Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[sprjus4]

The math would be 12 minutes, and those limits are wrong.  The bypasses are about 20% of that length, and nearly all the rest of the mileage is 60 mph.  So the difference might be about 6 minutes, not enough to influence things.

The first 13 miles from Virginia to Elizabeth City is the only non-freeway portion posted at 60 MPH. The rest of it is 55 MPH. Around Hertford, it is 50 MPH, and about 6 miles near Williamston and Windsor are 35 MPH.

will only travel 10 additional miles to use the U.S. 17 / U.S. 64 routing as opposed to U.S. 58. In that instance, it would be faster to use the N.C. route if it were to have a 70 MPH speed limit. Yes, it's a fact milage will be shorter on U.S. 58, but it's also a fact that travel time is the same on either routing. Until any speed increases come to U.S. 58, it will stay that way.

There are 31 miles of US-58 that could be posted at 70 mph per current state law, the bypasses at Courtland, Franklin and Suffolk, and US-58 between Suffolk and Bowers Hill.

Yes, Virginia law does say that a limited-access freeway can be posted as high as 70 MPH. However, the Franklin Bypass has a few curves that are cannot handle a speed that high, especially in a semi, and given the amount of traffic on the Suffolk bypass combined with a few sharper curves there, a speed that high would not be warranted. I could see at most 65 MPH posted on both freeways. The stretch between Bowers Hill and Suffolk could easily be 70 MPH (most people drive over 70 MPH on it), however currently there are at-grade intersections, so no it could not be legally. If it is ever turned into a freeway, then it could be, but knowing VDOT it will likely stay at 60 MPH, maybe 65 MPH.

Your math and data has multiple flaws as shown above, and some of the data could easily change in a manner unfavorable to your computations.

Again, the existing US-64 and US-17 route is already very effective and perhaps you should ask why very few are using it between the Raleigh area and the Norfolk area, and between the Norfolk area and the southerly I-95 corridor.

The completion of the Dominion Blvd. project in 2017 was a game changer in the completion of the final link in that 4-lane corridor.  It used to be a 2-lane bottleneck with a drawbridge and now it is a 4-lane freeway with a fixed high-level bridge.  High capacity connection with I-64 and I-464.

The reason nobody is using it between the two points is because it is 25-30 minutes slower to go that way, and unless there is some big accident on 95 north of Rocky Mount, there would be no good reason to. I've tried the route myself, it's much slower than U.S. 58 present day. That is because most of it is 55 MPH. If it were 70 MPH, that would be different. You would see more traffic between the two points utilizing it because it would offer the same travel time as U.S. 58 and for many, have the incentive of being able to drive faster.

You may not like the concept, but that doesn't mean that it won't get used simply because it has more mileage. For most, travel time is the key, and when comparing an interstate highway and an arterial route that would both take 2 hours, taking the interstate would be the preference. There has been support for the interstate concept by the Port of Virginia, advocates in Hampton Roads, Raleigh, and the many communities along the route, and parts of it are already funded for upgrades by NCDOT. Like it or not, it is going to be built, it will have support, and it will get usage by I-95 & Raleigh bound traffic. If Virginia wants to get its game up and construct an interstate-grade U.S. 58, then it will obviously have a completely different outcome, but if this is the only interstate built, then it will be this way.

[Beltway]

The math would be 12 minutes, and those limits are wrong.  The bypasses are about 20% of that length, and nearly all the rest of the mileage is 60 mph.  So the difference might be about 6 minutes, not enough to influence things.

The first 13 miles from Virginia to Elizabeth City is the only non-freeway portion posted at 60 MPH. The rest of it is 55 MPH. Around Hertford, it is 50 MPH, and about 6 miles near Williamston and Windsor are 35 MPH.

Well, ok, but as much as some people complain about speed limits, nearly all of that non-bypass mileage -could- be posted for 60 mph, and most of that 6 miles near Williamston and Windsor should be postable at 50 or 55 mph.

There are 31 miles of US-58 that could be posted at 70 mph per current state law, the bypasses at Courtland, Franklin and Suffolk, and US-58 between Suffolk and Bowers Hill.

