Interstate 73/74

[LM117]

What's wrong with it? It's not interstate quality? That's hardly a qualifier in justifying spending an exorbitant amount of money to build a parallel four-lane route.

I wouldn't be opposed to upgrading existing US-220 to I-73, though I'm not sure how feasible it would be to upgrade the entire route. I haven't driven the section from Martinsville to Rocky Mount, but I drove US-220 from Rocky Mount to Roanoke and I hated it. There are sharp curves and steep inclines, numerous businesses and at-grades and the number of semi trucks on the road didn't exactly make for a good combination. It was a pain in the ass. I don't know what the scientific figures are for the truck counts on US-220, but judging from what I encountered, it wasn't too far behind I-81. The road from Rocky Mount to the point it becomes a freeway in Roanoke sure as hell didn't seem "adequate" to me.

[LM117]

There is a huge difference in widening by adding an extra lane and overkill, with truck and car lanes, extra lanes... without even considering upgrading a nearby freight line (for instance).

I don't know. I know there are heavy truck traffic on I-81, but if were oppositions on widening I-81 in VA, that is probably why I have not heard of any plans to widen it lately. Yes, I-81 needs widening, but again, traffic usually will still be heavy because trucks usually follow interstates, not US routes. (some of them still uses US routes, but most of them prefer interstates). I-73 will be another interstate between I-77 and I-64 junctions. Believe me when I say this, when I-73 is being built, you will see more traffic using I-73 which can result in reduced traffic along I-81 among other reasons. That is one of the reasons why they want I-73. Somehow they knew a US route is not enough to bring jobs and economy to SW VA who needs to blossom.

Because if US 220 is fine as it is, then they probably don't need I-73. Unfortunately, they have been wanting I-73 for YEARS, which tells us something. I have been to Martinsville and Rocky Mount (cities between Greensboro and Roanoke), and I can see and understand why they want a interstate nearby. I support I-73 because it doesn't only provide a quicker link between Greensboro and Roanoke, but I want to see cities in SW VA expand. Having a interstate access is one of the steps in expanding SW VA area. If I have that kind of money to build I-73, I would do give it to them.

They want I-73 for many years and they deserve to have a interstate running near them.

. Not to mention that Greensboro would benefit quite a bit from it since it would have a direct interstate link to I-81 and once I-73 is finished in SC, it would have direct acces to I-95 and points south, making Greensboro even more of a transportation hub, similar to Memphis. Too bad the I-83 extension idea along US-29 didn't pan out but that's a different topic.

[Mapmikey]

What's wrong with it? It's not interstate quality? That's hardly a qualifier in justifying spending an exorbitant amount of money to build a parallel four-lane route.

I wouldn't be opposed to upgrading existing US-220 to I-73, though I'm not sure how feasible it would be to upgrade the entire route. I haven't driven the section from Martinsville to Rocky Mount, but I drove US-220 from Rocky Mount to Roanoke and I hated it. There are sharp curves and steep inclines, numerous businesses and at-grades and the number of semi trucks on the road didn't exactly make for a good combination. It was a pain in the ass. I don't know what the scientific figures are for the truck counts on US-220, but judging from what I encountered, it wasn't too far behind I-81. The road from Rocky Mount to the point it becomes a freeway in Roanoke sure as hell didn't seem "adequate" to me.

The 2015 traffic data is out and it shows truck traffic at 12% in the Martinsville area; 10% up through Franklin County; 4% on I-581 (in raw numbers these work out to about 1200-2000 in Martinsville, 1500-2500 up through Franklin County, and about 3000 AADT trucks on I-581).

Compare that to I-81 which is 21% in the Roanoke area (12,000 AADT trucks ballpark); 30% or more from Exit 150 to Staunton (though only about 7k AADT).  I-77 has 25-30% trucks which works out to AADTs of 5-6k.

[Strider]

What's wrong with it? It's not interstate quality? That's hardly a qualifier in justifying spending an exorbitant amount of money to build a parallel four-lane route.

