Virginia

[BrianP]

Re US 29

I was surprised they mentioned two intersections on business routes.  Those would be local issues to me and shouldn't affect the corridor itself. The only thing I think is needed on that stretch is the southern half of the Lynchburg bypass.  It's been years since I've driven that highway but I doubt it's changed that much.  Once you get south of VA 24 it's a fine drive from what I remember. 

As for Tightsqueeze Road, that road has no turn lanes at US 29.  So it looks like it operates as a split phase signal for that road.  That seems like it needs intersection improvements for Tightsqueeze Road.  That may be enough for that problem.  If not RCUT would be the next option. 

[hbelkins]

What's wrong with the route? (Admittedly, it's the only section of US 29 between the state line and I-66 that I haven't been on, but it's a four-lane through route, isn't it?)

Anytime I see Lynchburg and Danville in the same place, Johnny Cash singing "The Wreck of the Old 97" goes through my mind.

[Mapmikey]

What's wrong with the route? (Admittedly, it's the only section of US 29 between the state line and I-66 that I haven't been on, but it's a four-lane through route, isn't it?)

Anytime I see Lynchburg and Danville in the same place, Johnny Cash singing "The Wreck of the Old 97" goes through my mind.

At Tightsqueeze and especially between VA 24 and US 460 there is quite a bit of congestion.   Parts of the segment north of VA 24 remind me a little bit of US 29 through Madison Heights before it was bypassed.

I am much less familiar with US 29 south of Gretna so I can't speak to the US 29 area just north of the Danville bypass.

[BrianP]

What's wrong with the route? (Admittedly, it's the only section of US 29 between the state line and I-66 that I haven't been on, but it's a four-lane through route, isn't it?)

Anytime I see Lynchburg and Danville in the same place, Johnny Cash singing "The Wreck of the Old 97" goes through my mind.

Speaking of the part from Charlottesville to NC, it's a good route from what I remember.  The part just south of US 460 is just the worst part because of the amount of traffic signals.  Four signals are in a short stretch.  It's not terrible.  It's just glaring compared to the rest of that highway where you will find few traffic signals thanks to the town bypasses.

The part north of Charlottesville to I-66 isn't so lucky.

[Beltway]

US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests

As said before, a fatal hole was shot in that concept in 2013, by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the governor at that time, Terry McAuliffe when he dishonestly torpedoed the under-contract US-29 western bypass extension, a vital segment of any such freeway corridor, and channeled the money to build the "Route 29 Solutions" which is little more than a local circulator system that does very little for the thru traffic.

Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.

[sprjus4]

US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests

As said before, a fatal hole was shot in that concept in 2013, by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the governor at that time, Terry McAuliffe when he dishonestly torpedoed the under-contract US-29 western bypass extension, a vital segment of any such freeway corridor, and channeled the money to build the "Route 29 Solutions" which is little more than a local circulator system that does very little for the thru traffic.

Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.

US-29 between the north end of the Danville Bypass to US-460 at Lynchburg at minimum.

The long-term vision for the US-29 corridor that was studied years back had the segment between the north end of the Danville Bypass and US-460 as a freeway, utilizing the existing bypasses and building bypass connectors in between, then extending the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass southward.

A northern extension of I-785 from Danville to link Lynchburg to the interstate system & southwards to Danville, Greensboro, I-73, I-40, I-85, and North Carolina overall would be a logical addition to the freeway / interstate system. NCDOT has the remaining arterial portion of US-29 between Greensboro and Danville funded to upgrade to interstate standards beginning in 2027. Lynchburg is the largest city in Virginia not linked to the interstate system.

[Beltway]

Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.

US-29 between the north end of the Danville Bypass to US-460 at Lynchburg at minimum.

I just don't see that much benefit for only that segment.

Lynchburg is the largest city in Virginia not linked to the interstate system.

It is linked north, south, east and west by 4-lane high-speed intra-state highways that all connect to the Interstate highway system.

If they want to build 30 to 40 miles of freeway for Lynchburg to connect to the Interstate highway system, I would rather see them build the missing 5th leg to connect to I-81 and I-64 at Lexington.

Probably the shortest way would be to parallel US-60 between Amherst and Lexington, about 25 to 27 miles of new freeway that connects to the US-29 Madison Heights Bypass which is built to Interstate standards.

This would be I-781, and a much better connection between Lynchburg and I-64 West and I-81 North.

[sprjus4]

It is linked north, south, east and west by 4-lane high-speed intra-state highways that all connect to the Interstate highway system.

If they want to build 30 to 40 miles of freeway for Lynchburg to connect to the Interstate highway system, I would rather see them build the missing 5th leg to connect to I-81 and I-64 at Lexington.

