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

I-73 in VA

Started by 74/171FAN, June 04, 2009, 07:50:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 05:45:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 02:25:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 01:37:43 PM
There actually would be a significant distance savings -- http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Smart-Road-Map.gif
But I also have wondered if it became an Interstate highway how would experimental vehicle operations be carried out on an active Interstate highway?
It saves a mere 5 miles. Doing the math, at a constant speed of 65 mph, the current route is 9 minutes whereas the Smart Rd would be 5 minutes.
Is it worth the $300 million to construct, considering I-81 being right there and the billions of billions of dollars it needs for widening and improvements?

It wouldn't have cost (anyway near) $300 million in 2000, the bypass-connector-extension project had not yet been started, and the needs on I-81 were considerably less then.

The 5.7-mile-long Blacksburg-Roanoke Connector would have been built initially as a 2-lane highway on a 4-lane right-of-way.
Back then it may have been a good proposal, but now given the existing freeway connection, it's a pointless project.

And the worse part is they are still pushing for VDOT to fund it.


Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 06:23:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 05:45:36 PM
The 5.7-mile-long Blacksburg-Roanoke Connector would have been built initially as a 2-lane highway on a 4-lane right-of-way.
Back then it may have been a good proposal, but now given the existing freeway connection, it's a pointless project.
And the worse part is they are still pushing for VDOT to fund it.

Who is "they"?
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 July 01, 2019, 06:24:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 06:23:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 05:45:36 PM
The 5.7-mile-long Blacksburg-Roanoke Connector would have been built initially as a 2-lane highway on a 4-lane right-of-way.
Back then it may have been a good proposal, but now given the existing freeway connection, it's a pointless project.
And the worse part is they are still pushing for VDOT to fund it.

Who is "they"?
https://www.roanoke.com/smart-road-expansion-to-i--moves-ahead/article_b1484632-7a94-523f-89bf-489cbbcb8b03.html

This was from last summer when they were applying for SmartScale. As we know now, it did not get funded and for good reason.

QuoteCHRISTIANSBURG – The New River Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization plans to re-submit to the state an estimated $215 million proposal to complete a long-awaited connection of Virginia Tech's Smart Road to Interstate 81.

The proposal's application, due Aug. 1, received a unanimous 7-0 vote of support from the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors on Monday night.

The vote covered a package of resolutions backing several Smart Scale applications. The other Smart Scale applications include improvements related to I-81 and U.S. 460 in Christiansburg and the intersection of Peppers Ferry and Prices Fork roads.

The MPO, which includes Montgomery County officials, plans to submit the proposal to Smart Scale, a program that scores – and hopefully later funds – competing transportation projects from across the state.

Dan Brugh, MPO's executive director, said the Smart Road and I-81 connector is basically the same project proposed to the state two years ago. However, he said recent Virginia Department of Transportation rules require that the proposals this year get a vote of support from the locality that the project is intended to be located in.

Under Smart Scale, a project is first scored, then sent to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for review and approval.

Still, Brugh said he doubts the connector's prospect will improve much by next year. The hefty estimated price tag of $215 million is a major hurdle to the project getting approved any time soon, he said.

Supervisor Mary Biggs, who's part of the MPO, echoed Brugh's point about the unlikelihood of seeing the connector get approved any time soon. But she said she wants to see the project get a push by at least the board.

"I thought it was a good idea to have a direct way to Virginia Tech,"  she said. "I'm really wanting to see it happen, but I think that in reality, it probably won't happen anytime soon."

The connection to I-81 has been discussed by transportation officials since the Smart Road was first envisioned in the late 1980s. They said over the decades that it could trim the driving time between Roanoke and Blacksburg by as much 20 minutes.

The connector, however, wasn't included when the Smart Road itself was completed in the early 2000s. Transportation officials have over the years said that the connector will inch closer to reality once the traffic volumes on the U.S. 460 bypass between Blacksburg and Christiansburg necessitate another direct route to I-81 from Blacksburg.

Since, the Smart Road has been managed by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which uses the roadway as a private test track and transportation lab.

"But it's getting to the point where it's needed. If not in the immediate future, some time in the not too distant future,"  Brugh said, referring to ongoing traffic growth across Montgomery County. "It's getting higher and higher as the area grows."

