I-73 in VA

[Beltway]

Many numbers in Virginia have been used 4 times.  A couple more have been used 5 times and one (VA 212) is on its 6th use.
This does not count VA 599 which was an internal designation for projects throughout the 1960s that had not yet been assigned a number, 10 that I have found, none likely to have been posted as such.

That is what I noticed while skimming your site, many route numbers used multiple times.

Route 595 has only been used once, and never posted.

[sparker]

Many numbers in Virginia have been used 4 times.  A couple more have been used 5 times and one (VA 212) is on its 6th use.
This does not count VA 599 which was an internal designation for projects throughout the 1960s that had not yet been assigned a number, 10 that I have found, none likely to have been posted as such.

That is what I noticed while skimming your site, many route numbers used multiple times.

Route 595 has only been used once, and never posted.

IIRC, back during the days when I-95 was still planned to go through the middle of D.C., US 1 from that route (present I-395, of course) down to National (Reagan) Airport was to be I-595; Gousha maps from the late '60's actually showed a 595 shield on that stretch of highway.

[Mapmikey]

I-595 was shown on Virginia State Official maps 1972-76, with the location incorrectly shown as on the GW Pkwy for 1972 and 1973.  It was also on the Fairfax County VDOT map as late as 1979.


1975 Official

[Beltway]

Route 595 has only been used once, and never posted.

IIRC, back during the days when I-95 was still planned to go through the middle of D.C., US 1 from that route (present I-395, of course) down to National (Reagan) Airport was to be I-595; Gousha maps from the late '60's actually showed a 595 shield on that stretch of highway.

From my website --

I-595 was authorized to the Interstate system in 1968.  It was to run 1.1 mile from I-95 (today's I-395) near the Pentagon to the VA-233 Airport Connector.  About 0.4 mile of I-595 was built when I-95 (Shirley Highway) was reconstructed (completion 1975), and was not signed as I-595.  The I-595 proposal was essentially an Interstate spur from I-95 to Washington National Airport, plus an upgrade of the busy US-1 Jefferson Davis Highway.  US-1 as a 4-lane undivided roadway passed through the growing Crystal City area.  Crystal City today is a high-density development of office, condominium, apartment and hotel towers, and shopping centers.  Much of I-595 would have been an 8-lane elevated freeway on an embankment with concrete retaining walls, elevated high enough to pass over crossing streets.  A construction contract was awarded in 1975 to build the 0.7-mile remainder of I-595, but a court injunction stopped the construction several months later.  The continuing rapid growth of Crystal City to the west of US-1 had brought the original plan into question, since it would be then seen as a barrier dividing Crystal City.  A new plan was devised that provided a mostly-at-grade US-1 6-lane boulevard, with two grade separations, one interchange, and two at-grade intersections.  This provided a US-1 freeway with full control of access from I-395 (old I-95) to 0.7 mile south at 20th Street, and at-grade limited access for another 0.6 mile.  The project continued as a 6-lane arterial for another 0.5 mile, to south of Glebe Road, including a widened bridge over Four Mile Run.  This was constructed with Interstate substitution funds and completed in mid-1988.

[Beltway]

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/may/pres/2.pdf
Martinsville Southern Connector Study

All very twisty alignments compared to the original, must be a lot of natural and built environmental items in the way.

Retained for study in the EIS --
Western Alignments — Alternatives A, B & C
7.7 to 8.4 miles, $220 to $350 million but costs still need refinement.

Truck movements between south and west were a big factor --

64% of trucks from North Carolina travel through the study area
- 47% of trucks from North Carolina are heading to US 58 westbound
- 39% on US 58 eastbound go south on US Route 220 to North Carolina

[sprjus4]

Truck movements between south and west were a big factor --

64% of trucks from North Carolina travel through the study area
- 47% of trucks from North Carolina are heading to US 58 westbound
- 39% on US 58 eastbound go south on US Route 220 to North Carolina

I think these estimates are worded the wrong way. When it refers to US-58, based on where the traffic counts were being taken (at the US-220 / US-58 junction), it seems like it's referring to vehicles getting on the US-58 / US-220 Bypass heading west, or coming from the US-58 / US-220 Bypass heading east, then using US-220 South, or coming up northbound. It has nothing to do with US-58 west of Martinsville itself heading towards Stuart.

