News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Nearest Freeway Segment You've Never Driven

Started by webny99, July 16, 2018, 03:06:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

froggie



sprjus4

Until about last year, I had driven on every Hampton Roads freeway except the VA-168 toll road. Finally took it, and realized it's just the same as the shunpiking route, only it's four lanes, nobody on it, and a $3 toll.

SteveG1988

NJ 133, never had any need to use that road.

Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

texaskdog

Since I drive Lyft/Uber and get all over Austin is covered.  Probably I-10 from Columbus to San Antonio.

plain

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 06:45:55 PM
Until about last year, I had driven on every Hampton Roads freeway except the VA-168 toll road. Finally took it, and realized it's just the same as the shunpiking route, only it's four lanes, nobody on it, and a $3 toll.

And it's going to continue to suck until Chesapeake decides to raise the speed limit. Until then it's not even worth the toll.
Newark born, Richmond bred

sprjus4

#155
Quote from: plain on January 09, 2019, 06:15:55 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 06:45:55 PM
Until about last year, I had driven on every Hampton Roads freeway except the VA-168 toll road. Finally took it, and realized it's just the same as the shunpiking route, only it's four lanes, nobody on it, and a $3 toll.

And it's going to continue to suck until Chesapeake decides to raise the speed limit. Until then it's not even worth the toll.
Agreed, the current speed limit of 55 MPH on a rural freeway is absurdly slow. The more "developed" parts of the highway north of Exit 11 (Mt. Pleasant Rd) is more understandable, but even that could handle an increase. The entire highway should be posted at 65 MPH, minimum 60, the design speed.

Most people actually do about 55-60 MPH on a regular day, but if you get on the bypass on any weekend in the summer, you'll get ran off the road or tailgated if you're not doing at least 70 MPH. Mix local traffic with that, and there's been some pretty close accidents. That's when a higher speed is warranted to meet the 85th percentile, but I don't think above 65 is reasonable since the highway terminates near the border. If it was continuously a freeway to OBX or at least into North Carolina, I would say 70 MPH starting on the toll road.

The toll is worth it sometimes, especially because rush hour traffic on Battlefield Blvd can be backed up due to shunpikers, and if you're part of the discount program ($0.75 tolls) it's worth it if you can afford. During the summer months, most of the tourists flying down at 70+ MPH are already paying hundreds of dollars to stay in OBX, they have no problem paying $16 (round-trip) just to stay on the freeway and continue doing 70+. I've never driven on the at-grade NC-168 on a summer weekend, though I imagine speeds stay above at least 65 MPH, even though it's still posted at 55 MPH.

Ben114

1) I've only once been on I-90 between MA 146 and I-495, 2) I-290 between I-90 and MA 146, with the exception of going north to exit 9 on 290, 3) I-95 between I-395 in CT and RI 4 and finally, 4) I-95 between I-295 and US 6 in RI.

J N Winkler

I am based in Wichita, so the nearest is probably US 69 Pleasanton-Fort Scott.  (I actually have the construction plans for part of it, and drove it in 1999 when it was a two-lane single-carriageway freeway, but have not been on it since it was dualized.)  Close runners-up include K-10 (SLT), K-7 Bonner Springs, K-5 Fairfax, US 50 Lee's Summit, and Missouri SR 152.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 06:53:48 PM
Agreed, the current speed limit of 55 MPH on a rural freeway is absurdly slow. The more "developed" parts of the highway north of Exit 11 (Mt. Pleasant Rd) is more understandable, but even that could handle an increase. The entire highway should be posted at 65 MPH, minimum 60, the design speed.

8-foot paved right shoulders, narrow clear roadsides.  Not built to Interstate standards.  Probably 60 mph limit max. 
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

dvferyance


sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 08:35:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 06:53:48 PM
Agreed, the current speed limit of 55 MPH on a rural freeway is absurdly slow. The more "developed" parts of the highway north of Exit 11 (Mt. Pleasant Rd) is more understandable, but even that could handle an increase. The entire highway should be posted at 65 MPH, minimum 60, the design speed.