The recent connector proposal would include a new interchange on I-81 and about 3.5 miles of new road and four new bridges through the mountainous region.

The connector would also shave about 12 minutes off the current 40-minute drive time between Blacksburg and Roanoke.

If the CTB does in fact approve the connector, the project would be added to VDOT's current six-year plan and could start between 2022 and 2024, Montgomery County officials said Monday.

The idea that it would "shave about 12 minutes" over the existing freeway is false - it would shave a mere 4 minutes off.

And if capacity is an issue on US-460, a new highway shouldn't immediately be the answer - widen the existing road to 6-lanes, then later on if it's still a problem (it likely won't be if it's 6-lanes), then you can consider a Smart Rd freeway.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 06:46:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 06:24:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 06:23:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 05:45:36 PM
The 5.7-mile-long Blacksburg-Roanoke Connector would have been built initially as a 2-lane highway on a 4-lane right-of-way.
Back then it may have been a good proposal, but now given the existing freeway connection, it's a pointless project.
And the worse part is they are still pushing for VDOT to fund it.
Who is "they"?
https://www.roanoke.com/smart-road-expansion-to-i--moves-ahead/article_b1484632-7a94-523f-89bf-489cbbcb8b03.html
This was from last summer when they were applying for SmartScale. As we know now, it did not get funded and for good reason.
QuoteCHRISTIANSBURG – The New River Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization plans to re-submit to the state an estimated $215 million proposal to complete a long-awaited connection of Virginia Tech's Smart Road to Interstate 81.
The proposal's application, due Aug. 1, received a unanimous 7-0 vote of support from the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors on Monday night.

I see that the Christiansburg Bypass carries 37,000 rounded AADT with 5% large trucks.  I didn't realize it would be that high.  That is growing toward needing a capacity expansion project.

The MPO seems very solidly behind this project.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 06:46:40 PM
The idea that it would "shave about 12 minutes" over the existing freeway is false - it would shave a mere 4 minutes off.
And if capacity is an issue on US-460, a new highway shouldn't immediately be the answer - widen the existing road to 6-lanes, then later on if it's still a problem (it likely won't be if it's 6-lanes), then you can consider a Smart Rd freeway.

Perhaps that would be the case, but someone needs to estimate the cost of the 6-lane widening.  It might be in the same range as completing the Blacksburg-Roanoke Connector.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

Here's part of the issue.

https://smartportal.virginiahb2.org/#/public/applications/2018/hb2/view/F2-0000001501-R02

The proposed $215 million Smart Road extension would only be a super two freeway on a four-lane right of way. It's one thing if $215 million would build a 4-lane Smart Road freeway, but it would only accomplish 2-lanes. Somewhere between $200 - $250 million could accomplish 6-lane widening of the existing roadway, and would be a much better use of those funds IMO.

By opening the Smart Road to traffic, you present issues with Virginia Tech and their private use of the track. Another problem is what if you build 2-lanes, and it quickly overcrowds because it's not 4-lanes. How do you manage the balance of traffic between US-460 and the new Smart Road? And then when you need to expand the Smart Road to 4-lanes, you're talking another $150+ million.

In my view, widening the existing US-460 might be slightly more expensive, however it would be a long-term improvement to traffic flow, and keep 40,000 AADT on one facility, one that can easily handle 60,000+ AADT and has room for growth.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 09:22:18 PM
Here's part of the issue.
https://smartportal.virginiahb2.org/#/public/applications/2018/hb2/view/F2-0000001501-R02
The proposed $215 million Smart Road extension would only be a super two freeway on a four-lane right of way. It's one thing if $215 million would build a 4-lane Smart Road freeway, but it would only accomplish 2-lanes.

This from the application above:
Add approximately 3.5 miles of mostly two lane roadway and ramp connections to I 81, and 0.6 miles of four lane section is added to serve movements to and from partial I 81 interchange.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 09:22:18 PM
Somewhere between $200 - $250 million could accomplish 6-lane widening of the existing roadway, and would be a much better use of those funds IMO.

You can't just pull a figure like that out of the air.  You need at least a preliminary design and an engineer's estimate.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 09:22:18 PM
By opening the Smart Road to traffic, you present issues with Virginia Tech and their private use of the track.

