Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[sprjus4]

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Rt_58_Arterial_Management_Plan.pdf

As per page 6 of this overview from a few weeks ago, VDOT mentions interest in, in the future, conducting a study to upgrade US 58 from Suffolk to past I-95 to interstate standards entirely. Right now, the main focus is access management.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/HR%20Regional%20Freight%20Study%202017%20Update%20DRAFT%20Report%20with%20Appendices%204-25-17.pdf

As per page 12 of the Draft Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study 2017, the HRTPO mention potentials for either US 58, or I-87, though don't mention a preferred one for Virginia.

It seems everybody is all over the place with how things should be. VDOT wants US 58 as the priority corridor to I-95 South, while NCDOT and Chesapeake want I-87. Another factor that could decide which one goes is cost. NCDOT is in a better position to upgrade their route than VDOT is 58, just because VDOT expresses interest doesn't mean it'll happen any time soon. It'd be a lot cheaper for VDOT to upgrade US 17 from Cedar Rd to NC to interstate. But on the contrary, US 58 would be more beneficial Virginia a lot more, and provide less mileage on travel. For now, we at least know I-87 will come in the next 15-20 years in NC, and maybe in Virginia, seeing VDOT has initiated a study for upgrading US 17 back in December. I guess now it's a debate between if VDOT is willing to divert costs to upgrade US 58. Honestly, I think the long-term vision should be to have both I-87 and US 58 as two interstate grade corridors to the south. It would be extremely beneficial to everybody along either routes, and provide many travel options.

[sparker]

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Rt_58_Arterial_Management_Plan.pdf

As per page 6 of this overview from a few weeks ago, VDOT mentions interest in, in the future, conducting a study to upgrade US 58 from Suffolk to past I-95 to interstate standards entirely. Right now, the main focus is access management.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/HR%20Regional%20Freight%20Study%202017%20Update%20DRAFT%20Report%20with%20Appendices%204-25-17.pdf

As per page 12 of the Draft Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study 2017, the HRTPO mention potentials for either US 58, or I-87, though don't mention a preferred one for Virginia.

It seems everybody is all over the place with how things should be. VDOT wants US 58 as the priority corridor to I-95 South, while NCDOT and Chesapeake want I-87. Another factor that could decide which one goes is cost. NCDOT is in a better position to upgrade their route than VDOT is 58, just because VDOT expresses interest doesn't mean it'll happen any time soon. It'd be a lot cheaper for VDOT to upgrade US 17 from Cedar Rd to NC to interstate. But on the contrary, US 58 would be more beneficial Virginia a lot more, and provide less mileage on travel. For now, we at least know I-87 will come in the next 15-20 years in NC, and maybe in Virginia, seeing VDOT has initiated a study for upgrading US 17 back in December. I guess now it's a debate between if VDOT is willing to divert costs to upgrade US 58. Honestly, I think the long-term vision should be to have both I-87 and US 58 as two interstate grade corridors to the south. It would be extremely beneficial to everybody along either routes, and provide many travel options.

It would be an interesting exercise to compile a CBE for both US 58 "interstateization" and a bi-state buildout of I-87.  Obviously, VA's cost of bringing the remainder of US 17 out to Interstate standards would be a magnitude less than converting US 58 to an Interstate -- particularly if that concept is extended west to I-85.  But estimating the benefits would be considerably more of a challenge -- one would have to parse out any efficiency benefits accruing to port activities from those derived from provision of roadside services; if the increases in the latter due to any projected increase in traffic along the US 58 option were insufficient to serve as an incentive or even warrant for such a project, then VA might just be better off letting NC bear the brunt of corridor-development expenses via the I-87 routing.  Considering the improvements to Dominion Blvd. either completed or under way, the figure could be millions on the VA side of the line versus billions south of that line.

