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.