Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[NE2]

False. If it had a more reasonable route, it wouldn't get as much facepalm.

Name a more reasonable that NCDOT could construct that would have the same cost as this routing, and already has much of it freeway-grade or limited-access.

NCDOT doesn't need to build anything, now that US 64 is a freeway west of I-95.

[Beltway]

VI-87 will never be competitive with the current routing between Norfolk and I-95 South, and between Norfolk and Raleigh.  It is a Vanity Interstate Highway proposal (and hopefully it will remain a proposal).

Broken record. Anti-interstate rhetoric. The fact you say "it will never be competitive" is a stretch. But, keep telling yourself that, keep adding more numbers to make the highway look bad because it's not "Virginia".

Sorry Charlie, it won't overcome the extra 25 miles and the improvements on US-58 over the next 20 years.   

If you want to suggest other reasons to support it, that is fine, but the "Raleigh-Norfolk" chestnut has been torpedoed.

[goobnav]

Correct, these are all opinions, unless anyone here is a Federal legislator, no direct result will come of either conclusion.  Spirited arguments are good for the soul.

Those that disrespect the honor of a good argument with pointless vulgarity should align themselves with the judgemental ignorant.

Vanity or not I-87 has already started to be signed and further legitimized.

As far as I'm aware, interstates were purposely done to not run a direct routing, but rather to serve the towns along the way. There's rhetoric like this interstate is 50 miles longer, never to be used. They will both take around the same time, and many prefer an interstate over a surface road. But apparently, those are called vanity interstates. The ones which strictly run the most direct routing are the real interstates.

It's not vanity. It's going to get progressed in the next 10-15 years. I'm curious to see how close the US 58 freeway will be to I-95 at that point. Close to funding  I'm not against the concept, but let's be real - Virginia is never going to build a connector, especially with interests leaning toward I-87 where they can have interstate access to the south without having to spend the billions required to get it. The Port of Virginia and businesses in the area have expressed interest in it. Chesapeake has heavy interest, and HRTPO has signed a support resolution of an interstate corridor along US 17 / US 64 to Raleigh / I-95 a few years back.

Vanity...

Yeah that was the so-called I-101 concept to go from Wilmington, DE to Raleigh, NC.  Due to I-99, being taken already.

No, the resolution they signed was for the Norfolk to Raleigh highway, originally pitched as "I-44".

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/112014TPO-Resolution%207B-HRTPO%20Board%20Resolution%202014-07.pdf
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P18-Hampton_Roads_to_Raleigh_Corridor_Future_Interstate_Designation.pdf
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/110514TTAC-Handout-New%20Business-HR%20to%20Raleigh%20Corridor.pdf

They got the idea for I-44 from this:


Interstate 101/U.S. 13/Delaware 1 (Relief Route)    Roads and Bridges    DE, MD, VA
Since we already have an Interstate 99, the Roads & Bridges article (Interstate 2000) refers to the U.S. 13 (Relief Route) Corridor as "Interstate 101." The authors indicate that Interstate 101 could run from the Philadelphia metro area south, via U.S. 13, to the Hampton Roads area via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. Then Interstate 101 could turn inland and meet Interstate 40 in Raleigh, N.C., probably via U.S. 13, 17, and 64. DelDOT has even considered U.S. 113 as a freeway: see DelDOT U.S. 113 Press Release. The southern part of this proposed interstate would include NHS/ISTEA/TEA-21 High Priority Corridor 13. My fanciful extension: redesignate Interstate 476 as Interstate 101. I think this routing would add a bit of legitimacy to Interstate 99 ... but not much.

[goobnav]

False. If it had a more reasonable route, it wouldn't get as much facepalm.

Name a more reasonable that NCDOT could construct that would have the same cost as this routing, and already has much of it freeway-grade or limited-access.

NCDOT doesn't need to build anything, now that US 64 is a freeway west of I-95.

It only meets freeway standards per Pennsylvania standards, Interstate standards need wider shoulders on both sides and wider bridges.

[sprjus4]

False. If it had a more reasonable route, it wouldn't get as much facepalm.

Name a more reasonable that NCDOT could construct that would have the same cost as this routing, and already has much of it freeway-grade or limited-access.

