Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[froggie]

Words from Captain Obvious:

If two interstate routes split apart, one of them will be on the left.

Neither of them is an exit, because an exit is a ramp that leaves the interstate system.

Then why are most of these splits signed as exits, with exit numbers and the now-standard "LEFT" black-on-yellow tabs?

MUTCD requirements.

[sprjus4]

Words from Captain Obvious:

If two interstate routes split apart, one of them will be on the left.

Neither of them is an exit, because an exit is a ramp that leaves the interstate system.

Then why are most of these splits signed as exits, with exit numbers and the now-standard "LEFT" black-on-yellow tabs?

Because it is an exit, despite what people may claim. I never thought I'd have to argue something as simple and basic as this. When a ramp leaves an interstate, either to connect to another freeway / interstate or an arterial roadway, it is an EXIT of THAT highway. You can't argue this.

When a vehicle leaves I-40 to head onto I-73 South, they're EXITING I-40, via Left Exit 212, take the left ramps to I-73 South. By saying you're not exiting I-40 is basically saying you're staying on I-40 which you're not, you're LEAVING I-40, therefore, exiting I-40 via Left Exit 212.

[sprjus4]

This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.

Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.

How come they didn't relocate it to the right?

Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.

[Beltway]

This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.

Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.

So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?

[sprjus4]

This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.

Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.

So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?

Older interstate, and isn't even a freeway? What were they smoking when they called this an Interstate Highway? I think this is more vanity than I-87 is, as you say. This upgrade to I-73 / I-74 was done 5 years ago, existing freeway, and retained the exit.

[Beltway]

This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.

Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.

So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?

Older interstate, and isn't even a freeway? What were they smoking when they called this an Interstate Highway? I think this is more vanity than I-87 is, as you say. This upgrade to I-73 / I-74 was done 5 years ago, existing freeway, and retained the exit.

Is this the I-73 section that you were referring to?  Is this image reflective of what is there now?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Asheboro,+NC/@35.6988393,-79.831775,984a,35y,7.62h,44.71t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88535c6c3d4e2349:0x5057352bd6290399!8m2!3d35.7079146!4d-79.8136446

[sprjus4]

This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.

Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.

So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?

Older interstate, and isn't even a freeway? What were they smoking when they called this an Interstate Highway? I think this is more vanity than I-87 is, as you say. This upgrade to I-73 / I-74 was done 5 years ago, existing freeway, and retained the exit.

Is this the I-73 section that you were referring to?  Is this image reflective of what is there now?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Asheboro,+NC/@35.6988393,-79.831775,984a,35y,7.62h,44.71t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88535c6c3d4e2349:0x5057352bd6290399!8m2!3d35.7079146!4d-79.8136446

Yes, that's it. It still carries that design.

[Beltway]

This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.

Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.
How come they didn't relocate it to the right?
Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.

So because I-180 in Wyoming has at-grade intersections, should that design be repeated elsewhere?

Older interstate, and isn't even a freeway? What were they smoking when they called this an Interstate Highway? I think this is more vanity than I-87 is, as you say. This upgrade to I-73 / I-74 was done 5 years ago, existing freeway, and retained the exit.

Is this the I-73 section that you were referring to?  Is this image reflective of what is there now?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Asheboro,+NC/@35.6988393,-79.831775,984a,35y,7.62h,44.71t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88535c6c3d4e2349:0x5057352bd6290399!8m2!3d35.7079146!4d-79.8136446

Yes, that's it. It still carries that design.

[sprjus4]

Same thought when I first saw it 

But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.

[Roadsguy]

Laughs in Pennsylvanian

[Beltway]

Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.

With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it.  It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.

There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.

[sprjus4]

Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.

With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it.  It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.

There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.

By no means do I support it. My point is that left hand ramps do exist, and even on newer interstate upgrades. Either way, a VA-168 left exit for a conceptual I-87 wouldn’t present an issue, because it would be freeway to freeway, 55 MPH, and no stopping, like existing. That was the point I was trying to make with this, I’m not “promoting it”.

See my posts above how a 55 MPH I-87 and right exit ramps could be incorporated into the existing interchange with no major modifications (1 bridge modification or replacement). I think some of your design concepts for north and south realignments were a bit crazy, not to sound offensive.

