I-73 in VA

[Strider]

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.

I don't think you actually followed I-73. Many of your claims are outdated.

[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.

I don't think you actually followed I-73. Many of your claims are outdated.

To me, it seems like he followed the project until the EIS was released in 2006 & re-evaluation of the Martinsville segment in 2012 and has been stuck on that alignment since, despite a shift in interests, and now two of the four localities are requesting a western route because the Army Corps had issues with the eastern route, and the Martinsville Southern Connector is being studied in favor of that western alignment, he's still stuck on that eastern routing.

Maybe if they actually construct the western routing or the MSC is tied into the US-220 bypass to favor a western routing, he may understand it. So far Official Resolutions, the EIS for the MSC, and far greater support for a western alignment have not worked.

[vdeane]

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.

I don't think you actually followed I-73. Many of your claims are outdated.

I'm guessing it's because he used to work for VDOT.  When you work for a government agency, and soemone starts making comments/questions/speculation of anything that could be even remotely big or controversial, the safest option is usually to repeat whatever the latest officially approved and publicly available document is... which in this case is the 13 year old EIS supporting the eastern route.  The political winds may or may not have changed, but I doubt Beltway would say anything other than "the route will be the eastern one" unless VDOT releases a press release or new EIS that explicitly says otherwise.

(personal opinion)

[sprjus4]

I'm guessing it's because he used to work for VDOT.  When you work for a government agency, and soemone starts making comments/questions/speculation of anything that could be even remotely big or controversial, the safest option is usually to repeat whatever the latest officially approved and publicly available document is... which in this case is the 13 year old EIS supporting the eastern route.  The political winds may or may not have changed, but I doubt Beltway would say anything other than "the route will be the eastern one" unless VDOT releases a press release or new EIS that explicitly says otherwise.

(personal opinion)

I would agree, but he's made points in the past that completely go against the "current plan", and saying how it could be done better with x and y.

But it's quite apparent the western route is what's favored, at least now. Maybe not 13 years ago, or nearly 8 years ago, but it is now.

[Beltway]

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.

I don't think you actually followed I-73. Many of your claims are outdated.

I'm guessing it's because he used to work for VDOT.  When you work for a government agency, and soemone starts making comments/questions/speculation of anything that could be even remotely big or controversial, the safest option is usually to repeat whatever the latest officially approved and publicly available document is... which in this case is the 13 year old EIS supporting the eastern route.  The political winds may or may not have changed, but I doubt Beltway would say anything other than "the route will be the eastern one" unless VDOT releases a press release or new EIS that explicitly says otherwise.
(personal opinion)

That is part of it, but I also know what it means when you have a "completed NEPA EIS/location process".  It includes concurrence from the municipalities and resource agencies (which includes ACOE among many others) and CTB and FHWA.  A long process that takes 6 to 8 years or more.  Multiple sets of public hearings, a DEIS, FEIS and ROD.

In this case last update only 6 years ago.

It will take something massive to change that, far beyond mere newspaper speculation and local chatter.

I found the city/county government resolution from 5-28-2019, that supports changing to a route fully west of the city.  I will have a lot more comments about it within the next half day or so when I have the time.

Suffice to say their citing ACOE objections as the main cause raises disturbing questions about current personnel at ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) as the natural environment has changed little if at all in 6 years.

Danville and Pittsylvania County probably won't like this but they are far enough away that they probably won't have much if any say in the matter.

The CTB will likely not oppose this request.  And even if the only realignment is in Henry County this almost certainly will require a completely new NEPA EIS/location process... 6 to 8 year process, $30 million or more.
 

[LM117]

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.

I don't think you actually followed I-73. Many of your claims are outdated.

I'm guessing it's because he used to work for VDOT.  When you work for a government agency, and soemone starts making comments/questions/speculation of anything that could be even remotely big or controversial, the safest option is usually to repeat whatever the latest officially approved and publicly available document is... which in this case is the 13 year old EIS supporting the eastern route.  The political winds may or may not have changed, but I doubt Beltway would say anything other than "the route will be the eastern one" unless VDOT releases a press release or new EIS that explicitly says otherwise.
(personal opinion)

That is part of it, but I also know what it means when you have a "completed NEPA EIS/location process".  It includes concurrence from the municipalities and resource agencies (which includes ACOE among many others) and CTB and FHWA.  A long process that takes 6 to 8 years or more.  Multiple sets of public hearings, a DEIS, FEIS and ROD.

