I-73 updates?

[LM117]

I think Interstate 73 will be lucky if it ever goes even a mile into Virginia or South Carolina. Never mind coming anywhere near West Virginia, Ohio, or Michigan.

My thoughts as well.

[vtk]

The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

[sparker]

The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

It may have been part of original long-term plans, but the present bypass is a stand-alone project.  Ohio has expressed no interest in planning or developing an I-73 corridor; the cancellation of preliminary planning for an Ohio River bridge near Kenova, WV circa 2002 effectively "iced" any potential connection to the southern part of that corridor.

[Henry]

The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

It may have been part of original long-term plans, but the present bypass is a stand-alone project.  Ohio has expressed no interest in planning or developing an I-73 corridor; the cancellation of preliminary planning for an Ohio River bridge near Kenova, WV circa 2002 effectively "iced" any potential connection to the southern part of that corridor.

Which definitely has the wrong number anyway; it should've been numbered as a southern I-79, as it is completely east of I-77.

[Strider]

The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

It may have been part of original long-term plans, but the present bypass is a stand-alone project.  Ohio has expressed no interest in planning or developing an I-73 corridor; the cancellation of preliminary planning for an Ohio River bridge near Kenova, WV circa 2002 effectively "iced" any potential connection to the southern part of that corridor.

Which definitely has the wrong number anyway; it should've been numbered as a southern I-79, as it is completely east of I-77.

Uh.. Kenova, WV is west of Charleston (where I-77 and I-79 is at), so the route is west of I-77, however it is east of I-75.

[sparker]

The Portsmouth Bypass is proceeding, which I think would have been part of I-73 in Ohio.

It may have been part of original long-term plans, but the present bypass is a stand-alone project.  Ohio has expressed no interest in planning or developing an I-73 corridor; the cancellation of preliminary planning for an Ohio River bridge near Kenova, WV circa 2002 effectively "iced" any potential connection to the southern part of that corridor.

Which definitely has the wrong number anyway; it should've been numbered as a southern I-79, as it is completely east of I-77.

Uh.. Kenova, WV is west of Charleston (where I-77 and I-79 is at), so the route is west of I-77, however it is east of I-75.

When the I-73 corridor was first being proposed back in the '90's, it did include the Michigan segment, which was west of I-75 and thus "grid-correct", even though everything south of Toledo was east of I-75 and even, south of WV, east of I-77.  Likely the number was selected because (a) it was the only N-S designation remaining above 70, and (b) because, as mentioned above, at least one section fit in to the grid (a la I-71). 

[amroad17]

Henry was probably talking about the section where I-73 currently is in North Carolina.  However, when this idea was first proposed, the only available N-S numbers were 67, 73, and 99.  73 was chosen because it "fit" closer in the grid than the other two numbers.  If the original Interstate numbering proposal had spread out the N-S numbers more, then we wouldn't be debating about numbers like 73 and 99 "not being where they are supposed to be."

[sparker]

Henry was probably talking about the section where I-73 currently is in North Carolina.  However, when this idea was first proposed, the only available N-S numbers were 67, 73, and 99.  73 was chosen because it "fit" closer in the grid than the other two numbers.  If the original Interstate numbering proposal had spread out the N-S numbers more, then we wouldn't be debating about numbers like 73 and 99 "not being where they are supposed to be."

Too true!  Unfortunately, the politics surrounding the placement and designation of the original 1956-58 batch of Interstates, including making sure that the mostly N-S corridors connecting major cities ended in "5" to satisfy the characterization of such corridors as "major" or "primary", overwhelmed any notion of spacing the grid out to accommodate future needs.  It was also probably presumed that the original system would be a "one and done" undertaking.

[Strider]

Henry was probably talking about the section where I-73 currently is in North Carolina.  However, when this idea was first proposed, the only available N-S numbers were 67, 73, and 99.  73 was chosen because it "fit" closer in the grid than the other two numbers.  If the original Interstate numbering proposal had spread out the N-S numbers more, then we wouldn't be debating about numbers like 73 and 99 "not being where they are supposed to be."

