AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-73 in VA  (Read 97347 times)

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5355
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:47:36 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #725 on: July 28, 2019, 12:02:15 AM »

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.
Greensboro - Cleveland
I-40 to I-74 to I-77.
The connection already exists, and it’s all interstate highway.

No, a major section of US-52 is not an Interstate highway.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2230
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:28:17 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #726 on: July 28, 2019, 12:04:30 AM »

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.
Greensboro - Cleveland
I-40 to I-74 to I-77.
The connection already exists, and it’s all interstate highway.

No, a major section of US-52 is not an Interstate highway.
True, but it's all 65 mph freeway and slated to become apart of I-74, and the substandard congested urban freeway segment through Winston-Salem will be bypassed by 2022 - 2023.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5355
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:47:36 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #727 on: July 28, 2019, 12:10:53 AM »

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.
Greensboro - Cleveland
I-40 to I-74 to I-77.
The connection already exists, and it’s all interstate highway.
No, a major section of US-52 is not an Interstate highway.
True, but it's all 65 mph freeway and slated to become apart of I-74, and the substandard congested urban freeway segment through Winston-Salem will be bypassed by 2022 - 2023.

About 20 miles does not meet Interstate standards.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2230
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:28:17 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #728 on: July 28, 2019, 12:14:43 AM »

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.
Greensboro - Cleveland
I-40 to I-74 to I-77.
The connection already exists, and it’s all interstate highway.
No, a major section of US-52 is not an Interstate highway.
True, but it's all 65 mph freeway and slated to become apart of I-74, and the substandard congested urban freeway segment through Winston-Salem will be bypassed by 2022 - 2023.

About 20 miles does not meet Interstate standards.
What section?
Logged

mrhappy1261

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 745
  • I want it in Greenville!!

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:09:33 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #729 on: July 28, 2019, 12:15:55 AM »

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.
Greensboro - Cleveland
I-40 to I-74 to I-77.
The connection already exists, and it’s all interstate highway.
No, a major section of US-52 is not an Interstate highway.
True, but it's all 65 mph freeway and slated to become apart of I-74, and the substandard congested urban freeway segment through Winston-Salem will be bypassed by 2022 - 2023.

About 20 miles does not meet Interstate standards.

Talking about this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0296073,-80.0681347,3a,75y,292.6h,86.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swEfH81k9nErcePn6-ghdkg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwEfH81k9nErcePn6-ghdkg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D200%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2230
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:28:17 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #730 on: July 28, 2019, 12:19:30 AM »

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.
Greensboro - Cleveland
I-40 to I-74 to I-77.
The connection already exists, and it’s all interstate highway.
No, a major section of US-52 is not an Interstate highway.
True, but it's all 65 mph freeway and slated to become apart of I-74, and the substandard congested urban freeway segment through Winston-Salem will be bypassed by 2022 - 2023.

About 20 miles does not meet Interstate standards.

Talking about this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0296073,-80.0681347,3a,75y,292.6h,86.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swEfH81k9nErcePn6-ghdkg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwEfH81k9nErcePn6-ghdkg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D200%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
No, that stretch is already signed as I-74.

I'm referring to the stretch between Winston-Salem and I-77.
Logged

mrhappy1261

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 745
  • I want it in Greenville!!

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:09:33 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #731 on: July 28, 2019, 12:22:55 AM »

That sucks because a perfect connection from Greensboro to Cleveland would be nice but since it's not funded, I guess it's out of the study party.
Greensboro - Cleveland
I-40 to I-74 to I-77.
The connection already exists, and it’s all interstate highway.
No, a major section of US-52 is not an Interstate highway.
True, but it's all 65 mph freeway and slated to become apart of I-74, and the substandard congested urban freeway segment through Winston-Salem will be bypassed by 2022 - 2023.

About 20 miles does not meet Interstate standards.

Talking about this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0296073,-80.0681347,3a,75y,292.6h,86.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swEfH81k9nErcePn6-ghdkg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwEfH81k9nErcePn6-ghdkg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D200%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
No, that stretch is already signed as I-74.