8-foot paved right shoulders, narrow clear roadsides.  Not built to Interstate standards.  Probably 60 mph limit max.
The shoulders on the Great Bridge Bypass are 8 foot, whereas on the southern extension and Oak Grove Connector it is 10 foot. The only part not built to interstate standards fully would be the median size on the southern extension (why 30 feet??). The road section is interstate standard. I've never noticed the roadsides being an issue, they seem to be fine as is. I can think of numerous examples of highways with a 65 or 70 MPH speed that have the same "issue".

You've also mentioned in the past that US-58 could theoretically have 70 MPH posted on their bypasses. It's important to note that those bypasses are built to less standards than VA-168 is and have narrow clear sides.

VA-168 could easily handle a 65 MPH speed limit. Even if the shoulder was smaller than it is, most freeways in North Carolina have 4 foot outer and inner shoulders and are posted at 65 and 70 MPH.

Beltway

#161
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 09:02:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 08:35:15 PM
8-foot paved right shoulders, narrow clear roadsides.  Not built to Interstate standards.  Probably 60 mph limit max.
The shoulders on the Great Bridge Bypass are 8 foot, whereas on the southern extension and Oak Grove Connector it is 10 foot. The only part not built to interstate standards fully would be the median size on the southern extension (why 30 feet??). The road section is interstate standard. I've never noticed the roadsides being an issue, they seem to be fine as is. I can think of numerous examples of highways with a 65 or 70 MPH speed that have the same "issue".

Take a close look ... the roadsides south of the Great Bridge Bypass are narrow and abrupt.  Has a major effect on the whole cross-section.

30 feet is an odd median width, I have the same issue with the Powhite Parkway Extension, I was one of the 6 designers on the project and I complained about it but the engineers left it as is.  A 30-foot grass median has steep slopes, about 4:1 to establish drainage; it is too wide for a paved median as for 4 lanes the ideal would be 14 to 16 feet wide and with a concrete median barrier; it is too narrow to be an ideal grassed median as the steep slopes could flip a vehicle over.  Actually the Powhite Parkway Extension was to have a 60-foot median but after the toll feasibility study the whole cross section and R/W was narrowed to save some money.

Powhite Parkway is another highway that I would not recommend for Interstate designation.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 09:02:27 PM
You've also mentioned in the past that US-58 could theoretically have 70 MPH posted on their bypasses. It's important to note that those bypasses are built to less standards than VA-168 is and have narrow clear sides.

The bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland.  Built to higher standards than VA-168.

I merely said that they could legally be considered for 70 mph, when another poster kept saying that NC I-87 could have 70 and he kept comparing that to -existing- limits on US-58, as if the speed limits on US-58 could never increase, when current law would allow higher.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 09:32:33 PM
Take a close look ... the roadsides south of the Great Bridge Bypass are narrow and abrupt.  Has a major effect on the whole cross-section.
I commute on the bypass daily from Exit 8 northward, and have used the toll road before. I've never noticed an issue with the roadsides in regards to speed limits.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 09:32:33 PM
30 feet is an odd median width, I have the same issue with the Powhite Parkway Extension, I was one of the 6 designers on the project and I complained about it but the engineers left it as is.  A 30-foot grass median has steep slopes, about 4:1 to establish drainage; it is too wide for a paved median as for 4 lanes the ideal would be 14 to 16 feet wide and with a concrete median barrier; it is too narrow to be an ideal grassed median as the steep slopes could flip a vehicle over.  Actually the Powhite Parkway Extension was to have a 60-foot median but after the toll feasibility study the whole cross section and R/W was narrowed to save some money.
I'm pretty sure the VA-168 extension was supposed to have a consistent 42 foot median throughout the entire project, but was only built to 42 feet from Exit 10 to Exit 8. Just north of exit 8, the road abruptly changes median sizes, the northbound lanes do a weird shift to the right. The size would have ideally changed going around a bend rather than on a straight-away, but who knows.

