Spartanburg Long-Range Transportation Plan (2025)

[Spartan]

Aren't they redoing that overpass with the over half of the intersection work that's being done for the 221/Hwy 9 interchanges?

[roads-scholar]

Aren't they redoing that overpass with the over half of the intersection work that's being done for the 221/Hwy 9 interchanges?

Maybe someone else can chime in on this one but R-S hasn't heard anything.

I did click on the link and was pleasantly surprised the state is looking into upgrading I-26 between 176 and 296. This is the busiest stretch of 26 in Spartanburg County and is definitely showing it's age as a early 1960's designed freeway.

[Spartan]

roadscholar, take a look at the link in the post quoted below, see what you think...

Regarding I-585, I found this on the SCDOT website under 'Active Projects.'

http://www.scdot.org/doing/AcceleratedProj...mp;id=37176RD01

I know that considerable work has already been down improving the I-585/SC-9/US-221 interchanges, including adding the very useful exit at 9 on 585 south. But if I read the info on the website correctly, it sounds like further work may be planned, including raising the overpass at California Ave. Can any of you clarify this for me? Thanks.

[roads-scholar]

roadscholar, take a look at the link in the post quoted below, see what you think...

Wow, this is good to know. Improving these overpasses is a precursor to eventually widening this highway. 585 is the main gateway into Spartanburg from I-85 and should be treated as such by transportation planners.

[GSP Tiger]

I would not expect to see 585 go to 6 lanes. There simply isn't enough traffic to warrant such a thing. The next thing for 585 will be flyover ramps at I-85.

Wow, this is good to know. Improving these overpasses is a precursor to eventually widening this highway. 585 is the main gateway into Spartanburg from I-85 and should be treated as such by transportation planners.

As 385 leads into Greenville, 585 leads into Spartanburg. Spartanburg should learn from Greenville to create a tree lined "California expressway" connecting 85, USC upstate, and downtown. Perhaps the same can be done for Business 85, if someone could push for landscaping it and calling it 685.

Although the traffic may not be there yet, it will increase. I know the bridge at 585/Business 85 was replaced not to accomodate six lanes, but it is expandable.

[roads-scholar]

As 385 leads into Greenville, 585 leads into Spartanburg. Spartanburg should learn from Greenville to create a tree lined "California expressway" connecting 85, USC upstate, and downtown. Perhaps the same can be done for Business 85, if someone could push for landscaping it and calling it 685.

Although the traffic may not be there yet, it will increase. I know the bridge at 585/Business 85 was replaced not to accomodate six lanes, but it is expandable.

As someone who has lived and worked in California and commuted on many California freeways I can't recall any one of them that are tree-lined or attractive. 385 is light years ahead of any California freeway in terms of aesthetics. Most Southern California freeways are big wide ugly slabs of concrete designed to move vast numbers of motor vehicles.

[Spartan]

It would be nice if they could plant some large maturing oak trees along as much of 585 as possible. In 50 years it would be a great road.

As 385 leads into Greenville, 585 leads into Spartanburg. Spartanburg should learn from Greenville to create a tree lined "California expressway" connecting 85, USC upstate, and downtown. Perhaps the same can be done for Business 85, if someone could push for landscaping it and calling it 685.

Although the traffic may not be there yet, it will increase. I know the bridge at 585/Business 85 was replaced not to accomodate six lanes, but it is expandable.

Business 85 as "I-685" would be ideal. NC rerouted I-85 and I-40 on the the bypass around Greensboro, but they the routed I-40 again, back to the original route. The reasoning is that the Fed gives money based on the interstate milage a state has. Assuming this is true for interstate spurs too, then it seems like Spartanburg/SPATS should take advantage of this.

I am not clear as to what, if any, funds are available for Business 85. Does Business 20 in Florence receive money for anything beyond maintenence? Does Bus. 85? Is it treated as a different type of road?

[roads-scholar]

It would be nice if they could plant some large maturing oak trees along as much of 585 as possible. In 50 years it would be a great road.

Business 85 as "I-685" would be ideal. NC rerouted I-85 and I-40 on the the bypass around Greensboro, but they the routed I-40 again, back to the original route. The reasoning is that the Fed gives money based on the interstate milage a state has. Assuming this is true for interstate spurs too, then it seems like Spartanburg/SPATS should take advantage of this.

I am not clear as to what, if any, funds are available for Business 85. Does Business 20 in Florence receive money for anything beyond maintenence? Does Bus. 85? Is it treated as a different type of road?

The funding mechanism for interstate highways is a bit complicated. I'll try to explain in a later post. However, just because the word "interstate" is included in roads designated "Interstate Business Routes" doesn't qualify them for special funding. In other words, Business 85 is screwed.

[Spartan]

Right. Perhaps I wasn't explaining my self very well. I meant to say that while Bus. 85 doesn't receivethat funding, if it were re-labeled as 685, then it would, just like I assume 585 does. Correct?

