Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[Beltway]

and in a non-mountainous area if they can't or won't provide at least a 40 foot median then perhaps they need to reconsider that route proposal.

They can always go with a 22ft median and pave the inside shoulders plus Jersey barrier.  That would meet I-standards.

This following cite is from the AASHTO 2005 Interstate Design Guide, I found a PDF copy on the internet.  "A Policy on Design Standards, Interstate System, January 2005."

"Medians in rural areas in level or rolling topography shall be at least 11 m (36 ft) wide.  Medians in urban or mountainous areas shall be at least 3.0 m (10 ft) wide."
....

Even that is rather marginal.  A 36-foot wide median will need at least 4:1 slopes to establish proper drainage, and that is steep enough to flip a car over if it enters at speed.  Minimum median for urban or mountainous should at least provide 6-foot left shoulders on a 2-lane roadway and 10-foot shoulders on a roadway with 3 or more lanes, plus a median barrier.

[sprjus4]

This following cite is from the AASHTO 2005 Interstate Design Guide, I found a PDF copy on the internet.  "A Policy on Design Standards, Interstate System, January 2005."

"Medians in rural areas in level or rolling topography shall be at least 11 m (36 ft) wide.  Medians in urban or mountainous areas shall be at least 3.0 m (10 ft) wide."
....

Even that is rather marginal.  A 36-foot wide median will need at least 4:1 slopes to establish proper drainage, and that is steep enough to flip a car over if it enters at speed.  Minimum median for urban or mountainous should at least provide 6-foot left shoulders on a 2-lane roadway and 10-foot shoulders on a roadway with 3 or more lanes, plus a median barrier.

Actually, that was updated in 2016 (https://www.dot.state.al.us/dsweb/pdf/A%20Policy%20on%20Design%20Standards%20-%20Interstate%20System%20May%202016.pdf) and it now has a minimum of 50 feet, preferably 60 feet. With that being the case, most newer North Carolina interstates go against that, all of the ones with 46 feet medians. They for the longest time built with 60-70 feet medians, but have recently been building newer highways with 46 feet medians instead.

Despite that, they've still incorporated older freeways / roads into newly signed interstates with smaller medians. One example is near Asheboro, it had a 20 feet wide median with guardrail. It was redone to have about 6 feet shoulders divided by a jersey barrier so that it could be signed as I-73/I-74. Not even the redesign meets standards, however it still worked out. I don't believe a median size should halt an interstate from being signed, as long as the rest of the roadway has a full interstate cross-section.

I do admit, the area of US 17 north of Williamston is probably in poor condition, right now it's not realized, but if any construction were to happen on that part, a detailed study would be done and would analyze what would have to occur to raise the road in a cost-effective and environmentally allowable method and bring it up to full interstate standards. The construction cost of $900 million will probably be increased, but I wouldn't say more than $1.2-1.3 billion. One proposed suggestion mentioned in the feasibility study was a completely new alignment through that area (a new freeway from south of Williamston to the Windsor Bypass), however every environmental group would fight NCDOT hard if any ideas were actually laid out, numerous permits would be required, it would also add at least $500 million to construction costs, if not more, and would it even be permitted? It would be cheaper to improve the existing road. Nonetheless, it will eventually get built.

This is pretty sad if what you are saying is what in fact that the city council is planning on doing.  They IMO need to be voted out ASAP and recalled if there is a mechanism for that.

I 100% agree with you. We just had an election for City Council back in May, and despite much opposition to many members in Council and votes against them, they still won the election and are continuing to not represent the citizens and rather their wallets. Our mayor is a big key in that.

[Beltway]

A 36-foot wide median will need at least 4:1 slopes to establish proper drainage, and that is steep enough to flip a car over if it enters at speed.  Minimum median for urban or mountainous should at least provide 6-foot left shoulders on a 2-lane roadway and 10-foot shoulders on a roadway with 3 or more lanes, plus a median barrier.

Actually, that was updated in 2016 (https://www.dot.state.al.us/dsweb/pdf/A%20Policy%20on%20Design%20Standards%20-%20Interstate%20System%20May%202016.pdf) and it now has a minimum of 50 feet, preferably 60 feet. With that being the case, most newer North Carolina interstates go against that, all of the ones with 46 feet medians. They for the longest time built with 60-70 feet medians, but have recently been building newer highways with 46 feet medians instead.