While that is true, the whole plan from the 1990s inception was that ultimately the highway would be completed and would carry general traffic.

This from the application above, how that would work:
Complete the future WB lanes of the Smart Road to a new I 81 partial interchange to serve movements to and from the north during peak commuting times.  An active traffic management system (ATMS) consisting of lane designation, overhead signs and gates will allow one way traffic in either direction, two way traffic, or be closed for research and testing by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI).  Turnarounds for VTTI test vehicles including tractor trailers are provided at the Smart Road Control Center and SE end of the Wilson Creek Bridge at Ellett. [...]  A four lane section paralleling Den Hill Road will be constructed to separate traffic and prevent possible wrong way movements.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 09:22:18 PM
Another problem is what if you build 2-lanes, and it quickly overcrowds because it's not 4-lanes. How do you manage the balance of traffic between US-460 and the new Smart Road? And then when you need to expand the Smart Road to 4-lanes, you're talking another $150+ million.

From the project application:
How does this project address VTrans 2040 need?
Corridor of Statewide Significance (COSS) J - The Smart Road will provide a parallel facility to Route 460 between I 81 and Blacksburg.  It is expected to take approximately 20 % of the traffic off of Route 460 when complete.  As above, diverting traffic off of Route 460 between Christiansburg and Blacksburg will raise the level of service and allow it to function longer without improvement.  The Smart Road is also listed as part of the National Highway System (NHS) in Virginia.  Regional Network - Completion of the Smart Road from Blacksburg to I 81 will increase the reliability of Route 460 between Blacksburg and I 81.  In addition, this link will decrease the travel times to the north - specifically Roanoke.  With the significant growth projected at the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine and Research Institute in Roanoke and expanded commuting between Blacksburg and Roanoke, the Smart Road will provide a more reliable and quicker access between the two areas.


Whether or not we agree with that, that is from the Montgomery County government people who applied for this project.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 09:22:18 PM
In my view, widening the existing US-460 might be slightly more expensive, however it would be a long-term improvement to traffic flow, and keep 40,000 AADT on one facility, one that can easily handle 60,000+ AADT and has room for growth.

Certainly a logical analysis.  But these highways were always somewhat unique in their purpose and development, and why there are two of them and not just one.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

One thing that bothers me is that widening US-460 to 6-lanes is not being considered as an alternative to building a whole new highway.

That way both alternatives can be competed against each other and determined which will serve traffic needs better and in the long-run.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 10:10:45 PM
One thing that bothers me is that widening US-460 to 6-lanes is not being considered as an alternative to building a whole new highway.
That way both alternatives can be competed against each other and determined which will serve traffic needs better and in the long-run.

The local governments and MPOs feed project proposals to VDOT, that is how they are initiated normally. 

There would be an EIS/location process on a project like this, and a set of alternatives would be required in the DEIS, most likely including US-460 widening.
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 July 01, 2019, 11:25:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 10:10:45 PM
One thing that bothers me is that widening US-460 to 6-lanes is not being considered as an alternative to building a whole new highway.
That way both alternatives can be competed against each other and determined which will serve traffic needs better and in the long-run.

The local governments and MPOs feed project proposals to VDOT, that is how they are initiated normally. 

There would be an EIS/location process on a project like this, and a set of alternatives would be required in the DEIS, most likely including US-460 widening.
I would hope at that point they would realize widening US-460 is likely the better alternative. Has the most capacity for traffic on the one facility, it's fully known exactly how much traffic will be on the one facility, instead of risking the assumption how much traffic would be split between two facilities, and also less environmental impact.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 11:59:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 11:25:45 PM
The local governments and MPOs feed project proposals to VDOT, that is how they are initiated normally. 
There would be an EIS/location process on a project like this, and a set of alternatives would be required in the DEIS, most likely including US-460 widening.
I would hope at that point they would realize widening US-460 is likely the better alternative. Has the most capacity for traffic on the one facility, it's fully known exactly how much traffic will be on the one facility, instead of risking the assumption how much traffic would be split between two facilities, and also less environmental impact.