I'm referring to the stretch between Winston-Salem and I-77.

I know one part is not to interstate standards, and the other is I-74 and it is up to it.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2230
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:28:17 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #732 on: July 28, 2019, 12:36:33 AM »

Former Henry County supervisor: U.S. 220 connector plans aren't focused on the best alternative
Quote
The discussion about how to construct the southern connector for U.S. 220 is growing louder, and former Henry County supervisor H.G. Vaughn of Ridgeway this week added his voice to the discussion. And he’s against the anointed plan.

Vaughn appeared before the Henry County Board of Supervisors last week to express his opposition to the Virginia Department of Transportation’s preferred route for what it calls the Route 220 Martinsville Southern Connector.

He said VDOT’s choice – listed as “Alternative C” — would be seen and heard by residents of the Farmingdale subdivision, where he lives, clearly reinforcing the impact on the lives of him and his neighbors.

“That does concern me personally because I live in Farmingdale subdivision,” Vaughn said. “We moved there in 2003, built our home and have enjoyed it wonderfully. For years I wanted to live in the country, and my wife loved the subdivision, so we lived in Shannon Hills for 28 years.

“When Farmingdale was built, we had an opportunity to build right at the end, so we built our home, acquired some additional acreage, and it’s like being out in the country. We’ve just loved it.

“So we’ve worked over the years to try to protect that atmosphere there, wonderful neighbors, wonderful environment. VDOT ‘s study is proposing to take alternative C, which goes right by Farmingdale subdivision. ... That route will go within sight distance and sound distance of the subdivision. The elevation for the highway will be up above the subdivision. I can see that and a lot of our neighbors will be able to see it from our home and also hear truck traffic.”

In February 2018, VDOT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, initiated an environmental impact statement that evaluates potential improvements to the corridor of U.S. 220 corridor in Henry County between the U.S. 58/U.S. 220 Bypass south to the North Carolina state line.

The goal is to enhance traffic flow on U.S. 220 in an area highlighted by tightly curving southbound lanes near the new Commonwealth Crossing business center and its intersection with U.S. 58 before extending into the city of Martinsville.

A longer-range plan is to extend Interstate 73 from where it morphs into U.S. 220 near Madison, N.C., before continuing south to Rockingham, N.C. But that long-range plan is not part of these current discussions.

“It’s being built as a four-lane limited access highway,” Vaughn told the supervisors. “VDOT will not connect or relate to that in any way as being preliminary to I-73, but I think with your experience and my experience on the board of supervisors, I think common sense tells us that if I-73 does come to fruition, that’s probably going to be the route.”

The options

VDOT has narrowed down its planning to three alternatives that have been studied by consultants and officials:
  • Alternative A is 7.7 miles from the North Carolina line to U.S. Route 58 at a new interchange 1 mile west of Joseph Martin Highway.
  • Alternative B is 7.3 miles between the state line and U.S. 58 at the Joseph Martin Highway interchange.
  • Alternative C is 7.4 miles from the state line to U.S. 58 at the Joseph Martin Highway interchange.
Each alternative is slightly different and has distinctive impacts, ranging from environmental to residential to business.

According to VDOT, Alternative B would require the most residential relocations (26), compared with 25 for Alternative C and 17 for Alternative A.

None of the alternatives would require commercial relocations.

Alternative B would require the most “other potential relocations,” including industrial, institutional and cemeteries – followed by Alternative C and then Alternative A.

Alternative C would have the least estimated impact on wetlands; the second least impact on streams and 100-year-flood plain; and the least impact on forest land.

Alternative C would cost the least, according to preliminary estimates: $616 million. That’s nearly 23% less than the most costly alternative, Alternative A, with an estimated cost of $757 million.

The VDOT says the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can only authorize the “least environmental practicable alternative” through its permit process, which means an alternative must result in the least impact to aquatic resources while being feasible after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics. VDOT believes Alternative C is the “least environmental practicable alternative.”

