WSLS10: CTB approves more than $64 million for Route 220 improvements (http://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/roanoke/ctb-approves-more-than-64-million-for-route-220-improvements)
Note that this is mostly just minor safety improvements, not four-lane widening. I put this here because this is in Botetourt County and is unrelated to I-73.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 20, 2017, 06:58:43 AM
WSLS10: CTB approves more than $64 million for Route 220 improvements (http://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/roanoke/ctb-approves-more-than-64-million-for-route-220-improvements)
Note that this is mostly just minor safety improvements, not four-lane widening. I put this here because this is in Botetourt County and is unrelated to I-73.
I recently drove U.S. 220 from Covington to Monterey, and was surprised at how primitive it was. Perhaps the local people of Bath and Highland Counties want it that way?
http://www.newstribune.info/news/20170509/commentary-we-should-be-looking-at-4-lane-route-220 (http://www.newstribune.info/news/20170509/commentary-we-should-be-looking-at-4-lane-route-220)
What do you think about that? I know it is some "bs" created by politicians which I don't think will happen, but you never know.
I put this on this page because it only talks about I-73 for a very short time.
I never been on US 220 between Roanoke and Bedford so I don't know how the road is like out there. If anyone knows what it is like past Roanoke, that would be nice to share.
Made the rounds last week in some of the Facebook groups. This delegate has been spamming his message across several area newspapers. A WV native and roadgeek all but calls him an idiot.
The corridor is straight up empty north of Covington, nevermind that the terrain is extremely challenging and because of that, his estimated cost is on the low side...especially since he wants it as an I-99 extension.
Quote from: froggie on May 10, 2017, 09:46:15 AM
Made the rounds last week in some of the Facebook groups. This delegate has been spamming his message across several area newspapers. A WV native and roadgeek all but calls him an idiot.
The corridor is straight up empty north of Covington, nevermind that the terrain is extremely challenging and because of that, his estimated cost is on the low side...especially since he wants it as an I-99 extension.
I see.. thank you for your input. Much appreciated. Respect. :)
The last thing we need is a glorified extension of Bud Shuster's abnormal creation!
North of Roanoke, US 220 is a reasonably pleasant drive. It narrows from four lanes to two north of Fincastle, but is a decent route to Clifton Forge. Between Clifton Forge and Covington, it's concurrent with I-64. Once it departs I-64, it's a very rural road that doesn't have any extensive mountain crossings, but it's very lightly traveled. It's on a much better alignment than US 219, which runs just to its west.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 10, 2017, 11:49:17 AM
North of Roanoke, US 220 is a reasonably pleasant drive. It narrows from four lanes to two north of Fincastle, but is a decent route to Clifton Forge. Between Clifton Forge and Covington, it's concurrent with I-64. Once it departs I-64, it's a very rural road that doesn't have any extensive mountain crossings, but it's very lightly traveled. It's on a much better alignment than US 219, which runs just to its west.
I have been on most of U.S. 220 north of Covington, and it is remarkably curvy north of the Covington city limits. It would probably require a totally new road on a totally new alignment there, as well as to bypass Warm Springs and Monterey, Va.; plus Franklin, Petersburg, Moorefield and Keyser, W.Va.
In Maryland, much of U.S. 220 has an almost-urban "look and feel" to it from the Potomac River to I-68, and it is not clear where an upgraded road would go there.
It is about 160 miles from Covington to I-68. Send money. Lots of money.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 20, 2017, 06:58:43 AM
WSLS10: CTB approves more than $64 million for Route 220 improvements (http://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/roanoke/ctb-approves-more-than-64-million-for-route-220-improvements)
Note that this is mostly just minor safety improvements, not four-lane widening. I put this here because this is in Botetourt County and is unrelated to I-73.
It will rebuild 9 miles of US-220 to modern 2-lane standards with 60 mph design speed, 12-foot lanes and 10-foot paved shoulders. Between Eagle Rock and Iron Gate. A major improvement.
The plan 10 years ago was for dualization and upgrade of the existing roadway, but costs escalated to where they went with the less costly project above.
Volumes don't really warrant 4 lanes. 2016 AADT is a bit under 6K for the most part, which is about 1K less than it was 10 years ago and also slightly lower than 1995 volumes. A modern 2-lane should be fine.
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2017, 11:14:14 AM
Volumes don't really warrant 4 lanes. 2016 AADT is a bit under 6K for the most part, which is about 1K less than it was 10 years ago and also slightly lower than 1995 volumes. A modern 2-lane should be fine.
US-220 between I-81 near Roanoke and I-64 at Clifton Forge was one of the arterial highways planned for 4-laning in 1964. Those volumes are indeed low.
I've looked at USGS maps and have tried to locate a modern US-220 4-lane route thru or around the Iron Gate area. It is possible but would either take major bridgework or massive cuts and fills. The US-220 bridge over the river north of Iron Gate could be dualized, but extending/connecting a 4-lane highway to I-64 would be difficult.
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2017, 11:14:14 AM
Volumes don't really warrant 4 lanes. 2016 AADT is a bit under 6K for the most part, which is about 1K less than it was 10 years ago and also slightly lower than 1995 volumes. A modern 2-lane should be fine.
They are widening this section to 4 lanes because of high crashes, traffic volumes has nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Strider on May 24, 2017, 12:33:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2017, 11:14:14 AM
Volumes don't really warrant 4 lanes. 2016 AADT is a bit under 6K for the most part, which is about 1K less than it was 10 years ago and also slightly lower than 1995 volumes. A modern 2-lane should be fine.
They are widening this section to 4 lanes because of high crashes, traffic volumes has nothing to do with it.
The current project is two-lane reconstruction... not widening to four lanes.
The article in the first post said, "spend more than $64 million on safety improvements to Route 220 in Botetourt County." It is much more than just "safety improvements", it is reconstruction to modern two-lane standards.
The existing segment has what I call a "1930s alignment", as that is when it probably was built. Referring to both horizontal and vertical alignment. Other than probable trench widening from, say, a 16-foot roadway to a 20-foot roadway, maybe in the 1950s, this segment is a very old design.