Of course there is the other problem that you have already tackled, RS, which is getting SCDOT and the locals to buy in. For those who haven't been reading since 2005, take a look at this post made by roads-scholar back in 2005.

Business 85...it was yours truly who fought the SCDOT over the route number back in 2000 and who the above quote can be attributed to.

When the "new" I-85 was built the state had a golden opportunity to keep the federal dollars flowing by renumbering "old" I-85 something like I proposed - I-685. Instead they changed it to Business 85, a designation that nobody understands and created a road that will never receive any federal highway dollars. When the SCDOT took down the tri-color I-85 shields and replaced them with the green Business 85 shields traffic fell off and a number of businesses along the highway failed. This is exactly what I predicted would happen but nobody would listen.

When the Spartanburg Hospitality Association (I was President) petitioned SCDOT to change the designation their "engineer' claimed the highway did not meet interstate standards anymore. I argued that when SCDOT changed the designation it met the standards. Granted, the highway has some serious design issues that need to be corrected. But I contend that by changing the designation to I-685 more traffic and commerce will return to the corridor and more federal dollars will become available to fix the freeway's design flaws.

The history of Business 85 goes back to the early 1950's. In 1953 the state re-route US-29 north of Spartanburg. It was Interstate 85 that was built over this alignment. The substandard exit ramps at SC-295 and SC-9 are the result of this.

The Spartanburg City Council agreed with our proposal but neither SPATS

or the local chamber of commerce showed any interest. F. Hugh Atkins, the upstate's representative on the state highway commission, was disinterested also.

We did get Mr. Atkins to add the words "FREEWAY LOOP" to exits 69 and 78 on Interstate 85 prior to entering Business 85. We reasoned that more motorists would use the road if they knew that they could avoid local traffic and stoplights.

Interstate business routes are the Rodney Dangerfields of America's highways. They get no respect or federal money. It is a designation that was intended to route traffic into a city. Spartanburg's Business 85 is the one exception. It does not lead motorists into the city.

For SCDOT to change the designation everyone in Spartanburg must get involved. Back in 2000, nobody was interested. Perhaps one day the powers-to-be will make a push to remove the Business 85 designation and return this highway to full interstate highway status.

[roads-scholar]

Right. Perhaps I wasn't explaining my self very well. I meant to say that while Bus. 85 doesn't receivethat funding, if it were re-labeled as 685, then it would, just like I assume 585 does. Correct?

Of course there is the other problem that you have already tackled, RS, which is getting SCDOT and the locals to buy in. For those who haven't been reading since 2005, take a look at this post made by roads-scholar back in 2005.

Yeah - the 685 designation would change everything with respect to funding.

I could rant forever about Business 85 but until the important players in our community get involved, nothing will happen. Spartan, thanks for helping to keep this issue alive.

[Spartan]

You're most welcome. It seems like something the community would want get behind, and I find the apathy a bit confusing and frustrating. If it means that some government agencies have to do a little more work, so what? Why should Spartanburg have to deal with a rotting and decaying ex-interstate. It makes Spartanburg and South Carolina look bad. Spartanburg County should have quality infrastructure just like the rest of the state. It makes more sense to get it set up so that funding can be made available down the road (no pun intended) rather than never.

Based on your previous posts, it sounds like the only technical reason for there to not be a 685 designation is the fact that there are so many upgrades that would have to occur, and SCDOT doesn't want to have to pay for them.

[roads-scholar]

You're most welcome. It seems like something the community would want get behind, and I find the apathy a bit confusing and frustrating. If it means that some government agencies have to do a little more work, so what? Why should Spartanburg have to deal with a rotting and decaying ex-interstate. It makes Spartanburg and South Carolina look bad. Spartanburg County should have quality infrastructure just like the rest of the state. It makes more sense to get it set up so that funding can be made available down the road (no pun intended) rather than never.

Based on your previous posts, it sounds like the only technical reason for there to not be a 685 designation is the fact that there are so many upgrades that would have to occur, and SCDOT doesn't want to have to pay for them.

Way back in 1995 SCDOT could have designated the highway I-685 (or I-285, I-485, I-885) and the highway's deficiencies could have been grandfathered. Now, it may take an act of Congress (literally) to change the designation to interstate status. That said, with enough horsepower and community backing it CAN BE DONE.

[Spartan]

Anything is possible. Its just navigating the jungle of red tape.

IMO, 685 or 885 would be idea since these aren't being used by other states (yet).

[GSP Tiger]

How many people drive on 26 past Spartanburg thinking it is only US 29 or SC 296 with a shopping mall and retail centers? Neither exits are decent gateways to lead people downtown.

