Interstate 73/74

[Strider]

It seems that for the sake of just connecting the route I-74 should just be concurrent with 64/77 through the state all the way to Huntington.

Why? Would you then run it concurrently all the way along I-64 and I-75 through Lexington to Cincinnati to connect it with existing I-74 (the "real" I-74)?

There is no need to build an interstate between Cincinnati and Huntington. The AA Highway and Corridor D/US 35 function just fine to connect the Metro Valley area of West Virginia to Cincy.

I don't see anything wrong with a long concurrences. Eventually interstates are going to run together at some point. However, I don't see it happening unless it is allowed to.

[hbelkins]

Even with the Carolina I-74 being as out of place as it is, I prefer a split in the route (such as I-76 or I-88) over a long concurrency.

[Strider]

Even with the Carolina I-74 being as out of place as it is, I prefer a split in the route (such as I-76 or I-88) over a long concurrency.

You just might get your wish. I don't see I-74 being built to connect with the another I-74 for like next 40-50 years or so. And yeah I'd prefer a split too.

[jbnati27]

Even with the Carolina I-74 being as out of place as it is, I prefer a split in the route (such as I-76 or I-88) over a long concurrency.

I would agree. That long of a concurrency seems pointless. Besides, I thought one of the proposed routes for I-74 (that's probably not going to happen in the near future) was to route I-74 from Bluefield to Huntington along the US-52 corridor?

[hbelkins]

Even with the Carolina I-74 being as out of place as it is, I prefer a split in the route (such as I-76 or I-88) over a long concurrency.

I would agree. That long of a concurrency seems pointless. Besides, I thought one of the proposed routes for I-74 (that's probably not going to happen in the near future) was to route I-74 from Bluefield to Huntington along the US-52 corridor?

Last time I checked, there was still a sign marking the "I-73/I-74 High Priority Corridor" on US 52 south of I-64 near the Huntington airport. I also think there was a similar sign somewhere around Bluefield. But since West Virginia is building its new sections of US 52 as expressway, not freeway, the connection is not going to happen.

[Strider]

Even with the Carolina I-74 being as out of place as it is, I prefer a split in the route (such as I-76 or I-88) over a long concurrency.

I would agree. That long of a concurrency seems pointless. Besides, I thought one of the proposed routes for I-74 (that's probably not going to happen in the near future) was to route I-74 from Bluefield to Huntington along the US-52 corridor?

Last time I checked, there was still a sign marking the "I-73/I-74 High Priority Corridor" on US 52 south of I-64 near the Huntington airport. I also think there was a similar sign somewhere around Bluefield. But since West Virginia is building its new sections of US 52 as expressway, not freeway, the connection is not going to happen.

Yeah WV is building its new section as an expressway, with consideration that if money is available, they will upgrade it to freeway but again, I don't think I will see it happen.

Ohio is building a Portsmouth bypass (a freeway) in which is also a part of possible "I-73/I-74 High Priority Corridor", so who knows what will happen in 50 years. For now, no connection between these two freeways will happen.

[seicer]

Well, Ohio also has no money allocated to upgrade the remainder of US 52 to a freeway. There is also the two-lane Ohio River bridge and freeway in Huntington, W.Va. and the many, many miles of four-lane US 23 in south central Ohio that would need to be completely rebuilt.

[rickmastfan67]

Even with the Carolina I-74 being as out of place as it is, I prefer a split in the route (such as I-76 or I-88) over a long concurrency.

I would agree. That long of a concurrency seems pointless. Besides, I thought one of the proposed routes for I-74 (that's probably not going to happen in the near future) was to route I-74 from Bluefield to Huntington along the US-52 corridor?

Last time I checked, there was still a sign marking the "I-73/I-74 High Priority Corridor" on US 52 south of I-64 near the Huntington airport. I also think there was a similar sign somewhere around Bluefield. But since West Virginia is building its new sections of US 52 as expressway, not freeway, the connection is not going to happen.

Here you go, the sign you're referencing is on US-460 WB in Princeton, WV.  https://goo.gl/maps/7h3MFVaN9kC2

[bob7374]

Even with the Carolina I-74 being as out of place as it is, I prefer a split in the route (such as I-76 or I-88) over a long concurrency.