Probably the shortest way would be to parallel US-60 between Amherst and Lexington, about 25 to 27 miles of new freeway that connects to the US-29 Madison Heights Bypass which is built to Interstate standards.

This would be I-781, and a much better connection between Lynchburg and I-64 West and I-81 North.

Here's an idea - combine the Lynchburg - Danville freeway concept, and your US-60 freeway concept.

Freeway from Greensboro to Lexington, connecting Central North Carolina, Greensboro, I-40 (to/from west), I-73 (to/from south), I-85 (to/from south), Danville, Lynchburg, Lexington, I-81 (to/from north), and I-64 (to/from west).

An issue with a US-60 freeway would be the Blue Ridge Mountains - it'd be tough getting through there, though not impossible.

[LM117]

What's wrong with the route? (Admittedly, it's the only section of US 29 between the state line and I-66 that I haven't been on, but it's a four-lane through route, isn't it?)

Anytime I see Lynchburg and Danville in the same place, Johnny Cash singing "The Wreck of the Old 97" goes through my mind.

At Tightsqueeze and especially between VA 24 and US 460 there is quite a bit of congestion.   Parts of the segment north of VA 24 remind me a little bit of US 29 through Madison Heights before it was bypassed.

I am much less familiar with US 29 south of Gretna so I can't speak to the US 29 area just north of the Danville bypass.

US-29 between Gretna and Danville isn't that bad at all. Tightsqueeze is the only major problem on that stretch. I live 9 miles from there and often go to that shopping center (Tightsqueeze Plaza). It can be a real PITA just trying to get onto Tightsqueeze Road from the plaza because traffic would be backed all the way up from the traffic light.

Regarding making right turns from Tightsqueeze Road onto US-29 South, I've often seen cars drive on the shoulder to bypass the line and cut through the gas station parking lot to get on US-29. Now, if you're trying to get on US-29 from CVS Pharmacy it's not bad, but Tightsqueeze Road could really use a dedicated right turn lane. Another improvement I'd like to see is lengthening the ramp merges on the Danville Bypass. They're too short and don't meet interstate standards for I-785 (when or if that happens).

The only thing I think is needed on that stretch is the southern half of the Lynchburg bypass.

Desperately needed!

[Beltway]

This would be I-781, and a much better connection between Lynchburg and I-64 West and I-81 North.

Here's an idea - combine the Lynchburg - Danville freeway concept, and your US-60 freeway concept.
Freeway from Greensboro to Lexington, connecting Central North Carolina, Greensboro, I-40 (to/from west), I-73 (to/from south), I-85 (to/from south), Danville, Lynchburg, Lexington, I-81 (to/from north), and I-64 (to/from west).

I would let the others be separate and independent projects.

An issue with a US-60 freeway would be the Blue Ridge Mountains - it'd be tough getting through there, though not impossible.

Probably no more so than Afton Mountain, maybe somewhat less.

Another one of those projects that seems so obvious but for some reason it hasn't surfaced as an official proposal.

The I-64 southern route would have passed somewhere in that general vicinity, but subsequent to the approval of the northern route, I have never seen that spur proposed.

[hbelkins]

So are you all saying that it's a tight squeeze on US 29 at Tightsqueeze?



also...

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests
As said before, a fatal hole was shot in that concept in 2013, by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the governor at that time, Terry McAuliffe when he dishonestly torpedoed the under-contract US-29 western bypass extension, a vital segment of any such freeway corridor, and channeled the money to build the "Route 29 Solutions" which is little more than a local circulator system that does very little for the thru traffic.

Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2019, 08:37:12 PM by Alps »

Quote from: Beltway on November 01, 2019, 05:06:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests
As said before, a fatal hole was shot in that concept in 2013, by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the governor at that time, Terry McAuliffe when he dishonestly torpedoed the under-contract US-29 western bypass extension, a vital segment of any such freeway corridor, and channeled the money to build the "Route 29 Solutions" which is little more than a local circulator system that does very little for the thru traffic.

Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.
US-29 between the north end of the Danville Bypass to US-460 at Lynchburg at minimum.

The long-term vision for the US-29 corridor that was studied years back had the segment between the north end of the Danville Bypass and US-460 as a freeway, utilizing the existing bypasses and building bypass connectors in between, then extending the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass southward.

A northern extension of I-785 from Danville to link Lynchburg to the interstate system & southwards to Danville, Greensboro, I-73, I-40, I-85, and North Carolina overall would be a logical addition to the freeway / interstate system. NCDOT has the remaining arterial portion of US-29 between Greensboro and Danville funded to upgrade to interstate standards beginning in 2027. Lynchburg is the largest city in Virginia not linked to the interstate system.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2019, 08:37:33 PM by Alps »

Now I'm wondering what I missed! 