I think I read somewhere they reduced it to 30 feet on the bottom section to lessen the environmental impact and reduce costs, similar to the Powhite. I have always thought the Powhite Extension's design was weird as well, 30 feet part of it, and a barrier section for the rest. At least a consistent 30 ft would've been more ideal, but as you mentioned 60 foot (or at minimum 40 ft) would've been the best.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 09:32:33 PM
The bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland.  Built to higher standards than VA-168.
The Franklin, Suffolk, and Courtland bypasses have similar amount of narrow roadside as VA-168 does. Also, the Franklin Bypass has a couple of narrow curves which VA-168 does not.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 09:32:33 PM
I merely said that they could legally be considered for 70 mph, when another poster kept saying that NC I-87 could have 70 and he kept comparing that to -existing- limits on US-58, as if the speed limits on US-58 could never increase, when current law would allow higher.
That poster was me, but that's besides the point. I don't see them increasing the speeds on US-58 any time soon, though it would be nice if they would.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 10:04:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 09:32:33 PM
Take a close look ... the roadsides south of the Great Bridge Bypass are narrow and abrupt.  Has a major effect on the whole cross-section.
I commute on the bypass daily from Exit 8 northward, and have used the toll road before. I've never noticed an issue with the roadsides in regards to speed limits.

Seeing it intermittingly IMO helps it be more noticeable.  Maybe it could be higher than 60 mph but only maybe...

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 10:04:14 PM
I'm pretty sure the VA-168 extension was supposed to have a consistent 42 foot median throughout the entire project, but was only built to 42 feet from Exit 10 to Exit 8. Just north of exit 8, the road abruptly changes median sizes, the northbound lanes do a weird shift to the right. The size would have ideally changed going around a bend rather than on a straight-away, but who knows.
I think I read somewhere they reduced it to 30 feet on the bottom section to lessen the environmental impact and reduce costs, similar to the Powhite. I have always thought the Powhite Extension's design was weird as well, 30 feet part of it, and a barrier section for the rest. At least a consistent 30 ft would've been more ideal, but as you mentioned 60 foot (or at minimum 40 ft) would've been the best.

The Powhite Extension section with the 10-foot median was originally designed much wider, IIRC it was 40 feet and near Jahnke Road the median widened out for 1/2 mile to almost 100 feet with Powhite Creek in the median.  Much nicer design if they had listened to me!

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 10:04:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 09:32:33 PM
The bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland.  Built to higher standards than VA-168.
The Franklin, Suffolk, and Courtland bypasses have similar amount of narrow roadside as VA-168 does. Also, the Franklin Bypass has a couple of narrow curves which VA-168 does not.

I would estimate in fill sections, 20 to 25 feet for Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland.  VA-168 toll, in some places only 10 feet and steep slope.  (Just checked Google aerials)

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 10:04:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 09:32:33 PM
I merely said that they could legally be considered for 70 mph, when another poster kept saying that NC I-87 could have 70 and he kept comparing that to -existing- limits on US-58, as if the speed limits on US-58 could never increase, when current law would allow higher.
That poster was me, but that's besides the point. I don't see them increasing the speeds on US-58 any time soon, though it would be nice if they would.

My point was to not plan I-87 on a basis that US-58 limits would never increase, because they surely could.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#164
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 10:31:37 PM
Seeing it intermittingly IMO helps it be more noticeable.  Maybe it could be higher than 60 mph but only maybe...
A study could be conducted to see how safe it would be. A report done on the Expressway in the past mentioned the average speed on a section of the toll road was above 60 MPH, but apparently that didn't mean anything to them. They wanted to do one in the past but the city didn't want to go through the lengthy process of a study and then having to amend the city ordinance to allow speed limits faster than 55 MPH on city maintained roadways. They instead lowered the speed limit on Battlefield Blvd to 45 - 50 MPH which did about nothing.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 10:31:37 PM
The Powhite Extension section with the 10-foot median was originally designed much wider, IIRC it was 40 feet and near Jahnke Road the median widened out for 1/2 mile to almost 100 feet with Powhite Creek in the median.  Much nicer design if they had listened to me!
A lot nicer of a design definitely, though I will mention about a mile of the highway at the northern end of the extension has a median over 200 feet and no smaller than 40 feet. Then it shrinks down to 10 feet south of there. At least it is done on a curve and not abrupt. Part of the beauty of a freeway is having a wide grassy median, I've never cared for smaller medians or even barrier sections, especially on 4-lane highways. I like VA-168's design north of Exit 8, but south of there I've always felt like it's way too small. That highway could've been designed better. Also, the reason they decided the bottom two miles would only be an at-grade expressway instead of extending the freeway design all the way to NC beats me. At minimum wider curves could've been constructed instead of the tight ones (yet still 55?) that are there today. Again, poor designing IMHO.

