I-73 in VA

[Alps]

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.

(with whom)

[Beltway]

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.

High super can be problematic in icing conditions, where a slow moving or stopped vehicle can literally slide sideways down the slope.  Using speed to handle that has its own problems with extended braking distance.

DOTs try to avoid high super in areas with frequent winter conditions, such as the western part of Virginia.

[hbelkins]

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.

(with whom)

Beat me to it.

[Strider]

Update:

Alternatives D and E for the Martinsville Southern Connector (MSC) are eliminated. The only alternatives left are: A, B and C according to the newsletter I received from VDOT monthly. I will be at the August 15th meeting when the preferred alternative is being chosen.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/Route_220_June_Newsletter_6.20.19.pdf


*you should be able to see the newsletter.*

[sprjus4]

Update:

Alternatives D and E for the Martinsville Southern Connector (MSC) are eliminated. The only alternatives left are: A, B and C according to the newsletter I received from VDOT monthly. I will be at the August 15th meeting when the preferred alternative is being chosen.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/Martinsville-Connector/Route_220_June_Newsletter_6.20.19.pdf


*you should be able to see the newsletter.*

D and E were eliminated in last month's edition I believe, but the one notable thing about this newsletter are the alignments. They indicate the connections back into US-220 at the state line have been shifted, and for the better IMO. An interesting thing I noticed is that Alternative A's alignment has changed. In the new map, Alternative A appears to tie into US-220 farther west than original, and also has been straightened significantly and far less curvier than original. For location and alignment generally, I think that's going to be the most preferred option, and is my most favored one so far. It would also be an easier tie into US-220 than trying to shove it in on top of an existing interchange, whereas Alternative A is a new location connection, and can also take advantage of US-220's wide median through there.

[Strider]

I like Alternative A too, but I have the feeling Alternative C might be chosen. I don't know why but if that were me, I'd pick Alternative A too, or I'd pick C, and then modify near the northern end with Alternative A.

But still, I am glad they're taking it seriously.

[sprjus4]

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.

Pushing this... since the revised alignments were released in the June update... a lot of these curves were removed and straightened, especially in Alternative A.

[Beltway]

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.

Pushing this... since the revised alignments were released in the June update... a lot of these curves were removed and straightened, especially in Alternative A.

Still a great deal of curvature in 3 places, and now it curves east of US-220 and then curves to the west of US-220.

[sprjus4]

now it curves east of US-220 and then curves to the west of US-220.

That tie in would work better IMO with the original proposed one, and it gives better continuity to the new connector rather than the old road, which is important especially when it becomes I-73. It's probably easier to construct an interchange with the US-220 split doing something like that to. I'm sure a 70 mph design speed is being factored into these designs, and may be straightened further in the future.

You may want to write an email to the project team asking about the excessive amount of curvature, and compare it to other projects like I-77 as you mentioned that was far straighter. They may be able to provide more detailed in-depth information as to why it's proposed that way, and that it could potentially change later.

[mvak36]

Do they have enough funding lined up for construction once the Preferred Alternative is selected and they receive the ROD from the FHWA?

[sprjus4]

Do they have enough funding lined up for construction once the Preferred Alternative is selected and they receive the ROD from the FHWA?

None is programmed... once the study is completed, it will likely sit for many years until funded... in the meantime the I-73 Rockingham Bypass in southern NC begins construction next year, I-73 Greensboro was just completed last year, and I-74 around Winston-Salem is continuing along under construction.

And just because the preferred alternative is being selected in August doesn't mean the study is over. Later on, a DEIS will be released, then in about 1 1/2 years from now the FEIS and ROD will be released.

[The Ghostbuster]

Many years? Don't you mean it will sit unfunded for many decades? The way I see it, it may be 100 years before Interstate 73 ever sees the light of day in Virginia.

[sprjus4]

Many years? Don't you mean it will sit unfunded for many decades? The way I see it, it may be 100 years before Interstate 73 ever sees the light of day in Virginia.

Depends. This is only a small segment, and with the new tax increase coming, at least this small piece may get built. If it does, NCDOT will upgrade its portion of US-220 down to Greensboro, creating a continuous I-73 from Rockingham to Martinsville.

I doubt it'd ever get built north of Martinsville... it's been going for 30+ years now. In the meantime, NCDOT has constructed hundreds of miles of new freeways in that time, and plans to upgrade arterials and build hundreds of more miles freeways over the next couple of decades.

[Strider]

Many years? Don't you mean it will sit unfunded for many decades? The way I see it, it may be 100 years before Interstate 73 ever sees the light of day in Virginia.

Depends. This is only a small segment, and with the new tax increase coming, at least this small piece may get built. If it does, NCDOT will upgrade its portion of US-220 down to Greensboro, creating a continuous I-73 from Rockingham to Martinsville.

I doubt it'd ever get built north of Martinsville... it's been going for 30+ years now. In the meantime, NCDOT has constructed hundreds of miles of new freeways in that time, and plans to upgrade arterials and build hundreds of more miles freeways over the next couple of decades.