My guess that the greatest chance that VA would elect to bring US 58 out to Interstate standards would be if such a corridor indeed extended west to I-85 rather than simply I-95; that would likely augment the aggregate projected AADT of the whole corridor to the point where a case could be reasonably made for its implementation.  But from the maps shown with the study, I-95 may, at least for the short term, serve as the potential terminus (perhaps they're counting on the original "I-495" segment of I-87 in NC to serve as the effective connector -- on NC's dime!)  In that case, VA DOT may not have much incentive to spearhead any action along US 17 in Chesapeake -- leaving that city to deal with the project on its own if it can -- unless NC's statewide freeway program proceeds at an accelerated pace and US 17 is elevated to I-standards down to Wilmington and/or SC -- providing an additional route south for Hampton Roads commercial traffic (and providing another reason for NC to procrastinate about expanding I-95).  Hey, it's NC, so nothing's off the table, so to speak. 

[sprjus4]

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Rt_58_Arterial_Management_Plan.pdf

As per page 6 of this overview from a few weeks ago, VDOT mentions interest in, in the future, conducting a study to upgrade US 58 from Suffolk to past I-95 to interstate standards entirely. Right now, the main focus is access management.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/HR%20Regional%20Freight%20Study%202017%20Update%20DRAFT%20Report%20with%20Appendices%204-25-17.pdf

As per page 12 of the Draft Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study 2017, the HRTPO mention potentials for either US 58, or I-87, though don't mention a preferred one for Virginia.

It seems everybody is all over the place with how things should be. VDOT wants US 58 as the priority corridor to I-95 South, while NCDOT and Chesapeake want I-87. Another factor that could decide which one goes is cost. NCDOT is in a better position to upgrade their route than VDOT is 58, just because VDOT expresses interest doesn't mean it'll happen any time soon. It'd be a lot cheaper for VDOT to upgrade US 17 from Cedar Rd to NC to interstate. But on the contrary, US 58 would be more beneficial Virginia a lot more, and provide less mileage on travel. For now, we at least know I-87 will come in the next 15-20 years in NC, and maybe in Virginia, seeing VDOT has initiated a study for upgrading US 17 back in December. I guess now it's a debate between if VDOT is willing to divert costs to upgrade US 58. Honestly, I think the long-term vision should be to have both I-87 and US 58 as two interstate grade corridors to the south. It would be extremely beneficial to everybody along either routes, and provide many travel options.

It would be an interesting exercise to compile a CBE for both US 58 "interstateization" and a bi-state buildout of I-87.  Obviously, VA's cost of bringing the remainder of US 17 out to Interstate standards would be a magnitude less than converting US 58 to an Interstate -- particularly if that concept is extended west to I-85.  But estimating the benefits would be considerably more of a challenge -- one would have to parse out any efficiency benefits accruing to port activities from those derived from provision of roadside services; if the increases in the latter due to any projected increase in traffic along the US 58 option were insufficient to serve as an incentive or even warrant for such a project, then VA might just be better off letting NC bear the brunt of corridor-development expenses via the I-87 routing.  Considering the improvements to Dominion Blvd. either completed or under way, the figure could be millions on the VA side of the line versus billions south of that line.

My guess that the greatest chance that VA would elect to bring US 58 out to Interstate standards would be if such a corridor indeed extended west to I-85 rather than simply I-95; that would likely augment the aggregate projected AADT of the whole corridor to the point where a case could be reasonably made for its implementation.  But from the maps shown with the study, I-95 may, at least for the short term, serve as the potential terminus (perhaps they're counting on the original "I-495" segment of I-87 in NC to serve as the effective connector -- on NC's dime!)  In that case, VA DOT may not have much incentive to spearhead any action along US 17 in Chesapeake -- leaving that city to deal with the project on its own if it can -- unless NC's statewide freeway program proceeds at an accelerated pace and US 17 is elevated to I-standards down to Wilmington and/or SC -- providing an additional route south for Hampton Roads commercial traffic (and providing another reason for NC to procrastinate about expanding I-95).  Hey, it's NC, so nothing's off the table, so to speak.

If VDOT were to upgrade US 58 from Suffolk to Emporia, they would have to upgrade 45.9 miles of existing highway to limited-access freeway (this milage does not count the existing Franklin / Courtland limited-access freeways). Go from Suffolk to South Hill, and it's 76.6 miles. To upgrade US 17 from Cedar Rd to North Carolina would be 14 miles, which to note, is already limited-access with access points only at intersections, which would be converted to grade-separations or interchanges.