Was the Powhite Pkwy ever considered for 65 MPH? I would think because of its location, VDOT building it, etc. it would've been designed with that spec. Instead I believe it's only 60 MPH.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 10:31:37 PM
I would estimate in fill sections, 20 to 25 feet for Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland.  VA-168 toll, in some places only 10 feet and steep slope.  (Just checked Google aerials)
I really wouldn't be able to say, I've never really noticed it.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 10:31:37 PM
My point was to not plan I-87 on a basis that US-58 limits would never increase, because they surely could.
I wouldn't really say I-87 is officially being planned against US-58, it was originally a need for the project "to divert traffic off of I-95" which implies US-58 as well, but they removed that "need". I think now the focus is providing a freeway corridor to the northeastern section of NC which currently is not served by an interstate besides a sliver of I-95 near Roanoke Rapids. Not a direct routing to Hampton Roads though could open up new business along its path, including port related facilities and distribution centers. The real driver of it though is for a blue shield to come to northeastern NC and the fact Hampton Roads businesses & port officials believe it truly is a "new, unobstructed direct routing to I-95 South". Either way, NCDOT will eventually get it funded.

Beltway

#165
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 11:00:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 10:31:37 PM
The Powhite Extension section with the 10-foot median was originally designed much wider, IIRC it was 40 feet and near Jahnke Road the median widened out for 1/2 mile to almost 100 feet with Powhite Creek in the median.  Much nicer design if they had listened to me!
A lot nicer of a design definitely, though I will mention about a mile of the highway at the northern end of the extension has a median over 200 feet and no smaller than 40 feet. Then it shrinks down to 10 feet south of there. At least it is done on a curve and not abrupt. Part of the beauty of a freeway is having a wide grassy median, I've never cared for smaller medians or even barrier sections, especially on 4-lane highways.

The very wide median is mostly on the original RMA Powhite Parkway, and then it transitions to the Extension section.  The original RMA Powhite Parkway ended at VA-150 with a trumpet interchange.  The very wide median was built so that a scenic overlook could be built there (I have copies of the planning design documents), with left hand ramps accessing it.  It never was built, and part of the median was used for the open road tolling project a few years ago.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 09, 2019, 11:00:30 PM
The real driver of it though is for a blue shield to come to northeastern NC and the fact Hampton Roads businesses & port officials believe it truly is a "new, unobstructed direct routing to I-95 South".

If they think that they are deceived.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

djsekani

I-5 between Orange County (CA) and San Diego, the part that runs by Camp Pendleton. I live in the Inland Empire, so I've just never had an excuse to take that particular route to go anywhere.

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 11:59:31 PM
The very wide median is mostly on the original RMA Powhite Parkway, and then it transitions to the Extension section.  The original RMA Powhite Parkway ended at VA-150 with a trumpet interchange.  The very wide median was built so that a scenic overlook could be built there (I have copies of the planning design documents), with left hand ramps accessing it.  It never was built, and part of the median was used for the open road tolling project a few years ago.
A scenic overlook? I wouldn't expect that on an urban / suburban highway, but I suppose I could see it.

Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 11:59:31 PM
If they think that they are deceived.
Somewhat agree, due the mileage difference. The "new, unobstructed direct routing to I-95 South" is more true in sense of a passenger vehicle however. People will drive "more distance" if it's the same time and allows them to go faster. The route will likely attract new traffic, and over time new businesses, etc.