Yes, Virginia law does say that a limited-access freeway can be posted as high as 70 MPH. However, the Franklin Bypass has a few curves that are cannot handle a speed that high, especially in a semi, and given the amount of traffic on the Suffolk bypass combined with a few sharper curves there, a speed that high would not be warranted. I could see at most 65 MPH posted on both freeways. The stretch between Bowers Hill and Suffolk could easily be 70 MPH (most people drive over 70 MPH on it), however currently there are at-grade intersections, so no it could not be legally. If it is ever turned into a freeway, then it could be, but knowing VDOT it will likely stay at 60 MPH, maybe 65 MPH.

The Code of Virginia says up to 70 mph on limited access highways, and a limited access highway can have at-grade intersections.  That section Suffolk-Bowers Hill is a limited access highway, as it is built on a limited access right-of-way.

Other than a couple curves that might have an advisory speed of 65, those 3 bypasses could conceivably be 70 mph.

You are making ill-conceived assumptions about speed limits, about a proposal that would take at least 20 years to come to fruition.  It is hard to predict what the speed limits might be then, they could be a lot closer together than what you think.  It seems foolish to base massive funding decisions on something as changeable as speed limits.

It is easy to predict that Suffolk-Bowers Hill will be upgraded to full freeway standards by then.

The reason nobody is using it between the two points is because it is 25-30 minutes slower to go that way, and unless there is some big accident on 95 north of Rocky Mount, there would be no good reason to. I've tried the route myself, it's much slower than U.S. 58 present day. That is because most of it is 55 MPH. If it were 70 MPH, that would be different. You would see more traffic between the two points utilizing it because it would offer the same travel time as U.S. 58 and for many, have the incentive of being able to drive faster.

I already demonstrated that the difference between 55 and 70 would be 12 minutes.  And that much of that US-17 55 could be raised to 60.  It will never remotely "offer the same travel time" no matter how much the people advocating this boondoggle wish it so.

[sprjus4]

Two new updates regarding projects on upgrading US-17 to interstate standards -

- The project to upgrade US 17 between Virginia and Elizabeth City has been unfunded due to low scoring.
- The project to upgrade US 17 on the Hertford Bypass was delayed for construction until FY 2028, and the only part that is funded for then is the two interchanges. The rest of the $140 million needed remains unfunded.

https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing; it likely won't be built out even in NC for a couple of decades, and unless the City of Chesapeake can and will display the will to upgrade US 17, there won't be any continuity in VA.  But the reason it will eventually be built in NC is simple -- most of the corridor is there, and there's thus greater opportunity for sales of potato chips and Big Gulps and occupancy of motel rooms along its approximately 93% of the corridor.   Add to that the belief held within NC circles, apparently including NCDOT, that the corridor will jump-start new commercial development within the NE NC region bisected by the route and you have all the incentive necessary to construct your unbuilt 62 miles and upgrade the substandard sections of the remainder.   I-87 (still hate that designation!) is the poster child for pure political will defying conventional developmental wisdom -- and, in actuality, has been since HPC #13 was established back in 1991. 

[sprjus4]

Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;

On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed. A trucking corridor can expand down US-17 though, because this first 80 miles of it will be converted into a full freeway, therefore reducing travel times and opening US-17 as a comparable and competitive option to I-95 when going to places such as Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, or Charleston along the coast.

it likely won't be built out even in NC for a couple of decades, and unless the City of Chesapeake can and will display the will to upgrade US 17, there won't be any continuity in VA.

It keeps getting talked about, and wanting to eventually add it to the Comprehensive Plan, but unless funding comes from either VDOT or the City, I can't see it being built in the near-future. But the interest is definitely here. A megasite proposed along the North Carolina border off US-17 (which will be I-87) is one of the big drivers of trying to get it built, because currently that megasite is almost 20 miles away from interstate access (I-64).

and, in actuality, has been since HPC #13 was established back in 1991.

Correct, it seems a lot of people don't realize this. That's why the rest of US-64 beyond Tarboro was built to full interstate standards in the late 90s & early 2000s. Though the Elizabeth City (2002) and Windsor (2008) bypasses weren't which I don't know why.

[sparker]

That's why the rest of US-64 beyond Tarboro was built to full interstate standards in the late 90s & early 2000s. Though the Elizabeth City (2002) and Windsor (2008) bypasses weren't which I don't know why.