A 46-foot median at least can have gradual enough slopes that a vehicle can use it as a safe recovery zone.  That is a lot of space to recover and it is very rare that a vehicle needs more than 46 feet of width.  I even question the need for a barrier.

Despite that, they've still incorporated older freeways / roads into newly signed interstates with smaller medians. One example is near Asheboro, it had a 20 feet wide median with guardrail. It was redone to have about 6 feet shoulders divided by a jersey barrier so that it could be signed as I-73/I-74. Not even the redesign meets standards, however it still worked out. I don't believe a median size should halt an interstate from being signed, as long as the rest of the roadway has a full interstate cross-section.

Being near Asheboro they may have utilized urban Interstate standards, and 20 feet and a median barrier would work.

I do admit, the area of US 17 north of Williamston is probably in poor condition, right now it's not realized, but if any construction were to happen on that part, a detailed study would be done and would analyze what would have to occur to raise the road in a cost-effective and environmentally allowable method and bring it up to full interstate standards. The construction cost of $900 million will probably be increased, but I wouldn't say more than $1.2-1.3 billion. One proposed suggestion mentioned in the feasibility study was a completely new alignment through that area (a new freeway from south of Williamston to the Windsor Bypass), however every environmental group would fight NCDOT hard if any ideas were actually laid out, numerous permits would be required, it would also add at least $500 million to construction costs, if not more, and would it even be permitted? It would be cheaper to improve the existing road. Nonetheless, it will eventually get built.

Anyone study following US-64 corridor and then curving north and paralleling and replacing the NC-32 bridge over Albemarle Sound?  It is very old (the substructure anyway) and needs replacement and that might be a better route.

In any event a $900 million estimate is undoubtably non-inflated 2018 costs, omitting or underestimating shoulder widening on freeway, omitting widening the two river bridges, and omitting upgrading the wetlands section near Williamston.  Nowadays $1 billion goes in a flash, so they are probably looking at $2 to $2.5 billion or more in dollars inflated to likely construction periods.

[froggie]

and in a non-mountainous area if they can't or won't provide at least a 40 foot median then perhaps they need to reconsider that route proposal.

They can always go with a 22ft median and pave the inside shoulders plus Jersey barrier.  That would meet I-standards.

This following cite is from the AASHTO 2005 Interstate Design Guide, I found a PDF copy on the internet.  "A Policy on Design Standards, Interstate System, January 2005."

"Medians in rural areas in level or rolling topography shall be at least 11 m (36 ft) wide.  Medians in urban or mountainous areas shall be at least 3.0 m (10 ft) wide."
....

Even that is rather marginal.  A 36-foot wide median will need at least 4:1 slopes to establish proper drainage, and that is steep enough to flip a car over if it enters at speed.  Minimum median for urban or mountainous should at least provide 6-foot left shoulders on a 2-lane roadway and 10-foot shoulders on a roadway with 3 or more lanes, plus a median barrier.

My point was that they can still go with an urban median cross-section (22ft with 10ft inside shoulders and 2ft for Jersey barrier)...that is allowable.

[Beltway]

and in a non-mountainous area if they can't or won't provide at least a 40 foot median then perhaps they need to reconsider that route proposal.

They can always go with a 22ft median and pave the inside shoulders plus Jersey barrier.  That would meet I-standards.

This following cite is from the AASHTO 2005 Interstate Design Guide, I found a PDF copy on the internet.  "A Policy on Design Standards, Interstate System, January 2005."
"Medians in rural areas in level or rolling topography shall be at least 11 m (36 ft) wide.  Medians in urban or mountainous areas shall be at least 3.0 m (10 ft) wide."
....
Even that is rather marginal.  A 36-foot wide median will need at least 4:1 slopes to establish proper drainage, and that is steep enough to flip a car over if it enters at speed.  Minimum median for urban or mountainous should at least provide 6-foot left shoulders on a 2-lane roadway and 10-foot shoulders on a roadway with 3 or more lanes, plus a median barrier.

My point was that they can still go with an urban median cross-section (22ft with 10ft inside shoulders and 2ft for Jersey barrier)...that is allowable.

Not allowable in a rural areas in level or rolling topography.  Such as all the US-17 corridor in ENC.

[froggie]

Why do you say it's "not allowable"?  I can think of a number of places where it's been implemented, including recent projects on I-89 and I-91 here in Vermont.