In this case only 6 years ago.

It will take something massive to change that, far beyond mere newspaper speculation.

I found the city/county resolution from 5-28-2019, that supports changing to a route fully west of the city.  I will have a lot more comments about it within the next half day or so when I have the time.

Suffice to say their citing ACOE objections as the main cause raises disturbing questions about current personnel at ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) as the natural environment has changed little if at all in 6 years.

Danville and Pittsylvania County probably won't like this but they are far enough away that they probably won't have much if any say in the matter.

The CTB will likely not oppose this request.  And even if the only realignment is in Henry County this almost certainly will require a new NEPA EIS/location process.

I seriously doubt Danville/Pittsylvania County could care less at this point. It's not even talked about here anymore and hasn't been for a long time. They're focused on I-785/US-29 and the proposed connector road linking US-311 to US-58.

[sprjus4]

That is part of it, but I also know what it means when you have a "completed NEPA EIS/location process".  It includes concurrence from the municipalities and resource agencies (which includes ACOE among many others) and CTB and FHWA.  A long process that takes 6 to 8 years or more.  Multiple sets of public hearings, a DEIS, FEIS and ROD.

In this case last update only 6 years ago.

It will take something massive to change that, far beyond mere newspaper speculation and local chatter.

I found the city/county government resolution from 5-28-2019, that supports changing to a route fully west of the city.  I will have a lot more comments about it within the next half day or so when I have the time.

Suffice to say their citing ACOE objections as the main cause raises disturbing questions about current personnel at ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) as the natural environment has changed little if at all in 6 years.

Danville and Pittsylvania County probably won't like this but they are far enough away that they probably won't have much if any say in the matter.

The CTB will likely not oppose this request.  And even if the only realignment is in Henry County this almost certainly will require a completely new NEPA EIS/location process... 6 to 8 year process, $30 million or more.

Now you're getting it.

I wouldn't say a whole NEPA process would be needed for the entire I-73 corridor, likely only this purple stretch indicated on the map below to tie back to the original 2006 alignment -



The 20 mile Henry County eastern realignment was proposed in 2009, and the EIS was completed by 2012. The Martinsville Southern Connector was proposed in 2018 and will be completed by 2021. For this connector from the US-220 bypass back to the original I-73 alignment, it'd be about 10 miles of new freeway, and likely a 3-4 year NEPA / EIS process similar to the 8-mile Martinsville Southern Connector, and the 20 mile eastern realignment from 2012.

I wouldn't say 6-8 years.

Plus, this western alignment would require about 18 miles of new freeway (8 mile MSC, and 10 mile northern connector) constructed between the NC line and proposed US-220 / I-73 interchange north of the city, whereas the 2012 eastern alignment would require 25 miles of new freeway (10 mile connector to the US-58 east bypass, then 15 miles of new location north of US-58). Could potentially save costs for having 7 miles of less construction, and with the current estimated cost of about $50 million per mile, that would be roughly $350 million saved. That's a huge sum of money. A NEPA / EIS process would have to nail down exact costs, but that's just a rough estimate.

Suffice to say their citing ACOE objections as the main cause raises disturbing questions about current personnel at ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) as the natural environment has changed little if at all in 6 years.

There could've been a lawsuit filed by one of these environmental groups and they won, there could've been some species along the corridor recently discovered that's "endangered", etc.

These minor changes could have a drastic impact on things.

But who knows, just a guess.

Danville and Pittsylvania County probably won't like this but they are far enough away that they probably won't have much if any say in the matter.

I agree. They aren't even in the I-73 corridor, they shouldn't have a say. The county & city that are in the I-73 corridor are proposing the changes, and that should the most important voice.

It's similar to how Currituck County, NC is pushing to have I-87 do a sharp right turn right near the VA State Line to first run through their county, then follow VA-168 to I-64, rather than follow the more direct route (the most direct route for the current proposed corridor through Eastern NC, yes I know US-58 is -the most direct-) up US-17.