Yes, that change in standards (seen readily with GSV) corresponds with the 1991 ISTEA legislation that in part established the HPC conceptual compendium along with the first 19 corridors.  Nevertheless, NCDOT seems to treat the US 64 and US 17 segments differently -- whether that can be laid to not wanting to alter previous designs for the US 17 segment (which seems dubious) or defer to local wishes and concerns (seemingly always a practice in NC) would have to be further researched.  Without deviating too far into the fictional realm, the NC "master plan" does show the entirety of US 17 as eventual full freeway; it wouldn't be too out of reason to envision an eventual two separate Interstate corridors stemming from the HPC-13 routing -- one E-W along US 64 (and possibly extended east toward the Outer Banks as far as NCDOT wants to take it) and the N-S one along US 17.  Hell, the new NC STIP revisions throw additional near-term $$ into US 17 for items corresponding to freeway upgrades. 

Possibly another explanation why the US 17 freeway bypasses of the two cited towns weren't constructed to I-standards might lie with the in-state prioritization in the '00's of the I-73/74 corridor; much of the construction of what's now on the ground with that corridor occurred during that time frame; saving even a few bucks elsewhere might have meant some additional funds available to expedite the new mid-state Interstates.  But again, the construction of US 64 from Tarboro to Williamston to Interstate standards after '91 attests to the eventual intent of NCDOT to seek Interstate status for their portion of the HPC #13 corridor regardless of other state plans.  Even though only formalized in 2016, Raleigh-Hampton Roads -- with most of the corridor within NC -- had been fomenting for a quarter century before the actual designation process.  Once could say that since the devolution of Interstate impetus to the individual states since 1973, this is what, for better or worse, what one gets!   

[Beltway]

Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;

On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.

Baloney, any way you slice it.  Do we really have to reargue this?

[sparker]

Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;

On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.

Baloney, any way you slice it.  Do we really have to reargue this?

More like mortadella than garden-variety bologna/baloney -- there are considerably more "pork fat" globules in this one (at least the NC corridor backers hope so, if it will accrue to them!).  HPC #13 -- and I-87 later on -- were and are a NC in-state enhancement -- no more, no less.  Over time it'll be built, even though it may simply peter out at the VA state line.  But, as I've stated upthread, this corridor may be a "stalking horse", so to speak, for more comprehensive plans for US 17 in NC; by the time any substantial construction activity occurs on that corridor, the purpose and rationale might have significantly changed, and the E-W/US 64 portion may simply be a connector east from Raleigh to that revised concept.  This being NC, I certainly wouldn't be surprised by anything!

And as far as "rearguing" goes -- it comes down to NC likes new Interstates whereas VA doesn't particularly follow suit.  If they did, US 58 might well be an Interstate east of I-85.  It's not really a matter of we posters agreeing to disagree, it's all down to the states involved and their divergent policies.  To reiterate a cliche it is what it is! 

[Beltway]

More like mortadella than garden-variety bologna/baloney -- there are considerably more "pork fat" globules in this one (at least the NC corridor backers hope so, if it will accrue to them!).  HPC #13 -- and I-87 later on -- were and are a NC in-state enhancement -- no more, no less. 

Folks, do you have a problem with feral hogs destroying crops and livestock on your farm or ranch? 

If so, these guys at BoarBuster have an effective solution to your woes!

2 BoarBuster™ Traps Dropping at the Same Time: 45 Pigs Captured
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4oNA8ViuwI

[sparker]

^^^^^^^
Wonder if these folks travel around in a white Cadillac ex-ambulance/hearse with black/red logos containing a cartoon boar?

[sprjus4]

Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;

On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.

Baloney, any way you slice it.  Do we really have to reargue this?

I'm not going to reargue it anymore. We both have a difference in opinions, let's simply leave it at that.

[Beltway]

Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;

On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.

Baloney, any way you slice it.  Do we really have to reargue this?

I'm not going to reargue it anymore. We both have a difference in opinions, let's simply leave it at that.

It is not an opinion.  Your route is 25 miles longer.  Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.

HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.

[Beltway]

Wonder if these folks travel around in a white Cadillac ex-ambulance/hearse with black/red logos containing a cartoon boar?

Probably a Chevrolet Blazer with black/red logos containing a cartoon boar!

[wdcrft63]

Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;

On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.

Baloney, any way you slice it.  Do we really have to reargue this?

I'm not going to reargue it anymore. We both have a difference in opinions, let's simply leave it at that.

It is not an opinion.  Your route is 25 miles longer.  Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.

HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.