Not only does US 17 provide an alternative route to I-95 south, it also serves as an important connector to Elizabeth City from Hampton Roads. In 2027, NCDOT is going to upgrade US 17 from the Elizabeth City bypass to Virginia to interstate standards. Upgrading it in Virginia as well would create interstate access between E-City and I-64, which is an important corridor. That should be the most important of the entire I-87 US 17 upgrade IMHO.

The only issues out with I-87 are, it's 20-25 more miles (though it would be 5-10 minutes faster from the port to I-95, and one constant speed, controlled highway), it's still 5 minutes slower to I-85 south and significantly more milage. there's a toll to pay coming down Dominion, and the interests are all unaligned. Chesapeake and NC want I-87, while VDOT wants US 58. The benefits though, it brings interstate access from southern Hampton Roads and Chesapeake, along with eastern NC to I-95 south with around the same mileage, and upgrades an 80 mile portion of US 17 through North Carolina, which could lead to more US 17 being upgraded in the future. It also provides a quicker route to Raleigh and I-95 south, especially during peak season where I-95 can backup and slow down through its entire length in NC and VA. Taking I-87 to I-95 south would dump you on I-95 farther south, less congestion, or to Raleigh, when you don't have to get on at all. Ultimately, I-87 could be used to interstate to I-95 south & Raleigh, and a US 58 freeway to South Hill could be used to access I-85 south.

[Beltway]

The only issues out with I-87 are, it's 20-25 more miles (though it would be 5-10 minutes faster from the port to I-95, and one constant speed, controlled highway),

Where on I-95?   At Rocky Mount that would be 20-25 more miles more depending on the exact final alignment, and there is no way it will be less than 10-15 minutes slower than I-95/US-58.  The design speeds aren't that much different and the few signalized intersections on US-58 could be easily replaced by interchanges in the next 10 years.  That kind of extra mileage is expensive for truckers and something to be avoided.

[Mapmikey]

Note that the referenced study shows that despite northeastern NC being added to the Foreign Trade Zone that Tidewater VA is in, the amount of $ transported in 2040 is still expected to be much higher on US 58 than on US 17/I-87.  Couple that with the thought that better hurricane evacuation is needed for Tidewater, it makes perfect sense to improve US 58 first.

Should North Carolina actually complete I-87 up to Virginia, then by all means, improve US 17 (assuming I-87 doesn't somehow end up at VA 168) at that time.

[froggie]

To upgrade US 17 from Cedar Rd to North Carolina would be 14 miles, which to note, is already limited-access with access points only at intersections, which would be converted to grade-separations or interchanges.

But would be a bit more expensive than its mileage implies given wetlands, limited options to replace existing access (especially those parcels and homes remaining between the Dismal Swamp and 17), and the more urban nature of adjacent development once you get closer to Cedar Rd.

This is also looking at just Virginia's costs.  North Carolina's costs for upgrading US 17 will be significant, in part because there's a lot more US 17 mileage to upgrade than Virginia would have for US 58 to Emporia.  US 17 also has a lot more in the way of adjacent wetlands than the US 58 corridor.

(though it would be 5-10 minutes faster from the port to I-95, and one constant speed, controlled highway)

I did the number crunching for this upthread.  Even with a uniform 70 MPH speed limit along an upgraded US 64/US 17, it would only be 90 seconds slower than US 58/I-95 is TODAY.  Given the distance involved, that's effectively a rounding error.

[sprjus4]

To upgrade US 17 from Cedar Rd to North Carolina would be 14 miles, which to note, is already limited-access with access points only at intersections, which would be converted to grade-separations or interchanges.

But would be a bit more expensive than its mileage implies given wetlands, limited options to replace existing access (especially those parcels and homes remaining between the Dismal Swamp and 17), and the more urban nature of adjacent development once you get closer to Cedar Rd.

This is also looking at just Virginia's costs.  North Carolina's costs for upgrading US 17 will be significant, in part because there's a lot more US 17 mileage to upgrade than Virginia would have for US 58 to Emporia.  US 17 also has a lot more in the way of adjacent wetlands than the US 58 corridor.