[LM117]

Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.

With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it.  It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.

There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.

IIRC, FHWA allowed NCDOT to sign I-73/74 there with the understanding that the interchange would be upgraded later. Bob Malme or froggie would probably know more about it.

[Beltway]

Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.

With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it.  It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.
There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.

By no means do I support it. My point is that left hand ramps do exist, and even on newer interstate upgrades. Either way, a VA-168 left exit for a conceptual I-87 wouldn’t present an issue, because it would be freeway to freeway, 55 MPH, and no stopping, like existing. That was the point I was trying to make with this, I’m not “promoting it”.

Of course you are promoting it, why else would you have injected it into a discussion about left exits, and right there you used as an excuse to use left exits in Virginia.  You are not an engineer and you don't care about highway engineering standards.

[sprjus4]

you used as an excuse to use left exits in Virginia.

Where did I suggest a left exit from a freeway / interstate to a non-freeway/non-interstate/local road in Virginia?

You are not an engineer and you don't care about highway engineering standards.

Ah yes, I'm not an engineer, so I give no care about standards. Once again, never recommended it be added anywhere (freeway / interstate to a non-freeway/non-interstate/local road), but thanks for making things up.

[sprjus4]

Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.

With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it.  It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.

There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.

IIRC, FHWA allowed NCDOT to sign I-73/74 there with the understanding that the interchange would be upgraded later. Bob Malme or froggie would probably know more about it.

That's correct, it's going to be corrected eventually. It has a hefty price tag, and is currently unfunded though.

http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg8.html

"The interchange improvements, now part of a different project, I-5105 covering 10.1 miles, from Business 220/NC 134 to 2 miles further north of Presnell Street, will include 'geometric, operational, and remaining safety improvements' with construction currently not funded (meaning currently not to start until after 2027). Work is currently estimated to cost $345 million."

[Beltway]

Same thought when I first saw it
But it's still I-73 / I-74. In fact, when the upgraded that section to Interstate standards, the speed limit was raised from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, even with this.

With all due respect, I don't see any reason to listen to and recognize highway design recommendations from people who promote such designs, and that includes you because you introduced it here and promoted it.  It also reflects poorly on NCDOT.
There is ample space and right-of-way for a conventional rebuild on the mainline with right-hand ramps.

IIRC, FHWA allowed NCDOT to sign I-73/74 there with the understanding that the interchange would be upgraded later. Bob Malme or froggie would probably know more about it.

That's correct, it's going to be corrected eventually. It has a hefty price tag, and is currently unfunded though.
http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg8.html
"The interchange improvements, now part of a different project, I-5105 covering 10.1 miles, from Business 220/NC 134 to 2 miles further north of Presnell Street, will include 'geometric, operational, and remaining safety improvements' with construction currently not funded (meaning currently not to start until after 2027). Work is currently estimated to cost $345 million."

I looked at that page earlier this morning. 

"... until five deficient design elements in this section were corrected.  Among the reasons this segment did not meet current interstate standards are that it featured a narrow median, thin left and right shoulders, short merge lanes and a left-side exit (for NC 42) [left-hand exits and entrances]"

"The project area covered 8 miles between just north of the Presnell Street exit to NC 134/US Bus. 220, where I-73/I-74 officially began from 1997 to mid-2012, for an estimated cost of $22.8 million."

So this helps explain the high cost estimate for VA I-73 as well as how N.C. is building it much more cheaply.  I know from my own professional road design and construction experience that some major design deficiencies are not obvious to the naked eye, and some are not visible at all to the naked eye; you have to look at the construction design plans.  Pavement designs and bridge structural designs can be substandard and not be visible to the naked eye as well.

My stance that a segment should not be designated as an Interstate highway until it meets normal Interstate highway standards.  No excuses about how "it is too expensive" or any such nonsense.  Simply leave it out until it meets standards.

This case also raises a lot of questions in my mind about the veracity of the N.C. VI-87 feasibility study.
 

[Beltway]

The left exit to VA-168 south is the same type of exit that I-40 has with I-73. A left exit onto another freeway, 55 MPH, two-lanes, free flowing. It's not "unacceptable", as I-40's left exit isn't, but keep believing that if you wish.