I am pretty sure he talked about the OH-823 Portsmouth Bypass since the topic of this section talked about the Portsmouth Bypass and the path in Ohio.

[The Ghostbuster]

Forget about Interstate 73 penetrating this region (Midwest - Great Lakes). A new freeway will be built in San Francisco before that happens.

[compdude787]

What's wrong with having a southern I-79 in North Carolina instead of the current I-73?

[sparker]

What's wrong with having a southern I-79 in North Carolina instead of the current I-73?

Except for the I-87 brainfreeze, AASHTO & FHWA normally seem to prefer using new/unused numbers for route additions rather than duplicating existing numbers.  And don't forget that despite there being little possibility of a I-73 corridor existing north of Virginia, the concept did, as legislated, extend north into Michigan -- effectively parallel to existing I-79.  And as long as the authorizing HPC 5 language is on the books, anything actually built along the legislatively described corridor will be signed as I-73, for better or worse!

[wdcrft63]

What's wrong with having a southern I-79 in North Carolina instead of the current I-73?

Except for the I-87 brainfreeze, AASHTO & FHWA normally seem to prefer using new/unused numbers for route additions rather than duplicating existing numbers.  And don't forget that despite there being little possibility of a I-73 corridor existing north of Virginia, the concept did, as legislated, extend north into Michigan -- effectively parallel to existing I-79.  And as long as the authorizing HPC 5 language is on the books, anything actually built along the legislatively described corridor will be signed as I-73, for better or worse!

The chance that NCDOT would ever renumber I-73 to satisfy us roadgeeks is zero.

I-74 is another matter, because sooner or later somebody (in Shelby, perhaps) is going to start talking about an interstate route along US 74 from I-26 all the way to Wilmington.

[LM117]

I-74 is another matter, because sooner or later somebody (in Shelby, perhaps) is going to start talking about an interstate route along US 74 from I-26 all the way to Wilmington.

Meh...send I-74 to Wilmington, designate the Carolina Bays Parkway to Myrtle Beach as an I-x74, designate US-74 between Rockingham and Charlotte as another I-x74, and designate US-74 between I-26 and I-85 as an I-x26 and call it a day.

[sparker]

I-74 is another matter, because sooner or later somebody (in Shelby, perhaps) is going to start talking about an interstate route along US 74 from I-26 all the way to Wilmington.

Meh...send I-74 to Wilmington, designate the Carolina Bays Parkway to Myrtle Beach as an I-x74, designate US-74 between Rockingham and Charlotte as another I-x74, and designate US-74 between I-26 and I-85 as an I-x26 and call it a day.

I'd be willing to bet that NCDOT eventually requests a single 2di number for the entire segment of US 74 west of Rockingham all the way to I-26 at Columbus, given their track record (I'm surprised they didn't request something like I-46 for US 264!).  My money's on 36 or 34 (the former's not being used, and the latter's sequestered as a state route in the northeast corner near Elizabeth City).  Gives Charlotte an east-west trunk of their own. 

[Henry]

Henry was probably talking about the section where I-73 currently is in North Carolina.  However, when this idea was first proposed, the only available N-S numbers were 67, 73, and 99.  73 was chosen because it "fit" closer in the grid than the other two numbers.  If the original Interstate numbering proposal had spread out the N-S numbers more, then we wouldn't be debating about numbers like 73 and 99 "not being where they are supposed to be."

Yes, I was. At least I could live with the OH part, and everything else west of I-77.

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 73 likely won't make it out of North Carolina. I'd bet money on it.

[vtk]

As far as I'm concerned, any Interstate-grade facility built in the legislated I-73 corridor is I-73, even if it's not signed as such.

[Brandon]

As far as I'm concerned, any Interstate-grade facility built in the legislated I-73 corridor is I-73, even if it's not signed as such.

MDOT disagrees with you.

[Strider]

Interstate 73 likely won't make it out of North Carolina. I'd bet money on it.

