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 97385 times)

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1494
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: Today at 05:08:39 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #400 on: January 17, 2019, 07:43:35 PM »

I presume 4A-C and 5B involve freeway upgrades down to the state line?
Good to see that they're at least not totally ignoring upgrades to 220. The sooner VA does something south of Martinsville, the sooner NC will finish the first of their four pet Interstates :bigass: (once SC builds any).
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #401 on: January 17, 2019, 07:49:25 PM »

I presume 4A-C and 5B involve freeway upgrades down to the state line?
That is correct. I assume continuity would be used at these junctions, exit to stay on U.S. 220, stay in the two mainline lanes to use the new freeway.

Good to see that they're at least not totally ignoring upgrades to 220. The sooner VA does something south of Martinsville, the sooner NC will finish the first of their four pet Interstates
It can be said that the upgrades are unnecessary because of other concerns on the corridor, but what this allows is to connect to North Carolina first, allowing them to continue building I-73 NC and provide a continuous corridor from Martinsville to Rockingham. This is the first phase of many to come I presume in Virginia.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #402 on: January 17, 2019, 09:15:06 PM »

The vast majority of it is easily drivable at 50 to 60 mph.  About 30% of the length is on limited access right-of-way between N.C. and I-81.  Those few curves could be rebuilt to larger radii.
Again, the whole anti-new interstate rhetoric. If it was a useless project, then nobody would be studying it, or considering it. If there's heavy interest in it, then clearly there's a reason. U.S. 220 is a major trucking corridor, and has serious safety issues. It's not your highway through the farm fields that's 60-65 MPH, wide lanes, sweeping curves, etc. It's a narrow roadway, 55 MPH, and has some sharp curves, bad accidents, and serious safety concerns. It's not an "adequate four-lane arterial highway".

Again, the whole uber-new Interstate rhetoric.  Where above did I say that it was an "adequate four-lane arterial highway"?  Those issues could be remediated by spot improvements.  The I-73 corridor was approved in ISTEA in 1991, that is why it was studied.  Priorities change.

For the umpteenth time, the 70 miles of new Interstate would cost $4 billion.  This is not a 2-lane highway like most of it was in N.C. before I-73, it is a 4-lane divided highway with town bypasses, and the cost versus what is already there demonstrates why there is no rush to build it.

You will be thrilled to know that the General Assembly just introduced a bill similar to the one just introduced for I-81 -
SB1014 (Stanley) – Establishes an I-73 Corridor Development Fund and Program

No details yet on funding mechanisms, although tolls could be part of it.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 09:24:08 PM by Beltway »
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #403 on: January 17, 2019, 10:13:43 PM »

Where above did I say that it was an "adequate four-lane arterial highway"?

....
The US-220 segment in Virginia is a capable 4-lane highway with town bypasses and it uses the 6-lane I-581/US-220 freeway in Roanoke, and about 30% of the total 70-mile segment is on limited access right-of-way.
For a road where a 4-lane divided highway already exists.  Doesn't seem to be a viable use of scarce highway construction funds.
particularly when there is a high-speed 4-lane divided highway already in the corridor.
US-220 between N.C. and the Martinsville Bypass is already 4-lane rural arterial highway, and it has a bypass of Ridgeway.
It is a high speed 4-lane divided highway, and has a bypass of Ridgeway.  It's traffic volumes are modest for the type of highway.

You will be thrilled to know that the General Assembly just introduced a bill similar to the one just introduced for I-81 -
SB1014 (Stanley) – Establishes an I-73 Corridor Development Fund and Program

No details yet on funding mechanisms, although tolls could be part of it.
Interesting, I did see that earlier. It would be interesting to see tolls implemented to get it built, but phase construction like proposed near Martinsville is another concept to get it built without tolls. There are certain ways that the highway could be aligned to reduce costs, but that would require a seperate EIS and the whole nine yards.

Here's one approach I could support for segmented construction -
1 - North Carolina to U.S. 220 Bypass
2 - U.S. 220 Bypass near Collinsville to U.S. 220 north of Oak Level
3 - U.S. 220 north of Oak Level to Rocky Mount Bypass
4 - Upgrade Rocky Mount Bypass median with barrier wall & paved shoulders and upgrade interchanges / sharp curves to interstate standards.
5 - North end of Rocky Mount Bypass to U.S. 220 south of Roanoke.
6 - Upgrade U.S. 220 south of Roanoke to U.S. 220 freeway.

That would require 38 miles of new freeway, 8 miles of upgrades (4 on existing freeway, 4 on surface highway), and 10 miles already interstate standard (Martinsville Bypass). A lot less than 70 miles, and a plan such as this would likely reduce costs to around $3 billion (estimate $60 million per mile for a 50 mile figure). It would also allow phased construction, meaning not all the money has to be poured in at once.

If it cannot receive any funding though in 10-15 years from now, I would support the toll option simply to get it built at that point.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #404 on: January 17, 2019, 11:16:12 PM »

<snip>
That would require 38 miles of new freeway, 8 miles of upgrades (4 on existing freeway, 4 on surface highway), and 10 miles already interstate standard (Martinsville Bypass). A lot less than 70 miles, and a plan such as this would likely reduce costs to around $3 billion (estimate $60 million per mile for a 50 mile figure). It would also allow phased construction, meaning not all the money has to be poured in at once.

That is not how it is going to be built, and a final alignment has already been worked out and refined and approved.  The cost estimate already factored in use of the Martinsville Bypass and I-581 and the Southwest Expresssway, so it will cost at least $4 billion.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/I-73_Map_December_2012.jpg

There really is no good way to segmentalize the central 32 mile section, from the Southwest Expressway to where it touches US-220 south of Rocky Mount.

If it cannot receive any funding though in 10-15 years from now, I would support the toll option simply to get it built at that point.

$4 billion for 30 years at 5% interest -- a monthly payment of $21 million rounded. 
Simple calculation as if every vehicle ran the whole 70-mile length.
18,000 AADT cars -- $30 toll -   $16.1 million
  2,000 AADT trucks  -- $80 toll - $4.8 million

Those tolls would lead to greatly lower than those volumes.

Realistically only about $1 billion could be toll-supported.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 11:19:30 PM by Beltway »
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #405 on: January 17, 2019, 11:52:05 PM »

That is not how it is going to be built, and a final alignment has already been worked out and refined and approved.  The cost estimate already factored in use of the Martinsville Bypass and I-581 and the Southwest Expresssway, so it will cost at least $4 billion.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/I-73_Map_December_2012.jpg

There really is no good way to segmentalize the central 32 mile section, from the Southwest Expressway to where it touches US-220 south of Rocky Mount.
I know how the approved route is, and I disagree with it. It uses a weird routing near Martinsville, juts out to the east, then back west to use 5 miles of US-58, then builds new location all the way to Roanoke.