I wouldn't be opposed to upgrading existing US-220 to I-73, though I'm not sure how feasible it would be to upgrade the entire route. I haven't driven the section from Martinsville to Rocky Mount, but I drove US-220 from Rocky Mount to Roanoke and I hated it. There are sharp curves and steep inclines, numerous businesses and at-grades and the number of semi trucks on the road didn't exactly make for a good combination. It was a pain in the ass. I don't know what the scientific figures are for the truck counts on US-220, but judging from what I encountered, it wasn't too far behind I-81. The road from Rocky Mount to the point it becomes a freeway in Roanoke sure as hell didn't seem "adequate" to me.

The 2015 traffic data is out and it shows truck traffic at 12% in the Martinsville area; 10% up through Franklin County; 4% on I-581 (in raw numbers these work out to about 1200-2000 in Martinsville, 1500-2500 up through Franklin County, and about 3000 AADT trucks on I-581).

Compare that to I-81 which is 21% in the Roanoke area (12,000 AADT trucks ballpark); 30% or more from Exit 150 to Staunton (though only about 7k AADT).  I-77 has 25-30% trucks which works out to AADTs of 5-6k.

Do you know why I-77 has 25-30% trucks? because truckers follow interstate. Most of them probably have to drive on interstates all the way from Raleigh, or somewhere southeast.

And you only use AADT to prove anything. It does not prove anything UNLESS you drive on the road itself, which I have multiple times. That is why i don't bother with AADT stuff. Plus, your data came from 2015.

[Mapmikey]

um...I was only answering a factual question about what the numbers are...

but since you asked...

What year should data be from?  2015 data was just released.

25-30% trucks on I-77 is because not many cars drive it.  The raw truck AADT on I-77 is half of I-81's and the same as I-95 in Fredericksburg (though it is only 12% of total traffic).  So improving I-81 for trucks by adding targeted climbing lanes and fixing up the oldest parts make sense.  I-77 could use some targeted climbing lanes too.

US 220 between Rocky Mount and VA 419 could use upgrading maybe even new alignment.  But this is still well short of needing an entire interstate from Roanoke to Greensboro.

[Strider]

um...I was only answering a factual question about what the numbers are...

but since you asked...

What year should data be from?  2015 data was just released.

25-30% trucks on I-77 is because not many cars drive it.  The raw truck AADT on I-77 is half of I-81's and the same as I-95 in Fredericksburg (though it is only 12% of total traffic).  So improving I-81 for trucks by adding targeted climbing lanes and fixing up the oldest parts make sense.  I-77 could use some targeted climbing lanes too.

US 220 between Rocky Mount and VA 419 could use upgrading maybe even new alignment.  But this is still well short of needing an entire interstate from Roanoke to Greensboro.

US 220 between Rocky Mount and Roanoke could use upgrading, easily. So it the section from Martinsville to Rocky Mount with a few exceptions along that alignment where a upgrade can work. So is the highway from NC state line to Martinsville. The road itself is dangerous, period. Again, you are missing the point of having an I-73 link between Roanoke and Greensboro.

[hbelkins]

What's wrong with it? It's not interstate quality? That's hardly a qualifier in justifying spending an exorbitant amount of money to build a parallel four-lane route.

Agreed. Not everything has to be an interstate.

Martinsville and Rocky Mount, Va. are already in possession of easier access to an interstate than are, say, Welch or Iaeger or Pineville, WV.

As for widening I-81 and environmental impacts, seems to me that adding lanes in the median would have very little impact.

[The Ghostbuster]

Not everything has to be an interstate? Tell that to Texas and North Carolina!

[LM117]

Not everything has to be an interstate? Tell that to Texas and North Carolina!

I-73 and the I-69/I-74 extensions were designated by Congress. I'm not too familiar with Texas, but here's the lowdown with NC:

Future I-42 follows the heavily traveled US-70 corridor in eastern NC connecting military bases (Seymour Johnson AFB and Cherry Point MCAS), the Global TransPark and the Port of Morehead City to I-95 and I-40.

Future I-885, combined with part of NC-540, provides a north-south route through the heart of the Triangle, which is one of the fastest growing metros in the US, and connects Research Triangle Park to I-85 and the Northeast.

Future I-285 links Winston-Salem and the remainder of the Triad not directly served by I-85 with I-85 and points south such as Charlotte and Atlanta.

Future I-295 in Fayetteville will provide a direct connection to Fort Bragg from I-95 without having to go through downtown Fayetteville.