Froggie explained it to you -- it is MUTCD that required that left exit tab, that tab wouldn't be there otherwise. 

That was the 6-lane mainline of I-40 when it was built and is a 65 mph or better design, it was when I-40 was shifted back thru central Greensboro that the current signing was installed; plus a consequence of milepost numbering being used for exit numbering; plus a consequence of two overlapped Interstate routes splitting/joining.
 

[sprjus4]

That was the 6-lane mainline of I-40 when it was built and is a 65 mph or better design, it was when I-40 was shifted back thru central Greensboro that the current signing was installed; plus a consequence of milepost numbering being used for exit numbering; plus a consequence of two overlapped Interstate routes splitting/joining.

Let's clear some things up here.

Today's routing, none of the interstates overlap. I-73 runs north / south, I-40 runs east / west. When heading eastbound on I-40, you stay right to continue on I-40, the left exit takes you to I-73 South. When heading westbound on I-40, traffic comes in on the left from I-73 NB. Then 2 of the 3 mainline lanes from I-40 Westbound drop off, where I-73 NB to I-40 (not continous) keep their lanes. I understand the original intents, but they've changed, and according to you with I-87 becoming the mainline routing in VA (explained below how it's the same concept w/ both of these), the interchange design should've too.

The Oak Grove Interchange (I-464 / US-17 / VA-168) was designed with VA-168 having continuity. Today, US-17 to Elizabeth City when heading southbound is Exit 15, VA-168 is continuous (before, I-40 was continuous to the left) If I-87 is routed through here, I-87 would be continuous, and therefore leaving VA-168 not the mainline anymore, but a left exit or a freeway split off as you say (just like the mainline was routed from the left to the right in Greensboro, resulting in a left exit or split off to another freeway - I-73 SB). The same exact thing in Greensboro as would be at the Oak Grove Interchange. Both interchanges are fine today, and if the mainline (I-87 or I-40 EB) was routed to the right and you exit or split off to the left to go onto another freeway (VA-168 or I-73 SB), proper signage is used, and everything works out.

Please tell me how these two interchanges are different.... 

is a 65 mph or better design

Speed limit is 65 MPH, therefore interchange designed for that. In the Oak Grove Connector case, speed limit is 55 MPH, therefore interchange designed for that.

[Alps]

This is not a one-lane off-ramp decelerating down to a lower-class road.

Let's discuss Exit 74 off I-73 / I-74 in Asheboro. Old 60s bypass upgraded to interstate standards, new shoulders, barrier median, and a left exit and entrance to a local street, not removed, but repaved, modernized, and given a nice set of "Left Exit" signage.

How come they didn't relocate it to the right?

Hint - because there / is not a huge issue with the exit, and it was determined it wasn't worth the tens of millions required to replace it. I agree, it should go right, but on a tight budget, it's not worth canceling / delaying the entire project for. And there's no intentions to replace it.

Did you just say "engineering judgment"? Ding ding ding!

[Beltway]

I can drive the I-195 Acca Yards viaduct at 60 to 62 mph but I would not recommend that speed for the general community.  50 or below.

That's a viaduct, has two sharper curves, of course an advised speed would be 50 MPH. The 55 MPH US-17 ramp is straight with one curve onto the Dominion Blvd interstate-standard freeway, and is posted and driveable at 55 MPH. The majority of drivers, including semis, drive this at 55 MPH or higher. I've seen semis in the left and right lane taking the curve together, and both maintained their lane and 60 MPH around the curve.

Not my observation.  Plus under busier traffic volumes the speeds quickly degrade, given the amount of merging and diverging in a relatively small area.  Effectively not a 55 mph routing but below that.

Ah yes, your right exit appeal. Your option addresses none of the issues that the existing interchange has (which it really doesn't have any), except a higher speed limit. They are not going to destroy and abandoned a perfectly adequate mainly 55 MPH interchange built recently to appeal for a higher speed and right exits. If there's truly a 55 MPH design speed and right exits desired, here's a concept that would use existing location, and only replace or modify one single overpass. No homes destroyed, existing interchange mostly retained, and would satisfy your desires a lot cheaper than a full relocation. In today's costs, this would likely be about $50-60 million.