[sprjus4]

Anyone study following US-64 corridor and then curving north and paralleling and replacing the NC-32 bridge over Albemarle Sound?  It is very old (the substructure anyway) and needs replacement and that might be a better route.

It could be an option, but there's problems with that route. First, you would have to upgrade 23.5 miles of US 64 between Williamston and the freeway portion near NC 37. Then, you have to widen 15.6 miles from two lane to a 4 lane rural freeway, and build two 3.5 mile long bridges.

With U.S. 17, constructing 3.5 mile bridges might have to happen as well, but the rest of the route is easier to upgrade. 16.2 miles are freeways already, and the non-freeways would be bypassed new segments.

As for the "substandard" 2 mile bridge near Edenton, the "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System" states "On long bridges, a reduced shoulder width of 4 ft may be used on both the left and right sides." The bridge indeed has 4 foot shoulders on both sides, and full 12 foot lanes.

Not allowable in a rural areas in level or rolling topography.  Such as all the US-17 corridor in ENC.

So you're telling me if VDOT chose to one day upgrade the U.S. 58 corridor to interstate standards to I-95 / I-85, they would have to either bypass the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, or widen them to have a consistent 46-70 foot median?

If it was actually an issue for the segment north of Williamston, it could realigned to have a wider median, but I think it would be pointless (unless of course two parallel bridges are built over the wetlands)

[Mapmikey]

Anyone study following US-64 corridor and then curving north and paralleling and replacing the NC-32 bridge over Albemarle Sound?  It is very old (the substructure anyway) and needs replacement and that might be a better route.

No part of the Albemarle Sound bridge is leftover from the original 1930s bridge, although uglybridges.com shows the 1990 bridge as receiving a poor rating.

US 64 between Williamston and at least Jamesville, plus anywhere near Plymouth would have to be on new alignment entirely...innumerable driveways on that segment...

[Beltway]

As for the "substandard" 2 mile bridge near Edenton, the "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System" states "On long bridges, a reduced shoulder width of 4 ft may be used on both the left and right sides." The bridge indeed has 4 foot shoulders on both sides, and full 12 foot lanes.

Interesting given their standards for medians, and it defines "long bridge" as over 200 feet; some overpasses are longer than that.

Still I don't know of any Interstate bridge built in Virginia since at least 1980 that didn't have full shoulders, and that includes the I-295 James River Bridge (one mile, full right and left shoulders on the 3-lane roadways), the 3.5 mile long I-664 South Trestles, and the new I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Bridge (1.1 mile actually built by MSHA although part is in VA).

So for a one-mile river bridge that is not high-level clearance, not having full right shoulders, built new on the Interstate system, that certainly is "substandard" today.

Not allowable in a rural areas in level or rolling topography.  Such as all the US-17 corridor in ENC.

So you're telling me if VDOT chose to one day upgrade the U.S. 58 corridor to interstate standards to I-95 / I-85, they would have to either bypass the Franklin and Courtland bypasses, or widen them to have a consistent 46-70 foot median?

Those bypasses are built to full freeway standards, over 20 years ago (last dualized 1995, IIRC).  They would have to decide what to do if that happens in the future.  FHWA could refuse to go along with something like that.

[Beltway]

Anyone study following US-64 corridor and then curving north and paralleling and replacing the NC-32 bridge over Albemarle Sound?  It is very old (the substructure anyway) and needs replacement and that might be a better route.

No part of the Albemarle Sound bridge is leftover from the original 1930s bridge, although uglybridges.com shows the 1990 bridge as receiving a poor rating.

So they replaced it in 1990?  I recall seeing an obviously old substructure but that may have been prior to 1990.

[sprjus4]

Interesting given their standards for medians, and it defines "long bridge" as over 200 feet; some overpasses are longer than that.

Still I don't know of any Interstate bridge built in Virginia since at least 1980 that didn't have full shoulders, and that includes the I-295 James River Bridge (one mile, full right and left shoulders on the 3-lane roadways), the 3.5 mile long I-664 South Trestles, and the new I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Bridge (1.1 mile actually built by MSHA although part is in VA).

So for a one-mile river bridge that is not high-level clearance, not having full right shoulders, built new on the Interstate system, that certainly is "substandard" today.