With a western alignment, they could build 6 miles to the Martinsville Bypass, use 10 miles of the Martinsville Bypass, build 17 miles to Rocky Mount Bypass, improve that, then build the final 14 miles through the mountains. The rest to the Southwest Expressway would be upgraded to interstate standards, about $150 million or so. I'm considering making a drawing a "concept map" of these 4 miles of upgrades to get a general idea on what impact to businesses, etc. it would have. An urban freeway concept could be used here, six lanes with a median barrier & paved shoulders. Smaller footprint than a 4-lane with 60 ft median, or 6-lane with 40 ft median, etc.

A western alignment using existing freeways is about 33-38 miles of new freeway, about 4 miles upgraded, and about 14 miles of existing freeway used. The current plan is about 50-55 miles of new freeway, plus 5 miles of existing used. Whenever they construct this Martinsville Southern Connector, if they build the first phase to the east, then it would go nowhere for many years. It's also been mentioned before that re-evaluating a western Martinsville route for I-73 may be a better decision because it could be cheaper and less environmental impact --

"(former Del. William) Fralin’s and (former Roanoke City Council member Court) Rosen’s preference is to change I-73’s route around Martinsville from east to west so that it uses part of the existing interstate-quality bypass, thereby cutting the costs and eliminating some environmental issues that might make it hard to get an actual construction permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which issues such things."
https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/our-view-i-73-decision-looms-really/article_b9876bab-0643-5fd8-9312-d03372a8ea36.html

It would be wise to re-evaluate this in a separate study for the entire I-73 corridor IMHO.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 11:57:45 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #406 on: January 18, 2019, 12:16:11 AM »

I know how the approved route is, and I disagree with it. It uses a weird routing near Martinsville, juts out to the east, then back west to use 5 miles of US-58, then builds new location all the way to Roanoke.
With a western alignment, they could build 6 miles to the Martinsville Bypass, use 10 miles of the Martinsville Bypass, build 17 miles to Rocky Mount Bypass, improve that, then build the final 14 miles through the mountains. The rest to the Southwest Expressway would be upgraded to interstate standards, about $150 million or so. I'm considering making a drawing a "concept map" of these 4 miles of upgrades to get a general idea on what impact to businesses, etc. it would have. An urban freeway concept could be used here, six lanes with a median barrier & paved shoulders. Smaller footprint than a 4-lane with 60 ft median, or 6-lane with 40 ft median, etc.

Westerly alignments were considered in the DEIS, including using the Rocky Mount Bypass.  Mileagewise the Martinsville Bypass is about the same either side.

The reasons for the Adopted Location Corridor listed in the FEIS --

Basis for Selection of the ALC
The ALC was selected over other alternatives assessed in the DEIS because of the following advantages:
• The existing I-581 corridor could be modified to accept additional traffic from I-73 with substantial yet acceptable improvements with little disruption to adjacent land uses.
• Use of the existing I-581 corridor would bring traffic to the Central Business District of the City of Roanoke and would coincide with the City’s wish to have the I-73 facility constructed without bypassing the City to the east or west.
• The ALC would improve safety on existing U.S. Route 220 by removing through traffic (such as trucks, double-wides, and other commercial vehicles) from local traffic (such as school buses, emergency vehicles, and farm vehicles).
• Construction of the ALC along existing U.S. Route 220 in Roanoke City/County would avoid the newly designated Southeast Roanoke historic district.
• The ALC was consistent with the economic development goals of Martinsville and Henry County.  Additionally just to the east of the study area Pittsylvania County and the City of Danville strongly supported the ALC due to the proximity of the ALC to their communities and the perceived economic benefit associated with an interstate facility within 30 to 45 minutes of the majority of their population base.
• The ALC would address safety issues associated with the present crossing of Windy Gap at Route 116 by providing a high quality alternative to Route 116.
• The ALC would provide enhanced access to northeastern Franklin County and an expanding commercial zone located along Route 40 to the east of Rocky Mount, thereby contributing to economic growth within the corridor.
• The ALC would result in lowest wetland impacts compared to other build alternatives considered in the DEIS.
• The ALC would have lower relocation impacts than the alternatives that improve existing U.S. Route 220, impact fewer historic resources and cross the Blue Ridge Parkway at the NPS’ preferred crossing.
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.

VTGoose

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 272
  • Age: 2015
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:51:18 AM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #407 on: January 18, 2019, 08:47:22 AM »

Some of the curves in the corridor have suggested speeds as low as 40 MPH, presumably set that way by VDOT and 9% truck traffic (according to 2017 published VDOT counts).  That, combined with at-grade signals, is not a good thing. 
Compare and contrast with rural divided four-lane highways in Virginia like VA-7, U.S. 17, U.S. 29, U.S. 360, U.S. 460, U.S. 58 (and I am familiar with two-lane undivided sections of several of these).

The vast majority of it is easily drivable at 50 to 60 mph.  About 30% of the length is on limited access right-of-way between N.C. and I-81.  Those few curves could be rebuilt to larger radii.
Again, the whole anti-new interstate rhetoric. If it was a useless project, then nobody would be studying it, or considering it. If there's heavy interest in it, then clearly there's a reason. U.S. 220 is a major trucking corridor, and has serious safety issues. It's not your highway through the farm fields that's 60-65 MPH, wide lanes, sweeping curves, etc. It's a narrow roadway, 55 MPH, and has some sharp curves, bad accidents, and serious safety concerns. It's not an "adequate four-lane arterial highway".

Actually you can shorten that to "It's not an adequate highway" -- especially the northern section between VA 419 and at least Rocky Mount. Over on this side of the state we are used to hearing about the "wreck of the day" on I-81 and the "wreck of the week" on U.S. 220 that totally blocks traffic either north or south at an inconvenient time of day (usually during commute time). It is past time to do something to improve both roads -- at least there are plans to fund some bandaids for I-81, but U.S. 220 is the odd road out.

As to the plans adjacent to Martinsville, a western alignment for a new highway makes more sense than continuing further east to go south. I'll bet if one of those routes is chosen, there will still be a lot of people coming from the north who will just use the current road and deal with its shortcomings.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #408 on: January 18, 2019, 10:04:47 AM »

Actually you can shorten that to "It's not an adequate highway" -- especially the northern section between VA 419 and at least Rocky Mount. Over on this side of the state we are used to hearing about the "wreck of the day" on I-81 and the "wreck of the week" on U.S. 220 that totally blocks traffic either north or south at an inconvenient time of day (usually during commute time). It is past time to do something to improve both roads -- at least there are plans to fund some bandaids for I-81, but U.S. 220 is the odd road out.

Which could involve perhaps spending a couple hundred million dollars in remedial treatments to accident prone locations.

As to the plans adjacent to Martinsville, a western alignment for a new highway makes more sense than continuing further east to go south. I'll bet if one of those routes is chosen, there will still be a lot of people coming from the north who will just use the current road and deal with its shortcomings.
Bruce in Blacksburg

There were 7 different reasons for choosing the Adopted Location Corridor listed in the FEIS that were copied in the post yesterday.  The westerly alternates weren't judged to be "bad" or even "not good".