They've been mostly ignored, they may get a connector freeway (which I would agree the four-lane link is needed, the current connection is by narrow 2-lane roads, there's no 4-lane between Currituck County and US-17 / I-87), but it's highly unlikely it will be apart of I-87.

[Beltway]

I wouldn't say a whole NEPA process would be needed for the entire I-73 corridor, likely only this purple stretch indicated on the map below to tie back to the original 2006 alignment -
The 20 mile Henry County eastern realignment was proposed in 2009, and the EIS was completed by 2012. The Martinsville Southern Connector was proposed in 2018 and will be completed by 2021. For this connector from the US-220 bypass back to the original I-73 alignment, it'd be about 10 miles of new freeway, and likely a 3-4 year NEPA / EIS process similar to the 8-mile Martinsville Southern Connector, and the 20 mile eastern realignment from 2012.

As said before, FHWA identified the MSC project as one that would meet the One Federal Decision (OFD) Executive Order, August 2018.  One of the first uses of that process.

That is why it is moving that fast, otherwise it would take at least 6 years.

Henry County eastern realignment was conceptually not a large realignment, and it took advantage of using part of the existing bypass. 

A western realignment would be a large change in a regional sense, could have major traffic pattern changes over the approved 2012 corridor, different impacts on air quality, noise, etc.

I will say it here -- if the CTB grants this western realignment, the MSC OFD process will be rolled into a new EIS process for the entire corridor, and that may have to wait until funds are allocated for the new study.  New sets of public hearings, new DEIS, new CTB approvals, new FEIS, new ROD.

Suffice to say their citing ACOE objections as the main cause raises disturbing questions about current personnel at ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) as the natural environment has changed little if at all in 6 years.

There could've been a lawsuit filed by one of these environmental groups and they won, there could've been some species along the corridor recently discovered that's "endangered", etc.
These minor changes could have a drastic impact on things.
But who knows, just a guess.

We would have heard about it if a federal lawsuit was filed and then won.  That tends to be big news, and they take months or years to process.

ACOE has a history of inconsistent rulings in its various districts compared to other districts, varying from administration to administration, and is basically not accountable to any oversight body on its rulings.
. . . . . . . . .

Note that ACOE objection was the only reason given in the resolution for the western change --

5-28-2019

JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARTINSVILLE CITY COUNCIL

WHEREAS, Interstate 73 would be a primary growth engine for the Henry County and Martinsville economy, promoting employment, capital investment, travel, tourism, recreation and other economic development avenues; and 

WHEREAS, the location of I-73 through Henry County is vital to our area's business and economic future, and has been a primary point of discussion for many years; and 

WHEREAS, the Army Corps of Engineers has indicated it is highly unlikely that it would provide the needed permits for a route east of U.S. Route 220 and east of the City of Martinsville, based on the number of stream crossings and other environmental concerns; and 

WHEREAS, a route west of the City of Martinsville, working in concert with the Virginia Department of Transportation's Martinsville Southern Connector initiative, could potentially be more likely for permitting and ultimately construction of Interstate 73 within Henry County:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED, on this 28th day of May 2019, that the Henry County Board of Supervisors and Martinsville City Council hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Department of Transportation consider action to relocate a potential route for Interstate 73 to the western side of U.S. Route 220 and to the western side of the City of Martinsville.

Jim Adams, Chairman     Kathy Lawson, Mayor Henry County Board of Supervisors   City of Martinsville

[sprjus4]

As said before, FHWA identified the MSC project as one that would meet the One Federal Decision (OFD) Executive Order, August 2018.  One of the first uses of that process.

That is why it is moving that fast, otherwise it would take at least 6 years.

A western I-73 may be a large change overall, but we're talking about 10 miles of freeway being newly studied, that's it. A western I-73 would follow the MSC, the existing US-220 bypass, and 10 miles of new freeway.

The Martinsville Southern Connector is 8 miles of freeway, whereas a western I-73 north of Martinsville would only be 10 miles, linking back to the original 2006 alignment.

The OFD process could easily be applied here, especially if it gains traction for future projects across the country.