That actually appears workable.  That plus the 7 new interchanges and service road construction and roadside improvements would place the total cost of a freeway upgrade of US-17 to over $200 million in 2020 costs.

based on what is practiced nearly everywhere in the U.S.

That's beyond false. Many metropolitan areas have 65 MPH mainly and even 70 MPH in some cities. It's around the core downtown areas that are slower, 55 MPH or 60 MPH, but the suburbs usually have 65 MPH and 70 MPH.
The Northeast + Virginia have slower speeds through the suburb areas, and only higher speeds in rural areas, but most of the US does not follow this practice.

Plus the cities between New York and Chicago inclusive, lower speed limits until well out in the rural areas.  About 1/3 of the U.S. population.

Going well out into rural areas is another matter, that is normally where the higher limits like 70 begin.

US-17 is a completely rural 4-lane highway beyond George Washington Hwy. It's not "suburban" or "urban" anymore.

It is in the City of Chesapeake and from what you have said major developments are planned in the southern part of the city.  Certainly not planned to be "rural" in 2040.

I-64 in Newport News was a 3-lane highway, and was widened to 4-lanes in the early 2000s. Full inner and outer shoulders, barrier wall, well designed. 60 MPH. In December 2018, it was raised to 65 MPH. Case in point.

That is not South Hampton Roads and it is not 70 mph.

It's funny, because you say no highway in South Hampton Roads will be posted beyond 60 MPH, yet you propose US 58 between I-664 and west of Suffolk (including the bypass) can be as high as 70 MPH. It can be considered rural, but pretty suburban on the bypass. US-17 in Chesapeake is way more rural than that highway, but you claim it can be only 60 MPH. You're blatantly contradicting yourself to make US-58 more attractive, and to shoot down US-17,  Keep it consistent. If US-58 can be raised to 70 MPH, then US-17 can be raised to 70 MPH. If US-17 cannot be higher than 60 MPH, than US-58 cannot be higher than 60 MPH.

Do you get dizzy when you go thru all those logic exercises? 

I thought I had made my position clear, that at this point I wouldn't -predict- any speed limit increases on those roads, and that would include 60 mph tops on US-17 in Chesapeake. 

Really, the more I think about this, the more I think it is a fool's errand to try to predict what the speed limits will be in 2040 or 2045.  Technology changes, automated safety systems, vehicle design changes, urbanization, who knows.

We could use today's speed limits as a base case, and that would include 60 mph in the City of Chesapeake.

But really, for predicting 2040 or 2045, speed limits should be completely dropped from any discussion about building this highway, because it can't be predicted today. 

Repeat after me, "it can't be predicted today."
Repeat after me, "it can't be predicted today."
Repeat after me, "it can't be predicted today."

The cross-section of US-17 from I-64 to North Carolina meets interstate standards with one exception. The US-17 relocation done in 2005 has 8 foot shoulders, and this would likely involve adding 2 foot of pavement (since it's only 2 foot, not an entire shoulder, a full reconstruction of the shoulder would not be necessary) to the outside. This likely would not add much more than $15 million to the project, if that.

Depends on how thick the asphalt is on the shoulder, you can't just tack on 2 feet and necessarily have that work without the seam causing problems.  Might need to mill down at least 3 inches and then pave over the widened shoulder.

The 3-foot left shoulder doesn't meet current VDOT Interstate standards, so that would need to be widened to 4 feet.

That was the 6-lane mainline of I-40 when it was built and is a 65 mph or better design, it was when I-40 was shifted back thru central Greensboro that the current signing was installed; plus a consequence of milepost numbering being used for exit numbering; plus a consequence of two overlapped Interstate routes splitting/joining.

Let's clear some things up here.
Today's routing, none of the interstates overlap. I-73 runs north / south, I-40 runs east / west. When heading eastbound on I-40, you stay right to continue on I-40, the left exit takes you to I-73 South. When heading westbound on I-40, traffic comes in on the left from I-73 NB. Then 2 of the 3 mainline lanes from I-40 Westbound drop off, where I-73 NB to I-40 (not continous) keep their lanes. I understand the original intents, but they've changed, and according to you with I-87 becoming the mainline routing in VA (explained below how it's the same concept w/ both of these), the interchange design should've too.