(though it would be 5-10 minutes faster from the port to I-95, and one constant speed, controlled highway)

I did the number crunching for this upthread.  Even with a uniform 70 MPH speed limit along an upgraded US 64/US 17, it would only be 90 seconds slower than US 58/I-95 is TODAY.  Given the distance involved, that's effectively a rounding error.

When it comes to limited-access freeways though, most people tend to drive faster than the speed limit, 75mph, even some people 80mph. If you have a constant 75mph speed, the time decreases by 5-10 minutes.

As for upgrading US 17 in Virginia, there most interchanges constructed would be on farmland, and minimal forest, nothing on severe wetlands. I drew this map up a while ago showing how US 17 could be transformed - https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/Upgrading_US_Route_17/YamBCRZZuC

As per North Carolina, US 17 is soon going to be upgraded to interstate standards through Hertford and from VA to Elizabeth City. A bypass connecting Hertford and the south E-City bypass has also been discussed as a near-future project. These components alone would provide a 35 mile long freeway from VA to past Hertford. Some access roads and an interchange on the section between Hertford and the Edenton bypass, which part near Edenton is in design, would add another 17 miles of freeway. Hertford upgrades and the VA-ECity interstate will be done in about 10 years, as they're already funded and in design, and the others have easy potential to become near-future projects. The tricky areas are around Windsor, though preliminary designs from the draft study have shown different options. As for Williamston, upgrading it's existing alignment would require the removal of a few businesses and a wider road with overpasses.

Trucks will still most likely use 58 to 95 due to mileage, but with potential business/industry south of the Virginia line, there could be some using 87 as well in the future. As for regular traffic, it would be a mix between US 58 and I-87, as US 58 has less mileage, but I-87 would have a 70mph speed allowing most to be able to do 75+mph all the way.

I'm all for an upgrade of US 58 as well as I-87, but I think I-87 will most likely be completed first, as about 16 miles is already funded for upgrade to interstate. Having both of them would create a loop between Norfolk, Emporia, Rocky Mount, and Elizabeth City, all at interstate standards, and provide 2 different options from Norfolk to I-95 & Raleigh.

For the beginning though, this interstate would really help the towns in eastern NC connect north to Hampton Roads & I-64, and south to Raleigh & I-95.

[Beltway]

I did the number crunching for this upthread.  Even with a uniform 70 MPH speed limit along an upgraded US 64/US 17, it would only be 90 seconds slower than US 58/I-95 is TODAY.  Given the distance involved, that's effectively a rounding error.

When it comes to limited-access freeways though, most people tend to drive faster than the speed limit, 75mph, even some people 80mph. If you have a constant 75mph speed, the time decreases by 5-10 minutes.

If you going to bust the speed limit then comparisons are irrelevant.  Plus 30% of the length of US-58 is already built to freeway standards between I-95 and I-64 and under current legislation they could quality for 70 mph.  Plus Virginia had 65 mph speed limits authorized on 4-lane nonlimited-access highways a few months before the 1973 NMSL was enacted wiping that away; and conceivably such limits could be authorized again.  Plus as I said even modest improvements on US-58 would remove nearly all signalized intersections.

The 20-25 more miles on an I-87 depending on the exact final alignment, will see nearly that many more number in minutes of travel.

For the beginning though, this interstate would really help the towns in eastern NC connect north to Hampton Roads & I-64, and south to Raleigh & I-95.

As I have said many times the existing 4-lane highways are quite fine at that job.

[sprjus4]

I did the number crunching for this upthread.  Even with a uniform 70 MPH speed limit along an upgraded US 64/US 17, it would only be 90 seconds slower than US 58/I-95 is TODAY.  Given the distance involved, that's effectively a rounding error.

When it comes to limited-access freeways though, most people tend to drive faster than the speed limit, 75mph, even some people 80mph. If you have a constant 75mph speed, the time decreases by 5-10 minutes.

If you going to bust the speed limit then comparisons are irrelevant.  Plus 30% of the length of US-58 is already built to freeway standards between I-95 and I-64 and under current legislation they could quality for 70 mph.  Plus Virginia had 65 mph speed limits authorized on 4-lane nonlimited-access highways a few months before the 1973 NMSL was enacted wiping that away; and conceivably such limits could be authorized again.  Plus as I said even modest improvements on US-58 would remove nearly all signalized intersections.