You made the point it could be have major changes for a western I-73. Here's the thing - the Martinsville Southern Connector is being studied independently, so there's not a huge attention grab about it being I-73, and all the "major changes" you mentioned would come from a western I-73 are nonexistent with the MSC study. An independent study away from I-73 could also be used for the segment between the north end of the US-220 bypass and US-220 north of Oak Level.

Then later on, build both faculties independently as "US-220 Bypasses", -then- bring I-73 into the equation, and simply route I-73 up the interstate standard freeways.

5-28-2019

JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARTINSVILLE CITY COUNCIL

WHEREAS, Interstate 73 would be a primary growth engine for the Henry County and Martinsville economy, promoting employment, capital investment, travel, tourism, recreation and other economic development avenues; and 

WHEREAS, the location of I-73 through Henry County is vital to our area's business and economic future, and has been a primary point of discussion for many years; and 

WHEREAS, the Army Corps of Engineers has indicated it is highly unlikely that it would provide the needed permits for a route east of U.S. Route 220 and east of the City of Martinsville, based on the number of stream crossings and other environmental concerns; and 

WHEREAS, a route west of the City of Martinsville, working in concert with the Virginia Department of Transportation's Martinsville Southern Connector initiative, could potentially be more likely for permitting and ultimately construction of Interstate 73 within Henry County:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED, on this 28th day of May 2019, that the Henry County Board of Supervisors and Martinsville City Council hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Department of Transportation consider action to relocate a potential route for Interstate 73 to the western side of U.S. Route 220 and to the western side of the City of Martinsville.

Jim Adams, Chairman     Kathy Lawson, Mayor Henry County Board of Supervisors   City of Martinsville

That doesn't mean it's the only reason they want a western alignment. It may the "official" proposal being brought forth using a strong reason to prefer a western routing, but there may other reasons inside of Martinsville / Henry County that a western alignment would be preferred more, that simply aren't being "officially" documented. More local support, etc.

Nobody knows.

[Beltway]

The Martinsville Southern Connector is 8 miles of freeway, whereas a western I-73 north of Martinsville would only be 10 miles, linking back to the original 2006 alignment.
The OFD process could easily be applied here, especially if it gains traction for future projects across the country.

I wouldn't count on it.  The OFD has only been used twice, and neither has been completed.  The resource agencies would likely object to expanding the use to a larger corridor, and at least 10 miles of the existing bypass needs to be studied for possible widening and interchange upgrades.

5-28-2019
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARTINSVILLE CITY COUNCIL

That doesn't mean it's the only reason they want a western alignment. It may the "official" proposal being brought forth using a strong reason to prefer a western routing, but there may other reasons inside of Martinsville / Henry County that a western alignment would be preferred more, that simply aren't being "officially" documented. More local support, etc.
Nobody knows.

Yeah yeah, yeah yeah.  We need to use officially released reasons, and not speculate on a myriad of other possible reasons.  The resolution gave no other reason why the CTB should grant the request.  And if they concocted the ACOE objection than that party might complain loudly.

[sprjus4]

I wouldn't count on it.  The OFD has only been used twice, and neither has been completed.

The process began last year. Give it some time. It just started, it could easily become a more common thing over the next decade. Or it could fail, nobody knows at this point, unless it's tried again.

and at least 10 miles of the existing bypass needs to be studied for possible widening and interchange upgrades.

I've been studying the bypass for a while myself, and while an official study could determine where other potential upgrades are needed, these are the issues I've found, along with potential solutions below it -
1) The interchange with US-58 / US-220 (I-73) needs to be improved. Ideally, the loops should have at least a 230 feet radius to meet a 30 mph design speed, and the weaving conflict that exists on the US-220 (I-73) North overpass should be eliminated.
2) The curvature south of the VA-57 interchange does not have a large enough radius to meet a 70 mph design speed. It's currently around 1,700 feet, whereas VDOT's Geometric Design Standards for Interstate System manual indicates the roadway must have at least a 1,821 ft radius for a 70 mph design speed.
3) The interchange at the northern terminus of the bypass needs a major improvement, and likely a new location I-73 north of this location would tie in here.