Specifically in the Martinsville area, why it was routed to the east --

The ALC was consistent with the economic development goals of Martinsville and Henry County. 

Pittsylvania County and the City of Danville strongly supported the ALC due to the proximity of the ALC to their communities and the perceived economic benefit associated with an interstate facility within 30 to 45 minutes of the majority of their population base.  IOW they didn't want it farther away on a western alignment.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 10:08:05 AM by Beltway »
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.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10756
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:28:47 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #409 on: January 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM »

^ Approvals on "economic grounds" are the same principles behind I-87 in North Carolina...an Interstate proposal you've ballyhooed in other threads.

That said, a few of those reasons can be considered legitimate...namely those you mentioned avoiding historical resources, fewer relocation impacts, wetland impacts, and coordination with other agencies (i.e. NPS' preferred Blue Ridge crossing).
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #410 on: January 18, 2019, 04:00:20 PM »

^ Approvals on "economic grounds" are the same principles behind I-87 in North Carolina...an Interstate proposal you've ballyhooed in other threads.

I objected to justification sets that are solely economic. 

I-73 between I-95 at Florence SC and I-81 at Roanoke VA, a north-south route in an corridor unserved by an Interstate, that involves several major cities, that provides connectivity with other mainline Interstate highways, IMHO fits with the concept and intent of the original Interstate highway system concept.

That said, a few of those reasons can be considered legitimate...namely those you mentioned avoiding historical resources, fewer relocation impacts, wetland impacts, and coordination with other agencies (i.e. NPS' preferred Blue Ridge crossing).

I responded to the specific comments about Martinsville, in my followup post.  I don't consider economic justifications to be illegitimate on their face, I just went to the FEIS to find out why the eastern route was chosen, and it said that there were particular places where the county comprehensive plans wanted to focus new business development, and that involves traffic needs as well.  It also mentioned new business development on VA-40 to the east of Rocky Mount and in northeastern Franklin County.

And of course it mentioned your points in your last comment above.
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #411 on: January 18, 2019, 05:20:19 PM »

Basis for Selection of the ALC
The ALC was selected over other alternatives assessed in the DEIS because of the following advantages:
This should be fun...

• The existing I-581 corridor could be modified to accept additional traffic from I-73 with substantial yet acceptable improvements with little disruption to adjacent land uses.
• Use of the existing I-581 corridor would bring traffic to the Central Business District of the City of Roanoke and would coincide with the City’s wish to have the I-73 facility constructed without bypassing the City to the east or west.
• The ALC would improve safety on existing U.S. Route 220 by removing through traffic (such as trucks, double-wides, and other commercial vehicles) from local traffic (such as school buses, emergency vehicles, and farm vehicles).
• Construction of the ALC along existing U.S. Route 220 in Roanoke City/County would avoid the newly designated Southeast Roanoke historic district.
• The ALC would address safety issues associated with the present crossing of Windy Gap at Route 116 by providing a high quality alternative to Route 116.
• The ALC would provide enhanced access to northeastern Franklin County and an expanding commercial zone located along Route 40 to the east of Rocky Mount, thereby contributing to economic growth within the corridor.


Stays the same with the "official" alignment and the western alignment. As for using the Rocky Mount Bypass, it still provides access to Route 40 easily, and if they want to continue development on it, then they can continue heading out, widen Route 40 to a four-lane roadway, and grow a business strip. Many towns and cities do that when the interstate runs near it. Rocky Mount shouldn't get an existing freeway facility completely bypassed solely to benefit them.

• The ALC was consistent with the economic development goals of Martinsville and Henry County.  Additionally just to the east of the study area Pittsylvania County and the City of Danville strongly supported the ALC due to the proximity of the ALC to their communities and the perceived economic benefit associated with an interstate facility within 30 to 45 minutes of the majority of their population base.

Locating the new interstate to the east of an existing freeway facility is a waste of money, and the current proposal from 2011-2012 near Martinsville to bulge out to the east, swing back to the west to meet US 58 bypass, ride 4-5 miles of it, then build from there is strictly to benefit Martinsville and Henry County, and has no logical reasoning. The western route is the better option IMHO, is more direct, and uses the most of existing freeways, already built to interstate (or mostly) standards.

• The ALC would result in lowest wetland impacts compared to other build alternatives considered in the DEIS.
• The ALC would have lower relocation impacts than the alternatives that improve existing U.S. Route 220, impact fewer historic resources and cross the Blue Ridge Parkway at the NPS’ preferred crossing.


Fair points for wetland impacts & relocations, but those could be reevaluated and slight modifications to avoid such things, or some of it at least could be done. For the historic property issues, if that's referring to Mill Mountain and areas near I-581, that wouldn't happen with either the existing or western alternatives. It would also still cross the Blue Ridge Parkway at the existing location. My question is would there still be an interchange with it? I don't recall interstates having direct access to parkways, but I could be wrong.

I-73 between I-95 at Florence SC and I-81 at Roanoke VA, a north-south route in an corridor unserved by an Interstate, that involves several major cities, that provides connectivity with other mainline Interstate highways, IMHO fits with the concept and intent of the original Interstate highway system concept.
Umm... which major cities? The only major cities on this route are Florence, Greensboro, and Roanoke, all of which are currently served by other interstates. You can get from I-95 South to Florence (duh), Greensboro, and Roanoke by way of interstates today, and I don't mean way out of the way like I-64 from Norfolk to Richmond to I-95 South. The others are small or medium sized towns, that's about it.

But other than that, a four-lane highway in your terms could be justified for the route, traffic wise, and is already adequately served (except the sliver in SC) very similar to I-87. The only freeway part justified fully in your terms is Asheboro to Greensboro, which carries 30,000 - 45,000 AADT. The rest of the route is about 8,000 - 15,000 AADT.

Interstate 87 will do the exact same thing Interstate 73 will, to bash I-87 but agree with I-73 seems odd to me.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #412 on: January 19, 2019, 12:38:22 PM »

Basis for Selection of the ALC
The ALC was selected over other alternatives assessed in the DEIS because of the following advantages:
• The ALC would provide enhanced access to northeastern Franklin County and an expanding commercial zone located along Route 40 to the east of Rocky Mount, thereby contributing to economic growth within the corridor. [/i]
Stays the same with the "official" alignment and the western alignment.

A western alignment would not -be- in northeastern Franklin County, nor would it be near the expanding commercial zone located along Route 40 to the east of Rocky Mount.

As for using the Rocky Mount Bypass, it still provides access to Route 40 easily, and if they want to continue development on it, then they can continue heading out, widen Route 40 to a four-lane roadway, and grow a business strip. Many towns and cities do that when the interstate runs near it. Rocky Mount shouldn't get an existing freeway facility completely bypassed solely to benefit them.

Well now, a years long NEPA EIS/location process was conducted with public hearings, official and political and resource agencies input, a Draft EIS, and Final EIS, approval by FHWA, and approval of Record of Decision.

Your questions at this point come across as rather tardy.  Did you participate in the above process?  What kind of local knowledge do you have to make recommendations about where the counties should shape their development?