I-73 will temporarily end in (or north of?) Martinsville for a very long time.

However, the extension will be built. They need to go back to the drawing board and draw it out, just like they're currently doing with the MSC and find a better way to build it and save money. We may or may not see I-73 built from Martinsville to Roanoke in our lifetime, though.

But, I-81 needs to be widened before I-73 can be finished up to Roanoke. I cannot imagine the number of traffic that are going to be dumped onto I-81.

[sprjus4]

But, I-81 needs to be widened before I-73 can be finished up to Roanoke. I cannot imagine the number of traffic that are going to be dumped onto I-81.

What new traffic? It's the same traffic using US-220, it'll just be on I-73 once completed.

Either way, I-81 between I-581 and US-460 (not the Smart Rd, that project is a joke) in Christiansburg is planned to be expanded to 6-lanes in the currently funded $2.2 billion I-81 improvement project, and quite frankly the rest of I-81 needs to be expanded to 6-lanes throughout the entire state once funding comes.

[Strider]

But, I-81 needs to be widened before I-73 can be finished up to Roanoke. I cannot imagine the number of traffic that are going to be dumped onto I-81.

What new traffic? It's the same traffic using US-220, it'll just be on I-73 once completed.

Either way, I-81 between I-581 and US-460 (not the Smart Rd, that project is a joke) in Christiansburg is planned to be expanded to 6-lanes in the currently funded $2.2 billion I-81 improvement project, and quite frankly the rest of I-81 needs to be expanded to 6-lanes throughout the entire state once funding comes.

Not new traffic.. lol. Maybe the traffic will be the same. Maybe more if drivers found out that they can use I-73 (US 220) as a shorter alternative from I-95 to I-81 in compared to using suggested routes. It would not be less traffic, thats for sure.

Yeah, I am aware of the I-81 widening between Blacksburg and Roanoke in the plans (badly needed as the rest of I-81)

The Smart Road project is pointless to me. Unless there is an congestion at the I-81/US 460 interchange, i don't see the need for a Smart Road.. even though that project may become a part of I-73 in the future IF it is extended from Roanoke.

[sprjus4]

The Smart Road project is pointless to me. Unless there is an congestion at the I-81/US 460 interchange, i don't see the need for a Smart Road.. even though that project may become a part of I-73 in the future IF it is extended from Roanoke.

The Smart Road is a joke. US-460 through Christiansburg is a 4-lane 65 mph freeway and has no traffic issues. Has a wide enough median to accommodate 6-lanes if needed as well. Part of that highway was built as recently as 2002, and again, 65 mph and holds traffic fine.

The Smart Road works as is as a private road for Virginia Tech. It does not need to be extended to I-81. If I-73 (and that's a big if) ever comes up US-460, it would follow the existing freeways, not some new and shiny Smart Road that is pointless and a waste (they estimated over $200 million). Not to mention, ghost ramps exist at the Smart Road's connection with US-460 when it was planned as a freeway, and it does not even have continuity - US-460 does as it should.

I'd rather see that $200 million be used to widen I-81 rather than a pointless road. And if US-460 has capacity issues (which I don't think it does), you can widen the existing freeway to 6-lanes cheaper then building some new road parallel to it, part of which was constructed as recently as 2002.

And you mentioned potential congestion around the I-81 / US-460 interchange... I don't think any exists but if it did, still cheaper to overhaul that interchange than to build a whole new freeway.

[VTGoose]

The Smart Road project is pointless to me. Unless there is an congestion at the I-81/US 460 interchange, i don't see the need for a Smart Road.. even though that project may become a part of I-73 in the future IF it is extended from Roanoke.

The Smart Road is a joke. US-460 through Christiansburg is a 4-lane 65 mph freeway and has no traffic issues. Has a wide enough median to accommodate 6-lanes if needed as well. Part of that highway was built as recently as 2002, and again, 65 mph and holds traffic fine.

The Smart Road works as is as a private road for Virginia Tech. It does not need to be extended to I-81. If I-73 (and that's a big if) ever comes up US-460, it would follow the existing freeways, not some new and shiny Smart Road that is pointless and a waste (they estimated over $200 million). Not to mention, ghost ramps exist at the Smart Road's connection with US-460 when it was planned as a freeway, and it does not even have continuity - US-460 does as it should.

I'd rather see that $200 million be used to widen I-81 rather than a pointless road. And if US-460 has capacity issues (which I don't think it does), you can widen the existing freeway to 6-lanes cheaper then building some new road parallel to it, part of which was constructed as recently as 2002.

And you mentioned potential congestion around the I-81 / US-460 interchange... I don't think any exists but if it did, still cheaper to overhaul that interchange than to build a whole new freeway.

To clarify -- "extending the Smart Road" is a joke. It has actually panned out to be a major research project and making it a through road would hamper more than help the research (one scenario mentioned was that the road would be open for morning and afternoon traffic and for major events like Virginia Tech football games, move-in week, and commencement).