Move I-40 back to the south leg of the loop, and your "problems" disappear, and nothing would change on the physical highway itself.  Of course, NCDOT could decide to do just that in the future, so complaining about the physical highway itself is a meaningless exercise.

The Oak Grove Interchange (I-464 / US-17 / VA-168) was designed with VA-168 having continuity. Today, US-17 to Elizabeth City when heading southbound is Exit 15, VA-168 is continuous (before, I-40 was continuous to the left) If I-87 is routed through here, I-87 would be continuous, and therefore leaving VA-168 not the mainline anymore, but a left exit or a freeway split off as you say (just like the mainline was routed from the left to the right in Greensboro, resulting in a left exit or split off to another freeway - I-73 SB).

VA-168 and US-17 were not built with the intent to be in the Interstate system.  It hasn't even been decided whether there will be an I-87 in Virginia, or whether it would follow VA-168 or US-17 if it were to be built. 

I have seen the plate that shows the US-17/NC-168 connector just south of the border, so that shows that NCDOT may decide to route it over to NC-168, so VA-168 would be a possible routing, but that would need upgrading and is already planned for 6-lane widening in the 2040 city master plan.

The same exact thing in Greensboro as would be at the Oak Grove Interchange. Both interchanges are fine today, and if the mainline (I-87 or I-40 EB) was routed to the right and you exit or split off to the left to go onto another freeway (VA-168 or I-73 SB), proper signage is used, and everything works out.
Please tell me how these two interchanges are different.... 

The Greensboro I-40/I-840 interchange was built to be a high-speed Interstate highway System Interchange and in recent years.  The Oak Grove Interchange was not built with the Interstate system in mind, and it is a compact, small interchange.

[sprjus4]

Not my observation.  Plus under busier traffic volumes the speeds quickly degrade, given the amount of merging and diverging in a relatively small area.  Effectively not a 55 mph routing but below that.

There's one left 55 MPH exit to VA-168, then one local road exit to Great Bridge Blvd. There's no merge on once you past I-64, which is already planned for a massive overhaul in the I-64 Phase 2 project. I've never seen traffic here flow below 55 MPH, and I go through this interchange quite frequently, both down US-17 and VA-168.

That actually appears workable.  That plus the 7 new interchanges and service road construction and roadside improvements would place the total cost of a freeway upgrade of US-17 to over $200 million in 2020 costs.

*5 interchanges. The other two interchanges to serve a farm and one house do not count, they aren't going to be built, there's absolutely no justification.

Ballahack Rd - $15 million
Cornland Rd - $15 million
George Washington Hwy - $20 million
Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
Frontage Roads - $10 million

$120 million for 5 interchanges + frontage road. If a Oak Grove Interchange overhaul is needed to satisfy your right exit and 55 MPH theorem, you could add $50 million, and be at about $170 million. I wouldn't predict higher than $200 million, in today's dollars. And this satisfies an interchange at Grassfield Pkwy + your right exit and 55 MPH theorem at the Oak Grove Interchange.

The Northeast + Virginia have slower speeds through the suburb areas, and only higher speeds in rural areas, but most of the US does not follow this practice.

Plus the cities between New York and Chicago inclusive, lower speed limits until well out in the rural areas.  About 1/3 of the U.S. population.[/quote]
1/3 is less than "nearly everywhere". Major cities in California, North Carolina, and everything in between mostly use 65 MPH and 70 MPH speed limits, seen 75 MPH in some Texas urban areas, though that's Texas being Texas.

It is in the City of Chesapeake and from what you have said major developments are planned in the southern part of the city.  Certainly not planned to be "rural" in 2040.

A megasite is proposed at the bottom of the city, which are usually located in rural areas. Distribution centers, warehouses, etc. located off the interstate. No neighborhoods or anything big. There's conservation and recreational uses planned along the trail. The area between the megasite and George Washington Hwy is all slated to be rural in the land use plan, and certainly citizens will continue to fight to keep the existing rural areas that are proposed for development.

That is not South Hampton Roads and it is not 70 mph.

It's certainly in a suburban / urban area. I-64 through Short Pump, a suburban area in the Richmond area is 65 MPH. All of I-295 around the north side of Richmond is 70 MPH. There's neighborhoods and suburbs around the entire highway.