[1995hoo]

I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.

[sprjus4]

Another improvement I'd like to see is lengthening the ramp merges on the Danville Bypass. They're too short and don't meet interstate standards for I-785 (when or if that happens).

Strictly looking at interstate standards, I don't think it would go against them, but it's certainly a safety improvement to look at acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, and something to look at.

But I don't think it would prevent VDOT from slapping up I-785 signs (if they even apply for the designation given their history, maybe just re-name to VA-785!)

The only thing I think is needed on that stretch is the southern half of the Lynchburg bypass.

Desperately needed!

The original concepts had a ~13 mile freeway stretching from US-29 / US-460 to US-29 just south of Yellow Branch, but ideally they should just build a ~20 mile freeway between US-29 / US-460 to US-29 tying seamlessly into the Atlavista Bypass. More mileage & cost, but would bypass another 7 miles of arterial US-29, and tie seamlessly into a pre-existing freeway segment, providing one long ~45 mile continuous freeway between south of Altavista to north of Amherst.

[Alps]

I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.

I removed an unnecessary political citation.

[Beltway]

I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.

I removed an unnecessary political citation.

So putting an (R) or a (D) after the name is "an unnecessary political citation" and needs to be removed?

[Alps]

I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.

I removed an unnecessary political citation.

So putting an (R) or a (D) after the name is "an unnecessary political citation" and needs to be removed?

Yes, because it has no bearing on the discussion here.

[Beltway]

I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.

I removed an unnecessary political citation.

So putting an (R) or a (D) after the name is "an unnecessary political citation" and needs to be removed?

Yes, because it has no bearing on the discussion here.

What about appellations like "The Punk" or "The Snail"?

One thing that gets me is these political campaign yard signs you see around that have the candidate name in giant letters, but the party name affiliation is usually omitted.  If you are driving outside your own district you probably don't know enough about the candidates there to know that unless it is posted on the sign, and if they want to inform everybody in their own district they should be aware that some people won't know if you don't tell them.

[LM117]

Another improvement I'd like to see is lengthening the ramp merges on the Danville Bypass. They're too short and don't meet interstate standards for I-785 (when or if that happens).

Strictly looking at interstate standards, I don't think it would go against them, but it's certainly a safety improvement to look at acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, and something to look at.

But I don't think it would prevent VDOT from slapping up I-785 signs (if they even apply for the designation given their history, maybe just re-name to VA-785!)

I just found an article from two months ago regarding I-785. It mentions what VA's part needs.

https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Funding-committed-for-long-awaited-Interstate-785-slated-to-reach-Danville-559967081.html

In the Commonwealth, VDOT says upgrades at the Elizabeth Street intersection and a few other "spot" improvements will be needed along Route 29; but aside from those changes the corridor already meets standards necessary to carry the 785 designation, possibly giving southside its first Interstate by the end of the next decade.

I never understood why I-785 isn't planned to go any further north than the 58/360 interchange. It would make more sense to have it go all the way to the US-29 Business split in Blairs.

[sprjus4]

In the Commonwealth, VDOT says upgrades at the Elizabeth Street intersection and a few other "spot" improvements will be needed along Route 29; but aside from those changes the corridor already meets standards necessary to carry the 785 designation, possibly giving southside its first Interstate by the end of the next decade.

The Elizabeth Street area is the only problematic point and easily fixable IMO with the construction of a grade separated diamond interchange. VDOT already owns the right of way and there's even ramp stubs along the mainline intended for a future interchange.

I never understood why I-785 isn't planned to go any further north than the 58/360 interchange. It would make more sense to have it go all the way to the US-29 Business split in Blairs.

Agreed. The expressway north of US-58 isn't any different than south, in fact it's newer, and equally meets interstate standards. It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield along that part of the corridor, notably the dead VA-41 Franklin Tpke interchange.

[Beltway]

It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield

Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.

[ARMOURERERIC]

How far out is NC from completing their part of 785

[sprjus4]

How far out is NC from completing their part of 785

Construction is slated for 2027 on the 2020 - 2029 STIP to complete the gap between I-840 and Reidsville.

[sprjus4]

It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield

Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.

How did I have a feeling you'd respond to that specific comment?

[Beltway]

It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield

Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.

How did I have a feeling you'd respond to that specific comment?

I dunno, but I have many times and many ways questioned that idea in online highway-related forums over the years, and long before February 2018.

[hbelkins]

It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield

Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.

Can you link to one of those studies? They say that here as well, especially with the recent signing of I-165.