Also, interesting to note, none of the eastern alternatives would have served this traffic load at all. Good on VDOT for eliminating those from further study.

We'll have to see where this goes from here.

At $220 - 350 million, that's around $44 - $70 million per mile. Reasonable nowadays it seems.

[Beltway]

Truck movements between south and west were a big factor --
64% of trucks from North Carolina travel through the study area
- 47% of trucks from North Carolina are heading to US 58 westbound
- 39% on US 58 eastbound go south on US Route 220 to North Carolina

I think these estimates are worded the wrong way. When it refers to US-58, based on where the traffic counts were being taken (at the US-220 / US-58 junction), it seems like it's referring to vehicles getting on the US-58 / US-220 Bypass heading west, or coming from the US-58 / US-220 Bypass heading east, then using US-220 South, or coming up northbound. It has nothing to do with US-58 west of Martinsville itself heading towards Stuart.

I wondered too about to/from west toward Stuart and Hillsville, but that seems to be the wording, "heading to US 58 westbound".

If they wanted to specify trucks on the US-220 corridor thru the area then why not say that? 

But then over half of the truck traffic is not going to/from the west.

Needs more refinement.

[sprjus4]

Truck movements between south and west were a big factor --
64% of trucks from North Carolina travel through the study area
- 47% of trucks from North Carolina are heading to US 58 westbound
- 39% on US 58 eastbound go south on US Route 220 to North Carolina

I think these estimates are worded the wrong way. When it refers to US-58, based on where the traffic counts were being taken (at the US-220 / US-58 junction), it seems like it's referring to vehicles getting on the US-58 / US-220 Bypass heading west, or coming from the US-58 / US-220 Bypass heading east, then using US-220 South, or coming up northbound. It has nothing to do with US-58 west of Martinsville itself heading towards Stuart.

I wondered too about to/from west toward Stuart and Hillsville, but that seems to be the wording, "heading to US 58 westbound".

If they wanted to specify trucks on the US-220 corridor thru the area then why not say that? 

But then over half of the truck traffic is not going to/from the west.

Needs more refinement.

Well, the graphic above the data showed the US-220 / US-58 interchange, with arrows to/from the bypass with those similar figures. Why would they study the US-58 westbound movements outside the study corridor?

Agreed though, needs more refinement, it was worded very strangely. I wouldn't see that many trucks heading up then going west. The quickest route from Hillsville to Greensboro is I-40 to US-52 / I-74 to I-77, which is the most direct, and all freeway / interstate. US-58 or US-220 wouldn't be in the mix.

[Beltway]

I wondered too about to/from west toward Stuart and Hillsville, but that seems to be the wording, "heading to US 58 westbound".
If they wanted to specify trucks on the US-220 corridor thru the area then why not say that? 
But then over half of the truck traffic is not going to/from the west.
Needs more refinement.

Well, the graphic above the data showed the US-220 / US-58 interchange, with arrows to/from the bypass with those similar figures. Why would they study the US-58 westbound movements outside the study corridor?
Agreed though, needs more refinement, it was worded very strangely. I wouldn't see that many trucks heading up then going west. The quickest route from Hillsville to Greensboro is I-40 to US-52 / I-74 to I-77, which is the most direct, and all freeway / interstate. US-58 or US-220 wouldn't be in the mix.

I thought about but doubted that they were referring to trucks routed just to/from the west leg of the US-58 bypass and the areas around that, doesn't seem to be enough business sites there to account for that.

I wouldn't have thought there would be much truck traffic on that part of US-58 to/from I-77 at Hillsville, given the 2-lane mountainous segments that have not yet been expanded to 4 lanes, but maybe there is more truck traffic there than I realized.

[sprjus4]

I thought about but doubted that they were referring to trucks routed just to/from the west leg of the US-58 bypass and the areas around that, doesn't seem to be enough business sites there to account for that.

The west leg of the US-58 bypass is also US-220 in the study area, where 47% of the trucks are heading. Once west outside the study area, US-58 and US-220 split off. A majority of that 47% likely stays with US-220 towards Roanoke, because unlike US-58 west of this location, US-220 is a major corridor / trucking route.

I can't seem to find a Virginia Traffic Counts map that contains truck information, so I can't validate this, but that would make the most sense to me.

[Beltway]

I thought about but doubted that they were referring to trucks routed just to/from the west leg of the US-58 bypass and the areas around that, doesn't seem to be enough business sites there to account for that.