NCDOT doesn't need to build anything, now that US 64 is a freeway west of I-95.

Hampton Roads is a major metro area and lacks any freeway access to the south. This is a needed connection in the interstate system, and would service Elizabeth City, a growing city and has military presence. But I guess that does not matter.

[NE2]

It only meets freeway standards per Pennsylvania standards, Interstate standards need wider shoulders on both sides and wider bridges.

I'd like some of the crack you're smoking.

[froggie]

^^ E-City doesn't have military presence.  Coast Guard by definition is Homeland Security, not DoD.  Still doesn't obviate the fact that US 58 is a shorter and faster corridor between Hampton Roads and I-95 South (ESPECIALLY if coming from Suffolk or the Peninsula) and it was proven upthread that it will continue to be so even after "I-87" is completed.

[NE2]

Hampton Roads is a major metro area and lacks any freeway access to the south. This is a needed connection in the interstate system, and would service Elizabeth City, a growing city and has military presence. But I guess that does not matter.

I-87 turns west at Elizabeth City, so it wouldn't give any significant freeway access to the south. If the military fucks want better access, they can pay for it.

[Beltway]

Hampton Roads is a major metro area and lacks any freeway access to the south. This is a needed connection in the interstate system, and would service Elizabeth City, a growing city and has military presence. But I guess that does not matter.

Elizabeth City is a very small city that does not warrant an Interstate highway, especially when it already has a 4-lane high speed arterial highway.

[Beltway]

I'd like some of the crack you're smoking.

Hey you are going overboard on that ... it's just pot.

[goobnav]

It only meets freeway standards per Pennsylvania standards, Interstate standards need wider shoulders on both sides and wider bridges.

I'd like some of the crack you're smoking.

Coming from the kodachrome US signage in FL, give me some of the LSD you are on, stop hogging it for yourself.

[sprjus4]

^^ E-City doesn't have military presence.  Coast Guard by definition is Homeland Security, not DoD.  Still doesn't obviate the fact that US 58 is a shorter and faster corridor between Hampton Roads and I-95 South (ESPECIALLY if coming from Suffolk or the Peninsula) and it was proven upthread that it will continue to be so even after "I-87" is completed.

Elizabeth City is a very small city that does not warrant an Interstate highway, especially when it already has a 4-lane high speed arterial highway.

Suffolk and Peninsula are different stories. Parts of the Peninsula can go up I-64 to I-85 South, and that's quicker. Poor argument. US 58 and I-87 will have the same travel time, it's not "shorter" despite how a few people want to argue it.

There's all this anti I-87 rhetoric, but face the reality. It's going to get built. It's not a "vanity" interstate. It connects two major metro areas and takes a slightly longer routing to serve cities and towns in northeastern NC which currently lack interstate access. 

If I-87 was such a bad route, and deserves to die, then there wouldn't be as much as a push for it as there is, from both Virginia and North Carolina. And you're complaining on an online forum it's a bad route, but not actually speaking to the people who influence the decisions.

[Beltway]

Elizabeth City is a very small city that does not warrant an Interstate highway, especially when it already has a 4-lane high speed arterial highway.

There's all this anti I-87 rhetoric, but face the reality. It's going to get built.

So its "my way or the highway"?   Like with the builders of the Cross-Bronx Expressway!!

It connects two major metro areas and takes a slightly longer routing to serve cities and towns in northeastern NC which currently lack interstate access. 

It is enough longer so that particular point needs to be deleted.

And you're complaining on an online forum it's a bad route, but not actually speaking to the people who influence the decisions.

Really?  Influence the decisions?  You sound like a lobbyist for some outfit like the American Highway Users Alliance.  All kinds of "data" at your fingertips with all kinds of well-rehearsed cleverly worded arguments.

[Rothman]

I've heard a whole lot of NYSDOT employees say I-88 was unnecessary.

I don't know why, as I just posted a brief explanation of how it fits into the Interstate system both regionally and nationally.
The old road NY-7 was nearly all 2 lanes and passing thru towns.  It wasn't like there was a 4-lane high speed road already there.