I think it may be saying that if an older highway is incorporated into the interstate system, a bridge over 200 feet can stay in use as long as it has 4 foot shoulders. On new location interstate highways, they are most likely required. It's interesting though, NCDOT has built recently some non-interstate freeway bridges that only have 4 foot shoulders. One example is the bypass of Washington, N.C. built about 10 years ago, it features a high-rise bridge with only 4 foot inside and outside shoulders. I think lately though, they are starting to build all freeways / bridges to full interstate standards, which is a better practice.

So they replaced it in 1990?  I recall seeing an obviously old substructure but that may have been prior to 1990.

I don't know if they did or not, but if you look at the bridge on Google Street View, you can see it has wide travel lanes and 4 foot shoulders, so I would assume something was done. No bridge from 1930 would have that wide of a structure.

[Beltway]

So for a one-mile river bridge that is not high-level clearance, not having full right shoulders, built new on the Interstate system, that certainly is "substandard" today.

I think it may be saying that if an older highway is incorporated into the interstate system, a bridge over 200 feet can stay in use as long as it has 4 foot shoulders. On new location interstate highways, they are most likely required. It's interesting though, NCDOT has built recently some non-interstate freeway bridges that only have 4 foot shoulders. One example is the bypass of Washington, N.C. built about 10 years ago, it features a high-rise bridge with only 4 foot inside and outside shoulders. I think lately though, they are starting to build all freeways / bridges to full interstate standards, which is a better practice.

If it is not on the Interstate system, then it doesn't have to meet Interstate standards.

The "built new on the Interstate system" I wrote is not what I was trying to say; "building a new Interstate system route".  Incorporating an old arterial bridge into a new Interstate route, at best is not a good idea.

So they replaced it in 1990?  I recall seeing an obviously old substructure but that may have been prior to 1990.

I don't know if they did or not, but if you look at the bridge on Google Street View, you can see it has wide travel lanes and 4 foot shoulders, so I would assume something was done. No bridge from 1930 would have that wide of a structure.

I did and it doesn't look wide.  A modern bridge deck with narrow shoulders is one indication that an old (1930s vintage) bridge got redecked in modern times.

[wdcrft63]

Anyone study following US-64 corridor and then curving north and paralleling and replacing the NC-32 bridge over Albemarle Sound?  It is very old (the substructure anyway) and needs replacement and that might be a better route.

There's no chance of this happening. The whole idea of the I-87 proposal was to serve all the communities along US 17. Sometime in the more distant future NCDOT will replace US 64 with a freeway between Williamston and Plymouth, but that will be purely for traffic headed to the Outer Banks.

[Mapmikey]

I don't know if they did or not, but if you look at the bridge on Google Street View, you can see it has wide travel lanes and 4 foot shoulders, so I would assume something was done. No bridge from 1930 would have that wide of a structure.

Yes they built an entirely new bridge in 1990.  Old bridge (IIRC opened in 1938) was extremely narrow and it was nerve wracking to have a semi passing you in the opposite direction.  The old bridge had a draw bridge.  I thought this bridge was wonderful as a child which I got to cross every couple years and changed my mind when I was old enough to drive it myself.

Pictures:
2 pics of new bridge under construction, one of which is taken from the old bridge near the draw span - https://www.cianbro.com/ProjectsMarkets/ProjectDetails.aspx?pid=196
2 pics with an overhead pic showing both bridges and a pic from underneath showing the old bridge had wooden piers - http://www.datajembatan.com/index.php?g=guest_bridge&m=bridge.detail&b=736

[Beltway]

Anyone study following US-64 corridor and then curving north and paralleling and replacing the NC-32 bridge over Albemarle Sound?  It is very old (the substructure anyway) and needs replacement and that might be a better route.

There's no chance of this happening. The whole idea of the I-87 proposal was to serve all the communities along US 17.

Of course that is not the purpose of building an Interstate highway, and a 4-lane rural arterial (like exists) is an appropriate highway for that type of service, but I am probably sounding like a broken record at this point...

[sprjus4]

There's no chance of this happening. The whole idea of the I-87 proposal was to serve all the communities along US 17.

Of course that is not the purpose of building an Interstate highway, and a 4-lane rural arterial (like exists) is an appropriate highway for that type of service, but I am probably sounding like a broken record at this point...

Linking the towns along US 17 was one of the reasons for I-87, but the whole idea was to divert traffic bound to/from Hampton Roads off of I-95 and onto US 17. It would also act as an interstate-grade route from Hampton Roads to I-95 South. Diverting the traffic and signing US 17 as an interstate would in-turn bring economic development to Eastern North Carolina.

