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 97438 times)

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #425 on: January 21, 2019, 02:22:35 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.

Start off with a brand new highway.  Then enjoy a few decades where at first there is minimal maintenance, then later there are resurfacings, then much later (like 40+ years), bridges will need deck replacements or maybe full replacement.

If some other states want to do differently that is their choice.  But I will defend the practice of states that do it as I said for Interstate design and new construction 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: 2246
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:43:57 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #426 on: January 21, 2019, 02:37:22 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.

Start off with a brand new highway.  Then enjoy a few decades where at first there is minimal maintenance, then later there are resurfacings, then much later (like 40+ years), bridges will need deck replacements or maybe full replacement.

If some other states want to do differently that is their choice.  But I will defend the practice of states that do it as I said for Interstate design and new construction standards.
Yeah, I think North Carolina adheres to a different standard than VDOT. Whenever new interstates / freeways are built, they will generally incorporate older bridges that currently service traffic into the existing system. We discussed the long-bridges on US-17 near Williamston, Edenton, and Hertford. Those are examples of that - incorporating older bridges into the interstate. Those would still meet interstate standards, long-bridges can have shoulders of 4 ft on both sides if it's older. I must admit VDOT is better with maintenance and maintaining the roadways / bridges. Less so in North Carolina. Sometimes I feel they're more focused on constructing new freeways than maintaining what they already have. This could come back to hurt them in the future. Having new highways isn't a bad thing, it's just they need to balance it with maintaining existing infrastructure.
Logged

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1494
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: Today at 01:20:20 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #427 on: January 21, 2019, 02:37:35 PM »

I say we compromise and build I-73 straight through the middle of Martinsville.
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #428 on: January 21, 2019, 02:55:09 PM »

I say we compromise and build I-73 straight through the middle of Martinsville.

I say let the localities have input on where to route the highway.  The I-73 Henry County Alternative of 2011 is what the city and county wanted, to help support two new major developments planned to the north and northeast of the city, and the highway is an extension of the east end of the bypass on a route to the north.  If it is a couple miles longer than a theoretical western route, then so be it.  A western route would not access these.

Like I said there already is a western route, the US-220 4-lane that exists today, and which will continue to exist.

In the case of limited access highway being bypassed by a new Interstate highway, one possible treatment would be to evaluate that old limited access highway and consider decertifying the limited access right-of-way, so that over time new businesses and homes could be built along and with direct access to the highway.  The US-220 bypasses at Rocky Mount and Martinsville would most likely be in this category, pending a traffic study.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2019, 02:57:17 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.

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: September 19, 2019, 01:48:59 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #429 on: January 21, 2019, 03:34:51 PM »

I am just glad they're serious about building the MSC. Even though I support the western alignment (ties into US 220 Martinsville bypass), since the locals do want I-73 to be built EAST of the town, the locals always win.

I plan on attending the MSC workshop on Wednesday to find out which alignment they want to build at this time.

And, yes, once the MSC is completed, it can be incorporated into I-73.

Build the MSC!
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2246
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:43:57 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #430 on: January 21, 2019, 04:27:19 PM »

I say we compromise and build I-73 straight through the middle of Martinsville.

I say let the localities have input on where to route the highway.  The I-73 Henry County Alternative of 2011 is what the city and county wanted, to help support two new major developments planned to the north and northeast of the city, and the highway is an extension of the east end of the bypass on a route to the north.  If it is a couple miles longer than a theoretical western route, then so be it.  A western route would not access these.
Actually, there would always be eastern access no matter what. US-58 Bypass connects this area straight to a western I-73 via a limited-access freeway.

In the case of limited access highway being bypassed by a new Interstate highway, one possible treatment would be to evaluate that old limited access highway and consider decertifying the limited access right-of-way, so that over time new businesses and homes could be built along and with direct access to the highway.  The US-220 bypasses at Rocky Mount and Martinsville would most likely be in this category, pending a traffic study.
That would be a big mistake. It would still get traffic heading to developments / businesses located on the west part of Martinsville, and to convert it down to a non-limited-access roadway would have serious consequences.

I am just glad they're serious about building the MSC. Even though I support the western alignment (ties into US 220 Martinsville bypass), since the locals do want I-73 to be built EAST of the town, the locals always win.

I plan on attending the MSC workshop on Wednesday to find out which alignment they want to build at this time.

And, yes, once the MSC is completed, it can be incorporated into I-73.