The future extension of I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40 near Faison along the US-117 corridor provides a direct connection to Wilmington from I-95 and points north of Wilson and will serve as a shortcut for trucks coming to and from the Port of Wilmington from I-95 and points north, which will help reduce truck traffic on I-95 between Benson and Wilson.

Future I-87 will connect the Triangle and Hampton Roads, although I understand it's criticism due to it's routing.

Now, I'll admit that I-785 between Greensboro and Danville isn't necessary. There's nothing in Danville that warrants an interstate by itself. Only an extension of I-83 (which obviously isn't gonna happen) would make upgrading US-29 worth it since it would've been a great alternative to the parking lot the congested section of I-95 between Richmond and DC.

So, other than questionable I-87 and useless I-785, which of those corridors in NC doesn't warrant interstate status?

[Strider]

What's wrong with it? It's not interstate quality? That's hardly a qualifier in justifying spending an exorbitant amount of money to build a parallel four-lane route.

Agreed. Not everything has to be an interstate.

Martinsville and Rocky Mount, Va. are already in possession of easier access to an interstate than are, say, Welch or Iaeger or Pineville, WV.

As for widening I-81 and environmental impacts, seems to me that adding lanes in the median would have very little impact.

Seeing you're from Kentucky, you can tell them that since they're turning their parkways into interstates. Their parkways are in a better shape than US 220. If you are fine with them building I-69, then your argument is invalid.

[vdeane]

How is his argument invalid.  Yes, some parkways are being incorporated into I-69, and there is the now-dead I-66 proposal, but other than those, I'm not aware of any other proposals to incorporate Kentucky parkways into interstates with the exception of the ones originating from the mayor of Owensboro.

[Strider]

How is his argument invalid.  Yes, some parkways are being incorporated into I-69, and there is the now-dead I-66 proposal, but other than those, I'm not aware of any other proposals to incorporate Kentucky parkways into interstates with the exception of the ones originating from the mayor of Owensboro.

His argument is that not everything needs to be an interstate. again, see Kentucky and I-69 (i also hear they are planning I-565 and I-67). See I-41. See I-49. See the proposed I-11. Even Texas is trying to have I-14 running across the state. Interstates are going to get built whether we like it or not. Get over it.

[Strider]

Back to I-73 topic:

Here is the update on the construction of I-73 north of Greensboro (I didn't take pictures because the crew were working while I drove by):

Exit 107: (I-73/I-840/Bryan Blvd interchange): They are working on extending I-840 up north past the interchange, but on the I-73 north ramp, they are almost done with the widening of the ramp to I-73 North from 2 to 3 lanes (all they have to do is put asphalt on the road itself and they just started when I crossed the road on Inman Rd. overpass (the overpass is complete and open to traffic).

PTI Taxiway area: The taxiway area is nearly finished. You can now see the taxiway when you drive down the ramp from Old Oak Ridge Rd to Bryan Blvd west (future I-73), the roadway is still under construction, however.

Exit 110 interchange (NC 68 South): No changes so far. They are still working on relocating Pleasant Ridge Rd before more work can be done on the interchange itself.

Exit 111 interchange (NC 68 North): They are adding bridge decks to the I-73 bridge across NC 68.

Alcorn Rd. overpass: The bridge is complete and traffic rerouted to it. They cleaned up the old alignment and removed it. They are working on grading I-73 lanes under the bridge.

Bunch Rd. overpass: The bridge is almost done. (3/4 complete) They also started working on rerouting Bunch Rd. traffic by grading the new road on both approaches to the bridge.

Brookbank Rd. overpass and Reddy Fork River bridges: As of Brookbank Rd. overpass, they have not started, but they cleared the hill and the grading is visible when I drove past it. They also finished grading the approaches to the bridge on Brookbank Rd.

As of the Reddy Fork River bridges, the southbound lanes bridge is nearly done as they just finished covering the bridge deck with concrete. The northbound lanes bridge still have bridge piers, but they're about to switch work from the southbound bridge to northbound bridge soon though.

Exit 116: NC 150 interchange: (1/4 complete) That is where they are doing a heavy road work. They're building the bridge and within a week, the bridge piers are already finished. They're working on the bridge supporters, which looks 3/4 complete. They also worked on grading I-73 lanes, facing north.