These are some conceptual drawings I've come up with to improve these areas -
1) Improve the US-58 / US-220 (I-73) interchange by eliminating the US-58 East to US-220 (I-73) North loop to remove the weaving conflict, widening the US-58 West loop ramp to a 230 feet radius, and realign these 3 ramps to allow better traffic flow: US-58 to US-220 (I-73) North on-ramp; US-220 (I-73) North to US-58 Business East off-ramp; US-58 East on-ramp.


2) Realign the roadway to meet VDOT's 75 mph design standard by having a 2,215 feet radius on the curve. This improvement would also require slightly adjusting the ramps to VA-57.


3) Reconstruct the northern interchange to meet geometric design standards for 75 mph, and accommodate the north extension of the bypass.


As for the rest of the bypass, the shoulders would need to be widened to at least 10 feet.

[Beltway]

and at least 10 miles of the existing bypass needs to be studied for possible widening and interchange upgrades.

I've been studying the bypass for a while myself, and while an official study could determine where other potential upgrades are needed, these are the issues I've found, along with potential solutions below it -
1) The interchange with US-58 / US-220 (I-73) needs to be improved. Ideally, the loops should have at least a 230 feet radius to meet a 30 mph design speed, and the weaving conflict that exists on the US-220 (I-73) North overpass should be eliminated.
2) The curvature south of the VA-57 interchange does not have a large enough radius to meet a 70 mph design speed. It's currently around 1,700 feet, whereas VDOT's Geometric Design Standards for Interstate System manual indicates the roadway must have at least a 1,821 ft radius for a 70 mph design speed.
[ <snip> ]

You're a professional.  You speak like one, you reason like one, you toss around highway design information and design diagrams like one.  You come on this forum suddenly and with tons of historical info about highways.  Volumes and volumes of postings particularly about and in favor of the so-called Raleigh-Norfolk highway and the VA I-73 western shift.

If you don't want to state your name that is one thing, but at least you could provide some background about what kind professional activities you are and have been involved in.

People have known such basics about me since 1997 when I first entered online highway forums and it is summarized on my website main page. 

And I know how highway engineers and transportation planners and highway advocates think and write as I have worked with and talked to many over the years.

[sprjus4]

You're a professional.  You speak like one, you reason like one, you toss around highway design information and design diagrams like one.  You come on this forum suddenly and with tons of historical info about highways.  Volumes and volumes of postings particularly about and in favor the so-called Raleigh-Norfolk highway and the VA I-73 western shift.

If you don't want to state your name that is one thing, but at least you could provide some background about what kind professional activities you are and have been involved in.

People have known such basics about me since 1997 when I first entered online highway forums and it is summarized on my website main page.

And I know how highway engineers and transportation planners and highway advocates think and write as I have worked with and talked to many over the years.

I wouldn't really call myself a "professional". I'm not involved in road design or any engineering field, and don't work in any of those fields, though I've been into highways and roads for years, sort of like other "roadgeeks" within this forum. A lot of knowledge I've learned directly from this forum, over the past couple of years, and I joined a little over a year ago, and have been heavily involved in many topics since, and while mainly with Virginia and North Carolina, I've contributed to other states and highway projects as well.

I wouldn't say I've invested everything in I-87 and I-73. Probably a little over half of all my posts, but the other half goes to other things as well.

If I drawn these concepts say last year when I joined, I wouldn't have had most of this knowledge. Like I said, a majority of it is from this forum.

[Beltway]

[hotdogPi]

I will point out that NE2 agrees with Beltway on the I-87 issue, and this is the first time I have seen him support someone who he disagrees with politically.

I spent minutes trying to figure out if "whom" is correct here, and I still can't.

[Beltway]

I will point out that NE2 agrees with Beltway on the I-87 issue, and this is the first time I have seen him support someone who he disagrees with politically.

I suspect that it is mainly the "younger set" that likes VI-87, the 'excitement' of wanting to see a new Interstate highway corridor being built, since they never saw it before.

Those of us who witnessed it back when they were being built in the original 42,500 mile system, saw it, were impressed by it, indeed, but we are not all "ga ga" over seeing another route built.