The Rocky Mount Bypass is only 2.5 miles long, has 150 feet of right-of-way, and a median 25 feet wide.  I don't see that as being suitable for a Interstate highway upgrade, or at least I am quite comfortable with bypassing it as being an obsolete highway.  A I-73 freeway would need to be seamlessly connected into each end and that could easily be more complicated than simply using a fully new alignment.

• The ALC was consistent with the economic development goals of Martinsville and Henry County.  Additionally just to the east of the study area Pittsylvania County and the City of Danville strongly supported the ALC due to the proximity of the ALC to their communities and the perceived economic benefit associated with an interstate facility within 30 to 45 minutes of the majority of their population base.
Locating the new interstate to the east of an existing freeway facility is a waste of money, and the current proposal from 2011-2012 near Martinsville to bulge out to the east, swing back to the west to meet US 58 bypass, ride 4-5 miles of it, then build from there is strictly to benefit Martinsville and Henry County, and has no logical reasoning. The western route is the better option IMHO, is more direct, and uses the most of existing freeways, already built to interstate (or mostly) standards.

There is no one "western route", if you looked at the DEIS you would see that there were at least 8 different combinations possible between the various sub-alternates, and there could have been a combination of eastern and western segments.

"The economic development goals of Martinsville and Henry County" -- articles cited that they want that to occur to the east of Martinsville.  Pittsylvania County and the City of Danville want the eastern route at Martinsville, as that would put the highway about 10 miles closer to them.  Franklin County wants development shaped to the northeastern part of the county, and the county and Rocky Mount want development shaped along the VA-40 corridor east of the city. 

All those point to citizens and business persons and local elected officials all along the corridor asking for an I-73 route to the east of US-220.  Should all that input just be disregarded?

There is no significant mileage difference between eastern and western.  The connections to the Martinsville Bypass as shown in the DEIS would each use about the same mileage of it.

You may have looked at the original "red route" east of Martinsville, note that the "green route" is the approved route, and that overlaps the Martinsville Bypass.  Henry County requested the modification, and the CTB granted it --

"The Henry County Board of Supervisors requested that the CTB and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) reconsider the designated route for I-73 through Henry County to better serve a number of existing and future businesses in Henry County and to make more effective use of a portion of the current Route 58 bypass, and to foster economic development potential in the area"
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/I-73_CTB_HCA_Resolution_June_2011.pdf

Also cited was the connections to provide a bypass for VA-116 over the mountains, and that is via an eastern route.
• The ALC would address safety issues associated with the present crossing of Windy Gap at Route 116 by providing a high quality alternative to Route 116.

There is no compelling reason to argue for a western corridor at this point when we have approved FEIS and ROD.

• The ALC would result in lowest wetland impacts compared to other build alternatives considered in the DEIS.
• The ALC would have lower relocation impacts than the alternatives that improve existing U.S. Route 220, impact fewer historic resources and cross the Blue Ridge Parkway at the NPS’ preferred crossing.

Fair points for wetland impacts & relocations, but those could be reevaluated and slight modifications to avoid such things, or some of it at least could be done.

Please detail exactly how that should be done.  No sweeping generalizations.

For the historic property issues, if that's referring to Mill Mountain and areas near I-581, that wouldn't happen with either the existing or western alternatives. It would also still cross the Blue Ridge Parkway at the existing location. My question is would there still be an interchange with it? I don't recall interstates having direct access to parkways, but I could be wrong.

The ALC crosses the Parkway four miles east of the US-220 location, and that distance or more depending on the western sub-alternate.

I-73 between I-95 at Florence SC and I-81 at Roanoke VA, a north-south route in an corridor unserved by an Interstate, that involves several major cities, that provides connectivity with other mainline Interstate highways, IMHO fits with the concept and intent of the original Interstate highway system concept.
Umm... which major cities? The only major cities on this route are Florence, Greensboro, and Roanoke, all of which are currently served by other interstates. You can get from I-95 South to Florence (duh), Greensboro, and Roanoke by way of interstates today, and I don't mean way out of the way like I-64 from Norfolk to Richmond to I-95 South. The others are small or medium sized towns, that's about it.

I-73 would provide a more direct route for cities and towns and areas that it would serve, and highways like I-77 and I-95 could use some relief.

But other than that, a four-lane highway in your terms could be justified for the route, traffic wise, and is already adequately served (except the sliver in SC) very similar to I-87. The only freeway part justified fully in your terms is Asheboro to Greensboro, which carries 30,000 - 45,000 AADT. The rest of the route is about 8,000 - 15,000 AADT.

US-220 AADTs are about 12,000 south of Martinsville, about 16,000 between Martinsville and Rocky Mount, and about 24,000 on the rural sections north of Rocky Mount.  I-73 meets today's warrants, and traffic will only grow in the future.

Interstate 87 will do the exact same thing Interstate 73 will, to bash I-87 but agree with I-73 seems odd to me.

VI-87 (Vanity Interstate 87) will do nothing of the sort, as I have detailed many times.

The problem I-73 is the cost, $4 billion for building that 70 miles of highway.  I have -many- times spoke caution and have questioned whether that kind of money can be found.  While I agree with the routing and purpose and mission of I-73, I am highly questionable as to whether it can be funded in today's construction costs.

Just read what I have posted in this thread, I have had a -lot- of reservations about the I-73 project.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 12:57:00 PM by Beltway »
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #413 on: January 19, 2019, 03:23:28 PM »

A western alignment would not -be- in northeastern Franklin County, nor would it be near the expanding commercial zone located along Route 40 to the east of Rocky Mount.
Using the existing Rocky Mount Bypass, it would. Plus, north of the Rocky Mount bypass, my "alignment" would be on the east side at that point.

The Rocky Mount Bypass is only 2.5 miles long, has 150 feet of right-of-way, and a median 25 feet wide.  I don't see that as being suitable for a Interstate highway upgrade, or at least I am quite comfortable with bypassing it as being an obsolete highway.  A I-73 freeway would need to be seamlessly connected into each end and that could easily be more complicated than simply using a fully new alignment.
They had no problems in Asheboro, NC using the previous U.S. 220 Bypass built in 1966 when upgrading to I-73 / I-74. It had a 20 ft wide raised median, no shoulders, substandard interchanges, etc. A project about 5 years ago replaced the median with shoulders + barrier, added 10 ft shoulders, and reconstructed the substandard interchanges and their merge on I-73 / I-74.

I too like the concept of a farther out, interstate-standard alignment, but it was just a concept to use the existing if they were to phase construction.