The "extend the Smart Road to I-81 to cut travel time to Roanoke" was played up big time to overcome opposition to the road back when it was proposed. At that time, it was more of a big idea instead of a well-thought-out plan for how it would be used for research. The gamble paid off, though, with the road in its current configuration playing an important role in many road and vehicle improvements. In the works in the area beneath the long bridge is a road course that will be used to test driverless vehicles in various conditions.

As to I-73 extending north beyond Roanoke (should it ever reach there), it will dead-end at North Main Street in Blacksburg if U.S. 460 is chosen to be the future route. There just isn't a good way to get from Blacksburg to Princeton, W.Va. without having a boatload of money for a number of new alignments of highway (and getting through/around the Narrows of the New River won't be pretty).

Bruce in Blacksburg

[sprjus4]

To clarify -- "extending the Smart Road" is a joke. It has actually panned out to be a major research project and making it a through road would hamper more than help the research (one scenario mentioned was that the road would be open for morning and afternoon traffic and for major events like Virginia Tech football games, move-in week, and commencement).

That's what I was trying to get at. It serves its purpose well, and doesn't need to be opened to traffic.

What person thought up - let's build two rural 4-lane freeways three miles apart to serve the exact same purpose? Why not just expand US-460 to 8-lanes if congestion is -really- that much of an issue? Quite frankly, I think the 4-lane 65 mph freeway existing handles adequately and there's no justification for a Smart Rd freeway to I-81.

[Beltway]

To clarify -- "extending the Smart Road" is a joke. It has actually panned out to be a major research project and making it a through road would hamper more than help the research (one scenario mentioned was that the road would be open for morning and afternoon traffic and for major events like Virginia Tech football games, move-in week, and commencement).

That's what I was trying to get at. It serves its purpose well, and doesn't need to be opened to traffic.

There actually would be a significant distance savings -- http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Smart-Road-Map.gif

But I also have wondered if it became an Interstate highway how would experimental vehicle operations be carried out on an active Interstate highway?

[sprjus4]

To clarify -- "extending the Smart Road" is a joke. It has actually panned out to be a major research project and making it a through road would hamper more than help the research (one scenario mentioned was that the road would be open for morning and afternoon traffic and for major events like Virginia Tech football games, move-in week, and commencement).

That's what I was trying to get at. It serves its purpose well, and doesn't need to be opened to traffic.

There actually would be a significant distance savings -- http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Smart-Road-Map.gif

But I also have wondered if it became an Interstate highway how would experimental vehicle operations be carried out on an active Interstate highway?

It saves a mere 5 miles. Doing the math, at a constant speed of 65 mph, the current route is 9 minutes whereas the Smart Rd would be 5 minutes.

Is it worth the $300 million to construct, considering I-81 being right there and the billions of billions of dollars it needs for widening and improvements?

Even with unlimited money, I don't see the need to build it. Also, not to mention, the interchange between US-460 and the Smart Rd doesn't have continuity - you'd have to exit US-460 onto the Smart Rd. To have I-73 run a course like that, you'd have to create a left exit scenario or rebuild the entire interchange.

If I-73 ever makes it this way, I'd just construct a flyover from US-460 EB to I-81 NB and redo that interchange to have continuity for I-73 SB traffic - an easy task than the other interchange.

[sprjus4]

Here's a conceptual design for an I-73 free-flowing, no left exit interchange at I-81 / US-460 if it were to ever be built, all in existing right of way. I'd be willing to bet it'd be cheaper than a Smart Road extension estimated at around $300 million, and not to mention the left exit scenario you'd have at the US-460 / Smart Rd split if it wasn't modified - and if it was modified, you can add more cost to a Smart Rd.

[Strider]

Not bad. But, I agree with what spjus4 is suggesting. I-81 at that area is well built for more lanes. There are plenty of spaces to use even if it means closing the interchange just north of the I-81/US 460 interchange (i forgot what it is for).

I mean, I don't mind I-73 using Smart Road (if it ever gets there), but the money would better be spent on another projects in the area (i.e. widening US 460, extend the freeway, etc.)

[sprjus4]

but the money would better be spent on another projects in the area (i.e. widening US 460, extend the freeway, etc.)

Or most importantly - widening I-81.

[Beltway]

There actually would be a significant distance savings -- http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Smart-Road-Map.gif
But I also have wondered if it became an Interstate highway how would experimental vehicle operations be carried out on an active Interstate highway?

It saves a mere 5 miles. Doing the math, at a constant speed of 65 mph, the current route is 9 minutes whereas the Smart Rd would be 5 minutes.
Is it worth the $300 million to construct, considering I-81 being right there and the billions of billions of dollars it needs for widening and improvements?

It wouldn't have cost (anyway near) $300 million in 2000, the bypass-connector-extension project had not yet been started, and the needs on I-81 were considerably less then.

The 5.7-mile-long Blacksburg-Roanoke Connector would have been built initially as a 2-lane highway on a 4-lane right-of-way.