[sprjus4]

I will point out that NE2 agrees with Beltway on the I-87 issue, and this is the first time I have seen him support someone who he disagrees with politically.

I spent minutes trying to figure out if "whom" is correct here, and I still can't.

To me, it just seems like NE2's intent was to go out of his way to find something to disagree with, and it so happens that Scott also disagrees with it. I can see Scott's reasons for disagreeing with it, he lives nearby, it impacts VA, it's not the most direct route between the termini points (though technically, the termini is at the NC/VA line, and in that case, it is the most direct route, but that's besides the point. Note that FHWA did approve that routing) there's nothing currently warranting Eastern NC interstate access, etc. but NE2 isn't anywhere nearby as far as I'm aware of.

The only points I've seen NE2 actually make on the I-87 "issue" (not really an issue, NC has a future interstate, and is going to construct it as funding comes in. The issue on the forum is the fact some people oppose the highway all together) are mere jokes and smears and poking fun at it. I've found NE2 to be more of a nuisance than Scott has been on the topic of I-87.

I suspect that it is mainly the "younger set" that likes VI-87, the 'excitement' of wanting to see a new Interstate highway corridor being built, since they never saw it before.

Those us who witnessed it back when they were being built in the original 42,500 mile system, saw it, were impressed by it, indeed, but we are not all "ga ga" over seeing another route built.

Hate to say it, but it's the "younger set" that's the future. It's the "younger set" that's going to be building that new highway in the future, along with others as funding allows.

Just because the original interstate system has been completed doesn't mean it's over. It's continuing to grow, and I support that, as do most people.

And also, we're dealing with NCDOT here. If you haven't noticed yet, they're a freeway state. They are continuing plans to upgrade many US highway corridors to interstates and freeways across the state, with the goal of linking every region into the interstate system essentially. Currently, the northeastern region of NC is not linked to the interstate system (well technically, the official boundaries for District 1, which is Northeastern NC, includes a slight sliver of I-95, but the other 99% does not have interstate access), and I-87 fulfills that link. And you don't even to say I-87 - a US-17 freeway would fulfill that goal. There's nothing wrong with that.

The I-87 corridor also gives Raleigh interstate access to I-95 North, which it currently does not have. It also allows I-587 to exist, which connects Greenville to the interstate system.

[Beltway]

I will point out that NE2 agrees with Beltway on the I-87 issue, and this is the first time I have seen him support someone who he disagrees with politically.

To me, it just seems like NE2's intent was to go out of his way to find something to disagree with,

Thaaattsss righhhhtt .... it can't be because he has technical and engineering and logical reasons for opposing it ... it has to be for some ulterior reason.

I suspect that it is mainly the "younger set" that likes VI-87, the 'excitement' of wanting to see a new Interstate highway corridor being built, since they never saw it before.
Those us who witnessed it back when they were being built in the original 42,500 mile system, saw it, were impressed by it, indeed, but we are not all "ga ga" over seeing another route built.

Hate to say it, but it's the "younger set" that's the future. It's the "younger set" that's going to be building that new highway in the future, along with others as funding allows.
Seems to be a smear at the next generation it seems to me.

What makes you think that many in my generation won't be around for another 30 or 40 years?  My dad is in his 90s.

I know some who are still working fulltime at 75 or 80 (the previous generation), because they like it, and not because they couldn't have easily fully retired at 60 or 65.

We are the future.

[Beltway]

And also, we're dealing with NCDOT here. If you haven't noticed yet, they're a freeway state.

And by and large, not a bridge and tunnel and river state, certainly not in the large metros.

We have covered that extensively in the past.

The I-87 corridor also gives Raleigh interstate access to I-95 North, which it currently does not have.

It would have had it with I-495 when all upgraded.

[froggie]

Realign the roadway to meet VDOT's 75 mph design standard by having a 2,215 feet radius on the curve.

Even with a typically-maximum 6% superelevation, a 2,215ft radius corresponds to a 72 MPH design speed, not 75.  For 75, you'd need a 2,500ft radius...more if you want to flatten the superelevation.  For a 2% superelevation, you'd need just over 3,400ft of radius.

[Beltway]

Realign the roadway to meet VDOT's 75 mph design standard by having a 2,215 feet radius on the curve.