Business 85, if renamed 226, 426, 626 or 826, could pull people off the freeway and lure them into Spartanburg. The renamed route would be upgraded to an urban parkway, and link up with 585 northbound sending people into downtown. This would prodive Spartanburg's necessary gateway from 26, unless 585 is extended out to 26 near Inman.

As for the naming of 26's new 3di, keep it an even number not used in 85 or 26, thus being 426.

[roads-scholar]

How many people drive on 26 past Spartanburg thinking it is only US 29 or SC 296 with a shopping mall and retail centers? Neither exits are decent gateways to lead people downtown.

Business 85, if renamed 226, 426, 626 or 826, could pull people off the freeway and lure them into Spartanburg. The renamed route would be upgraded to an urban parkway, and link up with 585 northbound sending people into downtown. This would prodive Spartanburg's necessary gateway from 26, unless 585 is extended out to 26 near Inman.

As for the naming of 26's new 3di, keep it an even number not used in 85 or 26, thus being 426.

Signage on I-26 for US-29 North (exit 21B) indicates this is the route to "Downtown Spartanburg".

It would be nice to see 585 extended to I-26 but I that's wishful thinking. What would be the smart thing to do is link up I-85 with 585. It seems incredulous that SCDOT didn't do that when the new I-85 was constructed.

[Spartan]

The 85/585 interchange requires very expensive flyover work. I agree that they should have done it at the time, and my guess is that it was value engineered out because of the continual delays associated with the previous widening project. That interchange is still on the LRTP though.

I like the idea of renaming Bus 85 with an I-26 moniker. That solves a lot of identity problems created with too many 85's (hypothetically: 85, 585, and 685, also 385 in Gvegas). Both interstates have routing signs to downtown Spartanburg, so that's not a major problem, and even the US highway routes have signs once you get into town.

[roads-scholar]

The 85/585 interchange requires very expensive flyover work. I agree that they should have done it at the time, and my guess is that it was value engineered out because of the continual delays associated with the previous widening project. That interchange is still on the LRTP though.

I like the idea of renaming Bus 85 with an I-26 moniker. That solves a lot of identity problems created with too many 85's (hypothetically: 85, 585, and 685, also 385 in Gvegas). Both interstates have routing signs to downtown Spartanburg, so that's not a major problem, and even the US highway routes have signs once you get into town.

While I've recommended the use of 685 I'd take any 3di if it resulted in returning Business 85 back to interstate status.

[spartanburgh]

I think 426 or 685 would be the best options. Our leaders keep missing the boat when it comes to making decessions like this. They always seem to get bogged down with the little crap and miss the big opportunities. Interstate status would be huge for this corridor and I'm surprised that someone hasn't made a push for this to happen. It may take a long time to get this done, but if they never start the push it will never happen.

[Spartan]

They are almost ready to start buying right of way for the Highway 9 widening. One more public meeting about the design is today, hopefully it has sidewalks and bike lanes, and the "complete street" concept that was mentioned before.

HJ Article

[hub-city]

Went by the meeting tonight for Hwy. 9. I just wanted to get a look at the drawings. Right now they include everything we could hope for including medians, sidewalks and bike lanes. They also squared off several angled intersections especially on the upper end. They cut out the road that angles over to 292 and then squared off the 292/9 intersection, even making the Sportsman building move their driveway south to line up with the new interchange. They also did the same to Edwards road and Sugar Ridge road. Both are very angled now.

I was there around 5:30 and it was already a pretty good crowd, but I don't know their sentiments. We'll find out soon enough.

[huck94]

Watching the news, some of the sentiments are pretty dire, yet not surprising. I heard that the money should be used only for asphalt and not wasted on sidewalks and plants. It's truly sad as to how closed minded some folks are.

[Spartan]

Sidewalks are a part of the road. People need to understand that. The money that is spent for landscaping is a minuscule part of the overall project.

[Spartan]

There is an article in the HJ about this road-widening. It reflects the same things that y'all are saying about the other news outlets. I have to wonder if these are actually representative of the entire crowd, or if more people were generally in favor of it? IMO, most people want it to look nice and be functional.

More importantly, the article contains an email address for an SCDOT representative so that you can comment on the design of the road. I hope all of you will write in support of what they are proposing. ([email protected])

HJ Article

[roads-scholar]

There is an article in the HJ about this road-widening. It reflects the same things that y'all are saying about the other news outlets. I have to wonder if these are actually representative of the entire crowd, or if more people were generally in favor of it? IMO, most people want it to look nice and be functional.

More importantly, the article contains an email address for an SCDOT representative so that you can comment on the design of the road. I hope all of you will write in support of what they are proposing. ([email protected])

HJ Article

The article also mentions developer Rick Cobden's issues with the design, particularly medians. Of course we all know developers hate medians and other attractive elements in street design. I think developers should work around the design, not the other way around.

[Spartan]

True. And lets not pretend like medians can't be designed with turn lanes.