I would agree. That long of a concurrency seems pointless. Besides, I thought one of the proposed routes for I-74 (that's probably not going to happen in the near future) was to route I-74 from Bluefield to Huntington along the US-52 corridor?

AASHTO approved the I-74 route along I-77 south of I-81 in VA. So, technically I-74 could be signed in that state now. I agree it would be a useless concurrency at this time, but perhaps when I-74 no longer ends at US 52 but continues to Winston-Salem and beyond, it may be worthy of continuing further along I-77 and not simply ending at the VA border.

[LM117]

Even with the Carolina I-74 being as out of place as it is, I prefer a split in the route (such as I-76 or I-88) over a long concurrency.

I would agree. That long of a concurrency seems pointless. Besides, I thought one of the proposed routes for I-74 (that's probably not going to happen in the near future) was to route I-74 from Bluefield to Huntington along the US-52 corridor?

AASHTO approved the I-74 route along I-77 south of I-81 in VA. So, technically I-74 could be signed in that state now. I agree it would be a useless concurrency at this time, but perhaps when I-74 no longer ends at US 52 but continues to Winston-Salem and beyond, it may be worthy of continuing further along I-77 and not simply ending at the VA border.

I doubt VA would sign I-74 along I-77 unless there's an interstate-grade connection in WV, seeing as VA never bothered after all this time. It would be money spent that benefits neither VA or NC. Once I-74 is extended from Mount Airy and reaches Winston-Salem and beyond, there would still be an interstate connection to Ohio via I-74 and I-77, with or without I-74 being signed on I-77. It would still be a pointless concurrency IMO, unless WV has a sudden change of heart and decides to build their part to at least I-64 near Huntington since Ohio has zero interest in I-73 and I-74.

[hbelkins]

If I'm not mistaken, the first reassurance marker south of the state line on 77 also has a companion 74 marker. I'd think a "To" banner above it would be appropriate. As for northbound, no reason to sign 74 north of the exit. Just let 74 end at 77 and be done with it.

[LM117]

If I'm not mistaken, the first reassurance marker south of the state line on 77 also has a companion 74 marker. I'd think a "To" banner above it would be appropriate. As for northbound, no reason to sign 74 north of the exit. Just let 74 end at 77 and be done with it.

It does and I agree that I-74 should end at I-77. I-74 serves no purpose being concurrent with I-77 as it is. It just causes confusion for drivers blindly following I-74 signs only for I-74 to suddenly disappear after crossing into VA on I-77.

[Strider]

If I'm not mistaken, the first reassurance marker south of the state line on 77 also has a companion 74 marker. I'd think a "To" banner above it would be appropriate. As for northbound, no reason to sign 74 north of the exit. Just let 74 end at 77 and be done with it.

Yeah, you are correct, there is one I-74 shield marker along I-77 on northbound and southbound. If VA is not going to sign it, I agree with you, end I-74 at I-77. Much easier that way. But, I could make the same argument for I-41, which also begins at the WI state line along I-94.

[Henry]

As much as I'd like to see I-74 continue to Cincinnati, I'd be fine with the two separate routes as well. At least you could connect them in theory, unlike the other splits (same with the upcoming I-87 that is set for the Norfolk-Raleigh corridor).

[The Ghostbuster]

When I first saw Interstates 73/74 in the Rand McNally Road Atlas in the 1990s, I thought it was a misprint. I'm starting to wonder if either will ever leave North Carolina. Virginia is not in a hurry to build Interstate 73, and the existence of Interstate 73 and 74 in South Carolina seems a ways off.

[Strider]

When I first saw Interstates 73/74 in the Rand McNally Road Atlas in the 1990s, I thought it was a misprint. I'm starting to wonder if either will ever leave North Carolina. Virginia is not in a hurry to build Interstate 73, and the existence of Interstate 73 and 74 in South Carolina seems a ways off.

West Virginia is not in a hurry either because they're building a road that is a expressway (King Coal Highway, and will upgrade to freeway as money is available in later years). South Carolina has a very long way to go but they're working on it even though a part of it is complete (SC 22, which will need a shoulder work).

[CobaltYoshi27]

When I first saw Interstates 73/74 in the Rand McNally Road Atlas in the 1990s, I thought it was a misprint. I'm starting to wonder if either will ever leave North Carolina. Virginia is not in a hurry to build Interstate 73, and the existence of Interstate 73 and 74 in South Carolina seems a ways off.

