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/y9hjfm78I 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.