In Virginia, a four-lane highway works in the purpose of connecting towns, but in North Carolina, many of these routes are now bypassed by modern freeways / interstates. It's just a fact that in North Carolina freeways are more common place. In Virginia, you see them in urban areas, on short bypass segments, and the 6 major interstates that cross the state. Many areas are just not served by them unlike in North Carolina. They continue to get built in new places, and the system is rapidly expanding.

[Beltway]

There's no chance of this happening. The whole idea of the I-87 proposal was to serve all the communities along US 17.

Of course that is not the purpose of building an Interstate highway, and a 4-lane rural arterial (like exists) is an appropriate highway for that type of service, but I am probably sounding like a broken record at this point...

Linking the towns along US 17 was one of the reasons for I-87, but the whole idea was to divert traffic bound to/from Hampton Roads off of I-95 and onto US 17. It would also act as an interstate-grade route from Hampton Roads to I-95 South. Diverting the traffic and signing US 17 as an interstate would in-turn bring economic development to Eastern North Carolina.

Broken record again:  It will be 25 to 30 miles longer on that route between I-95 South and Norfolk, compared to the current route.  Not an efficient connection between those two points.

In Virginia, a four-lane highway works in the purpose of connecting towns, but in North Carolina, many of these routes are now bypassed by modern freeways / interstates.

Most of those bypassed highways were never 4-lane highways at least not more than on a few short sections.  US-220 for instance, mostly 2 lanes.

It's just a fact that in North Carolina freeways are more common place. In Virginia, you see them in urban areas, on short bypass segments, and the 6 major interstates that cross the state. Many areas are just not served by them unlike in North Carolina. They continue to get built in new places, and the system is rapidly expanding.

Why are you bringing Virginia into the discussion in the first place?  The topic was NC plans for I-87.

Virginia has almost 200 miles (I don't have the exact figure here) of non-Interstate freeways that connect to the Interstate system and in that sense of connectivity could possibly be Interstate highways, and some would need some upgrades to meet full Interstate standards, but they are freeways that do connect to the Interstate system, such as Chippenham Parkway that does connect to I-95 but its 8-foot shoulders do not meet Interstate standards.

The 4-lane rural highway system has almost 400 miles of about 80 limited access bypasses of towns and other relocations.  Virginia non-Interstate freeway and limited access highway mileage is there, just distributed differently.

Virginia has something else that N.C. doesn't have -- numerous serious (as in crossing ocean going shipping channels and thru mountains), bridges and tunnels.

Like the 3.5-mile-long I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel that is about to receive a $3.6 billion expansion to 8 lanes with widened approaches.

The $2.2 billion recently spent to upgrade 5 Elizabeth River crossings with an $0.4 billion project now underway.

CBBT tube under construction for $800 million.

[sprjus4]

Broken record again:  It will be 25 to 30 miles longer on that route between I-95 South and Norfolk, compared to the current route.  Not an efficient connection between those two points.

Between Norfolk and I-95 South yes, but this combined with other four-laning projects along 17 south of Williamston, it will open up a new north-south option for traffic, especially freight, and cut 15-20 minutes off the existing drive (from the north part being raised from 55 to 70 MPH). Eventually, if NCDOT ever goes forth with their idea of a US 17 freeway all the way to South Carolina, this project will be one part in that.

And it will still offer a convenient option for some motorists heading to I-95, as the travel time is the same. Less so a trucker, but an average driver who's not trying to stick to the shortest distances could use it. Myself personally, I would love it. Having traveled south a lot this year from Hampton Roads, I don't care too much for US 58, especially the mess around Suffolk and the excessive speed-trapping around Emporia. I would easily pay the U.S. 17 toll and pump an extra gallon at the gas station.

[Beltway]

Broken record again:  It will be 25 to 30 miles longer on that route between I-95 South and Norfolk, compared to the current route.  Not an efficient connection between those two points.

Between Norfolk and I-95 South yes, but this combined with other four-laning projects along 17 south of Williamston, it will open up a new north-south option for traffic, especially freight, and cut 15-20 minutes off the existing drive (from the north part being raised from 55 to 70 MPH). Eventually, if NCDOT ever goes forth with their idea of a US 17 freeway all the way to South Carolina, this project will be one part in that.

A new north-south option to where?  My first reading was that you were referring to between I-95 South and Norfolk, but now I see that is not necessarily what you said above.