Alternative C was endorsed in June by resolutions passed by both the Henry County supervisors and the Martinsville City Council.

Comparing the alternatives

Impacts on each plan vary. Here are the specifics:
  • Potential residential locations: Alternative A: 17; Alternative B: 26; Alternative C: 25.
  • Potential commercial relocations: zero for each alternative.
  • Other potential relocations (includes industrial, institutional and cemeteries): Alternative A: 1; Alternative B: 5; Alternative C: 4.
  • Estimated stream impacts (linear feet): Alternative A: 28,530; Alternative B: 20,548; Alternative C: 21,881.
  • Estimated wetland impacts (acres): Alternative A: 7.8; Alternative B: 5.9; Alternative C- 3.7.
  • Estimated 100-year floodplain impacts: Alternative A: 7.0; Alternative B: 13.7; Alternative C: 7.5.
  • Estimated forest impacts (acres): Alternative A: 296; Alternative B: 259; Alternative C: 219.
  • Preliminary planning level cost estimate: Alternative A — $757 million; Alternative B — $746 million; Alternative C — $616 million.
Public to comment

VDOT has scheduled a public hearing at 5-7 p.m. on Aug. 15 at Drewry Mason Elementary School to gather input on its plans. The session will be an open-house format for review and Q&A with officials. There will be a video presentation, too.

And Vaughn, who served 16 years on the board of supervisors before losing his bid for re-election in 2015 to Ryan Zehr, said he expects there to be plenty of comment.

He asked the board of supervisors to take the time to study Alternatives A, B and C, and in particular, to support Alternative A as being a better route, as he has.

“A lot of people have talked and called me and talked with other people,” Vaughn said. “So there is going to be a good turnout at the meeting at Drewry Mason Elementary School on August 15.

“I certainly hope that you all will take a stand and endorse a route and that you would not favor Alternative C.”
Logged

mrhappy1261

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 745
  • I want it in Greenville!!

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:09:33 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #733 on: July 28, 2019, 12:51:04 AM »

That sucks that it's not happening it would have been nice to build a connector to provide a nice bypass :(
Logged

VTGoose

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 272
  • Age: 2015
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 09:31:58 AM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #734 on: August 03, 2019, 08:51:07 PM »

I don't think VA will build I-73 if WV is not building (and is not going to) build it.
The segment between I-81 at Roanoke and North Carolina is a valuable connection and worth building even if West Virginia doesn't continue it. The segment between Blacksburg and West Virginia should only be built -if- West Virginia builds their portion as an interstate highway. They have a plan to build a highway, but it's only an at-grade expressway. A 4-lane at-grade expressway already exists in Virginia, and until West Virginia makes that fully interstate standard, Virginia shouldn't do anything north of Blacksburg.

But like said, Roanoke to North Carolina has been extensively studied and the only thing preventing it from being built is funding.

The original plan (until politicians got involved) was to lay I-73 on I-77 from West Virginia to North Carolina and let those two states worry about whatever routing was necessary from those points of connection.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5355
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:47:36 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #735 on: August 03, 2019, 09:05:51 PM »

The original plan (until politicians got involved) was to lay I-73 on I-77 from West Virginia to North Carolina and let those two states worry about whatever routing was necessary from those points of connection.

Virginia naturally was interested in getting new Interstate highway mileage in 1995.  Overlapping I-77 wouldn't provide that.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2230
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:28:17 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #736 on: August 03, 2019, 09:49:32 PM »

The original plan (until politicians got involved) was to lay I-73 on I-77 from West Virginia to North Carolina and let those two states worry about whatever routing was necessary from those points of connection.

Virginia naturally was interested in getting new Interstate highway mileage in 1995.
One of their biggest flaws was trying to get all 60+ miles built in one string rather than in many phases. I-73 could partially exist today if they had done that.

Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5355
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:47:36 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #737 on: August 03, 2019, 10:25:02 PM »

Virginia naturally was interested in getting new Interstate highway mileage in 1995.
One of their biggest flaws was trying to get all 60+ miles built in one string rather than in many phases. I-73 could partially exist today if they had done that.
I haven't seen where they had that policy to only build it in one whole.  The problem is that even breaking it into five SIU, that is still about $800 million each, and for a US-220 route that doesn't have any 2-lane constrictions on the existing highway.

The one priority place that I would like to see advanced sooner rather than later is the about 2 to 3 miles south of the end of the Southwest Expressway (Roy L. Webber Expressway).
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2230
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:28:17 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #738 on: August 03, 2019, 11:31:20 PM »

The problem is that even breaking it into five SIU, that is still about $800 million each
If you're splitting the 70 mile route into 5 segments, you're talking at least $1.5 billion each.

The Martinsville Southern Connector, 7 miles long, alone is $600 - $700 million. That $4 billion cost estimate is likely at least $7 - $8 billion in today's cost if the MSC is any indicator.

I think it's safe to say Virginia won't be building any significant length of freeway anytime in the next 10-20 years - I don't even think the MSC will get built based on its hefty price tag.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2019, 11:34:10 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

mrhappy1261

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 745
  • I want it in Greenville!!

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:09:33 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #739 on: August 03, 2019, 11:43:59 PM »

The problem is that even breaking it into five SIU, that is still about $800 million each
If you're splitting the 70 mile route into 5 segments, you're talking at least $1.5 billion each.

The Martinsville Southern Connector, 7 miles long, alone is $600 - $700 million. That $4 billion cost estimate is likely at least $7 - $8 billion in today's cost if the MSC is any indicator.

I think it's safe to say Virginia won't be building any significant length of freeway anytime in the next 10-20 years - I don't even think the MSC will get built based on its hefty price tag.

I don't really think it's needed. I hardly see people travel from Roanoke to Greensboro. NCDOT is upgrading their part to a freeway but with VDOT I think they are waiting.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5355
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:47:36 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #740 on: August 03, 2019, 11:46:19 PM »

The problem is that even breaking it into five SIU, that is still about $800 million each
If you're splitting the 70 mile route into 5 segments, you're talking at least $1.5 billion each.
The Martinsville Southern Connector, 7 miles long, alone is $600 - $700 million. That $4 billion cost estimate is likely at least $7 - $8 billion in today's cost if the MSC is any indicator.

Parts of it follows existing freeways (plural if they use the US-220 bypass), but in any event back when the estimate was $4 billion it still would have cost by segment what I said.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12646
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 09:08:44 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #741 on: August 04, 2019, 11:59:22 AM »

The original plan (until politicians got involved) was to lay I-73 on I-77 from West Virginia to North Carolina and let those two states worry about whatever routing was necessary from those points of connection.

Virginia naturally was interested in getting new Interstate highway mileage in 1995.  Overlapping I-77 wouldn't provide that.
The problem is that even breaking it into five SIU, that is still about $800 million each
If you're splitting the 70 mile route into 5 segments, you're talking at least $1.5 billion each.

The Martinsville Southern Connector, 7 miles long, alone is $600 - $700 million. That $4 billion cost estimate is likely at least $7 - $8 billion in today's cost if the MSC is any indicator.

I think it's safe to say Virginia won't be building any significant length of freeway anytime in the next 10-20 years - I don't even think the MSC will get built based on its hefty price tag.


Parts of it follows existing freeways (plural if they use the US-220 bypass), but in any event back when the estimate was $4 billion it still would have cost by segment what I said.
Guys, especially because it's you two - please provide some support for your statements!