The 20-25 more miles on an I-87 depending on the exact final alignment, will see nearly that many more number in minutes of travel.

For the beginning though, this interstate would really help the towns in eastern NC connect north to Hampton Roads & I-64, and south to Raleigh & I-95.

As I have said many times the existing 4-lane highways are quite fine at that job.

Too bad all 4-lane non-limited-access highways couldn't just be 70mph. Texas has two lane undivided roads with 70mph and four-lane non-limited-access highways at 75mph. They make for some nice drives.

[Beltway]

Too bad all 4-lane non-limited-access highways couldn't just be 70mph. Texas has two lane undivided roads with 70mph and four-lane non-limited-access highways at 75mph. They make for some nice drives.

Good for Texas.  I have driven there and given the vast distances and lower rural traffic volumes those limits seem to work well.  In the East there are precious few 2-lane highways above 55 and precious few 4-lane nonlimited-access highways above 65.

Maryland and Delaware and New Jersey have very few 2-lane highways posted above 50.

[bluecountry]

WHY is it named I-87?
Makes no sense...

[Beltway]

WHY is it named I-87?
Makes no sense...

Stupid-kari

[sparker]

WHY is it named I-87?
Makes no sense...

Stupid-kari

Really convoluted and bizarre logic behind number selection.  First, NCDOT didn't want any conflict with any state highways nearby, which threw out most of the even numbers in the available grid "pool" (essentially 42-56); they cited concerns with residents & business having to change their addresses if a state highway number was to be changed.  So they squinted a bit, looked at the trajectory of I-85, and decided on a number above that, I-89 -- although the corridor has more distance covered E-W than N-S.  They submitted that to AASHTO, along with I-36 for the US 70/Morehead City corridor at the SCOURN spring 2016 meeting in Des Moines.  There must have been an open bar during that meeting, because the SCOURN delegates immediately dismissed NCDOT's case for not wanting to conflict with state numbers (i.e., Interstate designations are to be prioritized) -- but accepted their odd-number rationale -- but changed the number to 87 because "it lined up a bit better with the existing I-87 in NY state).  My objection to the "87" number stems from SCOURN's use of logic in one sense but then accepting an illogical premise next -- if they dismissed the state-route conflict argument out of hand, the next step should have been to snag a fresh number (46, 54, 56 come to mind) from the available pool and assign it to the corridor). 

However, as the late John Belushi would say.....but NOOOOOOOO..........  We ended up with a second section of I-87 on this corridor.  And now that "future" signs are popping up in that neck of the woods, it's pretty much a fait accompli at this point.  And someone had the gall to try to justify the number "87" with historical references......"something happened out here in 1687, something else in 1787, and still something else in 1887, so we're honoring those events with the designation".  I'm 2500 miles away and can smell the BS from here!

Sorry for being so vituperative about this issue -- but those who purport to serve the public interest (the SCOURN folks du jour) shouldn't drop the ball like that.  Maybe they just don't care -- or the DOT's select delegates to the meetings that have nothing better to do within their respective agencies!  In any case, the I-87 designation genuinely sucks; even if the odd number argument held water, most of the corridor is east of I-95 -- and a number like I-97 at least has a 0.01% chance of connecting with its other section!   

[wdcrft63]

WHY is it named I-87?
Makes no sense...

Stupid-kari

Really convoluted and bizarre logic behind number selection.  First, NCDOT didn't want any conflict with any state highways nearby, which threw out most of the even numbers in the available grid "pool" (essentially 42-56); they cited concerns with residents & business having to change their addresses if a state highway number was to be changed.  So they squinted a bit, looked at the trajectory of I-85, and decided on a number above that, I-89 -- although the corridor has more distance covered E-W than N-S.  They submitted that to AASHTO, along with I-36 for the US 70/Morehead City corridor at the SCOURN spring 2016 meeting in Des Moines.  There must have been an open bar during that meeting, because the SCOURN delegates immediately dismissed NCDOT's case for not wanting to conflict with state numbers (i.e., Interstate designations are to be prioritized) -- but accepted their odd-number rationale -- but changed the number to 87 because "it lined up a bit better with the existing I-87 in NY state).  My objection to the "87" number stems from SCOURN's use of logic in one sense but then accepting an illogical premise next -- if they dismissed the state-route conflict argument out of hand, the next step should have been to snag a fresh number (46, 54, 56 come to mind) from the available pool and assign it to the corridor). 