Deboe Rd. overpass: the bridge is complete, but traffic have not been rerouted yet. If you stand near the overpass and look up north, with the distance, you can see US 220 South flyover bridge ahead. They are working on grading the I-73 lanes.

Exit 119: US 220 interchange: The interchange is complete, so the only thing they need to do is put the asphalt on the I-73 lanes.

Exit 120: US 158 interchange: (3/4 complete) They are working on grading the northbound lanes of I-73 and the US 158 off ramp from I-73. They also are putting up stoplights at the end of the ramp from I-73 to US 158 on both sides.

Guilford/Rockingham County line: They have not started grading the southbound lanes of I-73. but a very little grading can be noticed.

Exit 122: NC 65 interchange: The interchange is 3/4 complete, because the bridge is complete, but traffic have not been rerouted to cross the highway via the bridge. They are still working on grading the southbound lanes of I-73 and the off ramp to NC 65 just north of the interchange.

Exit 123: NC 68 partial interchange: (1/4 complete) They are almost finished with building the bridge supporters, so a few things they need to do is: 1. put up the bridge deck, 2. finish grading I-73 southbound lanes north and south of the bridge, and 3. reconnect NC 68 northbound lane to I-73/US 220 lanes... it seems like they are working on relocating the future northbound ramp a little west to the current temporary US 220 lanes.

I don't know of the progress on the south part of I-73 and I-74 near Rockingham. Maybe someone can tell us.

[Mapmikey]

How is his argument invalid.  Yes, some parkways are being incorporated into I-69, and there is the now-dead I-66 proposal, but other than those, I'm not aware of any other proposals to incorporate Kentucky parkways into interstates with the exception of the ones originating from the mayor of Owensboro.

His argument is that not everything needs to be an interstate. again, see Kentucky and I-69 (i also hear they are planning I-565 and I-67). See I-41. See I-49. See the proposed I-11. Even Texas is trying to have I-14 running across the state. Interstates are going to get built whether we like it or not. Get over it.

Well...since HB thought I-66 across E. Kentucky wasn't a good idea for the same reason he gives for not being a fan of I-73, I'd say his argument is pretty consistent.  This is reply #8 to this thread from him:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17181.0

Saw a story today that indicates I-66 is dead in Kentucky. I would expect that the Cumberland Parkway (northeast bypass of Somerset) extension to KY 80 will be done at some point, but that may be it. And really, that makes sense. Building a four-lane through eastern Pike County to enter West Virginia near Matewan makes no sense after US 119 was four-laned just a few miles north of where the new route would go. The state is building a new route to connect KY 80 near the Knott-Floyd county line with US 23 near the Floyd-Pike line, which will cut down on the travel time between Hazard and Pikeville. Kentucky just made a huge cut to its transportation budget because of declining gas tax revenues and the legislature failed to shore up the gas tax floor in time. Unless I-66 is 100 percent federally funded, it's probably not going to happen despite what Hal Rogers wants.

Some interstates may or may not get built quickly or at all...we should get over that, too.

[vdeane]

How is his argument invalid.  Yes, some parkways are being incorporated into I-69, and there is the now-dead I-66 proposal, but other than those, I'm not aware of any other proposals to incorporate Kentucky parkways into interstates with the exception of the ones originating from the mayor of Owensboro.

His argument is that not everything needs to be an interstate. again, see Kentucky and I-69 (i also hear they are planning I-565 and I-67). See I-41. See I-49. See the proposed I-11. Even Texas is trying to have I-14 running across the state. Interstates are going to get built whether we like it or not. Get over it.

There is a middle ground in between "let's never built any interstates ever" (what you claim HB Elkins and myself are saying, even though we aren't) and spamming them out like Texas, North Carolina, and FrtizOwl like to do.  I support parts of I-11, I-69, and I-73, and would like to see I-86 and I-99 both get finished (even though they're now as likely to get done as an interstate along US 11 in northern NY, which I also support but is never going to happen).  I-74 strikes me as redundant and has resulted in a duplicate interstate number.  I-87 is similar.  I don't know enough about I-42 to form a strong opinion on it, but NC's interstate grid does seem to be getting quite dense.  I also don't support the suffixed interstate nonsense in southern Texas (seriously, they probably don't even need three freeways there, much less three interstates, and definitely three I-69s... can't they just leave two of them as US routes?).