How would you know that?  The numbers your postulated make the two look about equal in cost.  Traffic engineering studies can make good estimates of usage.  The right-of-way has already been acquired.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

VTGoose

Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 05:45:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 02:25:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 01:37:43 PM
There actually would be a significant distance savings -- http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Smart-Road-Map.gif
But I also have wondered if it became an Interstate highway how would experimental vehicle operations be carried out on an active Interstate highway?
It saves a mere 5 miles. Doing the math, at a constant speed of 65 mph, the current route is 9 minutes whereas the Smart Rd would be 5 minutes.
Is it worth the $300 million to construct, considering I-81 being right there and the billions of billions of dollars it needs for widening and improvements?

It wouldn't have cost (anyway near) $300 million in 2000, the bypass-connector-extension project had not yet been started, and the needs on I-81 were considerably less then.

The 5.7-mile-long Blacksburg-Roanoke Connector would have been built initially as a 2-lane highway on a 4-lane right-of-way.

The idea for the Smart Road came after the current "connect the bypasses" plan had been adopted by VDOT as the "best" (cheapest other than "do nothing") solution to congestion between Blacksburg and I-81. There were about 15 proposed routes studied to get from Blacksburg to I-81/Roanoke, including a long route through the Ellett Valley to hit the interstate at or near the Ironto exit. Several people pushed for the Smart Road to be built on one of the rejected routes, claiming that it would be easy to extend it should the actual new road become too clogged with traffic (never mind that there was enough time to plan for room to increase the new road from 4 to 6 lanes if and when necessary). There was a lot of pressure brought to bear on local government from influential people who pretty much demanded that the Smart Road be built, even without much in the way of facts or research to back the claims of the revenue that would flow into the area (granted, that did pan out but probably more by accident and because of a lack of "competition" in the smart highway research area).

There is no need to spend money to extend the Smart Road to I-81 since traffic (except at Thanksgiving) flows just fine on U.S. 460 as it is today (although the low-bid contract shows on that job, with deteriorating subgrade in places). If it were extended, it would be a small reduction in time to reach I-81 to sit in a traffic backup behind the "wreck of the day" somewhere on the mountain.

Bruce in Blacksburg
"Get in the fast lane, grandma!  The bingo game is ready to roll!"

VTGoose

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 06:46:40 PM
The idea that it would "shave about 12 minutes" over the existing freeway is false - it would shave a mere 4 minutes off.

That fabled "12 minutes" just won't go away. That was touted from the beginning when there was a push to build the Smart Road, that extending it would shave much time from the trip between Blacksburg and Roanoke. The basis of comparison was the time it took to get from Blacksburg to I-81 on the existing U.S. 460, at that the original two-lane road with the later addition of two parallel lanes that served a growing commercial area that required an increasing number of traffic lights (plus the left turn across traffic to get on the Christiansburg Bypass). On Friday afternoons when VT was in session, on VT football Saturdays, and at the start of VT breaks, the road was choked with traffic from the Blackburg Bypass all the way to I-81 (been there, done that, on one trip it took longer to get from Southgate Drive to I-81 than it did to get from exit 118 to exit 150).

Montgomery County has more pressing road and highway needs that should be funded well before any money is spent to extend the Smart Road.

Bruce in Blacksburg
"Get in the fast lane, grandma!  The bingo game is ready to roll!"

Beltway

Quote from: VTGoose on July 02, 2019, 09:09:10 AM
The idea for the Smart Road came after the current "connect the bypasses" plan had been adopted by VDOT as the "best" (cheapest other than "do nothing") solution to congestion between Blacksburg and I-81. There were about 15 proposed routes studied to get from Blacksburg to I-81/Roanoke, including a long route through the Ellett Valley to hit the interstate at or near the Ironto exit.

This from the US-460 public hearing brochure from 1989 --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/BBG_Corr_Study.jpg

Quote from: VTGoose on July 02, 2019, 09:09:10 AM
There was a lot of pressure brought to bear on local government from influential people who pretty much demanded that the Smart Road be built, even without much in the way of facts or research to back the claims of the revenue that would flow into the area (granted, that did pan out but probably more by accident and because of a lack of "competition" in the smart highway research area).

It was easy enough to predict, and we had discussions about this 20 years ago on the Usenet roads newsgroup, and there were studies cited however they were assessed and critiqued.

The few highway research facilities in the country, such as the Texas Transportation Institute and the Virginia Transportation Research Council, conducted large amounts of highway research over the previous several decades, and drew amounts of external funding, but they did not have an actual test highway. 