This argument (I-87 vs. US 58/I-95) keeps everyone busy on the Forum, but the fact is, North Carolina doesn't care very much how folks get to Norfolk. The purpose of the I-87 proposal was and is to get people to Elizabeth City and other NE NC destinations.

[Beltway]

It is not an opinion.  Your route is 25 miles longer.  Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.
HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.

This argument (I-87 vs. US 58/I-95) keeps everyone busy on the Forum, but the fact is, North Carolina doesn't care very much how folks get to Norfolk. The purpose of the I-87 proposal was and is to get people to Elizabeth City and other NE NC destinations.

Then I would like to see them confine it to that argument, rather than the buttressing claim for years that it would also connect Norfolk to Raleigh and I-95 South, as in "this needs to be an Interstate", when in fact a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves the corridor.

[Roadsguy]

Yes, I-87 won't be as efficient in terms of time or mileage as a 95/58 routing;

On a truck routing basis to I-95, it won't be (I still feel like some will do it though). I could see more passenger vehicular traffic using the road to connect to I-95 because of the fact it will take the same amount of time as US 58 / I-95 currently does once fully completed.

Baloney, any way you slice it.  Do we really have to reargue this?

I'm not going to reargue it anymore. We both have a difference in opinions, let's simply leave it at that.

It is not an opinion.  Your route is 25 miles longer.  Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.

HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.

This argument (I-87 vs. US 58/I-95) keeps everyone busy on the Forum, but the fact is, North Carolina doesn't care very much how folks get to Norfolk. The purpose of the I-87 proposal was and is to get people to Elizabeth City and other NE NC destinations.

Which is why they should have just gone with an E-W corridor number.

On a side note, I wonder if VDOT would pursue extending I-87 north to take over I-464 if 87 is every complete.

[sprjus4]

It is not an opinion.  Your route is 25 miles longer.  Speed limits and road designs are not static entities.
HPC-13 boosters (and NE NC economic development professionals) have used this Raleigh-Norfolk chestnut as the foundation of their advocacy paradigm.

This argument (I-87 vs. US 58/I-95) keeps everyone busy on the Forum, but the fact is, North Carolina doesn't care very much how folks get to Norfolk. The purpose of the I-87 proposal was and is to get people to Elizabeth City and other NE NC destinations.

Then I would like to see them confine it to that argument, rather than the buttressing claim for years that it would also connect Norfolk to Raleigh and I-95 South, as in "this needs to be an Interstate", when in fact a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves the corridor.

The reason for the "Norfolk - Raleigh" argument is to make the corridor look attractive, in hopes to get more funding opportunity. If they just said "we want an interstate to Elizabeth City", no shot. Throw a continuous interstate designation from Norfolk - Raleigh (longer or not, that's beside the point), and you have a more attractive package.

Yes, a four-lane arterial highway serves just fine traffic wise, but you don't see any warehouses, big businesses, industry, etc. in that part of the state. Why? There's no interstate access. Interstates aren't just reserved to parallel corridors with 2 lanes. North Carolina is a good example of this, and this is in North Carolina.

Where's this argument going to be in 25 years when this thing is built and has good use?

[Beltway]

Then I would like to see them confine it to that argument, rather than the buttressing claim for years that it would also connect Norfolk to Raleigh and I-95 South, as in "this needs to be an Interstate", when in fact a 4-lane high-speed highway already serves the corridor.

The reason for the "Norfolk - Raleigh" argument is to make the corridor look attractive, in hopes to get more funding opportunity. If they just said "we want an interstate to Elizabeth City", no shot. Throw a continuous interstate designation from Norfolk - Raleigh (longer or not, that's beside the point), and you have a more attractive package.

It is a very disingenuous way to promote a highway, basically a form of propaganda.  Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.

Yes, a four-lane arterial highway serves just fine traffic wise, but you don't see any warehouses, big businesses, industry, etc. in that part of the state. Why? There's no interstate access. Interstates aren't just reserved to parallel corridors with 2 lanes. North Carolina is a good example of this, and this is in North Carolina.

Logical fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Plenty of areas around the county have Interstate access but no major businesses.  At least those highways are part of the national network.

Where's this argument going to be in 25 years when this thing is built and has good use?

Ah yes, the attempt to build a sense of inevitability.  What if it is built and 10 years later there are still no major businesses nearby.