You may have looked at the original "red route" east of Martinsville, note that the "green route" is the approved route, and that overlaps the Martinsville Bypass.  Henry County requested the modification, and the CTB granted it --

"The Henry County Board of Supervisors requested that the CTB and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) reconsider the designated route for I-73 through Henry County to better serve a number of existing and future businesses in Henry County and to make more effective use of a portion of the current Route 58 bypass, and to foster economic development potential in the area"
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/I-73_CTB_HCA_Resolution_June_2011.pdf
That is the concept I looked at. It uses 4-5 miles of the U.S. 58 Bypass, whereas a western alignment in the southern portion of the corridor would use about 8-9 miles of the U.S. 220 bypass, and require less construction overall. Even at this point, a western alignment could be used at Martinsville, then at the north end of the U.S. 220 bypass, begin to veer east to the original, proposal alignment, including new location at Rocky Mount. The only portion a western alignment would be the best is on the southern part of the corridor, because it uses more existing, interstate standard freeway, and could be phased out, like building this Martinsville Southern Connector to meet it. If they built a Martinsville Southern Connector to the U.S. 58 east bypass, then it would go almost no use. A western connector would get plenty of north-south thru traffic use.


Also cited was the connections to provide a bypass for VA-116 over the mountains, and that is via an eastern route.
• The ALC would address safety issues associated with the present crossing of Windy Gap at Route 116 by providing a high quality alternative to Route 116.

There is no compelling reason to argue for a western corridor at this point when we have approved FEIS and ROD.
At this point, an eastern alignment would be used no matter what... I said that above. And the argument goes for the Martinsville area, unless they build the eastern alignment from North Carolina to Roanoke in one construction project, it wouldn't have much reason to be built. A western Martinsville alignment can be phased out and every segment use would carry U.S. 220 traffic, then veer back to the east north of Martinsville.

I-73 / I-74 in North Carolina was segmented, and crosses U.S. 220 many times. Each junction at U.S. 220 was the end of one construction project. A project later on extended the freeway more. For instance, where I-73 / I-74 crosses U.S. 220 south of Asheboro, that 1966 freeway ended there until it was extended in 1997. Where it crosses U.S. 220 again north of Star, it turns into 1979 freeway. Where it crosses U.S. 220 south of Candor, it becomes 2008 freeway. Where U.S. 220 four-lanes south of Ellerbee, that was upgraded to interstate standards in 2017 by construction of frontage roads and an interchange. A proposed Rockingham Bypass also has ramp stubs for when it will be built in the future. Segmenting the U.S. 220 upgrades is what allowed it to all be built. There was no way all 70 miles of I-73 could've been built all in one segment. Where I-74 splits off north of Asheboro, it parallels U.S. 311 and was built in segments to High Point. The High Point Bypass opened in 2005, the Archdale Bypass opened in September 2011, and the remainder opened in June 2013. Those 3 projects created 25 miles of freeway, and ties into another 11 miles of 1984 freeway north of High Point, which then merges into I-40.


I-73 would provide a more direct route for cities and towns and areas that it would serve, and highways like I-77 and I-95 could use some relief.
And I-87 would bring the towns along the U.S. 17 corridor interstate access, and would provide some relief to I-95 from Rocky Mount to Emporia with traffic taken off of it.

US-220 AADTs are about 12,000 south of Martinsville, about 16,000 between Martinsville and Rocky Mount, and about 24,000 on the rural sections north of Rocky Mount.  I-73 meets today's warrants, and traffic will only grow in the future.
And yet, aren't you the one who kept pressing before that the existing 4-lane highway is adequate? There was a whole debate a few pages back about this.

VI-87 (Vanity Interstate 87) will do nothing of the sort, as I have detailed many times.
The same general thing that I-73 will, link the towns along the corridor together and connect two major metro areas. If North Carolina could build a direct route they would, but Virginia holds that, and won't upgrade U.S. 58, so they are the best second option. North Carolina has reasons within their borders to build it, and even with slightly more milage, if you're able to get on I-87 at Norfolk and get off at Raleigh, then it is connecting the two areas via one interstate. Nobody said it has to be the most direct routing to link the areas.

If you truly have an issue, I'd recommend you write elected officials in North Carolina and Virginia and provide your comments and reasons it's not a justified project. Back-and-forthing here doesn't communicate to the people who can actually make a change in the project or reconsider it.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #414 on: January 20, 2019, 08:50:29 AM »

A western alignment would not -be- in northeastern Franklin County, nor would it be near the expanding commercial zone located along Route 40 to the east of Rocky Mount.
Using the existing Rocky Mount Bypass, it would. Plus, north of the Rocky Mount bypass, my "alignment" would be on the east side at that point.

So for the 16 miles between Rocky Mount and the Southwest Expressway you would recommend the eastern alignment similar to the ALC except that it ties into the Rocky Mount Bypass.

The Rocky Mount Bypass is only 2.5 miles long, has 150 feet of right-of-way, and a median 25 feet wide.  I don't see that as being suitable for a Interstate highway upgrade, or at least I am quite comfortable with bypassing it as being an obsolete highway.  A I-73 freeway would need to be seamlessly connected into each end and that could easily be more complicated than simply using a fully new alignment.
They had no problems in Asheboro, NC using the previous U.S. 220 Bypass built in 1966 when upgrading to I-73 / I-74. It had a 20 ft wide raised median, no shoulders, substandard interchanges, etc. A project about 5 years ago replaced the median with shoulders + barrier, added 10 ft shoulders, and reconstructed the substandard interchanges and their merge on I-73 / I-74.

Apples and oranges.  That bypass was about 8 miles long for one thing.  You may as well try to compare it to how I-95 was routed around Ashland and Fredericksburg and Woodbridge, or thru Baltimore for that matter -- every corridor has its own unique characteristics.

The Rocky Mount Bypass is short, for use in I-73 it would need complex connections at each end (*), it would need more right-of-way, and it would need total reconstruction of pavement, drainage and bridges.  That would cost as much as simply bypassing it as in the I-73 ALC.

(*) A simple flying junction between arterial US-29 and the Amherst Bypass had to be reconstructed to this more complex interchange when the Madison Heights Bypass was tied into it to make a seamless freeway and seamless business route -- https://tinyurl.com/y9hjfm78

I too like the concept of a farther out, interstate-standard alignment, but it was just a concept to use the existing if they were to phase construction.

A 4-laned segment of VA-40 could be a temporary tie-in between a segment of ALC I-73 and US-220.  Questions about the efficiency but it could stand in for a time.

You may have looked at the original "red route" east of Martinsville, note that the "green route" is the approved route, and that overlaps the Martinsville Bypass.  Henry County requested the modification, and the CTB granted it --
That is the concept I looked at. It uses 4-5 miles of the U.S. 58 Bypass, whereas a western alignment in the southern portion of the corridor would use about 8-9 miles of the U.S. 220 bypass, and require less construction overall.

I don't think it would be that much; 5 miles is apparent on the east and it would be maybe 7 miles on the west.

Even at this point, a western alignment could be used at Martinsville, then at the north end of the U.S. 220 bypass, begin to veer east to the original, proposal alignment, including new location at Rocky Mount. The only portion a western alignment would be the best is on the southern part of the corridor, because it uses more existing, interstate standard freeway, and could be phased out, like building this Martinsville Southern Connector to meet it. If they built a Martinsville Southern Connector to the U.S. 58 east bypass, then it would go almost no use. A western connector would get plenty of north-south thru traffic use.