[sprjus4]

A new north-south option to where?  My first reading was that you were referring to between I-95 South and Norfolk, but now I see that is not necessarily what you said above.

Linking the towns along US 17 was one of the reasons for I-87, but the whole idea was to divert traffic bound to/from Hampton Roads off of I-95 and onto US 17. It would also act as an interstate-grade route from Hampton Roads to I-95 South. Diverting the traffic and signing US 17 as an interstate would in-turn bring economic development to Eastern North Carolina.

U.S. Route 17 and I-95 currently compete for traffic headed to areas such as Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, and Charleston from Hampton Roads. U.S. 17 currently offers shorter mileage, but I-95 is slightly faster. Upgrading 80 miles (up to 90 if Virginia does its share) to 70 MPH freeway would make U.S. 17 a more attractive route to take as opposed to I-95, and that combined with upcoming 4-lanings south of Williamston, and north of New Bern, it would also be a fully 4-lane route. Another 25 miles down near Wilmington and the SC line are also slated to become 70 MPH freeways in the next 10 years, and 12 miles of 70 MPH freeway south of New Bern are planned open in about a year or so.

In the long-term, North Carolina also wants to fully upgrade U.S. 17 from Virginia down to South Carolina into a full 70 MPH controlled-access freeway.

[Beltway]

U.S. Route 17 and I-95 currently compete for traffic headed to areas such as Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, and Charleston from Hampton Roads. U.S. 17 currently offers shorter mileage, but I-95 is slightly faster. Upgrading 80 miles (up to 90 if Virginia does its share) to 70 MPH freeway would make U.S. 17 a more attractive route to take as opposed to I-95, and that combined with upcoming 4-lanings south of Williamston, and north of New Bern, it would also be a fully 4-lane route. Another 25 miles down near Wilmington and the SC line are also slated to become 70 MPH freeways in the next 10 years, and 12 miles of 70 MPH freeway south of New Bern are planned open in about a year or so.

That is a whole another matter, if you are talking about traffic using US-17 between Norfolk, Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, and Charleston.  That would logically follow US-17, and not head inland to use I-95.  Actually I now see on Google Maps that is not correct--
Norfolk-Charleston
I-26/I-95/US-58 --- 438 miles  6:35 hours
US-17 -------------- 418 miles  7:28 hours

That is a whole different routing than the "Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate route" that the activists are promoting along US-64 and US-17.

In the long-term, North Carolina also wants to fully upgrade U.S. 17 from Virginia down to South Carolina into a full 70 MPH controlled-access freeway.

In the 2100 Plan?

[sprjus4]

That is a whole another matter, if you are talking about traffic using US-17 between Norfolk, Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, and Charleston.  That would logically follow US-17, and not head inland to use I-95.  Actually I now see on Google Maps that is not correct--
Norfolk-Charleston
I-26/I-95/US-58 --- 438 miles  6:35 hours
US-17 -------------- 418 miles  7:28 hours

That is a whole different routing than the "Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate route" that the activists are promoting along US-64 and US-17.

The whole U.S. 17 routing idea makes sense for a motorist - the interstate will make the route more attractive, and allow you to save mileage and go interstate speeds.

The connection to I-95 and Raleigh concept is just to make the route attractive to anybody who's not looking at the milage, and the fact that it wouldn't be any slower than 58. For somebody preferring to stay on interstate highways as opposed to arterials, this works for them. Plus traffic in southern Chesapeake and northeastern NC (the focus area for future growth and businesses) will be better off going this route rather than 58. For traffic centered in Norfolk, it would be different.

In the 2100 Plan?

Probably. All these upcoming projects on US 17 contradict the whole freeway concept. The widening south of Williamston from two to four lanes should be freeway built parallel to it - if they really want to fulfill the freeway idea. Down near the South Carolina line, NCDOT and SCDOT are studying extending the Carolina Bays Parkway (the 28 mile freeway that bypasses Myrtle Beach) 12 miles into North Carolina, to connect with the existing Shallotte Bypass. They could easily extend that concept up to the Bolivia Bypass, then further to the Wilmington Bypass (I-140). North of Wilmington, a bypass of 11 mile bypass of Hampstead is about to start construction in the next year or so. If they were able to get that done - 60 miles of freeway combined with almost 35 miles in SC would create a continuous 95-100 mile route.

North of Wilmington/Hampstead, no big ideas up there currently.

[Beltway]

That is a whole different routing than the "Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate route" that the activists are promoting along US-64 and US-17.