So they have a heavily structurally instrumented highway and major bridge, equipment to simulate heavy rains and winds and snow and icing, and a test highway for vehicles to use at highway speeds.  Granted it involved building 1.7 miles of 2-lane freeway that can't yet be used to serve as a public highway.

Quote from: VTGoose on July 02, 2019, 09:09:10 AM
There is no need to spend money to extend the Smart Road to I-81 since traffic (except at Thanksgiving) flows just fine on U.S. 460 as it is today (although the low-bid contract shows on that job, with deteriorating subgrade in places). If it were extended, it would be a small reduction in time to reach I-81 to sit in a traffic backup behind the "wreck of the day" somewhere on the mountain.

So why did the county government apply to add that to Smart Scale and not widen US-460?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Beltway

Quote from: VTGoose on July 02, 2019, 09:21:28 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 06:46:40 PM
The idea that it would "shave about 12 minutes" over the existing freeway is false - it would shave a mere 4 minutes off.
That fabled "12 minutes" just won't go away. That was touted from the beginning when there was a push to build the Smart Road, that extending it would shave much time from the trip between Blacksburg and Roanoke. The basis of comparison was the time it took to get from Blacksburg to I-81 on the existing U.S. 460, at that the original two-lane road with the later addition of two parallel lanes that served a growing commercial area that required an increasing number of traffic lights (plus the left turn across traffic to get on the Christiansburg Bypass).

It was a lot slower before the two US-460 bypass connectors were built, particularly during heavy traffic periods --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/BBG_Corr_Study.jpg

The pairing of the West Side Corridor and the 641 Corridor would have provided an interesting alternative, building those instead of the US-460 bypass connectors.  Westerly I-81 traffic would have had a more direct route to Blacksburg, and easterly I-81 would have had a more direct route to Blacksburg.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

VTGoose

Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 10:37:09 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 02, 2019, 09:21:28 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 06:46:40 PM
The idea that it would "shave about 12 minutes" over the existing freeway is false - it would shave a mere 4 minutes off.
That fabled "12 minutes" just won't go away. That was touted from the beginning when there was a push to build the Smart Road, that extending it would shave much time from the trip between Blacksburg and Roanoke. The basis of comparison was the time it took to get from Blacksburg to I-81 on the existing U.S. 460, at that the original two-lane road with the later addition of two parallel lanes that served a growing commercial area that required an increasing number of traffic lights (plus the left turn across traffic to get on the Christiansburg Bypass).

It was a lot slower before the two US-460 bypass connectors were built, particularly during heavy traffic periods --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/BBG_Corr_Study.jpg

The pairing of the West Side Corridor and the 641 Corridor would have provided an interesting alternative, building those instead of the US-460 bypass connectors.  Westerly I-81 traffic would have had a more direct route to Blacksburg, and easterly I-81 would have had a more direct route to Blacksburg.

Of course, it would all be moot if I-81 had been put on a northern alignment back in the '60s when the route was being laid down. I haven't had time to do much digging, but apparently one suggested route would have roughly followed U.S. 11 from Dublin to Fairlawn, then gone along the VA 114 corridor to cross U.S. 460 between Blacksburg and Christiansburg, then dropped off the mountain to follow the Roanoke River to the vicinity of the Ironto exit.
"Get in the fast lane, grandma!  The bingo game is ready to roll!"

sprjus4

The preferred alternative for the Martinsville Southern Connector has been announced - Alternative C.

Alternative C is 7.4 miles long and has a cost estimate of $616 million ($83 million per mile!).

It is estimated to have 25 residential relocations, 0 business relocations, 21,881 linear feet of stream impact, and 3.7 acres of wetland impact.




Here's additional information on the other two alternatives -

Alternative A is 7.7 miles long and has a cost estimate of $757 million ($98 million per mile!).

It is estimated to have 17 residential relocations, 0 business relocations, 28,350 linear feet of stream impact, and 7.8 acres of wetland impact.

Alternative B is 7.3 miles long and has a cost estimate of $746 million ($102 million per mile!).

It is estimated to have 26 residential relocations, 0 business relocations, 20,548 linear feet of stream impact, and 5.9 acres of wetland impact.