Build the MSC!
Agreed, but like I mentioned before an eastern alignment wouldn't service much traffic until the rest of this "eastern" alignment for I-73 is built, which won't happen for years after MSC is built. I wouldn't say the locals would support an alignment heading nowhere as opposed to a western alignment servicing thru-traffic. If they realize this is all that's getting built now, there could be a change in interest.

I don't think a "preferred" alternative is currently decided yet, but I'll be sure to submit an online comment about this supporting the western route.
Logged

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: September 19, 2019, 01:48:59 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #431 on: January 21, 2019, 04:32:28 PM »

The preferred alternative may not be decided until late Summer or Fall 2019, however. We will just see which alternatives that has the most likes on Wednesday.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #432 on: January 21, 2019, 05:17:09 PM »

I say let the localities have input on where to route the highway.  The I-73 Henry County Alternative of 2011 is what the city and county wanted, to help support two new major developments planned to the north and northeast of the city, and the highway is an extension of the east end of the bypass on a route to the north.  If it is a couple miles longer than a theoretical western route, then so be it.  A western route would not access these.
Actually, there would always be eastern access no matter what. US-58 Bypass connects this area straight to a western I-73 via a limited-access freeway.

It would not directly access them, they would be on the opposite side of the city from the Interstate and only accessible by 2-lane roads.  Look at the 2012 ALC map.  IOW, poor access versus excellent access.

In the case of limited access highway being bypassed by a new Interstate highway, one possible treatment would be to evaluate that old limited access highway and consider decertifying the limited access right-of-way, so that over time new businesses and homes could be built along and with direct access to the highway.  The US-220 bypasses at Rocky Mount and Martinsville would most likely be in this category, pending a traffic study.
That would be a big mistake. It would still get traffic heading to developments / businesses located on the west part of Martinsville, and to convert it down to a non-limited-access roadway would have serious consequences.

Not if the traffic dropped down to below 10,000 vpd with only light truck traffic.  If traffic studies showed that to be the case then that would make much better local use of those segments.

Agreed, but like I mentioned before an eastern alignment wouldn't service much traffic until the rest of this "eastern" alignment for I-73 is built, which won't happen for years after MSC is built. I wouldn't say the locals would support an alignment heading nowhere as opposed to a western alignment servicing thru-traffic. If they realize this is all that's getting built now, there could be a change in interest.

Then delay building the MSC until the rest of the ALC up to US-220 just north of the Henry/Franklin county line is ready to be funded.  The MSC by itself has very little utility.

The preferred alternative may not be decided until late Summer or Fall 2019, however. We will just see which alternatives that has the most likes on Wednesday.

Given the age of the FEIS (2006) there will be need for an SFEIS and possibly even a new EIS process, to meet NEPA standards, for the entire route between the N.C. and I-81.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2019, 05:19:53 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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2246
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:43:57 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #433 on: January 21, 2019, 05:56:48 PM »

It would not directly access them, they would be on the opposite side of the city from the Interstate and only accessible by 2-lane roads.  Look at the 2012 ALC map.  IOW, poor access versus excellent access.
I'm confused. Which developments are you referring to and where?

Not if the traffic dropped down to below 10,000 vpd with only light truck traffic.  If traffic studies showed that to be the case then that would make much better local use of those segments.
If Martinsville were to have the I-73 Eastern Alignment, plus a U.S. 220 Freeway to the west, they could use that to their advantage to continue growing the city and the county could develop near its areas. Having 2 freeways can lead to more growth and I think it would be wise to take advantage of it rather than convert it to a non-limited-access roadway. Controlled-access on roadways and controlled areas of development is a good strategy. Eliminating access controls and having a free-for-all on development is what can lead to overcrowding, numerous of traffic signals, and if the area does grow, traffic issues.

The MSC by itself has very little utility.
If it was built to connect to the Martinsville Bypass to the west, it would have plenty of use. They're clearly invested in studying and building this thing to connect Martinsville to North Carolina, where they're actually willing to fund construction and meet Virginia and connect directly Martinsville to Greensboro and points south.