Even with a typically-maximum 6% superelevation, a 2,215ft radius corresponds to a 72 MPH design speed, not 75.  For 75, you'd need a 2,500ft radius...more if you want to flatten the superelevation.  For a 2% superelevation, you'd need just over 3,400ft of radius.

Two of the MSC alternatives look very curvy, like a series of 5 or 6 horizontal curves designed at or just above 70 mph which would be a maximum of 3.5 degree curve.  I don't know how this is supposed to be better than the ALC.

Just because they technically meet the standard doesn't mean that they really meet the standard in a driver's sense, as most rural Interstate highway curves don't go much over 1 or 2 degrees.

[sprjus4]

Thaaattsss righhhhtt .... it can't be because he has technical and engineering and logical reasons for opposing it ... it has to be for some ulterior reason.

Could be that too, but I've not him actually post something productive about his reasons of opposing it, or anything productive to other pieces of it of that matter. It's just mere jokes and smearing "Raleigh to Norfolk" apart of it, nothing else. You've opposed the overall concept as well, though you've also offered productive information, feedback, etc. relating to designs, etc. and I respect that.

What makes you thing that many in my generation won't be around for another 30 or 40 years?  My dad is in his 90s.

I know some who are still working fulltime at 75 or 80 (the previous generation), because they like it, and not because they couldn't have easily fully retired at 60 or 65.

We are the future.

There will also be a new generation coming in. Just because one generation opposes a concept, a whole new generation will also be in the equation that supports it. For something as simple and easy as an I-87 concept, there's a high chance it'll be built. It's a rural interstate highway, not some urban freeway.

And to be fair, most people besides those on this forum support the I-87 concept already as it is. Especially in Northeastern NC. Not just business officials, but also many locals. They like the idea of having direct interstate access to major destinations and I-95 rather than the current highway. And for those who don't mind a slightly longer drive, it benefits some of us in Hampton Roads too.

Even with a typically-maximum 6% superelevation, a 2,215ft radius corresponds to a 72 MPH design speed, not 75.  For 75, you'd need a 2,500ft radius...more if you want to flatten the superelevation.  For a 2% superelevation, you'd need just over 3,400ft of radius.

Then why does VDOT's design manual indicate otherwise? It was last updated January 2019.

Either way, 72 mph would allow a 70 mph posted speed.

Note that with the current 1,700 ft radius, it still holds the current 65 mph with no issue. My proposed improvement would allow 70 mph, assuming it's a rural 70 mph continuous I-73, which would be too fast on the existing.

Two of the MSC alternatives look very curvy, like a series of 5 or 6 horizontal curves designed at or just above 70 mph which would be a maximum of 3.5 degree curve.  I don't know how this is supposed to be better than the ALC.

Just because they technically meet the standard doesn't mean that they really meet the standard in a driver's sense, as most rural Interstate highway curves don't go much over 1 or 2 degrees.

This isn't farm fields and flat lands we're building on. Hilly and mountainous terrain. You can't just build a straight line and call it a day. Curves are necessary to avoid obstacles. That's why you see the western MSC alignments are more curvier than the eastern ones. More obstacles to deal with.

A driver should expect the curves. They're designed to safely keep you at the speed limit, if you're going over the speed limit, you shouldn't expect the entire road to be designed for your speed - it's designed for the speed limit.

Having curves also keeps the driver attentive. If you're driving on a straightaway with minor curves here and there, you could be more likely to dose off, loose attention, etc.

I don't know how this is supposed to be better than the ALC.

In regards to curvature, nobody said it was.

[sprjus4]

And by and large, not a bridge and tunnel and river state, certainly not in the large metros.

We have covered that extensively in the past.

Did I compare it to Virginia? No. I was just saying they build a lot of freeways / interstates, and one of those plans includes bringing an interstate to Northeastern North Carolina to link it with the rest of the state, and I-95. Northeastern North Carolina has no interstate access, and NCDOT has plans once funding is achieved to bring one up that way. What's the issue?

It would have had it with I-495 when all upgraded.