There was a lot of feeling that the traffic volume did not necessitate the entire interstate.
But, hey, if only you were there with your network explanation, you could have convinced them that because it fit into some spider web as you envisioned that the thing was necessary despite their misgivings regarding the actual demand.

Interesting how you speak for all these nameless NYSDOT employees...  Given that it was completed over 30 years ago and was authorized over 50 years ago, how many employees would there still be around to vocalize their opinion?

A couple of them have only retired recently, actually and, shoot, one had a daughter at SUNY Oneonta and still thought it was overbuilt.

In short, a bunch, given that the completion date is actually irrelevant when it came to their opinion that there wasn't and hasn't been enough demand to legitimize its construction.

[Beltway]

I've heard a whole lot of NYSDOT employees say I-88 was unnecessary.

I don't know why, as I just posted a brief explanation of how it fits into the Interstate system both regionally and nationally.
The old road NY-7 was nearly all 2 lanes and passing thru towns.  It wasn't like there was a 4-lane high speed road already there.

There was a lot of feeling that the traffic volume did not necessitate the entire interstate.
But, hey, if only you were there with your network explanation, you could have convinced them that because it fit into some spider web as you envisioned that the thing was necessary despite their misgivings regarding the actual demand.

Interesting how you speak for all these nameless NYSDOT employees...  Given that it was completed over 30 years ago and was authorized over 50 years ago, how many employees would there still be around to vocalize their opinion?

A couple of them have only retired recently, actually and, shoot, one had a daughter at SUNY Oneonta and still thought it was overbuilt.
In short, a bunch, given that the completion date is actually irrelevant when it came to their opinion that there wasn't and hasn't been enough demand to legitimize its construction.

Interesting, I just looked up the rural volumes and they range from 10,000 to 15,000 AADT, but truck percentages are not listed.  About the same range as the northernmost 80 miles of I-87 Adirondack Northway.

[sprjus4]

I've heard a whole lot of NYSDOT employees say I-88 was unnecessary.

I don't know why, as I just posted a brief explanation of how it fits into the Interstate system both regionally and nationally.
The old road NY-7 was nearly all 2 lanes and passing thru towns.  It wasn't like there was a 4-lane high speed road already there.

There was a lot of feeling that the traffic volume did not necessitate the entire interstate.
But, hey, if only you were there with your network explanation, you could have convinced them that because it fit into some spider web as you envisioned that the thing was necessary despite their misgivings regarding the actual demand.

Interesting how you speak for all these nameless NYSDOT employees...  Given that it was completed over 30 years ago and was authorized over 50 years ago, how many employees would there still be around to vocalize their opinion?

A couple of them have only retired recently, actually and, shoot, one had a daughter at SUNY Oneonta and still thought it was overbuilt.
In short, a bunch, given that the completion date is actually irrelevant when it came to their opinion that there wasn't and hasn't been enough demand to legitimize its construction.

Interesting, I just looked up the rural volumes and they range from 10,000 to 15,000 AADT, but truck percentages are not listed.  About the same range as the northernmost 80 miles of I-87 Adirondack Northway.

You know, it's funny, because US 17 has those same volumes on the I-87 corridor. So why wasn't a 4-lane rural highway justified for either of these routes then under your standards of a four-lane arterial highway capacity?

[Beltway]

Interesting, I just looked up the rural volumes and they range from 10,000 to 15,000 AADT, but truck percentages are not listed.  About the same range as the northernmost 80 miles of I-87 Adirondack Northway.

You know, it's funny, because US 17 has those same volumes on the I-87 corridor. So why wasn't a 4-lane rural highway justified for either of these routes then under your standards of a four-lane arterial highway capacity?

Another cleverly devised argument trying to set up some logical fallacy or contradiction.

For one thing the preexisting highway to I-88 was mostly 2 lanes and went thru towns.  If someone had proposed an upgrade to 4 lanes with town bypasses that may have been a good alternative.  But when the 1,500 miles was added to the Interstate system in 1968, if New York wanted some that might seem like a place that they would use it.

I-87 between New York City and Albany and Montreal (via Canada 15 freeway) fits the concept of a nationally important Interstate highway.