Given the age of the FEIS (2006) there will be need for an SFEIS and possibly even a new EIS process, to meet NEPA standards, for the entire route between the N.C. and I-81.
And if a re-evaluation is done, they can study a western alignment again. You mentioned yourself they wouldn't waste time re-evaluating it because a study is already completed, if they have to redo it, then they would re-evaluate all options. I think it would be best now to study each segment at a time (like the MSC) and build it overtime in segments. Link each "connector" up in the end to create one continuous freeway.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2246
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:43:57 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #434 on: January 21, 2019, 05:57:37 PM »

The preferred alternative may not be decided until late Summer or Fall 2019, however. We will just see which alternatives that has the most likes on Wednesday.
I'd imagine the western one, simply because it would have the most traffic usage, and be the most valuable and cheapest to build. But, we'll see.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #435 on: January 21, 2019, 06:07:11 PM »

It would not directly access them, they would be on the opposite side of the city from the Interstate and only accessible by 2-lane roads.  Look at the 2012 ALC map.  IOW, poor access versus excellent access.
I'm confused. Which developments are you referring to and where?

I'm tired of doing your work -- look it up, the map is on the VDOT I-73 page.

Not if the traffic dropped down to below 10,000 vpd with only light truck traffic.  If traffic studies showed that to be the case then that would make much better local use of those segments.
If Martinsville were to have the I-73 Eastern Alignment, plus a U.S. 220 Freeway to the west, they could use that to their advantage to continue growing the city and the county could develop near its areas. Having 2 freeways can lead to more growth and I think it would be wise to take advantage of it rather than convert it to a non-limited-access roadway. Controlled-access on roadways and controlled areas of development is a good strategy. Eliminating access controls and having a free-for-all on development is what can lead to overcrowding, numerous of traffic signals, and if the area does grow, traffic issues.

Why do they need 2 freeways, given the short length of the US-220 section?

If they don't decertify the L/A R/W, they could at least modify it to allow new at-grade intersections with public roads to access new developments.

The MSC by itself has very little utility.
If it was built to connect to the Martinsville Bypass to the west, it would have plenty of use. They're clearly invested in studying and building this thing to connect Martinsville to North Carolina, where they're actually willing to fund construction and meet Virginia and connect directly Martinsville to Greensboro and points south.

They are not going to route it west when they have an eastern ALC.  Bank on it.

And if a re-evaluation is done, they can study a western alignment again. You mentioned yourself they wouldn't waste time re-evaluating it because a study is already completed, if they have to redo it, then they would re-evaluate all options. I think it would be best now to study each segment at a time (like the MSC) and build it overtime in segments. Link each "connector" up in the end to create one continuous freeway.

No, they would need to study the whole corridor, as they did before.  There would be a variety of sub-alternates that could be evaluated and then one ALC would be chosen.
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: 2246
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:43:57 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #436 on: January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM »

I'm tired of doing your work -- look it up, the map is on the VDOT I-73 page.
The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.

Why do they need 2 freeways, given the short length of the US-220 section?
As it stands today, there wouldn't be a need. But if the interstate comes and development comes, the area could grow, therefore warranting more roads, and keeping the existing 12 (not short?) mile section of U.S. 220 in tact would serve new development on the western side of Martinsville.

If they don't decertify the L/A R/W, they could at least modify it to allow new at-grade intersections with public roads to access new developments.
How about developments off an interchange from a high-capacity, high-speed freeway? That would invite more development of interchanges rather than an at-grade roadway. And there would be a road to handle additional capacity from future developments, and possibly future residential.

They are not going to route it west when they have an eastern ALC.  Bank on it.
You keep referring to this as ALC, but that's the original alignment. Are you referring to the HCA, the one which overlaps the 4 miles of the US-58 bypass? The ALC was the all new location even farther east option.

No, they would need to study the whole corridor, as they did before.  There would be a variety of sub-alternates that could be evaluated and then one ALC would be chosen.
Yes, one study could happen (for instance, the original one), but by the time any segment actually gets funded or considered, a new study would be required (for instance, the MSC) Then at that point, it's only one section, and when other sections are considered, a new study would be required once again (for instance, the second study you are proposing). It would just keep going back and forth, study after study, millions of dollars wasted, and no pavement laid down.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #437 on: January 21, 2019, 09:01:09 PM »

The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.

It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.  There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop.

Why do they need 2 freeways, given the short length of the US-220 section?
As it stands today, there wouldn't be a need. But if the interstate comes and development comes, the area could grow, therefore warranting more roads, and keeping the existing 12 (not short?) mile section of U.S. 220 in tact would serve new development on the western side of Martinsville.

The US-220-only portion of the bypass is 6 miles long.  The rest contains US-58 and is needed for US-58 which is another 4-lane arterial corridor and I would not recommend reducing the design.