And, of course, just because something is congressionally designated doesn't mean it will actually get built.  Just look at I-74 outside of the Carolinas.  I doubt the feds have the ability of will to force a state to build a road.

[LM117]

How is his argument invalid.  Yes, some parkways are being incorporated into I-69, and there is the now-dead I-66 proposal, but other than those, I'm not aware of any other proposals to incorporate Kentucky parkways into interstates with the exception of the ones originating from the mayor of Owensboro.

see Kentucky and I-69 (i also hear they are planning I-565 and I-67).

I-67 isn't being built, although a study was done. But you're right that most of Kentucky's parkways are planned for interstate status. There's also the most recent I-169 proposal (which passed the Senate) introduced in Congress by Sen. Rand Paul for the remainder of the Pennyrile Parkway from I-69 near Mortons Gap to I-24 near Hopkinsville.

[LM117]

Back to I-73 topic:

Here is the update on the construction of I-73 north of Greensboro (I didn't take pictures because the crew were working while I drove by):

Exit 107: (I-73/I-840/Bryan Blvd interchange): They are working on extending I-840 up north past the interchange, but on the I-73 north ramp, they are almost done with the widening of the ramp to I-73 North from 2 to 3 lanes (all they have to do is put asphalt on the road itself and they just started when I crossed the road on Inman Rd. overpass (the overpass is complete and open to traffic).

PTI Taxiway area: The taxiway area is nearly finished. You can now see the taxiway when you drive down the ramp from Old Oak Ridge Rd to Bryan Blvd west (future I-73), the roadway is still under construction, however.

Exit 110 interchange (NC 68 South): No changes so far. They are still working on relocating Pleasant Ridge Rd before more work can be done on the interchange itself.

Exit 111 interchange (NC 68 North): They are adding bridge decks to the I-73 bridge across NC 68.

Alcorn Rd. overpass: The bridge is complete and traffic rerouted to it. They cleaned up the old alignment and removed it. They are working on grading I-73 lanes under the bridge.

Bunch Rd. overpass: The bridge is almost done. (3/4 complete) They also started working on rerouting Bunch Rd. traffic by grading the new road on both approaches to the bridge.

Brookbank Rd. overpass and Reddy Fork River bridges: As of Brookbank Rd. overpass, they have not started, but they cleared the hill and the grading is visible when I drove past it. They also finished grading the approaches to the bridge on Brookbank Rd.

As of the Reddy Fork River bridges, the southbound lanes bridge is nearly done as they just finished covering the bridge deck with concrete. The northbound lanes bridge still have bridge piers, but they're about to switch work from the southbound bridge to northbound bridge soon though.

Exit 116: NC 150 interchange: (1/4 complete) That is where they are doing a heavy road work. They're building the bridge and within a week, the bridge piers are already finished. They're working on the bridge supporters, which looks 3/4 complete. They also worked on grading I-73 lanes, facing north.

Deboe Rd. overpass: the bridge is complete, but traffic have not been rerouted yet. If you stand near the overpass and look up north, with the distance, you can see US 220 South flyover bridge ahead. They are working on grading the I-73 lanes.

Exit 119: US 220 interchange: The interchange is complete, so the only thing they need to do is put the asphalt on the I-73 lanes.

Exit 120: US 158 interchange: (3/4 complete) They are working on grading the northbound lanes of I-73 and the US 158 off ramp from I-73. They also are putting up stoplights at the end of the ramp from I-73 to US 158 on both sides.

Guilford/Rockingham County line: They have not started grading the southbound lanes of I-73. but a very little grading can be noticed.

Exit 122: NC 65 interchange: The interchange is 3/4 complete, because the bridge is complete, but traffic have not been rerouted to cross the highway via the bridge. They are still working on grading the southbound lanes of I-73 and the off ramp to NC 65 just north of the interchange.

Exit 123: NC 68 partial interchange: (1/4 complete) They are almost finished with building the bridge supporters, so a few things they need to do is: 1. put up the bridge deck, 2. finish grading I-73 southbound lanes north and south of the bridge, and 3. reconnect NC 68 northbound lane to I-73/US 220 lanes... it seems like they are working on relocating the future northbound ramp a little west to the current temporary US 220 lanes.

I don't know of the progress on the south part of I-73 and I-74 near Rockingham. Maybe someone can tell us.