West Virginia is not in a hurry either because they're building a road that is a expressway (King Coal Highway, and will upgrade to freeway as money is available in later years). South Carolina has a very long way to go but they're working on it even though a part of it is complete (SC 22, which will need a shoulder work).

Even though King Coal Highway is part of the I-73/I-74 corridor.

[Strider]

When I first saw Interstates 73/74 in the Rand McNally Road Atlas in the 1990s, I thought it was a misprint. I'm starting to wonder if either will ever leave North Carolina. Virginia is not in a hurry to build Interstate 73, and the existence of Interstate 73 and 74 in South Carolina seems a ways off.

West Virginia is not in a hurry either because they're building a road that is a expressway (King Coal Highway, and will upgrade to freeway as money is available in later years). South Carolina has a very long way to go but they're working on it even though a part of it is complete (SC 22, which will need a shoulder work).

Even though King Coal Highway is part of the I-73/I-74 corridor.

Yeah you're correct. It is a part of I-73/I-74 corridor. That means if money is available for West Virginia to upgrade the expressway to interstate standards, they can do that easily. Smart move by West Virginia. Wish other states can look at this method. I think Virginia recognizes it need to be built in pieces, not the whole thing. less expensive this way.

[CobaltYoshi27]

When I first saw Interstates 73/74 in the Rand McNally Road Atlas in the 1990s, I thought it was a misprint. I'm starting to wonder if either will ever leave North Carolina. Virginia is not in a hurry to build Interstate 73, and the existence of Interstate 73 and 74 in South Carolina seems a ways off.

West Virginia is not in a hurry either because they're building a road that is a expressway (King Coal Highway, and will upgrade to freeway as money is available in later years). South Carolina has a very long way to go but they're working on it even though a part of it is complete (SC 22, which will need a shoulder work).

Even though King Coal Highway is part of the I-73/I-74 corridor.

Yeah you're correct. It is a part of I-73/I-74 corridor. That means if money is available for West Virginia to upgrade the expressway to interstate standards, they can do that easily. Smart move by West Virginia. Wish other states can look at this method. I think Virginia recognizes it need to be built in pieces, not the whole thing. less expensive this way.

I guess West Virginia did have plans to do it all along. Both ways seem to have their pros and cons.

[sparker]

As the coal industry declines in importance, the rationale for expanding capacity on US 52 in WVA, even as an expressway, much less an Interstate facility, also dissipates.  HPC 5 was routed that way to serve as a local server SIU of 73/74, benefiting the local coal base; aside from the Myrtle Beach promoters, much of the impetus for the corridor as a whole emanated from this region.  Presently, it's difficult to see how the cost of developing the King Coal corridor could be justified given the ever-decreasing likelihood of appreciable benefits on either a local or national level.

[WashuOtaku]

As the coal industry declines in importance, the rationale for expanding capacity on US 52 in WVA, even as an expressway, much less an Interstate facility, also dissipates.  HPC 5 was routed that way to serve as a local server SIU of 73/74, benefiting the local coal base; aside from the Myrtle Beach promoters, much of the impetus for the corridor as a whole emanated from this region.  Presently, it's difficult to see how the cost of developing the King Coal corridor could be justified given the ever-decreasing likelihood of appreciable benefits on either a local or national level.

Your opinion is the biggest obstetrical in today's transportation projects.  From not beneficial in the short term to cost don't justify it don't just stop such projects in West Virginia but other places as well.  Honestly, if the "Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956" didn't happen, we would have a system more similar to Australia and Canada today, where freeways only exist around cities and nothing to connect them with.  It takes determination and play a long game to get roads like the "King Coal Highway" built to the local light-rail projects.

There is no question I-64, I-77 and I-79 have been beneficial to the state; another interstate reaching an area of the state that is difficult to get through would be most beneficial to the local and those that can utilize a more direct route between Kentucky/Ohio and Virginia besides going to the state capital.  Dismissing it only eliminates what could be from happening.

[sparker]

Re "obstetrical" -- I had no idea that my ideas were giving birth to something!    I think the term in play here is "obstacle" -- it certainly fits the context better.