Beltway

#168
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 04:46:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 11:59:31 PM
The very wide median is mostly on the original RMA Powhite Parkway, and then it transitions to the Extension section.  The original RMA Powhite Parkway ended at VA-150 with a trumpet interchange.  The very wide median was built so that a scenic overlook could be built there (I have copies of the planning design documents), with left hand ramps accessing it.  It never was built, and part of the median was used for the open road tolling project a few years ago.
A scenic overlook? I wouldn't expect that on an urban / suburban highway, but I suppose I could see it.

The original highway was designed as a parkway with grass shoulders and west of Forest Hill Avenue it only had 4 lanes.  Always carried full mix of vehicle types with cars, buses and trucks.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 04:46:37 PM
Somewhat agree, due the mileage difference. The "new, unobstructed direct routing to I-95 South" is more true in sense of a passenger vehicle however. People will drive "more distance" if it's the same time and allows them to go faster. The route will likely attract new traffic, and over time new businesses, etc.

As I have pointed out before the 20 to 25 miles more distance won't be overcome by higher speed limits, and they might not be much higher if the limits on US-58 are increased. 

Basically the NC I-87 proposal is a "super arterial", a rural arterial connecting some small towns, having modest traffic volumes that can be handled by a rural arterial design, being converted to a freeway.  I don't think that a "super arterial" is a wise design.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#169
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 06:40:03 PM
The original highway was designed as a parkway with grass shoulders and west of Forest Hill Avenue it only had 4 lanes.  Always carried full mix of vehicle types with cars, buses and trucks.
Was it actually built that way or proposed that way initially?

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 06:40:03 PM
As I have pointed out before the 20 to 25 miles more distance won't be overcome by higher speed limits, and they might not be much higher if the limits on US-58 are increased.
Somewhat comparable to my drive from Roanoke to Hampton Roads a couple weeks ago. There's two options - I-81 to I-64 or U.S. 460. They both take the same time (actually 460 was a couple minutes faster), but U.S. 460 is about 40 miles less. The option that Google recommended to me and the most preferable was the interstate route, despite U.S. 460 taking less mileage, 2 mins faster, and being 60 MPH mostly. I chose to take I-81 to I-64 on my drive.

I would imagine the average driver would take I-81 to I-64 over U.S. 460 simply because it's mainly a 70 MPH freeway with no obstructions. The mileage isn't a huge factor.

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 06:40:03 PM
Basically the NC I-87 proposal is a "super arterial", a rural arterial connecting some small towns, having modest traffic volumes that can be handled by a rural arterial design, being converted to a freeway.  I don't think that a "super arterial" is a wise design.
Welcome to North Carolina, where a freeway is the preferable option over an arterial. They are doing the same method on other highways in the state currently, upgrading 4-lane arterials into interstate-standard freeways or straight up signed interstates (I-795, I-42, I-87, etc.)

They simply run on a different system then Virginia does - they prefer freeway routings over arterial even when they are adequate. They have more funding, and therefore have room to play. Because of this, they have a much larger continuous freeway system then Virginia does. It's not a bad thing Virginia doesn't, it's just how it is.

As for the Virginia connection to I-64, Chesapeake has heavy interest in it, and could probably do upgrades over time themselves because of the existing 17 being essentially a freeway with a few intersections here and there.

Beltway

#170
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:04:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 06:40:03 PM
The original highway was designed as a parkway with grass shoulders and west of Forest Hill Avenue it only had 4 lanes.  Always carried full mix of vehicle types with cars, buses and trucks.
Was it actually built that way or proposed that way initially?

Built that way, later widened.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:04:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 06:40:03 PM
As I have pointed out before the 20 to 25 miles more distance won't be overcome by higher speed limits, and they might not be much higher if the limits on US-58 are increased.
Somewhat comparable to my drive from Roanoke to Hampton Roads a couple weeks ago. There's two options - I-81 to I-64 or U.S. 460. They both take the same time (actually 460 was a couple minutes faster), but U.S. 460 is about 30 miles less. The option that Google recommended to me and the most preferable was the interstate route, despite U.S. 460 taking less mileage, 2 mins faster, and being 60 MPH mostly. I chose to take I-81 to I-64 on my drive.
I would imagine the average driver would take I-81 to I-64 over U.S. 460 simply because it's mainly a 70 MPH freeway with no obstructions. The mileage isn't a huge factor.