However, as the late John Belushi would say.....but NOOOOOOOO..........  We ended up with a second section of I-87 on this corridor.  And now that "future" signs are popping up in that neck of the woods, it's pretty much a fait accompli at this point.  And someone had the gall to try to justify the number "87" with historical references......"something happened out here in 1687, something else in 1787, and still something else in 1887, so we're honoring those events with the designation".  I'm 2500 miles away and can smell the BS from here!

Sorry for being so vituperative about this issue -- but those who purport to serve the public interest (the SCOURN folks du jour) shouldn't drop the ball like that.  Maybe they just don't care -- or the DOT's select delegates to the meetings that have nothing better to do within their respective agencies!  In any case, the I-87 designation genuinely sucks; even if the odd number argument held water, most of the corridor is east of I-95 -- and a number like I-97 at least has a 0.01% chance of connecting with its other section!   

I agree with everything said here. Fortunately (perhaps) the motoring public doesn't really care how route numbers are selected; for most people 87 is as good as any other number. But the public does care how roads are signed, and I think the north-south signage on the east-west section between Rocky Mount and Williamston may be confusing.

[sparker]

..........the public does care how roads are signed, and I think the north-south signage on the east-west section between Rocky Mount and Williamston may be confusing.

That bit of reasoning shot right by me from the get-go -- but it's as valid, if not more, than any other for decrying the selection of any N-S designation for a corridor with much of the existing facility aligned on a E-W axis.  "North I-87" cosigned with "East US 64" (and its inverse) is a bit clumsy when carried over 95 miles of freeway.     

[CanesFan27]

I-87 will creep eastwards - I mean northwards - towards I-95 in the latter part of the next decade.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/04/ncdot-plans-east-wake-highway.html

[slorydn1]

WHY is it named I-87?
Makes no sense...

Stupid-kari

Really convoluted and bizarre logic behind number selection.  First, NCDOT didn't want any conflict with any state highways nearby, which threw out most of the even numbers in the available grid "pool" (essentially 42-56); they cited concerns with residents & business having to change their addresses if a state highway number was to be changed.  So they squinted a bit, looked at the trajectory of I-85, and decided on a number above that, I-89 -- although the corridor has more distance covered E-W than N-S.  They submitted that to AASHTO, along with I-36 for the US 70/Morehead City corridor at the SCOURN spring 2016 meeting in Des Moines.  There must have been an open bar during that meeting, because the SCOURN delegates immediately dismissed NCDOT's case for not wanting to conflict with state numbers (i.e., Interstate designations are to be prioritized) -- but accepted their odd-number rationale -- but changed the number to 87 because "it lined up a bit better with the existing I-87 in NY state).  My objection to the "87" number stems from SCOURN's use of logic in one sense but then accepting an illogical premise next -- if they dismissed the state-route conflict argument out of hand, the next step should have been to snag a fresh number (46, 54, 56 come to mind) from the available pool and assign it to the corridor). 

However, as the late John Belushi would say.....but NOOOOOOOO..........  We ended up with a second section of I-87 on this corridor.  And now that "future" signs are popping up in that neck of the woods, it's pretty much a fait accompli at this point.  And someone had the gall to try to justify the number "87" with historical references......"something happened out here in 1687, something else in 1787, and still something else in 1887, so we're honoring those events with the designation".  I'm 2500 miles away and can smell the BS from here!

Sorry for being so vituperative about this issue -- but those who purport to serve the public interest (the SCOURN folks du jour) shouldn't drop the ball like that.  Maybe they just don't care -- or the DOT's select delegates to the meetings that have nothing better to do within their respective agencies!  In any case, the I-87 designation genuinely sucks; even if the odd number argument held water, most of the corridor is east of I-95 -- and a number like I-97 at least has a 0.01% chance of connecting with its other section!   