[sprjus4]

Interesting, I just looked up the rural volumes and they range from 10,000 to 15,000 AADT, but truck percentages are not listed.  About the same range as the northernmost 80 miles of I-87 Adirondack Northway.

You know, it's funny, because US 17 has those same volumes on the I-87 corridor. So why wasn't a 4-lane rural highway justified for either of these routes then under your standards of a four-lane arterial highway capacity?

Another cleverly devised argument trying to set up some logical fallacy or contradiction.

For one thing the preexisting highway to I-88 was mostly 2 lanes and went thru towns.  If someone had proposed an upgrade to 4 lanes with town bypasses that may have been a good alternative.  But when the 1,500 miles was added to the Interstate system in 1968, if New York wanted some that might seem like a place that they would use it.

I-87 between New York City and Albany and Montreal (via Canada 15 freeway) fits the concept of a nationally important Interstate highway.

A lot of the I-87 (North Carolina) / US 17 mileage was built this way, limited-access or full freeway. There's some mileage that's non-limited-access. So, NCDOT wants to complete the rest of that non-limited-access and limited-access up to full freeway standards. I see no issues with it. I-87 will also fit the concept of a nationally important Interstate highway. For 1, it will link two major metropolitan areas not linked by an interstate, it will serve many different communities along the route, and it will link Hampton Roads to I-95 via an interstate. Sure, a shorter alternative exists. But it will still provide a direct interstate connection no matter which way you argue it.

Weren't you the one before who said an interstate isn't intended to go a straight line but rather to serve the communities on its route?

The reason why they don't build a 'straight shot' route is because it would go thru very rural areas and would serve hardly any even very small towns.  That is why many Interstate corridors considerably deviate from a straight line.

[Beltway]

A lot of the I-87 (North Carolina) / US 17 mileage was built this way, limited-access or full freeway.

A lot of it wasn't/isn't.

I-87 will also fit the concept of a nationally important Interstate highway.

Refuted.

For 1, it will link two major metropolitan areas not linked by an interstate,

Refuted. 

it will serve many different communities along the route, and it will link Hampton Roads to I-95 via an interstate. Sure, a shorter alternative exists. But it will still provide a direct interstate connection no matter which way you argue it.

Refuted. 

Weren't you the one before who said an interstate isn't intended to go a straight line but rather to serve the communities on its route?

The reason why they don't build a 'straight shot' route is because it would go thru very rural areas and would serve hardly any even very small towns.  That is why many Interstate corridors considerably deviate from a straight line.

That was when you were questioning why I-64 wasn't built arrow-straight between Lexington and Richmond.

[LM117]

It's like supporters are unable to read a map and see that an upgrade of US 58 or NC 11/US 13 would be significantly shorter than I-87.

But what is it connecting?

I-95 to US 58 is a faster way to get between I-87's endpoints, even after I-87 is fully built.

Then you would have to go down I-95 to US 64 to get to Raleigh?  Not seeing the point.  If you went US 58 to South Hill then I-85 to US 1, still not practical to Raleigh.

Taking US 64 to I-95 to US 58 is currently around 25 miles shorter than taking U.S. 17 today. When NC I-87 is completed, it will still be around 15-20 miles shorter (new alignments will shorten it from 25), but the exact same travel time due to 70 MPH speed limits. It's simply preference which way you go at that point - an interstate-grade facility at 70 MPH constant, or an at-grade highway varied between 60 MPH and 35 MPH.

Actually the bigger point will be the CSX inter-modal, or inland port that will be built in Rocky Mount.  Despite the less distance to US 58, the amount of traffic alone on 95 negates the practicality of such a route, plus that traffic relief is even more far off than I-87 getting built, 95 widening is starting in the south and rebuilding the Roanoke River bridges to larger facilities is going to be costly.  Also having a secondary or tertiary hurricane evacuation route for such a largely populated area is even more logical.

Where exactly in Rocky Mount is that being planned? Do you have a link to something providing more information?