It's pretty much a wash, for Norfolk to Christiansburg, 4:55 using US-460 and 4:42 using I-64 and I-81, per Google Maps.

Every corridor is different.  I might favor US-460 since it means avoiding HRBT, avoiding I-64 between HRBT and Richmond, and most of I-81.

I-64 and I-81 are original Interstate highways, so your point is moot.  That route has been completed since 1976, and the completion of the US-460 widenings was much later.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:04:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 06:40:03 PM
Basically the NC I-87 proposal is a "super arterial", a rural arterial connecting some small towns, having modest traffic volumes that can be handled by a rural arterial design, being converted to a freeway.  I don't think that a "super arterial" is a wise design.
Welcome to North Carolina, where a freeway is the preferable option over an arterial. They are doing the same method on other highways in the state currently, upgrading 4-lane arterials into interstate-standard freeways or straight up signed interstates (I-795, I-42, I-87, etc.)

I am not familiar with the US-70 corridor but from what I have read it definitely has the volumes for a freeway design.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:04:21 PM
They simply run on a different system then Virginia does - they prefer freeway routings over arterial even when they are adequate.

That is wasteful.  Look, I really don't care what N.C. does with its highways for the most part, but they do share a border and over 20 highway crossings, and in the case of the US-17 crossing their highway policies are directly impacting Virginia, so I do care in that case, and they are being annoying.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:04:21 PM
They have more funding, and therefore have room to play. Because of this, they have a much larger continuous freeway system then Virginia does. It's not a bad thing Virginia doesn't, it's just how it is.

And Virginia's non-Interstate freeway mileage and 4-lane limited access bypass mileage, plus its Interstate mileage, is about equal to that of N.C.  Plus N.C. has nothing remotely on the cost scale of the bridge-tunnels in Virginia, short but super expensive to build.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:04:21 PM
As for the Virginia connection to I-64, Chesapeake has heavy interest in it, and could probably do upgrades over time themselves because of the existing 17 being almost freeway with a few intersections here and there.

I doubt that that one city would want to spend the money (maybe 1/2 billion) for something that really is not needed.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#171
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
Built that way, later widened.
Huh, I always thought it was a full freeway-standard roadway from the beginning. Interesting.

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
It's pretty much a wash, for Norfolk to Christiansburg, 4:55 using US-460 and 4:42 using I-64 and I-81, per Google Maps.
From Christiansburg to Norfolk, yes, but I mentioned from Roanoke. You're a little more in and close to US-460, little bit from I-81, and the times are the same.

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
I-64 and I-81 are original Interstate highways, so your point is moot.  That route has been completed since 1976, and the completion of the US-460 widenings was much later.
It doesn't matter when the highways were built or widened, I'm talking from a standpoint of going on a road trip on January 10, 2019, not 1976. By this point, all the highways are there, and is comparable.

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
I am not familiar with the US-70 corridor but from what I have read it definitely has the volumes for a freeway design.
Average AADT of 25,000 with 5-10% large trucks from Raleigh to New Bern. From your talking points about US-58 (similar numbers), you could build interchanges at the few traffic signals and have an adequate corridor. Different story south of New Bern to Morehead City, over 30,000 AADT and warrants freeway due to numerous signals and businesses on the roadside.

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
That is wasteful.  Look, I really don't care what N.C. does with its highways for the most part, but they do share a border and over 20 highway crossings, and in the case of the US-17 crossing their highway policies are directly impacting Virginia, so I do care in that case, and they are being annoying.
Creating a freeway corridor from Virginia to Elizabeth City has been in the talks for years, and has never posed an issue until they slapped the I-87 number on it. If they want to build a freeway to the Virginia line and flow traffic onto an at-grade US-17, then they can do that. I don't understand how it "impacts Virginia". Local leaders and Chesapeake have discussed extending that idea into the area to connect with I-64, but it doesn't mean NCDOT is being annoying. We're the ones wanting an extension to their freeway.