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5355
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:47:36 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #742 on: August 04, 2019, 02:59:06 PM »

Virginia naturally was interested in getting new Interstate highway mileage in 1995.  Overlapping I-77 wouldn't provide that.
The problem is that even breaking it into five SIU, that is still about $800 million each
If you're splitting the 70 mile route into 5 segments, you're talking at least $1.5 billion each.
The Martinsville Southern Connector, 7 miles long, alone is $600 - $700 million. That $4 billion cost estimate is likely at least $7 - $8 billion in today's cost if the MSC is any indicator.
I think it's safe to say Virginia won't be building any significant length of freeway anytime in the next 10-20 years - I don't even think the MSC will get built based on its hefty price tag.
Parts of it follows existing freeways (plural if they use the US-220 bypass), but in any event back when the estimate was $4 billion it still would have cost by segment what I said.
Guys, especially because it's you two - please provide some support for your statements!
The 2012 $4 billion estimate is from VDOT, but I will grant that making 5 segments each of equal cost is hypothetical.  Just trying to show that segmenting will still mean some very expensive segments.

The approved route does follow 12 miles of I-581 and the US-220 freeway in Roanoke.  About 8 miles of the US-220 freeway bypass of Martinsville would be used if the approved route is moved to west of the city.  So potentially 20 miles is Interstate-usable or near-Interstate-usable.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting died.

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 10:33:17 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #743 on: August 04, 2019, 06:14:00 PM »

The problem is that even breaking it into five SIU, that is still about $800 million each
If you're splitting the 70 mile route into 5 segments, you're talking at least $1.5 billion each.

The Martinsville Southern Connector, 7 miles long, alone is $600 - $700 million. That $4 billion cost estimate is likely at least $7 - $8 billion in today's cost if the MSC is any indicator.

I think it's safe to say Virginia won't be building any significant length of freeway anytime in the next 10-20 years - I don't even think the MSC will get built based on its hefty price tag.

I don't really think it's needed. I hardly see people travel from Roanoke to Greensboro. NCDOT is upgrading their part to a freeway but with VDOT I think they are waiting.


Wrong. I am one of those people who travel from Roanoke to Greensboro, mostly to use I-81 to bypass the congested I-95 corridor between Washington DC and NYC. There are PLENTY of traffic using US 220 from Roanoke to Greensboro (especially trucks who don't want to drive farther to use I-77) So, yes, the MSC is needed to separate local traffic from through traffic  especially when NASCAR comes to Martinsville for a race day or two.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2019, 06:30:02 PM by Strider »
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2230
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:28:17 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #744 on: August 29, 2019, 10:38:33 PM »

Pastor and developer raise concerns about recommended route for U.S. 220 connector at Ridgeway
Quote
Tim Nuckles, pastor of the 1,000-member Mercy Crossing church, says his congregation is opposed to the proposed route for the U.S. 220 connector from the North Carolina state line to the U.S. 220/U.S. 58 bypass north of Ridgeway.

Jimmie Ford, who developed and lives in the Farmingdale subdivision, doesn’t like the planned path, either, but he said he could support a variation that moved to the west side of Joseph Martin Highway and more than the 400 feet from his subdivision that is its current route.

Both men spoke Tuesday night at the meeting of the Henry County Board of Supervisors about what is called Alternative C, which is is the Virginia Department of Transportation’s recommended path for the new road that is under study, which extends from the state line to the existing interchange at Joseph Martin Highway and U.S. 58.

Nuckles’ Mercy Crossing church is at 1978 Joseph Martin Highway.

“For our church it comes across our property really close to our children’s ministry building, and it’s going to affect our long-term plan for the church there,” he said. “I represent about 1,000 members. We have about 500 people who attend on Sunday morning. … A lot of our congregation is very concerned about preferred route C. I’m expressing that concern to the board.”

VDOT’s planners have three alternatives they have been studying. They chose Alternative C because it has less overall environmental impact for the region. A public hearing earlier this month gave residents a chance to ask questions and comment on the plans.

Ford had spoken out after that meeting, but Nuckles took his issues to supervisors.

“I am in favor of the southern corridor. I think it will be a great benefit to our community, but I also need to express concern for our church,” he said. “It comes extremely close to existing buildings. We have 110 acres there. When it comes through there in preferred route C, it will actually cut off most of our acreage so nothing that is planned in the future will be able to take place.