It will make it out of North Carolina, but I doubt it will make it out of Virginia.

[sparker]

Interstate 73 likely won't make it out of North Carolina. I'd bet money on it.

It will make it out of North Carolina, but I doubt it will make it out of Virginia.

Myrtle Beach to Roanoke -- about as far as it'll get in most of our lifetimes.  It's basically two SIU's: (1) Greensboro-Winston Salem south and SE to the beach recreational/vacation area, and (2) a N-S shunt between the I-85 and I-81 corridors (at least for those who miss I-77 NB at Charlotte or are tired of truck traffic on I-81 SB).  It's serviceable there, but largely duplication north/NW from Roanoke to the Ohio River.  And unless an Interstate-grade facility specifically for traffic for U of M/OSU games is called for, the facilities in Ohio are more than adequate -- although I understand that Delaware (OH) is a bit of a PITA (never been there, but have heard numerous accounts), but not enough to warrant a full Columbus-Findlay Interstate freeway.

[Strider]

Interstate 73 likely won't make it out of North Carolina. I'd bet money on it.

It will make it out of North Carolina, but I doubt it will make it out of Virginia.

Myrtle Beach to Roanoke -- about as far as it'll get in most of our lifetimes.  It's basically two SIU's: (1) Greensboro-Winston Salem south and SE to the beach recreational/vacation area, and (2) a N-S shunt between the I-85 and I-81 corridors (at least for those who miss I-77 NB at Charlotte or are tired of truck traffic on I-81 SB).  It's serviceable there, but largely duplication north/NW from Roanoke to the Ohio River.  And unless an Interstate-grade facility specifically for traffic for U of M/OSU games is called for, the facilities in Ohio are more than adequate -- although I understand that Delaware (OH) is a bit of a PITA (never been there, but have heard numerous accounts), but not enough to warrant a full Columbus-Findlay Interstate freeway.

Yeah, that is the current plan. To have the I-73 freeway between Roanoke and Myrtle Beach, that is it. An extension north of Roanoke.. I don't see it happening.

[LM117]

If I-73 ever goes beyond NC, it will be to SC long before VA. SC definitely wants I-73 built, but they're broke. VA, on the other hand, has very little to zero interest in building I-73.There's support for it at the local level in places like Roanoke and Martinsville, but virtually none at the state level. That part of VA is at the bottom of the political totem pole. There's simply no political muscle for I-73 the way there is in NC that gained them future interstates I-42, I-87, I-587, and I-795's southward extension to I-40, two of which already have projects either underway or in the planning stages (I-42 & I-795).

I don't see VA having a change of heart until NC extends I-73 to the VA state line and even that is a crapshoot.

[hbelkins]

largely duplication north/NW from Roanoke to the Ohio River.

No, the duplication is between Martinsville and Roanoke, and it's called US 220, which I've said many times here, is perfectly serviceable as a surface four-lane. If a connector between Roanoke and Blacksburg/Christiansburg is ever built, then you have duplication over to the I-77 corridor (US 460), but nothing nearby between the Princeton/Bluefield area and Huntington. Yes, you can get to Huntington from the state line via I-77 and I-64, but nothing direct. Of course, the proposed upgrades to US 52 (King Coal Highway) don't constitute a direct route because the route is going to serve Welch and Williamson, but anything that is built in West Virginia will be a surface route and not a full freeway.

[amroad17]

It seems like the Feds do not like the number 220.    Could this possibly be one of the ways to "get rid" of the number?   

In all seriousness, the only updates for I-73 that will happen will occur in North Carolina.  In the future (how close or distant--we don't know), there could be END I-73 signs for a long while at both state lines.

I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing I-73 built in Virginia to I-81 near Roanoke.  There really isn't any need for I-73 to continue further north.  It probably would help Myrtle Beach if I-73 was built from Rockingham to there.  It would make it a little bit easier to travel there from the Ohio Valley.  But, alas, interest and money are the factors on whether I-73 will be extended into both states or not.