If a modern 4-lane divided highway which in and of itself can fulfill the mission of HPC 13 can't attract businesses, then maybe those counties just aren't made for that.

[sprjus4]

Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.

How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?

At least those highways are part of the national network.

This highway will just as well be apart of the national network as the rest of it is. Plenty of interstates take out-of-way routing to serve certain areas (in this case, eastern NC), and sometimes you have an option to take a direct path, other times you're better off staying on the interstate. In this case, it swings both ways. That was the whole intent of the original interstate system, not to run the direct path, but to serve towns and cities along the way.

If a modern 4-lane divided highway which in and of itself can fulfill the mission of HPC 13 can't attract businesses, then maybe those counties just aren't made for that.

A reason US-17 currently doesn't have many businesses along it, it's not a big trucking route. If you enhance 80 miles of it to interstate standards, and get a shield on it, up the speed limits to 70 MPH, and get trucks down US-17 as a whole quicker, then it will get more usage, therefore more business could become interested. Connecting to I-95 from Norfolk isn't the full goal of this. US-17 down the whole coast of NC is part of it too.

I'm not going to keep arguing this, facts, opinions, etc. We have different views on this highway clearly, and bouncing back and forth with counters isn't going to do anything.

[froggie]

^ Truckers are a lot smarter about highways than regular people give them credit for.  If it's still faster along 58/95 (and all indications are that it will continue to be, even if "I-87" is completed), they'll still take 58/95.  Nevermind the lack of tolls on 58/95 whereas you now have a toll on the Steel Bridge on 17.

You may get the variable out-of-state tourist who sees the fancy new red-white-and-blue route shield, but the long-distance truckers will continue to use routes that clearly give them time advantage and a lack of tolls.

Oh...should I add that diesel is cheaper in Virginia than it is in North Carolina?

[sprjus4]

^ Truckers are a lot smarter about highways than regular people give them credit for.  If it's still faster along 58/95 (and all indications are that it will continue to be, even if "I-87" is completed), they'll still take 58/95.  Nevermind the lack of tolls on 58/95 whereas you now have a toll on the Steel Bridge on 17.

If a trucker is coming from east of the Elizabeth River, they are likely to go through the Downtown Tunnel or Midtown Tunnel, therefore paying a toll. If they chose to avoid it, they would swing around I-64 and hit the interchange with "I-87", and from that point it would only be 15 miles more, not 25. At that point, it would be quicker going down I-87 or the same.

Also, US-17 could be an option for truckers bound to Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, or Charleston as opposed to heading inland then back out, because US-17 for 80 miles would be faster.

You may get the variable out-of-state tourist who sees the fancy new red-white-and-blue route shield

I imagine most would be this way, as the point I was trying to make before. The mileage savings isn't as big a deal for the average Joe.

[Beltway]

Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.

How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?

They can withhold federal funding, refuse to sign EIS and ROD.

At least those highways are part of the national network.

This highway will just as well be apart of the national network as the rest of it is.

It is already on the NHS, just not Interstate.  Inter-regional highway in its functional role.

Plenty of interstates take out-of-way routing to serve certain areas (in this case, eastern NC), and sometimes you have an option to take a direct path, other times you're better off staying on the interstate. In this case, it swings both ways. That was the whole intent of the original interstate system, not to run the direct path, but to serve towns and cities along the way.

Not really, the 1956 original legislation specified that the Interstate highways follow the most direct feasible routing.  That was relaxed slightly around 1975.

That doesn't mean for example that I-64 should have a beeline between Staunton and Charleston, or even between Lexington and Clifton Forge.  Things like mountains and mountain ranges getting in the way, and making I-77 a north-south route and I-81 a diagonal route, the efficiency of overlapping I-64 on the other two.

But the purpose was to provide national connectivity primarily and local connectivity only after the first was satisfied.

If a modern 4-lane divided highway which in and of itself can fulfill the mission of HPC 13 can't attract businesses, then maybe those counties just aren't made for that.

A reason US-17 currently doesn't have many businesses along it, it's not a big trucking route. If you enhance 80 miles of it to interstate standards, and get a shield on it, up the speed limits to 70 MPH, and get trucks down US-17 as a whole quicker, then it will get more usage, therefore more business could become interested. Connecting to I-95 from Norfolk isn't the full goal of this. US-17 down the whole coast of NC is part of it too.