Regarding my King Coal comments -- I certainly didn't mean to imply that all speculative road projects are either unjustified or otherwise unworthy.  If I had been considerably more than 7 when the original Interstate legislation was passed, I would have been out front as one of its more vocal cheerleaders!  Addressing problems based on an assessment of future rather than current needs -- bold by any standards -- is an admirable undertaking; the '56 act was and is a crystal-clear example of forward thinking within the field.  The problem is that no such vehicle for expanding upon this impetus exists today.  The last time a truly national effort was made to continue the basic concept was the 1968 Interstate expansion act -- and political pressure, not to mention the vast cost overruns of the Vietnam conflict, resulted in that act being truncated from its original 4200 miles of additional Interstate routes, most of which were trunks, down to 1500 miles.  And five years later the prospects for any additional national omnibus acts like the '68 activity were shut down as part of the Nixon administration's push to shift federally-funded programs away from centralized federal planning, relying on locally-managed "block grants" for fund dispersal.  As part of that shift, language was added to Title 23 (the transportation-related section of the US Code) to specifically require the individual states to instigate any and all Interstate additions.  Also instituted at the time was the "chargeable/non-chargeable" dichotomy, whereby additions beyond the routes outlined in '56 or '68 would not be eligible for the 90% federal share of construction cost, but would instead rely upon the percentage available for FAP (federal-aid-primary) routes -- substantially less.  Absent that higher funding level, states no longer had incentive to seek Interstate status for any future limited-access highway development.

Even with such periodic omnibus federal action starting with ISTEA in 1991, there has been little effort to increase the federal funding level above the 80% maximum level; the political climate since that time has certainly not been favorable to that or similar endeavors.  Even the more ambitious projects or corridors are assembled piecemeal; HPC 5/I-73/74 is certainly one of those far-reaching planning efforts that fits that description.  The full corridor enters 6 states; no two of them are on the same page.  SC, in theory, would like to develop the route to funnel tourists to the Myrtle Beach spending zone (pardon me, recreational destination); but in-state squabbling over whether to fund it, how to fund it, and whether upstate deserves all the state's money has stymied any real progress.  NC, of course, is "gung-ho" re Interstate development, with the various 73 and/or 74 corridors either (a) completed, (b) under construction, or (c) programmed -- no other state has committed this level of resources to this corridor concept.  The situation in VA echoes SC; while technically "programmed", I-73's funding has never been confirmed, again due to in-state politics.  I'll come back to WVA later; since the Kenova (Ohio River) bridge project was sunk back about 2001, Ohio has stepped away from any commitment to development of either I-73 or 74 (the massive public support for an Interstate route to use for OSU-Michigan games never materialized!), while NIMBY opposition in SE Michigan sunk any plans for that state's I-73 portion (despite about 60% of the route being already at or near Interstate standard!).   This puts us back in WVA. 

Of all the original projected HPC 5/I-73/74 corridor, the most difficult terrain, and hence the costliest to deploy, was always in WVA.  As with virtually all newly-minted Interstate routes nationwide, the 80% federal funding is not the issue -- the disincentive for development lies in the remaining 20%, which is derived from state & local sources.  And WVA is, sorry to say, a relatively poor state; its ability to raise the funds needed for major projects such as limited-access highways is severely limited.  The state is fortunate to be criss-crossed by ARC highways, which received an even higher federal funding level than Interstate routes.  The late Sen. Byrd could be counted on to funnel as much money as he could coax out of the federal coffers into the state -- but those times are in the past.  The often-cited plan to tie together strip-mining remnants as the routing for the King Coal highway was at best "dicey" and at worst environmentally criminal!  The fact of the matter is that absent some unforeseen funding influx, there is no way that WVA can afford their share of King Coal construction as an expressway, not to mention an Interstate-grade facility.  There's just not enough ducks in this particular row to render the project feasible in the near term -- corridor connections to either the south or north have never been cast in stone, a finalized route has not yet been fully adopted, and no "cash cow" to replace Sen. Byrd has materialized. 