But that is not what the localities requested, they (Martinsville, Henry County, Danville, Pittsylvania County) requested that I-73 be built EAST of Martinsville.

The ALC has 5 interchanges in the Martinsville area.  Possibly the northernmost one could be omitted and the alignment shortened a bit (maybe 1/2 mile).  But this access pattern is what the localities asked for.

Should some slight possible increase (which I question) in engineering efficiency trump what those localities requested for how they want I-73 to service their areas?

An obvious consideration is that with the I-73 ALC, the entire current route of US-220 will still exist and will be usable for local access and business development along its route.  So there will be a "western route", a 4-lane high speed arterial highway that has much lower volumes of traffic and which should be able to operate much more safely.

Also cited was the connections to provide a bypass for VA-116 over the mountains, and that is via an eastern route.
• The ALC would address safety issues associated with the present crossing of Windy Gap at Route 116 by providing a high quality alternative to Route 116.
There is no compelling reason to argue for a western corridor at this point when we have approved FEIS and ROD.
At this point, an eastern alignment would be used no matter what... I said that above. And the argument goes for the Martinsville area, unless they build the eastern alignment from North Carolina to Roanoke in one construction project, it wouldn't have much reason to be built. A western Martinsville alignment can be phased out and every segment use would carry U.S. 220 traffic, then veer back to the east north of Martinsville.

I can see 6 separately buildable segments on the ALC --
-- N.C. to US-58 including upgrading the segment of Bypass
-- US-58 to US-220 two miles north of Henry/Franklin county line.
-- US-220 two miles north of Henry/Franklin county line to VA-40 including 4-laning of VA-40 to US-220
-- VA-40 to US-220 two miles south of Roanoke
-- US-220 two miles south of Roanoke to Southwest Expressway
-- Upgrade Southwest Expressway and I-581

US-220 two miles south of Roanoke to Southwest Expressway involves upgrading along existing US-220 and would probably be the highest priority from a traffic standpoint.

I-73 / I-74 in North Carolina was segmented, and crosses U.S. 220 many times.

Yeah yeah, yeah yeah … like I said every highway is different and just because it is I-73 doesn't mean that because something is done a certain way that it should be done everywhere.  Nearly all of the old US-220 was a 2-lane highway, for one thing.  Like you said construction began in the 1960s, and it was just a US-220 bypass at that point, and construction moved slowly.

I-73 would provide a more direct route for cities and towns and areas that it would serve, and highways like I-77 and I-95 could use some relief.
And I-87 would bring the towns along the U.S. 17 corridor interstate access, and would provide some relief to I-95 from Rocky Mount to Emporia with traffic taken off of it.

They don't need it, and VI-87 will not provide relief to I-95.

US-220 AADTs are about 12,000 south of Martinsville, about 16,000 between Martinsville and Rocky Mount, and about 24,000 on the rural sections north of Rocky Mount.  I-73 meets today's warrants, and traffic will only grow in the future.
And yet, aren't you the one who kept pressing before that the existing 4-lane highway is adequate? There was a whole debate a few pages back about this.

The umpteen times that I have mentioned the $4 billion cost, like in my last post that you quoted but apparently elided that cost figure.

We are in an era since about 2005 where there are needed highway projects that meet traffic warrants, yet the costs of heavy construction have increased so much that some of them will be deemed unfundable.

VI-87 (Vanity Interstate 87) will do nothing of the sort, as I have detailed many times.
The same general thing that I-73 will, link the towns along the corridor together and connect two major metro areas. If North Carolina could build a direct route they would, but Virginia holds that, and won't upgrade U.S. 58, so they are the best second option.

VDOT and HRTAC -are- upgrading US-58, there are 4 major projects now in the works between Courtland and I-64/I-264/I-664, and one that was just completed.

North Carolina has reasons within their borders to build it, and even with slightly more milage, if you're able to get on I-87 at Norfolk and get off at Raleigh, then it is connecting the two areas via one interstate. Nobody said it has to be the most direct routing to link the areas.

Not "slightly" more mileage, about 25 more miles.  No more usable for connecting the two areas than I-64 and I-95 thru Richmond.

If you truly have an issue, I'd recommend you write elected officials in North Carolina and Virginia and provide your comments and reasons it's not a justified project. Back-and-forthing here doesn't communicate to the people who can actually make a change in the project or reconsider it.

I could say that about your complaints about the ALC alignment of I-73 that was finalized in 2012.
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #415 on: January 20, 2019, 01:14:02 PM »

So for the 16 miles between Rocky Mount and the Southwest Expressway you would recommend the eastern alignment similar to the ALC except that it ties into the Rocky Mount Bypass.
The 30 miles the U.S. 220 junction just north of Oak Level. I would say, if the existing bypass is cheaper to upgrade, it should be tie into it, but if a new alignment bypass is cheaper or the same costs, that would be the better route IMHO.

You may as well try to compare it to how I-95 was routed around Ashland and Fredericksburg and Woodbridge, or thru Baltimore for that matter -- every corridor has its own unique characteristics.
All of those examples did not have pre-existing freeways thru them. Rocky Mount does. It was just an option if it were to be cheaper to simply upgrade the existing. If building a new bypass is cheaper or the same costs, I'd say that's the better route.

(*) A simple flying junction between arterial US-29 and the Amherst Bypass had to be reconstructed to this more complex interchange when the Madison Heights Bypass was tied into it to make a seamless freeway and seamless business route -- https://tinyurl.com/y9hjfm78
That is a nice connection, I've driven it before. I will admit though it probably could've been done in a simpler way, by simply paralleling Route 29 Business along side of it instead of the weave over it to have tie in ramps. I'm not saying I'm against the concept they used, I'm just saying it could've been done less complex.

A 4-laned segment of VA-40 could be a temporary tie-in between a segment of ALC I-73 and US-220.  Questions about the efficiency but it could stand in for a time.
If VA-40 was improved, a concept like that could work.

I don't think it would be that much; 5 miles is apparent on the east and it would be maybe 7 miles on the west.

But that is not what the localities requested, they (Martinsville, Henry County, Danville, Pittsylvania County) requested that I-73 be built EAST of Martinsville.

The ALC has 5 interchanges in the Martinsville area.  Possibly the northernmost one could be omitted and the alignment shortened a bit (maybe 1/2 mile).  But this access pattern is what the localities asked for.

Should some slight possible increase (which I question) in engineering efficiency trump what those localities requested for how they want I-73 to service their areas?

An obvious consideration is that with the I-73 ALC, the entire current route of US-220 will still exist and will be usable for local access and business development along its route.  So there will be a "western route", a 4-lane high speed arterial highway that has much lower volumes of traffic and which should be able to operate much more safely.
I drew up this sketch on Google My Maps to depict the "western" and "eastern route". The only part I'm "recommending" a western routing is from NC to north of Oak Level. The rest of it would still be the eastern route.