NCDOT's traffic volume map doesn't have truck percentages.   Trucks can get down a 4-lane divided highway fast enough, having it be a freeway wouldn't improve things much.

[Beltway]

If a trucker is coming from east of the Elizabeth River, they are likely to go through the Downtown Tunnel or Midtown Tunnel, therefore paying a toll. If they chose to avoid it, they would swing around I-64 and hit the interchange with "I-87", and from that point it would only be 15 miles more, not 25. At that point, it would be quicker going down I-87 or the same.

They can use I-64 to bypass south of the city, toll free.  They might save 4 or 5 miles at most, in any event those parties would be maybe 5% of the population and businesses of the region.  Someone around Portsmouth or Bowers Hill would save far more than 25 miles by using US-58 and I-95.

Also, US-17 could be an option for truckers bound to Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, or Charleston as opposed to heading inland then back out, because US-17 for 80 miles would be faster.

Given that 80 mile distance savings and the general good quality of US-17, that already is the preferred routing for cars or trucks between SE VA and those cities.

[sprjus4]

Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.

How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?

They can withhold federal funding, refuse to sign EIS and ROD.

They can refuse funding, but they wouldn't not sign EIS and ROD simply because "it doesn't connect directly to Norfolk". If the state funds it, then they wouldn't refuse to sign because of that.

Not really, the 1956 original legislation specified that the Interstate highways follow the most direct feasible routing.  That was relaxed slightly around 1975.

I-10 goes off a direct path to serve Pensacola, New Orleans, San Antonio, I-64 heads north to serve Charlottesville, I-49 in Louisiana will take a 25 mile longer route than I-10 does to go from Lafayette to New Orleans, to serve those smaller communities, etc. Those are the ones I can think of, there's plenty more. The I-49 one is recent too, and is the same scenario as I-87 is, 25 miles slower than an existing interstate routing (I-10). This has happened before, and the argument that the whole project should be shut down just because of it is a poor one to make.

That doesn't mean for example that I-64 should have a beeline between Staunton and Charleston, or even between Lexington and Clifton Forge.  Things like mountains and mountain ranges getting in the way, and making I-77 a north-south route and I-81 a diagonal route, the efficiency of overlapping I-64 on the other two.

Again, I-64 goes about 25 miles out of the way to serve Charlottesville as opposed to paralleling U.S. 60. And as I mentioned above, there are many examples of this across the country, newer ones and older ones.

NCDOT's traffic volume map doesn't have truck percentages.   Trucks can get down a 4-lane divided highway fast enough, having it be a freeway wouldn't improve things much.

Then why did we build certain parts of the interstate system? There are many highways that have been turned into interstates that would easily serve if a four-lane highway today, if you consider traffic volumes. In your way of things, half the interstate system wouldn't exist and instead be served by four-lane highways. I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg was a perfectly fine 4-lane highway until it was upgraded to interstate in the 80s. Why did we "waste the money" when the four-lane arterial highway carried traffic just fine? It still only carries up to 30,000 AADT today, I imagine it was less back then.

And the map does include truck percentages... ? http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5f6fe58c1d90482ab9107ccc03026280

It's the "MU_PCT" and "MU_AADT" on each segment. US-17 carries up to 10% trucks.

They can use I-64 to bypass south of the city, toll free.  They might save 4 or 5 miles at most, in any event those parties would be maybe 5% of the population and businesses of the region.  Someone around Portsmouth or Bowers Hill would save far more than 25 miles by using US-58 and I-95.

Significant amounts of traffic come from the east side of the Elizabeth River. From I-64 / I-464, using U.S. 17 to U.S. 64 to I-95 (Future I-87) is only 15 miles (not 25) more than taking U.S. 58. Combine it with the the slower speed limits of U.S. 58 and faster on I-87, and I-87 at that point is two minutes faster or the same. In this case, it still might not be the "truck route to I-95", but it will open up as an option. It's not going to be "slower" in much cases at all for HR traffic. Either the same, or maybe a min or two off. For many (not trucks), it's a convenience factor. Arterial highway, or interstate.

[Beltway]

Hopefully FHWA will see thru this and act accordingly.

How can FHWA prohibit NCDOT from building new freeway?

They can withhold federal funding, refuse to sign EIS and ROD.