When did I mention 70 MPH in regards about I-64 on the Peninsula? You said above 60 MPH. Look, I'm not an expert in math, but I'm pretty sure 65 MPH is above 60 MPH.

If an urbanized 6-8 lane I-540 and I-485 can hold 70 MPH around Raleigh and Charlotte, than a rural 4-lane I-87 can hold at least 65 MPH in Southern Chesapeake. Doesn't have to be 70 MPH, but at least 65 MPH is certainly possible. The 70 MPH signs would start at the North Carolina border.

Do you get dizzy when you go thru all those logic exercises? 

I thought I had made my position clear, that at this point I wouldn't -predict- any speed limit increases on those roads, and that would include 60 mph tops on US-17 in Chesapeake.

Funny, last week you mentioned both of these in the same exact post -

Only time will tell, but count me very surprised if any general purpose roadway in South Hampton Roads is ever posted above 60 mph.

Then further down the post...

You act like the speed limits will not (or can not) be increased along US-58, yet according to your 'advocacy standards', the bypasses at Suffolk, Franklin and Courtland could be increased to 70 mph, along with the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and Bowers Hill after the two at-grade intersections have been replaced with interchanges …

Both of the bolded examples are in South Hampton Roads. Southern Chesapeake is far more rural and far less traffic and far better engineered than the Suffolk bypass. A few sharp turns, 60,000 AADT, development off every exit...

Appears to me you can't make up your mind. According to your most-recent predictions, US 58 stays 60 MPH between Bowers Hill and the US 13 bypass / west end of US 58 bypass, correct?

Really, the more I think about this, the more I think it is a fool's errand to try to predict what the speed limits will be in 2040 or 2045.  Technology changes, automated safety systems, vehicle design changes, urbanization, who knows.

But really, for predicting 2040 or 2045, speed limits should be completely dropped from any discussion about building this highway, because it can't be predicted today. 

Oh, it really is. You boasted above about US 58 having a 65 MPH speed on rural areas, and 70 MPH on the bypasses (see above). Just playing the same game here. Maybe we should end all the discussions about speed limits, on both US 17 and US 58. I'm down.

The 3-foot left shoulder doesn't meet current VDOT Interstate standards, so that would need to be widened to 4 feet.

US-17 between North Carolina and Dominion Blvd has two 12 foot lanes, a 4 foot left paved shoulder, and an 8 foot right paved shoulder.
Dominion Blvd has two 12 foot lanes, a 4 foot left paved shoulder, and a 10 foot right paved shoulder.

None of the left shoulders are less than 4 feet.

Move I-40 back to the south leg of the loop, and your "problems" disappear, and nothing would change on the physical highway itself.  Of course, NCDOT could decide to do just that in the future, so complaining about the physical highway itself is a meaningless exercise.

Yes, it's appropriate to put "problems" in quotations - because it's not a problem. Left high speed exits to another freeway are fine.

VA-168 and US-17 were not built with the intent to be in the Interstate system.  It hasn't even been decided whether there will be an I-87 in Virginia, or whether it would follow VA-168 or US-17 if it were to be built. 

I have seen the plate that shows the US-17/NC-168 connector just south of the border, so that shows that NCDOT may decide to route it over to NC-168, so VA-168 would be a possible routing, but that would need upgrading and is already planned for 6-lane widening in the 2040 city master plan.

It was not built with an intent to be in the Interstate system, but they were designed to full Interstate highway standards. I've refuted this many times, I'm not going to do it again. The US-17 / NC-168 connector would likely be constructed as its own facility, the ramps at proposed I-87 at the Welcome Center indicate it's an exit, not the mainline. Currituck County has requested I-87 to take that route, but anybody with a brain can see that's not going to happen. Once you get into Virginia the problems begin. Upgrading 2 miles of at-grade roadway to freeway is a complex task, especially the way this is done. The curves would have to be straightened out. They're currently posted at 55 MPH, and if you want to talk about curves that shouldn't be posted as high as 55 MPH, look at this. I don't understand why Chesapeake claims above 45 MPH on the straight Dominion Blvd built with a wide median (46 foot consistent, than 60 ft at Scenic Pkwy), an interstate cross-section and two traffic lights between Scenic Pkwy and Grassfield Pkwy is dangerous, yet the windy section of VA-168 is 55 MPH, and a raised median, AND has two traffic signals.