The west leg of the US-58 bypass is also US-220 in the study area, where 47% of the trucks are heading. Once west outside the study area, US-58 and US-220 split off. A majority of that 47% likely stays with US-220 towards Roanoke, because unlike US-58 west of this location, US-220 is a major corridor / trucking route.
I can't seem to find a Virginia Traffic Counts map that contains truck information, so I can't validate this, but that would make the most sense to me.

If they wanted to specify trucks on the US-220 corridor thru the area then why not say that? 

Instead they said that the southwest quadrant was the busiest movement.

[froggie]

I can't seem to find a Virginia Traffic Counts map that contains truck information, so I can't validate this, but that would make the most sense to me.

Look at the data PDFs (or Excel files if you prefer).  Truck percentages in there for every segment.

[sprjus4]

I can't seem to find a Virginia Traffic Counts map that contains truck information, so I can't validate this, but that would make the most sense to me.

Look at the data PDFs (or Excel files if you prefer).  Truck percentages in there for every segment.

Thanks for that info, didn't realize that.

According to that then, the US-220 / US-58 overlap has 13% truck traffic. On the solely US-220 segment north of US-58, it remains at 13%.


On US-58, once again the overlap has 13%, but when US-58 splits off to the west, truck traffic drops to 4%.


So obviously, the 47% of trucks is referring to up the US-220 / US-58 bypass. When US-58 and US-220 split, just about all the trucks remain on US-220, as seen by the consistency of the 13% north of the overlap, and on the overlap itself.

There's no way 47% of truck traffic coming from NC out of the 64% would go west of US-58 beyond US-220. Just simply the bypass, which is also US-220.

[Beltway]

So obviously, the 47% of trucks is referring to up the US-220 / US-58 bypass. When US-58 and US-220 split, just about all the trucks remain on US-220, as seen by the consistency of the 13% north of the overlap, and on the overlap itself.
There's no way 47% of truck traffic coming from NC out of the 64% would go west of US-58 beyond US-220. Just simply the bypass, which is also US-220.

US-58 over Lovers Leap carries about 2,500 AADT and 7% large truck traffic.  Won't carry much until it is all 4-laned.

They certainly didn't word it well in the document that I posted, but keep in mind that was a PPT for the overhead projector in the auditorium where the CTB meeting was held, and as that was in Arlington I did not attend, but the presenter handles questions from the board members, and there would have been plenty of opportunity to get those bullet points clarified.  IOW those PPTs are not really designed for consumption without two-way feedback.

[Strider]

Henry County (Martinsville) Board of Supervisors just passed a resolution that will ask CTB to consider using Martinsville Southern Connector (MSC) as one of the potential I-73 western route(s), which would take the future interstate route completely west of Martinsville (if that ever comes into an consideration).

It also explained why the eastern alternatives are not being considered. Remember this only covers one segment, so anything north of Martinsville is still up in the air.

https://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/news/local/henry-county-supervisors-resolve-to-support-u-s-western-swing/article_327b5fad-e06f-5128-9b90-13962781d9f3.html

[Roadsguy]

I just hope that the interchange with the southern connector and US 58 ends up favoring I-73 as the through route, whichever side it ends up on. I hope they don't just go the somewhat lazy route and make it a simple semi-directional T interchange...

[Beltway]

Henry County (Martinsville) Board of Supervisors just passed a resolution that will ask CTB to consider using Martinsville Southern Connector (MSC) as one of the potential I-73 western route(s), which would take the future interstate route completely west of Martinsville (if that ever comes into an consideration).
It also explained why the eastern alternatives are not being considered. Remember this only covers one segment, so anything north of Martinsville is still up in the air.

A rather poorly written and unclear article, IYAM.  There is an approved corridor that was the result of a full NEPA EIS/location study process.  Whether adjustments are ultimately made to that remains to be seen.

"There is no defined route. There is no route corridor. There's not been any work on a defined corridor on this part of the Interstate 73 project. I would suggest, should you choose to adopt this, do it contingent on the city of Martinsville adopting a similar resolution..."

[sprjus4]

Henry County (Martinsville) Board of Supervisors just passed a resolution that will ask CTB to consider using Martinsville Southern Connector (MSC) as one of the potential I-73 western route(s), which would take the future interstate route completely west of Martinsville (if that ever comes into an consideration).
It also explained why the eastern alternatives are not being considered. Remember this only covers one segment, so anything north of Martinsville is still up in the air.