The eastern route is 30 miles, the western route is 25 miles. The eastern route would involve 26 miles of new freeway, and 4 miles of existing. The western route would involve 17 miles of new freeway, and 8 miles of existing. The milage isn't that much difference, but the amount of construction required is reduced by 9 miles on the western alignment, and that could save as much as $400 million, a significant amount.



I can see 6 separately buildable segments on the ALC --
-- N.C. to US-58 including upgrading the segment of Bypass
-- US-58 to US-220 two miles north of Henry/Franklin county line.
-- US-220 two miles north of Henry/Franklin county line to VA-40 including 4-laning of VA-40 to US-220
-- VA-40 to US-220 two miles south of Roanoke
-- US-220 two miles south of Roanoke to Southwest Expressway
-- Upgrade Southwest Expressway and I-581

US-220 two miles south of Roanoke to Southwest Expressway involves upgrading along existing US-220 and would probably be the highest priority from a traffic standpoint.
I agree with this, but if the eastern route were to work, the Martinsville leg would need to be constructed last. Right now, the Martinsville leg is the first piece that is under study to be built, and if you built an eastern route now, it would cost about $200 million, and wouldn't service much traffic. If a western alignment was constructed, it would speed traffic right onto the existing US-220 bypass.

VDOT and HRTAC -are- upgrading US-58, there are 4 major projects now in the works between Courtland and I-64/I-264/I-664, and one that was just completed.
Which projects? One between I-64 and Suffolk would upgrade the highway to interstate standards (IIRC, it would be a very expensive project to build a couple of interchanges), but there's no other freeway upgrade projects beyond that point.

I will give a lot of credit to HRTAC, they've been speeding up some needed projects in the Hampton Roads area in the past 5-10 years, and upcoming with I-64, HRBT, High Rise, I-264 interchange, etc.

I could say that about your complaints about the ALC alignment of I-73 that was finalized in 2012.
I do plan on submitting input during the comment period for the Martinsville Southern Connector, which is evaluating a western route yet again. It's not fully off the table. They wouldn't build a western route, then build a new I-73 to the east. Whatever route the connector is built on will become I-73, which is why it's being built to interstate standards.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #416 on: January 21, 2019, 12:48:41 AM »

An obvious consideration is that with the I-73 ALC, the entire current route of US-220 will still exist and will be usable for local access and business development along its route.  So there will be a "western route", a 4-lane high speed arterial highway that has much lower volumes of traffic and which should be able to operate much more safely.
I drew up this sketch on Google My Maps to depict the "western" and "eastern route". The only part I'm "recommending" a western routing is from NC to north of Oak Level. The rest of it would still be the eastern route.
The eastern route is 30 miles, the western route is 25 miles. The eastern route would involve 26 miles of new freeway, and 4 miles of existing. The western route would involve 17 miles of new freeway, and 8 miles of existing. The milage isn't that much difference, but the amount of construction required is reduced by 9 miles on the western alignment, and that could save as much as $400 million, a significant amount.

A new well-western route south of the Martinsville Bypass like what you show, never made it to the alternates screening per the FEIS alternates map.  A western route alternate does follow close along existing US-220.  Add 2 miles to your western route.

Given the age of the Martinsville Bypass, around 30 years as I recall, use for an Interstate highway would essentially involve a total rebuild of pavement, bridges and drainage, and not necessarily be any less costly than a new alignment.

Your eastern route northern part balloons well out from the ALC.  Subtract 2 miles from your eastern route.  Based on the feasible routes studied in the DEIS you might get 1 mile less on a western route.  Not really enough to be concerned about.

But that is not what the localities requested, they (Martinsville, Henry County, Danville, Pittsylvania County) requested that I-73 be built EAST of Martinsville.  EAST OF MARTINSVILLE.

VDOT and HRTAC -are- upgrading US-58, there are 4 major projects now in the works between Courtland and I-64/I-264/I-664, and one that was just completed.
Which projects? One between I-64 and Suffolk would upgrade the highway to interstate standards (IIRC, it would be a very expensive project to build a couple of interchanges), but there's no other freeway upgrade projects beyond that point.

The other three --
-- Bowers Hill Interchange upgrade
-- Widening to 6 lanes and access management from Suffolk Bypass to 3.5 miles westward
-- Freeway connection/extension between Courtland and Franklin bypasses

They all have to do with increasing capacity and maintaining or improving travel times, and it doesn't mean that every project has to be a freeway.  The HPC 13 corridor is already 30 to 40 minutes longer than US-58 and I-95, and given the improvements above I seriously doubt that extra time number will ever be reduced even if segments of VI-87 start getting built.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2019, 12:50:50 AM by Beltway »
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #417 on: January 21, 2019, 01:18:40 AM »

Given the age of the Martinsville Bypass, around 30 years as I recall, use for an Interstate highway would essentially involve a total rebuild of pavement, bridges and drainage, and not necessarily be any less costly than a new alignment.
It opened in 1976 and 1977, about 45 years old. Have you ever driven on it though? I was on it about a month ago, and it seemed pretty suitable as an interstate-grade to me. Wide shoulders, wide travel lanes, wide clear sides, smooth pavement. I don't see any needed "reconstruction". I could see them repaving it, and possibly adding 2-3 ft to the outer shoulder, but that's about it.

Your eastern route northern part balloons well out from the ALC.  Subtract 2 miles from your eastern route.
The HCA is the one which balloons out, the ALC was more direct. I'm going off Henry County's proposal from about 5 years ago. In that case, my routing is correct.

But that is not what the localities requested, they (Martinsville, Henry County, Danville, Pittsylvania County) requested that I-73 be built EAST of Martinsville.  EAST OF MARTINSVILLE.
If it comes down to being $100+ million more to build an eastern route, they can deal with the interstate-grade US-58 they already have. Also constructing the Martinsville Southern Connector to the east doesn't make any sense with no I-73 to the north. If they can find a way to make a direct, eastern route, and not the HCA that has a funky routing, I could possibly see it. Also, consider the Martinsville Southern Connector. They aren't going to build it to somewhere it won't serve much traffic.

The other three --
-- Bowers Hill Interchange upgrade
I'll be honest, I've seen the plans for this interchange, and considering the current interchange, I don't see them actually investing in this for many years. The interchange is relatively fine as it is today, and spending hundreds of millions to improve it with a few flyovers seems like a waste IMHO.

-- Widening to 6 lanes and access management from Suffolk Bypass to 3.5 miles westward
This doesn't support any freeway upgrades through the area, IIRC they studied a freeway bypass in the past, but chose this over it because of expensive costs. This is more of an "urban project" in a sense, it will reduce some congestion which can be pretty bad. I'm glad to see this project starting soon.

-- Freeway connection/extension between Courtland and Franklin bypasses
I recall a study on that 2 mile corridor and the recommendation of a freeway connection, but there's been no further talk of it, in detailed studies, etc. about it. It's going to be many years until something along those lines come to fruition.