The Greensboro I-40/I-840 interchange was built to be a high-speed Interstate highway System Interchange and in recent years.  The Oak Grove Interchange was not built with the Interstate system in mind, and it is a compact, small interchange.

The Oak Grove Interchange was built in 1999. The Greensboro Interchange was built in 2008. That's a 9 year difference. The Oak Grove Interchange was built with 55 MPH high-speed 2-lane connectors. Certainly the VA-168 leg was designed with a 55 MPH high-speed interstate-standard highway in mind. In fact, in case you didn't know, the Oak Grove Interchange was built with VA-168, and specifically for VA-168. The I-464 South to US-17 South leg is a 55 MPH two-lane connector, and the only 45 MPH leg which is US-17 North to I-464 North can either have an advisory speed, or the $50 - 60 million interchange reconstruction I proposed to eliminate it, and satisfy your right exit theorem, knocking two birds out with one stone, if it's truly necessary. I honestly do support the interchange reconstruction eventually for I-87, but it's not a dire priority just to complete I-87, as the existing interchange will suffice, and until traffic capacity indicates the need for the 55 MPH and right exit theorem to be applied, it's not needed.

[Beltway]

That actually appears workable.  That plus the 7 new interchanges and service road construction and roadside improvements would place the total cost of a freeway upgrade of US-17 to over $200 million in 2020 costs.

*5 interchanges. The other two interchanges to serve a farm and one house do not count, they aren't going to be built, there's absolutely no justification.
Ballahack Rd - $15 million
Cornland Rd - $15 million
George Washington Hwy - $20 million
Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
Frontage Roads - $10 million

Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport
Pleasant Grove Parkway (near Eaglet Parkway)

These junctions are in the 2050 city master plan and an interchange there would be directly chargeable to a US-17 freeway upgrade whether paid for by the city or state.

You can't just assume a 2-lane connector and 4 finger ramps for the southerly interchanges.  Traffic engineering studies would need to look at development patterns in 2050, and it is quite possible that one or more will need a 4-lane connector road and one or more loops in addition to the 4 finger ramps.  That would considerably increase the costs of those.

Plus the shoulder widening and improvements.

$120 million for 5 interchanges + frontage road. If a Oak Grove Interchange overhaul is needed to satisfy your right exit and 55 MPH theorem, you could add $50 million, and be at about $170 million. I wouldn't predict higher than $200 million, in today's dollars. And this satisfies an interchange at Grassfield Pkwy + your right exit and 55 MPH theorem at the Oak Grove Interchange.

Easily $200 million in 2020 dollars, maybe $250 million.

Inflation-factored out to 2040 completion, would be in the $500 to $600 million range.

When did I mention 70 MPH in regards about I-64 on the Peninsula? You said above 60 MPH. Look, I'm not an expert in math, but I'm pretty sure 65 MPH is above 60 MPH.

But really, for predicting 2040 or 2045, speed limits should be completely dropped from any discussion about building this highway, because it can't be predicted today. 

Repeat after me, "It can't be predicted today."
Repeat after me, "It can't be predicted today."
Repeat after me, "It can't be predicted today.

[sprjus4]

Airport access road relocated for Chesapeake Regional Airport
Pleasant Grove Parkway (near Eaglet Parkway)

These junctions are in the 2050 city master plan and an interchange there would be directly chargeable to a US-17 freeway upgrade whether paid for by the city or state.

You can't just assume a 2-lane connector and 4 finger ramps for the southerly interchanges.  Traffic engineering studies would need to look at development patterns in 2050, and it is quite possible that one or more will need a 4-lane connector road and one or more loops in addition to the 4 finger ramps.  That would considerably increase the costs of those.

Plus the shoulder widening and improvements.

Easily $200 million in 2020 dollars, maybe $250 million.

Inflation-factored out to 2040 completion, would be in the $500 to $600 million range.