They can refuse funding, but they wouldn't not sign EIS and ROD simply because "it doesn't connect directly to Norfolk". If the state funds it, then they wouldn't refuse to sign because of that.

If the only perceived "justification" that FHWA can see is putative "economic development", then they can and may well refuse to sign.

Not really, the 1956 original legislation specified that the Interstate highways follow the most direct feasible routing.  That was relaxed slightly around 1975.

I-10 goes off a direct path to serve Pensacola, New Orleans, San Antonio, I-64 heads north to serve Charlottesville, I-49 in Louisiana will take a 25 mile longer route than I-10 does to go from Lafayette to New Orleans, to serve those smaller communities, etc. Those are the ones I can think of, there's plenty more. The I-49 one is recent too, and is the same scenario as I-87 is, 25 miles slower than an existing interstate routing (I-10). This has happened before, and the argument that the whole project should be shut down just because of it is a poor one to make.

I said that it didn't have to be a beeline, just that it be optimized to follow the most direct feasible routing.

Pensacola -- very little deviation.

New Orleans -- large city and metro, and you could say that I-12 substitutes for that segment of I-10, and that I-10 thru NOLA could have been I-210 or I-6, and fully justified 1956 Interstates.

San Antonio -- large city and metro, and that area is a more optimum place for the I-10 junctions with the Interstate highways to Corpus Christi and Laredo/Mexico

Charlottesville -- I-64 is 3 miles shorter (thru routing say Richmond-Covington) by the current US-250 routing as compared to US-60, and involved the construction of at least 30 miles less new Interstate highway, takes advantage of the diagonal routing of I-81 and overlaps it. 

Again, I-64 goes about 25 miles out of the way to serve Charlottesville as opposed to paralleling U.S. 60.

Baloney, thick too!!

NCDOT's traffic volume map doesn't have truck percentages.   Trucks can get down a 4-lane divided highway fast enough, having it be a freeway wouldn't improve things much.

Then why did we build certain parts of the interstate system? There are many highways that have been turned into interstates that would easily serve if a four-lane highway today, if you consider traffic volumes. In your way of things, half the interstate system wouldn't exist and instead be served by four-lane highways. I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg was a perfectly fine 4-lane highway until it was upgraded to interstate in the 80s. Why did we "waste the money" when the four-lane arterial highway carried traffic just fine? It still only carries up to 30,000 AADT today, I imagine it was less back then.

That is a very poor example.  I-95 is a national Interstate highway from Maine to Florida, and in cases like this in other places there was no way they were going to leave such a gap in the Interstate system.

Just because they didn't leave gaps in original Interstate highways like I-95, I-80, I-55 and I-75, doesn't mean that N.C. can justify a vanity Interstate highway in the 21st century.

I was a construction inspector on a part of that I-95 segment, and the highway was carrying about 18,000 AADT and it had major safety issues including the fact that the southbound roadway was only 20 feet wide and parts of it were prone to flooding, after all it was a 1930s design.  $78 million for 28 miles of rural Interstate highway ... $2.8 million per mile, costs were much lower then.

And the map does include truck percentages... ? http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5f6fe58c1d90482ab9107ccc03026280
It's the "MU_PCT" and "MU_AADT" on each segment. US-17 carries up to 10% trucks.

Then it already -is- a major trucking corridor.

They can use I-64 to bypass south of the city, toll free.  They might save 4 or 5 miles at most, in any event those parties would be maybe 5% of the population and businesses of the region.  Someone around Portsmouth or Bowers Hill would save far more than 25 miles by using US-58 and I-95.

Significant amounts of traffic come from the east side of the Elizabeth River. From I-64 / I-464, using U.S. 17 to U.S. 64 to I-95 (Future I-87) is only 15 miles (not 25) more than taking U.S. 58. Combine it with the the slower speed limits of U.S. 58 and faster on I-87, and I-87 at that point is two minutes faster or the same. In this case, it still might not be the "truck route to I-95", but it will open up as an option. It's not going to be "slower" in much cases at all for HR traffic. Either the same, or maybe a min or two off. For many (not trucks), it's a convenience factor. Arterial highway, or interstate.

The most appropriate method is to set one point, such as downtown Norfolk, and use that as a benchmark.  The average regional difference is about 25 miles, even if for a small % of motorists it might be about 5 to 7 less or 5 to 7 more miles.  HPC 13 will be a lot longer, any way you slice it.