If they don't decertify the L/A R/W, they could at least modify it to allow new at-grade intersections with public roads to access new developments.
How about developments off an interchange from a high-capacity, high-speed freeway? That would invite more development of interchanges rather than an at-grade roadway. And there would be a road to handle additional capacity from future developments, and possibly future residential.]

Possibly, that is why I recommended a traffic study to determine things.  Just a thought to someone who might say, "Why let a freeway go to waste?"  It could be modified into an at-grade expressway, and as 40+ year old bridges wear out the interchanges could be changed to at-grade intersections, particularly at the bypass terminals.

You keep referring to this as ALC, but that's the original alignment. Are you referring to the HCA, the one which overlaps the 4 miles of the US-58 bypass? The ALC was the all new location even farther east option.

The CBT action in 2011 incorporated the HCA into the ALC.  The green route on the VDOT map of approved I-73.

Yes, one study could happen (for instance, the original one), but by the time any segment actually gets funded or considered, a new study would be required (for instance, the MSC) Then at that point, it's only one section, and when other sections are considered, a new study would be required once again (for instance, the second study you are proposing). It would just keep going back and forth, study after study, millions of dollars wasted, and no pavement laid down.

As a long-distance Interstate highway, it should be a given that an EIS/location study would cover the whole 70 miles between the N.C. and I-81.  Such a study can identify segments of independent utility (SIU) which have stand-alone buildability.

If the MSC goes forward first, then they would make that compatible with the ACL.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2019, 09:04:05 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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2246
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:43:57 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #438 on: January 21, 2019, 09:13:20 PM »

It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.  There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop.
It's about 2 miles, not 5, from a realigned I-73.



Plus, Henry County shouldn't plan developments off of something that isn't for sure going to be built in one set location. Only build when the interstate is under construction or already existing. If the proposed alignment gets changed, that's on them, they're assuming it will get built at that specific location. The MSC goes against that idea.

If the MSC goes forward first, then they would make that compatible with the ACL.
If they built an eastern alignment for the MSC, that's assuming the rest of I-73 gets built. Things could change, and an eastern project would be a complete waste of money until it's guaranteed to actually service an interstate. If no I-73 was proposed, and they built a road to the east, it would serve almost no traffic, and existing US-220 would still continue to be the main highway.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #439 on: January 21, 2019, 09:28:58 PM »

It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.  There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop.
It's about 2 miles, not 5, from a realigned I-73.

None of the DEIS western sub-alternates between the US-220 bypass and just north of the county line had an alignment like that, they were at or west of US-220.

Plus, Henry County shouldn't plan developments off of something that isn't for sure going to be built in one set location. Only build when the interstate is under construction or already existing. If the proposed alignment gets changed, that's on them, they're assuming it will get built at that specific location. The MSC goes against that idea.

That is not how things work, it is a joint effort to route a new highway while taking into consideration current and proposed development patterns.

Why such intense focus on routing I-73 west of the city when all 4 southern municipalities requested it to the east and the CTB approved that?  Do you own a large tract of land west of town?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2019, 09:32:18 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.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13867
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:45:24 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #440 on: January 21, 2019, 10:10:54 PM »

The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.

It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.
The route using 174 and 220 Business to 220 is four lanes, with the exception of a short piece of 174 that has only one lane westbound...
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #441 on: January 21, 2019, 11:14:01 PM »

The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.
It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.

There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop. [entirely 2 lanes]

The route using 174 and 220 Business to 220 is four lanes, with the exception of a short piece of 174 that has only one lane westbound...

And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
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: 2246
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:43:57 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #442 on: January 22, 2019, 12:04:14 AM »

None of the DEIS western sub-alternates between the US-220 bypass and just north of the county line had an alignment like that, they were at or west of US-220.
I've mentioned numerous of times this was my conceptual alignment. In that regard, it would work.

That is not how things work, it is a joint effort to route a new highway while taking into consideration current and proposed development patterns.
Correct. If you already have infrastructure there, you should want a new highway to pass it. If you plan for something there, you should want a new highway to pass it. But don't purposely build assuming the highway will go there. If the development is already there, or you want development, understandable. But I'm pretty sure that industrial park was built recently assuming that I-73 would stroke the northern end of it.

Why such intense focus on routing I-73 west of the city when all 4 southern municipalities requested it to the east and the CTB approved that?  Do you own a large tract of land west of town?
Let's see, at this point I'm a NE NC economic development lobbyist and I own a large tract west of town. I push these things the same reason you do - you believe and want one thing, I want another. We can bicker and argue about it all day and night, but the fact is we both have a difference of opinion.