Thanks for the update. I think I-73 from Bryan Boulevard to US-220 is supposed to open in December if I'm not mistaken.

[Strider]

Back to I-73 topic:

Here is the update on the construction of I-73 north of Greensboro (I didn't take pictures because the crew were working while I drove by):

Exit 107: (I-73/I-840/Bryan Blvd interchange): They are working on extending I-840 up north past the interchange, but on the I-73 north ramp, they are almost done with the widening of the ramp to I-73 North from 2 to 3 lanes (all they have to do is put asphalt on the road itself and they just started when I crossed the road on Inman Rd. overpass (the overpass is complete and open to traffic).

PTI Taxiway area: The taxiway area is nearly finished. You can now see the taxiway when you drive down the ramp from Old Oak Ridge Rd to Bryan Blvd west (future I-73), the roadway is still under construction, however.

Exit 110 interchange (NC 68 South): No changes so far. They are still working on relocating Pleasant Ridge Rd before more work can be done on the interchange itself.

Exit 111 interchange (NC 68 North): They are adding bridge decks to the I-73 bridge across NC 68.

Alcorn Rd. overpass: The bridge is complete and traffic rerouted to it. They cleaned up the old alignment and removed it. They are working on grading I-73 lanes under the bridge.

Bunch Rd. overpass: The bridge is almost done. (3/4 complete) They also started working on rerouting Bunch Rd. traffic by grading the new road on both approaches to the bridge.

Brookbank Rd. overpass and Reddy Fork River bridges: As of Brookbank Rd. overpass, they have not started, but they cleared the hill and the grading is visible when I drove past it. They also finished grading the approaches to the bridge on Brookbank Rd.

As of the Reddy Fork River bridges, the southbound lanes bridge is nearly done as they just finished covering the bridge deck with concrete. The northbound lanes bridge still have bridge piers, but they're about to switch work from the southbound bridge to northbound bridge soon though.

Exit 116: NC 150 interchange: (1/4 complete) That is where they are doing a heavy road work. They're building the bridge and within a week, the bridge piers are already finished. They're working on the bridge supporters, which looks 3/4 complete. They also worked on grading I-73 lanes, facing north.

Deboe Rd. overpass: the bridge is complete, but traffic have not been rerouted yet. If you stand near the overpass and look up north, with the distance, you can see US 220 South flyover bridge ahead. They are working on grading the I-73 lanes.

Exit 119: US 220 interchange: The interchange is complete, so the only thing they need to do is put the asphalt on the I-73 lanes.

Exit 120: US 158 interchange: (3/4 complete) They are working on grading the northbound lanes of I-73 and the US 158 off ramp from I-73. They also are putting up stoplights at the end of the ramp from I-73 to US 158 on both sides.

Guilford/Rockingham County line: They have not started grading the southbound lanes of I-73. but a very little grading can be noticed.

Exit 122: NC 65 interchange: The interchange is 3/4 complete, because the bridge is complete, but traffic have not been rerouted to cross the highway via the bridge. They are still working on grading the southbound lanes of I-73 and the off ramp to NC 65 just north of the interchange.

Exit 123: NC 68 partial interchange: (1/4 complete) They are almost finished with building the bridge supporters, so a few things they need to do is: 1. put up the bridge deck, 2. finish grading I-73 southbound lanes north and south of the bridge, and 3. reconnect NC 68 northbound lane to I-73/US 220 lanes... it seems like they are working on relocating the future northbound ramp a little west to the current temporary US 220 lanes.

I don't know of the progress on the south part of I-73 and I-74 near Rockingham. Maybe someone can tell us.

Thanks for the update. I think I-73 from Bryan Boulevard to US-220 is supposed to open in December if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah they are supposed to be opening mid December. However, based on my observations, I won't be surprised if they have to move the completion date to sometime in 2017. They are working on it as fast as they could.

[LM117]

How is his argument invalid.  Yes, some parkways are being incorporated into I-69, and there is the now-dead I-66 proposal, but other than those, I'm not aware of any other proposals to incorporate Kentucky parkways into interstates with the exception of the ones originating from the mayor of Owensboro.