The HPC 13 corridor is already 30 to 40 minutes longer than US-58 and I-95
Woah, hold up, 30-40 minutes? Make that about 20 minutes. Nowhere near 40 minutes. Have you ever driven it before?

I seriously doubt that extra time number will ever be reduced even if segments of VI-87 start getting built.
You can try to dispute it as much as you want, but there will a significant time reduction on the I-87 corridor once it's upgraded to interstate standards, and it will match or be 1-2 minutes slower than US-58. It's not going to continue to be 20 (not 40) minutes slower if it's all 70 MPH. Plus have you seen the way some people drive on interstates? At those speeds, easily beat 58.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10756
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:28:47 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #418 on: January 21, 2019, 08:20:28 AM »

^ Martinsville Bypass would be more in between what you two are arguing.  Won't need as much as Beltway suggests, but would require full shoulder reconstruction (depth as well as more width), and the interchange at the north end (VA 57 West) has substandard ramps so a full interchange rebuild  (and probably redesign) there would also be needed.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #419 on: January 21, 2019, 10:06:50 AM »

^ Martinsville Bypass would be more in between what you two are arguing.  Won't need as much as Beltway suggests, but would require full shoulder reconstruction (depth as well as more width), and the interchange at the north end (VA 57 West) has substandard ramps so a full interchange rebuild  (and probably redesign) there would also be needed.

Per your website the US-220 section was completed in 1978 and the eastern section in 1993.

Pavement design is not something you can see just by looking at a completed roadway from above.  Based on the typical asphalt pavement designs of that 1970s era for an arterial bypass, a modern Interstate design would add at least 8 inches of asphalt.  Shoulder designs then were fairly thin as well.  Bridges over 40 years old would be replaced.
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #420 on: January 21, 2019, 12:16:35 PM »

^ Martinsville Bypass would be more in between what you two are arguing.  Won't need as much as Beltway suggests, but would require full shoulder reconstruction (depth as well as more width), and the interchange at the north end (VA 57 West) has substandard ramps so a full interchange rebuild  (and probably redesign) there would also be needed.
The alignment I suggested diverts from U.S. 220 Bypass just south of the substandard cloverleaf.

Per your website the US-220 section was completed in 1978 and the eastern section in 1993.

Pavement design is not something you can see just by looking at a completed roadway from above.  Based on the typical asphalt pavement designs of that 1970s era for an arterial bypass, a modern Interstate design would add at least 8 inches of asphalt.  Shoulder designs then were fairly thin as well.  Bridges over 40 years old would be replaced.
[/quote]
I agree the shoulders would have to be reconstructed & widened, but I wouldn't see much more issues with it. They're incorporating older 1960s & 1970s US-64 freeway in North Carolina into Interstate 87 east of Raleigh by simply widening the shoulder to 10ft & reconstruction. No bridges are being replaced except at minor ramp realignments where it's needed. Interstate 73 was incorporated into 60s & 70s US-220 sections south of Greensboro. No bridges were replaced as far as I'm aware, maybe slight ramp realignments and a repaving of the surface, but that's it.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #421 on: January 21, 2019, 01:45:53 PM »

Quote from: Beltway
Per your website the US-220 section was completed in 1978 and the eastern section in 1993.
Pavement design is not something you can see just by looking at a completed roadway from above.  Based on the typical asphalt pavement designs of that 1970s era for an arterial bypass, a modern Interstate design would add at least 8 inches of asphalt.  Shoulder designs then were fairly thin as well.  Bridges over 40 years old would be replaced.
I agree the shoulders would have to be reconstructed & widened, but I wouldn't see much more issues with it.

I just pointed out what is wrong with using your eyeball to evaluate a pavement design on a completed highway.

They're incorporating older 1960s & 1970s US-64 freeway in North Carolina into Interstate 87 east of Raleigh by simply widening the shoulder to 10ft & reconstruction. No bridges are being replaced except at minor ramp realignments where it's needed. Interstate 73 was incorporated into 60s & 70s US-220 sections south of Greensboro. No bridges were replaced as far as I'm aware, maybe slight ramp realignments and a repaving of the surface, but that's it.

I cited what VDOT would have built according the arterial bypass standards of the time.  Either NCDOT built those pavements to higher standards or else they are engaging in substandard engineering.  As for incorporating 40-year-old bridges into a new Interstate project that is substandard engineering anywhere.

Why are you so invested in recycling illegitimate and refuted claims about VI-87 time performance once again?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2019, 01:48:47 PM by Beltway »
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #422 on: January 21, 2019, 01:57:05 PM »

I cited what VDOT would have built according the arterial bypass standards of the time.  Either NCDOT built those pavements to higher standards or else they are engaging in substandard engineering.  As for incorporating 40-year-old bridges into a new Interstate project that is substandard engineering anywhere.
They've done it before, my I-87 example was just one. I-73, I-74, the brand new I-285 designation, and a few other highways have done it. If the bridge is structurally safe, meets current width requirements, etc. I see no reason to replace it. They are still replacing the substandard bridges on these highways, it's just the ones that are in-tact and meet width requirements for interstates will remain. Most of the bridges on the US-220 bypass meet those standards/

Why are you so invested in recycling illegitimate and refuted claims about VI-87 time performance once again?
Umm... because I've timed it out and driven on it before? Have you actually driven it before? They're not "illegitimate", they're the facts. You cannot "refute" facts.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5363
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:47 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #423 on: January 21, 2019, 02:06:36 PM »

I cited what VDOT would have built according the arterial bypass standards of the time.  Either NCDOT built those pavements to higher standards or else they are engaging in substandard engineering.  As for incorporating 40-year-old bridges into a new Interstate project that is substandard engineering anywhere.
They've done it before, my I-87 example was just one. I-73, I-74, the brand new I-285 designation, and a few other highways have done it. If the bridge is structurally safe, meets current width requirements, etc. I see no reason to replace it. They are still replacing the substandard bridges on these highways, it's just the ones that are in-tact and meet width requirements for interstates will remain. Most of the bridges on the US-220 bypass meet those standards/

After 40 years, the bridge would be at or near the end of its structural lifespan for use on an Interstate highway, especially given today's truck weights.  There might be other issues such as width of roadway and vertical clearance.  It makes sense to go ahead and replace it now than in a few years.

Why are you so invested in recycling illegitimate and refuted claims about VI-87 time performance once again?
Umm... because I've timed it out and driven on it before? Have you actually driven it before? They're not "illegitimate", they're the facts. You cannot "refute" facts.

You don't have any facts WRT this issue.
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

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:43 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #424 on: January 21, 2019, 02:13:41 PM »

After 40 years, the bridge would be at or near the end of its structural lifespan for use on an Interstate highway, especially given today's truck weights.  There might be other issues such as width of roadway and vertical clearance.  It makes sense to go ahead and replace it now than in a few years.
How about every interstate that's been in service for 40+ years? It's all a dependency of funding. If they can widen the shoulders on these highways and designate an interstate on it, they will do that. If later on, funding becomes available, they will replace the bridges, the same process as the existing interstates.
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.