH or even 70 MPH once I-87.

Only if VDOT undertakes safety and other line of sight improvements when/if that segment gets upgraded to Interstate.  The existing 70 MPH Interstates were not automatically increased when the General Assembly passed the law allowing 70.  They only increased to 70 when VDOT completed safety improvements along those segments.  VDOT has minimum standards that a road must meet before they'll sign it with a higher limit.

[Beltway]

Might just be cheaper to buy out those few homes and acres of farmland on the west side of 17.  Then you wouldn't have to worry about providing access west of 17 except at locations where interchanges are already logical (like Ballahack).

Because it is not a "few" acres, it looks like at least 500 acres, with 1/3 of that currently utilized for farming and presumably suitable land for houses.  There are plenty of single family homes on less than one acre right in that vicinity.  Many more could be built in the future.  The development-oriented city would want that.

These roads (Glencoe and Douglas) cross and access US-17 today.  Can't sever them and render areas inaccessible.

If the city had kept old US-17 open to motor vehicle traffic then it might be possible.  But they didn't.

Actually I think it was "overkill" by the city for turning the old highway over to bicycle and pedestrian use only.  It could be a lightly traveled secondary road, giving permanent access to those lands, and still be a pleasant experience for bicycles and pedestrians.

I see on the City of Chesapeake 2035 Land Use Plan, that most of that area west of US-17 is classified for Recreation.  That could change in the future to allow increases in development.

I see on the City of Chesapeake 2050 Master Transportation Plan that none of US-17 George Washington Highway has any improvements proposed, except for connecting to a relocated airport access road for Chesapeake Regional Airport, so that would be another interchange required if ever US-17 was upgraded to a freeway.
 

[froggie]

^ Upon further review, every acre of farmland west of 17 would be accessible from the logical interchange locations at Ballahack, Cornland, and BUSINESS 17.  For the three fields near Glencoe and the house at the end of Glencoe, one would only need to reopen the old roadway between the canal parking lot and Glencoe.  There's absolutely no need for an overpass at Glencoe.  Even if the roadway isn't reopened on that stretch, buying out the house and providing a farm road to the northern field would be cheaper than an overpass.

The one house at the west end of Douglas could be bought out...there's nothing else west of 17 along Douglas, and east of 17 Douglas has access to Cornland via two other roads.

Everything further north is accessible from BUSINESS 17 or old Cedar Rd.

If the city wants to develop that area into residential, let THEM pay for the overpasses...or get them as proffers from the developers.  Otherwise, as things exist now, there is no need for additional overpasses between Ballahack and BUSINESS 17.

**NOTE** - I have not analyzed north of BUSINESS 17 or near the state line yet.  The latter (from the state line to the first curve) is technically not limited-access because of the pre-existing field accesses and not being on new alignment...Scott is correct upthread on this.

[Beltway]

^ Upon further review, every acre of farmland west of 17 would be accessible from the logical interchange locations at Ballahack, Cornland, and BUSINESS 17.

There is no Business 17 there, that is permanently closed to motor vehicles.

There is a mile-strip north-south of farmland on either side of Glencoe Street, and while the south end touches Ballahack Road, that would not provide access to any but that end of the tract.

For the three fields near Glencoe and the house at the end of Glencoe, one would only need to reopen the old roadway between the canal parking lot and Glencoe.

They are not going to reopen the old roadway.

There's absolutely no need for an overpass at Glencoe.  Even if the roadway isn't reopened on that stretch, buying out the house and providing a farm road to the northern field would be cheaper than an overpass.

A "farm road"?  How about a mile of paved service road north of Glencoe Road, and a mile of paved service road south of Glencoe Road, if new homes are to be built in those areas.

If the city wants to develop that area into residential, let THEM pay for the overpasses...or get them as proffers from the developers. 

And if the city and residents demand that VDOT provide an overpass rather than sever Glencoe Road?

Severance would be a hard sell to the local residents, and their demands for retention of access would be an easy sell to VDOT.

[froggie]

There is no Business 17 there, that is permanently closed to motor vehicles.

There isn't...?

A "farm road"?  How about a mile of paved service road north of Glencoe Road, and a mile of paved service road south of Glencoe Road, if new homes are to be built in those areas.

Again, if the city wants something above and beyond servicing the existing situation, they can fund it themselves or get a future developer to proffer it.  Until then, there is no need for a paved road.

And if the city and residents demand that VDOT provide an overpass rather than sever Glencoe Road?

Severance would be a hard sell to the local residents, and their demands for retention of access would be an easy sell to VDOT.

I doubt the residents would demand an overpass...because they'd still have to backtrack down to Ballahack Rd to access 17.  They'd be more likely to demand ramps at Glencoe than demand an overpass, but such an interchange would be a considerable cost for a benefit limited to the two dozen or so homes on Glencoe and Belle Haven.

[Beltway]

There is no Business 17 there, that is permanently closed to motor vehicles.

There isn't...?

Well I know about that, I thought you were referring to the area around Douglas Road and Glencoe Street.

A "farm road"?  How about a mile of paved service road north of Glencoe Road, and a mile of paved service road south of Glencoe Road, if new homes are to be built in those areas.

Again, if the city wants something above and beyond servicing the existing situation, they can fund it themselves or get a future developer to proffer it.  Until then, there is no need for a paved road.

The city may well consider 'servicing the existing situation' to be keeping the road open across US-17, which would mean an overpass roadway and bridge.

And if the city and residents demand that VDOT provide an overpass rather than sever Glencoe Road?
Severance would be a hard sell to the local residents, and their demands for retention of access would be an easy sell to VDOT.

I doubt the residents would demand an overpass...because they'd still have to backtrack down to Ballahack Rd to access 17.  They'd be more likely to demand ramps at Glencoe than demand an overpass, but such an interchange would be a considerable cost for a benefit limited to the two dozen or so homes on Glencoe and Belle Haven.

So they wouldn't be satisfied at all with a proposal to sever Glencoe Road, a road that has existed for maybe 50 years or more, and connected to the relocated US-17 via an at-grade intersection.

And again the landowners of those large tracts of land that could have dozens of homes built on them, the fact that there are not many homes there now wouldn't be the guiding factor of what they would want if the two roads were proposed to be severed.  It would sever at least 300 acres of land from the public road system (and I am not going to spend the time to try to compute an exact amount), and I can't see any state or local DOT doing that.

And what about the forested land?  I am not going to assume that most of that is unsuitable for residential development.  In the case of wetlands, private developers have a much easier time getting permission for filling them in than compared to local and state governments.

These latest discussions reinforce my opinion that the city erred in closing the old US-17 to motor vehicle traffic.  It could provide the local land access that severing Glencoe Street and Douglas Road would eliminate.

[Mapmikey]

The canal path is already technically open to any vehicle for the 2 miles south of Ballahack (with requirement to give way to trail users), so having a tiny amount open around the Douglas Rd area doesn't seem insurmountable.

As for cutting off future development west of US 17, isn't this the precise purpose of Frontage Roads?  An interchange at Ballahack with a frontage road along the west side of 17 whenever development actually comes seems reasonable.

The one house at the end of Douglas already has an improvised driveway to Douglas which is needed because there is a gate at the end of Douglas (albeit it was open when GMSV wandered by).