It was originally planned to be built in Selma off of I-95, but the NIMBY's in Johnston County grabbed their pitchforks and chased CSX off, so it went to Rocky Mount instead. Anyhoo, CSX isn't all that's coming to the Rocky Mount area. These should fill you in:

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/12/24/Edgecombe-to-get-boost-to-economy.html

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/07/08/CSX-plans-for-rail-hub-boost-area.html

https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite

[froggie]

Interesting, I just looked up the rural volumes and they range from 10,000 to 15,000 AADT, but truck percentages are not listed.  About the same range as the northernmost 80 miles of I-87 Adirondack Northway.

Per 2017 HPMS, daily truck volumes (both single- and multi-unit totaled) range from just under 1,000 to around 5,500.  The mean for the corridor is around 2,700.  This translates to a percentage ranging from 7-37% and a mean percentage of 23%.

[Beltway]

Interesting, I just looked up the rural volumes and they range from 10,000 to 15,000 AADT, but truck percentages are not listed.  About the same range as the northernmost 80 miles of I-87 Adirondack Northway.

Per 2017 HPMS, daily truck volumes (both single- and multi-unit totaled) range from just under 1,000 to around 5,500.  The mean for the corridor is around 2,700.  This translates to a percentage ranging from 7-37% and a mean percentage of 23%.

Is that for NY I-88?  I wonder why does it vary that much?

[froggie]

Yes, that's for I-88 NY.

Doing a more detailed dive at the data, I suspect the "just under 1,000" and "5,500" figures are both in error.  The former is on a segment that suggests an interchange that doesn't actually exist, while the latter is on a segment that is higher than an adjacent segment but with a partial interchange pointing in the "wrong" direction.

Because of this, I believe the highest daily truck volume is around 4,400 between Exit 24 and Exit 25.  I suspect this represents shunpikers using US 20 to connect to Schenectady from the west.  It is the only location on I-88 NY that has more than 3,800 trucks a day.

The lowest daily truck volume would then be around 1,700 between Exit 25 and the Thruway.  Next lowest beyond that is around 1,900 between Exit 17 (NY 28 North/Colliersville) and Exit 18 (Schenevus).

Change my above-mentioned truck percentage range to between 8-31%.

[goobnav]

It's like supporters are unable to read a map and see that an upgrade of US 58 or NC 11/US 13 would be significantly shorter than I-87.

But what is it connecting?

I-95 to US 58 is a faster way to get between I-87's endpoints, even after I-87 is fully built.

Then you would have to go down I-95 to US 64 to get to Raleigh?  Not seeing the point.  If you went US 58 to South Hill then I-85 to US 1, still not practical to Raleigh.

Taking US 64 to I-95 to US 58 is currently around 25 miles shorter than taking U.S. 17 today. When NC I-87 is completed, it will still be around 15-20 miles shorter (new alignments will shorten it from 25), but the exact same travel time due to 70 MPH speed limits. It's simply preference which way you go at that point - an interstate-grade facility at 70 MPH constant, or an at-grade highway varied between 60 MPH and 35 MPH.

Actually the bigger point will be the CSX inter-modal, or inland port that will be built in Rocky Mount.  Despite the less distance to US 58, the amount of traffic alone on 95 negates the practicality of such a route, plus that traffic relief is even more far off than I-87 getting built, 95 widening is starting in the south and rebuilding the Roanoke River bridges to larger facilities is going to be costly.  Also having a secondary or tertiary hurricane evacuation route for such a largely populated area is even more logical.

Where exactly in Rocky Mount is that being planned? Do you have a link to something providing more information?

It was originally planned to be built in Selma off of I-95, but the NIMBY's in Johnston County grabbed their pitchforks and chased CSX off, so it went to Rocky Mount instead. Anyhoo, CSX isn't all that's coming to the Rocky Mount area. These should fill you in:

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/12/24/Edgecombe-to-get-boost-to-economy.html

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/07/08/CSX-plans-for-rail-hub-boost-area.html

https://www.econdev.org/kingsboromegasite

Also there is talks of moving the DMV HQ from Raleigh to Rocky Mount, granted, my opinion, that's a bad move.

[Beltway]

Yes, that's for I-88 NY.
[...]
Change my above-mentioned truck percentage range to between 8-31%.

If the mean percentage is 23%, then that is about average for a rural Interstate highway.