So, to sum this up succinctly, SCOURN scorned I-89, picked I-87, earning SCOURN much scorn from us. 

[LM117]

I-87 will creep eastwards - I mean northwards - towards I-95 in the latter part of the next decade.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/04/ncdot-plans-east-wake-highway.html

I'm glad the widening project scored high. It could certainly use it. That would also pretty much complete I-87 in Wake County, the first mile or so beyond the Zebulon split notwithstanding.

[sparker]

So, to sum this up succinctly, SCOURN scorned I-89, picked I-87, earning SCOURN much scorn from us. 

Very punny!!!!!!!!

[sprjus4]

I know this is unrelated to Interstate 87, but it goes back to the whole upgrading U.S. Route 58. Back in 2007, a study was complete on the Holland Road corridor from the Suffolk bypass to west of Manning Bridge Rd, which is going to be soon widened to 6-lanes. Apparently, two options were considered for this corridor, a 6-laning, and a bypass extension of the Suffolk BVP to west of Manning Bridge. As per the report, simply going to west of Manning Bridge Rd would cost approx. $256 million, where as a 6-laning would be approx. $90 million. VDOT choose to go the cheaper route and widen the existing, but it's interesting a bypass was studied. The routing would've started from the existing US 58/13 interchange, followed along the railroad tracks with an interchange at Kenyon Rd, and curved back to existing 58 just west of Manning Bridge Rd. That land is now developed thanks to poor planning and the allowing of development in the Kenyon Rd/tracks area. The only thing the study displays is a map showing a line depicting its location, no in depth plans were displayed.

Today, if any freeway was made for US 58 in that area, I believe the best option would be to start just west of the Pitchkettle Rd interchange, and curve to the west on new location, north of the tracks, and continue straight to the Holland bypass, or even the Franklin bypass. US 13 could have a diamond interchange with existing US 58, and a three-leg with the bypass north of the tracks. The only obstacle would be the cost, seeing as just a small section would cost $256 million even when that area was farmland. I imagine a significant amount of the cost comes from redesigning the US 58/13 interchange.

Here's the study if anybody is interested to see it - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/HollandRoad_FinalReport.pdf

[Beltway]

The City of Suffolk will administer the 3.1-mile US-58 6-lane widening project, a $74 million project programmed to start construction in FY 2021.  I am satisfied with that as the next thing to do there.  In the future a bypass can and should be studied to connect the Holland and Suffolk bypasses.

[sprjus4]

The City of Suffolk will administer the 3.1-mile US-58 6-lane widening project, a $74 million project programmed to start construction in FY 2021.  I am satisfied with that as the next thing to do there.  In the future a bypass can and should be studied to connect the Holland and Suffolk bypasses.

I completely agree. I believe (as studying goes), when the US Route 58 Arterial Management Plan comes out, different options will be vaguely presented on how a full freeway from Suffolk to I-95 would look, where new location alignments could be built, parts that could be upgraded existing, and cost estimates. This is from what I've read in other documents regarding the study (from a few years back) In the future, if that is the desired long-term goal for 58, a feasibility study would come next to show in-depth how to upgrade the existing alignment, bypass locations, etc. (similar to the US 17 one done in North Carolina), with cost estimates, and so forth.

If anything is ever built, I believe the first major project should be building new location to the Holland bypass, and connecting the existing Franklin/Courtland bypasses, and upgrades near Emporia. The rural sections should be least priority to upgrade/build new location in the beginning, though will eventually need to occur. Next, is getting a connection to I-85. It's going to be at least 20-30 years before anything to there is seen, maybe 15-20 to Emporia.

[Beltway]

The City of Suffolk will administer the 3.1-mile US-58 6-lane widening project, a $74 million project programmed to start construction in FY 2021.  I am satisfied with that as the next thing to do there.  In the future a bypass can and should be studied to connect the Holland and Suffolk bypasses.