For the southerly interchanges, I would for the most part assume a rural diamond interchange would suffice. I certainly couldn't see the need for an additional loop ramp. An interchange at Cornland Rd would already be a partial cloverleaf to avoid impacts to properties. Those roadways have about 2,000 AADT, once you close a couple of them, it could be about 4,000 AADT at one interchange, and no large-scale developments planned.

The Airport Access Road Relocation and the Pleasant Grove Pkwy projects would be constructed with their own projects. You couldn't construct an interchange at Pleasant Grove Pkwy because there's nowhere to go from there. The Airport Access Road Relocation is debatable. Once the Pleasant Grove Pkwy ever gets funding (I don't even think it'll make it this far), it will then have an interchange built with a US-17 freeway, and charged on its own.

But for the sake of not knowing what will happen for sure, here's 8 estimates based on 8 options. A low-ball build (5 interchanges, no Oak Grove reconstruction) would be $130 million. Medium, (5 interchanges, and Oak Grove reconstruction) would be $190 million. If you added your two roads in + Oak Grove Interchange, $235 million.

Here's a concept of the $190 million option - https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/Upgrading_US_Route_17/YamBCRZZuC

So not knowing what's going to happen, we can say between $130 - 235 million. If we're definitely going to reconstruct the Oak Grove Interchange, then $190 - 235 million. As for inflation, it may look like an extremely high number, but that's also when a typical freeway upgrade would cost that much, and other urban projects would be even more expensive. I bet if you saw these cost estimates for today back in the 80s and 90s, it'd look crazy expensive. All of I-664 was built in the 90s for only $1 billion, 20 miles of freeway, plus tunnel & 4 miles of bridge. Now the HRBT is costing $4 billion, and not even new freeway.

Option 1 - rural interchanges, no Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction - $130 million

• Ballahack Rd - $15 million
• Cornland Rd - $15 million
• George Washington Hwy - $20 million
• Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
• Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
• Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $20 million

Option 2 - rural interchanges, Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction - $190 million

• Ballahack Rd - $15 million
• Cornland Rd - $15 million
• George Washington Hwy - $20 million
• Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
• Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
• Oak Grove Interchange - $60 million
• Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $20 million

Option 3 - complex rural interchanges, no Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction - $140 million

• Ballahack Rd - $20 million
• Cornland Rd - $20 million
• George Washington Hwy - $20 million
• Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
• Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
• Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $20 million

Option 4 - complex rural interchanges, Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction - $200 million

• Ballahack Rd - $20 million
• Cornland Rd - $20 million
• George Washington Hwy - $20 million
• Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
• Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
• Oak Grove Interchange - $60 million
• Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $20 million

Option 5 - rural interchanges, no Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction, Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $175 million

• Ballahack Rd - $15 million
• Cornland Rd - $15 million
• George Washington Hwy - $20 million
• Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
• Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
• Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $50 million
• Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $15 million (reduced frontage road cost because Pleasant Grove Pkwy would serve areas otherwise by frontage roads)

Option 6 - rural interchanges, Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction, Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $235 million

• Ballahack Rd - $15 million
• Cornland Rd - $15 million
• George Washington Hwy - $20 million
• Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
• Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
• Oak Grove Interchange - $60 million
• Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $50 million
• Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $15 million (reduced frontage road cost because Pleasant Grove Pkwy would serve areas otherwise by frontage roads)

Option 7 - complex rural interchanges, no Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction, Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $185 million

• Ballahack Rd - $20 million
• Cornland Rd - $20 million
• George Washington Hwy - $20 million
• Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
• Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
• Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $50 million
• Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $15 million (reduced frontage road cost because Pleasant Grove Pkwy would serve areas otherwise by frontage roads)

Option 8 - complex rural interchanges, Oak Grove Interchange reconstruction, Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $245 million

• Ballahack Rd - $20 million
• Cornland Rd - $20 million
• George Washington Hwy - $20 million
• Scenic Pkwy - $20 million
• Grassfield Pkwy - $40 million (elevated w/ retaining wall)
• Oak Grove Interchange - $60 million
• Pleasant Grove Pkwy + Airport Access Road - $50 million
• Frontage Roads & Shoulder Widening - $15 million (reduced frontage road cost because Pleasant Grove Pkwy would serve areas otherwise by frontage roads)

[SSOWorld]

Locking to clean-up and calm the crowd down