A rather poorly written and unclear article, IYAM.  There is an approved corridor that was the result of a full NEPA EIS/location study process.  Whether adjustments are ultimately made to that remains to be seen.

"There is no defined route. There is no route corridor. There's not been any work on a defined corridor on this part of the Interstate 73 project. I would suggest, should you choose to adopt this, do it contingent on the city of Martinsville adopting a similar resolution..."

And yet you continue to ignore other points in the article...

"The current proposed route is targeted for east of U.S. Route 220 and also east of the city of Martinsville; however, the Army Corps of Engineers has indicated it would not provide permits for any construction within that corridor because of environmental impact concerns,"  Hall said.

"Let me kind of clarify a couple of things here. I think there may be some confusion. You are not selecting a route for either the Martinsville Southern Connector or for Interstate 73. This is merely to shift it back to where it originally was intended, which is the western side of the county and the western side of the city.

"VDOT has not taken any action on a defined route for I-73 or the Southern Connector. They are separate."

The EIS is 13 years old, and is going to get re-evaluated and new options will be studied.

I don't know why you're so stuck on an eastern route. The support is strong now for a western alignment, is more direct, and uses an existing 65 mph freeway that is close to interstate standards, and could easily be raised to 70 mph with those upgrades.

The Martinsville Southern Connector is also set on a western alignment, and favoring the US-220 north movement. It's not just going to swing back to follow a 13 year old option that has issues with the Army Corps. It's all going to get looked at all over again, a re-evaluation, and new routes will be looked at.

I think it's safe to say a western route is what eventually will be built.

[Beltway]

A rather poorly written and unclear article, IYAM.  There is an approved corridor that was the result of a full NEPA EIS/location study process.  Whether adjustments are ultimately made to that remains to be seen.

And yet you continue to ignore other points in the article...

Like I said it is a very ignorable article ...

This is merely to shift it back to where it originally was intended, which is the western side of the county and the western side of the city.

That's baloney, any way you slice it.  That was -never- the plan, or intent.

I don't know why you're so stuck on an eastern route.

I don't know why you keep personalizing the discussion.

The eastern route was selected in an 8-year NEPA EIS/location process.  That is where things stand now.

The support is strong now for a western alignment,

No it is not, only in the minds of a few Internet group posters.

[sprjus4]

The eastern route was selected in an 8-year NEPA EIS/location process.  That is where things stand now.

And what if a western route is chosen over the next 10 years, and is constructed in that alignment? Or the Martinsville Southern Connector ties into US-220 with a favored thru-motion to US-220 north, and semi-directional flyover ramps to US-58 east (the proposed I-73 alignment from 13 years ago)?

No it is not, only in the minds of a few Internet group posters.

And City of Martinsville and Henry County?

[wdcrft63]

The eastern route was selected in an 8-year NEPA EIS/location process.  That is where things stand now.

And what if a western route is chosen over the next 10 years, and is constructed in that alignment? Or the Martinsville Southern Connector ties into US-220 with a favored thru-motion to US-220 north, and semi-directional flyover ramps to US-58 east (the proposed I-73 alignment from 13 years ago)?

No it is not, only in the minds of a few Internet group posters.

And City of Martinsville and Henry County?

A pretty good general principle is if you want to build a road, choose the route favored by the people who live in the area. The western alignment seems to have a lot of friends and the eastern alignment few if any.

[sprjus4]

The eastern route was selected in an 8-year NEPA EIS/location process.  That is where things stand now.

And what if a western route is chosen over the next 10 years, and is constructed in that alignment? Or the Martinsville Southern Connector ties into US-220 with a favored thru-motion to US-220 north, and semi-directional flyover ramps to US-58 east (the proposed I-73 alignment from 13 years ago)?

No it is not, only in the minds of a few Internet group posters.

And City of Martinsville and Henry County?

A pretty good general principle is if you want to build a road, choose the route favored by the people who live in the area. The western alignment seems to have a lot of friends and the eastern alignment few if any.

Not only is it the more favored route, it makes the most sense. More direct, and uses an existing close-to-interstate-standard 65 mph freeway rather than building a parallel freeway.