If even a couple of these "ducks" were to line themselves up (VA planning their I-73 route NW of Roanoke, renewed state interest in finding an efficient & realistic King Coal alignment without relying on "pipedream freebies"), I might change my assessment of the situation.  And while my own pipedreams include a renewal of a new & expanded version of the '68 Interstate addition act, including the full 73/74 corridor (with a few logistic revisions), the current political climate just isn't promising for that prospect.  Right now the "piecemeal" approach to new Interstate development just isn't kind to costlier route segments lacking deep political & financial support.  As several posters have noted, the approach for longer corridors is akin to eating an elephant -- one bite at a time.  Unfortunately, that doesn't bode well for those parts containing gristle & bone, like the King Coal portion of HPC 5.  I wish my assessment could be more positive -- but unfortunately, it isn't.  And the aftermath of the recent WVA flooding is likely to eat into whatever state & federal funding might be available in the short or mid-term.

P.S.:  if someone could devise a way to efficiently reconfigure raw coal into industrial carbon fiber for manufacturing & construction purposes (it's an exhaustive "small-batch" process at present), I might yet see a future for the industry beyond mere rapid oxidation for heat!

[LM117]

Re "obstetrical" -- I had no idea that my ideas were giving birth to something!   

Would you like an epidural?

[MazdaStrider]

While I applaud WVA and other states for fighting to build I-73 (and I-74), I'd prefer I-73 to start somewhere in WVA (off I-77 or I-64) and end at Myrtle Beach, if not starting somewhere in WVA, it should just start at Roanoke and end at Myrtle Beach. It probably isn't popular choice (it is off the interstate grid, so is I-69 SW of Indianapolis, in which is being built as well and another interstates, so don't get me started about the interstate grid because it is already a mess to start with way before these new interstates were proposed), the point of the new interstate(s) is that it connects (or will connect) three major cities for I-73: (Roanoke, Greensboro and Myrtle Beach) while providing possible economic growth for small cities along the proposed routing (Rocky Mount, Martinsville, Madison, Mayodan, Summerfield, Stokesdale, Asheboro, Rockingham, Bennettsville, Dillon, Marion, Conway, etc will benefit from having a interstate access). We know how many cities I-74 will connect, but it is FOR economic purposes. Also, don't get me started about AADT (because what it is saying on a paper doesn't mean it is always accurate) or how U.S. routes can accomplish the same thing, etc because the cities WANT an interstate.

As of now, I can see money is going to always be a problem now, one week later, a year later or next 20 years. At least they are building I-73/74 using money that they have (even if it is an expressway and then upgrade it later). Eventually the route will be complete one day.


overall, interstates are built to connect cities with cities to provide transportation and economic purposes (among with other benefits) and it is expanding. Have you seen Canada's interstate system? they are expanding as well. That is why I believe this corridor will eventually be built.


Politics SHOULD NOT play a role in building interstates or any other road as it hurts one part of the state and benefits another part of state. It is really sad to watch politics today.

Now that is being said, I-73/74 will be built and be completed. 

[LM117]

it should just start at Roanoke and end at Myrtle Beach.

I agree, although it would be a miracle if I-73 even reaches Martinsville, much less Roanoke. There's no love for I-73 in NoVA and Richmond except for one vocal state senator, Bill Stanley, who represents the Martinsville region. At least SC is trying to get their part started. They've shown more interest than VA has, even though SC hasn't turned dirt yet. SC is waiting for a federal permit, IIRC. SC has also been having a similar political fight over money spent for I-73 like VA has. Politicians from other parts of SC want to take the money that was reserved for I-73 and fix the existing highways. The Myrtle Beach area didn't take kindly to that.

I-73 in VA is on life support and Bill Stanley is trying desperately to keep it alive, although he's failing miserably at it. He'd be better off asking Ohio and Michigan to built I-73. He might have better luck...

If I were to be brutally honest about it, I would be shocked if I-73 even crossed state lines from NC. With SC seemingly getting stonewalled everytime they're on the verge of getting I-73 started and VA not giving a shit about I-73 except for Bill Stanley and the city of Roanoke (I would add Martinsville, but some of the Henry County supervisors shot themselves in the foot), I don't think I-73 will exist outside of NC. There would have to be major political changes in VA and SC for I-73 to be built in those two states and I don't see that change coming anytime soon. People can call me pessimistic and negative all they want, but at least I'm honest about it and I say that as someone who supports I-73. I just don't wear rose-colored glasses.