Project Website: https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/martinsville_southern_connector_study.asp

Informational Brochure:
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/Martinsville_PH_Brochure_FINAL.pdf

^ The Informational Brochure indicates the Draft EIS will be posted in December 2019. That will likely include more detailed information, including detailed and refined cost estimates, conceptual drawings, etc.

Display Boards: https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/MartinsvilleProjectBoards30x40_FINAL.pdf

^ Page 7 shows a conceptual drawing of a section of an upgraded US-220 and why it's infeasible (demolishing every home and a school in its path)

Detailed Corridor Maps: https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/Detailed_Alternative_Maps.pdf

^ Mostly shows the existing corridor alignments more detailed. No detailed conceptual drawings yet.

sprjus4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U3hxEauRU8

^

More informational video for everything.

Indicates the reason the eastern alternatives were eliminated was because they would barely serve any regional traffic as most traffic is heading northwest. Just as I had predicted - the eastern alternatives were never going to make it.

Strider

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 04:33:02 PM
The preferred alternative for the Martinsville Southern Connector has been announced - Alternative C.

Alternative C is 7.4 miles long and has a cost estimate of $616 million ($83 million per mile!).

It is estimated to have 25 residential relocations, 0 business relocations, 21,881 linear feet of stream impact, and 3.7 acres of wetland impact.




Here's additional information on the other two alternatives -

Alternative A is 7.7 miles long and has a cost estimate of $757 million ($98 million per mile!).

It is estimated to have 17 residential relocations, 0 business relocations, 28,350 linear feet of stream impact, and 7.8 acres of wetland impact.

Alternative B is 7.3 miles long and has a cost estimate of $746 million ($102 million per mile!).

It is estimated to have 26 residential relocations, 0 business relocations, 20,548 linear feet of stream impact, and 5.9 acres of wetland impact.




Project Website: https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/martinsville_southern_connector_study.asp

Informational Brochure:
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/Martinsville_PH_Brochure_FINAL.pdf

^ The Informational Brochure indicates the Draft EIS will be posted in December 2019. That will likely include more detailed information, including detailed and refined cost estimates, conceptual drawings, etc.

Display Boards: https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/MartinsvilleProjectBoards30x40_FINAL.pdf

^ Page 7 shows a conceptual drawing of a section of an upgraded US-220 and why it's infeasible (demolishing every home and a school in its path)

Detailed Corridor Maps: https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/Detailed_Alternative_Maps.pdf

^ Mostly shows the existing corridor alignments more detailed. No detailed conceptual drawings yet.


I am right. I had the feeling they'd chose alternative C. It makes sense to have a freeway (or a interstate) a little closer to US 220. The northern end of the freeway will have to be modified, so I am looking forward to the August 15th meeting.

sprjus4

Quote from: Strider on July 14, 2019, 01:43:19 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 04:33:02 PM
The preferred alternative for the Martinsville Southern Connector has been announced - Alternative C.
Alternative C is 7.4 miles long and has a cost estimate of $616 million ($83 million per mile!).

It is estimated to have 25 residential relocations, 0 business relocations, 21,881 linear feet of stream impact, and 3.7 acres of wetland impact.




Here's additional information on the other two alternatives -
Alternative A is 7.7 miles long and has a cost estimate of $757 million ($98 million per mile!).

It is estimated to have 17 residential relocations, 0 business relocations, 28,350 linear feet of stream impact, and 7.8 acres of wetland impact.

Alternative B is 7.3 miles long and has a cost estimate of $746 million ($102 million per mile!).

It is estimated to have 26 residential relocations, 0 business relocations, 20,548 linear feet of stream impact, and 5.9 acres of wetland impact.




Project Website: https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/martinsville_southern_connector_study.asp

Informational Brochure:
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/Martinsville_PH_Brochure_FINAL.pdf

^ The Informational Brochure indicates the Draft EIS will be posted in December 2019. That will likely include more detailed information, including detailed and refined cost estimates, conceptual drawings, etc.

Display Boards: https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/MartinsvilleProjectBoards30x40_FINAL.pdf

^ Page 7 shows a conceptual drawing of a section of an upgraded US-220 and why it's infeasible (demolishing every home and a school in its path)

Detailed Corridor Maps: https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/Detailed_Alternative_Maps.pdf

^ Mostly shows the existing corridor alignments more detailed. No detailed conceptual drawings yet.