His argument is that not everything needs to be an interstate. again, see Kentucky and I-69 (i also hear they are planning I-565 and I-67). See I-41. See I-49. See the proposed I-11. Even Texas is trying to have I-14 running across the state. Interstates are going to get built whether we like it or not. Get over it.

I don't know enough about I-42 to form a strong opinion on it, but NC's interstate grid does seem to be getting quite dense.

I-42 is definitely warranted and it couldn't come soon enough. The US-70 corridor from it's junction with I-40 near Garner just outside of Raleigh to Morehead City that I-42 will follow is the most heavily traveled highway in eastern NC and the non-freeway segments have seen numerous horrific crashes over the years and there many traffic lights and at-grades, especially from the Clayton Bypass to Kinston, (except for Goldsboro, whose bypass recently opened). There are also two military bases along the corridor, Seymour Johnson AFB in Goldsboro and Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in Havelock. There's also a port in Morehead City. It's also used as a hurricane evacuation route for residents and tourists on along the coast.

This should bring you up to speed:

http://www.super70corridor.com/

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70corridor/

You can also check out the I-42 thread for updates:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18287.0

[hbelkins]

There are two different arguments here in which my name is being taken in vain.

One is the renumbering of existing freeways as interstates, which I support whenever possible. The other is building all new four-lane highways as limited-access, interstate-grade freeways, which I don't support, especially if one of those roads is not needed because it would parallel an existing four-lane route that functions just fine.

I've got no problem with renumbering every Kentucky parkway as an interstate. Those roads are already in existence and function as de facto interstates, although the average motorist can't tell the difference between them and an existing interstate and the money that has to be spent to bring them up to current standards (longer merge lanes, etc.) could be better spent elsewhere without impacting functionality.

At any rate, it's a whole lot cheaper to make a few changes to the Audubon Parkway and call it I-369 than it is to build a freeway parallel to US 220 between Martinsville and Roanoke.

Seeing you're from Kentucky, you can tell them that since they're turning their parkways into interstates. Their parkways are in a better shape than US 220. If you are fine with them building I-69, then your argument is invalid.

They're not building new four-lane highways parallel to existing four-lane highways. Improvements are being made to existing four-lane highways. Huge difference. A better comparison would be if some spot improvements were being made to US 220, which would be OK.

And as someone mentioned elsewhere, I-69 is something Congress is pushing and promoting. Kentucky would have been fine with leaving the WK/Pennyrile interchange the way it was.

It just doesn't make good sense to build a new four-lane road next to a perfectly good four-lane road that adequately serves traffic.

And as I'm fond of saying, not everything needs to be an interstate. The Kentucky parkways were already built as freeways. If they were being built today as free routes, not toll routes, there's no reason they shouldn't be four-lane surface routes. That's why I think the freeway-ization of the length of US 31 north of Indy is such a waste of money. The road was, and is, perfectly fine as a surface route. Sure, bypass Kokomo, but the rest is overkill.

[Strider]

There are two different arguments here in which my name is being taken in vain.

One is the renumbering of existing freeways as interstates, which I support whenever possible. The other is building all new four-lane highways as limited-access, interstate-grade freeways, which I don't support, especially if one of those roads is not needed because it would parallel an existing four-lane route that functions just fine.

I've got no problem with renumbering every Kentucky parkway as an interstate. Those roads are already in existence and function as de facto interstates, although the average motorist can't tell the difference between them and an existing interstate and the money that has to be spent to bring them up to current standards (longer merge lanes, etc.) could be better spent elsewhere without impacting functionality.

At any rate, it's a whole lot cheaper to make a few changes to the Audubon Parkway and call it I-369 than it is to build a freeway parallel to US 220 between Martinsville and Roanoke.

Seeing you're from Kentucky, you can tell them that since they're turning their parkways into interstates. Their parkways are in a better shape than US 220. If you are fine with them building I-69, then your argument is invalid.

They're not building new four-lane highways parallel to existing four-lane highways. Improvements are being made to existing four-lane highways. Huge difference. A better comparison would be if some spot improvements were being made to US 220, which would be OK.

And as someone mentioned elsewhere, I-69 is something Congress is pushing and promoting. Kentucky would have been fine with leaving the WK/Pennyrile interchange the way it was.

It just doesn't make good sense to build a new four-lane road next to a perfectly good four-lane road that adequately serves traffic.