“It loops around our church and comes down to the bottom of the hill. Not only is it going to affect the property, it’s also going to be a lot of noise pollution for our congregation on Sunday mornings, Wednesday nights and all the other activities that take place.”

Ford told the supervisors that he supports a connector being built. He said he initially signed a petition supporting Alternative A, even though it is the longest and most expensive.

Alternative A would be 8.3 miles from U.S. 220 at the North Carolina state line to U.S. 58 at a new interchange 1 mile west of Joseph Martin Highway. It would cost an estimated $757 million. Alternative B would be 7.7 miles to U.S. 58 at Joseph Martin Highway interchange and would cost an estimated $746 million. Alternative C would be 7.4 miles and cost an estimated $616 million.

VDOT sokesman Jason Bond has said VDOT planners believe Alternative C is the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative,” which means it would have the least impact on aquatic resources and meets the Federal Highway Administration’s design requirements.

“According to federal law, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can only issue water quality permits for the LEDPA. These permits are necessary for a project to advance to future construction,” Bond said.

In an earlier interview, Ford had estimated that the 125 homes in Farmingdale have an average value of $300,000, which he said generates $208,125 annually in property taxes for the county.

He said there are 35 additional lots at Farmingdale that could be developed. “Well, I have 28, and there are seven lots I have sold to other people that plan to build later,” he told the supervisors Tuesday.

Ford has said he feels the preferred path might cause people not to build on the remaining lots. “Instead of people buying houses in Farmingdale, they might be moving out of Farmingdale,” he said.

He also told supervisors that he fears the plan would affect about 140 acres near Farmingdale.

“It [that acreage] already has sewer lines, two water lines right thought the middle of it, lays beautiful, would be excellent for future development,” he said. “If this road is allowed to go in there, it will not be built. It will be only farm land – probably cut hay or graze cows on it.

“The land that I’m talking about, I do not own it. I’m not one bit interested in it. I retired nine years ago. I’m just telling you guys what is available in the county for housing. Housing is already a problem. This land can be beautiful land – water and sewer available. It could be the next Farmingdale. However, somebody else will do it besides me. I just want you to know what could happen.”

Ford said he recently attended a local housing summit. “One thing the whole crowd learned from this was that Martinsville and Henry County [have] very inadequate housing for what is needed,” he said.

Ford showed the supervisors his proposed modification to Alternative C, which would move it to the west side of Joseph Martin Highway. That would move the road farther from Farmingdale, straighten a bad curve and shorten the distance of Alternative C by 1,100 linear feet, which he says would cut the cost of Alternative C by $17.342 million.

“If we tweak route C … I can be very supportive or route C, VDOT’s preferred route,” he said.

This is the conceptual change he is proposing -


I would quite frankly rather see the connector have an interchange with the US-220 Bypass on new location (how Alternative A was designed to connect) rather than try to tie it into the existing interchange with VA-685. It's either A) the western new location interchange could have continuity on the movement from MSC North to US-220 BVP North or vice versa, or B) It have a three-way complex interchange with braided ramps and large flyovers tying into the existing VA-685 interchange while separating weaving movements, and would likely not have continuity.

It just seems foolish to try to tie the MSC with US-220 BVP at an existing interchange when there's plenty of room west of it.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2274
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 02:17:53 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #745 on: August 30, 2019, 04:50:00 PM »

I wonder which alignment shown on the poster will eventually be built? I hope opposition from the Farmingdale subdivision doesn't cause the connector to not be built at all.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2230
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:28:17 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #746 on: August 30, 2019, 05:52:32 PM »

I wonder which alignment shown on the poster will eventually be built? I hope opposition from the Farmingdale subdivision doesn't cause the connector to not be built at all.
The opposition from Farmingdale is related to Alternative C. They are not against the project either, they would just rather Alternative A be selected due to less impacts on residential, being farther away, etc.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.