I could go back and say you have an intense focus on telling me everything wrong with my concepts, opinions, or thoughts, but I don't.

And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Yes, an urban bottleneck because of traffic signals and businesses. And aren't you proposing to add another urban bottleneck along the US-220 Bypass by removing access controls and adding traffic signals, businesses, etc? That will lead to growth, more traffic, and congestion that may not exist now, but will in the future.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #443 on: January 22, 2019, 12:43:14 AM »

None of the DEIS western sub-alternates between the US-220 bypass and just north of the county line had an alignment like that, they were at or west of US-220.
I've mentioned numerous of times this was my conceptual alignment. In that regard, it would work.

How would it work?  How can you say something can "work" without your doing detailed engineering analysis?  If it would "work" then why didn't it make one of the many sub-alternates in the DEIS? 

That is not how things work, it is a joint effort to route a new highway while taking into consideration current and proposed development patterns.
Correct. If you already have infrastructure there, you should want a new highway to pass it. If you plan for something there, you should want a new highway to pass it. But don't purposely build assuming the highway will go there. If the development is already there, or you want development, understandable. But I'm pretty sure that industrial park was built recently assuming that I-73 would stroke the northern end of it.

There can be a long lead time for a highway to get built, and likewise the same for major developments.  One or the other could get delayed for various reasons.  Nevertheless they try to plan as much as possible.  That is why county governments have comprehensive plans, some try to forecast for 20 years or more.

They are proposing a much greater buildout than what has been built.  If the highway is delayed then the full buildout may be delayed, and maybe indefinitely.

Why such intense focus on routing I-73 west of the city when all 4 southern municipalities requested it to the east and the CTB approved that?  Do you own a large tract of land west of town?
Let's see, at this point I'm a NE NC economic development lobbyist and I own a large tract west of town. I push these things the same reason you do - you believe and want one thing, I want another. We can bicker and argue about it all day and night, but the fact is we both have a difference of opinion.
I could go back and say you have an intense focus on telling me everything wrong with my concepts, opinions, or thoughts, but I don't.

It was a question and not a statement.  Of course there are plenty of roadgeeks here that simply like to argue about roads and that is what motivates them.

And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Yes, an urban bottleneck because of traffic signals and businesses. And aren't you proposing to add another urban bottleneck along the US-220 Bypass by removing access controls and adding traffic signals, businesses, etc? That will lead to growth, more traffic, and congestion that may not exist now, but will in the future.

I said that it can be -considered-, pending traffic and development studies.  I would tend to believe that if I-73 is built that most of US-220 will be in the 5,000 to 8,000 AADT range and with about 10% large trucks.  If that is the case and the bypasses are converted to at-grade highways then there would be no bottlenecks and more businesses could be added.  But the traffic studies might prove otherwise.
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.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13867
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:45:24 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #444 on: January 22, 2019, 08:11:34 AM »

The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.
It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.

There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop. [entirely 2 lanes]

The route using 174 and 220 Business to 220 is four lanes, with the exception of a short piece of 174 that has only one lane westbound...

And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Moving goalposts.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #445 on: January 22, 2019, 08:13:33 AM »

The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.
It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.
There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop. [entirely 2 lanes]
The route using 174 and 220 Business to 220 is four lanes, with the exception of a short piece of 174 that has only one lane westbound...
And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Moving goalposts.

In context.  Has a one-lane pinchpoint in an urban area.  A poor connection by any stretch.
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.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13867
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:45:24 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #446 on: January 22, 2019, 08:47:58 AM »

Almost everything has a one lane pinchpoint at ramps.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5365
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:23 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #447 on: January 22, 2019, 09:57:35 AM »

Almost everything has a one lane pinchpoint at ramps.

Depending on the needed capacity, ramps can be loops and ramps can have 2 lanes or more, and the connecting road can have 4 lanes or more.
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.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2279
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 04:07:02 PM
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #448 on: January 22, 2019, 04:33:11 PM »

I'm sure we'll all be dead before Interstate 73 gets built in Virginia.
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7221
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 05:17:20 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: I-73 in VA
« Reply #449 on: January 22, 2019, 04:43:16 PM »

Why not route it up US 29?
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚14⒈159
NH 27, 111A(E); NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A; CT 32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr

 


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.