And as I'm fond of saying, not everything needs to be an interstate. The Kentucky parkways were already built as freeways. If they were being built today as free routes, not toll routes, there's no reason they shouldn't be four-lane surface routes. That's why I think the freeway-ization of the length of US 31 north of Indy is such a waste of money. The road was, and is, perfectly fine as a surface route. Sure, bypass Kokomo, but the rest is overkill.

You're still missing something: I-69 is not the only route Congress is pushing. I-11, I-14, I-73 and I-74 says hi.

[LM117]

At any rate, it's a whole lot cheaper to make a few changes to the Audubon Parkway and call it I-369 than it is to build a freeway parallel to US 220 between Martinsville and Roanoke.

I don't think anybody is opposed to upgrading US-220. I'm just not sure how feasible it is. It might be doable between Martinsville and Rocky Mount, but between Rocky Mount and the beginning of the current US-220 freeway in Roanoke is a different story. Between the steep hills, sharp curves and numerous businesses, it would be a near impossible feat to upgrade that section of US-220 to interstate standards. If VA finally decides to build I-73, they may not have a choice but to build a new alignment between Rocky Mount and the existing freeway in Roanoke.

[hbelkins]

Are "Strider" and "MazdaStrider" the same person? Because I have seen both names post in this forum.

You're still missing something: I-69 is not the only route Congress is pushing. I-11, I-14, I-73 and I-74 says hi.

And West Virginia is building its segments of "I-73/I-74" as surface expressways, not full-freeway interstates -- what little they are building.

At any rate, it's a whole lot cheaper to make a few changes to the Audubon Parkway and call it I-369 than it is to build a freeway parallel to US 220 between Martinsville and Roanoke.

I don't think anybody is opposed to upgrading US-220. I'm just not sure how feasible it is. It might be doable between Martinsville and Rocky Mount, but between Rocky Mount and the beginning of the current US-220 freeway in Roanoke is a different story. Between the steep hills, sharp curves and numerous businesses, it would be a near impossible feat to upgrade that section of US-220 to interstate standards. If VA finally decides to build I-73, they may not have a choice but to build a new alignment between Rocky Mount and the existing freeway in Roanoke.

Who said it had to be interstate standards? Keep it a surface route, just straighten out a few hills and curves, turn some intersections into RIROs, make a few upgrades here and there. That corridor doesn't need to be a full freeway. That's my whole point. I'd be thrilled with a road the quality of existing US 220 just about anywhere in eastern Kentucky or southwestern West Virginia.

[Strider]

Are "Strider" and "MazdaStrider" the same person? Because I have seen both names post in this forum.

You're still missing something: I-69 is not the only route Congress is pushing. I-11, I-14, I-73 and I-74 says hi.

And West Virginia is building its segments of "I-73/I-74" as surface expressways, not full-freeway interstates -- what little they are building.

At any rate, it's a whole lot cheaper to make a few changes to the Audubon Parkway and call it I-369 than it is to build a freeway parallel to US 220 between Martinsville and Roanoke.

I don't think anybody is opposed to upgrading US-220. I'm just not sure how feasible it is. It might be doable between Martinsville and Rocky Mount, but between Rocky Mount and the beginning of the current US-220 freeway in Roanoke is a different story. Between the steep hills, sharp curves and numerous businesses, it would be a near impossible feat to upgrade that section of US-220 to interstate standards. If VA finally decides to build I-73, they may not have a choice but to build a new alignment between Rocky Mount and the existing freeway in Roanoke.

Who said it had to be interstate standards? Keep it a surface route, just straighten out a few hills and curves, turn some intersections into RIROs, make a few upgrades here and there. That corridor doesn't need to be a full freeway. That's my whole point. I'd be thrilled with a road the quality of existing US 220 just about anywhere in eastern Kentucky or southwestern West Virginia.

You're still missing the point.

Now, what is the update on the I-73/74 road construction near Rockingham County in NC? Does everyone know of it?

[LM117]

Now, what is the update on the I-73/74 road construction near Rockingham County in NC? Does everyone know of it?

I think you meant the town of Rockingham. Anyway, according to NCDOT"s progress report (TIP: R-3421C), it's actual progress is 48.64 percent complete. It's apparently behind schedule since it's scheduled progress is 67 percent complete. It's completion date is March 30, 2018.