Complaining about how it's useless to upgrade US-17 in North Carolina seems to be caring about what they do w/ their highways - at that point it's not impacting Virginia what happens down in Windsor or Edenton, per se.

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
And Virginia's non-Interstate freeway mileage and 4-lane limited access bypass mileage, plus its Interstate mileage, is about equal to that of N.C.
Notice I said continuous meaning it's one long freeway (20+ miles) that flows into the interstate system. Virginia has a lot of non-interstate mileage and limited-access bypasses, but a lot do not connect in the way of more freeway and into the interstate system but instead at-grade arterial routes.

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
I doubt that that one city would want to spend the money (maybe 1/2 billion) for something that really is not needed.
At what point would constructing 5 interchanges and about a miles of frontage road on an already limited-access roadway cost $500 million? $50-70 million max, the bulk of the work is already now done (Dominion Blvd & Veterans Bridge).

I also mentioned over time, meaning constructing one interchange at the most needed location (Scenic Pkwy IMHO, an existing traffic signal), then over the course of 10-15 years funding other interchanges.

Beltway

#172
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:59:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
Built that way, later widened.
Huh, I always thought it was a full freeway-standard roadway from the beginning. Interesting.

The RMA Powhite Parkway was a full freeway-standard roadway from the beginning, it just didn't have paved shoulders.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:59:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
I am not familiar with the US-70 corridor but from what I have read it definitely has the volumes for a freeway design.
Average AADT of 25,000 with 5-10% large trucks from Raleigh to New Bern. From your talking points about US-58 (similar numbers), you could build interchanges at the few traffic signals and have an adequate corridor. Different story south of New Bern to Morehead City, over 30,000 AADT and warrants freeway due to numerous signals and businesses on the roadside.

13,000 to 15,000 on US-58 between Emporia and Courtland.  Higher figures east of there but much of the mileage is already freeway, but 6-lane expressway between Suffolk Bypass and I-64/I-664.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:59:35 PM
I don't understand how it "impacts Virginia".

N.C. wants an Interstate highway.  Their economic boosters are publishing bogus claims about connecting Norfolk with Raleigh, as I have refuted many times here.  When they want Virginia to participate and apply pressure to them that does indeed impact Virginia.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 07:59:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
And Virginia's non-Interstate freeway mileage and 4-lane limited access bypass mileage, plus its Interstate mileage, is about equal to that of N.C.
Notice I said continuous meaning it's one long freeway (20+ miles) that flows into the interstate system. Virginia has a lot of non-interstate mileage and limited-access bypasses, but a lot do not connect in the way of more freeway and into the interstate system but instead at-grade arterial routes.

A quick count shows almost 200 miles of Virginia non-Interstate freeway mileage that does connect to the Interstate system.  Just because most limited-access bypasses do not connect to the Interstate system, doesn't change the point that mile by mile they are close to the cost and complexity of Interstate mileage, and Virginia has almost 400 miles of them in total.

What about HRBT, MMMBT, CBBT, ERT, I-77 tunnels, where is the equivalent in N.C.?  MMMBT when it was built was equal to the cost of about 100 miles of rural Interstate, HRBT Expansion will be about 120 miles, second Midtown Tunnel about 35 miles, second CBBT tunnel about 25 miles.  For that matter there are very few major river bridges on N.C. freeways even of the low-level mile-long type.  Hampton Roads tunnels accommodate ocean-going ships up to the size of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

Major transportation barriers are usually very expensive to cross, and if you don't build a crossing then you have a major hole in the system, and if you don't expand them when needed you have a major bottleneck.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#173
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
13,000 to 15,000 on US-58 between Emporia and Courtland.  Higher figures east of there but much of the mileage is already freeway, but 6-lane expressway between Suffolk Bypass and I-64/I-664.
Between Suffolk and Courtland, figures are over 20,000 AADT, and out of that 30 mile stretch, only 10 miles are freeway, only 1/3 of it.