The whole U.S. 17 routing idea makes sense for a motorist - the interstate will make the route more attractive, and allow you to save mileage and go interstate speeds.
The connection to I-95 and Raleigh concept is just to make the route attractive to anybody who's not looking at the milage, and the fact that it wouldn't be any slower than 58. For somebody preferring to stay on interstate highways as opposed to arterials, this works for them. Plus traffic in southern Chesapeake and northeastern NC (the focus area for future growth and businesses) will be better off going this route rather than 58. For traffic centered in Norfolk, it would be different.

Raleigh-Norfolk (and almost anywhere in H.R. area) will see meaningfully less mileage and less time by using I-95 and US-58.  This is a -fact- whether some recognize it or not.

The US-17 and US-64 route already exists as a 4-lane high-speed rural arterial route thruout, now that the Dominion Blvd. project is complete.  Anyone who likes that route can use it now.  Average speeds at the speed limits will be near to what a full freeway would be, especially if 4 or 5 signalized intersections were grade separated.

In the 2100 Plan?

Probably.

Then let's talk about it in 50 to 75 years.

[sprjus4]

That is a whole different routing than the "Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate route" that the activists are promoting along US-64 and US-17.

The whole U.S. 17 routing idea makes sense for a motorist - the interstate will make the route more attractive, and allow you to save mileage and go interstate speeds.
The connection to I-95 and Raleigh concept is just to make the route attractive to anybody who's not looking at the milage, and the fact that it wouldn't be any slower than 58. For somebody preferring to stay on interstate highways as opposed to arterials, this works for them. Plus traffic in southern Chesapeake and northeastern NC (the focus area for future growth and businesses) will be better off going this route rather than 58. For traffic centered in Norfolk, it would be different.

Raleigh-Norfolk (and almost anywhere in H.R. area) will see meaningfully less mileage and less time by using I-95 and US-58.  This is a -fact- whether some recognize it or not.

The US-17 and US-64 route already exists as a 4-lane high-speed rural arterial route thruout, now that the Dominion Blvd. project is complete.  Anyone who likes that route can use it now.  Average speeds at the speed limits will be near to what a full freeway would be, especially if 4 or 5 signalized intersections were grade separated.

The speed limit on U.S. 17 is currently posted at 55 MPH, and 70 MPH on the bypasses. Raising the speed limit on 53 miles of roadway from 55 to 70 MPH would decrease travel times by 15-20 minutes, and the time from Hampton Roads to I-95 would be the same on either U.S. 58 or U.S. 17 / U.S. 64. Areas in southern Chesapeake and Grassfield (Chesapeake's focus area for newer development now) 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.

Look at I-40 in North Carolina. It runs from Asheville to Wilmington, but it follows a completely out of the way routing to serve many communities along the way, and also Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and Raleigh. Traffic bound between Asheville and Wilmington will likely use U.S. 74, a four-lane arterial highway, they could use I-26 and I-95 in South Carolina, or they could stay on I-40. There's different options. The same would go for I-87 and U.S. 58.

As for the state of U.S. 64, that highway is perfectly fine as it is. It's currently a continuous 70 MPH freeway from U.S. 17 at Williamston all the way to Raleigh. The section from Tarboro to Williamston is also constructed to full interstate standards, with 10 foot paved shoulders.

[Beltway]

Raleigh-Norfolk (and almost anywhere in H.R. area) will see meaningfully less mileage and less time by using I-95 and US-58.  This is a -fact- whether some recognize it or not.
The US-17 and US-64 route already exists as a 4-lane high-speed rural arterial route thruout, now that the Dominion Blvd. project is complete.  Anyone who likes that route can use it now.  Average speeds at the speed limits will be near to what a full freeway would be, especially if 4 or 5 signalized intersections were grade separated.

The speed limit on U.S. 17 is currently posted at 55 MPH, and 70 MPH on the bypasses. Raising the speed limit on 53 miles of roadway from 55 to 70 MPH would decrease travel times by 15-20 minutes,

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.

and the time from Hampton Roads to I-95 would be the same on either U.S. 58 or U.S. 17 / U.S. 64. Areas in southern Chesapeake and Grassfield (Chesapeake's focus area for newer development now)

That area has very low population today and is at the southern fringes of the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area anyhow, and if good government prevails Grassfield won't be developed at least not more than exurban residential.

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.

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.