I am right. I had the feeling they'd chose alternative C. It makes sense to have a freeway (or a interstate) a little closer to US 220. The northern end of the freeway will have to be modified, so I am looking forward to the August 15th meeting.
I don't think anything new at the meeting is being revealed, all of the meeting info including a presentation posted up thread was already published on VDOT's website.

I'm more interested in the DEIS in December, and also why it's going to cost $83 million per mile.

That interchange on the northern end will be interesting to see how they tie it in. Hopefully they are smart and use full continuity to US-220 north. Or else I-73 will end up becoming the highway that requires exiting at many locations to continue onto itself, in conjunction with North Carolina's many examples of this with I-73.

Strider

$83 million per mile? ouch.

I looked at Google Maps satellite, and I thought that the terrain might be the reason for the high price, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps it is because they have to move about 25 houses? Who knows.

Yeah, I hope at the northern end, they're wise to keep the continuity to US 220 as well. I cannot imagine another "exit to remain on a highway" in Virginia.

I-73 already have to do that twice in NC (with the potential third one coming up at the future I-73/I-74 interchange southeast of Rockingham as it is proposed for I-73 to exit off from I-74 to continue its journey into SC)

tolbs17

I don't think VA will build I-73 if WV is not building (and is not going to) build it.

sprjus4

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:05:05 PM
I don't think VA will build I-73 if WV is not building (and is not going to) build it.
The segment between I-81 at Roanoke and North Carolina is a valuable connection and worth building even if West Virginia doesn't continue it. The segment between Blacksburg and West Virginia should only be built -if- West Virginia builds their portion as an interstate highway. They have a plan to build a highway, but it's only an at-grade expressway. A 4-lane at-grade expressway already exists in Virginia, and until West Virginia makes that fully interstate standard, Virginia shouldn't do anything north of Blacksburg.

But like said, Roanoke to North Carolina has been extensively studied and the only thing preventing it from being built is funding.

tolbs17

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 07:21:44 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:05:05 PM
I don't think VA will build I-73 if WV is not building (and is not going to) build it.
The segment between I-81 at Roanoke and North Carolina is a valuable connection and worth building even if West Virginia doesn't continue it. The segment between Blacksburg and West Virginia should only be built -if- West Virginia builds their portion as an interstate highway. They have a plan to build a highway, but it's only an at-grade expressway. A 4-lane at-grade expressway already exists in Virginia, and until West Virginia makes that fully interstate standard, Virginia shouldn't do anything north of Blacksburg.

But like said, Roanoke to North Carolina has been extensively studied and the only thing preventing it from being built is funding.

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.

sprjus4

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 07:21:44 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:05:05 PM
I don't think VA will build I-73 if WV is not building (and is not going to) build it.
The segment between I-81 at Roanoke and North Carolina is a valuable connection and worth building even if West Virginia doesn't continue it. The segment between Blacksburg and West Virginia should only be built -if- West Virginia builds their portion as an interstate highway. They have a plan to build a highway, but it's only an at-grade expressway. A 4-lane at-grade expressway already exists in Virginia, and until West Virginia makes that fully interstate standard, Virginia shouldn't do anything north of Blacksburg.

But like said, Roanoke to North Carolina has been extensively studied and the only thing preventing it from being built is funding.

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.
Greensboro - Cleveland

I-40 to I-74 to I-77.

The connection already exists, and it's all interstate highway.

tolbs17

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 11:16:23 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 07:21:44 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:05:05 PM
I don't think VA will build I-73 if WV is not building (and is not going to) build it.
The segment between I-81 at Roanoke and North Carolina is a valuable connection and worth building even if West Virginia doesn't continue it. The segment between Blacksburg and West Virginia should only be built -if- West Virginia builds their portion as an interstate highway. They have a plan to build a highway, but it's only an at-grade expressway. A 4-lane at-grade expressway already exists in Virginia, and until West Virginia makes that fully interstate standard, Virginia shouldn't do anything north of Blacksburg.

But like said, Roanoke to North Carolina has been extensively studied and the only thing preventing it from being built is funding.

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.
Greensboro - Cleveland

I-40 to I-74 to I-77.

The connection already exists, and it's all interstate highway.

I meant Greensboro to Roanoke I should say.



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.