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
N.C. wants an Interstate highway.  Their economic boosters are publishing bogus claims about connecting Norfolk with Raleigh, as I have refuted many times here.  When they want Virginia to participate and apply pressure to them that does indeed impact Virginia.
And is there an issue with creating a freeway into North Carolina? Hampton Roads has never had interstate access to the south (unlike where you are in Richmond who has direct interstate access in all directions) and when one opportunity to create such connection (even if slightly longer), it shouldn't be shoved off the table simply because of that regard. The cost to upgrade US-17 is a small cost to pay for a link in the interstate system in Virginia. There's also other avenues for future growth to the south and into NC because of such interstate designation, but I should stop focusing on that cause it means nothing apparently. I'm just trying to say, I don't think it's worth trying to fight over something that is not going to get changed, and if you do want a change, then stating everything negative about I-87 over the forum whenever it's brought up isn't the best way to go about it.

I ask - is there anything you think is good about I-87, or any positives to it?

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
What about HRBT, MMMBT, CBBT, ERT, I-77 tunnels, where is the equivalent in N.C.?
The CBBT and ERT were toll fianced, so I'm not even going to consider those. As for the I-77 tunnels, I-40 has tunnels in the western part of North Carolina, and while NC does not have any major water crossings that warrant costs like the HRBT and MMMBT has, they have spent over $6 billion across the state on creating toll-free urban loops around metro areas (Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, Fayetteville, Winston-Salem, Wilmington) over the past 20 years, and have created over 200+ miles of new freeway because so, and are continuing to expand it.

They've also built a significant portion of I-26 through the mountains that opened new-location in the early 2000s, at least $1 billion IIRC.

Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
Major transportation barriers are usually very expensive to cross, and if you don't build a crossing then you have a major hole in the system, and if you don't expand them when needed you have a major bottleneck.
The HRBT and MMBT have been bottlenecks for many decades, they are now just getting around to expanding one of them.

Beltway

#174
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 10:12:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
13,000 to 15,000 on US-58 between Emporia and Courtland.  Higher figures east of there but much of the mileage is already freeway, but 6-lane expressway between Suffolk Bypass and I-64/I-664.
Between Suffolk and Courtland, figures are over 20,000 AADT, and out of that 30 mile stretch, only 10 miles are freeway, only 1/3 of it.

The 4 bypasses total 26 miles of freeway.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 10:12:19 PM
I'm just trying to say, I don't think it's worth trying to fight over something that is not going to get changed, and if you do want a change, then stating everything negative about I-87 over the forum whenever it's brought up isn't the best way to go about it.

So it's "my way or the highway".  Just like the engineers who built the Cross-Bronx Expressway.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 10:12:19 PMThe CBBT and ERT were toll fianced, so I'm not even going to consider those. As for the I-77 tunnels, I-40 has tunnels in the western part of North Carolina, and while NC does not have any major water crossings that warrant costs like the HRBT and MMMBT has, they have spent over $6 billion across the state on creating urban loops around metro areas (Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, Fayetteville, Winston-Salem, Wilmington) over the past 20 years, and have created over 200+ miles of new freeway because so, and are continuing to expand it.

Because they waited so long before building any supplementary Interstate highways.  None in either the 1956 or 1968 Interstate system.

Virginia has 10 supplementary Interstate routes and 7 were in the original Interstate system, and 2 added in the 1968 system.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 10:12:19 PM
They've also built a significant portion of I-26 through the mountains that opened new-location in the early 2000s, at least $1 billion IIRC.

No way.  I-26 was about $230 million.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2019, 10:12:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 10, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
Major transportation barriers are usually very expensive to cross, and if you don't build a crossing then you have a major hole in the system, and if you don't expand them when needed you have a major bottleneck.
The HRBT and MMBT have been bottlenecks for many decades, they are now just getting around to expanding one of them.

I wouldn't call the MMMBT a bottleneck yet.  The HRBT will cost $3.5 billion to expand.

It is a shame that some people here can't do what I did, and look across Hampton Roads, and wonder how they will ever build 8 Interstate lanes and 4 arterial lanes across 4 miles of deep water (as in deep enough and wide enough to accommodate a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier or a fleet of them for that matter).

The Capital Beltway was several years old the first time I drove on it.  I suppose it is hard to conceive of what it was like before it existed when you never saw the area back then.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.