[Beltway]

The eastern route was selected in an 8-year NEPA EIS/location process.  That is where things

No it is not, only in the minds of a few Internet group posters.

And City of Martinsville and Henry County?

A pretty good general principle is if you want to build a road, choose the route favored by the people who live in the area. The western alignment seems to have a lot of friends and the eastern alignment few if any.

Not only is it the more favored route, it makes the most sense.

What are you talking about???  I have been following I-73 since ISTEA, and a western alignment (as in fully west of Martinsville) has -never- been a favored route.

We have a few people here who 'read between the lines' of a few poorly-written newspaper articles and try to make such claims.

More direct, and uses an existing close-to-interstate-standard 65 mph freeway rather than building a parallel freeway.

There would be a net saving of maybe 2 miles of freeway, it is not more direct, and the eastern corridor was officially approved by the 4 southern municipalities as recently as the Dec. 2012 official corridor.

[Alps]

The eastern route was selected in an 8-year NEPA EIS/location process.  That is where things

No it is not, only in the minds of a few Internet group posters.

And City of Martinsville and Henry County?

A pretty good general principle is if you want to build a road, choose the route favored by the people who live in the area. The western alignment seems to have a lot of friends and the eastern alignment few if any.

Not only is it the more favored route, it makes the most sense.

What are you talking about???  I have been following I-73 since ISTEA, and a western alignment (as in fully west of Martinsville) has -never- been a favored route.

We have a few people here who 'read between the lines' of a few poorly-written newspaper articles and try to make such claims.

More direct, and uses an existing close-to-interstate-standard 65 mph freeway rather than building a parallel freeway.

There would be a net saving of maybe 2 miles of freeway, it is not more direct, and the eastern corridor was officially approved by the 4 southern municipalities as recently as the Dec. 2012 official corridor.

OK, the southern municipalities like the eastern route, and ones in the middle like the western route. Let's all compromise and be friends and hug.

[sprjus4]

The eastern route was selected in an 8-year NEPA EIS/location process.  That is where things

No it is not, only in the minds of a few Internet group posters.

And City of Martinsville and Henry County?

A pretty good general principle is if you want to build a road, choose the route favored by the people who live in the area. The western alignment seems to have a lot of friends and the eastern alignment few if any.

Not only is it the more favored route, it makes the most sense.

What are you talking about???  I have been following I-73 since ISTEA, and a western alignment (as in fully west of Martinsville) has -never- been a favored route.

We have a few people here who 'read between the lines' of a few poorly-written newspaper articles and try to make such claims.

More direct, and uses an existing close-to-interstate-standard 65 mph freeway rather than building a parallel freeway.

There would be a net saving of maybe 2 miles of freeway, it is not more direct, and the eastern corridor was officially approved by the 4 southern municipalities as recently as the Dec. 2012 official corridor.

OK, the southern municipalities like the eastern route, and ones in the middle like the western route. Let's all compromise and be friends and hug.

The 4 municipalities he's referring to are all of them - Henry County, City of Martinsville, City of Danville, and one of the other counties.

Henry County and City of Martinsville passed a resolution on Tuesday supporting a western routing for I-73, so that knocks two out. And no, it's not "reading between the lines", it was an official resolution passed by the City of Martinsville and Henry County.

What's interesting is when they did the Henry County Alternative in 2012, that shifted the route from the originally approved 2006 alignment. Couldn't the same re-evaluation happen with looking at a western I-73? Re-evaluate that segment of the I-73 route using an alternative that would follow the Martinsville Southern Connector, the existing US-220 western bypass, then a connector from the bypass to the 2006 I-73 alignment.

That's a very possible option. It was Henry County that wanted the eastern route studied in 2012, they got that study, and now that is has issues with the Army Corps and a new study is warranted (and no this wasn't just from some news article, I did some researching through documents on Henry County's website, and the same was indicated in resolutions there from last year). Now, they are proposing another re-evaluation, this time to a western route. That's proven by the resolution passed Tuesday that supports a western route over an eastern. The Martinsville Southern Connector western alignment is the first phase of that, then an EIS evaluating upgrading the bypass to interstate standards, and the route north of Martinsville will come next.

I don't see anything "reading between the lines of a news articles." The facts are quite apparent using documents from Henry County's website, resolutions they've passed, and the VDOT 2006 and 2012 Henry County Alternative studies that were completed.