I-495 doesn't exist anymore. It's designation was officially removed in February 2017 when FHWA approved I-87 signage along US-64, and as of last week, the last of it was removed from overhead signs and replaced w/ I-87 shields. Exit numbers were also updated to reflect I-87's mileage.

Also, still doesn't solve the issue with Greenville. And don't say it doesn't warrant interstate access either, it's just some small town.

[Beltway]

Thaaattsss righhhhtt .... it can't be because he has technical and engineering and logical reasons for opposing it ... it has to be for some ulterior reason.

Could be that too, but I've not him actually post something productive about his reasons of opposing it, or anything productive to other pieces of it of that matter. It's just mere jokes and smearing "Raleigh to Norfolk" apart of it, nothing else. You've opposed the overall concept as well, though you've also offered productive information, feedback, etc. relating to designs, etc. and I respect that.

I see this in various forums.  Some people do the "heavy lifting" and some others post in agreement with minimal effort and a few expressions of annoyance.

I can't say I have never done it myself in certain topics.

There will also be a new generation coming in. Just because one generation opposes a concept, a whole new generation will also be in the equation that supports it. For something as simple and easy as an I-87 concept, there's a high chance it'll be built. It's a rural interstate highway, not some urban freeway.

And "Generation Z" is already showing signs of differences with current early-adult generation.

They may well oppose wasteful highway projects.

And to be fair, most people besides those on this forum support the I-87 concept already as it is. Especially in Northeastern NC. Not just business officials, but also many locals. They like the idea of having direct interstate access to major destinations and I-95 rather than the current highway.

I question how many would care when the existing 4-lane arterial highway has average travel speed from end to end of 62 mph, plenty of room for volume growth, and as we saw only 5% tractor-trailer percentage at the state line.

Just because they technically meet the standard doesn't mean that they really meet the standard in a driver's sense, as most rural Interstate highway curves don't go much over 1 or 2 degrees.

This isn't farm fields and flat lands we're building on. Hilly and mountainous terrain. You can't just build a straight line and call it a day. Curves are necessary to avoid obstacles. That's why you see the western MSC alignments are more curvier than the eastern ones. More obstacles to deal with.

They are way curvier that nearly all of VA I-77, in much less hilly terrain.  Why move it there if the eastern route is much less hilly?

It has way too much reversing curvature, and near the limits of the design speed.  I don't like having to negotiate that unless there is a very good reason.  Curves in the 1.0 to 1.5 degree range are more than sufficient to keep the drivers attentive. 

The New Jersey Turnpike was built in that manner for that reason, long gradual curves to keep the drivers attentive.  In some cases very gradual in the 0.2 to 0.5 degree range.  Many people think it is "straight" when in fact most of the route is built on gradual curves.

Gotta find a reason to satisfy those "greedy developers" with those large tracts of undeveloped land west of Martinsville!  Move I-73 there.   

It would have had it with I-495 when all upgraded.

I-495 doesn't exist anymore. It's designation was officially removed in February 2017 when FHWA

It did what you said didn't exist -- Interstate connection between Raleigh and I-95 North.  Upon the needed minor upgrades to portions.

[froggie]

And to be fair, most people besides those on this forum support the I-87 concept already as it is. Especially in Northeastern NC. Not just business officials, but also many locals. They like the idea of having direct interstate access to major destinations and I-95 rather than the current highway. And for those who don't mind a slightly longer drive, it benefits some of us in Hampton Roads too.

What they don't like is the idea that they'll have to pay more to get the Interstate they desire.  We'll all likely be dead (you too) if they continue to rely on traditional transportation revenue sources to pay for the upgrade.

Even with a typically-maximum 6% superelevation, a 2,215ft radius corresponds to a 72 MPH design speed, not 75.  For 75, you'd need a 2,500ft radius...more if you want to flatten the superelevation.  For a 2% superelevation, you'd need just over 3,400ft of radius.

Then why does VDOT's design manual indicate otherwise? It was last updated January 2019.

Because VDOT allows up to a maximum 8% superelevation, which is a bit more than is the norm (many jurisdictions limit it to 6% or less).  That 2,215ft radius corresponds to that level of superelevation, which would be problematic especially in the winter given the ice potential they have in the Piedmont.