I completely agree. I believe (as studying goes), when the US Route 58 Arterial Management Plan comes out, different options will be vaguely presented on how a full freeway from Suffolk to I-95 would look, where new location alignments could be built, parts that could be upgraded existing, and cost estimates. This is from what I've read in other documents regarding the study (from a few years back) In the future, if that is the desired long-term goal for 58, a feasibility study would come next to show in-depth how to upgrade the existing alignment, bypass locations, etc. (similar to the US 17 one done in North Carolina), with cost estimates, and so forth.
If anything is ever built, I believe the first major project should be building new location to the Holland bypass, and connecting the existing Franklin/Courtland bypasses, and upgrades near Emporia. The rural sections should be least priority to upgrade/build new location in the beginning, though will eventually need to occur. Next, is getting a connection to I-85. It's going to be at least 20-30 years before anything to there is seen, maybe 15-20 to Emporia.

There is a connect-the-bypasses project in study that would make a seamless freeway between the Courtland and Franklin bypasses.  The current interchange project at the east end of the Courtland Bypass would accommodate that.  The west end of the Franklin Bypass was built with right-of-way for a future interchange, and that would be built under this proposal.  A new alignment would be built to the north of the existing nonlimited-access highway.  I surmise that at about 2.5 miles in length that this project is modest enough in cost that it may be built in the near future. 

I found this --
"Previous Thoroughfare Plans have called for five proposed grade separated interchanges along U.S. 58 at Route(s) 35, 58 Business to Courtland, 58 Business to Franklin, SR 687 and SR 714.  To date, only two of these projects -- the interchanges at SR 714 and U.S. 58 and Route 35 -- have been completed." 
http://www.southamptoncounty.org/pdf/Transportation.pdf

VA-687 overpasses the Franklin Bypass.  That project would involve adding ramps. 
58 Business to Courtland is under construction.
58 Business to Franklin is the west end of the bypass.

[Henry]

Theoretically, you could connect this to the I-87 in NY, although in all likelihood it will never happen, at least not in our lifetimes. And as much as we agree what a stupid number choice it is, I-89 would've been even worse because there's no doable way to connect it to the one in NH/VT. I wonder if such uproar happened with I-85 back when its plans were first drawn?

[sprjus4]

I know this is unrelated to Interstate 87, but it goes back to the whole upgrading U.S. Route 58. Back in 2007, a study was complete on the Holland Road corridor from the Suffolk bypass to west of Manning Bridge Rd, which is going to be soon widened to 6-lanes. Apparently, two options were considered for this corridor, a 6-laning, and a bypass extension of the Suffolk BVP to west of Manning Bridge. As per the report, simply going to west of Manning Bridge Rd would cost approx. $256 million, where as a 6-laning would be approx. $90 million. VDOT choose to go the cheaper route and widen the existing, but it's interesting a bypass was studied. The routing would've started from the existing US 58/13 interchange, followed along the railroad tracks with an interchange at Kenyon Rd, and curved back to existing 58 just west of Manning Bridge Rd. That land is now developed thanks to poor planning and the allowing of development in the Kenyon Rd/tracks area. The only thing the study displays is a map showing a line depicting its location, no in depth plans were displayed.

Today, if any freeway was made for US 58 in that area, I believe the best option would be to start just west of the Pitchkettle Rd interchange, and curve to the west on new location, north of the tracks, and continue straight to the Holland bypass, or even the Franklin bypass. US 13 could have a diamond interchange with existing US 58, and a three-leg with the bypass north of the tracks. The only obstacle would be the cost, seeing as just a small section would cost $256 million even when that area was farmland. I imagine a significant amount of the cost comes from redesigning the US 58/13 interchange.

Here's the study if anybody is interested to see it - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/HollandRoad_FinalReport.pdf

Another option for bypassing that area with no R/W needed at the existing junction, would be to construct the bypass off of the existing US 13 bypass, just south of the developed areas, and construct a southern bypass, to connect to Franklin. It would be approx. 12 miles long, as opposed to about 16 miles with a northern bypass. The only negative would be the wetlands. The northern option would still most likely be more cheaper though, but this is just another option.

The existing ramp off US 58 West to US 13 South would most likely be widened to 2 lanes, and same with the ramp going back East from US 13 North. In the future, a project to allow continuity onto US 13 South/US 58 West, and an exit to continue onto the Business route could be done.

Here's a graphic depicting it -
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q4NAgrgp9ekE_Md5eefGzR6I_J_D9rO7